We should ban certain topics

Author: Bringerofrain

Posts

Total: 71
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
I know free speech is something a lot of people here hold dearly, but it can be bad for dialogue. It might be cute to even argue in favor of disgusting things like being pro serial killer in a debate. However we need to focus on how certain beliefs can harm society and how we should not even tolerate those beliefs. I would propose banning certain topics such as what follows.

1. Nuclear war is good
2. Murder is good
3. Rape is good
4. Women are inferior to men
5. Some races are superior to others

These topics can have real world consequences, particularly since the site has a very young demographics and are very impressionable. 

I know this might be controversial, but the site should eliminate any notion that all speech is acceptable or will be tolerated. Anything considered disgusting by normative ethics should be banned.





Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
If people never hear extremist arguments, they will never be able to be persuaded to be extremists. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,389
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bringerofrain
You recently made a topic supporting incels (or mocking them, I'm not sure which I just noticed the title and knew it was too offputting of a topic to touch)... Anyway, I agree to the notion of this but I think topics 1 and 2 are not too taboo depending on the context. I agree with 3-5 being no-gos. I understand it can be entertaining to be devil's advocate but exactly as this can have real world impact I have come to understand as I've grown up, why censorship is needed in moderation (pun intended).
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,389
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bringerofrain
3 and 5 I'd support outright banning. I feel 4 could be interesting if the woman-defender is allowed to bite back at how males have often ruined their own progress because of their hostility and impulsivity and stuff like that.
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
I was neither making fun  or supporting incel's. Just pointing out some of their arguments about being genetically inferior may have merit. 
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
Also just to be clear, I wouldn't ban topics based on level of disgustingness but the impact of that ideal gaining a foothold in the mind of large numbers of youth. The argument may even be correct in some of those instances but should be banned anyway. For example some races of people do have higher IQs than others, but if it is argued that race a has a lower IQ than race b in the debate than the debate should be removed and the debater making the argument enter some sort of education program before being allowed to make more topics. Something like a short video and questionnaire to help them learn the correct opinions about these sorts of things. What is the process for starting a meep?
Wagyu
Wagyu's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 130
1
2
5
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
1
2
5
-->
@Bringerofrain
4 could make a juicy debate. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
I would propose banning certain topics such as what follows.

1. Nuclear war is good
2. Murder is good
3. Rape is good
4. Women are inferior to men
5. Some races are superior to others

You might as well put out a sign that says, "NO REPUBLICANS"   Is that the effect you are hoping to achieve?
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
Lol, that's funny. If that policy would eliminate all republicans, that is pretty sad.
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
What do you think of my ideal for the reeducation videos, so the people posting those topics understand why they had their content censored?
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
I would suggest banning those as well, but for the reason that those could be seen as free wins to any serious debater who is sane.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Says you - as you argue that homosexuality is a choice.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bringerofrain
If people never hear extremist arguments, they will never be able to be persuaded to be extremists. 
Who was the first "extremist"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bringerofrain
sed on level of disgustingness but the impact of that ideal gaining a foothold in the mind of large numbers of youth. The argument may even be correct in some of those instances but should be banned anyway. For example some races of people do have higher IQs than others, but if it is argued that race a has a lower IQ than race b in the debate than the deba
HILARIOUS.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
3 and 5 I'd support outright banning.
Of course you would.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The first extremist was Cain
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
Anyone who says those topics are an automatic loss against a good debater is incorrect and probably doesn't have a strong background in philosophy. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bringerofrain
The first extremist was Cain
And how do you think they learned their "evil" ideas?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bringerofrain
Mm, there are certainly arguments for all of the topics brought up - whether they're actually good is another matter entirely. Perhaps someone with an intermediate knowledge of philosophy could argue for the topics with success; however I often find that if you have even a grasp of the concept they are arguing for they are immediately revealed as having no idea what they're talking about. There is a very good reason why most philosophers don't find these things as justifiable - closer inspection against most "shock and awe" arguments are simply not valid.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I am opposed to the idea of banning any discussion of any topic for the simple reason that we should not be afraid that the discussion may incite someone else to action, and that is really what is at the root of the fear of discussion of some topics. If one cannot discuss what may make nuclear war good [can't think of any substantiating commentary at present, but that doesn't mean there isn't one], how do we convince that it is bad? there must be opposition in. all things, else we fail to understand both sides of an issue; any issue. Rather, we need to assure that our youth hear both sides of an issue. I don't think it's any healthier to indoctrinate youth with either side of an argument; let them hear, and discuss both sides.  How, unless we can openly discuss whether war of any kind has good and bad consequences and, by so doing, allow the conclusion to develop that nuclear war, specifically, may not be such a good idea. EWhen has ignorance ever been a good idea?

And, by the way, just so all sides of an issue can be discussed, what the hell is wrong with Dr Seuss?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
I am opposed to the idea of banning any discussion of any topic for the simple reason that we should not be afraid that the discussion may incite someone else to action,
100% THIS.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
1. Threat of nuclear war maintains peace
2. Vigilante justice is a human right
3. Credible threat of torture can be an effective interrogation technique
4. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals
5. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Original Topics:
1. Nuclear war is good
2. Murder is good
3. Rape is good
4. Women are inferior to men
5. Some races are superior to others

Proposed arguments:
1. Threat of nuclear war maintains peace
2. Vigilante justice is a human right
3. Credible threat of torture can be an effective interrogation technique
4. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals
5. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals

1  - Threat of Nuclear War is fundamentally different from Nuclear War - this is sad 3RU7AL
2. A better argument than the first one - however vigilante justice does not necessarily equate to murder - furthermore this is only using the legal definition of murder
3. This should be a simple simple ethics impact check - is information more important or bodily agency, long-term physical and mental condition, the possibility of death. Information will rarely if ever be worth that - this is absurd.
4 & 5: SOME INDIVIDUALS do not equate to EVERY INDIVIDUAL AS PART OF A GROUP - this is the saddest argument - stop.
 

fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
thanks
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
1  - Threat of Nuclear War is fundamentally different from Nuclear War - this is sad 3RU7AL
It is impossible to have a nuclear war without the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war.

AND while maintaining  the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war it is impossible to simultaneously fully mitigate the risk of an ACTUAL nuclear war.

The threat (and the benefits of a threat) are inextricably linked to the likelihood of actual nuclear war.

AND nuclear war is NOT somehow either more or less moral than any other type of war.

(IFF) any war is justifiable (THEN) nuclear war is justifiable

2. A better argument than the first one - however vigilante justice does not necessarily equate to murder - furthermore this is only using the legal definition of murder
Vigilante justice often includes (de facto) murder.  For example, "self-defense" is (de facto) murder UNLESS magical "motive" can be "proved" ("self-defense" is vigilante justice).

3. This should be a simple simple ethics impact check - is information more important or bodily agency, long-term physical and mental condition, the possibility of death. Information will rarely if ever be worth that - this is absurd.
It would be nice if everyone agreed with you, but unfortunately, the people extracting information do not maintain the slightest concern for individual sovereignty.

4 & 5: SOME INDIVIDUALS do not equate to EVERY INDIVIDUAL AS PART OF A GROUP - this is the saddest argument - stop.
The most common counter-argument to individualism is that ALL CLASSES OF HUMANS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE OF ALL TASKS (and this equalism claim is demonstrably false).
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
1  - Threat of Nuclear War is fundamentally different from Nuclear War - this is sad 3RU7AL
It is impossible to have a nuclear war without the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war.

It is impossible to have a nuclear war without the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war.

AND while maintaining  the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war it is impossible to simultaneously fully mitigate the risk of an ACTUAL nuclear war.

The threat (and the benefits of a threat) are inextricably linked to the likelihood of actual nuclear war.

AND nuclear war is NOT somehow either more or less moral than any other type of war.

(IFF) any war is justifiable (THEN) nuclear war is justifiable


It is impossible to have a nuclear war without the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war.
Capability AND threat - oh, and the threat has to be credible? This is an obvious extrapolation from your first suggestion


AND while maintaining  the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war it is impossible to simultaneously fully mitigate the risk of an ACTUAL nuclear war.
Because Nuclear war and the threat of nuclear war are different - the threat of nuclear war is simply not suffcient to justify ACTUAL NUCLEAR WAR - you have lost sight of the subject.


The threat (and the benefits of a threat) are inextricably linked to the likelihood of actual nuclear war
The cons of a nuclear war FAAAR outweigh the benefits of the threats of one - one is mass destruction - the other is getting countries to back off of petty deals. 


AND nuclear war is NOT somehow either more or less moral than any other type of war.IFF) any war is justifiable (THEN) nuclear war is justifiable
Demonstrate that claim, and this is begging the question of course if "ANY TYPE OF WAR" is justifiable then nuclear war is justifiable, nuclear war is a part of "any type of war", any type of war is what I don't accept - this is a sad collection of non-sequiturs and false equivalences. 
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
2. A better argument than the first one - however vigilante justice does not necessarily equate to murder - furthermore this is only using the legal definition of murder
Vigilante justice often includes (de facto) murder.  For example, "self-defense" is (de facto) murder UNLESS magical "motive" can be "proved" ("self-defense" is vigilante justice).
"Often includes (de facto) murder" demonstrate that claim - and your "example" is based on a supposition that you can't prove motive, which you can. Furthermore, you completely ignored the second part of my argument - the whole legal definition thing.


3. This should be a simple simple ethics impact check - is information more important or bodily agency, long-term physical and mental condition, the possibility of death. Information will rarely if ever be worth that - this is absurd.
It would be nice if everyone agreed with you, but unfortunately, the people extracting information do not maintain the slightest concern for individual sovereignty.
Cool, I don't care - demonstrate that the "not having concern" is justified ethically, because that doesn't rebuke my argument.


4 & 5: SOME INDIVIDUALS do not equate to EVERY INDIVIDUAL AS PART OF A GROUP - this is the saddest argument - stop.
The most common counter-argument to individualism is that ALL CLASSES OF HUMANS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE OF ALL TASKS (and this equalism claim is demonstrably false).
This does not address my argument. Please stop with your red herrings.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
AND nuclear war is NOT somehow either more or less moral than any other type of war.IFF) any war is justifiable (THEN) nuclear war is justifiable
Demonstrate that claim, and this is begging the question of course if "ANY TYPE OF WAR" is justifiable then nuclear war is justifiable, nuclear war is a part of "any type of war", any type of war is what I don't accept - this is a sad collection of non-sequiturs and false equivalences. 
Please present an actual counter-argument.

(IFF) you believe that "nuclear war" is somehow fundamentally dissimilar to "conventional war" (THEN) please highlight those perceived differences
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Conventional War - the benefit from waging war can possibly outdo the negatives from war

Nuclear War - everyone loses necessarily - there are no benefits

Very easy bud - furthermore, you have not substantiated your claims, do not shift the goal post