Callonia Posts
[color=#2e1a6b]Glad to see you're back. It's been boring here since Fiery_penguin_of_doom hasn't been around lately.
The Government is doing a horrible job at protecting us from drugs. We have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Most of our prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent offenses. Clearly, whatever the government's doing is not working, but (I assume) this thread is for us to explain what the role of government should be regarding drugs:
The role of government (regarding drugs) should be to prevent you from hurting other people because of drugs; not to prevent you from hurting yourself with drugs. What that means is that, if you have to go to the hospital from an overdose in drugs, the government would not get involved. But, if you get high, attack someone, and send that person to a hospital, then the government should get involved, probably by restricting you from drugs. But as long as you don't hurt other people, the government shouldn't restrict you from drugs
In regards to food, I'm not really sure. I think the government should step in if someone put poison in food, but when does a substance stop being poison and become edible? this is a very blurred line, so it's difficult to say whether the government regulates it or not. This would be a great chance for lobbyist to outlaw their competitor's ingredients, so we should be careful with our approach. If government must regulate food health, I think state governments should regulate it, as it makes lobbying much more difficult.
The Government is doing a horrible job at protecting us from drugs. We have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Most of our prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent offenses. Clearly, whatever the government's doing is not working, but (I assume) this thread is for us to explain what the role of government should be regarding drugs:
The role of government (regarding drugs) should be to prevent you from hurting other people because of drugs; not to prevent you from hurting yourself with drugs. What that means is that, if you have to go to the hospital from an overdose in drugs, the government would not get involved. But, if you get high, attack someone, and send that person to a hospital, then the government should get involved, probably by restricting you from drugs. But as long as you don't hurt other people, the government shouldn't restrict you from drugs
In regards to food, I'm not really sure. I think the government should step in if someone put poison in food, but when does a substance stop being poison and become edible? this is a very blurred line, so it's difficult to say whether the government regulates it or not. This would be a great chance for lobbyist to outlaw their competitor's ingredients, so we should be careful with our approach. If government must regulate food health, I think state governments should regulate it, as it makes lobbying much more difficult.
BigLundi wrote...
Please don't argue in the topic.
*argues
[color=#2e1a6b]lol
Jash2o2 wrote...
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]I'll look up that pastor. I go to Town North PCA in Richardson. We've got a good pastor, but his sermons focus on details of the bible, instead of the bible's credibility.
I was forced to read Mere Christianity as a school assignment a few years ago, but you inspired me to read it again.
[color=#2e1a6b]I assume you're talking about something like this?
Such an obvious feature has not been implemented yet. I fully support this idea, but other members don't seem to be very interested in it.
Such an obvious feature has not been implemented yet. I fully support this idea, but other members don't seem to be very interested in it.
[color=#2e1a6b]Since there's a "read more" button, I think the front page post should be much shorter. The new releases are in the same list as the front page posts, so they really shouldn't take up much space. I hope future front page posts will be shorter, or else the new releases will be annoying to find
Ziggy wrote...
Certain Political Scumbags, for representing only special interests and their self ideals.[color=#2e1a6b]This
There's a few people that I want to punch/swear at, but I don't want to kill them; I'm not that selfish. The only people I'd want to kill are those political scumbags.
Black Jesus JC wrote...
Lishy1 wrote...
Go see another doctor then? He has a right to refuse her. I'm pro-choice and saying that. That said, she should make a complaint and have him fired if it goes against hospital policy.I'm of the opinion that religious beliefs shouldn't come into play as a doctor. A hospital is not a religious institution, and unless if the person asks for something is illegal i think the doctor should be forced to provide it(Especially to a victim of something like rape)
[color=#2e1a6b]fixed
This is a very important distinction. As much as I think the doctor should have provided it, I don't think the doctor should be forced to provide something she doesn't want to. There were other doctors available (according to the video), so the victim was able to go to the other doctors. The doctor that refused to provide it lost money, lost a customer, and lost her reputation. If the victim was only allowed to go to the one doctor, then you could argue that she should be forced to provide it, but since that's not the case, then she shouldn't be forced to provide it.
[color=#2e1a6b]My friends that were gonna go just found out that it costs $62 to get in, and they decided to not go. Without my friends going, I don't think I'll go. Animenext will be in Dallas at the end of the summer, so I'll wait 'till then.
I did get my AMV submitted, so vote for my AMV if you see it.
I did get my AMV submitted, so vote for my AMV if you see it.
halahsv wrote...
lol how was this serious discussion, however since I can I will rise this from the dead. We are in 2012 now, countdown is in red, yet I don't think anything will happen.[color=#2e1a6b]...
you necroed a year-old thread just to say that it's a bad thread?
[color=#2e1a6b]Reading this thread instantly made me remember this picture that Red Vodka Posted
[color=#2e1a6b]I think Humans are at the top of the food chain. In order to say eating meat is immoral, you have to say that the food chain is immoral. Should carnivores be detained to prevent them from eating other animals?
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]I think Humans are at the top of the food chain. In order to say eating meat is immoral, you have to say that the food chain is immoral. Should carnivores be detained to prevent them from eating other animals?
[color=#2e1a6b]Since SOPA was rejected, they realized that they would have to destroy the internet in much smaller steps at a time. I think we'll consider seeing more bills like this, slowly giving the government more power over the internet.
The Government's after the internet because it's what prevents them from creating a police state. The mainstream media is censored, we only get the news the government allows us to get. We aren't told about Obama taking orders from the UN, we aren't told about Tower 7 collapsing on 9/11, we aren't told about Al CIAda, we aren't told that Obama didn't really kill bin-laden... I could go on. The mainstream media doesn't tell us these things; we learn these things through the internet. If were to censor the internet, we would have no choice but to believe the lies the government tells us. The government would have complete control over all the knowledge we receive. If they get control over our information, turning this nation into a police state is like taking candy from a baby
I'm planning on starting a thread about police states, but I'm still searching for more sources.
9 years and 11 months ago, Ron Paul gave a speech about America becoming a police state. http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=326&Itemid=60
The Government's after the internet because it's what prevents them from creating a police state. The mainstream media is censored, we only get the news the government allows us to get. We aren't told about Obama taking orders from the UN, we aren't told about Tower 7 collapsing on 9/11, we aren't told about Al CIAda, we aren't told that Obama didn't really kill bin-laden... I could go on. The mainstream media doesn't tell us these things; we learn these things through the internet. If were to censor the internet, we would have no choice but to believe the lies the government tells us. The government would have complete control over all the knowledge we receive. If they get control over our information, turning this nation into a police state is like taking candy from a baby
I'm planning on starting a thread about police states, but I'm still searching for more sources.
9 years and 11 months ago, Ron Paul gave a speech about America becoming a police state. http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=326&Itemid=60
I swear I didn't -rep you
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't claim to know the cause, nor do I need to
Well if you're saying black people are likely to commit crimes based on a statistic that says there's a correlation between black people and committing crimes, then you ARE proposing a cause. You're saying, "Oh, he's black, which means it's probable he committed a crime." When in reality it could be something completely different. Perhaps it's a socio-economic thing, so it's not that they're black that has anything to do with it, but that they're poor, or come from a poor place. So you would in fact be inaccurate to say, "Black people are more likely to commit crimes" instead you should say, "People in poor areas are more likely to commit crimes."
When you claim that black people are more likely to commit crimes based on a statistic, whether you acknowledge it or not you're purporting that being black is the problem, at the very least implicitly, and that'd be a fallacy.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not saying that being black is the cause. All I'm saying is that there is a correlation with being Black and committing crimes. I'm not proposing a cause, in fact, I'll just go by the cause you suggested
"it's not that they're black that has anything to do with it, but that they're poor, or come from a poor place"
[color=#2e1a6b]Let's imagine that this is the real cause. Does this disprove the correlation of blacks committing crimes? NO! It explains the cause of the correlation of blacks committing crimes, but the result is still that blacks commit more crimes.
No, you cannot. You can only conclude that there is something about their circumstances that cause them to commit crimes.
[color=#2e1a6b]hmm... so you're saying...
A race commits more murders ≠race is more likely to commit murders
A race commits more murders = there is something about their circumstances that causes them to commit crimes.
We're gonna have to disagree on this one
You haven't presented a reason to be afraid of someone of that race though through a statistical correlation. Again, you're simply falling prey to the fallacy. You can't say, "These people are more likely to do X." because of statistical correlation. You can't. Listen to me when I say this: YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THAT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.
[color=#2e1a6b]Your saying that an unknown causation disproves an evidence-supported correlation. I don't think "unknown causation disproves correlation" is a logical fallacy
[color=#2e1a6b]All this shows is that the statistics from 1999 were inaccurate.
No, it doesn't. The statistics were correct. The problem was that the statistics were meant to imply that night lights caused myopia, when in fact there was NOTHING to suggest this, aside from high statistical correlation.
[color=#2e1a6b]I meant to say that the statistics from 1999 were a coincidence.
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't claim to know the cause, nor do I need to
Well if you're saying black people are likely to commit crimes based on a statistic that says there's a correlation between black people and committing crimes, then you ARE proposing a cause. You're saying, "Oh, he's black, which means it's probable he committed a crime." When in reality it could be something completely different. Perhaps it's a socio-economic thing, so it's not that they're black that has anything to do with it, but that they're poor, or come from a poor place. So you would in fact be inaccurate to say, "Black people are more likely to commit crimes" instead you should say, "People in poor areas are more likely to commit crimes."
When you claim that black people are more likely to commit crimes based on a statistic, whether you acknowledge it or not you're purporting that being black is the problem, at the very least implicitly, and that'd be a fallacy.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not saying that being black is the cause. All I'm saying is that there is a correlation with being Black and committing crimes. I'm not proposing a cause, in fact, I'll just go by the cause you suggested
"it's not that they're black that has anything to do with it, but that they're poor, or come from a poor place"
[color=#2e1a6b]Let's imagine that this is the real cause. Does this disprove the correlation of blacks committing crimes? NO! It explains the cause of the correlation of blacks committing crimes, but the result is still that blacks commit more crimes.
[color=#2e1a6b]If there's a race that commits 6 X more murders than my own race, I can correctly assume that this race is 6 X more likely to commit a murder.
No, you cannot. You can only conclude that there is something about their circumstances that cause them to commit crimes.
[color=#2e1a6b]hmm... so you're saying...
A race commits more murders ≠race is more likely to commit murders
A race commits more murders = there is something about their circumstances that causes them to commit crimes.
We're gonna have to disagree on this one
[color=#2e1a6b]I have no idea what causes this race to commit more crimes than other races, but despite this, I know that this race commits 6 X more murders than my own race. As a result, I'm a little concerned to be around them at first
You haven't presented a reason to be afraid of someone of that race though through a statistical correlation. Again, you're simply falling prey to the fallacy. You can't say, "These people are more likely to do X." because of statistical correlation. You can't. Listen to me when I say this: YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THAT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.
[color=#2e1a6b]Your saying that an unknown causation disproves an evidence-supported correlation. I don't think "unknown causation disproves correlation" is a logical fallacy
There are other factors involved in all these statistics. You know what has a statistically strong correlation? Young children who sleep with the light on and developing myopia later in life. Quinn GE, Shin CH, Maguire MG, Stone RA (May 1999). "Myopia and ambient lighting at night". Nature 399 (6732): 113–4. doi:10.1038/20094. PMID 10335839 However this doesn't mean that sleeping with a light on at youth causes myopia, or that you can predict that doing so will lead into it. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nitelite.htm
[color=#2e1a6b]All this shows is that the statistics from 1999 were inaccurate.
No, it doesn't. The statistics were correct. The problem was that the statistics were meant to imply that night lights caused myopia, when in fact there was NOTHING to suggest this, aside from high statistical correlation.
[color=#2e1a6b]I meant to say that the statistics from 1999 were a coincidence.
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't like repeating myself, but I've yet to receive an answer:
If a race statistically commits more violent offenses than other races, is it false to assume that said race is more likely to commit a violent offense?
Yes, it is false to say that.
[color=#2e1a6b]That... doesn't make any sense. I thought you of all people would strive to be as logical as possible.
Can you please give a more detailed explanation
Very simple:
Correlation does not equate to causation.
Saying that statistically, black people do something, does not mean that there's anything about being black that is the causation, or that you can accurately determine how a black person will act from that statistic.
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't claim to know the cause, nor do I need to
If there's a haunted house that has 10,000 people enter each year, and 5,000 of those people die while inside, I can enter it and correctly assume that I have a 50% chance of dying. I have no idea what causes all these deaths, but despite this, I know that half the people that enter the house will die. As a result, I'm afraid of this house and won't enter it.
If there's a race that commits 6 X more murders than my own race, I can correctly assume that this race is 6 X more likely to commit a murder. I have no idea what causes this race to commit more crimes than other races, but despite this, I know that this race commits 6 X more murders than my own race. As a result, I'm a little concerned to be around them at first
There are other factors involved in all these statistics. You know what has a statistically strong correlation? Young children who sleep with the light on and developing myopia later in life. Quinn GE, Shin CH, Maguire MG, Stone RA (May 1999). "Myopia and ambient lighting at night". Nature 399 (6732): 113–4. doi:10.1038/20094. PMID 10335839 However this doesn't mean that sleeping with a light on at youth causes myopia, or that you can predict that doing so will lead into it. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nitelite.htm
[color=#2e1a6b]All this shows is that the statistics from 1999 were inaccurate.
[color=#2e1a6b]I think there are 2 possible ways to tag this
Option A:
[color=#2e1a6b]Option B:
[color=#2e1a6b]The advantage of option A is that it distinguishes the different type of futa pairing; you could identify if it's futa x girl or futa x guy.
The advantage of option B is that real yuri will still be tagged. A lot of futa starts out with real yuri, then transitions into futa. Option B can describe the existence of both, unlike option A. Another advantage to option B is that really complicated futa scenarios are easy to tag; just slap a futa tag and you're done, whereas option A might have "futa + yaoi + Yuri" all in the same manga.
Option A:
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]Option B:
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]The advantage of option A is that it distinguishes the different type of futa pairing; you could identify if it's futa x girl or futa x guy.
The advantage of option B is that real yuri will still be tagged. A lot of futa starts out with real yuri, then transitions into futa. Option B can describe the existence of both, unlike option A. Another advantage to option B is that really complicated futa scenarios are easy to tag; just slap a futa tag and you're done, whereas option A might have "futa + yaoi + Yuri" all in the same manga.
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't like repeating myself, but I've yet to receive an answer:
If a race statistically commits more violent offenses than other races, is it false to assume that said race is more likely to commit a violent offense?
Yes, it is false to say that.
[color=#2e1a6b]That... doesn't make any sense. I thought you of all people would strive to be as logical as possible.
Can you please give a more detailed explanation
Gubi wrote...
Two days ago, Prime Minister of Canada Mr Harper declared: "If you don't support the (internet) bill we are proposing, you are supporting child pornography!".[color=#2e1a6b]I really hate arguments like this, but I hear them way too often. Even if the bill did stop child pornography (which it doesn't), opposing would not mean you support child pornography.
I like to say this to expose the stupidity of such arguments:
"If you're against executing mass murderers and rapists by exploding the world, then you support rape and mass murder"
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]If that's all this thread is, then I've got no objections. In your first post, you sounded like you were rejecting racial differences, which is why I responded
Well, I don't deny races insofar as superficial differences in skin hair and eye color.
But past that...there are no differences. Besides skin color(and even then, that's not guaranteed) there's...little to no way to tell the difference between the 'races' especially genetically.
I deny races as being...a meaningful description of what kind of person such and such is, in any way. For instance, saying "He's black" tells you nothing more than the color of his skin. It tells you nothing about his culture, his creeds, his religion, his beliefs in general...nothing.
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't like repeating myself, but I've yet to receive an answer:
If a race statistically commits more violent offenses than other races, is it false to assume that said race is more likely to commit a violent offense?
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]Isn't this a transcendentalist position?
And what about my second question:
If a race statistically commits more violent offenses than other races, is false to assume that said race is more likely to commit a violent offense?
Not necessarily, it's just a rejection of genetic determinism.
Denying genetic determinism doesn't render one closed off from other forms of determinism though.
I'm saying it's more than just DNA that formulates who you are as a person, and each 'race' as well.
[color=#2e1a6b]If that's all this thread is, then I've got no objections. In your first post, you sounded like you were rejecting racial differences, which is why I responded
[color=#2e1a6b]I think these pop-ups are handled very well. I tip my hat to you Jacob
- They appear in a window behind the active window, not in front
- They don't make noise
- They don't appear while your in the middle of fapping
- They appear in a window behind the active window, not in front
- They don't make noise
- They don't appear while your in the middle of fapping
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]You claim that there's no biological differences between "races", but what about statistical differences? If a race statistically commits more violent offenses than other races, is false to assume that said race is more likely to commit a violent offense? I wish there was equality in such statistics, but it's not a perfect world
@Longevity, How have you not been banned from SD?
If there's a statistical difference then there's something else involved that causes whatever happens. So if black people statistically commit crimes or whatnot, it's likely that this is due to socio economic position. It's likely this is due to things like Stereotype Threat. It's likely this is due to things we can help change, instead of, "Well they're just born that way so fuck em."
[color=#2e1a6b]Isn't this a transcendentalist position?
And what about my second question:
If a race statistically commits more violent offenses than other races, is false to assume that said race is more likely to commit a violent offense?
[color=#2e1a6b]You claim that there's no biological differences between "races", but what about statistical differences? If a race statistically commits more violent offenses than other races, is false to assume that said race is more likely to commit a violent offense?
I wish there was equality in such statistics, but it's not a perfect world
@Longevity, How have you not been banned from SD?
I wish there was equality in such statistics, but it's not a perfect world
@Longevity, How have you not been banned from SD?
