"The Bible teaches that engaging in or consuming pornography can lead to addiction, relationship destruction, and separation from God's kingdom."
Show scripture. Ill help ya out. The word porneos (greek word) is used, but the bible doesnt say anything about pornography.
Since you wanna be off topic anyways.
Do feminists push pornography or publically support it? There is evidence of porn activism, some by former porn stars, others by people who identify as left leaning or lgbtqi.
But do feminists ACTUALLY support it?
Discuss/debate
You a guy? Make an embryo or egg.
You a girl? Have a child without male sperm.
Ill wait.
Here is the best test of your philosophy. If you have xx chromosomes, have a baby without sperm.
If you have xy chromosomes, develop a egg and embryo in yourself.
If you attempted to identify as NOT your biological sex, reality shows it. Thats why fake wombs and other technologies are introduced.
Your identification of self is disproven by reality, and is therefore vain, vain in that its a self serving thing.
Thats where this philosphy falls apart, it asserts ability but doesnt consider consequences and rewards of ability.
When you as a xx or xy prove the above challenges, ill take this philosophy seriously, until then, i rest my case.
You missed the point. If you assert all have ability, then you must assert all have inability. If you have ability to make a child, you have inability to do it with your own body alone. If you have ability to identify self, then you have inability to define what isnt self outside of self
If you have ability to determine what is true, then you must acknowledge your inability to know all truths, as you define self and truth be YOUR perimeters, you are unable to ascertain or verify self and truth outside yourself. Therefore, your philosophy succeeds in saying nothing, and is ultimately vain and altogether unrealisic and detached from other people's realities.
Like i concluded. This vain imagination can only be concocted in a "safe space" of imagination devoid of reality, much less challenge.
So you are gonna keep assuming. Got it.
Again. Not what i discussed. Wanna ask me this time or keep assuming?
Literally wasnt what i talked about at all.
The principal is inherently false, it attempts to insinuate knowledge of truth.
Your principal of powers is also false. Not only do you undermine free will as to attain to what powers you desire, you also actively disregard the natural and inherit inabilities that are in similar nature of that power.
The precepts and "axioms" arent at all connected to reality, and have to be considered in a vaccum like "safe space" for them to not be shot down instantly.
If this is a attempt at a thought experiment, gj i guess? You found another way to deny reality.
Id have to assume based on weapons already distributed and try to imagine what each country would do. I imagine people in sudan would have an easier time as they have only to deal wit mostly unarmed nations heading west to sail across sea to u.s.
Just because there is no budget for a country to spend on military, doesnt mean they will spend money to gather weapons.
Need i remind you there has never been a female navy seal.
Every time ive seen a woman most effective in combat is when she defends her home and children directly. Let them be keepers of the home, the men will be keepers of the walls and borders.
Its absolutely both.
You make a choice, due to laws of the universe, your choice is rewarded to you in a deterministic way
Everyone has free will, but no one has uninfluenced free will.
Everyone's choices sre deterministic, free will affects what deterministic event happens to you or others.
You drive a good point. But consider that they would have to go through japan or indonesian territory, russia would likely go strict lockdown.
Idk maybe sudan would get to us first.
I remember this guy. He uses numbers and concepts more than english. His safe space is in forums.
Really, you need to move on from nonsensical usage of representative concepts and use english. You arent progressing in life by speaking languages people dont wanna deal with.
Its a mote point. The problem you have specifically is defining in language. Math is a language that is used to represent the known to describe it in representative form. God is used similarly.
You dont understand the inconsistencies of inaccurate definitions, which in the real world will cause you problems.
But in a debate forum, you can somewhat escape reality.
Description limited my voting. But here i can speak concerning addressed issues.
Its a fairly good debate, if i weighed based off research and arguements for the need of contrasceptives and its preventative measures and weighed it against the opposite, id conclude humans are horny deviants in need of it for their health's sake and societies sake.
But i do personally believe abstinance is better.
I recommend reset of previous debate wins, ties and losses under former website. There is new rules, new administration and new revisions of policies. There is no need to remember former victories under different rules. Cod mw2 doesnt carry over to cod mw3. (And other such examples, whoever thought this was a good idea, reinforces a cult like mentality to make an echo chamber of pervious interactions. New people wont care and merit doesnt matter under old rules and old game)
Here are examples:
https://www.debateart.com/members/whiteflame
https://www.debatecraft.com/users/whiteflame
https://www.debatecraft.com/users/fauxlaw
https://www.debateart.com/members/fauxlaw
Also, i recommend resetting of debates once all rules and policies are setup and initiated. New rules, new weights and new policies are undermined by debates won, lost or tied by previous ones. DART is DART. This is debatecraft, it is needful to be adaptable and reattain and prove the merits of debates. Wether earned under policies of DART and/or DDO. Or imputed because of it. This is necessary to be comporable with new debaters who will be effectively learning new policies, standards, weights and rules under a new leadership. We arent a echo chamber based on previous experiences on previous rules. But a new community under new rules and leadership.
I recommend a new stand and revision of voting policy for debatecraft, we arent DART, this is a new website, new leadership, new inspiration for debates due to recent death of charlie kirk. Doesnt matter if 90% are ddo or DART members.
This also should be discussed in discord.
I will list my PERSONAL recommendations to voting policy.
1: as of right now standard of sufficiency is not usable due to lack of ability to vote considering conduct, and categorical voting to weigh an arguement is more simplified by 3 choice mark. ASSUMING there will be conduct and other weights in the future: conduct should consider derogatory language more considerably than DART did, in both forums and debates. Too much favortism and time occupation hindered fair reviews. Utilization must be clearly referenced to bop in description of debate to weigh the necessary requirements to meet bop.
Sources are similar, but due to rise in ai and anti ai policy by this website, we have harder time verifying links are non ai associated, how do we know you didnt go to a website gemni referred? Or grok? Or chatgpt or others? We cannot. We have to compare language of ARGUMENTATION to what ai would say. I recommend decreasing future weight of links.
2: judicial decison. Same as conduct weigh, not applicable as of right now. But ASSUMING it will be introduced later: allow at minimum 1 week of membership and testing for judicial voting before affirming. I know a guy who simply had a guy to make an account on DART and within a few days would rule in favor of the person who asked them. Judical votes should be subject to vote removal and we should disallow lower standards for judical votes.
3:"outside" content must be clearly defined in weighing votes. If it is contained in link or argumentation of debate, it should NOT be considered outside content.
4: ASSUMING larger audience and volume of debates, there has to be a consideration to multiple mods to consider debates and vote content. There is nothing wrong with there being disagreement, infact it opens people up to alternative points of views. Seniority should be determined by merit, not by faithfulness to a former website.
That being aside, i still urge more comprehensive tests and revising of tests for topic posting and voting.
Due to the passing of charlie. There is more exploration and traffic for open forums, debates and discussions. Mostly in person, but also on internet.
Frankly speaking, this is perhaps the best and last time to encourage debate.
I agree with this. But i recommend giving more than 5 questions.
The state of tests offer a very easy 5 question with 4 answer method. This however can be simply retook over and over and cause the person who passed to forget what they learned.
I suggest adding a total of 15-25 questions with multiple points, and introduce broader applications to the standards and rules. Have the missed answers explain why the answers are wrong and define them for less experienced people.
Screenshots can be done regardless, but repetition helps people to absorb information. Maybe have it to be redone monthly.
Neat! Got fire in ya
That sounds good! What kind of videos do you like making?
Us government has trillions of dollars in assets, not to mention rare earth minerals like Gold. Thats why debt is never attempted to be collected, the us just wants to pay off debt instead of selling assets.
Everybody is someones servant. Saying people define themselves by feelings rather than chromosomes just tells you whose servant they are.
Sora 2 is getting crazy tbh.
Which Ai do you
1:Trust
2:Prefer
3:Expect development
4:Would financially invest in
I prefer using chat gtp for story creation (despite memory buffering) but i use grok for more indepth theory crafting or research in philosophical concepts and coding.
