If you read more than a paragraph into that page, you might see it doesn't support your argument very well.
"Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea of such cataclysmic events occurring in 2012. Professional Mayanist scholars state that predictions of impending doom are not found in any of the extant classic Maya accounts, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar "ends" in 2012 misrepresents Maya history and culture. Astronomers and other scientists have rejected the proposed events as pseudoscience, stating that they are contradicted by simple astronomical observations."
The Mayans did not predict the end of the world in 2012 and their calendar didn't stop there. They have multiple cycles of varying lengths, the closest analogy I can make is our 12 month calendar. When we get to the 12th month, our calendar isn't over, it just begins again at 1. In Mayan culture, days when multiple cycles restarted at the same time were considered auspicious. Two extremely long cycles end on the same day in 2012, which is a very rare occurrence. If the Mayans were going to predict the end of the world, that would have been a likely pick, but not because the Mayans had some secret knowledge about the future, just because it was determined propitious by the values of their culture.
Maybe we should just kill everyone, then the crime rate would be 0%. Seriously, the death penalty for theft?
Can you show me a country that has a significantly lower crime rate because they use the death penalty for violent and nonviolent crimes, without opportunity for appeals? If you can, it's worth discussing a) if it's the prevalence of the death penalty that is responsible and b) if the United States should be more like that country. If you can't, why do you think it would be different in the United States?
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
-Benjamin Franklin
What factors correlate with crime? Poverty, childhood neglect or abuse, being victimized, to name a few. We should more thoroughly research these factors and their relationship with crime, and make an effort to eradicate the causes. One specific thing that could be quickly implemented: a more aggressive program for reaching children from the lowest income brackets. Poverty contributes to feelings of powerlessness and frustration and that could be countered with efforts to instill self-respect and responsibility, and opportunities for children exercise their ability to make decisions. Also, tutoring and educational mentoring wouldn't be misplaced. There are some local and federal programs with this specific goal but I think it's not given the priority it deserves.
In cases where that fails, rehabilitation should be more important than retribution. Jails should be places that do their best to make sure the inmates won't commit more crimes, in or outside the walls. Education and counseling, not harsher punishment, is the more effective way to make that happen. I don't think this philosophy gets the research or publicity it needs because politicians and other powerful officials are worried about seeming soft on crime.
There's no convincing evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to criminals. Is it the act of hanging itself you think will stop criminals?
If I cannot define my point in hindsight there is no point to debate.
If you didn't mean it's better for men to get injured when you said it was better for men to get injured, then say so. You're adding context about men in fighting academies, or men who start altercations with someone else- and yes, that does alter the answer, if the hypothetical choice is between injury to a man who started a fight with someone else, and a woman who ostensibly didn't. But your original situation included none of those things and as far as I can see you are trying to justify it instead of redact or rephrase it. Are you trying to add context to the original hypothetical, or explain why it is better for men to get injured? If the latter, you are not giving an adequate explanation.
In all my years of social research I’ve never worked with pigeon holes. I believe in archetypes that is very seldom reflects any individual.
Do you mean you believe in certain archetypes that are seldom embodied by individuals? Or do you mean you believe individuals seldom obey their supposed archetypes? Your phrasing is confusing.
What is an archetype but a model of behaviors and traits? How is it even useful to look at individuals as archetypes?
Male and female are such archetypes and we gravitate towards them
Why do we gravitate towards them? Because it's comforting to be able to apply a template of traits to a stranger? Why is this good or even excusable, just because it's a tendency people have?
I build arguments from the archetype out and in terms of archetypes, men and women really differ this much.
People differ vastly, even people of the same gender. You are fooling yourself if you think being able to put someone in an archetype is going to give you any real information about them.
You seem extremely intolerant in that you see difference and hostility as the same thing. Your response for ‘we are different’ is the same as ‘one is better than the other’.
Difference and hostility are not even interchangeable in this discussion. I recognize men and women do have some differences, which is nonsensical if you substitute 'hostility' for 'differences.' If that's not what you meant, you will probably have to rephrase this.
We can be sensitive to the inequalities while still holding a view that we are fundamentally different.
I am not denying men and women have fundamental differences. I have already said this and I would appreciate it if you would stop making points to argue an assumption I don't have.
I don’t divide people deeply.
You referred to men and women as separate species. That is a pretty deep difference, even figuratively.
A man cannot replace a woman in society and a woman can’t replace a man. I find it strange that you think we can be that.
A person can replace another person if they have the same qualities. Barring reproductive roles, there is no single quality particular to either gender. Of course there are some uncommon to one and common to the other, but I think an enormous reason for that is not genetic, it is environmental. People raised without gender roles would be more similar than they are now.
Are you focusing on the last 100 years when you have this discussion or do you keep in mind that humans too are animals?
Of course not. If our closest ape relatives displayed personality dimorphism anywhere near as extreme as the one you're positing in humans, then I would be more inclined to think such a thing had a more deeply-rooted foundation in our species as well.
And on fighting...
This history of fighting is nice and all but again, it's a belated attempt to add context. I'm fine with that as long as you're admitting it is not correct to say men are more deserving of physical by default. You gave no context about a fight or whether or not this hypothetical man thinks scars and broken bones are cool while the hypothetical woman doesn't.
You acknowledge difference but you hold that these are general differences and not particular to gender. There are gender based differences.
Never said that.
I think the variation between two people of the same gender is far more profound than the difference in average test scores. I think it would be even more so if there wasn't an attempt to push genders into adopting a specified set of traits.
Transsexuals are also not the rule.
I didn't try to somehow present transsexuality as a rule, but as a refutation of your blanket statement that men make poor women and women make poor men. And it was not the only refutation I offered. Every person in the world is a refutation of their own way, as I doubt there is anyone who adheres to the prescribed traits of their gender 100% of the time.
I meant natural as in probable, not as in 'occurs within nature.'
Having your nose broken does not take from your human worth.
The idea that it's better for a man to have his nose broken does take from his human worth. This is not about fighting academies or fighting for fun or whatever you're trying to add in hindsight: the only context you gave was that, if someone has their nose broken, it's better for it to be a man. No other information, just gender, and by virtue of gender alone he is more deserving of injury.
It has bearing on the direction of feminism.
The idea of gender equality applies with little or no change no matter who is, on average, better at what.
The results do not indicate that the differences are fundamental, just that they are currently here. The only way you would be able to show they are inherent is in a society completely lacking in sexism, and none exist. This doesn't meant I don't think there is no inherent difference in the way men and women tend to think, just that there is no way to tell how much of the difference is environmental and how much is genetic.
We are two different species.
It's kind of sad to see how deeply you're willing to divide people. It's like you think there is a strict set of inherently male traits, a strict set of inherently female traits, and everyone fits nicely into the trait set dictated by their gender. People are not so easily pigeon-holed.
I've met men who make pretty good women, and vice versa. They're called transsexuals. Even when the overlap in traits is not taken to that level, I can't name a single person who fits perfectly into the long and expansive set of traits prescribed by their gender. Imagine how much more overlap there would be if people were not forced into gender roles at birth, to varying degrees of rigidity depending on culture.
If we are the same, if there is no difference, why do we have feminism.
Show me where I said there is no difference, that everyone is identical. And I'll show you (again) where I said exactly the opposite of that:
"Nobody thinks all humans are identical in ability in circumstance."
"Our differences are dwarfed by our similarities."
"These differences in average test scores..."
I hope that's enough. I have bypassed the points you make based on the assumption that I think everyone is exactly the same.
I state this explicitly in my previous argument and you conveniently forget to highlight and mention that.
Even if you actually mean this, I still take issue with your idea that men and women are so vastly and irreconcilably different.
The world is starting to face a problem where men are taking a back seat. Women are out graduating men and subsequently out earning them. Men in return are surrendering (the ever rising Peter Pan syndrome) or in some cases fighting back in a physical way (dare I say in lower income areas). Lower income areas funnily enough, generally have stronger women (emotionally and socially) while men are more troublesome - this I base on my personal research in South Africa).
You phrase this as if childishness or violence is the natural and expected reaction to educated, high-earning women. You also make it seem as if educated, high-earning women are the problem, not the response to them. I hope that's a mistake. There may be an awkward adjustment period in store, but I completely believe men are capable of maturely dealing with women as equals in power and intelligence. To excuse or settle for anything less from them is insulting.
I see no evidence of men 'taking a back seat.' Pretty sure they are still sitting comfortably in the driver's chair, even in places where things have gotten much better for women.
For example, it is better if a guy breaks another guy's nose instead of a woman's.
Is it? Why? This is making the exact same mistake you mentioned below - assigning inequality in human worth. The only difference in this scenario is that, for some reason, it's the man who is worth less, because it's 'better' for him to be subjected to physical harm.
Girls are quicker to pick up language and boys math...
Nobody thinks all humans are identical in ability in circumstance. These differences in average test scores mean little to an individual and have no bearing on the necessity of feminism.
We are different and alike like a nut and a bolt, two completely different pieces that serve the same, equally important purpose.
This kind of language creates a huge chasm between men and women, as if we are separate species. We are all humans and our differences are dwarfed by our similarities. Try not to look at people through such a dichotomous lens.
And an example of where feminism doesn't stop at equality.
No it isn't. Feminism recognizes that sexism has a negative impact on men, too. Gender roles hurt everybody.
Why isn't feminism fighting against all the social benefits woman get?
What makes you think they aren't? Anyone who thinks women deserve social benefits for no reason other than they are women is not a feminist, even if they think they are. Supporting one gender over another is incompatible with the definition of feminism, no matter which gender is favored. That's the definition of sexism, not feminism.
What? How does holding the door for someone lead to them abusing woman?
This does not even make sense. I never said holding a door open = abuse, and you know this. I would appreciate it if you took more time to form coherent and intellectually honest arguments.
I told you to read your own post - did you even do that? You mentioned it being the responsibility of the man to ask a woman out, and to propose to her. These are two important milestones in a relationship and it is traditionally the responsibility of the man to decide when they happen. It's not fair to a man to automatically put all the pressure on him, and it's not fair to the woman to automatically remove any decision-making power from her.
Irrelevant. Domestic abuse goes both ways. Not just on the woman's side.
Can you point to the thing I'm saying that's making you think this is something I don't realize?
Again. Why should the punishments and social acceptance be different for men and woman in domestic abuse if they are, as you say, equals?
When have I ever said anything remotely supportive of the idea that a woman who abuses a man is less deserving of punishment? I am telling you it's less likely for a woman to subject a man to violence, and for her to be able to severely injure him when she tries. But if she does do one or both of the above, she deserves no lesser punishment than a man who did the exact same damage to a woman.
All other forms of "inequality" are woman trying to overcome social barriers,
I didn't say they weren't. They are. At least in America.
Yes...towards men.
Which is the other side of the same coin.
If you want to open the door for us and pay for meals and propose, play video games and watch football etc., fine. But don't call it inequality.
You might want to phrase this more clearly. Don't call what inequality?
Such as? I don't see how holding the door for someone makes them more powerful than someone else.
Read your own post, you listed a couple of them yourself.
Why?
Because men are generally larger and stronger than women. This should have zero effect on social equality.
I don't see why men aren't affected by domestic violence.
I never implied they weren't.
Are you implying that woman are weaker?
On average, yes, they physically are. Again, this does not preclude women and men from being social equals. Do you really think I am trying to argue about physical equality?
If you want them to be equal, the punishment should be the same.
Nowhere did I say this should not be the case.
It is a deliberate message of disrespect to a particular demographic. Do you disagree? The demographic in question may depend on interpretation and may be broader than the soldiers intended, but I think it's fairly clear they did intend to disrespect somebody.
Personally, I think the fact that they peed on them is nothing compared to the fact that before they peed on them, they killed them. If I knew the dead people, I'd be more upset about that. But these soldiers are perfectly aware it's a sign of further disrespect to pee on a body, and that's why they did it. If someone does something deliberately disrespectful, but the thing they did was innocuous in itself, does that excuse them in any way?
Not usually a conscious conspiracy, no. But that doesn't mean there are no factors at work that unfairly oppress women, just because people aren't doing it completely on purpose. The hardest sexist ideas to fight are the ones people don't even realize they have.
Domination (whatever you mean by it- the instillation of fear, perhaps?) is not the only way to gain, hold or effectively use power. It's not even necessarily the best way. And even if it was, we have no idea how many more women would be equally dominating if they were not sent the message they should be accommodating, demure, and agreeable instead of assertive and authoritative. In America, a dominating man is admirable, but a dominating woman is a bitch and that's tame; in other places, a dominating woman is deserving of death.
Plenty of feminists realize not all men and women are identically capable of exactly the same things. That doesn't change the fact that women are not always treated the same for doing the same things as a male peer.
Feminism is equality. Misandry and female supremacism are not feminism. Would you call me a racial equalist if I thought one race was better than another?
And yes, I think feminism is the way to fight sexist traditions. How else?
It takes time for people to come to power, those looking at equality currently won't be in a position of power for about 30 years, when you will be able to see power.
I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. Do you mean that the gender split in high-level corporate positions will be more equal in thirty years? If so, I don't doubt this, but why do you think this is? Magic? Or people working against discrimination and sexism?
And unfortunately, in those sorts of jobs, men can't take a year off to have a baby, which many women do.
When men start getting pregnant, they'll be entitled to exactly the same amount of leave as women. The criteria for pregnancy leave is not being a woman, it's being pregnant. People who aren't pregnant, men and women alike, are identically restricted from taking maternity leave. Equality doesn't mean identical treatment in every situation regardless of capability or circumstance. It means when a woman and a man do the same thing, they should not be treated differently.
After the baby is born, men and women deserve the same amount of time off work.
If a man punches another man, and breaks his nose, it's not that surprising, and he doesn't have to be a bad guy. But if a guy hits a girl and breaks her nose, causing the same amount of damage, is it just as bad? Is it better? Worse? It's always worse, an example of feminist ideas.
The idea that is always worse to hit a woman is not a feminist idea, it's a sexist one. It places women on a pedestal, implying they are innocent of causing real harm or not deserving of force when it's the only way to stop them. This prejudice stigmatizes men who are victims of domestic abuse at the hands of women. It makes it taboo for them to defend themselves and makes it difficult for others (and maybe even the men themselves) to recognize that they are being abused. This is exactly the opposite of a feminist goal.
Picture a 250 pound man beating up a 90 pound woman. Now picture a 90 pound woman beating up a 15 pound toddler. That's all the context you have. Why are they both uncomfortable images? Because the victims are both vastly outmatched and probably incapable of inflicting real harm on their attacker. You can flip the genders and it should still seem wrong. When people think of a man hitting a woman, they probably think of someone hitting a person smaller than them and that's not usually admirable. If you added context to make the woman the attacker, or gave her a weapon, or made her significantly larger than the man so that he would have difficulty hurting her, the perception should change. If it doesn't, then the previous paragraph applies.
How can you say a group that has not yet achieved equality is pushing too far? Even in countries where women are treated the best, feminism is still fighting to secure basic things like equal pay and reproductive rights.
Everything you listed as being a 'societal benefit' to women is a result of sexism. They all perpetuate old stereotypes of weakness and traditions of chivalry. While these customs offer superficial benefits to women, they still leave men the job of making the big decisions. If both genders were given equal responsibility when it came to taking initiative and making important decisions, what do you think would happen to dating? If women were not automatically considered better parents, what would happen in custody cases?
The exception is maybe when it comes to violence. Men are just as deserving of freedom from violence, but a man hitting a woman usually stands to cause more damage to her.
There may be limits to equality but we haven't reached them yet.
Gunpowder exists but the protagonist is too poor to buy food, nevermind a gun. She's also a contestant in a Battle Royale-style competition and the game organizers are looking for entertainment over efficiency.
In case you were actually curious. I don't know how the movie will handle it but the book establishes a convincing context.
Any unfair favoritism in alimony and child support cases is still a result of sexism. It's an expression of the idea that women are automatically better parents, and also less capable of financially supporting themselves. These are traditional misogynist stereotypes. Sexism hurts men, too.
- More women take their employers to court after being terminated from a job or haven't received a promotion, based on gender equality.
I would like to see where this information is coming from so I can read more. These actions may be warranted, as women still get promoted less than their male colleagues.
If someone thinks that the money outweighs the abuse, that is their choice. They would then however, be killing for money. That is not morally right.
Did I say they might choose to stay because they prefer to be supported by their abuser? No, I said they might be incapable of leaving because they have zero dollars. Abusers sometimes use financial oppression to keep control of their victims. And if they killed an abuser who made sure they didn't have a penny to their name, they wouldn't be killing for money...they'd still be killing to protect themselves.
The vast majority have family. Those who don't have friends.
...who they may have been manipulated into alienating. If you have people in your life who you feel comfortable asking for help, and who you can trust to actually help you, you're lucky. Not everyone has this. Part of the reason is the prevalence of the mindset you are displaying right now: that victims of continued abuse are dumb for not leaving and at least partially to blame for their situation.
Those who don't can ask a local motel.
Costs money. See above.
Those who don't can go to a homeless shelter or a woman's shelter.
If they are fortunate enough to be able to escape their abuser's suspicions and get out, yes. And then they are more likely to be murdered than they were before.
I'd like to see a law that prohibits people from walking out their front door.
It's called being a minor and living with an abusive guardian who can just call the cops and have them bring you home. Abuse isn't always easy to prove and it takes time, time in which an abuser may retain custody of their victim.
When did I ever say it was simple and easy.
When you said "If they're afraid for their lives, they can just leave," and said only mentally deficient people would stay.
You're only making excuses to shift some blame on people who are stuck in abusive situations. For women and maybe other groups, the most dangerous time is when they are trying to leave or after they have left and this alone pretty much invalidates everything you've said. Of course I think it's preferable for no one to die in any situation, and it would be great if the victim could escape without killing their abuser. But this is not always possible, and no one should be denied the ability to defend themselves.
http://www.domesticviolence.org/
http://www.justicewomen.com/
http://www.makeitourbusiness.com/
If the feared for their own safety, THEY WOULD LEAVE.
You've said this twice and, imagine that, it's just as false it was the first time. People have died for leaving their abusers, and others simply can't, because they have no money or nowhere to go or are physically or legally unable to leave. If you think escaping domestic abuse is that simple and easy, you need to do some research.
Don't assume all victims of domestic abuse are women, and don't confuse fear for ones' safety with mental deficiency.
Abusers manipulate their targets until they feel worthless, and often isolate them from friends and family. They may threaten their victims with death if they try to escape, and plenty of people have lost their lives this way. Law enforcement can't always stop them. And what if the victim is a child, an elderly person, or otherwise unable to just get up and walk away?
Are you saying that someone who experiences repeated abuse is at fault for staying where they are?
I'm not sure what you mean by saying you found three resources leaving your neighborhood. If you mean there are three nearby services providing help for people in abusive situations, that's great but unless you've used them to escape someone who was trying to beat or murder you, you can't speak to their effectiveness. Victims are still terrorized and killed by abusers they have tried to escape.
Are you asking people to tell you what they think about the morality of abuse and defense, or asking people to tell you if abuse is sanctioned in other countries? If the former, your last statement is pointless. If the latter, use Google.
I think the only situations that warrant the taking of a human life is when someone is in the process of violating someone else's right to their life or body. So if an attack is in progress, a victim is justified in defending themselves. It would be preferable to incapacitate rather than kill but that's not always a possibility.
If it's an abusive situation but the victim isn't currently in physical danger, protection should (ideally) come in the form of outside intervention. I know resources for victims are not always easily available and it may be difficult for them to find effective support, but I'd rather see that get fixed over more victims killing their abusers.
Why should marriage continue to be limited just because it's historically veen so? Why are the Republicans right? Aside from the Bible, which no one should be legally forced to obey, what reasons are there for restricting civil rights from gays?
I get that you're not using your perceived genetic superiority as a way to rationalize any mistreatment, and that's something, at least. Your last paragraph holds the closest thing to an empirical basis for your perception and I'm curious to see if you'd expand on that.
All populations of the human race have had the same amount of time in which to evolve, and all live in environments that, I think, comparably favor the increase of intelligence. By the time populations dispersed from Africa, humans were already on a path that was pushing them towards more brain power; our physical vulnerability and reliance on crafted tools would make it difficult to change course. To evidence that the intelligence gap between populations is genetic, and not environmental, I think it would have to be shown that conditions outside Africa were more favorable to intelligence, while conditions inside Africa were neutral or hostile to it.
As Europeans and Africans do not have identical conditions, it's tough to discern what is inherent in their genetics and what is a product of their environments. Currently, Africa is a hostile and messy place, not an easy place to explore potential intelligence for sure. But if you took a newborn from Africa and raised it in an affluent European family (somehow controlling for racism) do you think they would be more like their genetic family members or the family members who raised them?
If the other god that was shown to exist had strong evidence that it created the universe, would you put yours second to it? What if the other god also demanded that you only worship one god? I understand it might be kind of tedious to answer questions about such ridiculous hypotheticals...but I'm just curious.
As for the last part, that's not actually proof. It's just a shift of probabilities in your mind. Not that I don't think it's a good reason to question beliefs, but it's not as though it doesn't leave any room for the claim that God could still exist.
How do you think evolution being posed as a solution for anything? A 'religion-free world' doesn't strike me as something evolution would either cause or solve.
I guess you could say some atheists idolize evolution in that they love to learn about it and think it's really cool...but that's an odd word choice. You seem to use it to imply that maybe some people hold evolution in too high a regard and I don't agree with that, in fact I'm not even sure how that would be expressed. Claiming our knowledge of it is perfect? Thinking it holds the answers to everything?
I wasn't trying to guess at the foundation of your view, which I assume at least appears well-reasoned. I thought you were preemptively dismissing any disagreement, but I suppose I should have read it differently.
What reasons do you have for thinking the average intelligence difference between classes or races is genetic?
Female choice shapes sexual ornaments in many species, and they're diverse and often complex and colorful, especially in birds. If sexual ornaments were just a simple display of health, they wouldn't need to be intricate, merely inconvenient. Don't you think it's possible peahens selected peacocks based on the robustness of their displays as well as a kind of appreciation for their aesthetic value? If not, why the bright and intricate displays in so many species?
There are also examples of apes and elephants who paint, and I've heard their keepers say they paint from inspiration. This might be more widespread if wild animals had access to art supplies.
I'd heard that about dolphins but couldn't speak to it from my own knowledge. I know they pass the paint-spot test which I think it a pretty standard way to test for sentience. As far as I know, cats and dogs haven't been able to pass that. It doesn't completely discount the possibility but I'm not sure I'd say they're self-aware.
Let's summarize what's happened so far.
--
You: Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so.
Me: But lots of people don't care what the Bible says. They have no reason to think homosexuality is wrong.
You: But the Bible says homosexuality is wrong.
--
Do you see how that is not an effective tactic with which to support your view?
What exactly are you arguing against here? Only a few posts ago, you said it would take a miracle. When I agreed, you immediately flipped sides. You're at least smart enough to know I haven't and wouldn't try to claim divine miracles exist, so you can stop whatever little game you're trying to play there.
If you were actually interested in a debate, you'd have already clarified what you meant by 'miracle' so we could get on with things. Instead, you're just waffling around and, I don't know, trying to trap me into saying I believe in miracles? As if that would be meaningful in some way?
If by 'miracle,' you mean something wonderful or marvelous, I'm aware of many of them and they're great but they are explainable without anything supernatural.
If by 'miracle,' you mean something impossible without divine intervention...then you'll need to back up your claim that they happen every day.
Homosexuals can have kids, just not with each other. They are perfectly capable of raising children from adoption, surrogacy or previous relationships. Even if everyone in the world was heterosexual, some of them would choose to be childless and that's nothing you should concern yourself with.
You might be surprised to learn there are plenty of people who couldn't care less what the Bible says about homosexuality. A book that advises you to oppress an innocent demographic shouldn't be an authority in matters of government or civil rights.
As for AIDs, you're in desperate need of some basic sex ed if you think the act of homosexual sex magically creates the virus. This magnitude of misunderstanding is seriously dangerous.
Either, I suppose. If someone asked me to clarify something because my language wasn't clear, I'd probably just edit my original post. If someone wanted me to elaborate on something that made them curious but wasn't exactly relevant to the debate, I'd probably make a new post to them.
Sometimes I want to reply to someone's post to ask them a question about what they said, not dispute or support them. It's a minor thing but it makes me wish there was a 'Clarify' button, that wouldn't contribute to the score of either side.
You're not wasting my time, I didn't have to reply to you.
In your example, think of the options are alternatives rather than contradictions. You can have juice or milk with breakfast but they don't contradict each other because they can both be real at the same time. However, creationism and evolution are contradictory because if one is true, the other has to be false.
I own a Best of Schoolhouse Rock CD, a giant martini glass and a super-realistic chimp mask because of this. No regrets, but I don't think Amazon really targets drunk people...I might be resentful if I woke up and found I'd fallen prey to website specifically trying to get money from drunk people, but it would be my own fault for getting on the computer in that state.
But that is how pin-worms survive. They are adapted to the enviroment on which they live on.
Animals adapt to their environment in part by manipulating it, to varying extents. Birds make nests, apes craft tools, and humans build cities. This is still not an argument against equal parasitism.
And humans don't give back as much as they take, not mentioning we take many resources that we don't need.
The amount of resources given versus the amount of resources taken is not a factor in parasitism. Parasitism only requires that the parasite takes and gives nothing, and the host gives and gets nothing. We take, but we also give, so our relationship is automatically not parasitic.
And when you say 'we' I hope you don't associate that word to the entire human race. That would be false.
Of course I meant humans as a species. What else would I have meant?
Lack of knowledge or capability does not exclude something from being a parasite. Pin-worms have no idea what they are doing but they are still parasites. This is no argument against equal parasitism on the part of every species on earth.
Anyway, the definition of a parasitic relationship is one in which the parasite leeches from its host without giving anything in return. The relationship between humans and the earth does not fit this definition since, as I already said, we do return resources. Nevermind that Liber already pointed out the earth is not an organism and parasitic relationships are between two organisms.
I also disagree with the sentiment in your last sentence but it's not especially relevant.
You phrase this as though the rest of nature lives in harmony on purpose with each organism pitching in to keep things going, while humans have somehow drifted away from this teamwork. I think that's a misrepresentation.
All organisms consume resources to the best of their ability. They don't fret for a second about the cost to the earth, the environment, or the other species with which they share their space. When they return resources, it's unintentional.
Humans are no more a parasite than any other species that lives here. Even less so, arguably, since at least some of us make a concerted effort to purposefully restore and maintain the planet.
You should check your facts. There is no good evidence that Darwin recanted his theory and science didn't 'prove' the plagues were sent by God- they all have other explanations. Sometimes science supports the Bible and other times it doesn't, but the idea that science is or should be threatened by the Bible is laughable. Science only wants the truth.
And coming onto a site intended for discussion to tell someone to shut the fuck up when they disagree with you? I hope you're no older than 12.
First of all apes are still here. Shouldn't there be none at all, according to survival of the fittest the weak die and the strong survive and evolve?
Apes are our cousin species, not our grandparent species. We evolved from the same ancestors but we are not descended from apes.
Also, imagine a population of one species splitting in to two populations. The new population, in a new area, is subject to different conditions and may very well adapt until they become a new species. Meanwhile, the original population stays put and changes a relatively small amount. With this scenario, people could still exist simultaneously with their ancestors. But we don't; they're dead and we have fossils.
When you can adopt an ape and it will become a man.
This can't seriously be how you think evolution works. Please at least skim the Wikipedia page on evolution. There's no way you can properly discredit something until you have the most basic understanding of it.
Edit: On second thought, if that's your handle on evolution then this is probably a better place to start.
Nobody is obligated to adhere to your definition of sexy, and they are free to use that word to describe others and themselves even if they don't.
If you don't think they're sexy, fine- you're not under any obligation either. Nobody is sexy to everyone, and most people understand that. If a woman is 'ripped' because she wants to attract muscular guys, or because she just thinks she looks awesome, so what? There's no reason you need to worry about it for a single second.
I don't have any illusions about persuading you to change your mind but the things I believe are not based on faith in the same way that religious views tend to be. I have a certain amount of trust in certain sources, yes, but to me, nothing and nobody is infallible and I take that into account. I'm well aware that there is always new information ahead that might make me re-examine what I think, and I would abandon everything I believe if I was presented with sufficient counterevidence. What could make you abandon your belief in God?
I started writing a response then I realized you copied this entire thing from your source. If you can't put this information into your own words, how can you hope to defend it? Any response would not be to you but to the person who actually wrote it, and they are not here to speak for themselves.
Would you believe four people who all said they saw a car accident, then both the cars sprouted wings like a bird and flew away?
Has anyone ever told you there is an an eternity of torture waiting for you if you don't believe cars can grow bird wings and fly away?
I hope you don't mistake my statement as condoning the misinformation, misrepresentation, and lies that constitute 'scientific evidence' for certain parts of the Bible. I just meant to say there is a percentage of Christians who will stop at nothing to make reality fit into the confines of their religion; evolution didn't phase them and aliens won't either. There are others who are not so vehement about denying anything that doesn't mesh with Christianity, but religion is a habit for them and they will continue to be Christians because it is comfortable, in spite of any cognitive dissonance. Some followers may be disillusioned by the Bible's apparent contradictions with reality, but considering how many they already deal with, I don't think it will be a nail in the coffin for Christianity by any means.
For a small example, look at the Christians who have so far replied to this debate.
I would actually dispute your argument because "other worlds" may not imply other plants at all. Astrophysicists are now playing with the idea of a possible multiverse so "other worlds" could literally mean "other universes".
If this is what I thought the debate was referring to, then my reply would have been different. I took it to be asking about life on other planets in this universe.
I would go even further to argue that life in other universes would not only be a huge blow to Christianity but to the other Abrahamic religions (Judaism and Islam) as well. For example, the most prominent Islamic theologians and scholars criticise Christianity and the Bible because they see the Qur'an (or Koran) as a better explanation for existence. Theologians like Dr. Zakir Naik postulate that the Qur'an has evidence of scientific facts known to us today such as the rotation of the sun and the geo-spherical shape of the Earth. However, it does not mention life on other worlds. So if life on other worlds is found, it would be a real blow to even Islamic theology.
Biblical literalism survives in spite of the already enormous amount of discrediting scientific evidence. They have twisted both science and the Bible to fit together in support of creationism, young earth theory, and so on. They will take the evidence of extraterrestrial life and do the same thing. I expect other religions will survive through the same tactics.
Picard's smarter, more subtle, and more cultured. The ways he solves problems are more varied and so more interesting. Stewart's a better actor and while it's not Shatner's fault, TNG's writing was better and Picard's character benefited from the longer series.
If God created the universe, and aliens exist, then God created aliens. If they show up and aren't already Christians, isn't that kind of tough to explain? The Bible doesn't mention aliens; does God play favorites with his children to the extent that an entire planet would not know of him? Why would he reveal himself only to humans? And if they don't look like us, why would God create some of his children in his image and not others? Not that I think Christians won't be able to think of explainations, but it will just be more conjecture and extrapolation.
Yes, it's better than starving, but almost anything is. Eating something that died from illness and was kept in a building full of other sick things is still just riskier than it's worth unless there's nothing else to eat. Hospitals infect a significant chunk of their patients, and this is in America; imagine how much worse it might be in poorer places. Plenty of infections may go undetected if the deceased was admitted for something else. There's a reason cannibalism is relatively rare in humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, and even more rare when it's not a matter of life and death. Part of that is because cannibalism a great vector for species-specific pathogens, like the Prion diseases in humans. Cannibalism spread mad cow in cows and the kuru epidemic that almost destroyed the Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea.
So I wouldn't deny a starving person a meal, but I think it's generally safer to dispose of bodies in other ways.
It seems pragmatic on the surface but even disregarding all cultural taboos, I don't think it would be healthy or feasible.
We mostly eat animals that were raised in a controlled environment and slaughtered at the peak of their health, hopefully in sanitary facilities. This is not how people die: they die slowly in hospitals, because of disease. Or they die 'in the wild,' in messy situations and unsanitary conditions. So cannibalizing corpses would require one or both of the following: eating meat that comes from a diseased creature or forming teams that go to scenes of deaths and salvage edible bodies. Considering that autopsies may need to be done, crime scenes may need to be examined and most bodies are probably not discovered within a time range conducive to consumption, these efforts would not yield much.
Especially in places like America, where there is more than enough food to go around if properly managed, it's not prudent.
A lot can be learned from examining history. It's also a fascinating story; it would be sad and detrimental to bury it.
It seems to me the status quo has been, for awhile, to teach evolution. The creationist uproar against it is fairly recent. So, wether it's warranted or not, any blowing out of proportion is a response to attempts to legitimize creationism and undermine evolution. If there was little or no action on the part of creationism, there would probably be proportional reaction for supporters of evolution.
The services provided by homemakers are very valuable. I wish this was a more respected occupation and that it was more acceptable for men to hold it, but that's not the case right now. Even so, dedicating ones' life to making a successful home and, if applicable, raising quality children should be considered a viable choice.
I don't think hands on-edness is the defining requirement for evil. When someone witnesses a crime and doesn't do anything, I'm not inclined to label that an act of goodness, especially if it's out of indifference. Also, what about when people actively help others; can't you think of times when that's not generally thought of as evil?
How did you reach the conclusion that 'sometimes' rape is sex, but not always? In which case is it sex, in which case is it not?
Virginity is lost through intercourse. Rape and consensual sex are both intercourse. How do you have to define virginity in order to have it preserved after intercourse?
Maybe you'd like to cite that research?
http://www.fallwell.com/pedophilia.html
Some homosexuals are pedophilies. Some heterosexuals are pedophiles, too. Accepting one isn't accepting the other. Whether or not homosexuality is natural or a matter of choice, relationships and sexual activity between two consenting adults of either gender is not necessarily harmful to anyone.
Yes, if the action is taken specifically to create a dense of debt in the recipient.
But if it's something like someone donating resources because they want to show off, not because they really care, then no. The resources have the same impact either way.
Everyone on the other side has so far responded in a way that makes it seem like people are saying Lowes shouldn't have the right to remove sponsorship. That's not what's happening and I don't think anyone is under the impression that it's not Lowes money in question. But the right to do something is not the same as the right to do something without garnering a response.
All the show did was show an assortment of non-terrorist Muslims and the Florida Family Association's reaction was vapid and paranoid. It's totally acceptable to tell Lowe's how shitty it is that they knuckled under the demands of a homophobic, prejudiced and puritanical organization. If FFA can push one way, then the public can push back.
Really, you don't need to paste your entire first post here. I saw it when you made this debate and I saw it when you pasted the whole thing two posts ago. If you're truly, actually trying to come to an understanding here, then point out the specific thing you think I need to pay closer attention to. Otherwise you're not helping anything.
You see, atheists the ones who write against God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, must pick one of these entities to focus their arguments on, but I see they just keep on attacking without any specific target, and that is irrational.
How many atheists have busted out a serious argument against the existence of the Greek pantheon or Wiccan nature spirits? Not that some of them couldn't, but Wiccans and ancient Greeks aren't an atheist's typical debate partner here. Christians are. This explains why the vast majority of atheist's arguments (here and elsewhere) attempt point out absurdities in Christian doctrine by using passages from the Bible, and/or outline contradictions in the Christian God's attributed qualities like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. That's pretty specific.
If you have proposed definitions for that list of six things, you should probably post them. It's not feasible or necessary to have all the participants of this debate on the same page.
If a gold-digger likes someone for no reason but money, they're not attracted to that person, they're attracted to money. Dating or being married to someone doesn't necessitate love or even attraction, just an agreement. So it still holds that people are only attracted to someone who has something subjectively attractive about them, and people are not attracted to someone about whom they find nothing attractive. Really, such an idea should not need such a long explanation.
No, you haven't presented your six propositions to me, but keep in mind we're not going to be able to all work on them together. This site is not a good forum for true group discussions. You may have to come to slightly modified definitions for every participant.
