Oh great, not this again.
-
- Taupo
- Registered Member
-
Member for 12 years, 5 months, and 19 days
Last active Sat, Jan, 31 2015 22:03:21
- 1 Follower
- 2,160 Total Posts
- 585 Thanks
-
Jul 21, 20144
Habanero posted a message on Are male and female brains 'wired' differently?Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
Oh great, not this again. -
Jun 28, 2014
4
Habanero posted a message on Has the feminist movement gone too far?Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
Thanks for replying to my arguments.
OH WAIT. You just ignored them once again in favor of more personal attacks. Face it: you have nothing to bring to the table and have no actual arguments. -
Jun 27, 20142
redstonevet90 posted a message on Has the feminist movement gone too far?Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from Habanero
This part here, for instance, I did not actually say anywhere. I cannot provide evidence for something I never said in the first place.
So you do admit you never answered my question and you were lying when you claimed several times that you did.
You also admit that society did not make him hate women, which is what these activist feminist are claiming.
Ok, now that we have established that you have a history of lying and society didn't make him hate women.
Quote from HabaneroThis part suffers from the same problem. I said multiple times that he is, indeed, crazy. I never disputed this; not once. My point, which you still seem to be missing, is this: yes, he was crazy, but his misogyny also played a role in the shooting. BOTH had an impact. That's all.
So now we have established that the guy IS crazy as well.
You are also saying that he hated women and we know crazy people are not capable of rational reasoning, so everything you and these feminist activists are claiming is completely false by your own admission, since he doesn't have the capacity to be influenced by society in any manner that would be considered sane, or rational.
You also admitted that society played no part in these killings, which is the feminist activists' claims.
Checkmate 2x. -
Jun 27, 20142
Unyobro posted a message on Has the feminist movement gone too far?Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from pooch12
Wow...
Redstonevet, you are an excellent debator. I could not have articulated your points better
Wow is right. If you're serious then wow is all I can say. -
Jun 27, 2014
2
Habanero posted a message on Has the feminist movement gone too far?Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
The thing is, all the questions you asked are strawmen.
1)
did it all because society made him hate women
This part here, for instance, I did not actually say anywhere. I cannot provide evidence for something I never said in the first place. I never once said that he did it only because he hated women.
2)
And please also explain why it wasn't because he was crazy and why you don't see a lot of clinically sane men gunning down women in rampages if society is causing this.
This part suffers from the same problem. I said multiple times that he is, indeed, crazy. I never disputed this; not once. My point, which you still seem to be missing, is this: yes, he was crazy, but his misogyny also played a role in the shooting. BOTH had an impact. That's all. -
Jun 27, 2014
1
Habanero posted a message on Has the feminist movement gone too far?Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from redstonevet90
Another content lacking post from Habanero, with no evidence and only baseless accusations.
Typical.
The irony. -
Jun 25, 20143
Dragonvoid posted a message on Are you Gnostic or Agnostic in your religious beliefs and why?Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from CommanderDrenn
I was stating that society as a whole is in bit of a mess and we, imo, need God's help to get out of it.
Waiting for some god to come and fix whatever problems we have made is risky behavior. -
Jun 19, 2014
4
Habanero posted a message on Has the feminist movement gone too far?Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from hppavilion1
I'm sure other people have said this, but the Greek/ Latin roots of the word implies an imbalance. Women are the one who need equal rights, but the word feminism implies more so that they want to shift the (im)balance of power and put it in their favor instead.
Oh not this argument again. I'm getting really tired of hearing it. -
Jun 19, 20145
Yourself posted a message on My Views of EverythingPosted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from ZallCaTorLife starts at the moment of conception, many scientific studies are leading to this conclusion.
Life started billions of years ago and has been one continuous process ever since.
More sperm can be created and each sperm is almost completely identical for each male.
Lolwut. If that were true, a single man could only have all sons or all daughters, never a mix.
Clearly that's not true.
Each sperm produced by a male gets half of his genome. This leaves room for a rather absurd number of possible combinations of which half each sperm gets. They're pretty much all different.
But, a "fetus" (or human as I like to call them)
You could call it a mammal too if that helps. It doesn't, but then neither does calling it human.
That life, that uniqueness, that conscience cannot be recreated. That consciousness cannot be recovered.
Did you know that I could go grab a deck of cards and shuffle it and that particular ordering of cards I end up with has likely never existed in the universe before and likely will never exist again?
Our brains are biological organisms.
No, it's an organ. A part of an organism, but not an organism itself. If you were to remove a person's brain, it would not continue function.
And they react to nervous stimuli, and neurons fire accordingly. So aren't these processes natural? Like a chain reaction, and process? Are our thoughts really creative, or just the natural path of the biology of the brain? Can we truly control our thoughts, or are they just part of the natural process of all the cells?
I'm going to answer "yes" for all of these with one exception. Yes, the processes are natural. Yes, our thoughts are both created and a natural function of the biology of the brain. No, you can't really control your thoughts. Not directly at least, it takes a considerable amount of time and practice to actually change them in all but the more trivial cases. But, again, yes, this is part of the natural processes.
What makes you think being able to describe how the brain works precludes the possibility of free will?
In that case, our destinies are truly set, because every thought and action is just a result of a chain reaction of events between cells in our brain. How then are we self aware? How come neurons fire when nothing stimulates them to do so?
Well, they don't. When neurons fire when they're not supposed to that's usually called a seizure and that's usually not good.
Soul? If we don't have a soul, then we are just the result of loads of cells reacting with one another to create actions and thoughts as a result of stimuli.
Yes, pretty neat, isn't it?
So the soul has to fill that gap of humanity. And that soul starts from the very beginning, even before we have a brain. Besides, who said the soul resides in the brain anyway?
Even if it doesn't reside there, it certainly interacts with it very strongly. Otherwise brain damage wouldn't be able to affect your personality, but it can. In fact brain damage can affect just about every aspect of you. It really doesn't leave a lot of room for a soul.
The real problem of the soul is that it's a very complicated hypothesis. There's all sorts of corner cases, like are souls indivisible? Because the brain isn't. Are they finite in number? Do they have physical substance? If not, by what mechanism do they interact with the ordinary matter of the brain? What's so special about the human (or mammalian brain) that attracts souls? Could we make continuous minor modifications to a brain until it was no longer able to attract a soul? Can a brain only have one soul? Can there be brains with no souls?
There's a lot fewer questions when there are no souls. Everything just kind of fits together better and makes a lot more sense.
-
Jun 18, 20146
Beltir posted a message on My Views of EverythingPosted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
The in no way proves there is a soul. At all.Quote from ZallCaTor
@Princess_Garnet
I don't claim to know what it's like to give birth. I don't take it for granted either. I know it is painful. But should we destroy life to avoid pain? Life starts at the moment of conception, many scientific studies are leading to this conclusion.
Take this for example.
(I'm gonna get a little blunt here, so yeah.)
Sperm is not the same as a fetus. Sperm alone does not create life, nor does a woman alone. They are both required to create life. Wasting sperm is not the same as killing a baby. Sperm is just the key ingredient for life. More sperm can be created and each sperm is almost completely identical for each male. But, a "fetus" (or human as I like to call them) is completely unique, not one is the same. That life, that uniqueness, that conscience cannot be recreated. That consciousness cannot be recovered. The fetus is the beginning of life. In order for this to be true, I will have to prove that we have a soul. So here we go.
Our brains are biological organisms. And they react to nervous stimuli, and neurons fire accordingly. So aren't these processes natural? Like a chain reaction, and process? Are our thoughts really creative, or just the natural path of the biology of the brain? Can we truly control our thoughts, or are they just part of the natural process of all the cells? In that case, our destinies are truly set, because every thought and action is just a result of a chain reaction of events between cells in our brain. How then are we self aware? How come neurons fire when nothing stimulates them to do so? Soul? If we don't have a soul, then we are just the result of loads of cells reacting with one another to create actions and thoughts as a result of stimuli.
So the soul has to fill that gap of humanity. And that soul starts from the very beginning, even before we have a brain. Besides, who said the soul resides in the brain anyway?
Kind of an odd argument, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.
It just boils down to "I don't like to think we're like that for no reason at all, therefore we have a soul because there is a gap that I didn't mention or bother to explain." Just because you may not like an answer doesn't make your alternative right.
What is a soul? Why do we have one? When do we get a soul? Can you prove any of these statements, or are they just your alternatives to something you don't like?
Further, when sperm and egg mix, it isn't suddenly baby. They still require nutrition from the mother in order to survive. Negatively impact that and it could cause a miscarriage. Should that be criminal neglect if abortion is murder? If masturbation isn't murder because the sperm wont become a child on it's own, then abortion isn't because the fertilized egg wont become a child without leeching nutrition from it's mother.
Additionally, do you have a sibling? Do they look exactly like you? If not, then there has to be some difference between the different sperms/eggs on a genetic level to cause these differences, and this means every sperm and every egg is unique in some way, which is your argument for why a fetus shouldn't be aborted or "wasted."
- To post a comment, please login.
1
5
2
1
I got 1.8 for primary, 1.6 for secondary:
"
You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 35.37% of people who have taken this test.
You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 9.61% of people who have taken this test. "
No surprises there. I even felt bad for the goalkeeper of the opposite team whenever I scored playing football cause I was worried I had ruined his day or his confidence. I feel empathy to the point where it becomes a burden and a weakness and a constant source of stress. It'd be nice to live my life more guilt free.
1
Natural gas is definitely not a safer alternative in the long run; as a fossil fuel it emits large quantities of CO2 and other pollutants which contribute towards climate change. Cleaner than coal/petrol power plants but that's not much of an achievement.
I'm curious, are you against hydroelectic power? There have been far more dam failures than there have been nuclear meltdowns and they can be just as devastating if not more devastating to the local populace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
1
If you're gonna start censoring that you really need to add a filter, that's the kinda insult a 5 year old would use.
2
1
There's a big difference between dealing with a racist, aggressive dictator in charge of a global superpower and someone hitting you. Kinda an irrelevant comparison.
I've personally never been hit by anyone except my friends but my first instinct would always be to try and stop whoever is assaulting me without hurting them, i.e if someone was trying to hit me who was weaker than I am then I would try and catch their hands and hold them til they calm down. If they're too strong for that or have a weapon, or attacking someone other than me, I'd be more inclined to hit back, but only the bare minimum to stop them doing what they're doing.
This goes for men and women really, but it is statistically much more likely for a man to be stronger than me than a woman just from basic biology.
That said if a woman- or a man for that matter- slaps me or hits me in way that's not actually threatening me I'm not going to retaliate because I'm not a baby and don't see the point in 'revenge' for something that's not even going to hurt in a minute. As much as I think gender stereotypes are silly that really is a case of 'man up' for a lot of these whiney MRA type people (note- not all MRA's are like this, don't attack me) who complain they can't hit women back when they slap them. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not right for a woman to be slapping men unless she's doing in self defense, no, but hitting her back doesn't exactly do anything good for the situation.
All this changes though if they're actually trying to kill me/someone I care about. In that scenario I would do everything I could to incapacitate them even if that meant serious injury/death to them. As much as I despise resorting to violence I do rather prefer living to being dead and I'm sure my friends do too so I'd rather break my principles than die.
The only case where I think I'd hit someone out of revenge would be if they hurt someone I cared about. If they killed someone I cared about, god help them... But if they tried to kill me, meh, I'd try and stop them while they're doing it but if they clearly had no intention of trying to kill me again and/or were imprisoned for it, I wouldn't really feel very strongly about it...
1
Uh, no it doesn't...
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost
1
I've already answered that ages ago, the mother's life every time. The mother is consciously aware of her death and very likely has loved ones who could depend on them. I can't fathom why an unborn baby with no sentient awareness of their own existence would be as cruel a thing to kill as opposed to a fully grown person.
I don't really buy the whole 'they've had a chance to live' argument, they could be 15 years old for all we know. The amount of time and effort getting a person to adulthood also must be factored in. A baby is essentially replaceable and by saving a mother you could easily result in MORE lives being created anyway if that's the argument you're going by.
Regardless this is all irrelevant as what you think doesn't really matter. What I think doesn't matter. What matters is what the mother wants and that's ultimately the only fair way to go about it. If they want to sacrifice themselves for their baby then let them, if they would rather live, then let them. That's not a decision for men to be making for women.