The later experiments, that tried to remove confounding variables, found even less effect sizes and continual non-significance. The only reason their most praised meta analysis shows significance is because they included all the horribly designed ganzfield experiment. This topic is a joke among...
And what's this got to do with me? I see no term called, "Jew blaming." I am not Hitler, I'm not talking about conspiracy theories or The Great Depression or anything of the like.
Wow. The first link talks about blaming the victim. The second link says at the end, "In the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the Nazis blamed the Jews." There is no term in the links you gave called Jew blaming. So, when you say I'm Jew blaming, I don't know what you mean. Perhaps there's an...
I love how quite a few people in this forum give links and that's it. They expect other people to magically know what's going on in their head. At least you gave some context for the second link.
Describe to me how you are the victim in THIS situation?
If it's a term, I thought Google would at least pick it up. Nope, I did not even see even a wiki page on it. So, if you are trying to title me as antisemitic, at least say it outright, don't make up terms. Then say why this is the case. Assertions are a waste of time. What I am doing is saying...
Show me where you provided a reference except from the link to the DSM. I use the term citation and reference interchangeably in a colloquial setting, because I'm not writing a report nor am I reading one. However, they both refer to some source material.
There is no such term. Cite it...
I've noticed you don't have any references and you're still all assertion. I'm arguing with a man-child. Since you have nothing to backup anything you're saying, I won't take anything you say seriously but I will humour myself.
This is not what I said. Try to actually read what I write to you...
Triggered. I'll refrain from this type of discourse, because I prefer evidence and intellectual conversation. It seems the most you can offer are continual retorts, but I'll try see what you're capable of. I explained why you think morality is absolute, but it seems like you don't realise your...
Your rant is almost all assertions. You've retreated to assertions with nothing to back it up, which is equivalent to arguing with a toddler. It also seems like you can't explain yourself further. I suspect it's fear because I WILL catch you out if you make a mistake. It seems, this is what an...
Huh, I was not the one conflating or interchanging the two. You decided to define empathy for me. I didn't ask. However, you definition was incorrect, as I pointed out. Humorously, you thought I didn't know the definition and pointed that out for some reason. Do I need to quote what was said or...
You are talking about identifying. Empathy is to feel the perceived emotions of another entity. It seems you don't know what the word means.
I see your confusion here. You seem to think that morality has to be absolute, like a moral law or Kant's categorical imperative. It seems like only...
Yes, I agree.
I'd like to make this point too. As a moral relativist, I'm not going to convince someone that my morality is better, because first, it's very hard to do and second, as a moral relativist, I can appreciate their morality in some way. However, in this thread, we don't get...