Lurker > MysticMismagius

OrangeWizard posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

How do you know if Milk is willing to understand your explanation, if you won't explain it to them?

Because he thinks he understands it already, which is evident by his assumptions

I'd think you'd want to correct someone who is spreading false assumptions about something you know about. If not for their sake, then for the sake of those listening to them who don't know any better.

It's like being a schoolteacher. Once you show up as this person who has in-depth knowledge about the subject at hand (which you did when you said "ask me anything"), you can't just say "that's the wrong answer" to people's assumptions and expect people to leave with the right answer.
---

I'm not very good at this...

OrangeWizard posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

I don't understand. I never claimed I did. It just bothers me when people say "I'm not explaining it because you don't/wouldn't understand" before even trying to explain what we obviously don't understand.

I wasn't addressing you when you quoted me.

I get that, but when unpleasant_milk pointed out the problem they saw with your logic that allowing your child to die when said child needs a blood is not a needless death, you simply said "that keeps you from understanding".

OrangeWizard posted...

It's not a matter of not understanding, it's about being willing to understand.

How do you know if Milk is willing to understand your explanation, if you won't explain it to them?
---

I'm not very good at this...

OrangeWizard posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

"You don't understand"

THEN EXPLAIN IT.

I would like to be assured that my words do not fall upon closed ears that think they already understand.

I don't understand. I never claimed I did. It just bothers me when people say "I'm not explaining it because you don't/wouldn't understand" before even trying to explain what we obviously don't understand.
---

I'm not very good at this...

OrangeWizard posted...

unpleasant_milk posted...

If the child can be saved quite easily, then denying that life saving treatment makes the death needless.

That isn't an assumption. That's a fact.

And that keeps you from understanding

"You don't understand"

THEN EXPLAIN IT.
---

I'm not very good at this...

iosifsvoboda posted...

You'd think the censor laws would be the first thing to go into the coding

---

I'm not very good at this...

@ImTheMacheteGuy

Bro, you've been telling this dude "You don't understand how the Big Bang theory" works for quite a while now. I get that you're trying to point out the personal incredulity fallacy, but if you want an effective discussion about this you either need to explain it to him, or present some sources that can explain it to him. That way, we can get past the part where he doesn't understand what it means and reach the part where he argues against it from an informed position.
---

I'm not very good at this...

CruelBuffalo posted...

Ice cream cake is not cake lol

It pretends to be cake, and that's what stops people from complaining.
---

I'm not very good at this...

CruelBuffalo posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Low effort troll topic.

Hell no. Cakes are meant to be soft, fluffy, and rich. Not cold, lacking distinct flavor, and blah. I have yet to ever have an ice cream cake that didn't have shit cake party. Just have ice cream then

I would, but then people would whine about there not being cake.

Have good ice cream. Not just Great Value Chocolate on a Dixie Plate with a Dixie spoon

Again, I get that ice cream cake isn't that great, but if I were to have/bring ice cream instead of any form of cake at a party, people would be like "waaah why not caaaaake?"
By using ice cream cake, I can eat ice cream without people bitching at a lack of cake.
---

I'm not very good at this...

CruelBuffalo posted...

KILBOTz posted...

Low effort troll topic.

Hell no. Cakes are meant to be soft, fluffy, and rich. Not cold, lacking distinct flavor, and blah. I have yet to ever have an ice cream cake that didn't have shit cake party. Just have ice cream then

I would, but then people would whine about there not being cake.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Antifar posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Which is the one that says I don't like having my nuanced political stance fit into a broad categorisation that only serves to pidgeonhole future arguments, rendering them a waste of time for everyone involved?

Marking you down as one of those.

One of those what?
---

I'm not very good at this...

YourDrunkFather posted...

I don't think it's really a matter of opinion. It objectively did flop

---

I'm not very good at this...

Because it tastes good.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Mal_Fet posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

The difficult part is your use of the word "any". Clearly you can handle some risk if you think the risk of gay men donating blood is too much but the risk of straight men donating blood is OK.

Lol what? Are you saying that since there's already a tiny risk of getting HIV blood that any amount of risk is acceptable? You know that a gay person is 45x more likely to have HIV than a straight person, right?

Would you rather there be a .01% chance of getting blood with HIV, or a 5% chance?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that him saying he can't risk ANY lives is kinda inaccurate when he's saying that certain people can donate blood (who also carry some level of risk) and others can't.

So you accept that the risk of getting HIV blood from a gay person is insanely higher than getting it from a straight person, but you're arguing over semantics in order to, what? Argue for the sake of arguing?

To point out the flaw in his reason of why taking that higher risk is not OK.
I understand that people would be averse to the higher risk as opposed to the lower one, but just saying "we can't have any risk" while pretending the lower risk doesn't exist isn't sound logic.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Mal_Fet posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

The difficult part is your use of the word "any". Clearly you can handle some risk if you think the risk of gay men donating blood is too much but the risk of straight men donating blood is OK.

Lol what? Are you saying that since there's already a tiny risk of getting HIV blood that any amount of risk is acceptable? You know that a gay person is 45x more likely to have HIV than a straight person, right?

Would you rather there be a .01% chance of getting blood with HIV, or a 5% chance?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that him saying he can't risk ANY lives is kinda inaccurate when he's saying that certain people can donate blood (who also carry some level of risk) and others can't.
---

I'm not very good at this...

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

What you said what "We can't risk losing any lives." ANY. I'm just pointing out the flaw in that logic, which is that if ANY lives lost is a dealbreaker, why let ANYone donate, when ANYone can have HIV and thus make someone lose their life.

Because it is extremely rare for a straight person to get HIV and too common for gay people to have it. Getting blood from a straight person with HIV is a possibility, but the risk is low and we need blood to save people.

I'm not sure what's so difficult about this

The difficult part is your use of the word "any". Clearly you can handle some risk if you think the risk of gay men donating blood is too much but the risk of straight men donating blood is OK.

Because there is a big difference in risk, why take the chance?

Whether or not one is willing to take the chance (or they think we "should") is based on how people weigh risk and reward in their minds. Letting anyone try to donate blood and having tests be the only thing between a patient and diseased blood is obviously the most risky way to handle it, but is the most rewarding, as it leads to the most instances of available blood. Letting less people donate blood off the gate means less risk, but less reward.

If I needed blood desperately right now, I'd personally rather die from AIDS-caused diseases in a few years than die tomorrow because there wasn't enough blood for me to get a transfusion, but that's just my opinion and I'm sure other people would respond to it differently.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Mal_Fet posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

What you said what "We can't risk losing any lives." ANY. I'm just pointing out the flaw in that logic, which is that if ANY lives lost is a dealbreaker, why let ANYone donate, when ANYone can have HIV and thus make someone lose their life.

Because it is extremely rare for a straight person to get HIV and too common for gay people to have it. Getting blood from a straight person with HIV is a possibility, but the risk is low and we need blood to save people.

I'm not sure what's so difficult about this

The difficult part is your use of the word "any". Clearly you can handle some risk if you think the risk of gay men donating blood is too much but the risk of straight men donating blood is OK.
---

I'm not very good at this...

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

MasterMacLeod posted...

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

MasterMacLeod posted...

letting gay men donate blood would save more lives than it would kill.

Why not?

Because increased risk of HIV virus.

That does not mean that gay men blood will end more lives than it saves.

We can't risk losing any lives.

By that logic, why let anyone donate blood at all? After all, anyone can have HIV and there's a risk of an HIV test having a false negative, right?

Because straight people are at less risk.

What you said what "We can't risk losing any lives." ANY. I'm just pointing out the flaw in that logic, which is that if ANY lives lost is a dealbreaker, why let ANYone donate, when ANYone can have HIV and thus make someone lose their life.
---

I'm not very good at this...

YourDrunkFather posted...

He's a bumbling unqualified buffoon but he hasn't even surpassed Bush, much less be the worst of all time

---

I'm not very good at this...

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

MasterMacLeod posted...

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

MasterMacLeod posted...

letting gay men donate blood would save more lives than it would kill.

Why not?

Because increased risk of HIV virus.

That does not mean that gay men blood will end more lives than it saves.

We can't risk losing any lives.

By that logic, why let anyone donate blood at all? After all, anyone can have HIV and there's a risk of an HIV test having a false negative, right?
---

I'm not very good at this...

Delirious_Beard posted...

how the fuck do you stab someone 119 times

lunatic

With effort.
---

I'm not very good at this...

MegaButterfree posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

Alright, then. I hope you thoroughly enjoy the movie.

Thank you! ^_^ I hope you do too!

I probably won't watch it, or at least not in a way that gives the devs money.
---

I'm not very good at this...

MegaButterfree posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

MegaButterfree posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

You're very certain that this movie will be amazing, even though you haven't seen it yet.
You're upset that people are very certain that this movie will be terrible, even though they haven't seen it yet, claiming they're "knocking the movie before they even give it a chance." You're doing exactly what you're mad at the critics for doing, just holding the opposite opinion.

Except I know for a fact it's going to be amazing. Have you even seen the trailers dude?!

How do you know for a fact? You haven't watched it! You may end up thinking it's great, but you may also end up thinking it's terrible or just OK. You need to watch it before you make such bold assessments.

I did in fact see the trailer. While the concept of emojis that are supposed to act one way their entire lives, and one doesn't want to do that, had a Brave New World-esque charm to it, the trailer was littered with cheap jokes that made said trailer fall flat to me.

While I respect your opinion, I disagree. "Cheap jokes" is not the way I'd describe it at all. A cheap joke feels contrived, but all the jokes I've seen in the trailers have so far been absolutely hilarious & I personally can't wait to see more!

Alright, then. I hope you thoroughly enjoy the movie.
---

I'm not very good at this...

MegaButterfree posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

You're very certain that this movie will be amazing, even though you haven't seen it yet.
You're upset that people are very certain that this movie will be terrible, even though they haven't seen it yet, claiming they're "knocking the movie before they even give it a chance." You're doing exactly what you're mad at the critics for doing, just holding the opposite opinion.

Except I know for a fact it's going to be amazing. Have you even seen the trailers dude?!

How do you know for a fact? You haven't watched it! You may end up thinking it's great, but you may also end up thinking it's terrible or just OK. You need to watch it before you make such bold assessments.

I did in fact see the trailer. While the concept of emojis that are supposed to act one way their entire lives, and one doesn't want to do that, had a Brave New World-esque charm to it, the trailer was littered with cheap jokes that made said trailer fall flat to me.
---

I'm not very good at this...

MegaButterfree posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

MegaButterfree posted...

mario2000 posted...

MegaButterfree posted...

That's insane. All these so-called "film critics" must just have ridiculously high standards for films these days, & it disgusts, frustrates, & saddens me to see so many people knocking the movie before they even give it a chance. The Emoji Movie looks like a clever, hilarious, & visually stunning film.

I await your review after you have seen this movie.

Oh don't worry, I definitely will review it, & it will absolutely be positive. Mark my words!

Counting your chickens before they hatch.
Exactly what you just accused the film critics of doing.

Nope! Y'all just have poor taste. You'll see when this movie wins awards & grosses over $500 mil. ;)

You're very certain that this movie will be amazing, even though you haven't seen it yet.
You're upset that people are very certain that this movie will be terrible, even though they haven't seen it yet, claiming they're "knocking the movie before they even give it a chance." You're doing exactly what you're mad at the critics for doing, just holding the opposite opinion.
---

I'm not very good at this...

MegaButterfree posted...

mario2000 posted...

MegaButterfree posted...

That's insane. All these so-called "film critics" must just have ridiculously high standards for films these days, & it disgusts, frustrates, & saddens me to see so many people knocking the movie before they even give it a chance. The Emoji Movie looks like a clever, hilarious, & visually stunning film.

I await your review after you have seen this movie.

Oh don't worry, I definitely will review it, & it will absolutely be positive. Mark my words!

Counting your chickens before they hatch.
Exactly what you just accused the film critics of doing.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Howl posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

Milkman5 posted...

are you sexists implying the ghostbusters remake wasn't a masterpiece?

I didn't watch the damn movie, so I can't tell you that. I didn't watch it because I'm not all that interested in Ghostbusters, not because of any perceived misogyny.

P.S: I'm female.

Your internalized misogyny is showing.

Lol maybe I need to go start a women's march, or just insult males for being male. That'll clear it out of my system.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Milkman5 posted...

are you sexists implying the ghostbusters remake wasn't a masterpiece?

I didn't watch the damn movie, so I can't tell you that. I didn't watch it because I'm not all that interested in Ghostbusters, not because of any perceived misogyny.

P.S: I'm female.
---

I'm not very good at this...

s0nicfan posted...

This is almost "if you don't see Ghostbusters you're a misogynist" levels of trying to bait people into seeing your awful movie

---

I'm not very good at this...

Monday posted...

Now I kinda wanna watch it, just to see this alleged trainwreck.

Don't.
If you must, get a used DVD so you don't support the people making it.
---

I'm not very good at this...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Everyone, trans or not should immediately disclose their current genitalia upon meeting another person for the first time. That is all.

So like "Hello, I'm <name> and I have a <penis and/or vagina>"

That sounds like it would be very cumbersome, especially for something that would only really matter for a small amount of encounters (the ones that would lead to sex at that encounter).
---

I'm not very good at this...

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

There is no tangible evidence of any acts of God that living people can see happening right now.
Example 1: The existence of humans on earth is attributed to the highly tested theory of evolution, not an act of an invisible man in the sky.
Example 2: Genesis speaks of a garden on Earth where there are trees whose fruit give knowledge of good and evil or eternal life, guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword. If the Bible were a book of fact, we would be able to find it.

Without evidence of God being real, it is natural to think that God might not actually be real.

Saying "There isn't evidence of God's existence" isn't a valid argument. Now saying "There isn't sufficient proof of God's existence" makes more sense because the Universe, as massive and expanding as it is, isn't and probably might never be 100% explored.

And claiming God to be an "invisible man in the sky" doesn't help your case as God can be anything from an invisible omnipotent force to something that encompasses the entire Universe. It's just as bad as people who refer to the Bible as "fairy tales". Disparaging comments like these wouldn't fly in a real world debate.

Ok, fine. There isn't sufficient evidence of God's existence. Happy?

God tends to be depicted in man's image, is said to live in heaven which is above the clouds, and cannot be seen by people. Therefore, an invisible man in the sky.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Biofighter55 posted...

it was't rape, but let's change things

Let's say the Navy guy, was a biological women, and she had sex with
a man who used to be a woman. she felt violated and deceived by him,
and, well, stabbed him 119 times.

Would any of you feel any different?

No.
---

I'm not very good at this...

I thought for a minute you guys were talking about this: https://www.lootcrate.com
---

I'm not very good at this...

Anyone can see...
---

I'm not very good at this...

HogRiderreturns posted...

Did Man in the High Castle get any outrage?

---

I'm not very good at this...

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

Who's trying to gain acceptance here; the religious or the atheist?

Of course the atheist. Therefore, it's their duty to provide something worth taking into consideration if their ideology is to be accepted.

You're presented with the argument God exists. Now challenge that claim.

There is no tangible evidence of any acts of God that living people can see happening right now.
Example 1: The existence of humans on earth is attributed to the highly tested theory of evolution, not an act of an invisible man in the sky.
Example 2: Genesis speaks of a garden on Earth where there are trees whose fruit give knowledge of good and evil or eternal life, guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword. If the Bible were a book of fact, we would be able to find it.

Without evidence of God being real, it is natural to think that God might not actually be real.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Muffinz0rz posted...

Banana_Cyanide posted...

King Rial posted...

I don't see how unless they have a keylogger on your system.

They do. From what I understand all versions of windows 10 has a keylogger installed as part of PRISM however for the most part they are never "activated" unless the NSA has a reason to investigate you.

I'm not sure how reassuring that is but I'd rather believe that's the case then believe that I'm constantly being spied on.

Good thing I don't have Windows 10

---

I'm not very good at this...

philsov posted...

neither: Kayne is on his toes to appear taller because he is insecure.

That doesn't preclude one or the other of the given choices.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Mal_Fet posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

No I do not. I think we should let gay people donate blood as well. It's not like we don't test straight blood and assume it is AIDS-free.

Blood tests can give false negatives. That's why it's just better to ban people who have a much higher likelihood of carrying it.

Just answer me this: Why is it better to subject an entire hospital to a higher likelihood of an AIDS outbreak than to just not let gay people donate blood?

You're assuming that gay = more likely to have AIDS.

It's not an assumption.

http://www.gmhc.org/news-and-events/press-releases/gay-men-44-times-more-likely-to-get-hiv

Ok, cool. Thanks for showing your source.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Laserion posted...

In light, yes. In pigment/paint, no.

---

I'm not very good at this...

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

No I do not. I think we should let gay people donate blood as well. It's not like we don't test straight blood and assume it is AIDS-free.

Blood tests can give false negatives. That's why it's just better to ban people who have a much higher likelihood of carrying it.

Just answer me this: Why is it better to subject an entire hospital to a higher likelihood of an AIDS outbreak than to just not let gay people donate blood?

You're assuming that gay = more likely to have AIDS.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Volkswagen_Bros posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

SSJ-JohnLennon posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

People who base their beliefs on reason and evidence.

But there is no evidence that there is no god.

You can't know until you up and die.

That is not how this works.

Except that is how it works. Why should the majority (ex. those that believe in God) have to explain themselves to the minority? (ex. the atheists) considering believing in God is the de facto stance.

Because it's quite impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, as you can't cite evidence that isn't there, but if something does exist, it should be possible to prove. Burden of proof lies in theists' hands regardless of how many more of them there are than atheists.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Gender...
Intercourse...
---

I'm not very good at this...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Deadpool_18 posted...

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

This is EXACTLY why society needs to remove the stigma that transgender individuals, or even just homosexuals, are some kind of 'disgusting' form of people.,

Or, you know, disclose this kind of important information before things get serious.

Why should people have to give out personal info just to have a one night stand though?

---

I'm not very good at this...

Antifar posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

Hillary Clinton was referred to as "Madam President" by Newsweek Magazine in an attempt to cash-grab,

Also there was that ABC show called Madam President, and that CBS show Madam Secretary...

True, I forgot about those.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Damn_Underscore posted...

Why should a female president be called Madam President instead of Mrs./Ms./Miss President

Seems sexist

When the term "Mr. President" was first used, there was no precedent for what to call a President. The VP and some other people wanted an illustrious title like "Majesty" to be used for the presidency, but Washington decided on "Mr. President."

Now, with 45 presidents and not a one of them female, there is still no real precedent for what to refer to a female president as, since "Mr." is a male-only honorific. It would make sense to use something like "Mrs.," "Ms.," or "Madam," but there is no female president to lead everyone towards picking one of these choices. Hillary Clinton was referred to as "Madam President" by Newsweek Magazine in an attempt to cash-grab, so I guess Bernie just went with that.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Veggeta X posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

No, what atheists think is that people don't need that thing to guide them for them to be a good person or do good things.

So what if they need it? Inspirations and motivation in life comes from everything.

Yes, but when theists say shit like "well if you don't have the fear of Hell to keep you in line, what stops you from raping and murdering everyone you know?", or things like what NatsuSama said, then it becomes relevant that a religious text is not necessary to guide people into moral actions.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Mal_Fet posted...

E32005 posted...

Tell it to that guys face mal

Let's see how maga you really are

I'd ask him if he would rather trust his life to someone with a 2% chance of being suicidal or someone with a ~40% chance of being suicidal.

Anyone who's being honest will give the same answer.

Maybe the reason transgender people have such a high suicide rate is because people won't accept them for who they are, which this rule actively contributes to.
---

I'm not very good at this...

Veggeta X posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

NatsuSama posted...

People cant have a moral compass without some religion guiding you....

That's just plain wrong. In the same way that packs of animals have codes of conduct, we do based on our inherit will to survive and our status as tribal animals. Part of being human is being part of a collective group and that creates certain standards and rules that are inherit in our nature.

This is stupid. You truly think having something you think is fake guide them to be a good person is wrong?

No, what atheists think is that people don't need that thing to guide them for them to be a good person or do good things.
---

I'm not very good at this...

ClockworkHare posted...

I get the hate for Trump, but this is just petty and unprofessional. If they're willing to break code just to take stabs at the president, that does not speak well for their confidentiality with patients.

"Oh it's no big deal, nobody ever really took that rule seriously anyway."

That's a bad thing...

---

I'm not very good at this...