But... I mean ... shouldn't that be a given on a debate site like this?
Im not bashing excon, I don't know this person - I just find it an odd reason to have respect for someone.
The other disturbing thing is, it LOOKS like Trump KNEW he was exposed and still had a fundraiser in Bedminster, NY.. That would make him guilty of manslaughter..
Only if actual people died. You can't charge a manslaughter without specific dead people.
Im aware of that, but unless Trump dies before the election, then pence takes over his next term as well.
He's not going to die within a month. Covid19 doesn't work that fast. People are sick for weeks and months.
On the other hand I don't really think being airlifted to a hospital gives you that much of an advantage. I could take a 10 minute cabride to the hospital right now myself.
they weren't doing that. They were trying to calculate trumps chances, specifically.
If by debating you mean preaching propaganda, then yes he might be on the list of top debaters of all time, right after Hitler and Mussolini.
I actually think 10-20% sounds very fair. That gives him extremely good odds, despite his age and weight.
Those are some calculations I saw on a danish newsite, it was developed by the university of copenhagen. I don't know if they factored in his access to health care, but it would definitely be an odd parameter to leave out.
It is estimated that there is about 10-20% chance that the president will die from this virus - the factors you considered included.
That means that there is 80-90% chance that he's going to survive.
However... let's say he does die from the virus. That would mean Pence would take over his presidency for the remainder part of his terms - including the term he wins (if he does win)
So I don't think Trump dying from the virus at all ensures Bidens presidency. Probably ensures Pence's presidency, if anything.
Why limit yourself to the american flag? You could do all kinds of things. The PETA logo, the covid logo/illustration thingy, Kanye West... You could even charge extra for custom mades with like your bosses face or something. Those four are for free, for more ideas you'll have to hire me.
I'd be embarrassed if that's how the political debates were done where Im from. No dignity or respect. It was cringeworthy. I think I'll start a petition to release the country from the post ''leader of the free world''. what a joke.
Im afraid he hasn't lost any voters, because if this were to be a factor to switch sides, then Im guessing the reason has to be patriotism, right? Loyalty to your country. Which means if anyone were to switch sides, it would be a patriot, and someone who sees the unwillingness to pay taxes as a lack of loyalty to ones country.
EXCEPT THIS IDEOLOGY DOESN'T EXIST ANYWHERE ON THE AMERICAN POLITICAL RIGHT WING. Patriotism (which usually is a right-wing ideology) in the united states is not so much about being loyal to ones country as it is alienating the body that governs it. So if anything, more american "patriots" will vote for Trump when they see how badly he disresepcts to his own government.
he is much more pro states rights
Except when he tried to control the entire countries covid19 strategy. That's the thing with Trump, he is neither this nor that, because he is simply not consistent. You cannot count on him, he's like impulse buyer at Target.
We are being exposed to UVA and UVB rays all year round, even by some light bulps :)
Are you sure? Maybe I just didn't see your reply. And why would you reply in a "different thread"? Why not in the same thread?
It was after you shared a link to an article. It was written .. I think yesterday probably.
Yeah, it's fine that you clarified. But you never answered my reply in a different thread. I asked if we found a new primate species, with human like hands, would that feature be enough for you to categorize it as homo?
You never answered that one, you've just been nitpicking :) Which tells me you're not really interested in the topic, WHICH IS FINE, LETS JUST STOP HERE. Have a great day, my friend <3
Lol. I came in here and answered your question so I'm not sure what more I can do.
This isn't a question with an answer? This is a debate :) Scientists are not in agreement about this, so why should we? If I wanted an answer to a question I would've asked google.
That isn't simply the wrong terminology -- It's the wrong SPECIES.
I am danish, in danish both the word ''monkey'' and ''ape'' translates to ''abe''. So that is the explanation to my confusion of the terminology. I do understand the difference.
I am clearly participating because I am challenging your statements.
Yes, you are participating, but you are not participating in the debate I was fishing for :) you are very focused on statements that aren't important to the topic. Like for example, when I said monkey, you challenge the fact that I used the wrong terminology. And then we spent a great deal debating what exactly I said or asked, or what this debate is about, and then we debated what a definition and what ''abstract'' is. And now we're debating whether or not you are participating in the debate ;)
So yeah that's the summary of this debate :D
Alright well pardon me for not using the right terminology :p
Why do you even suppose there is any single quality which makes us human?
Im not supposing, Im wondering. Im fishing for a philosophical debate that you are clearly not willing to partake in :D which is fine.
It's right there in the description. Did you only read the headline? ;)
But that is what this debate is though? I was asking how humans are different from monkeys or other primates.
If Ill ask how is a bird different from a plane, it's not relevant to say; well planes have longer wings.
Because then you can just find a bird with even longer wings, and it would still be a bird and not a plane.
So the question of the debate is what human quality is the DEFINING quality that makes us human? So that when we study a fossil from a primate, we can determine if and why that fossil stems from a creature that either is or isn't of the homo species.
Like... when in the terms of evolutions history did we go from being monkey to being human? What quality did we evolve that determined we weren't monkeys any more?
If something has a specific definition it is no longer abstract.
That would also mean, that if a definition is abstract, it is not a definition - which was kind of my point.
It means you can think about how to fit a square peg into a round hole even if you have never seen a square peg or a round hole.
See, this would be a definition ;)
If you ask me what defines a plane and I answer wings, telling me that birds also have wings is a bit pointless.
I don't find it pointless at all, I find it extremely interesting :) If birds have wings too, then defining a plane as somthing that has wings demands that you go back to the drawing board and create a new hypothesis, since you've discovered the old one's flaws. Isn't that how we "create" knowledge? If birds have wings, and birds aren't planes, then you need a new definition for plane.
So if we found another priamte species that had human-like hands, with long opposable thumbs, that would be enough for you to categorize that species as homo?
No it isn't.
Yes it is. What is an abstract problem? When you need to interpret terms, then your definition is abstract and not specific.
our question was what defines humanity, not how do I measure what defines humanity. Besides, if you were interested in measurements you'd have measured the human thumb before challenging its uniqueness.
Alright then, what I was interested in was a definition that is unique to the primate species "homo", and it had to be something where you can by studying a given creature define whether or not they are of the species homo :)
Opposable thumbs
Many other primate species other than homo have opposable thumbs
the ability to visualise (and solve) abstract problems.
That is an abstract definition, not a particularly specific one you are able to measure.
If you understand speech as ''communication'' then speech is everything.
According to a philosopher called Luhmann, you can never not communicate. Even when we don't communicate, we comminucate. He called it non-verbal communication.
So.. according to him, all of that would be speech.
But that was just his opinion of course :D
I have a daughter, she's still a child though. If she becomes pregnant at a very young age, I think I will guide her through her options, and support whatever decision she makes. I was a young mother, and becoming a mother definitely speeds the maturing proces, so even if she wasn't that mature personality-wise, I don't think there is need to worry. Typically we take responsibility when we are put in circumstances, where it is demanded of us. I know, this is not always the case though.
But you know, life is never perfect. Sometimes we become teenage parents, sometimes we get abortions, sometimes we wait to have kids till we are more mature with stable incomes, and sometimes we just choose to focus on careers and not have children at all.
All of those paths have something of value, and all of those paths have hardships. So the way I see it, no matter what the future holds for my daugther, I believe she will live a long and happy life :)
That's not what my claim was. I said people respond to radical ideas. That doesn't mean that people actually WANT radical policies, it means that's what grabs their attention, and is therefore what they vote for. Because many voters have not done much research prior to voting, and their decision therefore depends on gut feelings or influences from other people.
Then again Hillary DID have a strong not Trump vote. I mean, it's not like we didn't realize he was a disaster beforehand :p
I would say that I definitely agree with burritolunch when he says, that the fact that the democratic socialistic ideology is having a moment right now is a sign of people wanting to see radical change, and demanding more radical candidates.
Socieities don't change overnight, they don't even change from presidency to presidency that much. You could argue, that the political roots that have contributed to the socialist welfare system in Denmark we know today started all the way back in the early 1700s. So just because the democratic party doesn't have a radical nominee doesn't the radical movement of todays society isn't real.
With those elections you only see how a very small percentage of the population votes. The people that actually vote in these elections most likely have the common interest, which is politics. On top of that we see an overrepresentation of elderly votes in primary elections, compared with the presidential election. These two factors make them a more homogenous group than the general public. If that group is more homogenous than the rest of the public, then it is not an adequate generalization.
I don't think winning a nomination AT ALL represents the general publics perspectives. The voter turn out for those is way too low.
I think we live in a time where people respond to radical ideas. I don't think moderate profiles like Biden will be elected again in the foreseeable futures. Bernie was radical, Elizabeth was radical, but the democratic party went the moderate way - which is fine, but it's also boring, and it's not revolutionary. Biden will in my opinion not be able to create a momentum around him that got Trump elected, and got Obama elected.
Honestly, I think every relationship is asymmetrical. One of the two are bound to be less in love than the other, less loyal than the other, just less committed. it's impossible to be completely equal on that matter.
And I don't believe there is a tendency for that role to be either the woman or the man.
I also think the fact that there are gay divorces, heartbreaks and all that sort of proves that we face difficulties in our relationships because of personality clashes, not because of gender clashes.
What women say they want is literally the exact opposite of what they want.
That's a cliché, you've probably taken on this stereotype from pop culture. Im sure some women are that way, Im sure some men are that way. I don't believe there is much truth behind the stereotype though.
They absolutely hate it when the male "cries with them" and what they really want is to be understood and cheered up by someone more stable than them.
I don't find that accurate at all. You sound like someone who has never had a serious adult relationship with a woman? Maybe not a relationship with a woman at all.
it does however mean that on an emotional level a female is more gratified by being treated coldly than by having an emotional male partner.
Lol, I pity whatever poor girl ever ended up or will end up with you. You sound... ridiculous.
Im sure in some cases, it is practical, however in my practice Ive seen so many cases of children being transfered because the regular school can't afford to give them simple necessitites. Like two teachers in a class with special needs kids. One to take care of the actual teaching, one to tend to the special needs. So simple, fairly inexpensive compared to how much it costs to place them in special needs schools.
New religions and cults evolve all the time.
There is a trend with people who take certain parts that they like from several religions (including the abrahamic religions) and making it into their own sort of.. moral rule book.
I honestly don't want to pick, I think - generally speaking - both have their faults.
Generally I think women expect more than they probably should. You can't expect another person to act a certain way, and then get mad when they don't act according to your expectations.
Generally I also think a lot of men are not emotionally healthy enough to be in relationships at all. If you can't talk about your feelings, if you can't cry with somebody, if you can't be intimate on that kind of emotional level, in my opinion you're simply not mature for a serious and healthy relationship.
HOWEVER, these are really drastic generalizations. I don't believe all men or women have those faults, and there are also men with too high expectations as well as women who can't express their emotions.
Classifying "special needs" as a "retardation" is not an accurate assumption. Special needs, in the context of education, includes many things like autism, ADHD, dyslexia and many other behavioral, cognitive, psychological as well as physical dysfunctions.
Usually the answer to these wonders are one of the following:
1. It won't work
2. It's too expensive
Sometimes though, it's actually something that will work, and is price/time efficient - so you need to go develop it :D
Things I wonder about
I wonder why the danish school system will rather spend more money on placing "special needs children" in "special needs schools" instead of putting that money into the public school system, so that the schools actually have the ressources to accomodate special needs.
I get what you're saying, I don't disagree, but I also think there is an alternative motive for that kind of behavior.
In danish there is this thing we say sometimes ''losing your face". We can both lose our own faces, we can also make other people lose their faces. What it refers to is when our vulnerability is exposed, we are embarrassed, and we react in an illogical and even childish way. This happens all the time, for example when someone says something with great confidence, only to have his incorrections exposed.
As part of my degree I took this one course that had to do with cooperation (working together) in interprofessional settings. So for instance a nurse working with a doctor, a teacher working with a psychologist or what have you. In this course we had some reflections of how it isn't always beneficial to expose someones incorrections. It takes a toll on the work-environment, and the trust between colleagues.
So we were taught techniques on how to make someone else realize their own mistakes, because as humans we are simply way more receptible to our self-criticism than criticism from others.
This course also had us reflect on how we could change this about ourselves, so that we don't ''lose our faces'' when someone criticizes our work.
So point is: I don't think it is about ego, I think it is pride, and the fear of exposed vulnerability. We just .. don't like to be embarrassed, it's not a good feeling and it's definitely a feeling that if we do not choose to express it, we certainly use a lot of energy surpressing it.
Im not ''denying everything'', but I don't feel like admitting it either ;) HAHA!
No for real.
i just L O V E to argue - not about personal stuff, but I love to argue about ethical and political dilemmas. And I think some of us at least on this site (not all) feel the same way, it's exhilarating.
Sometimes that eagerness, the enthusiasm and all that energy can be interpreted as anger or hate. I don't believe it is true anger or hate - for some it is of course.
Well. You and I are talking about two VERY different things. Teaching adults and teaching children. Those two are simply incomparable. Children need the relationship with the teacher, the pats on the back, the high fives and other types of physical acknowledgments. The relationship with the teacher is especially important for children under 10 years of age, and after that they slowly move their obsession of pleasing the teacher to obsessing over pleasing their classmates and friends. So this is especially true for younger children, and less so for older children, teens and adults.
Alternatively, you could argue that younger children get to go back to school, and maybe keep the students age ... let's say 12 and up at home.
That might be a sensible compromise, however I am not a virologist, so ... I have absolutely no idea how this would affect the pandemic.
I am a teacher, and my colleagues and I agree that online school is absolutely terrible. Teaching has so many more factors than just a teacher talking. Teaching (and more importantly; learning) happens mostly through social interactions with people, thereamongst classmates and teachers. It happens through dialogue, and it happens through student's active (as opposed to passive) engagement in activities. None of these work very well in a virtual setting, maybe the technology will evolve to improve these things, but as of now I would say that an online classes teaching outcome is so low, that you might as well not bother having it. The students are better off just being handed the material, and dealing with it themselves.
That said, Im not saying you should open back schools - I do understand it is a health risk. But Im still against the online classes, they are a complete and utter waste of time and ressources.
Well I think this discussion has entered a very technical arena that Im not too comfortable in HAHA!
Honestly, I don't know much about AI, so even if I were to have an opinion on robots with personalities and what not, it would probably be very flawed :p
I guess I see the consciousness more of a wired source of energy - does that make sense? The consciousness is not its own source of energy. It's not an endless battery, it has an energy source: the body. When the body dies, there is no energy, and thus no consciousness.
If consciousness was its own energy source then we would be conscious all the time. We would not depend on the body to stay conscious, for example when the body sleeps or faints.
Reading my argument again today - I probably sounded more confident than I intended. I do consider myself an agnostic atheist, some things we just cannot know, and probably will never know. And life after death, and whether our consciousness is physical or not are one of those things that I'd never intentionally have a confident opinion on, it would always be; this is what I lean towards as being the truth.
That said, Ill respond to your response - if the causes of consciousness are physical, does that mean that the consciousness itself has to be physical.
Honestly I can totally get on board with that, we aren't robots, we aren't controlled by our instincts. On the contrary we analyze everything, not just factors that are relevant to our survival, we analyze ethics as well.
So in that regard, there is something about us humans (and other species) where you could argue that this doesn't make sense biologically, because biologically we should only be concerned with survival and procreation.
However!!! I would still argue that if something has biological causes, then that thing will still die when the cause has died. If something has physical causes, then it depends on those causes to stay active.
I don't believe it. I believe our conscienceness is biological, not spiritual.
Lol, what a lame and pathetic excuse for losing a debate. Im glad you agree you are wrong about a lot though.
I don't know the numbers of the city, but the country has just under 6000 who tested positive, of those almost 2000 don't have it any longer.
Population: 5.6 mil
I wasn't talking about diabetes dumb fuck. Where did I say diabetes? Diabetes is caused by animal fat: https://www.youtube.com/
You know what, following your statement with a youtube link just isn't that convincing. Sorry.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death. Is that because of carbs too?
In many cases, yes. A diet too rich in carbs causes obesity, obesity causes all kinds of health issues, including heart disease.
Exactly you retarded fuck, I want to take away their consumer base all together and thus stop them from murdering animals,
That's not what you said before? You said some should be able to eat it, that have deficiencies of some sort. Now you're contradicting yourself.
Tell me why you think that, I literally will bet you 7000 dollars I can prove it is logically inconsistent.
Because we dominate this planet.
It sure would appear that way. It's actually caused by RNA from animal protein.
Alright, this statement proved to me that you aren't too smart. And you can't really talk to dumb people, because they neither listen or understand. So goodbye pretty, have a nice day <3 Keep your 7000 dollars and adopt yourself a baby panda, honey.
Exactly. Furthermore as a species we are very diverse. The eastern-asian diet is very high in carbohydrates, and genetics say that their bodies can process all those carbohydrates better than people in other places. For instance the people of Greenland, whose main source for food is meat, often very fat and even fermented meat. Their digestive systems are also different, because we don't just evolve as a species - we also evolve according to the conditions we live under. Therefore a healthy diet in east-asia is very different from a healthy diet in Greenland.
Also by mentioning Greenland that poses another difficulty in the world turning vegetarian - where would they grow their food? Should they import it all? Financially speaking that's not sustainable - probably not sustainable either considering all the oil it would take to feed 55,000 people every day with imported goods. Greenland is a large country, you can't travel by car - what happens when the imported goods arrive in Nuuk? Do they helicopter everything to the rest of the people?
You just know that people like that guy .. Vegpolice are born and raised in a big city and have NO sense of reality outside that bigcity bubble.
You are objectively wrong. It is established science that humans can be healthy on a vegan diet
Actually, no - Im not objectively wrong. You are assuming that our definitions of "healthy" are the same. The word "healthy" is a subjective term, and therefore there are a lot of ways to be healthy. Furthermore I'd like to see your sources on that statement.
The only people who have an excuse are those who need it to survive which only applies to a rare few
Those are not that rare and few. Diabetes is one of the most common diagnosis in the world. Plus - When you say that it is okay for some people to consume meat for health reasons, then you are keeping the meat industry alive. Which brings me back to my original argument: If you want to improve the industry, they won't listen to you if you are a vegetarian - why would they? You are not their costumer. Instead demand better product, buy local and organic. That's how you change the world.
All of those are actually caused by animal products.
LOL?? Glycogen storage disease is a genetic disease - do some research yourself.
We are currently using up land to grow crops to feed to the 9 billion cows that we eat, you insanely stupid murdering fuckbag.
Exactly? So if we all turned vegetarian, all the herbivore species would die because there is not enough food for them.
You just want to be self important and pretend that humans matter more because you are one of them.
That is very true. I don't deny this. I do consider humans to be a superior species, and I will treat it as such.
That's not propaganda or fake news. That is absolute truth. Just like women's breasts hurt when they haven't breastfed in a while, a cow is in pain as well when it's full of milk. It's basically a breastpump :)
Animals eat other animals to survive, humans don't even NEED to eat meat to survive or be healthy.
I disagree, I absolutely think humans need animal meat to be healthy. There are even some people with diseases like Glycogen Storage Disease, diabetes, IBS and many more that definitely suffer from an all-carbohydrate diet only.
Furthermore there is not enough land on earth to grow enough food for the 7.2 billion people that live here. There are 25,000 people that die of starvation a day. A DAY. And over 3 million children die of starvation a year. I can't imagine what those numbers would be, if such a major food source as animal meat is, would be taken away.
I know you love your cat and all that, that's great. Personally I value the health and lives of human beings.
Yes. It happens all around us in nature. Humans aren't the only one's feeding on animals, you know? :)
That would be a good idea, but there are some things that make such a legislation difficult.
First of all when one state, let's say as an example the UK, when they make a legislation demanding certain standards of production, one of two things happen.
1. The international producers that import goods to the UK meet the standards, by changing their ways of production.
2. The international producers simply stop selling their production to the UK.
Most likely, when it comes to a small country standing alone, the latter will happen. So either a country has to gain some allies, like maybe the EU, to put a greater force on international producers of meat - OR the UK just has to suffer economically. Which is usually not a popular decision to make as a politician.
The easiest way would be to change the market from the buttom up - because the producers will change their ways of production if their product doesn't sell. That's why I think veganism and vegetarianism is a terrible idea. Instead of boycutting meat, why not boycut the producers that make the industry such a horrible place for animals?
If more people bought local and more organic products, more producers would change their methods to meet that demand.
If you want animals to be treated well, then the people producing meat won't listen to you, because you're not their costumer. Why should they listen to somebody not buying the product anyways?
If costumers demand better products, STOP buying stuff the massproduced stuff in tiny cages and start buying the organic local meat, then you've made an actual difference.
Am I responsible for his death? Yes.
Have I committed murder? No.
Well to be literal... technically it doesn't condone homosexuality, just male-male intercourse. Lesbians are apparently free game.
Some christians usually respond to this argument with; ''by man, they mean mankind - and not males"
I actually chatted with an israeli (first language hebrew) when I was in Israel, and he said the original scriptures says MAN - as is MALE, and not human beings in general.
God bless lesbians.
It was a about two minutes ago you were against.
See this is the problem with people who have "opinions" about people's rights. It's purely based on your feeling, apparently even your mood? ZERO logical thinking, just random unanalyzed, unreflected thoughts.
It's true that some things make sense to me that do not make sense to you. However when that happens people usually elaborate, and try to explain further. You are just shutting people off, which kind of just makes people think you don't have arguments to support your opinions.
It's fine that that's your opinion. I just don't think it makes sense :)
Well the hospitals in New York are also overloaded?
This is a global epidemic, and you're blaming it on Italy's health care system? China had to build new hospitals??? Wtf is wrong with you :p
Oh wow. genius. Im not worthy, I humbly surrender.
..
PSYCH!
No seriously. I surrender. Well done, congratulations.
So you are making yourself the judge of who should get abortions and who should not?
And if not you, then who? What are the rules?
You think this is my first time, darling... you don't know your shit
It's not my second or my third, so get ready to get hit
Im not scared of your rhythmless rant, it's like figthing an ant
Ill just stomp on you once and your gone bye bye
and with that confidence of yours the gods go "aye-aye-aye"
If rhymes were food, then guess yours would be canned
an ache for the eyes more forced than timbaland.
Your weapon of choice... what a virus? Honey Im more scared of miley cyrus.
HAH! Alright well then Im the bat shit crazy one. Love my sushi !
Some debate created mentioned something about you not understanding the qu'uran so ... I got confused.
Unfortnately yes. Norway (also a socialist democratic welfare society) is one of the worlds main distributor of fossil fuels. What's your point?
I wonder what is left of your 31000 after you've paid your taxes, paid your medical and student loan debt, and saved for retirement.
Thats a hymn, I remember my grandmother used to listen. We shall see his lovely face.
I think there is someone who has proven themselves braindead, it's not me .
In Denmark we are paid better (you proved that already), we are the happiest country on earth 2017, number 2 after Finland in 2019, we live longer, we have a strong and healthy economy, China doesn't own us.
That is very true, we do have a royal family, and it's expensive. I hate that, I think we should get rid of the monarchy altogether. I am very anti-royalist, so Ill give you that.
However some argue that the royal family attracts tourism - I don't know about that.
