If we're allowed to cite works of fiction, I'd like to put forth "GNOS" (NSFW; inflammatory prejudiced material).

A... lovely work of fiction that depicts how terrible mixed-gender society is, and glorifies an all-male, all-gay utopian ideal, once that whole pesky business of reproduction is patched around so that the women folk aren't needed.

Humans also reproduce more slowly than most other creatures on the planet, and as such would be slower to adapt to these changes.

As such, if adapting to cyclic changes in the earths temperature is necessary to survive, then it is in our best interests to make the cycle transition take as long as possible, so that we are better able to adapt.

It is accurate to say that global warming can potentially represent a form of selective pressure, but we should still be doing our best to slow it down.

I'd be too busy moving couches to bat an eye.

Oh, no, I'm a happily married man. I was extolling the virtues of the couches and bjs and endorsing the system, not proposing an arrangement!

The fact that this is pointed to as a big deal is a part of the problem. If the views of the populace matched the ideals we're trying to legislate, nobody would bat an eye.

Ah, well I'm not into that, and I'm certainly not willing to upgrade to moving pianos for it. Couches for BJs was my happy place. Can we go back there?

Alimony itself is not the problem. Women's liberation and alimony are compatible, as far as I'm concerned.

The reason that the two seem to be at odds is not specifically a problem of alimony, but rather a social problem that permeates our society and even our courts at many levels- one of the few by very prominent cases where sexism is at the expense of the male.

It's true that some women pay alimony, and some men receive alimony. But there is a massive disparity between the two, even controlling for income; With the same disparity in income, women are significantly more likely to be granted alimony by the court at all, and of those granted alimony, women tend to receive a greater amount.

Alimony is not the problem. The problem is that the actual view our population holds (in aggregate) re: gender equality is still somewhat behind the 'ideal' of complete equality that we are trying to base laws around. If there is wiggle room in a law, at all, then personal views will shape how that law is enforced, as we see with alimony. If there is no wiggle room in a law, then the law will likely go ignored by those with opposing views, as we see with the war on drugs.

I'm in favor of gender equality, but I think we may be putting the cart before the horse- a lot of people still hold extremely sexist positions that were the norm a couple generations ago. Give us another generation or two, and I think we may find ourselves in a more equitable climate.

I endorse this statement and/or product.

I pulled it out of my ass.

Wait, I thought this was about moving couches and sucking dicks. Did I miss this escalating somewhere?

There is no point to miss. It's comparing two different things. The 'point' is only made under the premise that the two things being compared here (men and women, and particularly their portrayal in video games and the reasons for such) are fundamentally the same. I reject said premise.

Aside from all that, looking over the rest of the debate, I think we're on the same side anyway.

As an aside, I find it difficult to listen to complaints about scantily clad female characters by the crowd who purchase pornographic literature with cover art depicting a similar or lesser amount of dress.

Nobody is fooled by calling them romance novels. If smut was romance, every straight woman would be fulfilled.

And this doesn't even touch on the fact that women tend to be depicted in a lesser role to men in general, even in literature 'intended' for women.

In fact, I'd say that literature as a whole is FAR more sexist and deprecating towards women than video games as a whole are.

You're familiar with the fact that we're a sexually dimorphic species, and that it is generally expected that different parts would be emphasized, correct?

Show me a man who can model lingerie intended for women and still be found attractive by the average cisgendered heterosexual woman.

Show me a woman who can show off her well-developed bodybuilder physique, particularly with visible striations and veins in her muscles, and still be found attractive by the average cisgendered heterosexual man.

The fact that there are differences is not reflective of them being treated unequally- these differences are in fact illustrative of the opposite. The treatment is equal considering the differences between the sexes.

Strictly speaking, omniscience would not necessarily include knowing the future, at all.

'Omniscient' describes an individual who is in possession of of all existing knowledge.

Knowledge is defined as facts, information, and skills acquired via experience and education. It is the result of actions that have happened in the past. By its very definition, knowledge is exclusive of future events.

Precognition is a different animal altogether than knowledge or omniscience.

All this of course disregards the fact that god need not actually be omnipotent or omniscient. Look at the times where the bible asserts god has interacted with man directly? If man wanted to know the extent of gods knowledge and capabilities and there WERE limitations on them, would men of those times even be able to understand how god communicated it? Would he be able to grasp the upper limits of what god knows and can do? Would he be able to grasp the lower limits of what is beyond god?

If the god in question exists and knows everything and is capable of doing everything that men of the time could possibly do or even speculate about, however indirectly, then just saying "I know everything and can do everything" would greatly simplify the explanation that would otherwise go so far over a bronze age peasants head as to not be worth even considering.

I don't believe in God, mind you- just playing Devil's Advocate here. Ha.

Sometimes they do. Conan here is in fact showing MORE skin than this debates example. And he's far from the only one.

Sure you can! You just might have a little difficulty installing them.

The common idea that god knows everything thus praying to him wouldn't be necessary

What I feel we should ask here is this: Is praying really for the benefit of the deity in question, given that assumption, or for the benefit of the faithful? Certainly there is some therapeutic effect simply in pouring ones heart out to someone else, even if it were a fictional being. Genuine belief that their words are being heard by a higher power alone can be a powerful thing for the faithful, psychologically speaking.

Many intercession type prayers are done in the form of group prayer, the benefits of which I've explored in another topic in more detail, but will note here as having important communal properties, as well as motivational, organizational, and informational assistance in whatever material aid can be made. Again- benefits here don't require the god in question to actually exist, just a shared belief in one.

Many prayers are not for aid or intercession either, but rather are for giving thanks, or simply praising/worshiping the deity in question. There is certainly a difference between knowing that somebody is grateful regardless of whether they show it, and being thanked personally, and a difference between knowing you are admired and actually being complimented on your good qualities.

There are definite benefits to prayer even if it is assumed that God doesn't exist. If a god did exist, those benefits wouldn't be negated, they would simply be added to.

And I recognize that as a necessity when dealing with this from a legal perspective.

But ignoring the need to have specific criteria insofar as the law is concerned...

How do you define child? At what point is the individual in question no longer a child?

Why do you assume an inability to make informed consent, and an inability to understand?

Remember- I am well aware that more or less arbitrary cutoff points are necessary for a legal perspective. I'm not talking about legal here.

Like I said, I understand the legal aspects of it and was just playing devil's advocate about a portion of it.

I would note, however, that 'abuse' has nothing to do with whether or not actual harm is caused, but whether harm was caused beyond that which the recipient made informed consent to. This is why such conduct as striking a submissive with a riding crop hard enough to bruise or even draw blood may not be considered abuse.

As a devil's advocate here, I might point out that the potential consequences of sex are generally more severe for a female than a male, assuming we are referring to cisgendered heterosexual pairings with "standard" sexual practices of course. Among other things, the penetrated partner has a significantly higher risk of contracting an std from an infected partner than is the case were the roles reversed, and males also enjoy a pleasantly low chance of getting pregnant.

And that's just the physiological stuff; there are definitely cultural and societal factors at play that make this entire thing rougher on a girl than on a boy- I'm not speculating that a boy or girl would be more or less traumatized by such an event, mind you- I'm speculating about the way he or she will be looked at and treated afterwards.

If informed consent is what is important, and understanding the possible ramifications of ones actions is required for informed consent, it would seem to me that a greater level of intellectual development and information is needed for a girl to provide informed consent vs a boy doing the same; from that perspective, it might be entirely reasonable to consider two potential cases of sexual abuse differently.

That said, I don't believe that we could reasonably divide the rule of law up that way, even if we had hard data to support it, due to the current social climate in the US. And even if we could, I don't necessarily feel that we should. I think it's better in most cases to treat everyone equally even if everybody knows that they aren't really equal.

Even if violence was the sole measure of power, it would still not be 'true power' in and of itself, which is always a meta level above the measure of power. True power would lie in influence and manipulation, as it doesn't take many people at all to top the maximum amount of violence one person could output.

Compare this to a hypothetical scenario where money, rather than violence, is power. Would the true power be held by the entity with the most money at the moment? Or would it be held by the entity with the best positioning and means for manipulating the system to his or her own profit and his or her oppositions detriment? I vote the latter, for the same reasons, and I cite Bill Gates and Goldman Sachs as just one small example for each, reflecting total assets (advantage: Bill Gates), direct/indirect market influence (advantage: Goldman Sachs), and political influence (advantage: Goldman Sachs).

They put those warnings on there now because the older generation DID try those things at home. The ones claiming their generation to be smarter are the ones who didn't ;) The younger generation will be just as smart once the worst of the idiots cull themselves, it'll just take longer with warnings in place!

I would ask questions.

Why? Because I'd be expected to. How do I know this?

Simple. Why am I being selected for Gods work, what do I have that is unique that makes me suitable for the task? Is it my body? Doubtful- there are numerous individuals in the world with equivalent or superior physical capabilities as compared to myself. Further, there are even more numerous animals in the world with equivalent or superior physical capabilities as compared to the rest of mankind. There is nothing I can do or know how to do, physically speaking, that is in any way unique. As such, if we're talking about physical capabilities, god has numerous better options to pick from than myself. The only unique thing I bring to the table is my own brain and its contents. I can conclude, then, that if I am chosen, it is almost certainly chosen because there is something about my mind that is required for the task.

If the god in question knows my mind to be up to the task, then said god must necessarily know my mind, that it is inquisitive and curious by nature, tries to make sense out of everything (even inconsistencies in what it knows to be fiction), and I always asks questions. This is fundamental to my mind, really, and if my mind is suitable for the task in question, it is in part due to this.

If a god chose me, said god has chosen someone that said god already knows will have questions that need answering. If that is a problem, said god would choose someone else; in choosing me for the work, said god implies consent to be questioned. After all, it's not as if there is any shortage of individuals who would follow gods word blindly, even if it meant killing their own children.

What about non-muslim acts of terrorism, like christian extremists bombing abortion clinics?

Gotta interrupt here- homicide is literally 'killing men(people).' You can argue that god isn't a murderer, because of the specifics inherent to murder- but if you believe in god as depicted in the christian bible, then you certainly believe that said god has killed men (both directly and indirectly) countless times throughout history.

You can argue the 'maniac' angle if you like, but 'homicide' isn't conditional for various reasons or mitigating factors like 'murder' might be. 'Homicide' is a very simple term, and many of the actions of god as depicted in the christian bible qualify.

But you know... the earth itself is just a big rock, but still seems to be pretty important to most of us.

I thought that at first too. Then I took Psych 102, and I've since re-evaluated my position and am once again undecided.

Religion is responsible for more death and misery than any other force in humanity

While I'm not a promoter of any religion by any means, I see stuff like this tossed around a lot. I disagree. I'll agree that religion has been blamed for and used to rationalize more death and misery than any other force in humanity, but I question the assertion that there would be less misery and death in mankinds history should no religions have ever formed- I rather believe we'd just have found another thing to blame our shortcomings on, another thing to rationalize the atrocities we commit.

I never said anything regarding something to live for.

Sure we would, we'd just have more outdated infrastructure to pull down before rebuilding!

On the contrary, for most theists, dying for something has little meaning.

"Dying for something" carries very little weight if it's done under the assumption that this life is merely a small starting point with an immeasurably better eternal existence following it.

Compare:

"For [person/cause], I would risk a permanent end to my existence."

vs

"For [person/cause], I would risk starting my permanent luxury vacation sooner than originally intended."

I think there's no point in a selfie.

Why does everything, or anything, necessarily need to have a 'point?'

I think the world would be quite a dull and miserable place indeed if anything considered pointless by anyone was ended and left in the past.

Well, the term is drama queen, not drama king, so it's pretty telling in and of itself! :b

This logic is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.

It begins with "To find a woman you need time and money" which is alternatively presented as "women require time and money."

As such, the Women = Time x Money part is incorrect, and each subsequent line is also incorrect.

Each line should in fact read Woman requires... rather than Woman =...

As such, woman != problems, but women require problems. Hence why they go for assholes.

Thats why I tripled the booze order. Even if it's by no means comparable, I'm still shitfaced.

Ok, so triple the booze order then. I'm pretty sure I've taken dumps bigger than Radcliffe anyway :b

Easy. Danny, bend over.

Why? Because a week of good sex, even GREAT sex, does not compensate for a lifetime of frustration with dialup. I have no reason to suspect that Emma Watson has some kind of sexual superpower that causes the period of satisfaction after sex to be significantly longer than usual. No matter how good the sex was, after a matter of days (MAYBE weeks) the frustration with dialup would outstrip the satisfaction of the sex.

I'd get hammered, plow Radcliffe sufficiently to meet my end of the deal, and then get on with my life.

Edit: Just to clarify, dialup today is, in practice, FAR slower than dialup was when dialup was the big thing, because websites are designed with broadband in mind. Check out this article that explores load times for a number of popular modern webpages to see what you'd be dealing with on dialup.

Why the nearly 10 billion year delay? Do the fragments of God's soul need to age like fine whiskey?

Is this a delay, or the amount of time such would typically take? Is it possible this is actually quite fast for the phenomenon in question? Is 10 billion years a particularly significant period of time by any standard other than our own?

I mean, without having other examples of the scenario in question to compare, we can't really speculate as to its timeliness- and the only scale of time we have to judge the significant of 10 billion years by is our own, so speculating as to how 'long' that is to a hypothetical being (almost certainly operating on a completely different time scale) is similarly flawed.

Please not that this is not an argument in favor of or opposing personal gun ownership at all levels, but rather guns as a whole.

I believe people focus on the negative aspects of how dangerous guns are, without even looking at the positive aspects of how dangerous guns are.

For much of history, using any kind of weapon effectively involved a measure of physical strength/endurance, as well as a measure of skill in using the weapon. This gave a significant advantage to those who did not have to work all day every day for basic subsistence, as they had free time- some of which could be devoted to developing the strength, endurance, and skill needed for combat. And, in practice, one of these individuals who had been trained for combat was worth many, many more untrained peasants- even ones with above average strength such as farm laborers or miners. Economic success could be said to translate directly into combat potential, from that. Feudalism, and systems quite similar to it, were common throughout much of the old world as a result of this.

What started to break that power dynamic down was the advent of weaponry that was effectively lethal without a significant amount of physical conditioning or weapons training. Compare the strength and skill needed to use a longbow effectively vs that needed to fire a crossbow.

Crossbows and firearms require little more than pointing the weapon at the target and firing. True, there is room for skill to increase how effective one is with either, but for either weapon, a person can generally be taught to consistently hit a roughly man-sized target within the weapons effective range in less than day- and these can be used to lethal effect even with zero training in some cases.

The downside to the lethality of firearms is a higher body count overall. But the upside is reducing the 'might makes right' advantages that economic success and raw physical strength granted to the elite. I could be a world-class swordsman in peak physical condition, and still be laid low by a tiny slip of a grandmother who keeps a revolver in her purse. Firearms effectively equalized power gaps that stood from the dawn of civilization, and modern democracy's heritage is as much one of blood and lead as it is one of philosophy.

Non-virgins don't seem to have any issue saying "I don't give a fuck!"

I don't believe the exclamation "Son of a bitch!" is making any assertion regarding bestiality resulting in the existence of a human-canine hybrid either. (Is goodmale around? Maybe he can answer this one)

Why should this be any different?

I probably should have detailed it in my first post, but avoiding lots of people isn't just to minimize the number of zombies, but to minimize the chances of confrontation with other groups of humans- likely more dangerous than zombies in this scenario, given a lack of production and a general shortage of goods in such a scenario.

Well I highly doubt the body has any complaints, but it could conceivably be a pretty traumatizing event should the "in laws" find out. Even if we decided necrophilia isn't wrong per se, most cases of necrophilia would involve trespassing at the very least!

I wouldn't say that any of them have a choice in the objects of their attraction. I'm certainly not attracted to any dog I've seen, and there is nothing I could do to MAKE myself attracted to a dog. Same deal with a little kid, as far as I know.

Homosexuality in and of itself is victimless, though. Pedophilia, not so much. We draw the line when it comes to children because we don't believe children to be capable of making informed consent; the same logic is often applied to bestiality, though admittedly that's far more of a grey area.

Concession rapidly encroaches, after this effort. Debate ended by acute terminology exhaustion.

Confirmed; really easy, actually. To eloquate? Difficult. Excepting blatant absurdity, titanic effort.

Currently researching effective acronyms to extend discussion. Expect bewilderment at the end.

But to be fair...

Can resisting emotional arguments truly enlighten debaters? Emotion basically applies to everyone.

I see the need to separate emotion from the mix when trying to reach an objective standpoint, but I think the importance of emotions (and anything subjective for that matter) is all too often downplayed.

How about a negative spin?

Consistently

Reasoned

Effective

Arguments

Trend

Eternally

Downward.

Emotional

Biases

Always

Trump

Empiricism.

If we assume that the person cares about anyone, then that's a decent silver lining for them.

And even if they don't, it's a decent silver lining for the situation, even if it is little or no comfort to the actual afflicted.