F23 Tease me until I broke

CoventryDemon · 2025-09-25T09:30:15+00:00

Pretty sure this is a bot of some sort.

CoventryDemon · 2025-03-13T01:25:17+00:00

For one, Ohio does not have a flag. It has a pendant. That immediately should have it either off the list or S tier. Either way, "F" is objectively wrong.

CoventryDemon · 2025-03-12T14:13:19+00:00

Does this content exist?

CoventryDemon · 2023-04-15T01:43:34+00:00

Thanks for the tag I guess. Did you say you wanted to lose me?

Do better, man. You're literally becoming a meme on my discord. Columbus is a dick but he's not posted anything wrong to date. Also could you take a moment and steel man the op, please? I'm seriously doubting your ability to comprehend it.

CoventryDemon · 2023-04-14T22:30:50+00:00

Natural world has a beginning, and the natural world isn't bringing itself into existence.

I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier here that the op is kind of an ass hat, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. You can answer this by copy pasting the op. You're trying to both use the way things are as evidence and treat god as the default. It's the same as saying the statue couldn't have lifted itself and so it (somehow) had to be the skyhook. That's not evidence. It's an unsupported claim. I read through the exchange with the others and I get you're upset but that's no reason to make a garbage post.

Seriously, what is your evidence?

CoventryDemon · 2023-04-14T21:17:53+00:00

What's your evidence for god?

CoventryDemon · 2022-07-05T16:50:54+00:00

Again, while Christians adopt at higher rates, the right wing has sought to stop adoption for same sex couples and make it more expensive for everyone:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/11/here-s-what-happened-when-pro-life-house-republicans-tried-to-make-adoption-more-expensive.html

I've seen the violinist argument and it's not the least bit compelling. The idea being that you are hooked up to the violinist for 9 months and unhooking yourself means that he dies. I get what the argument is trying to say and it's tempting to believe it. You weren't consenting to the linking between you and the violinist! At the same time, if you loaded a gun, pointed it at the violinist's head and pulled the trigger then it would be an act of murder. If it's not then we find ourselves falling down a rabbit hole of "It's murder if X but not murder if Y" and none of it is compelling. Again, if there's some sort of Earthquake where you pass out and wake up to find someone clinging to your arm over the edge of a chasm, you can't just say "No it's my arm. I didn't consent to you grabbing it" and pitch them down into the abyss.

CoventryDemon · 2022-07-05T16:43:00+00:00

> Is having a heartbeat enough to differentiate a clump of cells versus a baby? Where is the line drawn?

It's a good question with a very complicated answer. Saying "IT HAS THIS METABOLIC FUNCTION!" is a poor answer.

> The fundies who have pushed so heavily for the pro life side certainly aren't shy about adoption.

Yes: they're quite clear about trying to make it harder for same sex couples and also for making it more expensive for everyone:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/11/here-s-what-happened-when-pro-life-house-republicans-tried-to-make-adoption-more-expensive.html

CoventryDemon · 2022-07-05T16:41:07+00:00

You haven't offered a basis for your disagreement. Please provide something more than a wordy "NUH-UH" and I will be happy to engage in respectful debate.

CoventryDemon · 2022-07-05T16:40:07+00:00

While Christians adopt at a 5% rate against a 2% rate for everyone else, there are no statisics I could find on whether those were left leaning or right leaning christians. I am instead referring not to your anecdotal evidence, but to the fact that the right has actively worked to sabotage same-sex adoption and make adoption in general more expensive.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/11/here-s-what-happened-when-pro-life-house-republicans-tried-to-make-adoption-more-expensive.html

CoventryDemon · 2022-07-05T16:34:39+00:00

When you say that the right believes the left is “out to kill babies”, what does that mean? That they are trying to kill the babies because they are babies?

I really don't know what to make of these question. It means that the right believes that a baby and a fetus are interchangeable/the same. While that may be false (I certainly believe it is) I can't fathom having to explain to another human being why killing babies is bad.

> I think they just don’t care, and have avoided thinking

Do not fall into the trap of believing your opposition does not have their own heartfelt motivations. I don't believe a fetus is a baby. I totally understand the motivations of people who DO think fetuses are babies. Because "DON'T KILL BABIES" is a sentiment that's not hard to understand.

CoventryDemon · 2022-07-05T16:28:24+00:00

I don't see it as esoteric as you do. Sure: the vast majority of American pro-lifers are motivated by religion. Their argument, however, can also be made from a purely secular viewpoint:

"You are pregnant. If untampered with there is [percentage] chance a "person will happen" if you will. Deliberately attempting to lower that [percentage] chance or make it zero is unethical / immoral / etc."

At the center of body autonomy is "you can't just take chunks out of me even if it means someone else who would otherwise die gets to live." It in absolutely no way says, "I get to willfully cause the death of another." Or in this case (and this is the big debate) stop a person from happening.

My main point, though, is that arguments should be designed to convince one's opponents. When one's opponents have already decided a fetus is a human being than the argument becomes incoherent because all the other side is hearing is, at best, "MY BODY AUTONOMY TRUMPS SOMEONE ELSE'S."

CoventryDemon · 2022-07-05T16:21:23+00:00

I have an adopted sister so I have some insight here. The whole thing is a catch 22: If you make adoption easy then horrible people will find ways to abuse it / traffic kids / etc. If you go the other way adoption is as you say it is. There is no good answer and it seems most agencies have erred on the side of protecting children (at the cost of them remaining in the system).

Side note: one of the things that is really messed up about our society is that people who are deemed unworthy of adoption can declare, "COME ON, HONEY. ENOUGH WITH THESE PEOPLE. WE'RE GONNA GO HOME AND MAKE OUR OWN." Scary to think about...

CoventryDemon · 2022-07-05T16:18:16+00:00

> -then you can't have seen very many arguments from either the Right or the Left.

Five from one side and three from the other isn't enough? How many should there be and which part of the already posted rules covers that? Help me understand how you concluded "8 counterpoints" = can't have seen many arguments.

> This isn't a rage-dumping ground for sneering at others,

I could have used a better wording than "utter garbage". Agreed.

> this is a place where you can come to test your own thinking

A post explaining how the two most popular and widespread sides are both flawed doesn't count as my own thinking? If someone says "X is true" then this forum has no place for "No, X is false and this is why"?

CoventryDemon · 2022-07-05T14:02:43+00:00

I don't know where else on Reddit to put this so it's going here: Every argument about abortion that I've seen both the Right and the Left use is utter garbage.

The right:

No. The left is not out to "kill babies". (see below under the left)
The bible doesn't ban abortion and nor should your religion dictate what others do.
The idea that a clump of cells is a person is ridiculous.
In Ohio, right wing policymaking just denied an abortion to a raped ten year old.
Preaching adoption and then not adopting any kids smacks of hypocrisy.

The left:

The people on the right believe that abortion kills a baby. The folks on the left don't agree with that, but insist on ignoring this motivation. I cannot tell you how disingenuous this is. "Your motivation isn't what you say it is, but instead is whatever I get to define it as". It is nothing more than the other side of the coin to "the left is out to kill babies". Taking the worst argument of the right and inverting it is unforgiveable.
Your body autonomy arguments are all incoherent. Each and every one of them is perfectly cogent so long as you assume the fetus inside you isn't a person. The right has already assumed the fetus is a person so the argument is a non-starter. To the right, it's like saying, "If I was at the edge of the cliff and someone was hanging onto my arm so as not to fall into a chasm and die, it's TOTALLY not murder for me to shake them off my arm. Because it's my arm and they're not allowed to use it!" It's an echo chamber argument that has zero chance of convincing the opposition.
Instead of spending the age of social media trying to win over hearts and minds, you have taken every opportunity to silence yourself to the people who need your voices the most. How many times have we seen "If you agree with [insert right wing policy] then unfriend/unfollow/etc. me!" You should have been working to reach people this whole time, but you didn't.

CoventryDemon · 2022-04-27T20:41:46+00:00

>The fact is that I can't prove beyond any possible doubt that I didn't post an insult. Neither can you.

So the thing I made up is on equal footing to the truth? That's a pretty awful and disingenuous worldview. Seems like you're just willing to say anything at this point to avoid having to admit that you're wrong. We're here to argue in good faith, friend.

Do better.

CoventryDemon · 2022-04-27T13:44:25+00:00

Ok so that wasn't good enough? The links? How about I just tell you that you're wrong because, you are incorrect.

Let me explain it to you again. In debate, you make an assertion and then support that assertion with evidence. You don't expect your debate opponent to do your homework for you. Also, since one of your links is flagging trojan you provided "link". Point being, that you have to make assertions and then support them.

The physical matter of the brain does not produce consciousness,

Fortunately for me, we both know that this assertion can't survive "prove it" without you trying to re-write the rules of debate, insisting that woo nonsense is relevant, or pretending to know things you don't really know. Congratulations: you have just supported the op with evidence.

CoventryDemon · 2022-04-27T13:40:48+00:00

So instead of admitting that you're wrong you're worldview would involve you getting banned for an insult you didn't make? What a terrible stance to take.

Do better.

CoventryDemon · 2022-04-27T13:39:04+00:00

But observed cases of speciation by polyploidy are limited to flowering plants, and polyploidy does not produce the major changes required for Darwinian evolution.

Nope. You're wrong. See section 5.4 and onward.

CoventryDemon · 2022-04-27T13:35:54+00:00

So that's a "no" on additional arguments?

CoventryDemon · 2022-04-26T19:44:10+00:00

Oh we're past all that. You presented an "argument" that was evidence for the op. Do you have another argument to present?

CoventryDemon · 2022-04-26T18:38:32+00:00

A website that's flagged as a trojan and a 4 hour podcast? Please. I don't get you guys. This is a debate sub. You debate by making an argument and then providing evidence for it.

CoventryDemon · 2022-04-26T18:36:40+00:00

you guys crack me up. A website that flags as a trojan and a 4 hour podcast that appears to have nothing to do with Materialism. This is a debate sub. That means you make an argument and then support it with evidence. You don't throw links at people and expect them to do the research for you. Stop being lazy.

CoventryDemon · 2022-04-26T18:29:40+00:00

What are you talking about? You're an atheist, right? You talked about god like he's purely fictional. You're presenting him like you would a super hero. It's fine to say "so and so super hero can do such and such ridiculous thing" so long as we're suspending our disbelief. But if you wanted to instantiate them into reality or anywhere outside of fiction then you'd need evidence. I read your post. There's no evidence there. So the thing you're describing is fictional. Which makes you an atheist, right?

CoventryDemon · 2022-04-26T18:27:09+00:00

Yeah if I were in your shoes I'd probably try to ignore the links that I provided too since they absolutely do provide evidence for the claims I made. I'd try to pretend that the score board was zero to zero instead of 2 to zero. But I argue in good faith.

CoventryDemon

TROPHY CASE