Originally posted by bluewaterriderI don't, I believe it. I'm not a fan of anthropocentrism and I don't believe we hold any privileged position in the universe. That's an arrogant belief, I feel. One we absolutely don't deserve and haven't earned (not that it can be--a deity is required to give us absolute validity, and none have appeared).
How do you know this?
But that is a belief. Can't know it.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I defended it many ways - you're picking a *picture* I posted and ignoring all the rest.
Your other reasons are idiotic as well. Or more specifically, none of them address the heart of the issue, which is the winner take all nature of the system, .i.e. that winning 50.01% of the votes in a state counts for as much as winning 95%. There's absolutely no justification for this that wouldn't also apply to a proportional system,
Spoiler:
because the real reason was to give the slave states more power relative to their higher population northern neighbors.
Given the specific demands of NemeBro, yeah.
I can read, Ant. There were no demands laid on you but to give the most basic justification that people could easily give for any half-rational position.
If you were to ask me why theft was wrong, I could give you a dozen reasons on the spot with ease; I wouldn't need to tap-dance around it with vague solipsism for two pages.
But oddly enough, in your entire comedy of errors, you never once gave a single case that wasn't just a restatement of the claim ("it's bad because it's bad"😉.
Note it's a Battle Bar debate, not a college report. 😂
It would take me no more than a few seconds to think of reasons why murder, fraud or slander was unethical, or potentially disqualifying factors for being a president. No need for a "college report". But suspiciously you had to dance around it for several pages, making yourself look all more like a fool.
Quote of me saying that?
I pointed out that Trump wanted to gut the h1b, and you said "good". Then when I pressed the issue, you said that "they'll just have to deal with it".
Never mind the fact that first and second generation immigrants are responsible for Google, Intel, Apple, the Manhattan Project, NASA, the laser, the transistor, all of this year's nobel prizes, >30% of Silicon Valley, >50% of our graduate programs, etc.
You just haven't thought through the actual issues that were at stake at this election very carefully. You never stopped to consider the danger Trump posed to our climate, his economically disastrous tariff policies, his championing of nuclear proliferation, etc. It was all an emotional hatred of Hillary for deleting some emails (even though Mike Pence is in a legal battle to do the same at this very moment), on top of very overt manifestations of homophobia and xenophobia. It was just an embarrassment.
Damn, the fire rises.
I will actually CaV you on the electoral system and whether it should be maintained if you so desire, but only after you concede the Revan vs Darth Vader debate. 👆
It would take me no more than a few seconds to think of reasons why murder, fraud or slander was unethical, or potentially disqualifying factors for being a president.
Even that's completely subjective, lmfao.
I pointed out that Trump wanted to gut the h1b, and you said "good". Then when I pressed the issue, you said that "they'll just have to deal with it".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHclppeLdi0&t=0m09s
Never mind the fact that first and second generation immigrants are responsible for Google, Intel, Apple, the Manhattan Project, NASA, the laser, the transistor, all of this year's nobel prizes, >30% of Silicon Valley, >50% of our graduate programs, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHclppeLdi0&t=0m14s
You just haven't thought through the actual issues that were at stake at this election very carefully. You never stopped to consider the danger Trump posed to our climate, his economically disastrous tariff policies, his championing of nuclear proliferation, etc. It was all an emotional hatred of Hillary for deleting some emails (even though Mike Pence is in a legal battle to do the same at this very moment), on top of very overt manifestations of homophobia and xenophobia. It was just an embarrassment.
🙄
Interesting that you edited your post from "good points by me" to "never said that". 😆
Anyway, I guess when I get them I'll pull up the quotes. You know, because this is the internet, and denying having said things is just stupid. I guess you're following the lead of your idol, for whom denying having said things that are clearly on the internet is just his MO.
You know, I always find it interesting that you basically never troll people when you think you can destroy their argument. If someone today posted a thread about how much better than Revan Dooku was, after maybe some initial trolling you would be eager to respond to their points with huge walls of text. You certainly tried that with Plagueis.
But strangely, on your more asinine political positions, you initially try to debate with me, and when pressed into a very clear corner, just resort to trolling to bluff the fact that you have nothing substantive to say. 👆
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I will actually CaV you on the electoral system and whether it should be maintained if you so desire, but only after you concede the Revan vs Darth Vader debate. 👆
👆
But more importantly, it's the distinction I'm not interested in debating immigration, whereas I am interested debating Revan vs Dooku.
Granted, if you bait me enough, I'll obviously be interested (ex. the electoral college), but otherwise? Not really. That stuff goes in circles.
Especially in regards to debating you, neither of us would be willing to change our mind on something given interactions like these*. 👆
* Interactions you instigate 9 out of 10 times.
lol you can't blame me for baiting or inciting anything when you change your profile pic and sig to Trump slogans and then go chanting for him on the Battle Bar. Not that I or most of the forum buy that you secretly have a stunning argument for why porn stars are bad that you're just not "interested" in letting out.
Anyway, challenge accepted. I'll respond to Revan vs. Vader by this weekend, or count a concession.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
lol you can't blame me for baiting or inciting anything when you change your profile pic and sig to Trump slogans and then go chanting for him on the Battle Bar. Not that I or most of the forum buy that you secretly have a stunning argument for why porn stars are bad that you're just not "interested" in letting out.Anyway, challenge accepted. I'll respond to Revan vs. Vader by this weekend, or count a concession.
Supporting a president of the United States is baiting? 😕
Great. I can't wait to win. 👆
EDIT: Also, you're right. I don't have a stunning argument for the porn star discussion - but I don't think you (or virtually anyone) can make an objective, substantive one without dedicating the time and resources that I wasn't interested in investing. Matters like that are entirely subjective to me.
Originally posted by EmperordmbYou get the same with God:
Because then you'd get infinite regress.
God created the universe--whence cometh God?
God is eternal and timeless--problem solved?
Just sub out 'God' for 'the Universe' (or Cosmos or whatever):
The Universe expanded from a timeless singularity--whence cometh timeless singularity?
The Universe is eternal and ever re-creating (Crunch, Rip, Freeze etc)--problem solved?
We humans aren't good at dealing with infinity. And as pattern-seaking, clockwork creatures, we especially need infinite existence to have a pattern-creating clock-maker. So hey, just say there is one and problem solved?
How so? Your narrative is the same as ours, just with an extra step added on.
From
>An all powerful being arbitrarily exists
>Said all powerful being creates the universe.
to
>The universe arbitrarily exists.
What's the difference exactly? What makes the latter more nonsensical than the former? How is it more logical that a conscious, somewhat humanlike being could have always existed, but not matter or energy?
Originally posted by EmperordmbThat's fair. At some point you have to pick what you prefer---either the entirety of everything "simply exists" without a God... or all of existence "simply exists" because of a God who also "simply exists."
Makes more sense to me than "we exist arbitrarily! We have no reason for existing because nihilism is accurate yet we inexplicably exist anyways!"
Either way, we can't comprehend it. So people are going to pick the one that comforts them most.
Or Cosmological Natural Selection is the answer, and nothing is arbitrary.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Something something black holes don't lose information, something baby universes can't be spawned or observed.A wizard did it. A wizard named God.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. It's a real theory.
In the multiverse there is not beginning or end.