17255 cr points
Send Message:   21 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
 Offline
|
longfenglim wrote:
One needs only to read through our 'debate', more of my beating you around the head with logic, while you, growing more and more imbecilic, repeat the same thing over and over, to see all the things you have not answered, take one example.
For example, in this lengthy explanation, I demonstrate, with infallible logic, that you are wrong to say that people need to be shut off from society and brainwashed.
Never said this.
How can I learn about the reasoning behind your opinions without asking questions?
The reason has clearly been demonstrated, and should not even have been demonstrated as basic as it is, but have been demonstrated out of my kindness already, prior to your inquisition. For example, I have said, rightly, that, in response to your statement, that 'psychological problems are the only cause of severe crime'
There is no proof for such assertion, and thus, you have no argument, only a statement.
This would suffice as explanation for why it is fallacious, but you continue by ignorantly asking, for two more post, why this is not so?
If you can't say why this is not so, then you can't argue against it. Either prove that it is incorrect or accept it as fact.
You most certainly have not done this.
I have already shown two examples of me doing precisely that, only for it to be ignored in favour of repeating the same question or asking non-sequiturs.
No, you just said that it is wrong, without saying why it is wrong.
In case you haven't noticed by now, I wouldn't be asking the same questions over and over again if you would just answer them AND explain the reasoning behind your answersSince you have not done this, you leave me no choice but to question your stance on the issue.
No, you ask for no particular reason, as it has already been explained, and clearly so, but that you had not bothered to read any of it. You had a choice, you could have read.
I have read through everything, but you still refuse to explain your opinions.
If you were as intelligent as you think you are, you would take the time to explain yourself in the clearest and concisest way possible, so that even a "fool" like me could understand.
I have, you just don't pay attention or read at all. If you had actually read, I am quite sure you would understand immediately, shut off from the light of wisdom and knowledge as you are.
You need to better explain your beliefs.
You don't just assume you are right, you explain to your audience why you are right in order for them to take you seriously. By just saying you are right, without answering any of the possible questions that a person might have, you are showing a lack of confidence in your own beliefs.
Reminds me again who made the unfounded assertion that drugs, sex, alcohol leads to rape without any evidence, and then, moving from that, making another unfounded assertion that psychological problems lead to crimes, and, therefore, we should lock all people with psychological problems up?
Why did you only prove that one was incorrect? Why can't you prove that both of these assumptions are incorrect?
I actually reason out my argument, if you had bothered to read, unlike you, because I actually argue, instead of repeating the same question as an infant. I provide reason enough, and had, at time, had to repeat the exact same thing, in almost the exact same words.
You don't provide any reasoning behind your statements. You just say they are right, without any proof that they are right.
If you are unsure of your beliefs, then why should you expect anyone else to hold the same beliefs?
Because I am sure of my beliefs, and I have reasoned it out so well, no one could argue otherwise but that my beliefs are the most reasonable and logical.
Then why can't you explain the reasoning behind them?
Why are you even trying to discuss this topic if you can't even defend your own opinions about it?
I have, so thoroughly, that anyone else, as in anyone else who have bothered to read it, would agree that I am right on the matter, and lay the matter to rest. You just don't bother to read it at all, which is why you are in the predicament you are in right now.
You have not expained yourself thoroughly enough.
If you were truly right, you would be able to answer any question I threw at you, WITH AN EXPLANATION. Since you are not able to do this for some reason, you are just wasting your time by trying to convince me of your opinions.
I have, you just don't bother to read THE EXPLANATION. Which is why you are almost as ignorant as you came in, and is the substance of my charge against you.
If you have a faulty premise, you reach faulty conclusions.
Where are these explanations that you provide?
|
17255 cr points
Send Message: 21 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
|
LampRevolt wrote:
Besides birth control and the use of condoms, keeping one partner typically makes it pretty hard to get STI's or become pregnant (due to agreed upon counter measures). If you had ever been to college you may notice that there are thousands, hundreds of thousands, MILLIONS, of people in north America alone that have casual, consensual sex currently are fine. Infact it could be said that the majority of people have sex lives that lack consequence in developed nations these days seeing as so many people are in relationships or married.
Yeah, that is why there are no teen pregnancies and abortions, correct?
A nice dark beer is actually shown to be pretty good for you in moderation. It contains several kinds of complex carbohydrates and therefore does actually contain nutritional value. A soda however is far more detrimental. Anything, especially cheese burgers in sufficient abundance is horrible for you so don't cry too much about how everyone should be an angel like yourself.
Oh yeah, it says here that beer is much more nutritious than soda and a cheeseburger.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm
http://www.shesinrecovery.com/addiction/harmfuleffects.html
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/addictions/alcohol-toxins
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/health/Effects_of_Alcohol_Health_Effects_of_Alcohol.htm
http://www.dasmaninstitute.org/alcohol-harm/harmful-effect-of-alcohol/harmful-effects-of-alcohol
http://www.med.unc.edu/alcohol/prevention/health.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/alcohol_and_teens/article.htm
Why to people abuse things? They abuse things because they accept the loss in order to distract themselves. Why are people fat for instance, well because they do not want to expend the effort to lose weight.
Then we need to help them more.
|
4015 cr points
Send Message:
Offline
|
No, it is none of my business to drag the weak out of their pathetic hole.
Teen pregnancies and abortions are caused by the exact opposite of an educated, healthy physical relationship and big coincidence is that these things are more likely in schools and regions with no realistic sexual education. Abstinence only sex Ed is caused by self righteous pricks such as yourself who feel that the way they live their life should be forced upon the world.
|
2028 cr points
Send Message: 22 / M / Guess
Offline
|
Dishonest.
No, not everyone has the potential to be a rapist, as my credible source clearly states in defining the characteristics of a rapist. Only people who are not raised in a proper empathic manner as children have the potential to be rapists (I am beginning to think that you belong in this category, so please read up on the empathic research that has been done in order to understand where your cruel behavior comes from). These people do not have the capacity to love someone, so it is better that they be removed from their friends/girlfriends/wives until they alleviate their destructive tendencies through learning empathy. If you can't say why this is not so, then you can't argue against it. Either prove that it is incorrect or accept it as fact.
You just repeated the same thing, despite the fact that I have already shown that your position is unargued, unfounded, and therefore there is absolutely no reason to believe it to be true.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
Is there any reason to believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Well, I can say that the Moon is made of Green Cheese at its core, and that there is a fine layer of dust, a few meters deep, over it, and the only way of disproving that would be to scan every cubic inch of the moon's interior to make sure that there is no bit of it made of green cheese. So, does that mean we have reason to believe that the moon being made of Green Cheese is true?
You may argue that there is no reason to believe it true, because there is nothing by way of utility to be got out of it, like thinking all people with psychological problems have the potential to be criminals, and that only people with psychological problems will be criminal, and maybe there isn't. So, how about this: Every person has an immortal soul that lives on after death, and that there is a great judge, God, who metes out justice. Certainly, it is useful in that it allows people to believe that, ultimately, justice is served, and that it encourages believers to do well for the purpose of being rewarded by a just God.
Since, as you can see, utility or having reason to believe in something have no relation to its actually being true, we therefore must have no reason at all to believe anything unless there is sufficient evidence, by way of either hard facts or of logic, to believe it is true.
Therefore, your statement that only people who commit severe crimes are those that have psychological problems should be filed with 'the moon is made of Green Cheese', and 'There is a God and a soul', until you have actual, hard evidence otherwise. Which is especially laughable when you realise that you have never clearly defined what it means for something to be a 'severe crime'- would stealing millions be a severe crime.
See, what happens if you bothered to read, you would find your question thoroughly answered- not once, but three times.
No, you just said that it is wrong, without saying why it is wrong.
No, if you have bothered to read, you would see that I gave a rather lenghty exposition on why it is wrong.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
No, there is no need on another person's part to cure it for you, nor is it desirable that someone else interfere with the liberty of another man, even if it is for a purported good. It is not a necessity that my depression should be cured by another, but it is desirable that I should go seek help for it to improve my own quality of life- here's the rub, I do it out of my own volition, rather than allowing another to force treatment upon me. To consider this more in depth, being an autonomous agent, having someone else force something on me that I may not desire would be a forced violation of autonomy, which I, and only I, should be able to surrender. For example, I allow certain amount of autonomy to be surrendered in order to live in a relatively free society, therefore, I accept its laws as binding on me, and accept that I have rights guaranteed to me by this government, and I support this government because it provides what I feel to be a mostly reasonable (although not totally) compromise between my natural liberty and certain necessary forfeiture of that natural liberty for social harmony. I therefore only accept a loss of autonomy when I feel it is to my advantage, to the advantage of my fellow citizen, that it is so. Now, if your proposal goes forth, it violates the natural liberty of all citizens to the degree that it is unacceptable that we should even accept it, because it singles out a group, and then deprive all liberty from them. Such violation,almost everyone but yourself, would feel to be too great an attack on our autonomy, or the autonomy of certain sectors of our society, and so, we cannot, in all honestly, give our support to that government. I have read through everything, but you still refuse to explain your opinions.
You need to better explain your beliefs.
Which is bullshit because I have demonstrated that I did, in fact, explain my position, reasoned it out, and reasoned it so thoroughly that had you read, you would admit you are wrong on all counts. As such, you accuse me of substituting my personal and unreasoned belief in favour of any actual substance of argument, this is demonstrated false, as I have already shown, but is more akin to your usual mode of discourse.
Why did you only prove that one was incorrect? Why can't you prove that both of these assumptions are incorrect?
I did show both as incorrect. And have shown it so thoroughly that any other, reasonable creature must accept that these two propositions are wrong, but you insist on reducing yourself to the level of mindless slime, rather than bear the burden of being man.
You don't provide any reasoning behind your statements. You just say they are right, without any proof that they are right.
Three examples already of why you are wrong to say that, which is fitting since the most of this thread have been to show that you are wrong in general.
Then why can't you explain the reasoning behind them?
False.
You have not expained yourself thoroughly enough.
Also False
Where are these explanations that you provide?
I don't know, maybe every single post that I have posted?
Having shown myself completely right on this point, I think there is no further point in arguing, in that:
1. Your initial claims are false, and all your other arguments are false.
2. They are unargued, and you try to accuse me of having unreasoned argument, which has been shown, beyond a doubt, false, false, and thoroughly false.
|
17255 cr points
Send Message: 21 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
|
LampRevolt wrote:
No, it is none of my business to drag the weak out of their pathetic hole.
Teen pregnancies and abortions are caused by the exact opposite of an educated, healthy physical relationship and big coincidence is that these things are more likely in schools and regions with no realistic sexual education. Abstinence only sex Ed is caused by self righteous pricks such as yourself who feel that the way they live their life should be forced upon the world.
Why do you make such assumptions about me? When did I ever promote abstinence?
|
17255 cr points
Send Message: 21 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
|
longfenglim wrote:
Dishonest.
No, not everyone has the potential to be a rapist, as my credible source clearly states in defining the characteristics of a rapist. Only people who are not raised in a proper empathic manner as children have the potential to be rapists (I am beginning to think that you belong in this category, so please read up on the empathic research that has been done in order to understand where your cruel behavior comes from). These people do not have the capacity to love someone, so it is better that they be removed from their friends/girlfriends/wives until they alleviate their destructive tendencies through learning empathy.
How is this anything like what you just said?
If you can't say why this is not so, then you can't argue against it. Either prove that it is incorrect or accept it as fact.
You just repeated the same thing, despite the fact that I have already shown that your position is unargued, unfounded, and therefore there is absolutely no reason to believe it to be true.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
Is there any reason to believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Well, I can say that the Moon is made of Green Cheese at its core, and that there is a fine layer of dust, a few meters deep, over it, and the only way of disproving that would be to scan every cubic inch of the moon's interior to make sure that there is no bit of it made of green cheese. So, does that mean we have reason to believe that the moon being made of Green Cheese is true?
You may argue that there is no reason to believe it true, because there is nothing by way of utility to be got out of it, like thinking all people with psychological problems have the potential to be criminals, and that only people with psychological problems will be criminal, and maybe there isn't. So, how about this: Every person has an immortal soul that lives on after death, and that there is a great judge, God, who metes out justice. Certainly, it is useful in that it allows people to believe that, ultimately, justice is served, and that it encourages believers to do well for the purpose of being rewarded by a just God.
Since, as you can see, utility or having reason to believe in something have no relation to its actually being true, we therefore must have no reason at all to believe anything unless there is sufficient evidence, by way of either hard facts or of logic, to believe it is true.
Therefore, your statement that only people who commit severe crimes are those that have psychological problems should be filed with 'the moon is made of Green Cheese', and 'There is a God and a soul', until you have actual, hard evidence otherwise. Which is especially laughable when you realise that you have never clearly defined what it means for something to be a 'severe crime'- would stealing millions be a severe crime.
See, what happens if you bothered to read, you would find your question thoroughly answered- not once, but three times.
Sorry, but you didn't say why I am wrong. Try again.
No, you just said that it is wrong, without saying why it is wrong.
No, if you have bothered to read, you would see that I gave a rather lenghty exposition on why it is wrong.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
No, there is no need on another person's part to cure it for you, nor is it desirable that someone else interfere with the liberty of another man, even if it is for a purported good. It is not a necessity that my depression should be cured by another, but it is desirable that I should go seek help for it to improve my own quality of life- here's the rub, I do it out of my own volition, rather than allowing another to force treatment upon me. To consider this more in depth, being an autonomous agent, having someone else force something on me that I may not desire would be a forced violation of autonomy, which I, and only I, should be able to surrender. For example, I allow certain amount of autonomy to be surrendered in order to live in a relatively free society, therefore, I accept its laws as binding on me, and accept that I have rights guaranteed to me by this government, and I support this government because it provides what I feel to be a mostly reasonable (although not totally) compromise between my natural liberty and certain necessary forfeiture of that natural liberty for social harmony. I therefore only accept a loss of autonomy when I feel it is to my advantage, to the advantage of my fellow citizen, that it is so. Now, if your proposal goes forth, it violates the natural liberty of all citizens to the degree that it is unacceptable that we should even accept it, because it singles out a group, and then deprive all liberty from them. Such violation,almost everyone but yourself, would feel to be too great an attack on our autonomy, or the autonomy of certain sectors of our society, and so, we cannot, in all honestly, give our support to that government.
Sorry, you didn't explain why it is wrong. Try again.
I have read through everything, but you still refuse to explain your opinions.
You need to better explain your beliefs.
Which is bullshit because I have demonstrated that I did, in fact, explain my position, reasoned it out, and reasoned it so thoroughly that had you read, you would admit you are wrong on all counts. As such, you accuse me of substituting my personal and unreasoned belief in favour of any actual substance of argument, this is demonstrated false, as I have already shown, but is more akin to your usual mode of discourse.
Then why can't you provide any evidence in support of your opinions?
Why did you only prove that one was incorrect? Why can't you prove that both of these assumptions are incorrect?
I did show both as incorrect. And have shown it so thoroughly that any other, reasonable creature must accept that these two propositions are wrong, but you insist on reducing yourself to the level of mindless slime, rather than bear the burden of being man.
You never said why it is wrong, just that it is wrong.
You don't provide any reasoning behind your statements. You just say they are right, without any proof that they are right.
Three examples already of why you are wrong to say that, which is fitting since the most of this thread have been to show that you are wrong in general.
How am I wrong?
Where are these explanations that you provide?
I don't know, maybe every single post that I have posted?
No, you have yet to provide any sort of explanation as to why I am wrong.
Having shown myself completely right on this point, I think there is no further point in arguing, in that:
1. Your initial claims are false, and all your other arguments are false.
How are they false?
2. They are unargued, and you try to accuse me of having unreasoned argument, which has been shown, beyond a doubt, false, false, and thoroughly false.
Then why do you insist on having an unfounded argument?
|
2028 cr points
Send Message: 22 / M / Guess
Offline
|
lordseth23 wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide longfenglim wrote:
Dishonest.
No, not everyone has the potential to be a rapist, as my credible source clearly states in defining the characteristics of a rapist. Only people who are not raised in a proper empathic manner as children have the potential to be rapists (I am beginning to think that you belong in this category, so please read up on the empathic research that has been done in order to understand where your cruel behavior comes from). These people do not have the capacity to love someone, so it is better that they be removed from their friends/girlfriends/wives until they alleviate their destructive tendencies through learning empathy.
How is this anything like what you just said?
If you can't say why this is not so, then you can't argue against it. Either prove that it is incorrect or accept it as fact.
You just repeated the same thing, despite the fact that I have already shown that your position is unargued, unfounded, and therefore there is absolutely no reason to believe it to be true.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
Is there any reason to believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Well, I can say that the Moon is made of Green Cheese at its core, and that there is a fine layer of dust, a few meters deep, over it, and the only way of disproving that would be to scan every cubic inch of the moon's interior to make sure that there is no bit of it made of green cheese. So, does that mean we have reason to believe that the moon being made of Green Cheese is true?
You may argue that there is no reason to believe it true, because there is nothing by way of utility to be got out of it, like thinking all people with psychological problems have the potential to be criminals, and that only people with psychological problems will be criminal, and maybe there isn't. So, how about this: Every person has an immortal soul that lives on after death, and that there is a great judge, God, who metes out justice. Certainly, it is useful in that it allows people to believe that, ultimately, justice is served, and that it encourages believers to do well for the purpose of being rewarded by a just God.
Since, as you can see, utility or having reason to believe in something have no relation to its actually being true, we therefore must have no reason at all to believe anything unless there is sufficient evidence, by way of either hard facts or of logic, to believe it is true.
Therefore, your statement that only people who commit severe crimes are those that have psychological problems should be filed with 'the moon is made of Green Cheese', and 'There is a God and a soul', until you have actual, hard evidence otherwise. Which is especially laughable when you realise that you have never clearly defined what it means for something to be a 'severe crime'- would stealing millions be a severe crime.
See, what happens if you bothered to read, you would find your question thoroughly answered- not once, but three times.
Sorry, but you didn't say why I am wrong. Try again.
No, you just said that it is wrong, without saying why it is wrong.
No, if you have bothered to read, you would see that I gave a rather lenghty exposition on why it is wrong.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
No, there is no need on another person's part to cure it for you, nor is it desirable that someone else interfere with the liberty of another man, even if it is for a purported good. It is not a necessity that my depression should be cured by another, but it is desirable that I should go seek help for it to improve my own quality of life- here's the rub, I do it out of my own volition, rather than allowing another to force treatment upon me. To consider this more in depth, being an autonomous agent, having someone else force something on me that I may not desire would be a forced violation of autonomy, which I, and only I, should be able to surrender. For example, I allow certain amount of autonomy to be surrendered in order to live in a relatively free society, therefore, I accept its laws as binding on me, and accept that I have rights guaranteed to me by this government, and I support this government because it provides what I feel to be a mostly reasonable (although not totally) compromise between my natural liberty and certain necessary forfeiture of that natural liberty for social harmony. I therefore only accept a loss of autonomy when I feel it is to my advantage, to the advantage of my fellow citizen, that it is so. Now, if your proposal goes forth, it violates the natural liberty of all citizens to the degree that it is unacceptable that we should even accept it, because it singles out a group, and then deprive all liberty from them. Such violation,almost everyone but yourself, would feel to be too great an attack on our autonomy, or the autonomy of certain sectors of our society, and so, we cannot, in all honestly, give our support to that government.
Sorry, you didn't explain why it is wrong. Try again.
I have read through everything, but you still refuse to explain your opinions.
You need to better explain your beliefs.
Which is bullshit because I have demonstrated that I did, in fact, explain my position, reasoned it out, and reasoned it so thoroughly that had you read, you would admit you are wrong on all counts. As such, you accuse me of substituting my personal and unreasoned belief in favour of any actual substance of argument, this is demonstrated false, as I have already shown, but is more akin to your usual mode of discourse.
Then why can't you provide any evidence in support of your opinions?
Why did you only prove that one was incorrect? Why can't you prove that both of these assumptions are incorrect?
I did show both as incorrect. And have shown it so thoroughly that any other, reasonable creature must accept that these two propositions are wrong, but you insist on reducing yourself to the level of mindless slime, rather than bear the burden of being man.
You never said why it is wrong, just that it is wrong.
You don't provide any reasoning behind your statements. You just say they are right, without any proof that they are right.
Three examples already of why you are wrong to say that, which is fitting since the most of this thread have been to show that you are wrong in general.
How am I wrong?
Where are these explanations that you provide?
I don't know, maybe every single post that I have posted?
No, you have yet to provide any sort of explanation as to why I am wrong.
Having shown myself completely right on this point, I think there is no further point in arguing, in that:
1. Your initial claims are false, and all your other arguments are false.
How are they false?
2. They are unargued, and you try to accuse me of having unreasoned argument, which has been shown, beyond a doubt, false, false, and thoroughly false.
Then why do you insist on having an unfounded argument?
Perfect example of Lordseth23's usual mode of discourse- ignoring the substance of the post in favour of repeating either irrelevent or already answered question, only with dishonesty now thrown in the mix. If you don't want to argue, simply say so, because I have already demonstrated you are wrong, and have exhausted every possible way to show you are wrong, and there is no point in continuing, and, indeed, it has sunk to pathetic depths, where you don't even bother to hide your thoughtlessness.
|
17255 cr points
Send Message: 21 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
|
longfenglim wrote:
lordseth23 wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide longfenglim wrote:
Dishonest.
No, not everyone has the potential to be a rapist, as my credible source clearly states in defining the characteristics of a rapist. Only people who are not raised in a proper empathic manner as children have the potential to be rapists (I am beginning to think that you belong in this category, so please read up on the empathic research that has been done in order to understand where your cruel behavior comes from). These people do not have the capacity to love someone, so it is better that they be removed from their friends/girlfriends/wives until they alleviate their destructive tendencies through learning empathy.
How is this anything like what you just said?
If you can't say why this is not so, then you can't argue against it. Either prove that it is incorrect or accept it as fact.
You just repeated the same thing, despite the fact that I have already shown that your position is unargued, unfounded, and therefore there is absolutely no reason to believe it to be true.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
Is there any reason to believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Well, I can say that the Moon is made of Green Cheese at its core, and that there is a fine layer of dust, a few meters deep, over it, and the only way of disproving that would be to scan every cubic inch of the moon's interior to make sure that there is no bit of it made of green cheese. So, does that mean we have reason to believe that the moon being made of Green Cheese is true?
You may argue that there is no reason to believe it true, because there is nothing by way of utility to be got out of it, like thinking all people with psychological problems have the potential to be criminals, and that only people with psychological problems will be criminal, and maybe there isn't. So, how about this: Every person has an immortal soul that lives on after death, and that there is a great judge, God, who metes out justice. Certainly, it is useful in that it allows people to believe that, ultimately, justice is served, and that it encourages believers to do well for the purpose of being rewarded by a just God.
Since, as you can see, utility or having reason to believe in something have no relation to its actually being true, we therefore must have no reason at all to believe anything unless there is sufficient evidence, by way of either hard facts or of logic, to believe it is true.
Therefore, your statement that only people who commit severe crimes are those that have psychological problems should be filed with 'the moon is made of Green Cheese', and 'There is a God and a soul', until you have actual, hard evidence otherwise. Which is especially laughable when you realise that you have never clearly defined what it means for something to be a 'severe crime'- would stealing millions be a severe crime.
See, what happens if you bothered to read, you would find your question thoroughly answered- not once, but three times.
Sorry, but you didn't say why I am wrong. Try again.
No, you just said that it is wrong, without saying why it is wrong.
No, if you have bothered to read, you would see that I gave a rather lenghty exposition on why it is wrong.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
No, there is no need on another person's part to cure it for you, nor is it desirable that someone else interfere with the liberty of another man, even if it is for a purported good. It is not a necessity that my depression should be cured by another, but it is desirable that I should go seek help for it to improve my own quality of life- here's the rub, I do it out of my own volition, rather than allowing another to force treatment upon me. To consider this more in depth, being an autonomous agent, having someone else force something on me that I may not desire would be a forced violation of autonomy, which I, and only I, should be able to surrender. For example, I allow certain amount of autonomy to be surrendered in order to live in a relatively free society, therefore, I accept its laws as binding on me, and accept that I have rights guaranteed to me by this government, and I support this government because it provides what I feel to be a mostly reasonable (although not totally) compromise between my natural liberty and certain necessary forfeiture of that natural liberty for social harmony. I therefore only accept a loss of autonomy when I feel it is to my advantage, to the advantage of my fellow citizen, that it is so. Now, if your proposal goes forth, it violates the natural liberty of all citizens to the degree that it is unacceptable that we should even accept it, because it singles out a group, and then deprive all liberty from them. Such violation,almost everyone but yourself, would feel to be too great an attack on our autonomy, or the autonomy of certain sectors of our society, and so, we cannot, in all honestly, give our support to that government.
Sorry, you didn't explain why it is wrong. Try again.
I have read through everything, but you still refuse to explain your opinions.
You need to better explain your beliefs.
Which is bullshit because I have demonstrated that I did, in fact, explain my position, reasoned it out, and reasoned it so thoroughly that had you read, you would admit you are wrong on all counts. As such, you accuse me of substituting my personal and unreasoned belief in favour of any actual substance of argument, this is demonstrated false, as I have already shown, but is more akin to your usual mode of discourse.
Then why can't you provide any evidence in support of your opinions?
Why did you only prove that one was incorrect? Why can't you prove that both of these assumptions are incorrect?
I did show both as incorrect. And have shown it so thoroughly that any other, reasonable creature must accept that these two propositions are wrong, but you insist on reducing yourself to the level of mindless slime, rather than bear the burden of being man.
You never said why it is wrong, just that it is wrong.
You don't provide any reasoning behind your statements. You just say they are right, without any proof that they are right.
Three examples already of why you are wrong to say that, which is fitting since the most of this thread have been to show that you are wrong in general.
How am I wrong?
Where are these explanations that you provide?
I don't know, maybe every single post that I have posted?
No, you have yet to provide any sort of explanation as to why I am wrong.
Having shown myself completely right on this point, I think there is no further point in arguing, in that:
1. Your initial claims are false, and all your other arguments are false.
How are they false?
2. They are unargued, and you try to accuse me of having unreasoned argument, which has been shown, beyond a doubt, false, false, and thoroughly false.
Then why do you insist on having an unfounded argument?
Perfect example of Lordseth23's usual mode of discourse- ignoring the substance of the post in favour of repeating either irrelevent or already answered question, only with dishonesty now thrown in the mix. If you don't want to argue, simply say so, because I have already demonstrated you are wrong, and have exhausted every possible way to show you are wrong, and there is no point in continuing, and, indeed, it has sunk to pathetic depths, where you don't even bother to hide your thoughtlessness.
How am I wrong?
|
1709 cr points
Send Message: 26 / M / NE Florida
Offline
|
I smoke cigarettes, I drink copious amounts of alcohol (When I am performing as a DJ) and I have a lot of sex with my wife.
I know 2 of those 3 things are largely damaging to my person, however I'm an adult and I understand the risks and accept them.
Life's crazy, I quit doing a BUNCH of self-destructive stuff and am happier for it.
|
2189 cr points
Send Message: 17 / M / Hong Kong/ Shangh...
Offline
|
It depends on your opinion, and since the OP continues (I've already given up on another thread he made) is living in his fantastical world of his I won't bother to reason as to why alcohol, drugs and sex are all life choices people make.
Now drugs, I can see how it can be destructive, and alcohol as well, but I drink a damn lot, and hell, I love it. It's done nothing but make me feel better, and it's more of a delicacy then a way to drown out my sorrows.
And as one wise man said, "If at first you don't succeed, it don't hurt to smoke some weed."-Dr. Dre
|
34609 cr points
Send Message: 28 / M / Riding sound waves
Offline
|
Why do people abuse said things while others enjoy them sparingly? Simple. Habit vs Addiction
What is the difference between a habit and an addiction?
Addiction - there is a psychological/physical component; the person is unable to control the aspects of the addiction without help because of the mental or physical conditions involved.
Habit - it is done by choice. The person with the habit can choose to stop, and will subsequently stop successfully if they want to. The psychological/physical component is not an issue as it is with an addiction.
Put simply - with a habit you are in control of your choices, with an addiction you are not in control of your choices.
Addiction to substances or activities can sometimes lead to serious problems at home, work, school and socially.
The causes of addiction vary considerably, and are not often fully understood. They are generally caused by a combination of physical, mental, circumstantial and emotional factors.
Addiction, often referred to as dependency often leads to tolerance - the addicted person needs larger and more regular amounts of whatever they are addicted to in order to receive the same effect. Often, the initial reward is no longer felt, and the addiction continues because withdrawal is so unpleasant.
(copy pasta but explains what I am thinking perfectly).
|
4726 cr points
Send Message: 54 / M / Covina, California
Offline
|
lordseth23 wrote:
Why is society so focused on the abuse of alcohol, drugs, and casual sex? I do not understand why people willingly engage in these and similar activities. Do they provide enough utility in order to make a shorter and more painful life worth living? I would hope so, because there is no reason why this culture should take precedence over one based on love.
Why is there so much wickedness?
God is not to blame. He gave mankind a perfect start, but humans have chosen to ignore God's requirements and decide for themselves what is good and what is bad. (Deuteronomy. 32:4, 5; Ecclesiastes. 7:29; Genesis. 3:5, 6) By doing this, they have come under the influence of wicked superhuman forces.-----Ephesians. 6:11, 12
1 John. 5:19: " but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one. "
Revelation. 12:7-12: And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha·el*+ and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon+ was hurled, the original serpent,+ the one called Devil+ and Satan,+ who is misleading the entire inhabited earth;*+ he was hurled down to the earth,+ and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
“Now have come to pass the salvation*+ and the power*+ and the kingdom of our God+ and the authority* of his Christ,+ because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!+ 11 And they conquered him+ because of the blood of the Lamb+ and because of the word of their witnessing,+ and they did not love their souls*+ even in the face of death.* 12 On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them!+ Woe+ for the earth and for the sea,+ because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time." ( This increased woe to the world has occured since Satan has been hurled out of heaven following the birth of the Kingdom, see verse 10.)
2 Timothy 3:1--5: " But know this, that in the last days+ critical times hard* to deal with will be here.+ 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty,* blasphemers,* disobedient to parents,+ unthankful, disloyal,+ 3 having no natural affection,+ not open to any agreement,*+ slanderers,*+ without self-control, fierce,*+ without love of goodness,+ 4 betrayers,+ headstrong, puffed up [with pride],+ lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,+ 5 having a form of godly devotion*+ but proving false to its power;+ and from these turn away. (This is the fruitage of centuries of apostasy from true worship. These conditions have developed because people have proffessed to be religious have ignored what God's word really says. They have proven false to the power for good that true godly Devotion can have on one's life.
|
29728 cr points
Send Message: Nowhere
Offline
|
Because it makes us feel alive... Living a boring life is the equivalent of being dead.
|
17844 cr points
Send Message: 32 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
|
lordseth23 wrote:
Why is society so focused on the abuse of alcohol, drugs, and casual sex? I do not understand why people willingly engage in these and similar activities. Do they provide enough utility in order to make a shorter and more painful life worth living? I would hope so, because there is no reason why this culture should take precedence over one based on love.
I don't know what is controlling your point of view, but sex is good for you. its a healthy device that can help keep you healthy.
Drugs like what are we talking about?
Because even some drugs can be good for you. *its a case by case thing.*
|
400 cr points
Send Message: 18 / M / Los Angeles
Offline
|
Let them consume and fornicate, it bothers me not.
I must commend Lordseth23. He has proven that he can hold a viable debate and provide ample veracity, while only having to resort to grammatical correctness only twice in a thread... And if sarcasm eludes you...
|
Post Reply
Why do people engage in self-destructive behavior? 
Follow us on Google+ 
