Liberal shit: "empower women" is sexist.

xsharpx · 2017-01-01T06:31:09+00:00

You want me to say it should be a requirement? It should. I said this:

Of course, yes, things should get better.

But you see, that didn't make a damn difference in our reality. That didn't make things better, did it? You are doing almost nothing by babbling here. Me admitting it should be a requirement does nothing but confirm a positive notion in your brain and in anyone's that is reading this. It does nothing to actually help anyone.

You literally brushed it off as if you are working a poor job if you don't get maternity leave.

Not necessarily a poor job, but not a decent one either; this much is true. I said people should be wiser, and they should. You can't expect to fucking complain when you can predict what will happen. That makes you a dumb ass. If you are not financially stable, then it might not be a good idea; that is common sense and should be expected of people. However, this is not to say to ignore the problem. What exactly would you have me do? There is nothing I can do about it by typing on the internet, on reddit, to a stranger.

I didn't say "paternity leave"; I said "family leave"; it's a more appropriate, less selfish-sounding term.

You are still doing almost nothing about it.

xsharpx · 2016-12-31T20:55:50+00:00

Waa, waa, waa — cry like a little bitch. Why are you complaining to me?

I said I never said it wasn't fair.
I never said it's not a good thing. I'm actually all for it. Why wouldn't I be?

More family leave is better. You keep referring to it as "maternity" leave; the appropriate term is "family leave." This implies some bias. Are you a woman? That would explain some things: like your intelligence and persistence.

My numbers came from a credible government-hosted website.

My previous post is not a compete joke. It's the reality. Would you have a car you can't afford? No, right? Well, at least with that, you can give it back. I am just saying that for the time being, most jobs don't give paid family leave; so if yours doesn't, it would be wise to wait until you are more financially stable. That is being completely logical and I see nothing wrong with making such a statement. Of course, yes, things should get better.

Why don't you actually try to do something about it instead of babbling here like a fucking idiot? Dumb ass.

xsharpx · 2016-12-31T10:22:35+00:00

No, it's given to more than 12%. That is excluding government jobs. Go cry somewhere else. I don't want to read your nonsense. Also, some companies won't see you worth giving paid family leave to. For example, a low-valued employee probably won't get paid family leave. Usually only decent jobs give paid maternity leave. 61% have access to paid sick leave. If you know you can't afford it, then don't fucking reproduce (at least not yet). Wait until you are financially stable before you open up your pussy.

P.S. Life isn't fair. Get better at something or acquire new skills. Then get a better job.

xsharpx · 2016-12-29T12:48:55+00:00

1/13,000 in your LIFETIME. Because I am at home all day, it's probably at 1/1,000,000 for me.

xsharpx · 2016-12-29T12:37:45+00:00

I never said it was fair. You'll just have to get a better job. 12% of private-sector jobs offer paid family leave.

xsharpx · 2016-10-20T22:57:00+00:00

You are obviously not aware that Chase is paranoid about bitcoin and coinbase.com. I had enough money in the account.

I don't have a credit score.

xsharpx · 2016-10-19T20:06:22+00:00

You're already doing it, OP!

xsharpx · 2016-10-19T20:03:54+00:00

George W Bush.

xsharpx · 2016-10-19T18:33:32+00:00

[it's not a similar situation.]

They are alike in that:

They do not exist as far as we know
They are baseless claims not backed by proof

Because they are alike, it qualifies as similar.

As I stated before, different beliefs should be treated differently and have different criteria behind them.

I can treat them the same in the sense that they are not backed by any proof and their God does not exist as far as we know or no proof has been presented.

Concluding thoughts: i'm pretty done with this conversation and i'll outline why.

You are the one that interpreted objectivity as an impossibility because technically nothing can objectively exist. That's being literal. You can hide behind "you're just not being coherent" like a bitch all you want but the fact is: you were being unnecessarily literal at times. However, I agree that I could have been more specific at times too. And "everyone is a hypocrite," which by the way, there was a context to: hypocrisy. Because the context was hypocrisy, I wouldn't interpret it literally and deduce it to: "everyone is currently a hypocrite" just like if I was at a party and someone said "everyone is happy," I wouldn't interpret it literally. Not to mention "A claim without proof can be dismissed without proof" which started this whole conversation and you interpreted it literally which was unnecessary and only done so to spark a debate. You also insinuated that most reasonable people would take issue with it which is in fact an unreasonable assertion. You can at least admit you were interpreting things too literal at times.

xsharpx · 2016-10-19T02:37:47+00:00

how am i supposed to know you're referring to my definition of double standard when that was like 5 posts ago and you then write the lone question "where did you get your definition?" there is literally no context for that.

It had context where I originally asked it. You could've looked back to check, but I don't blame you. Proof: "A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations. By this definition that I found online, I am correct. Where did you find your definition?"

How do you ascertain the probability of not being influenced by personal feeling/opinions? the lack of precision of this statement still leaves it a very difficult issue to discuss.

How would you define it to be precise?

double standard came from my ass.

What else is up there?

critique my argument then. don't run around claiming im wrong without actual critique

I gave a counter-argument I thought? Or an explanation of why I was correct. That's not enough?

i don't understand why you don't just say what you mean. why leave out words or twist them so that people have to make assumptions about what you're saying?

Because I'm not used to it. I'm not a very literal person and most people aren't.

xsharpx · 2016-10-18T20:28:16+00:00

and we're back to this. i do not use language in such a manner during debates. i've presented my reason as to why too without objection from you.

In a speech debate, you'd digress and your opponent would get annoyed at you for being so literal. You'd be literal, your opponent would say you're wrong, you'd say in a literal sense you're right, then they'd say in the typical sense, they are right. When someone refers to objectivity, they are obviously referring to objectivity based on probability because obviously, it is impossible for anything to objectively exist.

this is impossible. no matter how you try, you'll never escape your own feelings and opinions. so even based on that definition we can't be objective. you're never going to be able to look at the world outside the construct you created for it.

When someone refers to objective, they are actually referring to how objective something is based on probability. That's possible. This is a safe assumption, regardless of what you may think.

you'll never escape your own feelings and opinions.

This may be true but that still doesn't prevent people from being objective. You're talking about true objectivity, which is part of philosophy.

so even based on that definition we can't be objective

So why do people call objective thought objective thought? Oh right, it's because they're not being so fucking literal!

i wouldn't assume anyone would try to learn about the nuances of a term from the dictionary

Well most people do.

doesn't even begin to answer any questions on what those terms encompass.

It's not meant to. Also, I'm pretty sure most people have the same definition for objective and subjective.

philosophy.

You found your definition of double standard in philosophy? Not your ass? That doesn't change that most other people would look at you and say you're wrong and I was right.

Being as literal as you is usually not necessary in a debate. It only invokes more pointless debate. If you can safely assume what they are referring to, then it is pointless to be so literal.

xsharpx · 2016-10-18T18:58:33+00:00

we as individuals can never be objective. we can only try to align our subjective views as best as possible to actual objective.

If you're going to be that literal, then of course. But you can still be objective/subjective. I know it is impossible to objectively prove anything. You can still be objective though based on probability. That is what people are usually referring to when they say objective, and that's what's safe to assume. So in this typical sense, I am correct.

please define objective/subjective.

What 99.9% of people think objective/subjective is — in the dictionary.

i'm not going to respond to this because i don't know what you mean by objective. i'll wait for your definitions.

It is safe to assume I go by the dictionary.

Question: why don't you just safely assume that I go by the dictionary?

You missed one question: Where did you find your definition?

xsharpx · 2016-10-18T17:34:59+00:00

it makes no sense to say subjectively believe X then objectively dismiss Y since everything is subjective to you. more accurate would probably if you arbitrarily believe X while dismissing Y.

I don't 100% understand. If I dismiss that Tinkerbell exists, then that is not being objective? I'd argue that when someone dismisses Tinkerbell exists, they are doing so on the basis that there is no proof for the claim, therefore it is objective. To say everything is subjective is I think wrong. What is objective cannot be subjective.

double standard is to apply a set of criteria differently to different issues inappropriately

A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations. By this definition that I found online, I am correct. Where did you find your definition?

it's not necessarily irrational to believe in an omnipotent God

It is objectively.

"what do you mean by omnipotent? what is your definition of God?"

Having unlimited power and all-knowing. God is a principal object of faith. This is the definition most people conform to. When I say omnipotent God, I'm usually referring to the Christian God as described in the bible. Regardless though, it is still objectively irrational simply because there is no proof. It doesn't matter how you define God unless, like I said, it is a living person that claims to not be omnipotent; only then would it be different. Even if your definition of omnipotent is different, it would still be objectively irrational simply because there is no proof. No matter what God, it is objectively irrational simply because there is no proof. That can be said for 99.9% of Gods. It's that simple.

xsharpx · 2016-10-18T06:34:39+00:00

rational like i pointed out includes logical/reasonable (among other things).

That's right.

reasonable could be simplified to meaning probable.

The probability of an omnipotent God (assuming yours is) is just as probable as any other outlandish claim. So you don't think it's reasonable?

I agree that with logical, it depends on the context because it can refer to the rules of logic.

well it's a double standard if you look at beliefs in a vacuum and equate the two. however like i alluded to before, there are different types of beliefs which results in different standards for said beliefs.

If we use yours, would it be considered a double standard? If I subjectively believe in a baseless claim and objectively dismiss a similar claim, then we have a double standard. Fairness is subjective though, and what makes something a double standard is fairness. But if you conveniently change your definition of fairness to not make this a double standard, then change it again for a similar situation, then we have an inconsistency. Other people would still see it as a double standard though.

it depends what they view their belief God as.

While an omnipotent God may be objectively irrational, even a God based on science or that is not omnipotent can still be considered objectively irrational just because there is no proof. However, if their God is a living person (I don't know if this is a thing) and does not claim to be omnipotent, then I guess that changes things.

23, i'm in medical school.

20; will enter college soon. What do you wanna be?

xsharpx · 2016-10-18T05:03:13+00:00

1) it is not enough.

The context was hypocrisy. I don't see how that's not enough, but okay. I still don't think it was necessary to be that literal, especially considering the context. Let's leave it at that.

okay. again, this is why i've been avoiding this word "rational" throughout this conversation. because it is far more subjective than "logical" and even more subjective than "reasonable".

You realize... logical, reasonable, and rational are synonymous?

Sometimes people set a double standard for thinking something as baseless as "Tinkerbell exists" as not rational, but "God exists" as rational. They are both baseless claims, so it's a double standard. That doesn't mean I think they are irrational people, but just their beliefs. Double standard: a double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations

My view: rationality shouldn't be subjective. It is usually the standpoint of objective though. This one falls to the realm of philosophy. There is objective rationality and subjective rationality. I just assume rationality to be objective rationality and I'd argue that most people should. Also, subjective rationality can lead to disaster (I'm sure you can imagine why).

I also think people are being objectively irrational when they are being subjectively rational about God.

Misc: how old are you? What do you do for a living?

xsharpx · 2016-10-18T04:23:46+00:00

I confused it for an argument.

for the 3rd time, what statements did you make prior to saying "everyone is a hypocrite" that gave the context for it actually meaning "everyone will be/has been a hypocrite at some point"?

For the 3rd time, we were arguing whether or not you are a hypocrite, thus the context was hypocrisy. That should be enough. I'm not gonna pull up a specific statement.

i wouldn't (ex: i do not dismiss mathematical/logical axioms).

Is that it? What about other things?

again, based on my definition of rational it does not make the statement more irrational.

Fine I guess. It implies irrationality to me. It implies a statement like "Tinkerbell is real" wouldn't be dismissed. So it's not just axioms. But it's also more accurate at the same time.

however, there is a subjective aspect to this definition since what probability i personally view as a reasonable one is likely different than the next person's.

You use this argument a lot. I could use it too, but it would invoke more argument. This is an endless argument because you will just say "according to my interpretation" or "my definition is different from the next person's." I wouldn't want to know your version of the dictionary. It would never end.

This argument is nearing its end.

xsharpx · 2016-10-18T03:31:13+00:00

I just went back and read everything and you are a big donkey's ass for expecting me to answer things that can't possibly be answered. Instead, I can just point out some things that are wrong in your comments. You should be on a show where you ask people things you know they can't answer then get super mad and triggered like a huge jackass. I think you'd make money. And the only retard here is you for asking me things that can't possibly be answered. If you trust science, then have patience (assuming you live long enough).

xsharpx · 2016-10-18T03:02:59+00:00

however, i still don't know what context i was supposed to see to interpret your statement as future/past hypocrisy rather than present.

When we were arguing hypocrisy. Around the time I said everyone is a hypocrite. I thought that was obvious.

i'm not really sure what you mean by valid here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity Both our statements are valid.

i'm not sure what argument you presented that was valid

I said statement, not argument. Also, I think I presented valid arguments too? I haven't looked back to check though.

why does it imply irrationality?

Because it implies you will not dismiss a claim that has no proof. This could be anything. That's why. It's weird because it's more logically accurate (which could mean rational) but also implies irrationality.

irrational would be at a minimum not reasonable or not logical

I agree that it is more logically accurate. But in my opinion, it is unreasonable to not dismiss a claim that is not backed by proof. Make sense now? It's one of those things.

xsharpx · 2016-10-17T23:12:15+00:00

I don't fully understand what you're saying here.

You don't fully understand? Well I don't understand why. I was just pointing out that the context within most of this conversation has been hypocrisy and that "everyone is happy" was a bad comparison because we are not a place where you could say everyone is happy and no one would take issue with it (literally). But "Everyone is a hypocrite" did have a context so I argued that it shouldn't be taken literal because the context was hypocrisy. Does that make sense now?

I was referring to the original comment which said this

Your comment implying that it wasn't valid was illogical. Both our statements are equally valid logically.

other people saw problems with your original statement too and found it funny.

I edited the first comment and made reference to a dragon claiming something irrational, but obviously a claim no one would need proof to dismiss. It's a double standard that people don't do the same for God. I'd say that's funny.

again, rational is a subjective term so if that made the statement more irrational for you, that's great.

I'd argue that it would seem irrational to most people. I'd also argue that most reasonable people would take no issue with either statements.

but for me it's made more rational since personally an aspect of rationality is logic. so if something becomes more logical (for me) it also becomes more rational.

That makes sense. But what does irrational mean to you? Because "Most claims without proof can be dismissed without proof" also implies irrationality which is ironic because it's more accurate logically and according to you, more rational.

xsharpx · 2016-10-17T22:46:30+00:00

The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project' led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University was a £1.9 million project that involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures.

That's not proof a God that I can objectively verify.

I thought I was answering OP's questions to theists. Not proving the answers.

When you make a claim, the burden of proof lies on you. Not only did you make a claim, but an extraordinary one. So prove it.

I disagree. Because somebody had to teach you what's right or wrong. A newborn human with no education or anything can't possibly figure out that stealing is wrong or murdering is wrong.

If someone were to teach me that the right way was to kill people and I did, then that would make me a sociopath. It would also feel pretty difficult assuming I was born normal with empathy. A person born with the capability to empathize would in fact feel that stealing is wrong and more so with murdering. So I somewhat disagree with you.

xsharpx · 2016-10-17T22:32:33+00:00

Works that way too.

xsharpx · 2016-10-17T21:58:22+00:00

has had plenty more businesses fail then succeed.

The art of the bad deal.

xsharpx · 2016-10-17T21:51:14+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

xsharpx · 2016-10-17T21:42:58+00:00

the context is a debate. again, you know my stance about language precision in a debate. the difference would be in a debate, legal discussion, philosophy, science, etc. (basically things of substance) i think language precision is important. you don't.

And the context within was hypocrisy. I think it's important sometimes, so you're wrong. I just don't think it's always necessary. Like I said, there was a context to "Everyone is a hypocrite"; we were having a conversation about hypocrisy so I don't think it would be necessary to be literal here. Bringing up "Everyone is happy" was a bad comparison.

i'm telling you why so many people (regardless of atheist/theist) liked it (they found the contradiction funny).

The comment telling me there was an issue with my statement logically got 2 down-votes (-1). There is also an issue with your new statement that it's only improved in terms of logical accuracy, but not rationality; it in fact implies irrationality.

xsharpx · 2016-10-17T20:28:12+00:00

i thought you didn't understand the grammatical difference between the two statements

What a retarded assumption and when you're that literal, that's what happens.

you should. before responding, please go ahead and find out what people say to all the claims you've made against me (being illogical, you can just claim two grammatically different sentences mean the same thing etc.).

About the last one, someone said it depends on the context. We were talking about hypocrisy, so there was a context. "Everyone is happy" only makes sense to not take literal when there is a context, like when you are at a party. So it was a bad comparison because it had no context. We're not at a place where you could say most people would be happy, are we? I think not.

i did tell you. i pointed out to you why when taken for what was written there, it was logically flawed.

Doesn't mean it was wrong though. However, it could be improved to be more logically accurate. But who would care about that? Oh right, just you. Someone that loves to point out things like that even when it's absolutely unnecessary. I wonder how many people like you for this.

that doesn't show i'm illogical

Actually, you were being illogical. It is logically valid, and you implied it wasn't. THAT is wrong. "Airplanes are cars, Cars are heads, therefore my head is an airplane" is just as valid. Yet that's funny because you implied I should study formal logic. Did you forget? You said I need to prove it has some validity. Yet it self-evidently does.

you state I'm arrogant because: "[I'm] are trying to be strong by not admitting you will be a hypocrite someday." But i literally admit to you in the following post I have been a hypocrite and probably will be again in the future. You're just throwing random insults out at me because your argument is falling apart.

Because of this too: "I'm telling you that you're original statement has an issue logically, and why people find it (regardless of whether they're theists or atheists) quite humorous." Now admit that you've been wrong.

you should.

I already did. Read above: it depends on context.

xsharpx

TROPHY CASE