Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Would the world be a better place without religion?


  • Please log in to reply
734 replies to this topic

#721 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 17 May 2017 - 07:32 PM

When did I do that?


Much like the majority in both cases, there is no problem.


  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#722 dimreepr

dimreepr

    Scientist

  • Senior Members
  • 3,677 posts
  • LocationStonehouse, Gloucestershire.

Posted 17 May 2017 - 07:39 PM

 

When did I do that?


Much like the majority in both cases, there is no problem.

 

 

Your point?


  • 0

Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am.... -John Donne.

 

 

WARNING ...Participation in topics I start can seriously affect you’re grades... WARNING


#723 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 17 May 2017 - 07:42 PM

 

Your point?

My point?

 

You were clearly arguing that they were similar.

I pointed out you were wrong, and then you claimed you were never arguing that.

Then you asked me to point out where you were arguing that, and I did.

Now you're asking why I pointed it out.

I'll bet after this you're gonna ask "Your point?"


  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#724 dimreepr

dimreepr

    Scientist

  • Senior Members
  • 3,677 posts
  • LocationStonehouse, Gloucestershire.

Posted 17 May 2017 - 07:54 PM

My point?

 

You were clearly arguing that they were similar.

 

Nope, I was arguing that excess in both cases is detrimental to people's health, whatever there age.

 

The only similarity is addiction, do you think that's fine?


  • 0

Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am.... -John Donne.

 

 

WARNING ...Participation in topics I start can seriously affect you’re grades... WARNING


#725 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 17 May 2017 - 07:58 PM

 

Nope, I was arguing that excess in both cases is detrimental to people's health, whatever there age.

 

The only similarity is addiction, do you think that's fine?

Then you shouldn't have even bothered to counter my argument.

I specifically said that the majority of teens will be fine. BUT THERE WILL BE EXCEPTIONS.

So you arguing against me proved nothing. I already said that there are exceptions.

 

So unless you were arguing that the majority of teens do not use social media in a healthy way, then you should go back and adequately read my posts. Then you'll understand better.

 

My argument stated:


The majority of kids who use social media are fine.  

The majority of kids who use alcohol would seriously hurt their development.

As you can see, I simply claimed the majority.

Not in every case.

And you argued against this why?

 

I then provided evidence that using alcohol is unhealthy for children. Which you then asked me to provide evidence for.


Edited by Raider5678, 17 May 2017 - 07:59 PM.

  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#726 dimreepr

dimreepr

    Scientist

  • Senior Members
  • 3,677 posts
  • LocationStonehouse, Gloucestershire.

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:09 PM

The majority of kids who use social media are fine.  

The majority of kids who use alcohol would seriously hurt their development.

 

You don't see your mistake?


Or my argument?


The majority of kids who use social media are fine.  

The majority minority of kids who use alcohol would seriously hurt their development.

 

Does that help?


  • 0

Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am.... -John Donne.

 

 

WARNING ...Participation in topics I start can seriously affect you’re grades... WARNING


#727 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:15 PM

Does that help?

No.

Because I already provided a large amount of statistical evidence showing that to be false.

And then you told me you weren't arguing that point.

Now you're saying you're arguing that point again.


  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#728 KipIngram

KipIngram

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 327 posts
  • LocationHouston, Texas

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:28 PM

You're presuming all kids would use alcohol in some heavy way.  I am certainly not advocating that alcohol should be legal for children, but if you imagine a world where it was it would no longer be forbidden fruit.  The biggest thing that draws kids to alcohol is that it's a "grown up thing," and it's *forbidden*.  You don't know what a that world would be like, so presumptions about it do not constitution convincing arguments in any way.  But the alcohol thing was just an example - I don't need a comparison to alcohol to feel completely sure that social media is, in total, bad for our kids.  No - not every single bit of it is bad.  But much more bad arises from it than good.  And yet parents have virtually no choice other than to allow it, because if they don't then their child will be the one outcast who isn't "in the game," and that in itself causes them to become targets.

 

Children can be extremely cruel to one another - giving them new ways to do it was bound to make the problem worse.


  • 0

#729 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:40 PM

You're presuming all kids would use alcohol in some heavy way. 

No. I am not.

I made that very clear when I said "even in small doses, it is extremely hurtful to young children."

 

And unless you're a doctor, who has researched the severe side effects to giving children alcohol, I suggest you don't claim it's harmless unless abused.


You don't know what a that world would be like, so presumptions about it do not constitution convincing arguments in any way.  But the alcohol thing was just an example - I don't need a comparison to alcohol to feel completely sure that social media is, in total, bad for our kids.  No - not every single bit of it is bad.  But much more bad arises from it than good.

You're presuming that the world is better without social media and that's alright, but it's wrong for me to presume based upon evidence that alcohol should not be legal for kids?

Okay.

 

 

And evidence social media is bad?

I provided evidence that there are no significant effects.

So unless you can prove contrary, don't say there are negative effects.


  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#730 KipIngram

KipIngram

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 327 posts
  • LocationHouston, Texas

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:29 PM

Wait a minute.  Up until now I thought you were quibbling over the amount of bad effects arising from social media.  Are you really claiming that there are none???  


https://childmind.or...ects-teenagers/

https://www.mentalhe...s-mental-health

http://www.telegraph...tal-health.html

https://www.meganmei...cial-media.html

... etc.

 

Just open your eyes online - this information is everywhere out there.


I have witnessed it affect my own children, so nothing will ever convince me it's not a problem.  I've seen it.


Regarding the alcohol topic, I think you misunderstood me (or I wasn't sufficiently clear).  I was speaking primarily of teenagers (near adults - the ones who most partake of underage drinking now).  I'm quite well aware of the adverse effects alcohol can have on small children / infants.  So I think we were looking at two different things.


  • 0

#731 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:47 PM

Wait a minute.  Up until now I thought you were quibbling over the amount of bad effects arising from social media.  Are you really claiming that there are none???  


https://childmind.or...ects-teenagers/

https://www.mentalhe...s-mental-health

http://www.telegraph...tal-health.html

https://www.meganmei...cial-media.html

... etc.

 

Just open your eyes online - this information is everywhere out there.

And o golly gee.

Another failure at english.

 

 

Here. Let me explain the term "majority".

 

Majority, means the largest portion of something that's in question.

 

The majority of teens not having adverse effects is what I claimed.

 

Point to where I said "There are no adverse effects in any teens."

 

All the studies support what I'm saying.

A lot of social media is harmful. 

I agree.

There are a lot of kids who use it too much.

I agree.

The majority of kids though, don't over use it so much that they are significantly hurt.

I agree.

 

So I agree with your links.

You agree too since you used them.

We're good here.


  • -1

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#732 KipIngram

KipIngram

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 327 posts
  • LocationHouston, Texas

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:54 PM

Yes, we're fine.  And neither of us has changed his mind in any way.  Which is the way this sort of thing usually goes.


And while we were all busy not changing each other's mind, we've gotten seriously OT.


  • 0

#733 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 17 May 2017 - 10:28 PM

Yes, we're fine.  And neither of us has changed his mind in any way.  Which is the way this sort of thing usually goes.


And while we were all busy not changing each other's mind, we've gotten seriously OT.

No, you provided 4 links that supported my claim.

Which isn't the way this sort of thing usually goes.

 

Also, I'd refrain from using negative posts on somebody simply because you don't agree.

Typically, it's smart to save them for those who are contributing nothing to the current conversation.

 

 

But we have gotten off topic.

Let's stop.


  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#734 zapatos

zapatos

    Lepton

  • Senior Members
  • 2,671 posts
  • LocationSt. Louis

Posted 17 May 2017 - 10:54 PM

No, you provided 4 links that supported my claim.

Which isn't the way this sort of thing usually goes.

 

Also, I'd refrain from using negative posts on somebody simply because you don't agree.

Typically, it's smart to save them for those who are contributing nothing to the current conversation.

 

 

But we have gotten off topic.

Let's stop.

 

 

Kiplngram didn't give you the negative rep, I did. And I didn't give it 'simply because I disagree'. I used it because I abhor the disrespectful, smart-ass attitude you often use with people. In this case, starting off your post with "And o golly gee. Another failure at english." That type of response also contributes nothing to the current conversation.


  • 2
And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it. -MP

"As a good christian, I'm always going to disagree with any proof you try to give me." -Peter BE cimp

#735 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 17 May 2017 - 11:21 PM

Kiplngram didn't give you the negative rep, I did. And I didn't give it 'simply because I disagree'. I used it because I abhor the disrespectful, smart-ass attitude you often use with people. In this case, starting off your post with "And o golly gee. Another failure at english." That type of response also contributes nothing to the current conversation.

In response to "Just open your eyes online" I thought it was fair.

And I'd pointed it out to two people directly before, that there are exceptions. So by the third time somebody said I claimed "absolutely none" I got annoyed.

But in which case, I'll keep the negative rep point.

 

And for actually being honest +1


Edited by Raider5678, 17 May 2017 - 11:24 PM.

  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users