- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Informative Content
-
Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?
@ZeusAres42
I would warn you of getting too deep into these woods. Many of these people are focused on these topics specifically and, as a consequence, have created echo-chambers around them. I, for one, cannot listen to James Lindsey, or Jordan Peterson, or Piers Morgan talk about these things for extended periods of time, as they blow everything out of proportion and seem to suggest that "woke-ism" is everywhere and is as big a threat as Nazism was.
Peter Boghossian, or Steven Pinker, or Richard Dawkins are much better to listen to when it comes to this topic, because they are focused on different things (education, science, philosophy...), and "woke-ism" is put by them in a proper framework. When you listen to Peter talk about it, you do not hear "The end is nigh!" - instead, you hear, "Here is what I want to create in this world, and here is why these people make it more difficult to do so".
There is a strong positive feedback loop we all are prone to fall into when listening to someone strongly attached to a particular topic for too long: our perception of reality starts shifting so as to fit their framework. I think that it is best to listen to these people occasionally and then move on, without getting stuck on this topic.
-
Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?
@Factfinder
I was thinking that in terms of this woke stuff, it's interesting to find noteworthy people who all agree with how bad this is. After someone on Discord recently stated things about James Lindsey and other people like him and how they tried to discredit them, I went to find out what these other people's views were, and they are all the same or at least very similar:- Richard Dawkins
- Steven Pinker
- Steven Fry
- Sam Harris
- Michael Shermer
- Bret Weinstein
- Eric Weinstein
- Jordan Person
- John McWhorter
- Bari Weiss
- Douglas Murray
- James Lindsey
- Peter Boghossian
- Helen Pluckrose
- Ben Shapiro
- Piers Morgan
- Heather Heying
- Debra Soh
- Jerry Coyne
I don't rely on them to make my mind up; I also evaluate content—what they write and the literature they criticise. I found it interesting that all these individuals have the same stance regarding this! And that is every single one of them! -
Is Trump a good person? (aside from politics)
Votes are not made in a vacuum. You have to consider the options. I think Trump is a better choice than Biden. Here's why:Delilah6120 said:@just_sayin
I´ve done my reading on trump´s past and frankly Iḿ finding it´s a waste of time to even talk about him. But I do find your statement (assuming that you will vote for him again) quite interesting and a bit puzzling.
Why would you vote for an amoral person to be a leader of the free world?
1) Biden supports racist policies such as DEI and Affirmative Action. I know some think their racism is good and holy racism, but its just racism, and its wrong. Trump does not support these racist policies.
2) Trump supports school choice. Biden wants poor Black children to remain chained to failed public schools. I get how it helps teacher unions and Democrat candidates, who get a lot of money from teacher unions, but how does it help that poor Black kid trapped in a bad school? To me, school choice, is the civil rights issue of our generation and Biden is on the wrong side of it.
3) Though not perfect, I don't like protectionist policies, Trump has better trade and economic policies than Biden. Biden's own advisers told him the Inflation Reduction Act would cause inflation to jump sharply. He didn't listen to them, so we all are paying $700 on average more a month for the same stuff we had under Trump.
4) Trump may have fooled around on women, but at least he can define what one is. Biden can't define what a woman is. He has initiated polices which treat women unfairly and have them compete against biological men. When someone claims a man can have a vagina and menstrate, he doesn't know what a woman is and isn't interested in defending their interests.
5) Trump supports parental rights. Biden doesn't. He feels that schools should be able to lie to parents about their kids gender dysphoria and hide their sexual transitioning from them. He used the FBI and CIA against parents who spoke out at PTA meetings about sexually explicit books in grade schools. In my mind, if you aren't pro-parent, then you are pro-pedophile.
6) Which brings me to my next point. Biden tried to remove a policy Trump instituted that would have allowed schools to no longer report public school teachers who had engaged in sexual misconduct with students to the DOE. Who wants to hide 15,000 instances of sexual misconduct and sexual assault a year from the public? Joe Biden, that's who. There is no logical reason to not report to the DOE these instances of sexual misconduct, unless you want to hide and cover up something.
7) I believe Trump will work to reduce unlawful entry into the US. Obama's Civil Rights Commission on Illegal Immigration found that illegal labor costs Black workers between $1,000 - $2,000 a year in lost and reduced wages. Why is it just to take $2,000 out of a Black man's wallet every year, to promote illegal labor? -
Is Trump a good person? (aside from politics)
I don't want to give the impression that Trump is a moral person. Some of your points are not valid though.Delilah6120 said:@anarchist100
Trump is the most amoral human being I´ve ever encountered. He gives the meaning of human being a bad name.
1. He discriminated against blacks (with Daddy). They had employees label an African American´s applications with a circled C (for colored) when applying for an apt. in their buildings. A violation of the Fair Housing Act
2. While his properties were being built, his workers were systematically ripped off. Trump would agree on contract price. When the work was done he automatically said the job was not done well and paid them less than the agreed upon. He knows - and abuses the court system well. When his employees sued him for their $, trump kept appealing to get out of what he owed knowing that they would eventually need their money so they always had to settle for less.
3. He cheated on ALL 3 wives at least once if not more. Melania had just given birth and he was playing with a porn star.
4. He was friends with Epstein and actually admired him.
5. He took out a full page ad in NYC when the Central Park 5 (4 black, 1 latino) were accused of attacking and raping a girl. THEY WERE ALL INNOCENT. Racist.
6. He perpetuated the Obama birth certificate problem. racist.
7. He openly sexualized his own daughter.
8. He had his first wife (who died falling down the stairs?????) buried at his golf course knowing that if it was used as a cemetery he wouldn´t have to pay taxes.
9. He had his fixer pay off a porn star and playboy bunny right before the election.
And that is not even his presidency as your question was ¨aside from politics¨. It gets worse if politics was to be included.
1) He discriminated against blacks (with Daddy). They had employees label an African American´s applications with a circled C (for colored) when applying for an apt. in their buildings. A violation of the Fair Housing Act
Trump wasn't involved in the day to running of the building. It has never been shown that he authorized any mistreatment or was even aware of it.
4. He was friends with Epstein and actually admired him.
Bill Clinton was a closer friend to Epstein than Trump. Your argument is a guilt by association argument. This is a weak argument. Everyone in politics has associations with people who have turned out to be bad people. It is inappropriate to say someone is guilty for the sins of another though.
5. He took out a full page ad in NYC when the Central Park 5 (4 black, 1 latino) were accused of attacking and raping a girl. THEY WERE ALL INNOCENT. Racist.
When Trump took out the ad, 4 of the 5 had confessed before a judge under penalty of perjury that they were guilty of the rape. It seems unfair to say Trump was motivated by racism for 'falsely accusing them' when they had falsely accused themselves before Trump posted the ad. Are 4 of the 5 suspects racists also for falsely accusing themselves? If not, this is an invalid argument.
6. He perpetuated the Obama birth certificate problem. racist.
Yes he did, and he also admitted he was wrong. Hilary Clinton just last week again claimed Trump stole the election from her. Is she racist for her claim? If not, then it seems plausible that Trump was making a political argument and not a racial one. Your claim doesn't show racial intent. Are you claiming that any false claim against a minority is racist? That seems illogical. -
Gay at birth?
MayCaesar said:
This is a good question. Technically speaking, everything is biologically influenced to some extent. We interact with our environment, our organism reacts to that interaction in the way determined by biology, and the biology shifts as a consequence. For this process to be launched in the first place, some biological imprint has to be there.ZeusAres42 said:@MayCaesar
One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction? I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification.
I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.
However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting.
This seems pretty much on par with a chapter I recently came back to from the book called "Reason: Book I & II: A Critical Thinking- Reason-and Science-based Approach to Issues That Matter (Dr Bos Critical Thinking Series).However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting.
Without potentially infringing too much on copyright, I will say that there is a bit in this section where the Author says that even if a trait is a certain percentage, that doesn't necessarily mean that when forced upon by environmental factors, the result will be the same percentage of an expression of those genes.
@MayCaesar
-
Gay at birth?
This is a good question. Technically speaking, everything is biologically influenced to some extent. We interact with our environment, our organism reacts to that interaction in the way determined by biology, and the biology shifts as a consequence. For this process to be launched in the first place, some biological imprint has to be there.ZeusAres42 said:@MayCaesar
One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction? I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification.
I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.
However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting. -
The Big Bang - Where's the Evidence?
Best I can tell Just_sayin complained about Zeus and Jules using ai to lay out some facts behind the big bang theory. You and Zeus made light of the situation. Just_sayin then used ai to make the same points he always does, science doesn't know everything, can't explain everything, as a point itself suggesting ai doesn't support the theory.... and somehow by Just's thinking making fun of his original complaints has become a strawman. I think. But I'm not all together sure on this one either.MayCaesar said:I am lost here. What are you guys debating? I see constant references to me, but I do not see much connection between my original comment and what is happening here...
-
"Unfair universe" paradox
interesting . First if the universe were unfair in the way as suggested; then logic alone dictates that either the universe is a conscious being or there is one behind it that directs such unfairness. .Also humans would have to believe or be shown proof of one, for without proof, weather we believe that 2 and 2 equals any number is a mute point. One would have to have indirect or direct knowledge that we would go to heaven or hades depending on what we believe; that if i believe the truth, i would end up in hades; yet of i believe otherwise, after my demise, i would have a heavenly reward. Indirect knowledge would be a belief in books, which is not any different than religion. Direct knowledge would be from the consciousness entity itself and would have to be world wide. So If i had such direct knowledge that if i were to believe what my senses and brain know as to be actually true; yet knowing I would go to blazes for doing so, I would gladly choose the false beliefs after my demise to achieve a better reward; for after all, if such an entity existed; then this world would mean much of nothing in the long run and even though i would be forced to believe in a falsity, i would do so. @MayCaesar
-
Can we survive 4 more years of Bidenomics?
@Factfinder
I would encourage everyone to not succumb to the sensationalism of the media and look at facts objectively. And the facts are such that, despite countless blunders of Biden's administration, the American economy is still by far the strongest in the world, the US dollar is the only currency taken seriously in every single country of the world, and the well-being of the average American is better than it has ever been. The idea that one bad president can somehow destroy a country full of companies like NVidia, Tesla and Capital One to me seems completely absurd.
Compare it to Putinomics. The guy nationalized the biggest independent TV channel a year into his rule, nationalized multiple gas and oil companies a couple years later, later initiated a number of bizarre military operations leading to debilitating sanctions of the Russian economy - and still the Russian economy keeps slowly growing somehow.
Heck, even the North-Korean economy has been running for nearly 80 years now and does not show signs of collapsing any time soon.
Some perspective would serve this country well. -
Can we survive 4 more years of Bidenomics?
Biden claims the pandemic caused the economic woes but the things he did, he did intentionally and caused inflation. For instance it was policy, not disease, that tried to push America into sub standard ev's before it was time simply as a campaign promise to rid us of big oil. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2626496/new-figures-reveal-how-bidens-radical-ev-push-has-failed-in-key-way-2/
And of course the foolish act of declaring war on oil companies had a domino effect Joe calls Bidenomics...
