not a debate topic, just a semantic argument

performative pedantry

I think that's a great way of describing this post =/

Yeah, @mrpotato needs to bring some evidence to the table. Claims should be substantiated by evidence. if you're trying to debunk someone else's claim which is substantiated with evidence, you definitely need evidence.

If you cant install Linux on it, you don't own it, and its important to own your own data.

The "classed" Idea makes a lot of sense to me. Sabine Hossenfelder brought that up in her latest video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ9YAFYIBOU

If the title doesn't present a debate topic, at least copy a bit form the article to the "body" so we can get a gist of whats being argued without reading the whole article.

yup

I'm sort of envisioning people getting into arguments at the bottom of reddit threads and inviting others to join a new thread here =/

which I agree with. I'm just pointing out that you could define intelligence as "being good at capitalism", and arguing that its really the same as "being good at deceiving people", and suggesting its different than intelligence, or that intelligence is a broader term.

If you stab your partner in the back and take his half, some could say you were "smarter" than him, but I dont see that as "being smart" I see it as being "ruthless". You could define who ever wins the backstabbing contest as "the smartest", but its not always a strategical win like in a game of chess, but rather who was the best liar.

My main argument is that most people conflate being a psychopath with being intelligent because they're successful. I assert If these successful psychopaths took intelligence tests with the people they stabbed in the back, they would not always be the smartest.

I don't really see the conspiracy here. the lemmygrad users post stuff like this all the time, and I think most lemmy.ml users think its easier to ignore them than start the 1000th pointless argument

Seeing how poorly the "war on drugs" in America has gone, It's not hard for an alternative to be better =/

Exactly capitalists exploit the intelligent people.

On January 23rd, 1923 Banting, Best, and Collip were awarded the American patents for insulin. They sold the patent to the University of Toronto for $1 each. Banting notably said: “Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.” His desire was for everyone who needed access to it to have it.

And today in America a months supply can cost upward of $1,500 dollars. Capitalism doesn't reward intelligence, it rewards greed.

from: https://www.t1international.com/100years/

I feel like this will just push the discrimination off into other sectors, but on the other hand, what else can you do?

I've not gone to a school with a uniform, so I don't really know how it plays out.

The divorce rate has in fact increased in Germany since prostitution became legal in 2002.

Where do you see this? Both the divorce rate per capita and the the divorce rate per marriage has gone down dramatically since 2002... It was over 50% then and is around 39% now.

EDIT: but there is some merit to changing demographics. we would need a study that accounts for that.

It’s for already established marriages with children.

You can ignore the back side of a coin, but it doesn't make it go away.

I’m arguing legalizing it will increase divorces.

You're speculating that it will increase divorces, and that it's a bad thing, but not bringing any facts to the table.

Prostitution is legal in Germany but they have a very similar divorce rate to the U.S.
rates in germany - rates in US

Nevada has traditionally had a much higher divorce rate than the rest of the US, but in recent years it has come down to below that of more traditionally conservative states. This seems to suggest there is more to the issue than you're speculating. divorce rates by state

You're assuming the married people have kids, and that the kids would be better off if their parents stayed together. It's perfectly plausible that legalization would prevent these fragile marriages and then in turn raise the rate of children raised with both parents.

I don't really agree or disagree, but think the argument is completely pointless.

Typically things are made legal or illegal based on "societal harm". What is the value in keeping around marriages that would be lost if prostitution were legal? There are many arguments that could be made for or against legalizing prostitution, but "marriage rate" seems irrelevant.

what is the debate here? this study only had 80 participants, and has barley any citations =/

Here's the full paper in case anyone is interested: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80039-5

Here's the citations on google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7045687540461565868

https://gtio.io/post/105/comment/49

How is it a strawman? It's a case-study.