- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
So much crime in poor areas is committed by people against their own family and neighbors in the same circumstances. And most of the people in those circumstances aren't committing crime, so it's not the circumstances that causes it. You want to help underprivileged people, get them a more effective protective service. Increased patrol s would help. Maybe some social workers walking the block.
You are much more likely to be poor if you're black
Not in Puerto Rico.
because of systemic racism
Pretty simplistic to look at one variable and hang your explanation on it. High school dropouts are more poor because of arrogant educated people holding em down, right? Or maybe generational factors play more of a role...
Why does systematic racism not keep poor black immigrants poor? They tend to do well after they are here for a bit. Also, why does systematic racism disappear for black people after they are married? Hmm
Shouldn't have gotten yourself on a no-knock warrant.
"Large capacity" in this case means a magazine holding 10 or more rounds. Many handguns have magazines that hold 15 as it's normal standard magazine. It's unlikely that you will find a police officer with anything less than a LCM.
The officer who was "worried about excited delirium or whatever", stated his concern because positional asphyxiation is a greater risk for someone suffering from excited delirium or even intoxication. He was fresh from the academy, but he didn't know what anything looks like in real life. So he listened to the senior guy who said to keep Floyd face down. The rookie was right and Chauvin was 180 degrees from right.
Given the extended time Chauvin had to re-evaluate and change course, charging him makes sense. However, the factors involved with positional asphyxiation and intoxicants are mitigating to the charge of murder. I expect that a jury is likely to weigh these mitigating factors against the likelihood of public outcry rather than the likelihood of murderous intent. The whole worlds eyes creates a lot of pressure.
The fact that Floyd deserved to be arrested can't be an argument for killing him slowly in the street. Similarly, the fact that Chauvin deserved to be charged for Floyd's death cannot be an argument against him having a reasonably fair trial.
I know the jury can't be truly and fully unbiased. But after what has transpired, can we believe they will be even somewhat unbiased?
I'm not your friend buddy.
But I did not make that argument
You did. While it is true that absent life, values would not exist, this doesn't render values fictional. Without life, eyes wouldn't exist.
It is not a false premise to say that, if there was no life, there would be no such thing as the fairy godmother.
Nice try, but this is a much better example of a false equivalence then your false dichotomy explanation, and it rests on begging the question of values. Fairy godmother is a work of creative fiction whereas values are a phenomenon of human cognition (and more). Regardless of this false equivalence, it is still a false premise to claim that a thing cannot be objectively real because it wouldn't exist absent it's necessary preconditions. This is a false premise even if you insert a true conclusion, as you did with the fair godmother example.
Your consistently wrong words placed on this site objectively exist, specifically in the form they take, in large part as a result of your twisted up values.
I have provided the logical argument that, if the universe were devoid of life, nothing could be said to be of value. Therefore, value is not objectively real
That is not a logical argument, first because the universe is not devoid of life. Second, it's a false premise to assume that a thing cannot be objectively real because it wouldn't exist absent it's necessary preconditions. Yours is a baseless assertion that is forgivable in small children who are only beginning to understand the contrast of imagination with reality.
If the universe didn't exist at all, then nothing could be said of material, or of anything else. Therefore material is not objectively real, nor is anything at all. Of course this is non-sense, but it is non-sense in exactly the same form of your supposed logical argument.
This irrefutable refutation of your dribble is usually the point at which you claim to be incapable of reading comprehension, but only as it concerns my argument.
This one's not too bad actually. Though likely dishonest if your pattern of behavior holds. We're using two slightly different conceptions of nature. The biological world vs the quality of the universe.
I'm curious genius, do you know the difference between yourself and a frog?
I have never encountered anyone so wrong about so much in so many different areas. A fictional phenomenon is, for example, and extra sense written in a story that does not actually exist. It's nature is whatever the author decides in that story. Value is an actual phenomenon. So is perception by the way.
If there were no life? That's a big of you fuckin retard, there IS life! 'If there were no matter then nothing in the universe would be material, that makes material a fiction'. Jesus Christ!
I am tired of explaining, in the most simplistic language I can, basic issues to someone who can't even manage to behave like more than a cartoon villain. Jesus you are in rare form today.
There is no "nature" of value where value is not objectively real
That's absurd as usual. Subjective phenomenon exist objectively. But then, I'm arguing with the same idiot who believes that human beings don't have a nature. Do human beings exist objectively? Do you suppose there is anything that has a nature?
I saw a guy take a blotch color vision test wherein numbers are visible only through distinguishing between color variations. After the test he went on about how stupid the test was because they kept asking about numbers but their obviously weren't any numbers. Everyone paying attention understood what happened except for him. You're like him.
Your kind of stupidity isn't usually this far out. 'Labor theory is invalid because it is critiquing capitalism which is invalid'. That's not a valid position at all. If you critique my invalid position, you need to use a VALID position to do so smart guy.
Indeed, no philosophical work accurately describes the nature of value
Not only is it false, but you demonstrate that even you don't believe it later in the very same sentence. Watch
because value is entirely subjective, arbitrary, and relative to the observer.
Oh? Is that the nature of value? Have you accurately describes it?
Hence, capitalism needs defending against labour theory, not the other way around.
Labor theory does not accurately describe the nature of value. It is an invalid theory. Thus, it doesn't qualify as a valid critique of anything at all.
A black man doesn't need to defend the legitimacy of his existence against a white supremacist. The racist theory is invalid.
I pointed out that Plato's ideas are not invalid simply because the Greeks liked to sleep with kids.
I knew we would get to your backpedal eventually, that's why I downvoted your original post (for posterity). It's plain in your post that Plato would be judged for Greek pedo acceptance IF we judged the past by the values of the present. That's what your argument was about afterall.
I articulated this exact point in my first post here, but you are extraordinarily slow..So here we are.
Between you and FM, only FM tried to defend labor theory. But not until after I posted that debate. You, on the other hand can't even grasp the meaning of basic fallacies or the reasons they are invalid.
I suppose it's unfair to expect you to try much of anything. "Try looking around blind man"..Just rude of me .
Nazis weren't fought for their ideas, but for their actions. Similarly, communists who theorize ought to be left alone, stupidity and historical ignorance isn't a crime. But communists who practice? They need to lose thier revolution in the swiftest, most effective way possible. I don't think you have anything to worry about there.
Apparently I have to reiterate what this particular thread is about.
Your collectivism causes you provide an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic. Your near universal use of ad hominem causes you to suppose that, after judging Socrates and Plato for their status as Greeks, you could discount their argument for the same, without regard for their actual arguments.
it would NOT be reasonable
To judge those of the past based on present standards. Do we judge Plato for Greeks accepting pedophiles? No! Because you can't just the past by present standards!
Nevermind that you can't judge Plato for the ills of his group...keep going
Clearly, I am inferring that it is not logical to ignore the works of Plato
You provided an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic.
See? Collectivism is supposedly valid in your post, but due to the invalidity of judging the past by the present we cannot judge Plato for actions of Greeks. Keep going stupid. This is funny.
To assist you with reading comprehension, I have identified the contents of the post in a more simplistic form for your benefit.
In order of the sentences of my original post:
1- Your post demonstrates your fallacies.
2- This the first fallacy.
3- This is the second fallacy.
4- Comment on entertainment value.
This effort is similar to describing red to a color blind person. That's it for lessons for today.
The ancient Greeks regularly had sex with children. Should we therefore ignore the works of Plato and Socrates?
Plato and Socrates were individuals. It's fallacious to look at a group (the Greeks) in order to judge individuals who cannot be assumed to act as you suppose the group acts. This is the same fallacy with racism or any other form of bigotry. It's collectivism and it's a short cut for simplistic minds.
Funny, because I don't usually see you responding to quotes from Plato's Republic with 10,000 words about how we should ignore Plato because he was a paedophile.
Even if it were the case that Plato was a pedophile, that would not be a valid reason to disregard true things that he said. Ad Hominem is fallacious because the validity or truth of a statement is independent of who ever is stating it.
I know this is all lost on you, but you told me to shut up. So I thought another free lesson was in order. You're welcome.
The ancient Greeks regularly had sex with children. Should we therefore ignore the works of Plato and Socrates?
This beautifully demonstrates your most common fallacies. Your collectivism causes you provide an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic. Your near universal use of ad hominem causes you to suppose that, after judging Socrates and Plato for their status as Greeks, you could discount their argument for the same, without regard for their actual arguments.
You can be entertaining on occasion.
I'm not going to search for sources to your arguments lazy ass.
Positive tests results aren't the same as positive cases in either case.
My doctor just told me that in our area we have had as high as a 30 percent false negatives. And then there are those that are sick that are told to stay home if they are able. In other words, however high you think the case rate is here, it's way higher. It's way higher everywhere else too.
You know what matters way more than positive rates and is far easier to measure? Death rate.
Your source puts Belgium above the UK for death rate. I don't think statistical variation is enough to accuse John's Hopkins of lying.
Incidentally, as a raw number the Earth has far more Covid deaths than the moon but that's largely a product of the difference in population. There's a lesson somewhere in there.
As a case mortality rate, the US is far from the worst, if you believe those Nazis at Johns Hopkins.
It would have been better if Trump closed off incoming populations sooner, but even as late as he tried people called him figuratively literally Hitler for it. After it got here, states were affected differently and each handled it accordingly. My governor did alright. All of them tried their best and said they got what they needed federally. One of them had some pretty disastrous missteps though, leading to about a third of all US deaths in one state alone.
As bad as it was for all of us here and everywhere else around the world, it all started with the CCP who could have done much to containe it. Or at least to spread the word.
Did Trump let it in to all the other countries? Or are those countries all responsible for not having completely closed borders? And is there any responsibility on the Communists for letting it out of Wuhan internationally even as they restricted movement domestically?
On a side note, did you see the CCP is rounding up the religious minority onto trains to ship them off to camps. Of that reminds you of someone else, let me know.
I have never contended that and it is grossly disingenuous to suggest that I have.
Calm down Jace I said you seem to. Your style is often stark. If my perception of seemingly absolute contrasts on your part is incorrect then that's simply what it is, an incorrect perception.
Did Bronto just claim that Nazis are the same as Commies? Isn't he a Nazi? Why would he say they are the same? Is it to make his Nazi self seem good like a Commie? Or is it to say commies are bad like Nazis? Wait, that last one wouldn't make sense for a Nazi to say. Hmm..........
But if there is no body then you can't prove they've been murdered you stupid imbecile.
You do not need proof of something for it to have occurred. I can't believe this needs to be explained. If someone assaults you, and you can't prove it, you were still assaulted.
Furthermore, if someone committed a murder at sea in front of witnesses and they dump the body never to be seen again, but then they confess, then you have no body and a murder with a conviction.
The federal government went to Missouri to force the Ferguson PD to do their jobs properly. Since Portland police aren't being allowed to do their job properly, federal intervention seems reasonable. When someone needs to be arrested, does it matter to you which cop arrests them?
It's gotta be BurritoLunch. The only Nazi whose words are commonly present in my household whenever I read this trash.
What's my purpose for drawing comparisons between Nazis and Communists? Am I saying that Communists are bad like Nazis? Or am I saying that Nazis are good, like Communists?
You don't. It's an if-then statement smart guy.
That definition is one contrived to fit a Marxist framework after class-conflict peddlers failed so miserably the first time around. Your gonna have to get on board of you wanna be part of the new Marxist revolution.
If you accept the widely expressed definition of racism as prejudice + power, then any race or group that lacks institutional power cannot be racist, regardless of prejudice. This is the faux reasoning behind the contention that black people cannot be racist in the US.
If someone is given materials and a blueprint, they will build a house similar to someone else with the same blueprint. Of course interpretation will vary between builders, but not infinitely. The blueprint constrains variance, though not perfectly. Furthermore, houses built from the same blueprint would vary less if, upon completion, a appeal was made to review the structure of the house as it is compared to what the blueprint says it should be.
You seem to contend that lack of perfect order equals absolute disorder. This does not withstand scrutiny. Even so, the question isn't whether equality before the law can truly be perfectly achieved by imperfect humans, the question is whether a significant level can be achieved as compared to equality of outcome or of opportunity.
Human institutions will be subject to human vicissitudes. While application varies, it does not tend to vary outside that which is prescribed by the law being applied (because that's how cases are lost). The written law to be applied is somewhat rigid. The dynamic human variance in application is constrained. On the other hand, broad equality of opportunity and outcome is essentially out of our control. Countless governmental efforts have done very little in this front, save for those tyrannies that keep everyone enslaved, near equally.
Plea deals happen at all levels of crime regardless of the lawyer. We often catch wind of some wealthy person committing some crime and getting off and we think "that's because they're rich". While a rigorous lawyer is always preferable, and will make a difference, poorer crooks get away with plenty, we just don't pay attention.
It is best if an applicant isn't chosen for such superficial reasons as race, gender, etc. In truth there is never two identical applicants. And when there are two that are close, the hiring power is just going to go with whomever they like better, which will largely be arbitrary even if not illegally superficial (such as race discrimination).
There's a lot a person can do to expand their own opportunities and increase the chances of desired outcomes. But these cannot be made equal to others in any meaningful sense. The universe is too dynamic.
The law is a mechanism of organized forced applied to all who fall under it's umbrella. It is utilized to bring stability and a sense of Justice as understood by a given society. If the law is applied to the citizenry arbitrarily, or differently for superficial reasons, it loses some of the justification for it's own existence. Namely it is less predictable and so less stabilizing as well as committing an injustice by its own definition (in.the US).
The law is a somewhat rigid social structure and is not exceedingly dynamic. There is truly little we can do to affect the opportunity and outcome for others, let alone the masses. There is much we can do to ensure our mechanisms of force have a standard of equal application across the board, thus increasing the effectiveness of its appropriate role.
No, property damage does not inherently constitute a threat to person. But when you are secure, inside the property being attacked, it is often reasonable to conclude that you are the ultimate goal of said attack. Of course this requires more context, and with specific information my specific answer would adjust.
I'm going to interpret "equal rights" to mean equality before the law. If this is not what you mean, please let me know.
The person bound to a wheelchair cannot have opportunities equal to someone not in a wheelchair. It's a physical impossibility. A person in the middle of the country cannot have opportunities equal to those on the coast. It's a geographic impossibility. A person raised in the back country cannot have the same opportunities as a person raised with numerous family connections. It's a social impossibility. I don't believe it can be said that equal opportunity is realistic in any sense. However, equal rights can be nearly attainable, if not perfectly for most.
I hear the right and the left argue over equal opportunity vs equal outcome, and I find both to be pipe dreams at best and an excuse for government intrusion at worst. I find egalitarianism to be mostly interchangeable with the pursuit of equal outcomes.