Total posts: 4,833
-->
@WyIted
I'll admit, I imagine you wearing aviators and a leather jacket when I'm reading this.
Created:
Posted in:
Others may be most severely opposed to you but in my eyes you have been more rule abiding in how you have spoken during this than some others have.
Whether you are doing this consciously or not that is pure manipulation. I have received and treasured genuine compliments born of true understanding of my limited virtues.
What you do, what Lancelot does, that isn't respect or friendship. In fact it's the opposite, turning 180 on a dime, fawning praise after haughty dismissal, it looks sociopathic at first glance and the only reason I think it might not be is because if you people are sociopaths you would be very stupid sociopaths.
Others are treating me like dirt and WF sits by and watches.
The dysfunction coming out of that discord channel is immense. It's clear that it's just a bunch of people making unilateral decisions and assuming everyone is behind them when they aren't. Whiteflame deals with 'drama' by ignoring it and hoping it goes away and given how long you've apparently been hanging around you should have figured that out a long time ago.
Why would you think Whiteflame would step in and defend your craziness? Did he say that in discord or are you assuming?
I will remember who was more or less respectful and recognised me.
I have not treated you with respect. I do want things to improve for you though. I think the interactions you have on this site are not good for you. It's a cyclic rut that improves nothing and looks like it hurts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Autism
Scientifically speaking
Many aspects of clinical psychology is pseudoscience.
The input is people answering questions, which means every single experiment tests nurture as well as nature, culture as well as biology.
Without powerful (many falsifiable predictions) theories in both realms the idea that a multifactor function can describe the output is absurd.
This is apparent in every vauge definition used in psychology.
What is a disorder?
The answer you are most likely to get is: Anything that causes trouble to the person (such that they seek a help).
When a word can mean anything, it means nothing.
Just like only few people in the entire world have the trait of blue eyes.
Blue eyes can be entirely predicted by genetics. Sexual deviancy cannot.
Homosexuality is a rare trait possessed by less than 20% of the population.
20% isn't "rare", that is "common" bordering on "prevalent".
Homosexuality is actually the brain thinking that that other person is the opposite gender when they're not.
Hilariously oversimplified.
Created:
Posted in:
You're right, it's super inflammatory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I'm not interested in Shila or what she said. I am interested in whether the CoC means anything to the moderators.
Created:
Posted in:
Extracted from a locked thread.
[ADOL] What in the rules gave you the authority to ban Shila?You can find the rules here:Here is the policy for those who don't want to open an Evernote linkÂDebateArt.com Moderation PolicyDebateArt.com is committed to promoting an environment where users can engage in open and thoughtful debate on any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive it may be. Our moderation policy is designed to encourage free speech while ensuring that all users are treated with dignity and that our community remains safe and constructive.Respect for other usersUsers must treat other users with reasonable respect, and refrain from personal attacks/insults with the purpose of causing harm to another user. We do not tolerate any form of harassment, bullying, or threats of violence. All users are encouraged to engage in productive and respectful debates, even if they disagree with the opinions of others.Constructive debateUsers are encouraged to present well-reasoned arguments and avoid logical fallacies. We do not permit the worst forms of trolling, such as spamming, posting irrelevant or inflammatory content, or engaging in personal attacks. However, we do allow more borderline forms of trolling that are intended to provoke thought or stimulate debate, as long as they are presented in a respectful and thoughtful manner.No plagiarism or cheatingUsers must write their own arguments and not copy or plagiarize content from other sources. Cheating, such as using multiple accounts or vote manipulation, is strictly prohibited.Doxxing and impersonationDoxxing (the posting of personal information of others without their consent) and impersonation (pretending to be someone else) are strictly prohibited on DebateArt.com. This includes impersonating the site owner, moderators, or other users.Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation.Renaming of threads or debate titlesModerators have the right to rename a thread or debate title if it is deemed to be offensive or inappropriate. This includes any title or thread that is harmful or offensive to a particular individual or group.Reporting violationsUsers are encouraged to report any violations of our policies or guidelines to the moderators, who will investigate and take appropriate action. Please include specific details and evidence to help us address the issue quickly and fairly.Moderator actionsIf a user is found to have violated our policies, the moderators may take a range of actions, including issuing warnings, suspending or banning accounts, removing content, or renaming threads or debate titles. Our goal is to maintain a dignified and constructive community for all users, while also promoting free expression and constructive debate.By using DebateArt.com, you agree to comply with our moderation policy and any updates or changes to it. We reserve the right to modify our policies at any time to ensure the continued safety and integrity of our platform.If that looks familiar, it should. You voted for it:So did David:Let's look at what you said.I’ll vote yay.I think it’s worth overhauling moderation policy in some ways and I’ve seen a lot of progress and community interaction with these potential changes. As for whether this gives moderation more power or access, honestly, I don’t see how that’s the case. Mod discretion has always been integral to the existing policy, and if the goal here is to restrict how we can act in meaningful ways, then changes can be made if they get enough support. This is a good start that can yield other changes.Where are the changes that let you do this, or is community support a inconvenience?To be clear, I never thought the owner was bound to follow a MEEP. I think it's a great idea, but it wasn't a chartered privileged as far as I can tell.HOWEVERTo pretend for years that there was some kind of system of democratic system for changing the rules, to participate in that very process, to never expressly renege, and yet to still ignore the 'laws' of that 'government' and do whatever the hell you want anyway is just disgusting.That makes you liars, and for no benefit that I can see at all. Just lying out of weakness and avoiding the issue in the hopes it goes away.
As Savant already said, this falls under "inflammatory content." I'd say it's decidedly inflammatory to repeatedly tell a practicing Jew that any harm that befell their family during the Holocaust was effectively something they incurred and deserved. I'd say it's inflammatory to then ask that person if they should "expect more punishment of the Jews?" which suggests that he and other Jews should anticipate further punishment in line with the Holocaust.Shila was warned about posts like this a full four days before I stripped her of her forum posting privileges. She only argued that I hadn't warned her four days beforehand, despite the timestamp on the PM I sent her plainly showing otherwise, and otherwise accepted the ban. She didn't argue that anything she'd posted and I'd quoted to her was appropriate apart from saying that the harms the Jews incurred could have been avoided, which didn't address what was problematic about her posts at all.So if you don't like that I didn't give a comprehensive list of examples and as complete of an explanation for why Shila was banned as possible, I can fix that. It's a good deal of posts and I can go through them and point to the specific language that led to her ban. I can then use the specific term "inflammatory content" and provide detailed reasoning for why it applies. I don't think that's necessary, but if you feel it's warranted here to give as much explanation as possible, I can do that.
[Whiteflame] I'd say it's decidedly inflammatory to repeatedly tell a practicing Jew that any harm that befell their family during the Holocaust was effectively something they incurred and deserved.[ADOL] So when is it not inflammatory to tell someone that people just like them deserve to die? To suffer?Show us how "inflammatory" isn't just a label for your whim.
[ADOL] So when is it not inflammatory to tell someone that people just like them deserve to die? To suffer?[Whiteflame] Interesting way to phrase that. No, Shila told this person that anyone in his community and family who died in the Holocaust deserved to die and suffer. Phrasing that as "people just like them" is certainly a way to put that. Noting as well the lack of response to Shila's question that pretty thoroughly suggested to this person that he and others like him are due further punishment. I'd call both of these decidedly inflammatory.You didn't answer the question.[Whiteflame] But saying that it's being controversial or offensive somehow precludes it meeting the standard for inflammatory content is beyond me.An assertion about morality or fact and anything resembling an argument supporting either is precluded from being "worst forms of trolling".That's what "debate any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive means".If you're calling an assertion about morality or fact and anything resembling an argument supporting either "inflammatory content" under the current CoC you've subverted it. This isn't hard to understand, it's fairly obvious.It's not just what you didn't say, it's what you did say: "Encouragement of mass genocide, even if it's past, is still against site rules"Looks like a moral assertion to me.
Created:
Posted in:
This site reeks of not being close to The Holy Spirit, and it shows in your complaints.
Ok, I think I'm about done talking to people who I am almost certain are mentally ill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
So when is it not inflammatory to tell someone that people just like them deserve to die? To suffer?Interesting way to phrase that. No, Shila told this person that anyone in his community and family who died in the Holocaust deserved to die and suffer. Phrasing that as "people just like them" is certainly a way to put that. Noting as well the lack of response to Shila's question that pretty thoroughly suggested to this person that he and others like him are due further punishment. I'd call both of these decidedly inflammatory.
You didn't answer the question.
But saying that it's being controversial or offensive somehow precludes it meeting the standard for inflammatory content is beyond me.
An assertion about morality or fact and anything resembling an argument supporting either is precluded from being "worst forms of trolling".
That's what "debate any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive means".
If you're calling an assertion about morality or fact and anything resembling an argument supporting either "inflammatory content" under the current CoC you've subverted it. This isn't hard to understand, it's fairly obvious.
It's not just what you didn't say, it's what you did say: "Encouragement of mass genocide, even if it's past, is still against site rules"
Looks like a moral assertion to me.
And for the record, no, I'm not banning you to shut you up.
If you in anyway consented to giving power to ratman I question your credulity. You can't claim to be a fireman and then say nothing when an arsonist is hired. "Don't worry, I won't let him burn anything down" rings hollow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I'd prefer more freedom of speech myself,But one takes what one can get sometimes.
From the moment I signed up to DDO.org I had already decided that if it came down to shutting up about the truth as I saw it or getting banned, I would speak truth and get banned.
From the moment I signed up to this site, I had the same conviction and my introduction is testament to that.
Should I be grateful to have not been banned from either site? I don't think so; debate sites shouldn't be banning people for having beliefs and expressing them. Power structures should not ban people for questioning them.
It's questionable whether it's even healthy for me to try and debate anything online, if I start censoring myself then it certainly isn't.
So I'll take what I can get, but if I can't get it, I won't take anything.
There is always a forest or a field and dogs who will never get tired of running around them. Maybe I'll just start work on a decentralized forum if the urge hits.
Created:
Posted in:
We have all agreed that you forfeited that privilege a long, long time ago.
I have decided you are a liar who claims to speak for others when you do not represent them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
As Savant already said
and what were you thinking before savant played the part of lawyer?
this falls under "inflammatory content."
So connecting the ban to the CoC with even a single sentence was... what? Overly burdensome?
I'd say it's decidedly inflammatory to repeatedly tell a practicing Jew that any harm that befell their family during the Holocaust was effectively something they incurred and deserved.
So when is it not inflammatory to tell someone that people just like them deserve to die? To suffer?
Show us how "inflammatory" isn't just a label for your whim.
So if you don't like that I didn't give a comprehensive list of examples and as complete of an explanation for why Shila was banned,
No, that would be distracting with details. This is what I want a comprehensive explanation of:
Ratman says:
Agreeing with Holocaust apologetics is bannable.
and used Shila's ban as evidence.
Savant latched onto "inflammatory" and I am quite certain that is the first time anyone has done that. When someone gives you an excuse to use the current CoC as a carte blanche suddenly you're willing to acknowledge it exists, what a coincidence.
Either the reason for Shila's ban is not 'agreeing with holocaust apologetics' or 'agreeing with holocaust apologetics' = 'Encouragement of mass genocide' =Â 'inflammatory content' that is also simultaneously NOT an 'opinion on a topic, no matter how controversial or offensive'.
Unless somebody bans me to shut me up, I will follow this rabbit all the way down the hole. We will see if there is a coherent story at the bottom.
Right now all I see is a bunch of excuses that are not meshing very well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Invasion of Ukraine some might call inflammatory or bannable.But what is the other option?Completely cut off communication with another country?
That's not necessary.
You see companies like twitter bow because they have branches in those countries. Those countries could come snatch their infrastructure.
A server in US jurisdiction is not subject to their laws. They want to blind their citizens, that's their problem to implement. When a European uses a website in the USA it is equivalent to him/her sending a letter and then getting a response.
If some European law makes sending certain letters illegal, then it's up to them to find the letter sender in their own country.
They're in the wrong and nobody should help them without a gun to their head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
[AdaptableRatman] I will tell you my rulebook. This is not a joke. Please observe Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church.Thank you.
Like I said, insane. Insanely ill suited to be in a position of power of any kind much less a steward of a community brought together by trust in reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
If you interpret that as a binding rule and not just a stated aim of the CoC
Honesty does not permit anything to be dismissed as irrelevant. Stating the aim of the document gives context and thereby narrows possibilities when words have multiple or vague meanings.
That probably fails the stated aim of the CoC.
It was not in harmony, but it did not contradict it. It could easily have said "rename or remove" but it did not.
Probably a good argument for rewriting the CoC as it fails its stated aim
At worst an amendment to clarify that mod rename must make the fewest possible changes and remove only elements irrelevant to the topic.
For example "Filthy dirty jews deserved what they got" -> "Was the holocaust justified?".
Arguably any restrictions on what can be said prevent "open" debate.
One can argue the moon is made of cheese but that argument would fail.
WF said celebrating the Holocaust was against the rules but not why. The "why" is likely that it's an inflammatory comment.
That's revisionism. If there is anywhere in the world to put the "why" it's when you ban someone. THAT should be part of every site charter.
Needless to say choosing to differentiate between "celebration" and "condoning" is pure sophistry in an attempt to recover arbitrary power. When the mod agrees then it's not celebration, when he does; it is. Or celebrating things the mod agrees with is fine.
------------
I want to know that story. Who knew what when.That was when we thought DART was shutting down. I'm not about to build a new website now, but hopefully we can add features.
No, I mean when you invited me to the discord were Rat and Lance in there and if they were how could you not notice that they're insane? If you did notice how could you possibly think you could successfully found a home for a community with them speaking for the project without consulting you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Since you're here, why did you not mention you were working with nutjobs on this 'new site'?
I want to know that story. Who knew what when.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
That part of the CoC gives moderators very wide discretion to ban things.
Wrong. When interpreting a charter the whole must be considered and every part must be interpreted in the way that creates the most coherent overall meaning.
Thus we know that whatever "inflammatory" means, it must not contradict "DebateArt.com is committed to promoting an environment where users can engage in open and thoughtful debate on any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive it may be."
No opinion on any topic can therefore be inflammatory under the rules. It is only a catchall for things besides an opinion on a topic.
For example "ur mom is a whore" is inflammatory, and not an opinion on a topic (in every circumstance but the exceedingly unlikely one that there is a debate about your mother's sexual history).
From the beginning, when you picked out "inflammatory" you have ignored the fact that the moderation log did not say "inflammatory comments" (which wouldn't be good enough).
It hardly matters if you can get someone on J-walking if you're accusing them of witchcraft.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
As long as I don't cross the line into private property
A line, a rule; is not a spectrum of 'wildness'.
If I'm a juror and the defendant shoots a trespasser for "blasphemy" or "mixing races" or some non-sense that was repealed a long time ago, and it turns out the trespasser was has an easement; I am sending that MF to prison.
The rules the community voted for are more or less clear: attacking posters can get you in trouble, having no topic can get you in trouble (spamming), but no opinion about any topic can.
There was an easement, you can't trespass on this site by having an opinion. Not according to the recorded consent of several people including David and Whiteflame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Possible one can 'stay in the warning spectrum, and never 'get a ban.
Lemming, if the warning was the worst punishment possible; then what does it warn of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
then think the topic can't be approached at all.
Other times a newly minted mod (with delusions of grandeur and paranoia) says it explicitly:
Agreeing with Holocaust apologetics is bannable. At minimum warnable. Let us steer clear of that topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
GotemIt is the way now” would imply it was not the way before. You have either devised new rules or are abusing existing ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
I thought you were god? You answered for god before...It seems you have decided, rather arbitrarily, who God does and does not predestine
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Encouragement of mass genocide, even if it's past, is still against site rules
No, I don't think so.
Contrast "inflammatory" with "controversial or offensive".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@whiteflame
What in the rules gave you the authority to ban Shila?
You can find the rules here:
Here is the policy for those who don't want to open an Evernote linkÂDebateArt.com Moderation PolicyDebateArt.com is committed to promoting an environment where users can engage in open and thoughtful debate on any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive it may be. Our moderation policy is designed to encourage free speech while ensuring that all users are treated with dignity and that our community remains safe and constructive.Respect for other usersUsers must treat other users with reasonable respect, and refrain from personal attacks/insults with the purpose of causing harm to another user. We do not tolerate any form of harassment, bullying, or threats of violence. All users are encouraged to engage in productive and respectful debates, even if they disagree with the opinions of others.Constructive debateUsers are encouraged to present well-reasoned arguments and avoid logical fallacies. We do not permit the worst forms of trolling, such as spamming, posting irrelevant or inflammatory content, or engaging in personal attacks. However, we do allow more borderline forms of trolling that are intended to provoke thought or stimulate debate, as long as they are presented in a respectful and thoughtful manner.No plagiarism or cheatingUsers must write their own arguments and not copy or plagiarize content from other sources. Cheating, such as using multiple accounts or vote manipulation, is strictly prohibited.Doxxing and impersonationDoxxing (the posting of personal information of others without their consent) and impersonation (pretending to be someone else) are strictly prohibited on DebateArt.com. This includes impersonating the site owner, moderators, or other users.Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation.Renaming of threads or debate titlesModerators have the right to rename a thread or debate title if it is deemed to be offensive or inappropriate. This includes any title or thread that is harmful or offensive to a particular individual or group.Reporting violationsUsers are encouraged to report any violations of our policies or guidelines to the moderators, who will investigate and take appropriate action. Please include specific details and evidence to help us address the issue quickly and fairly.Moderator actionsIf a user is found to have violated our policies, the moderators may take a range of actions, including issuing warnings, suspending or banning accounts, removing content, or renaming threads or debate titles. Our goal is to maintain a dignified and constructive community for all users, while also promoting free expression and constructive debate.By using DebateArt.com, you agree to comply with our moderation policy and any updates or changes to it. We reserve the right to modify our policies at any time to ensure the continued safety and integrity of our platform.
If that looks familiar, it should. You voted for it:
So did David:
Let's look at what you said.
I’ll vote yay.I think it’s worth overhauling moderation policy in some ways and I’ve seen a lot of progress and community interaction with these potential changes. As for whether this gives moderation more power or access, honestly, I don’t see how that’s the case. Mod discretion has always been integral to the existing policy, and if the goal here is to restrict how we can act in meaningful ways, then changes can be made if they get enough support. This is a good start that can yield other changes.
Where are the changes that let you do this, or is community support a inconvenience?
To be clear, I never thought the owner was bound to follow a MEEP. I think it's a great idea, but it wasn't a chartered privileged as far as I can tell.
HOWEVER
To pretend for years that there was some kind of system of democratic system for changing the rules, to participate in that very process, to never expressly renege, and yet to still ignore the 'laws' of that 'government' and do whatever the hell you want anyway is just disgusting.
That makes you liars, and for no benefit that I can see at all. Just lying out of weakness and avoiding the issue in the hopes it goes away.
Created:
Posted in:
Cite it.Agreeing with Holocaust apologetics is bannable.
Created:
Posted in:
If you repeat her comments and agree with them, there will be consequences that start with posting privileges removed for some time, I presume.
The rules give no authority to Rat to suspend anything for repeating the words of other posters or agreeing with them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
[Sungod / Korea] But you can make new site if you have code?
No I can't do that either.
In fact the only thing I ever offered was code and advise about code. I can't rent cloud space, host a server, register a domain, own intellectual property, or sign and contract with any service provider.
I mean I can do all those things, but not as ADOL. Maybe someday people from here will end up on a debate site I designed, but you'll never know it was me running it.
[A rat man] Checkmate.
Hey, I'm the one who gets to keep his money instead of spending it running a niche insane asylum whose primary activity is mafia and not debate.
Looks like I win again.
Created:
Posted in:
Even experienced coders like myself could make a syntax error. And then the whole site's functionality crashes.
rofl, "experienced coder" who doesn't know how to use a testbed.
ADreamOfLiberty is NOT the person for the job
Ah, there is that paranoia again.
We The Community, have already spoken out and decided against it.Â
Delusions of grandeur, round 2.
You and rat are not "the community". The "community" voted to change the rules a long time ago and you don't give a shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It can't be me because I can't accept ownership anonymously, and somebody already offered to buy it which leads me to believe that the real owner (Michael I guess) wants something more than a wink and a nudge.
Created:
Posted in:
Seeing it from your perspective makes the situation funnier
So you can simulate sanity if only as a thought experiment?
What are your thoughts and feelings on what's happening, and what's about to happen?
I think I need to try harder to find sane people to talk to.
Created:
Posted in:
[AdaptableRatman] Insane asylum and circus show is what this site has been for far too long.
Says the patient:
The Lord is with me. I am his servant. He shall bring all to their knees. We shall be saved. Have faith.
That one is called delusions of grandeur.
Created:
Posted in:
Lance "The SKY IS NOT FALLING (no censorship)"
Rat "The sky is falling (censorship)"
Lance "I agree with your vision"
So here are the possibilities:
So here are the possibilities:
Lance and Rat pretend to be clowns for some unhinged reason
David and Savant pretend to not notice for some unhinged reason
Lance and Rat are clowns
David and Savant pretend to not notice for some unhinged reason
Lance and Rat are clowns
David and Savant are clowns who know how to pretend to be stable
I am really curious what goes on in that discord channel, but like curious in the sense of a researcher at an insane asylum wants to look in through the door port.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know about anyone else, but it would take extraordinary evidence to make me believe this isn't fake. i.e. a sociopathic calculation to cover up your true attitude.I apologize for my original statement. You certainly have a point in that, I concede that you win this exchange.Â
Created:
Posted in:
I'm happy to disappoint you.
In the unlikely event we meet somewhere on the internet after you're done sabotaging David, and you've been kicked to the curb or the website failed, I will never stop laughing and pointing.
You are so bad at this you've not only already convinced me not to help (if you are within a 100 km of the discussion), you also convinced me not to move to this new site (provided you have any input in its rules or moderation in anyway), debateart doesn't have that many people to send you know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
If Adam can't choose to not sin, then it isn't sin.
The idea of sin without choice is a contradiction in terms (to quote Rand).
Created:
Posted in:
AdaptableRat and Sir.Lancelot calling the shots together huh.
I expect failure, and I think it would be deserved.
You can criticize Adaptable all you want. Your opinion does not matter.
Opinion of dissenters do not matter.
these are your own personal feelings of bitterness.
Confidently assume the psychology of others and then dismiss it.
vs
The obviously suspect claim of objectivity
This is not personal in anyway.
This is the foundation of a debate site?
No, this is the beginning of a wretched waste of time and hope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not sure that a pseudo-Trumpian, born again evangelist as moderator, is particularly conducive to the necessities of moderation.
...with a history of paranoid rants and attempted witch hunts...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
It would never have been easy for me to contribute given my security needs, so it's not so great of a loss.What do you mean? Are you not an American?
I have always kept this user name behind a fully anonymous shield.
That's a ten year pattern that I'm not going to break. It means, for example I can't just join a discord channel or do much of anything else without a lot of preparation and attention to detail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
How old are you? You say “rofl”...are you a child?
There are 40 year olds who were children when that was a thing.
The first known use of the term ROFL on the internet was during a conversation on Usenet, one of the oldest forums on the web. The conversation took place in 1989
The real question is what rock you've been hiding under.
How do you expect me to take you seriously?
The only thing I care about taking seriously in online communications is the truth, and the only way to the truth is through logic and evidence.
Which explains the kind of people I take seriously: I take people seriously when they take logic and evidence seriously. In other words people who love the truth.
People I don't take seriously, I don't care if they take me seriously.
I don't care if you take me seriously.
It was meant to drive home the point that all deviancy and lusting is wrong. I am sorry you did not understand this.
It was mocking the idea of veiling deviancy with a (supposed) sacrament like it would matter.
You talking about promiscuity and marriage in the context of bestiality like it mattered was exactly that.
If you would accept monogamous zoosexual relationships after marriage, do correct me; otherwise you were throwing out a bunch of irrelevancy. Probably tying to fit a square peg through a well worn circular hole in your brain.
I am afraid this is the only thing you have written I see fit to comment on.
I'm crushed.
Rat is correct about catholic doctrine BTW. Free will means choices matter even if god already knows what you will choose. Of course this contradicts many passages such as the "hardening of pharaohs heart". I mean Calvinism didn't come out of a void.
It just isn't a coherent story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Sounds like ADOL is probably not less qualified than whoever else is working on this, so you're needlessly selling yourselves one man short.
You assume that Lancelot speaks for them all without confirmation?
I would bet he said that without consultation just to put the others in a corner.
It would never have been easy for me to contribute given my security needs, so it's not so great of a loss.
Hopefully this project goes well anyway.
It seems like certain people are experiencing a burst of motivation (an inspiration) to do this, but it's still a 1.5 months to the deadline. I think more planning will reveal the fault lines in the vision early, and despite it feeling like a loss of momentum that is a good thing.
When you get people hyped by being vague, even unintentionally, and they put in work; and then become disillusioned... that gets very ugly.
The technical challenge is only one aspect, and a dependent one. Making a drop in replacement for this site is pretty straightforward (as far as plans go, implementing would still be a lot of work).
Is that really what they want though? Have they agreed or are they assuming they'll work it out later?
Created:
Posted in:
How many christians does it take to make a schism about 'the perfect word of god'?
2
Created:
Posted in:
Sounds like you're all on the same page then. Good luck with that.
I'm sure there won't be any other differences in vision or implementation. Nope just perfect harmony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
A “furry” is something that many of the respectable do not know the meaning of.
Pride in the unchosen is not appropriate, nor is pride in ignorance.
You are a man who wants to penetrate animals
You presume.
whom you cannot procreate with
Really? All this time I wondered why I didn't have any kids yet.
and this is why you fixate on the pagan gods who had animal features
I said human animal hybrids are ancient, sometimes worshiped as gods, I proved it; then you say I am "fixated". This accusation is absurd.
I told you the reason Anubis had a jackal head, yet you ignore.
Acknowledge as consistent with my thesis != ignore.
Understand that the reason was not because the male pagans wanted to put it in him. It was spiritual.
They didn't put a jackal head on a human body because they saw one of those guys in the next town over. It was symbolic.
The symbolic and the spiritual feed into each other.
Outside of sexually repressed religions, the spiritual and the sexual often feed into each other as well. Which is not to say they wanted to put it in Anubis; he's a god to them, but if you were informed on the subject you would find their religion has far more sexual themes than you seem to assume. They put their imaginary human animal hybrids in plenty of sexual situations in the myths and weren't afraid of sex mixing with their divinity:
It is not important to the ordinary man.
I'd say the polytheistic gods have as much to do with ordinary man as the monotheistic one.
Projections of different aspects of man.
The furries are not important to the intelligent man.
Yes yes have fun transcending it all, your chariot to heaven awaits!
Humans are the second-highest creation.
After cheesecake of course.
They have sex with other humans; they produce offspring with other humans.
More novel insight, somebody take notes.
I disagree with all types of promiscuity. I assume you would not want to marry the animal you desire? They are numerous animals that you do not intend to settle down with?
rofl, I recently saw a joke along these lines:
When you act out satire, you should be worried.
"Ooohh it's a hot one, God does not forbid banging the dogo if thou art bound by holy matrimony"
yet still driven by lust and sex to the same degree.
Sexual desire is driven by lust and sex.
That's it then, we have the complete story. Let's recap:
Sexual orientation is about sex
Different species cannot reproduce
The same species can reproduce
Just give us the freaking nobel prize already!
and Adam choose to turn them down as companions, look how that turned out :)Satan would have tempted Adam with or without Eve. Her silliness made it happen sooner, but the human was meant to fall prey to Satan.
Right, so if Adam had chosen a dog, the snake would have had to go straight for Adam.
I guess the only correct answer was a honey badger. They don't give a shit. A honey badger helpmate would have chewed up satan's body so many times he would have eventually given up.
Satan would have tempted Adam with or without Eve. Her silliness made it happen sooner, but the human was meant to fall prey to Satan.ÂI am not sure you have spoken much with your Catholic boyfriend/husband. The 'meant to' part and 'with or without' certainty are some severe heresy.
NAYYYYY! IT IS HERESY!
Oh that's what you said.
Created:
Posted in:
You said all furries are lgbtq. I think the hetero ones just hide it easier and keep it for private roleplay.
I said they identify with the movement.
The movement != homosexuals and bisexual 'the category'.
They are like 3/4 bisexual or homosexual, but the heterosexuals still identify with the movement because cults are comfortable (you would know all about that).
I am bisexual but I do not identify with the movement. I don't put rainbows up around my house. I don't go to pride parades or respect pride parades. Most importantly I think that the movement has left a legitimate cause far behind and is now fully in the racket phase.
Also as I just explained furries do not "think they are animals", they identify with an animal, and then create a fantasy creature their 'fursona' which they role play with.
The fantasy creature isn't a human or a non-human, it's an avatar of the abstraction and he or she can be very homosexual because its freaking made up.
Created:
Posted in:
So completely and utterly and profoundly off topic. I don't mean the OP, I mean unrelated to anything anybody said even.[AdaptableRatman] Barely any nonhumans are gay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
They were gods, not humans.
They were gods invented by humans.
Do you think the Egyptians went around thinking their fellow man was a jackal?
Species dysphoria (roughly the same as therians) is not the category in question.
I am saying the 'furry phenomenon' is not new. It's essentially characteristics have been a constant character in nearly all gene and culture groups.
It is not the literal belief that one is an animal, it is the symbolic connection between a highly abstracted animal property (an animal spirit) and human beings. Repeatedly depicted as human animal hybrids, or animals behaving like humans, or animals with iconography in the form of jewelry, etc... etc...
Furry = natural human tendency = "I identify with (the spirit of) [animal]"
Therian = species dysphoria = "I identify as [animal]"
It seems your dislike of the Church is due to your sexual preoccupation with animals.
More understandable assumption than the previous, but still false. Dislike is a strong word for it. I know they're wrong, but they do remarkably little damage given how big they are and how wrong they are.
I attribute that to the 'natural selection of history'. Those religions which bias towards harmful mindsets tend to wreck their societies and die.
Is that why you care more for the pagan than the Christian?
I don't credit one or the other with more literal veracity.
Whether they are true or not, the fact that millions of people found meaning in them is significant. It's also significant that in the evolution of ideas paganism (which is really a very wide category of polytheistic, ancestor worship, and animistic beliefs) has never once stood up to christianity or islam.
Is a human more attractive to you when they pretend to be an animal?
There is no need to pretend. Humans are animals. Generally when they pretend to be another species I find that less attractive and more cringe the farther they take it.
God chose to make the animal too.
and Adam choose to turn them down as companions, look how that turned out :)
Are they intended to be gods or our lovers?
Ask the creator, he can answer if he is omnipresent and wants an answer given.
They are not.
Oh, YOU'RE the creator? Jeez where have you been? I've been asking you questions for a while now.
Created:
Posted in:
I mean in one way comppetely platonically kids and young teens often roleplay as animals or feel kinship to them.
and when they grow up platonic minds become sexual minds. The part of them which feels a kinship is close to the psychosexual structure as evidenced by the overwhelming perviness of furries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
It is objectively one of them. You know what thread to go to if you want to debate it. I am still going to contradict that assertion even if you don't.Zoophilia isn't objectively one of them
If the CoC is unable to make that distinction, then it's nothing but a handbook for censorship and not worth respecting.
As I pointed out in my first post on this site and in the thread where the rules were changed to remove references to criminality.
If it was illegal to advocate to change the laws, then what would the point of democracy be?
A universally applied rule like that would ban anyone who suggested amnesty for illegal migrants.
Created:
Posted in:
[AdaptableRatman]Our CoC bans encouraging criminal activity.
It does not. Here it is in full:
DebateArt.com Moderation PolicyDebateArt.com is committed to promoting an environment where users can engage in open and thoughtful debate on any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive it may be. Our moderation policy is designed to encourage free speech while ensuring that all users are treated with dignity and that our community remains safe and constructive.Respect for other usersUsers must treat other users with reasonable respect, and refrain from personal attacks/insults with the purpose of causing harm to another user. We do not tolerate any form of harassment, bullying, or threats of violence. All users are encouraged to engage in productive and respectful debates, even if they disagree with the opinions of others.Constructive debateUsers are encouraged to present well-reasoned arguments and avoid logical fallacies. We do not permit the worst forms of trolling, such as spamming, posting irrelevant or inflammatory content, or engaging in personal attacks. However, we do allow more borderline forms of trolling that are intended to provoke thought or stimulate debate, as long as they are presented in a respectful and thoughtful manner.No plagiarism or cheatingUsers must write their own arguments and not copy or plagiarize content from other sources. Cheating, such as using multiple accounts or vote manipulation, is strictly prohibited.Doxxing and impersonationDoxxing (the posting of personal information of others without their consent) and impersonation (pretending to be someone else) are strictly prohibited on DebateArt.com. This includes impersonating the site owner, moderators, or other users.Extravagant lies, not to be confused with mere context issues, may rise to the level of constituting impersonation.Renaming of threads or debate titlesModerators have the right to rename a thread or debate title if it is deemed to be offensive or inappropriate. This includes any title or thread that is harmful or offensive to a particular individual or group.Reporting violationsUsers are encouraged to report any violations of our policies or guidelines to the moderators, who will investigate and take appropriate action. Please include specific details and evidence to help us address the issue quickly and fairly.Moderator actionsIf a user is found to have violated our policies, the moderators may take a range of actions, including issuing warnings, suspending or banning accounts, removing content, or renaming threads or debate titles. Our goal is to maintain a dignified and constructive community for all users, while also promoting free expression and constructive debate.By using DebateArt.com, you agree to comply with our moderation policy and any updates or changes to it. We reserve the right to modify our policies at any time to ensure the continued safety and integrity of our platform.
Does not contain the word "criminal"
I am not sure what you think is going on.
I think a mentally unstable individual got his hands on some petty power and despite claiming otherwise will abuse it as evidenced by the fact that his stated agenda is likely incompatible with the community rules:
DebateArt.com is committed to promoting an environment where users can engage in open and thoughtful debate on any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive it may be.
vs
We shall be proud to show our family and friends IRL that we are DARTers.
What exactly will make any particular family proud is nebulous but you've made it clear that you think it means "family friendly" as in "you can show this to students in high-school and nobody will have an issue."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
The pagans did have gods with animal heads or animal figures
Like I said.
Do you think the Egyptians dressed this way?
I think Egyptians thought this way, and their ancestors thought that way, and their ancestors all the way back to homo erectus.
Anubis had a symbolic meaning
The subconscious connects abstractions. That is what symbolism means.
I suppose you are confusing symbolism with reality
I am not, nor did anything I say remotely support such an assumption.
a modern-day phenomenon appearing to occur among the ordinary folk of present societies, influenced by science fiction and fantasy culture
Anthropomorphic creatures don't come from science fiction, they come from our subconscious.
Any place there are animals, humans, and no overriding culture which stamps it out; there will be subconscious connections made and hybrids are one of them.
In other words, it's natural and endemic to the species. The archeological record permits not other interpretation (save for a primordial culture so powerful it is present in all samples).
Created: