Total posts: 14,582
-->
@ethang5
[Both of] you ought to substantiate them.Both of who ought to substantiate what?
All claims and counter-claims should be substantiated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
If I want to keep it, I can keep it.If I want to have it removed surgically, that is my right.It is not a CITIZEN.Yes, it is "alive" in exactly the same way a tumor is alive and a parasite is alive.HoWEver, it is not a CITIZEN.It is not recognized as a citizen because of the propaganda machine and a liberal view that does not recognize all human beings as a personal being or does not even recognize some human beings as human beings.
Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, then everyone must register with the state every single time they copulate.
In order to protect CITIZENS, the state must have a record of them. AND every miscarriage must be investigated as a potential manslaughter/murder case as well.
Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, you've got to go 100%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Matthew 19:8-98 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”Thus, God gives one exception for remarriage, immorality. Sexual immorality/adultery.
Check the original text. The word used for "immorality" is not the same word used for "adultery".
Nevermind the fact that the bible instructs us that both the man and the woman who engaged in adultery should be put to death.
It would seem to be quite difficult to "re-marry" once that happened.
10 “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Athias
What Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence can be applied?Is the application of Uniform Standards of Evidence necessary? If so, what's the reason?
The same logic applies to any and all unfalsifiable claims (like BigFoot).
In order to maintain a coherent belief system, you must apply the same Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence to every claim.
If you make exceptions for certain claims without qualifying those exceptions then you are guilty of "special-pleading".
Created:
-->
@Athias
You stated that the claimant has the Burden-of-Proof.Why would they have to without their "old book"?
If you want to use an old book to make your case, you must first substantiate the claim that your old book is a reliable source for your particular claim.
Otherwise you're begging-the-question.
Many religions have old books. Some are even older than the one the Christians like to use.
Would a Christian be convinced that Shiva is real by a few quotes from the ancient Hindu scriptures?
I'm going to guess they wouldn't.
Therefore, how can a Christian expect to convince a Hindu that their version of god is true by referring to their own old book?
Created:
-->
@Athias
You can't argue that because you think the LochNessMonster is real, therefore BigFoot is false.No one other than you has stated that.
It's an illustration that it is illogical to argue that simply because you think the LochNessMonster (JESUS) is real, therefore BigFoot (SHIVA) is false.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Can followers of JESUS prove that other religion's gods are false, WITHOUT using their own old book?Why would they have to?
You stated that the claimant has the Burden-of-Proof.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Ethang5 is not bound to substantiate the negation of zedvictor's claim,
[Both of] you ought to substantiate them.
...nor is Ethang5 suggesting that in the failure to substantiate your position, his position is validated.
[Both of] you ought to substantiate them.
Both you and zedvictor made claims (as evidenced by the quotes.)
[Both of] you ought to substantiate them.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Illogical. The one making the claim bares the BoP. Can either of you prove all spirituality is delusion?
This can be done by appealing to common-ground.
Do you believe that any form of spirituality is false?
If you believe that some spirituality is false, how do you distinguish between true spirituality and false spirituality?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Be that as it may, the suggestion is still "spirituality is delusional." In their attempts to pathologize religious belief and/or spirituality, they've resorted to making sophistic arguments. Now that they have, I ask only that they substantiate them.
This is an attempt is to stake-out common ground.
The Christians believe that the Hindus are delusional.
The Hindus believe the Christians are delusional.
How can you tell which one is "correct"?
Is it possible they are both right?
Is it possible they are both wrong?
What Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence can be applied?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Can you prove that some spirituality (BigFoot) isn't delusion? = Can you prove that some spirituality (BigFoot) is TRUE?
All spirituality (BigFoot) is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS (LochNessMonster).
This claim highlights a lack of Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence.
Can followers of JESUS prove that other religion's gods are false, WITHOUT using their own old book?
You can't argue that because you think the LochNessMonster is real, therefore BigFoot is false.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Illogical. The one making the claim bares the BoP. Can either of you prove all spirituality is delusion?
Burden-of-Proof.
Can you prove that BigFoot is false? If you can't prove that BigFoot is false, then BigFoot must be TRUE!
Can you prove that Shiva is false? If you can't prove that Shiva is false, then Shiva must be TRUE!
Failure to disprove BigFoot is false DOES NOT PROVE BigFoot is REAL.
In science this is called an UNFALSIFIABLE CLAIM. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A better question would be, how do we know what gods want?The case can't be made. You can't avoid that problem, you have to tackle it head on. Even with a God you would still have to answer to the problem. Lets say there is a God. Why ought we follow it?
How do we know what books and or prophets are "true" and which are blasphemous?
Imagine the person you trust the most in the whole world, your bestest bestest bestest friend told you that god spoke to them.
Could you believe them? Would you believe them?
What if your best friend told you that god told them to sacrifice their favorite son, Issac? [LINK]
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You're the boss.I am going to refrain from speaking to you here. I have given good critiques to your position and I don't see you replying to them. Instead of actually highlighting how my problems are not actually problems, you instead choose to bring up questions you have already answered twice just to name one example and completely be all over the place with what you choose to rebut. I didn't do the same to you so I expected the same thing back. I am not going to comment further for those reasons.
But I don't think it's really fair for you to spring your commandments on me at the last minute (post-facto).
I've made an honest effort to reply to each of your points in the order I read them.
Sure I skipped around a little, but I didn't realize that was "against the rules" at the time.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
And you can skip over points you aren't interested in covering?
I thought that was standard-operating-procedure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
One weakness would be the people who never debate, but mis-designate themselves and vote.The solution to that is having the 2 tiered voting system apply only for members who have a certain number debates themselves in a certain time period.And if ones debate topics consistently contradict ones requested designation, mods will catch it and refuse that designation.
I'm not sure this would do anything to stop vote bombs.
Another option would be to have both debaters nominate voters in round one with each side having veto power over all nominated voters.
Kinda like jury selection.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Can you prove that some spirituality isn't delusion?
All spirituality is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It would be more competitive and more interesting and more civil.I strongly disagree. It would be exactly like the forums,unending bickering.
It wouldn't be endless because there are a set number of rounds.
It wouldn't be bickering because you can't win if you alienate your opponent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What if someone doesn't consider themselves a conservative (OR) a liberal?Any position is OK. Not just those 2.
So if someone had "Christian" selected in their profile and then got a vote from any member with any non-Christian religion selected on their profile page, then it would count for 2 points?
What about if it was a Christian liberal voted for an Atheist conservative?
Would that count as 4 points?
And would the profile perhaps need to be semi-perma-locked before you were allowed to begin voting?
What if I was an Atheist and I put Christian on my profile page just so I could boost all my Atheist pals to-the-moon!!
Would other members (or mods) perhaps need to verify (audit) my profile selections?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm replying to specific points individually, so you can skip over the ones you aren't interested in.
After I read your commandments, I made sure to include the underlined "thank you" (as you requested) at the top of my reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
A lot of ties would just make the wins more valuable.True, but slagging through the ties would be boring and probably not increase voting.
Every debate would be voted on.
The mods wouldn't have to be bothered with voting complaints.
Slagging through the ties would be great practice for people to learn how to formulate compelling arguments and listening to their opponent instead of mindlessly slinging insults and trotting out old red-meat for their allies in the audience.
It would be more competitive and more interesting and more civil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Imagine that I could enter your car on a whim and search it (and confiscate the contents) whenever I wanted (with flimsy unverifiable probable cause like an anonymous tip) or whenever I though it looked suspicious.I don´t approve of this in the vast majority of situations.
Ok, so do you believe your real-estate should be 99% sovereign?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
In eminent domain, you are paid a fair price for your property.
Not necessarily.
If my land is stolen under eminent domain, the government pays the market price before the land is turned into sky-scrapers.
AFTER my land has sky-scrapers all over it, it's worth about a zillion times more than it did when I was forced to sell.
Without the government interference (eviction), I could have held out for a better deal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I agree with you, but don't you think 99.5% of the time, each person would simply vote for themselves?
A lot of ties would just make the wins more valuable.
You would know that whoever was sitting at the top of the rankings can actually make convincing arguments and is not just a newb-sniping bully with a lot of friends who vote for them (with awesome RFDs).
What's wrong with a weighted vote?
What if someone doesn't consider themselves a conservative (OR) a liberal?
It's a false-dichotomy also known as the black-and-white-fallacy.
And as long as you had two friends for every one enemy vote, you could still bulldoze your way to the top of the charts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Now, here's an example of a terrible debate topic:
Do you have any suggestions for "good" debate topics?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It isn't nonsensical or overly complicated, but it is rough, which is why it's posted here for refining thoughts.It is certainly better than simply having open voting. And it does have advantages over the current system.People would vote more if it were easier to vote, but open voting would not work. We need a middle ground that frees up voting, but discourages frivolous votes.Debate topics are subjective, but since bsh1 took the site towards teenage boys, those are the kind of topics we'll have.Make the debates you like, and allow others the same right.
I would like to see an option for "self-moderated" debates where only the two people engaged in the debate were allowed to vote.
If you can actually convince your opponent, then that's a real-win. In open-voting you just get a lot of people pandering to the invisible audience instead of actually trying to convince the other party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
First and primary reason: Low Quality.
100% this.
Second Reason: RFDs take too much time
100% this too.
And I'd like to add, the lack of clear and Quantifiable guidelines for RFDs.
It's extremely frustrating to spend hours carefully reading a debate and formulating a serious RFD, only to have it flagged and removed with no specific suggestions on how to modify it in order to properly Qualify.
For example, when one side flings repeated ad hominem attacks and the other is polite and I try to give the polite side points for "conduct", my vote is then flagged and removed because the mod says that the ad hominem attacks I identified did not Qualify as "excessive"...
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Thank youThis seems slightly FASCIST.Define fascism.
Fascism is a system of government that forces a top-down system of uniformity based on fear, intimidation and force.
Quasi-Fascism is any NGO that forces a top-down system of uniformity based on fear, intimidation and force.
Fascism and Quasi-Fascism are prime examples of MOBSTER-ETHICS.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
As I almost always say profoundly smart things, it wasn't.Do you consider that statement a fact or an opinion?Which statement?
The quoted statement.
As I almost always say profoundly smart things, it wasn't.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Wasn't it obvious?As I almost always say profoundly smart things, it wasn't.
Do you consider that statement a fact or an opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
It's not ownership if it's not sovereign.They don´t own their land as a country. They own it as private property. Therefore they would be prohibited from harboring criminals from the law.
Imagine that you bought a car from me, but you still had to pay me a percentage of its market value to me every year.
Imagine that I could enter your car on a whim and search it (and confiscate the contents) whenever I wanted (with flimsy unverifiable probable cause like an anonymous tip) or whenever I though it looked suspicious.
Imagine that I could take your car and give it to someone else at any moment under something called "eminent domain".
Would you feel like you owned that car?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
This is the smartest thing you've ever said.Lol. That must be why you followed me around the board mirror-posting it.
Wasn't it obvious?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
How do you know you're right and they're wrong?Anyone who confuses his opinion with reality is wrong.
Are you suggesting that people should always clearly distinguish FACT from OPINION?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Don't you mean, worker's rights, labor unions, employee owned businesses, and social safety-nets?Nope. I don't accept this to be a communist idea. All of what you said relies on a capitalist framework.
I'm pretty certain they have nothing to do with a capitalist framework.
Please provide your preferred definition of "capitalist framework".
If we were working under a communist framework if it was working optimally everyone would be equal meaning there is no need for unions, co-ops or social safety nets.
Throughout history, anything that threatened the absolute power of the rail-road and coal-mine owners was decried as "COMMIE".
Please provide your preferred definition of "communist framework".
My understanding is that in a "capitalist framework" the machines and materials (means of production) are owned by NGOs or private citizens.
My understanding is that in a "communist framework" the machines and materials (means of production) are owned by the state, as a care-taker, as a proxy for shared ownership by all citizens.
You might want to check this out, [LINK]
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you can accomplish that in 20 years, you deserve what you get.Okay. So your aim for the patent being 20 years is to give people enough time to capitalize on their discovery? What is your previous to that? Reduce harm, give people what they deserve or make sure individuals are free to do what they like?
Copyrights and Patents are designed to PROTECT INDIVIDUALS.
The entire origin of Copyrights and Patents was the idea that WITHOUT Copyrights and Patents, BIG COMPANIES can steal your ideas and out-compete the inventor/innovator/creator in a perfectly FREE-MARKET.
But now the whole thing has mutated from PROTECTION of individuals into a WEAPON to DESTROY individuals.
It was intended to protect people from corporations and now it does the exact opposite.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I would tell them that they are super intelligent for not trusting any information they can't verify logically.They can say back I don't care about logic only God or something essentially that whether it be good or bad faith. What do you have to say to that?
Anyone who says the "don't care about logic" disqualifies themselves. Such a person can't believe anything.
Such a person would be, by their own self-description, necessarily incoherent.
Most adults I've interacted with believe their views are (mostly) logical.What if they say whatever is valid is what God says? Example: Mopac.
Mopac actually seems pretty coherent. I'm not sure they would say "whatever god says is valid".
I think they'd say something more like, "when you truly love the truth and truly seek the truth, you will know what to do".
Which I sort-of agree with in a general sense, but it's not a very practical standard (unQuantifiable).
It's also a naked appeal to ignorance (private-information/gnosticism).
Mopac has said they don't believe the holy-scriptures should be considered some sort of "perfect-holy-rule-book" but rather more like a ridiculously complicated secret code to unlock your own inner-light, or something like that.
If I demonstrate that a 10-year-old can do it, this demonstration strongly implies that if they spend a little time practicing, they can probably do it as well.How about people who are not able to do so? Disabled people, working all day etc.
If you can read, you can sort FACT from OPINION.
Given the adult is also older you would have to convince to them why they should do this instead of with a kid who just listens to their parents. How are you going to convince them?
Most people easily recognize logical fallacies in their ideological opponents. I'd start with that, then move to Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence.
When you understand that these are logical fallacies and recognize that each claim must stand on its own merit, that's a game-changer.Okay. I have already asked a similar question, I was going to put here, above so no point in asking it again.
Feel free to ask whatever you'd like.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
In time you will come to accept the truth that you don't control me and therefore I need no excuse to do what I like.And that I could not be less interested in your opinion of my reasons.
This is the smartest thing you've ever said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If someone actually owned their own land, they could grant asylum to criminals.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
To a liberal, his assumption IS reality.
How do you know you're right and they're wrong?
Aren't you just making the exact-same-baseless-assertion (I'm right because I'm right)?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
An opinion that attempts to state a possibility, rather than a fact.
100% this.
I like to call it, "a hypothesis".
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Hate speech will be categorized as broad-brush ad-hominems and the people advocating hate will be asked to support their statements with FACTS.This wont ever happen. When someone says something stupid like "islam is a religion of hate and should be banned" you can find enough very specific details to sell that.
Any tactics used to "prove" such a claim could be used against all religions and or nations. Did you know the KKK are devout Christians?
ON ITS VERY FACE THE CLAIM ITSELF IS OBVIOUSLY A STATEMENT OF PURE OPINION.
It doesn't matter that it is a gross misinterpretation, some people will believe it. If you allow people to do stuff like that, then hate and violence will be the result.
Would you rather have some level of "hate and violence" with some hope of reasonable discussion, or would you rather have people living in a 1984 style walking nightmare where the thought-police can accuse you of thought-terrorism and torture you for literally imaginary crimes.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Certainly...Do you care if information can lead to harm?
Information can lead to harm and SECRECY can lead to harm.
I'd rather face the harm from information.
I simply don't have enough FAITH in authorities who keep SECRETS.
I simply don't have enough FAITH in authorities to police themselves (conflict-of-interest).
Private-CITIZENS should have an iron-clad right to privacy.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How is this not obvious.Do you accept the consequences that can happen?
What consequences are you talking about?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If there is a socialist professor remove his status as an authority on the subject. If there is a person advocating it on the streets have the person jailed for being a public nuisance.
This seems slightly FASCIST.
Can you walk me step-by-step through your thought process on this?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The minimum 1% (or whatever they can negotiate) would be split between all patent/copyright holders.What if a party involved was a corporation who gave the funding to make this happen?
A corporation is made up of people. I don't believe a company should have the right to strip their employee's of any and all rights to their creativity.
That's why I set the minimum at 1%.
The corporate employer could take the other 99% under some contractual agreement.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That would be a reason why I would be for censorship. There are too many idiots to allow stuff like...white supremacy,
Don't you mean, "traditional family values and cultural pride"?
communism
Don't you mean, worker's rights, labor unions, employee owned businesses, and social safety-nets?
and anarchy
Don't you mean, "individual sovereignty"?
...to be associated with the highly regarded institutions.
What institutions do you consider "highly regarded"?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well what if I invented the cure for cancer? I have 20 years to milk everyone dry of there money. Nearing the end I can continue to drop prices until every single person has the cure. At that point I would have accumulated so much wealth to reward my innovation but no one after 20 years will have any customers to sell what I created. I effectively created a market and ended it in 20 years. What do you think?
If you can accomplish that in 20 years, you deserve what you get.
The most profitable drugs are designed to treat patients without curing them.
That's why insulin is such a big money maker.
That's why pain-killers are making record-breaking profits.
They don't actually cure anything.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why are they protecting the whistle blower's identity?They know it's a sham. Another deep state CIA shit
Ad hominem attacks don't change FACTS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Yeah, but then (without a real-estate tax) how would the government steal land from poor people?Why should the government steal land from poor people?
Isn't that the whole point of real-estate taxes?
It's a power-grab by the government that forces you to pay them rent, which makes the state the de facto land owner.
If private citizens could actually own a piece of land, and nobody could forcibly take it away, well, that would be "total anarchy"...
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you teach people to distinguish FACT from OPINION, then slander will solve itself.This is just patently false.
I disagree. Slander, even if factual, is an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack does not disqualify any claims that person has made.
All claims must be evaluated on their own merit.
No source is granted blanket infallibility.
Ad hominem attacks are naked RED-HERRINGS.
The line between truth and slander is often very small.
Slander is easy to spot. Slander may contain some verifiable facts, but those facts alone do not constitute slander without some connective OPINIONS stringing them together, AND even iff some facts can be verified, ad hominem attacks DO NOT disqualify that person's logical claims or statements.
There is often some level of truth in the slander to sell it. You cannot ever teach people to be able to distinguish between the 2.
Slander is easy to identify. It's riddled with logical fallacies.
It takes a great deal of work to do that and 99% of people wont do it.
It takes practically ZERO effort to identify the difference between sound logic and ad hominem attacks.
Created: