Why are we banning wylted?

"I might engage later"Yes - so ambiguous -"After a break" -Uhuh, totally makes it a mystery

I did not, I used a very broad term - life - does life not include both mental and physical pain - furthermore it is a mental desire to avoid pain that prompts a physical reaction... otherwise your body would not do as it does, because there is no reason.. . if your body wasn't operating on epigenetics informing you to stay alive, then your body wouldn't simple as that. 

2. This has nothing to do with the actual point - IF you know it could harm people, don't do it - that does not give any moral obligation which is unreasonable. You know that Wylted speech can be and is harmful, THEREFORE it ought to be banned, this argument assumes you have the correct conclusion.

3. This does not actually acknowledge my syllogism, nor my defense of it - you simply dislike the fact that your "individuality" isn't worth harming others, you disagree with the conclusion. Half of your points are begging the question and false call-outs to fallacies you don't seem to understand. You are much more opt to ad hominem call outs and "lol"s.

4. When did I claim that the other person has no responsibility for helping themselves? And once again this doesn't have anything to actually do with my arguments, the closest you got there was numero uno. Most of this is assuming that individuality trumps harm and going for there. Ironic that is. Furthermore, taking responsibility for what your words do to others is the same as taking responsibility for what your body can do to others... would you say that arguing that you shouldn't assault people is, "trying to take away responsibility from getting an injury fixed"? No, of course, you wouldn't you would say that's not making the harm worse - and it applies to mental trauma. 

5. Killing all politicians isn't a "controversial" opinion, its a borderline terroristic act... almost literally by its qualifications. Or, "molestations are fine" is also, empirically harmful, as it literally encourages people to rape others, are you saying that raping others... isn't a bad thing? Because that's the only way this can be "controversial" and not harmful

6. This is the most red herring of them all, you have failed to address my arguments - you value your own life - that's what this was responding to , you have literally failed to address any of my points or make any logical conclusions

1. So you agree that harm has objective effects on people? Then you have conceded one of the core arguments you were defending before this is literally one of the main points we were arguing.

2. So if you believe that mental trauma has objective affects on people, as you literally just agreed, then this analogy applies - would you not have to respect somebody's physical injury if they had hurt it? Like if somebody had a broken leg, then it is your responsibility to respect that... its that simple - your argument here is a non-sequtur, or, rejecting the premise you espouse but accepting the conclusions of my arguments. 

3. The actual amount of it that the world does is irrelevant to whether it is the correct thing to do, an appeal to populum is nothing in the framework of an argument. 

4. This is the rest of the argument, just... "Suicide, nooooo, that's not relevant to a debate about the harm that words can do to somebody's pyche, which directly leads to suicide!" Do you see how absurd that argument is? You ask 

Whats that? A strawman? My point is that Wylted's speech does have a direct affect on people with trauma's that's what this section is all about, and you seem to completely hand wave it away, without actually considering the implications of such things. IF psychological harm has objective affects on people, 

AND people's words can directly lead to psychological harm (which, it very obviously can [LINK]), THEN you should avoid words which will hurt people... .this isn't that big of a deal, its literally just being a considerate human being.

And its something everyone has moral obligations to do - regardless if you believe in objective morality or no morality - hint hint - I think objective morality is dog shit, it makes zero sense, I also think that saying a species that was springboarded by innovation and thought has no morality is stupid - our consciousness gives us morality - and yes it is wonderfully subjective, that doesn't mean it doesn't cause empirical impacts on the world we know.

If the most you can get out of my argument is: "But people don't do mass suicide because of words" then you have missed the point.

(Also you literally concede the point, funny that.)

1. I was referencing somebody actually trying to offer psychological aid to the person in need, however, you need a licence to give out therapeutic advice under the guise of therapeutic, therefore unless DebateArt.Com hired a psychologist that was professionally hired, and had proof that they weren't a quack, then they can't do much more to help trauma ridden people then ban topics like Wylted - you've missed the point.

2. Blocking could help RM, it would not help others that happened onto the scene - however, the actual harmfulness of humor is actually subjective - some people might even cope with humor like that - the point is that things like what Wylted is espousing, is actually objectively harmful, that's a false equivalence: the nature of humor makes it literally one of the sole exceptions to the rule, and that isn't even all of the time - satirical humor is often more harmful then it is helpful, the same goes for jokes playing the but as minorities, both are objectively harmful: my point is - satirical is controversial whether its helpful or harmful, and that makes it unique in this instance; however, any other type of humor can be harmful - and RM blocking you only protects him, not other people... because if they see it - yes, even once, that's all that is needed for harm to happen

3. Again, we see the widespread, "the victim has responsibility for being harmed!" mentality... well no, no they don't - because it shouldn't have happened to them in the first place, any "responsibility" they have is second priority to not making their harm worse 

 you are quite literally victim blaming..... if someone was raped, would you blame them for "not trying hard enough" to not be raped, or the person... that raped them 

4. They have an ability to ignore people AFTER some harm has already occurred, which would be the entire point - this is yet another red herring that doesn't have to do with actually banning people - you've shifted the goalpost from canceling to blocking - that's it

1 - because the title was "killing politicians" as in - in general - with no exceptions - which would fundamentally be un-utilitarian as its with no regard for the subtleties - furthermore, this is an actual slippery slope argument - "Well he could be making a good point" - killing others to make others better is quite literally the opposite of utilitarianism, which is a very "Means matter more than the ends" type deal in most cases - the means are apart of the cost-benefit analysis.

2. Another false equivalence - we know today that Hitler caused millions of deaths, but killing politicians in general would be assigning wide blame for something we don't know all politicians would do - if a politician killed people, you can quite literally charge them intent to murder - now - there is a conversation about corruption in politicians and the inability to charge them, but you this would be assigning an inhumane death penalty across the board - this is bs in its most deliberate form.

3. That is a strawman, while the notion does indeed offend me on some level, the reason I object to it is because its talking about killing innocent people - that's why I object - do you not understand that? 

4. Do you not comprehend the difference between harm and offence - the two are different - you are continuing on with your false equivalence and literally ignoring all of my points, just continuing on with yours, this is why I said I would do it later, because all of your points can be boiled down to false equivalences, strawmen, or outright non-sequiturs. 

I did not, I used a very broad term - life - does life not include both mental and physical pain - furthermore it is a mental desire to avoid pain that prompts a physical reaction... otherwise your body would not do as it does, because there is no reason.. . if your body wasn't operating on epigenetics informing you to stay alive, then your body wouldn't simple as that. 

1. Mental and physical plan are different in terms of laws and ethics. It is not okay for me to punch someone who pisses me off. 2. I won't be arrested for calling someone a cunt though, unless I go too far into the realm of disturbing the piece. 3. It is not my burden or responsibility nor should it be the laws to know whether or not the person I called a cunt recieved severe mental trama. 

2. This has nothing to do with the actual point - IF you know it could harm people, don't do it - that does not give any moral obligation which is unreasonable. You know that Wylted speech can be and is harmful, THEREFORE it ought to be banned, this argument assumes you have the correct conclusion.

1. Again mental harm shouldn't be treated as a harm, because how "harmful" it is, is subjective. 2. You completely take away the responsibility of the person you percieve as the "victim". That person has the means to block the individual, not respond to the individual, or can choose to turn the other cheek and not be offended. 3. If Wylted called me a slur or a bald POS, I would not be affected, because I choose not to be. That's my own responsibility. If someone who is crippled is severely offended by ablist jokes, they have the option to grow tougher skin about it as well or not respond. 5. There lot in life is tough, and banning people who make fun of them on an internet site isn't going to make people like Wylted go away in the real world either.

3. This does not actually acknowledge my syllogism, nor my defense of it - you simply dislike the fact that your "individuality" isn't worth harming others, you disagree with the conclusion. Half of your points are begging the question and false call-outs to fallacies you don't seem to understand. You are much more opt to ad hominem call outs and "lol"s.

I mean saying something does not refute your argument, when it applies very well, is the equivalent of a child whining "Nuh uh!" when running out of arguments. Oh and "lol". I can and will laugh when people say absurd things. Ironically you being offended by that seems really relevant here ;-)

4. When did I claim that the other person has no responsibility for helping themselves? And once again this doesn't have anything to actually do with my arguments, the closest you got there was numero uno. Most of this is assuming that individuality trumps harm and going for there. Ironic that is. Furthermore, taking responsibility for what your words do to others is the same as taking responsibility for what your body can do to others... would you say that arguing that you shouldn't assault people is, "trying to take away responsibility from getting an injury fixed"? No, of course, you wouldn't you would say that's not making the harm worse - and it applies to mental trauma. 

1. Because you keep pretending that physical and mental harm are equivalent, or should be, your argument will repeatedly fail. 2. Your arguing (poorly) that because someone can feel harmed from words, that it should be treated the same. You completely take away responsibility from the offended.3.  The slippery slope is that you can't possibly know every other persons triggers and you shouldn't have to care about them. 4. When you get cut off while driving on the road and you call the person a "Piece of shit" and flip them off, are you now responsible if that person feels triggered? 

5. The biggest thing you keep failing on here is applying this non-sense argument to reality. Would you expect the police to get involved and arrest the person who called you a piece of shit? If not why would you treat the site admins any different by expecting them to ban wylted?

5. Killing all politicians isn't a "controversial" opinion, its a borderline terroristic act... almost literally by its qualifications. Or, "molestations are fine" is also, empirically harmful, as it literally encourages people to rape others, are you saying that raping others... isn't a bad thing? Because that's the only way this can be "controversial" and not harmful

1. You are stating that your opinions on these issues are objective facts, and should be known prima facie. 2. Tell that to the hundreds of "Murder is wrong" debates that always seem to be popular on both debate.org and debateart.com. Just because the premise of a topic offends you, does not mean there isn't an argument to be made for it. 3. I am not going to be baited into making the argument for wylted about politicians, but if he could objectively provide a better argument for utilitarianism in a debate, it's not like that position is un-winnable in the slightest, even if the designation for him selecting the topic was trolly in nature. 

1. I said that in it's current form its not a threat legally, however it is very well almost one, and you just agreed - you provide no actual reasoning for the fact that its not a precursor to threat, you are missing the point again.

2. Jesus christ you haven't - you've barely elevated yourself above a sheep of a conservative who victum blames people - I know I said I would quit it with the ad hominem, but I think your tendency to point to the victim as the one as fault has genuine reason for informing your views - in other words - its in support of my argument

1 - because the title was "killing politicians" as in - in general - with no exceptions - which would fundamentally be un-utilitarian as its with no regard for the subtleties - furthermore, this is an actual slippery slope argument - "Well he could be making a good point" - killing others to make others better is quite literally the opposite of utilitarianism, which is a very "Means matter more than the ends" type deal in most cases - the means are apart of the cost-benefit analysis.

1, If you haven't even heard the argument yet are judging based on the title of a thread that there is no argument, you are LITERALLY judging a book by it's cover. Again the same type of shit rednecks got away with for years on the topic of gay marriage which stopped social progression for decades. Maybe if you don't dismiss a notion you find offensive outright, you can actually learn something!

2. Another false equivalence - we know today that Hitler caused millions of deaths, but killing politicians in general would be assigning wide blame for something we don't know all politicians would do - if a politician killed people, you can quite literally charge them intent to murder - now - there is a conversation about corruption in politicians and the inability to charge them, but you this would be assigning an inhumane death penalty across the board - this is bs in its most deliberate form.

1 It's not a false equivalency; Hitler was a politicians who killed millions. Killing him prevented further numerous deaths.2.  If Wylted was arguing for killing American politicians he'd probably have a hard time winning the debate, but I wouldn't say outright that he will lose it without even hearing the argument. I also wouldn't say it makes any sense to ban discussion of the subject.3.  Discussing something isn't a terrorist act, even if you win an argument on a small scale debate site, you aren't actually carrying the act out or saying you will. Debate is literally just talking over the pro's and con's. 

3. That is a strawman, while the notion does indeed offend me on some level, the reason I object to it is because its talking about killing innocent people - that's why I object - do you not understand that? 

1. If you are discussing killing someone, it would be because from your position you think the individuals being killed are indeed not innocent. It's in your opinion that these people are. That's fine, but since you claim to be a subjectivist you should also understand that everyone doesn't share the same opion as you right?

4. Do you not comprehend the difference between harm and offence - the two are different - you are continuing on with your false equivalence and literally ignoring all of my points, just continuing on with yours, this is why I said I would do it later, because all of your points can be boiled down to false equivalences, strawmen, or outright non-sequiturs. 

"Waahh waah" "No u"

1. I said that in it's current form its not a threat legally, however it is very well almost one, and you just agreed - you provide no actual reasoning for the fact that its not a precursor to threat, you are missing the point again.

1. If you wouldn't expect the police or secret service to view this as a realistic threat, why should the administrators of the site? I mean can you prove that the discussion around killing politicians will actually lead to the death of one? If not your "Pre-cursor" argument fails pretty hard homie.

2. Jesus christ you haven't - you've barely elevated yourself above a sheep of a conservative who victum blames people - I know I said I would quit it with the ad hominem, but I think your tendency to point to the victim as the one as fault has genuine reason for informing your views - in other words - its in support of my argument

I think it's funny you compare me to a conservative, I am pretty damn liberal actually. The fundamental difference is that I don'tshare the same beliefs of what a victim actually is. 

"a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action"

1. Yours is more a long the lines of "Someone who severely got their feelings hurt" while refusing to acknowledge that the person doesn't have to involve themselves in the thing that hurt their feelings.

In a debate, I would really just leave it as a red herring, but I want to cover all my bases here - not for you really - for the "audience" 

1. You quite literally ignore my argument, and just say: "Nope the conclusion is wrong, that's it" - without actually engaging in my argument - that's a red herring bud. Continuing on with it is a borderline hand waving of my argument.

2. Demonstrate that assertion

3. Then you actually agree with my point of not hurting other people, you just don't agree with the premises that make it up - however you have yet to actually debunk my argument - this is seeming like those adds that bring up a "problem" and dally on and on before presenting their solution, do you have one in this argument? 

4. This is just hand waving - why not - do you have any actual objections to my argument - IF you value your life, and you want others to value your life (which you do if you value your life) then the only way to obtain that logically is to value theirs - not valuing others lives is essentially saying, "Well then you don't have to value my life" In other words, you are saying that anybody has a moral right to kill you - that's it. 

5. This is an assertion, please demonstrate it - furthermore - explain how it actually debunks my argument - I am arguing that you have a reasonable moral obligation, not that people know they have it - strawman baked in with assertions without substantiation. 

6. So you espouse, but you fail to actually back up your assertions.... and why are you arguing as if I"m saying that having a societal obligation to others informs a moral one? Cause I'm not,  that was never my argument, and I never actually even talked about societal contracts (though I would widely agree with you that you have an societal contract to not murder others). 

In other words - I was completely in the right for writing you off - you have a construction of assertions, fallacies (stacked fallacies actually - haven't gotten to say that since Selidora), and pessimism - fine you have pessimism - but you have fundamentally failed to actually rebuke my syllogism. 

1. You quite literally ignore my argument, and just say: "Nope the conclusion is wrong, that's it" - without actually engaging in my argument - that's a red herring bud. Continuing on with it is a borderline hand waving of my argument.

Everything I have said has been substantiated with reasoning. This is a lie.

2. Demonstrate that assertion

Okay, why don't you give away all of your money to every homeless person you see? You care about their lives don't you? Why don't you donate your kidney to someone who will die if they don't get one? You care about everyone's life don't you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9TOWIc_KLU

This video from an awesome T.V. gives an anecdote that explains why you shouldn't have to care about the lives of others pretty damn well. Watch it if you get a sec. 

3. Then you actually agree with my point of not hurting other people, you just don't agree with the premises that make it up - however you have yet to actually debunk my argument - this is seeming like those adds that bring up a "problem" and dally on and on before presenting their solution, do you have one in this argument? 

No we don't agree, because as has been stated ad nauseum, we view what harm actually is differently. Hurting people legally and ethically vs mentally, and how we should treat each.

If you live in a society, there is an ethical reason to respect their rights and freedoms that's protected by the law

4. This is just hand waving - why not - do you have any actual objections to my argument - IF you value your life, and you want others to value your life (which you do if you value your life) then the only way to obtain that logically is to value theirs - not valuing others lives is essentially saying, "Well then you don't have to value my life" In other words, you are saying that anybody has a moral right to kill you - that's it. 

Again physical harm =/= mental harm

5. This is an assertion, please demonstrate it - furthermore - explain how it actually debunks my argument - I am arguing that you have a reasonable moral obligation, not that people know they have it - strawman baked in with assertions without substantiation. 

People in the capital riots literally murdered people, and had intentions to murderpolitical captives if they were to be found. Again you are ignorant or naive to assume people on the opposite ends of the political spectrum wouldn't do these things to each other.

6. So you espouse, but you fail to actually back up your assertions.... and why are you arguing as if I"m saying that having a societal obligation to others informs a moral one? Cause I'm not,  that was never my argument, and I never actually even talked about societal contracts (though I would widely agree with you that you have an societal contract to not murder others). 

Because I am making a direct correlation to reality (something you seem to live out side of) to the website. If we act a certain way in society why allow certain things why should it be any different online? Especially on a website that encourages differing viewpoints?

"Many state laws include verbal threats and emotional abuse as child abuse. In these situations, the child does not need to suffer any actual physical harm for an act to be abusive. A caregiver who, for example, repeatedly humiliates or terrorizes a child has committed child abuse. Parents who subject their children to the sight of physical or verbal attacks may also commit child abuse."

1. You have claimed that its different in laws and ethics - now - lets say I buy the first point; that there is a distinction in law, you have not here substantiated that there is a difference in ethics. You have claimed that it shouldn't be your responsibility, but you haven't backed that up. 

2. So let me ask you a question - which is ethically worse - disturbing the piece, or causing psychological harm? Because you conceded that psychological harm has objective physical effects. 

3. The ethical foundation of this claim is what I find unsubstantiated - why is it not your responsibility, ethically, to avoid mentally harming others? You have the physical obligation, and ethically speaking - it falls under the broad spectrum of life, which you haven't rebuked here. 

1. You have already conceded that there is objective physical harm done to people who are subjectively harm, are you saying that you should be allowed to assault people because the level of harm is "subjective"? This is a contradiction in rhetoric.

2.  The damage, the psychological harm, is already done - are you, again, saying that if you are assaulted on the street you should simply, "block the individual, not respond to the individual, or can choose to turn the other cheek and not be offended"? No! Of course, you wouldn't say that -and I'd argue that the myriad of psychological harm's objective effects are worse than a slight bruise on the arm - why the double standard?

3. Using a slightly different analogy: is it the individual's responsibility to have dodged the the knife that was used to mug them with? Or their fault for not running fast enough? This is all - fundamentally - working on assumptions that individual freedom is more important than another's life - keep in mind the societal contract's phrase: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - because without life you cannot have liberty, and without life or liberty you cannot have happiness - life is more important than liberty - because you cannot have liberty without life, ergo, hurting people has a bigger impact than "i wanted to say the harmful thing". 

4. This paragraph does not actually rebut any of my arguments - the latter half assumes your own conclusion, and the front half is just you repeating the same point with no actual engagement to my rebuttals. Begging the question and non-sequiturs.

You ignore that I actually had rebuttals beforehand, you don't seem interested in genuine conversation - ah - I see- I suppose RM's analysis of you was correct, you are not used to people actually sticking around after your "bullying" as he calls it - you're used to Mafia and getting your way, so you resort to repeating your arguments and making non-sequiturs whenever pressed. Furthermore, why haven't you responded to my assertion of your arguments being fallacies? Do you concede the point?

1. You have already concluded that there are objective physical harms to mental trauma - did you forget that? Mental trauma is empirically worse than physical trauma, and you seem to continuously forget that you had conceded the point 

2. That is not my argument, my argument is that: Based on the EMPIRICAL levels of harm that can be done to an individual through mental trauma, one has the SAME level of responsibility to avoid doing it to others - you are the one that has yet to demonstrate any "subjectiveness" to mental trauma. IF you feel I'm arguing so poorly, then let's have a public debate eh? We'll see how well you do. 

3. That's.... not what a slippery slope is, a SS is, and I quote, "a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen" [LINK] - what you are referring to is a rebuttal - now if you said that my argument was a slippery slope BECAUSE of the your point here- then that would apply. Furthermore, that is not what I aruged, I argued, that "IF you know something you said is harmful, THEN you shouldn't say it" And we know - that saying that molestation is good, is harmful - there is a very direct linkage of affairs. 

4. Well... actually cutting somebody off can lead to a car accident... so - that is not at all an equivalent comparison - as saying something like "molestation is good" or "we should kill politicians" isn't remotely the same thing - you are describing somebody doing wrong to you, and then you responding - is the person with trauma simply existing a "wrong" that allows Wylted to harm them more? Is that your argument bud?

5. Because first of all - ethics and law don't necessarily equate - second of all - calling somebody a "piece of shit" is not at all comparable to saying "molestation is good" because one directly justifies a horrific and painful crime done by a person, and the other is a curse word.... do you fail to comprehend the difference? And actually, saying that type of stuff can actually get you put on a watch list "molestation is good" not "piece of shit" so... yes I would actually call the cops if Wylted was talking to me... Furthermore, blocking Wylted isn't calling the cops, not in the slightest.

1 I ask again, is your argument that rape isn't empirically harmful to others? Because if your answer is no, then we should be having an entirely other conversation about your ability to comprehend rape, not this. 

1. So you agree that harm has objective effects on people? Then you have conceded one of the core arguments you were defending before this is literally one of the main points we were arguing.

1 My point is and always has been: "Just like the law  doesn't care about your feelings, neither should the site administration". 2. I am not going to sit here and argue that people's own subjective view of their trauma is lying, or invalid. 3. Just that they have some responsibility to not participate in the things that make traumatized, or feel harm.4.  If wylted was strapping people up in his basement and forcing them to listen to him tell ablist jokes, that's another thing because that would be literal kidnapping. 5. A handicapped individual doesn't have to participate in a thread that offends them, and has the means on this website  to not take part in it. 

"So you agree that harm has objective effects on people?"

2. So if you believe that mental trauma has objective affects on people, as you literally just agreed, then this analogy applies - would you not have to respect somebody's physical injury if they had hurt it? Like if somebody had a broken leg, then it is your responsibility to respect that... its that simple - your argument here is a non-sequtur, or, rejecting the premise you espouse but accepting the conclusions of my arguments. 

1. broken leg should not be treated the same as hurt feelings.2. People can choose not to get their feelings hurt, or find ways to get tougher skin, or get councelling. 3.I should not have to care about whether someone who engaged in trading opinions with me is so severely offended by mine that they recieved mental trauma.4.  Especially when they have every ability not to participate in the conversation that caused said trauma. 

Furthermore, common psychological responses to trauma are physically harmful, which are as follows [1]:

"Initial reactions to trauma can include exhaustion, confusion, sadness, anxiety, agitation, numbness, dissociation, confusion, physical arousal, and blunted affect.....Delayed responses to trauma can include persistent fatigue, sleep disorders, nightmares, fear of recurrence, anxiety focused on flashbacks, depression, and avoidance of emotions,

sensations, or activities that are associated with the trauma, even remotely"

1. So, do you have an actual argument? You're saying that I'm wrong by your "judge a book by its cover", but do you have an actual argument to support that. You're saying i need to learn, please educate me, or find someone who actually has the brain too, because you haven't substantiated a thing bud.

1. You miss the point we KNOW that Hitler caused millions of deaths, we DO NOT KNOW that all other politicians will - please read carefully.

2. That is your opinion, please substantiate that A - it is accurate, and B - that it is relevant

3. Is it or is it not a harmful act? That is a rhetorical question, yes, yes it is harmful - you have yet to actually rebutt my point, simply ignored words and rambled about your opinions without substantiation. Do you need a break? While the last one was similar in some instances, it had more work put into it.

1. That is a claim that is across a BROAD SPAN OF POLITICIANS - it is a ridiculous sweeping statement, like saying that all card makers are pedophiles - it is absurd claim that also says nothing about the legal action of the thing in question - furthermore, morality is subjective, however it has objective foundations, and apply in all cases rationally - therefore arguing that ALL of a specific group of people should be killed assumes they are all guilty, which, on a legal level doesn't work - because there are, in fact, Politicians that have been charged and acquitted.

Make a substantial argument

1. CURRENTLY not a threat -as it could turn into a threat very easily, and could reasonably be interpreted as a threat by politicians on the website - please actually demonstrate your claims.

1. People can be psychologically harmed, and it has EMPIRICAL AFFECTS on the person, which you conceded to. DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIMS

We could go back and forth, but your primary claim is that mental harm isn't the same as physical harm despite the empirical proof I demonstrated - that gives me very good reason to doubt the truth of your statement "Everything I have said has been substantiated with the reasoning"

Anecdotal evidence does not provide a demonstration to the whole - furthermore - I do actually give most of my money whenever I see homeless people, do I do so every time? No - because while it is true you should care for others there is also a need to care for yourself, after all, if you can't support yourself, then there isn't a way for you to sustain such good deeds. Having a moral obligation and being realistic do indeed coincide. In addition, people who receive organs are actually constantly on medication to continue surviving, as the foreign organ is rejected by the body - it will eventually shut down - and a lot of people - myself included - need to kidneys due to underlying conditions. Your gotcha's are unconvincing.

As you stated:

If you live in a society, there is an ethical reason to respect their rights and freedoms that's protected by the law

Therefore you agree that people should not have their lives harmed by others, no? This includes mental harm as I have previously demonstrated its harmful physical effects on people. 

Again physical harm =/= mental harm

You have ignored your concession in regards to the physical effects of mental trauma. Mental trauma is worse than Physical trauma 

People in the capital riots literally murdered people, and had intentions to murderpolitical captives if they were to be found. Again you are ignorant or naive to assume people on the opposite ends of the political spectrum wouldn't do these things to each other.

You are arguing about a select group of people, hundreds in contrast to the millions of people total - this does apply proportionally - to say I am "naive" while using a small percentage of people to represent the opinions of the majority marks you as the true "naive" - factually naive.

Because I am making a direct correlation to reality (something you seem to live out side of) to the website. If we act a certain way in society why allow certain things why should it be any different online? Especially on a website that encourages differing viewpoints?

Because you can't entirely block somebody in person - people should absolutely be punished for harming people mentally and with words, and OH LOOK - THEY DO:

1. You have claimed that its different in laws and ethics - now - lets say I buy the first point; that there is a distinction in law, you have not here substantiated that there is a difference in ethics. You have claimed that it shouldn't be your responsibility, but you haven't backed that up. 

1. Legally understood ethics are required for a functioning society; This is an important disctintion from morals, were are defined very loosely and subject to a vast difference in personal opinion. 2.I am arguing that we treat moral principles the same way our legal system treats them, not the way you want or think they should be. If Wylted legally is not considered a pedophile, or isn't legally thought to actually want to kill a politician, then our mods have no business banning him under their own presumption that this is his intention. 

2. So let me ask you a question - which is ethically worse - disturbing the piece, or causing psychological harm? Because you conceded that psychological harm has objective physical effects. 

1. Lmao I did not concede that there are "objective" effects, I said it's fine if someone wants to claim that their trauma is effecting them in those ways, but that we shouldn't have to care that they do. You really took that one and ran with it didn't you?

3. The ethical foundation of this claim is what I find unsubstantiated - why is it not your responsibility, ethically, to avoid mentally harming others? You have the physical obligation, and ethically speaking - it falls under the broad spectrum of life, which you haven't rebuked here. 

1. Because what people find offensive varies so vastly and largely it is extemely unreasonable to assume I should know what those triggers are or care about them. 2. Should I start off every debate I have asking people for a list of their triggers? 3. I am not mentally harmed by anything you say to me, but if I told you that you accusing me of multiple fallacies was my trigger should I expect you to care? Would you? 4.  If not then you literally don't stand by your own values. I am trying to paint a picture for you just how silly your argument is; I think at the core you know, which is why you keep resorting to semantics about what actually qualifies as "harm".

1. You have already conceded that there is objective physical harm done to people who are subjectively harm, are you saying that you should be allowed to assault people because the level of harm is "subjective"? This is a contradiction in rhetoric.

1. Your first sentence doesn't make much sense but if you are saying I conceded that there is an objective standard of harm, you are lying, or willfully not reading what I've been writing. And no I am not saying you should be allowed to harm someone, because that falls under the physical category, not the hurt feeling category.

2.  The damage, the psychological harm, is already done - are you, again, saying that if you are assaulted on the street you should simply, "block the individual, not respond to the individual, or can choose to turn the other cheek and not be offended"? No! Of course, you wouldn't say that -and I'd argue that the myriad of psychological harm's objective effects are worse than a slight bruise on the arm - why the double standard?

2. You keep falsely equivalating physical harm to mental harm, which I have tried proving to is not possible.1. Let's bring this back to the topic at handed, Wylted and his percieved transgressions. Are you saying that it's impossible for the "victim" of Wylted's "abuse" to not have blocked him, or chosen not to click on the thread? 

3. Using a slightly different analogy: is it the individual's responsibility to have dodged the the knife that was used to mug them with? Or their fault for not running fast enough? This is all - fundamentally - working on assumptions that individual freedom is more important than another's life - keep in mind the societal contract's phrase: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - because without life you cannot have liberty, and without life or liberty you cannot have happiness - life is more important than liberty - because you cannot have liberty without life, ergo, hurting people has a bigger impact than "i wanted to say the harmful thing". 

1. A life ending event like dodging a knife is NOT the same as choosing not to be offended by someone elses words lol. Sounds like I am gonna be a parrot repeating the same line over and over again here. 2. Also as far as life, liberty and pursuing happiness, you can achieve all that, even if someone hurt your feelings. Kind of funny how much power you give to people like Wylted if you think he actually can deprive people of that.

4. This paragraph does not actually rebut any of my arguments - the latter half assumes your own conclusion, and the front half is just you repeating the same point with no actual engagement to my rebuttals. Begging the question and non-sequiturs.

I have substantiated every conclusion; You keep ignoring and dismissing my arguments to make the one that is convienent for you. It's kind of sad actually. 

You ignore that I actually had rebuttals beforehand, you don't seem interested in genuine conversation - ah - I see- I suppose RM's analysis of you was correct, you are not used to people actually sticking around after your "bullying" as he calls it - you're used to Mafia and getting your way, so you resort to repeating your arguments and making non-sequiturs whenever pressed. Furthermore, why haven't you responded to my assertion of your arguments being fallacies? Do you concede the point?

More circle jerking RM, awesome. Glad you made a new friend; Doesn't do much in the way of refuting anything I've said. For every "fallacy" you've accused me of, you guilty of just the same if not more.

1. You have already concluded that there are objective physical harms to mental trauma - did you forget that? Mental trauma is empirically worse than physical trauma, and you seem to continuously forget that you had conceded the point 

*Yawn* more lying. Or just proof that you aren't reading anything. Your opinion of mental harm isn't legally recognized by the law as something that is arrestable; Therefor you cannot substantiate why it should be treated as so on this website any differently.

2. That is not my argument, my argument is that: Based on the EMPIRICAL levels of harm that can be done to an individual through mental trauma, one has the SAME level of responsibility to avoid doing it to others - you are the one that has yet to demonstrate any "subjectiveness" to mental trauma. IF you feel I'm arguing so poorly, then let's have a public debate eh? We'll see how well you do. 

I prefer arguing in the forums, you probably notice I don't debate much any more. No reason to subject myself to time constraints. We are debating right now. I will keep responding as long as you do. Also I doubt we would be able to agree on a resolution, and you would keep pulling semantics cards about mental harm being equivalent to physical card the entire debate as you are doing now. Wish is a complete dis-regard for my actual argument lol.

2. And I would argue that those debates are wrong to have - because they can actually harm people - the existence of such things that don't apply to a moral code, does not, in fact, invalidate that murder code. In other words, just because something does in fact happen, and its controversial, doesn't mean its actually legitimately so. 

1. The fact that "Murder is wrong" debate exist and are so frequent isn't spelling out to logical thinking people that we should go out and murder people. It's an omage to the art of debating, the site's inteded purpose. 2. If someone takes the side of debate that is pro murder is wrong but makes a sloppy argument and the person advocating murder is right makes the better argument, The latter deserves the win. As is the case in this debate: https://www.debate.org/debates/murder-is-wrong/1/ If something can be argued, it should be. 3. Nothing is off the table. It's unreasonable to think that because the person arguing that murder is right in this debate, 1. actually believes this, and 2. is effecting people's views on murder to the point where they don't understand that it still is illegal and therefor unnaceptable to do without severe consequences. 4. The discussion of this subject would not be banned legally, why should it be banned on the website? 

1. You have failed to address the question

2. You are conflating empirical data with "subjective views" you have failed to answer the question - the text you are responding to shows the empirical physical effects of psychological trauma - stop running away, please.

3. You have failed to address the question, instead, you have repeated yourself - substantiate what relevance it has to the conversation at hand

4. You have failed to address the question

5. You have failed to address the question

"So you agree that harm has objective effects on people?"

I can only conclude that you, therefore, concede the point. You agree that MENTAL HARM is as bad if not worse than PHYSICAL HARM

1. This is a false comparison, the harm I am talking about is not "hurt feelings" 

2. How are any of these things be resolved by "tougher skin" or "counseling" which is not always, if not most of the time, not effective - furthermore exasperating the problem, does not HELP - it further HARMS the individual - furthermore - you cannot "choose" to have these symptoms - you are not thinking through what you agreed to. 

3. So you claim, demonstrate that

4. We are talking about removing Wylted and his posts, which are already posted, people can and will continue to see them - there is choice in that matter bud.

1. CURRENTLY not a threat -as it could turn into a threat very easily, and could reasonably be interpreted as a threat by politicians on the website - please actually demonstrate your claims.

You yourself already admitted that you doubted a cop or lawyer would percieve a thread discussing the murder of politicians wouldn't be a threat. YOU actually need to demonstrate now why site admins should treat it as one when you don't think the secret service or police would. 

1. People can be psychologically harmed, and it has EMPIRICAL AFFECTS on the person, which you conceded to. DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIMS

You lying about me conceding anything is getting old. 

While it is true that harm can be "subjective" it is commonly manifested in things like sleep disorders, depression, and dissociation - all of which increase the rate of suicide among people with them [2] - though Trauma in general increases the rate of suicide [3] - that leads us to a clear scale of importance - is allowing these things to be publically discussed worth an increased rate of suicide in an individual (According to source 2 - higher than 35% more likely), which (according to source 3) accounts for all deaths worldwide? 

Even if you don't buy that you should care about others, you ought to care about the number of people in the world, as IF trends continue to increase in suicide, THEN there will be less people to construct societies which empirically help you to live, if not completely facilitate it. However, given the previous argument, this should be a rather important problem.

1. All this is fine, 2 but I reject your premise that it's the responsibility of others to have to respect that trauma,

We could go back and forth, but your primary claim is that mental harm isn't the same as physical harm despite the empirical proof I demonstrated - that gives me very good reason to doubt the truth of your statement "Everything I have said has been substantiated with the reasoning"

Saying that people get triggered easily does not substantiate why societal laws should care.  

Anecdotal evidence does not provide a demonstration to the whole - furthermore - I do actually give most of my money whenever I see homeless people, do I do so every time? No - because while it is true you should care for others there is also a need to care for yourself, after all, if you can't support yourself, then there isn't a way for you to sustain such good deeds. Having a moral obligation and being realistic do indeed coincide. In addition, people who receive organs are actually constantly on medication to continue surviving, as the foreign organ is rejected by the body - it will eventually shut down - and a lot of people - myself included - need to kidneys due to underlying conditions. Your gotcha's are unconvincing.

1. But you still don't realize that you proved my point. Regardless of your occasional good samaritan deeds from time to time, on the times you don't actively prevent someone from harm you agree with me that you can't be culpable.2.  You keep trying to poise that everything we say or do makes US responsible for how the other person interprets it. That's equivalent to saying you are culpable for the starvation of the homeless individual you did NOT pay the one time you couldn't afford it. 3. You cannot apply guilt and culpability for your percieved harms only when it suits you, and dis-regard the rest.

As you stated:

If you live in a society, there is an ethical reason to respect their rights and freedoms that's protected by the law

Therefore you agree that people should not have their lives harmed by others, no? This includes mental harm as I have previously demonstrated its harmful physical effects on people. 

Percieved mental harms are NOT protected by rights and freedoms. You have the right to be offended, but the law isn't going to protect you from someone calling you mean things. That is based in reality, not this fiction universe you live in. 

Again physical harm =/= mental harm

You have ignored your concession in regards to the physical effects of mental trauma. Mental trauma is worse than Physical trauma 

Mental trauma in regards to being severely offended is not recognized by the law as a punishable legal offence. 

People in the capital riots literally murdered people, and had intentions to murderpolitical captives if they were to be found. Again you are ignorant or naive to assume people on the opposite ends of the political spectrum wouldn't do these things to each other.

You are arguing about a select group of people, hundreds in contrast to the millions of people total - this does apply proportionally - to say I am "naive" while using a small percentage of people to represent the opinions of the majority marks you as the true "naive" - factually naive.

The number of people is hardly relevant. You denied that people of opposing political beliefs would resort to scuh harms. Despite there being countless other examplse to the one I provided, you've been caught once again proving my point. 

Because I am making a direct correlation to reality (something you seem to live out side of) to the website. If we act a certain way in society why allow certain things why should it be any different online? Especially on a website that encourages differing viewpoints?

Because you can't entirely block somebody in person - people should absolutely be punished for harming people mentally and with words, and OH LOOK - THEY DO:

The link you posted refers to threats (Not applicable) and mental abuse to children, not legal adults. Try proving that same point with two functioniong adults. 

"Saying “I never touched him/her” won’t help you in court. You need an actual verbal abuse defense. The crime of domestic battery in Nevada may include verbal and/or emotional abuse charges in many cases. You could even be sued for compensation if the target of the alleged verbal abuse can demonstrate that they suffered psychological trauma."

. So, do you have an actual argument? You're saying that I'm wrong by your "judge a book by its cover", but do you have an actual argument to support that. You're saying i need to learn, please educate me, or find someone who actually has the brain too, because you haven't substantiated a thing bud.

1. It's not my burden to defend whether it's moral to kill politicians. Also you already made Wylted's point there for him earlier lol. You brought up an example that this subject is super taboo, and I am demonstrating that you can't know that there isn't a reasonable cause for the topic, since you jumped to the conclusion it was an evil resolution before even giving the topic a chance to have a reasonable point. 2. Wylted probably cou- Oh wait no, he got banned huh? Too bad we silenced him so he can't actually defend his own argument. 3. Glad that didn't happen with legal same sex marriage. 

1. You miss the point we KNOW that Hitler caused millions of deaths, we DO NOT KNOW that all other politicians will - please read carefully.

Well yeah you definitely can't know if you refuse to read about any topic that offends you. For all you know Wylted has plenty of source evidence. You were too busy juding a book by it's cover to care though. 

2. That is your opinion, please substantiate that A - it is accurate, and B - that it is relevant

Refer to my argument about it being possible to win a debate while arguing murder is right. I even provided a link to a debate you can read through.

3. Is it or is it not a harmful act? That is a rhetorical question, yes, yes it is harmful - you have yet to actually rebutt my point, simply ignored words and rambled about your opinions without substantiation. Do you need a break? While the last one was similar in some instances, it had more work put into it.

You accused me of dropping a point while you are literally dropping a point. I think you are the one getting lazy here lol.

1. That is a claim that is across a BROAD SPAN OF POLITICIANS - it is a ridiculous sweeping statement, like saying that all card makers are pedophiles - it is absurd claim that also says nothing about the legal action of the thing in question - furthermore, morality is subjective, however it has objective foundations, and apply in all cases rationally - therefore arguing that ALL of a specific group of people should be killed assumes they are all guilty, which, on a legal level doesn't work - because there are, in fact, Politicians that have been charged and acquitted.

It's not a claim; It's a debatable resolution in which he is asking to discuss the pro's and con's. Dismissing something at face value based on your pre-concieved notions of the opponents argument isn't a debate or discussion. Again, too bad Wylted get's silenced so he can't continue his own discussion. You support silencing.