Athias

-->

@Amoranemix

Amoranemix 289
In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.
Athias 290 :
Not everyone.
[selfquote of post 117 :]
The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.
Who doesn't agree and why haven't they attempted to defend that position ?

I don't agree; I haven't attempted to "defend" that position because sustaining a belief isn't necessarily measured by its being rationally defensible, but the value placed by the individual who sustains said belief. I neither object nor contend against atheists who don't believe in a God or gods. My only contention is the statement "God Does Not Exist" is logically coherent/consistent/sound.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Why 3ru7al should drop out of the race and his supporters should vote Airmax

-->

@Wylted

respond please.

No. [RESPONSE SUBMITTED.]

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

after twenty-odd years, I'm transcending christianity…

-->

@zedvictor4

Never suggested that sui_generis was Stephen.

Punctuation is key.

Okay, zed. Just this once, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. (Don't get used to it.)

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

Yeah, no shit. And since that was the topic not only of the specific statement I replied to but is also the point of this thread, it is beyond obvious to anyone paying attention that I was talking about the post election period before January 6th.

You can beat that dead horse all you want.

No, you just need to learn how to understand context and the role it plays in conversation.

Yes, sir.

No, it was aimed at the statement you imagined. One that had nothing to do with anything said before it, which is an absurd way to have a discussion.

And both you and I have indulged an absurd way to have a discussion. Enjoy your day.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

In this case, the question being asked is intended to analyze the assertion that all claims of god being nonexistent are illogical. Whether any given God proposition is actually logically contradictory is entirely irrelevant for that is a completely different conversation. And one which I had no intention of having, BTW.

Nonexistence serves of the purpose of merely being the negation of existence. Nonexistence is not rational. And that does not apply to just God(s). It can be applied to Santa Klaus, the Tooth Fairy, Diet Soda, Colors, Numbers, even you and me.

Thank you for proving the point of why I tried to avoid providing an example, because predictably you shifted the entire focus of the conversation to the example and not the question.

I do not know how to rationalize a self-contradicting God. Since you were the one who propose this "self-contradiction" I asked you to explain. You've either refused or offered an insufficient premise. This is problematic for your argument because having to explain your rationalization would mean you'd first have to substantiate your premises. You have not done this. Instead, you intend for me to just accept it under the condition that it is valid, and proceed to examine the proposition ontologically. But I'm going to do you a favor, because this is what I suspect you're really asking:

Does a perceived contradiction in the description of God not inform his nonexistence? And the answer is no.

I propose a god that can metaphysically function beyond itself.

That's irrational, no matter how you put it. And it is not within my capacity to rationalize using irrational premises.

“What of the god proposed is logically contradictory”

If my argument has been, everything exists, and nothing doesn't, then explain to me how you intend for me to address this proposition.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Wylted

I have no interest in indulging this conversation, here.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@RationalMadman

Please list me examples or hint at moments where 3RU7AL has demonstrated decorum, respectfulness, and the initiative to cooperate with others.

Easy:

3RU7AL awards his opponent a victory in a debate, which helps promote the idea that each person engaging a debate has valid points to make.

Interesting enough, you engaged 3RU7AL in a discussion over the subject in the comments section. Even though you mocked him at times, he was unfailingly respectful. That was three years ago.

More recently:

When moderators were unwilling to publicly post their SPES proposal (presumably because of it's length) 3RU7AL didn't make a fuss over it. He continued to ask the mods respectfully in spite of their failed attempts. When drlebronski provided a link, 3RU7AL decided to post it in the forums for all the members to see.

And you can sift through the numerous exchanges he's had with other members, including yourself, and I challenge you to find an ad hominem in his statements.

Not to mention, his suggestions:

--> @MisterChris
Has anyone considered a "ban from debates and forums" only ?

That way, a "banned" user could still communicate with people they know here through the PM function, so at least we could get their side of the story and perhaps find out if they post on some other debate site or blog or discord or something if we find them interesting and wonder why they suddenly disappeared.

Perhaps we could allow them to send "friend requests" and then only allow them to PM with people who accept their "friend request".

Or his promoting the ideas of other members:

3RU7AL:

--> @Athias @secularmerlin
@oromagi

I have recommended:

auto-loss on first forfeit (to save voters time and effort)
setting debates for a minimum number of votes before closing- 3 seems reasonable
Make voting the price of initiating a debate: something like writing 3 votes earns you 1 debate
This is the first I've seen of these proposals.

A resounding YES to ALL THREE.
Have you seen this ^^^ ??

3RU7AL has been doing it all, and not for the sake of an election. He's been participating this whole time, helping where he can.

The reason I am backing Airmax is that I believe that nobody else is going to help DART become less of an unpopular tiny place that nobody on the Internet except like 20 of us, care about. If Airmax stays true to his campaign promises, I will be ecstatic about the site's success.

To help a site become more popular, one first must understand the issues that are leading to its unpopularity. Who'd be more privy to that information: one who's been here the whole time and offering helpful suggestions where he can, or someone who has shown up after years of absence? Let me ask you this: you are intelligent enough to know that "campaign promises" are often grander than they are practical. In the event that things don't go their way, or certain hiccoughs arise, in whom would you place your confidence to persist and help to the extent of his capacity--the one who's always been here, or the one who left and came back?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RationalMadman

Sure, if you want to play semantics, absolutely all voters and candidates who posted during this time helped create it but some far more than others.

No. Not all voters and candidates who posted during that time helped create that "acidic drama pool." It was primarily you and Wylted, with some help from Lunatic.

This is untrue, 3RU7AL thinks the capacity of the seat is solely to sit there and do nothing while softly advising something to mods.

Once again, 3RU7AL intends to offer counsel and target the moderators' capacity fundamentally--i.e. their ARBITRARY QUALIFICATIONS. This is not as "flashy" as boasting something which he can't do.

The seat of power can be used to host community events, directly veto mod actions and be a massive boost to the site's image.

3RU7AL:

The main reason for this is that any permanent bans based on some of the more ludicrous rules (hate speech, for example) would be vetoed.
the "Presidential-Veto" can be over-ruled by a consensus of moderators

and since bans are already agreed upon by a consensus of moderators, i'm not sure the "Presidential-Veto" will be particularly effective

SupaDudz:

--> @3RU7AL
I'd disagree. In fact I think it would be effective that moderation look back onto a ban a president vetoed and see if it is truly ban worth.

I do not support a Mesmer ban at all and I think if the president makes a good case, it would convince the team to vote to unban Mesmer

Athias:

@3RU7AL:

the "Presidential-Veto" can be over-ruled by a consensus of moderators

and since bans are already agreed upon by a consensus of moderators, i'm not sure the "Presidential-Veto" will be particularly effective
Very well-put. When SupaDudz delineated the capacity of the office, it's as though many overlooked the fine-print.

@SupaDudz:

I'd disagree. In fact I think it would be effective that moderation look back onto a ban a president vetoed and see if it is truly ban worth.

I do not support a Mesmer ban at all and I think if the president makes a good case, it would convince the team to vote to unban Mesmer
But the veto's efficacy doesn't stand against the consensus of your moderation team, which serves as basis for a ban's proposal and implementation. The president can attempt to convince the moderation team against a decision that was previously made, but that's NOT a veto, much less a reflection of a veto's effectiveness.

SupaDudz:

--> @Athias
But the veto's efficacy doesn't stand against the consensus of your moderation team, which serves as basis for a ban's proposal and implementation. The president can attempt to convince the moderation team against a decision that was previously made, but that's NOT a veto, much less a reflection of a veto's effectiveness.
It is still a veto of the ban. Just like in the real congress, they may overturn a veto with a super majority vote

Athias:

--> @SupaDudz
To be clear, I was not the one who made the document but I did have a say into what was in the document
I would presume as much.

It is still a veto of the ban. Just like in the real congress, they may overturn a veto with a super majority vote
Yes, but unlike real congress, the implementation of a proposal doesn't require a super majority vote. So, let's for argument's sake, entertain the notion that you and your moderation team are considering a ban. You bring forth this proposal to the president after a majority of you have already made your considerations one way or the other on said ban. The president decides to exercise his or her veto. What does the veto actually do? If the majority of the moderation team proceed with their considerations in favor of banning, then what has the veto in essence done? I suppose one could argue that the veto in effect provides a temporary stay allowing the president the attempt to have you and your team reconsider, but this is already a function of his or her office, i.e. to "advise" you. In effect, the veto is more superficial than effective.

Once again, you are grossly overestimating the capacity of this office, RationalMadman. And I know of no better member who can bolster the image of this site's image than one who demonstrated integrity, decorum, respectfulness, and the initiative to cooperate with others throughout his entire membership--3RU7AL.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

Let me remind you what this conversation began with some context.

You referred to January 6th as having been “staged”, thereby implying that some anti Trump mastermind was behind it all.

Not really a "mastermind," more like a non-public sponsor.

So another user commented on that and you replied:

RationalMadman.

The dialog here pertaining to the staging of the event clearly shows that the alleged plotting to impeach Trump took place before January 6th.

Astute deduction. One could reasonably presume that the staged event was planned before it actually occurred.

Therefore when I tell you I am not aware of any democrats plotting to impeach Trump after the election I’m clearly talking about the period before January 6th

No you weren't. You just needed time to come up with some reason to explain away your folly.

So showing me an impeachment that took place after January 6th as a direct response to January 6th is completely irrelevant

Unless the claim is the event was staged in order to give pretext to that farcical second impeachment because the first impeachment was unsuccessful. But my response was directly aimed at your statement:

I know of no democrat who set their sights on impeaching Trump after the election.

With no specified date. Not that it would have mattered anyway.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

I wasn’t proposing a self contradictory God, I asked what happens *if* the god proposed *is* self contradictory. This is not complicated. At all.

Which presupposes that a self-contradictory God is accepted, without so much as providing a rationalization. It's not complicated; it's lazy.

Since you cannot be bothered here you go; I propose a god that is all powerful, such that he can both create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it and also lift it.

We've been through this nonsense before. The contradiction isn't the proposition that a God is all powerful, but the proposition that a God can metaphysically function beyond itself. In other words, to expand and subject the parameters of "all powerful" to the postulate of "metaphysical objectivity" is irrational nonsense.

Now can you answer the question?

“What of the god proposed is logically contradictory”

The premise of your proposition is irrational.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Wylted

Brutal's platform is in post 1.

I have read his other threads and that is the maximum effort 3ru7al puts in.

I think we can get an ideal of what type of effort he will put into the presidency. One of his most recent threads he posts links to YouTube with no explanation and hours long in length. LoL

You admitted else where that you indulged pretenses all for the sake of this election, so if the most you can amass about 3RU7AL is that "what you see is what you get" then good luck in your attempt to slander his bid.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RationalMadman

I want to thank you and 3RU7AL for not dropping out

You can thank 3RU7AL.

it let me get out of this acidic drama pool

An acidic drama pool which you in part helped create.

and able to help a candidate I think is best for the website (Airmax1227).

That is your prerogative.

I think your cause is basically like saying you won't use the President's seat of power for anything it can do but to each their own.

3RU7AL intends to use the president's "seat of power" within its capacity to execute his platform.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Airmax1227 For DART

-->

@airmax1227

I mean, yeah, at some point there really wasn't any choice. I'm willing to, and it's part of my style of discourse, to be as charitable as I can, and cede things in good faith, but to frame me as someone who just gave up, I don't believe is fair, even if it is literally true. I believe I stuck it out longer than is actually reasonable, or anyone else would have.

The suggestion isn't intended to measure you, at least in your capacity as a moderator, against anyone else there. But your mentions about your capacity as moderator there would be like one's mentioning one's management of Enron right up until its bankruptcy, to continue the business analogy.

It provides a level of credibility at a time that I am again willing to pursue this type of project again. Both of these aspects are important here. I hadn't given it a lot of thought during my hiatus, and as a result of this presidential election the idea of me working on this type of project was something I hadn't considered in awhile, and was finally given a reason to.

At the risk of reiterating your point (not that its a risk, I'm going to intentionally do it haha), I wasn't interested, and then by the election being a thing it encouraged some to make me consider something I hadn't considered in awhile. So yeah, I wasn't here at all, and as a result of the election now I am. if the owner contacted me tomorrow, and asked if I'd like to volunteer as a consultant and have specific parameters to sway the development of the site in a similar way to which the community president does, then I'd probably take him up on that offer since I could just avoid the politics of it all. But the election does create a public legitimacy dynamic that I also think is important. I'm going to suggest things during the course of the election, and based on the reaction, and ultimately how well I do in the election, I can gauge how palatable some of my ideas are.

Credibility with whom? As I understand it, the capacity of the presidential office as delineated by SupaDudz (in conjunction with the moderation team) is as follows:

1. To communicate within the moderation team chat and give input on all forms of daily decision making.

- If the boasts about you are to be believed, then you would already have an in with a couple of members of the moderation team (i.e. Whiteflame, SupaDudz, Ragnar.)

2. To veto permanent ban propositions.

- As 3RU7AL already pointed out, this is more cosmetic than effective given that the veto is determined and regulated by the consensus on which the permanent ban proposition is based.

3. The ability to envision and execute community events, subject to regulation and assistance of the moderation team.

Again, if you already have an in, then you could've suggested these community based events to them. Even suggesting them in the forums would've given you a platform which garnered the moderators' attention.

I think you underestimate my awareness of the concerns of the community and the challenges this community faces. I may not have been here directly posting on the site, but I've kept in touch with people, and heard about the various issues of the site. Again, I think your criticism is entirely fair, I haven't been an active member, but I'm also not a complete outsider.

I'm only underestimating your awareness of the concerns of this community in comparison to someone who has been here the whole time.

You have been a complete gentleman during this entire exchange and I appreciate that you have engaged in this in good faith and not just some political gotcha game. I believe your contention, that my sudden appearance raises an important question about my intentions for the site and my ability to achieve its goals, is a fair one. The voters will ultimately weigh the pros and cons of that truth, with the other aspects of what I bring to the table.

To summarize this I will just say that you are correct about this point about me, to some extent being outsider coming in and asking for "power" from a community that some will view me as foreign to. My only contention here is that I'm not completely foreign to this community, and that to whatever extent that is true, voters will weigh that to the benefits I bring. Furthermore, if there wasn't an election, and my supporters had found some other reason to hassle me into considering working on benefiting the website, the owner looking for someone of my experience, for example, to just work behind these scenes and do what I'd do if elected, then I probably could have been convinced of that instead. This election thing, the power pursuit thing I'm being associated with, isn't my motivation, it just happens to be the catalyst for what convinced some people to put the consideration in my mind. Ultimately I'm looking forward to the work, I'm not enthusiastic about the politics because it takes away from my time to do that work, and I just wana continue drawing up my road map and ideas and focus on relating that to the community.

I respect your being candid.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Et tu, Brute?

Would that not only apply if I had turned sides on this issue?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

Why does everything with you have to be so difficult?

...because I wish to spread my constant inner-torment?

What I proposed was the scenario where the god proposed was logically contradictory. Note the question below, again…

“What if the god proposed is logically contradictory?”

The word “if” in this sentence denotes that such proposal has already been made, so I’m not asking you to imagine such a scenario, only to imagine that you have already concluded such and am asking what happens from there.

I don't imagine conclusions much less entertain them without first understanding how they were rendered. If you want to propose and conclude a "self-contradictory" God, then explain how this conclusion was or can be rendered. You're only expecting me to accept that a conclusion is contradictory without so much as providing or understanding its rationalization. I don't do that especially as it concerns ontological discussions.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

New Presidential Poll

-->

@thett3

You spelled, "3RU7AL" as "3BRU7AL." I suspect tampering!!!!!!

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

Airmax1227 For DART

-->

@airmax1227

While you weren't necessarily implying this, I didn't have anyone do anything. I got a text message one day asking me if would be willing to do this

I saw that.

I don't believe I am. I am actually quite enthusiastic about the limitations of the office. I don't want to do what I did for DDO, I want my work to be mostly focused on site development, and that's something I can do within the capacity of the office.

So then that begs the question once again :what role or liberty do you believe the presidency offers you in juxtaposition to what you can do now, or could have then, as a member of DART?

That's fair. I don't know 3RU7AL that well, but I'm sure he's a capable and well intended individual. All I can say is that I have experience with this type of thing, and that some of the members believe I can do a good job, and that includes two of my former opponents. I'm sure 3RU7AL is a good guy though, so my presence shouldn't be viewed at all that I think anything negatively about him.

Which makes you far better in my opinion then the two former opponents. My criticisms of you are not personal. My criticisms are targeted only toward your tenure here and the perception of your capacity to function in this office.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Airmax1227 For DART

-->

@airmax1227

To some degree that is accurate. There are those here, which now includes two of my former opponents in this election, that believe I can make a positive improvement to this site, and that's based on what they know about me from DDO.

Two candidates who were grossly unqualified--one who thought that he could shake things up and boasted nonsense, and the other while having, I suppose the term for it would be "better" intentions was essentially the sugar to the other's salt.

I did with regard to moderation policy, but for everything else, it was literally impossible. I did everything that I could to try, trying to sell the plan in my platform, but the ownership of that website no longer considered it an asset worth investing in. That is what is so appealing to me here, and why I came back. This site has a great foundation - even better than DDO - it just needs a kick in the direction, and the mere blessing of its owner, something I didn't have on DDO.

I suppose DDO had a great foundation when it first started as well. And I wouldn't deny any of your accounts about the ownership, having been informed of something similar back when I was at DDO. But what led to DDO's downfall was not just the lack of interest from the ownership, but the lack of interest from the moderators as well. And while it would be unfair to have you shoulder that alone, it is fair to state that you were one of the moderators who gave up.

I mean, go over to DDO and look at it, you can see that it's just a graveyard, abandoned and untended to.

Oh believe me--I know what that place looks like: a bee-hive where Harikrish is queen.

I needed a break from the whole thing. Without, again, being too melodramatic, doing what I did for DDO was rather exhausting when considering its tragic ending. It was naturally going to take some time for me return, and some sort of incentive. A few days ago that incentive, the ability to invest my time in a productive and beneficial hobby resurfaced, and so here I am.

Understandable, but that ought not to have precluded you from investing your time as a member.

I'd just like to point out here that this should assuage those that think I'm just here for "power". Firstly, this position isn't about power, it's about site development, and secondly, if that's what I was seeking I could have come over to the site immediately and I believe become the site's mod from the get-go (not that I would even consider that "power"). There were those asking me to come over right away and continue the work I had been doing, but as I said, I needed a break. I kept in touch with some members, so I don't believe I have been entirely absent from this community, but it is fair to say that I am just swooping in here when the opportunity arose for me to pick back up a hobby I enjoy, and since I'm excited about the prospect of the endeavor, here I am.

I mean some of it is about power, right? I mean you need some power to pick back up with your hobby, right? Hence, your "swooping in" as you put it? And if that's not the case, then it begs the question: why haven't you made any of your suggestions on this site some time in the past? Like with the MEEP referendums? If you've cultivated this relationship with a few of the moderators, so much so that you were asked to be a moderator at this site's inception, not to mention your maintaining contact with members of the DART community, then how is the capacity of DART President any different from that which you could have done over your prolonged absence?

That's true, aside from a handful of posts like 2 years ago, I have done literally nothing here. I think the best analogy here would be a business one. A struggling company decides that rather than promoting from within, they find a CEO with a proven record of success, outside of the company. There is an understandable level of concern in that company from its employees, especially at the higher levels, and perhaps even from its customers. Does this person understand our values and goals? Is this someone that's going to make positive changes? Is this someone that understands the culture? I believe those are all fair concerns, but even if I haven't been actively involved with the community, though again, I have kept in touch to some degree, the answer to all those questions, is yes. And the members of this community, including two of my former opponents, wouldn't have asked me to do this, or endorsed me, if they didn't think it was true as well. They clearly believe I have the ability to achieve these goals.

If we're going to use that business analogy, then it would be fair to state that electing you would be like hiring a CEO, who's been out of work for years, who in part managed a company that eventually went bankrupt (or at the very least, hemorrhaging and holding on for dear life.) On the other hand, electing 3RU7AL would be like a struggling company hiring the CEO of a successful company (once again, 3RU7AL has administrative experience)--who has patroned your company for years and knows it quite well--as a consultant (once again, many especially including your supporters are overestimating the capacity of this presidential office.)

It's not about what I have contributed here, but what I have contributed to communities like these, and really it is essentially the same community. Furthermore, it's not simply about touting my experience, but about touting my ability to make a commitment and see it through, and I stuck to my commitment to DDO to the unfortunate absolute bitter end.

But it is about what you've contributed here. Because you're attempting to presume the office of DART president. Granted many of those who participate in this site migrated from DDO, no doubt (I'd be included among them.) But this is not DDO, in spite of its remnants. This is DART, consisting of both remnants and new debaters--and you've made no such commitments to this site before, and you only allege you can make one now.

The members who sought me out, and two of my initial opponents, know the type of person that I am.

3RU7AL didn't ask to be nominated. I nominated him. And there were members who pledged to change their votes once realizing that 3RU7AL was a viable candidate. And that's because we know the type of member he is. He's not "swooping in." He's been here from the very start. He has set a good example from the very start. He didn't abandon the site in instances where he didn't get his way. He's actively tried to make this site a better environment for debates not just at the community level, but also the individual level as well. He's the only member I know to have willfully lost a debate to promote a new voting system and the idea of not dismissing one's opponent and giving them credit where they make valid points.

I have a certain set of skills, I am reliable, and when I make a commitment, I see it through to the end. So it's not about what I have done for this site, it's about what I can do for this site.

The best ability is availability. Why should anyone have confidence in what you can do for this site, when you have done nothing for this site?

To be fair, I understand your concern. I can certainly be viewed as some sort of outsider that hasn't done anything here, and to some degree that's true.

Not just some degree.

But I'm not really an outsider, I know this community, and to this point I haven't been motivated to do much here, but now that there's a chance to do good for the community, I have been motivated to make my return. If you and others want to therefore view me as some kind of outsider mercenary, then all I can say is that I plan to help the community, and I have a proven record of doing that.

You know the people, but you don't know the community. Because, you haven't taken an interest in being part of it until this year, which spans only 10 days.

It is not my intention to antagonize you, and if you believe my contentions are unfair, please let me know.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

I am not sure if I'm breaking a rule by making a new thread about the election but...

-->

@Wylted

It would be wise for you to take the effort to learn, because right now out of all 3 candidates. You are supporting the o ly one that would actually be ineffective at creating any positive change

I made the effort to learn that the candidate I've supported is the only one with the awareness and shrewdness to target concerns using reduction to their fundamental cause (e.g. exercise of authority based on ARBITRARY QUALIFICATIONS) as opposed to pandering to and patronizing the community not only do they know little of, but also would presume to preside.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

after twenty-odd years, I'm transcending christianity…

-->

@zedvictor4

@sui_generis

@sui generis:

I remember you quite well. And yes the dharmic religions are the gateway drug into Theosophic occultism a.k.a. Luciferianism. And this answers your question about neo-platonism's fall from grace (the propagation of Luciferianism through eastern traditions, which were brought to the west--starting with Italy--by the Etruscans.) Read your Psalms, and thou shalt find light within dark path.

@zedvictor4:

I doubt she's Stephen, though I couldn't confirm it (and that'd be true for anyone for that matter.) Sui generis has always been more thoughtful in her considerations.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RationalMadman

Between Airmax and myself, who is it you think you will support and why?

Well, now that you've dropped out, my answer is 3RU7AL. Had you not dropped out, my answer still would have been 3RU7AL.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

I am not sure if I'm breaking a rule by making a new thread about the election but...

-->

@RationalMadman

@zedvictor4

@oromagi

@FLRW

@Intelligence_06

To name the ones that I mean:

Oromagi, Zedvictor4, Intelligence_06, Outplayz, Polytheist-Witch, Lunar108, FLRW and I kind of presume Reece101 was a supporter as well.

If I left your name out, I totally get if you're offended and am truly sorry!

I also appreciate EtrnlVw and Lemming for implied support though it was just asking me about what I'd do or certain things about me, allowing me to further advocate for myself.

I also want to thank IlikePie5 for being an honest opponent who ended up screwed over by several events during this, I'm not going to name names as honestly Airmax himself is to blame for Wylted dropping out, despite Pie having himself dropped out due to Wylted running.

Do not vote Hammer (I frankly think it's a joke campaign) and do not vote 3RU7AL.

Please listen to me, my supporters and vote for Airmax1227. It will be a genuine benefit to the website even if he is a little power-hungry.

This presumes that these supporters of yours "supported you" as opposed to your platform, which may have been appealing because it didn't involve Wylted, who was your only opposition at the time. And frankly speaking, I'm quite disappointed that not only have you retracted your opposition to Airmax's bid, which had more than a grain of truth to it, but also ended your bid in favor of his--not to mention, your encouraging others to vote for what's essentially an unknown, at least as far as debateart is concerned.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Airmax1227 For DART

-->

@zedvictor4

@airmax1227

@Airmax who.

Never heard of them before 2022.

My point exactly. (Though admittedly, I do somewhat remember (him?) from DDO.)

It's as though your campaign is entirely based on reinvigorating some nostalgic remnant of the DDO site. And that begs the question: why haven't you done everything you stated in your platform for DDO? You boast this military-like relationship with Whiteflame (i.e your knowing how he thinks, and his knowing how you think) yet you haven't used much of this curried favor to influence these changes you seek as member of DEBATEART, especially since Whiteflame has been a moderator for some time. In fact, you haven't done much at all as far as contributing or even participating as a member of DEBATEART. Your platform is entirely predicated on your touting your experience as a moderator to what's now a relic (i.e. Debate.org) which saw a mass exodus to DEBATEART, as well as this alleged friendship you have with the chief moderator. What of your experience, here? What have you contributed, here? How has this alleged friendship with Whiteflame benefited this site? To your own admission, you haven't really given much attention to your membership, here, yet you think it's reasonable to assume that confidence should be placed in what you will do, when you haven't done anything? 3RU7AL has moderation experience as well. And what enhances him as a candidate is that he has been here, actively contributing without a title of "President."

I'll state to you something identical to that which I stated to RationalMadman: I presume you're a fairly intelligent person who probably can do everything he sets out to do. With that said, your place in this race is entirely predicated on the friends you've had come out of the woodwork. Friends who support you, not necessarily anything that has to do with this site (you and many of them are grossly overestimating the capacity of this office.) Do I believe you can carry out the functions of the presidential office better than 3RU7AL can? For RationalMadman, I stated, "not by a mile." For you, I state, "not by a light year."

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Is Inheritance Morally Wrong?

-->

@3RU7AL

it's also NOT "monogamy"

more like "serial-polygamy" with divorce being normalized

Exactly. I loved what Dave Chappelle had to say on the matter:

...legal marriage is a fucking diabolical leverage game in the United States. I’m just being honest. Devoid of religious significance or the idea of love, marriage is nothing but an awful contract that you shouldn’t sign. I’m just being real. Because you start out loving each other. Then two years later, you’re just building a case against one another… for a hypothetical court date that may or may not ever happen.

Not to mention the cultural promotion of promiscuity which is said to adversely affect one's capacity to pair-bond, and these ridiculous timestamps for which it's encouraged that one gets married. A person gets married anywhere between 6 months to a year after meeting a person, and they wonder the reason at some point down the line that they "didn't really know" the person to whom they're intended, or that person "changed." Furthermore, with the ever increasing propagation of these "identity" movements, the trend of independence from "marital servitude" becomes more and more prevalent.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

Is Inheritance Morally Wrong?

-->

@thett3

The above statement was intended for you.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Is Inheritance Morally Wrong?

It's clear that your understanding of philosophy and such is a lot more sophisticated that mine. What I'm trying to get at, in a somewhat hamfisted way, is that I think of the family as something so valuable that while individuals are individuals, their lives should more or less dedicated to propagating it unless their families are REALLY toxic. For me, I want kids really badly but even if I didn't I would still do it just out of a sense of duty to my parents who I know really want grandchildren. I do think we as individuals have some obligation to our families, honor thy mother and father and all that. When I think about the money I have and the money I expect to earn in the future, a lot of what I'm thinking about is future generations

I don't object as long as the individual chooses to express this sense of duty. And while I personally agree with your sentiments toward the family construct, for me, it does not supersede individualism. To be fair, nothing really does.

We might have a disagreement here. They should have a legal right to do so because otherwise the government is dictating how people spend their money which is obviously a terrible idea. But I would consider an heir who inherits tons of money from past generations and squanders it to be doing something immoral, especially if their own children are struggling. They have a kind of fiduciary responsibility as a steward of assets...I guess this issue is why most serious wealth is held in trusts

On the other hand I do think it's wrong when greedy heirs act entitled to their parents or their grandparents money. So morality is probably a lot more conditional than the framework I laid out in my OP

Personally, I mostly agree with you. I do think that it would be to one's benefit to act as steward of one's family wealth until such a time when said wealth could be transferred to one's children. But when morality is mentioned, accountability comes to mind. If that were the case, would the children bear the capacity to sue or seek damages from the squandering steward? I think a family would do well to help recipients of inheritance to understand the value in adding to and protecting wealth, but at the end of the day the abusus and usus fructus of that wealth is still subject to recipient's decisions.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

And that's nothing more than a kamikaze in lieu of substantiating a consistent logic.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Vote for Airmax1227 : Official thread

-->

@Vader

To be clear, I was not the one who made the document but I did have a say into what was in the document

I would presume as much.

It is still a veto of the ban. Just like in the real congress, they may overturn a veto with a super majority vote

Yes, but unlike real congress, the implementation of a proposal doesn't require a super majority vote. So, let's for argument's sake, entertain the notion that you and your moderation team are considering a ban. You bring forth this proposal to the president after a majority of you have already made your considerations one way or the other on said ban. The president decides to exercise his or her veto. What does the veto actually do? If the majority of the moderation team proceed with their considerations in favor of banning, then what has the veto in essence done? I suppose one could argue that the veto in effect provides a temporary stay allowing the president the attempt to have you and your team reconsider, but this is already a function of his or her office, i.e. to "advise" you. In effect, the veto is more superficial than effective.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

Vote for Airmax1227 : Official thread

-->

@Vader

@3RU7AL

@3RU7AL:

the "Presidential-Veto" can be over-ruled by a consensus of moderators

and since bans are already agreed upon by a consensus of moderators, i'm not sure the "Presidential-Veto" will be particularly effective

Very well-put. When SupaDudz delineated the capacity of the office, it's as though many overlooked the fine-print.

@SupaDudz:

I'd disagree. In fact I think it would be effective that moderation look back onto a ban a president vetoed and see if it is truly ban worth.

I do not support a Mesmer ban at all and I think if the president makes a good case, it would convince the team to vote to unban Mesmer

But the veto's efficacy doesn't stand against the consensus of your moderation team, which serves as basis for a ban's proposal and implementation. The president can attempt to convince the moderation team against a decision that was previously made, but that's NOT a veto, much less a reflection of a veto's effectiveness.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

and this is the primary vector for corruption of the legal system

Exactly. Well-stated. Assuming authority over one's "likeliness to re-offend vs rehabilitate" is akin to a psychic and cold readings.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RationalMadman

Of course. We all know that figurative language is, naturally, cause for guilt.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Lunatic

You are so focused on being right

One doesn't have to focus on it if one is.

that you stubbornly argue semantics

Not semantics; just reading comprehension and deduction.

as if they change the outcome of "presidents can influence moderation decisions". That is 100% true.

You are arguing against straw men. No one has argued that it isn't within the capacity of the president's office to influence moderator decisions. There would be no point to an advisory position if the adviser couldn't influence. That is NOT THE SAME as "lessening" moderation--especially with respect to the extent of their authority and their discretion within their capacity to exercise said authority. SupaDudz's delineation of the president's role made it crystal-clear that the moderation still have and maintain overwhelming leverage. They're not seeking to appoint another moderator, or chief moderator, or administrator. You're exclaiming, "REVOLUTION!" while not fully grasping the role or its extent.

3RU7AL didn't say he intended to do nothing. 3RU7AL has repeatedly stated that he intends to insure that moderator decisions are based on quantifiable and transparent rules. What does this mean? He intends to advise moderators against exercising their authority when based on their own ARBITRARY QUALIFICATIONS as opposed to QUANTIFIABLE (DEMONSTRABLE) violations of TRANSPARENT (CLEARLY SPELLED-OUT) rules. He intends to advise moderators to exercise their authority uniformly and consistently (e.g. Person A who demonstrably violates Rule B in section C and Person D who demonstrably violates Rule B in section E ought to face a UNIFORM response.) The scope of his platform is universal. That is the reason you were being prompted to provide something specific. 3RU7AL has expressed and demonstrated that he's willing to address a specific proposal, and delineate to you how the platform which he argues would incorporate such a case. But you have no intention of doing that. You've sought demagoguery; you've sought pandering; so, good luck to you, sir.

If you don't see that you are just willfully ignorant of reality or disconnected to it.

I have no intention of discussing with you your impressions of reality. Good luck.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Wylted

Moderators currently over moderate. So by influencing them to moderate less, you lessen the amount of moderation.

Quantify "over-moderation."

Whether the influence be from persuasion or from New policies.

Unless said persuasion or new policies neuter their authority, then what would "less" moderation mean?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Wylted

Yes they are, LOL

Explain.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Lunatic

You are actually accusing the mods of lying. They are directly saying they want to give the position the ability to influence moderation decisions and you and your candidate lack the vision and motivation to capitalize on the one good thing to come out of the job. Missed opportunity to say the least.

"Influencing" moderator decisions, and "lessening" moderation are not the same. And as 3RU7AL has already informed you, his platform is clearly spelled-out. If his platform provides you little to no confidence in his prospects, then by all means, it is your prerogative to choose someone else. Good luck with that.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

I know of no democrat who set their sights on impeaching Trump after the election.

Second Impeachment of Donald Trump (January 13, 2021 -- 10 weeks AFTER the (s)election.)

Nancy Pelosi on January 12, 2021 (10 weeks AFTER the (s)election) appointed nine impeachment managers who were responsible for presenting the impeachment case to the Senate:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

Impeachment managers
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Lead Impeachment Manager
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas)
Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.)
Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.)
Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.)
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.)
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)

*EVERY SINGLE HOUSE DEMOCRAT HAD CAST A GUILTY VOTE AS IT PERTAINED TO THE CHARGES OF INCITING AN INSURRECTION.

*EVERY SINGLE SENATE DEMOCRAT HAD CAST A GUILTY VOTE AS IT PERTAINED TO THE CHARGES OF INCITING AN INSURRECTION.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Lunatic

It's not my campaign. It's on you to sell yourself here if you want votes. You need to offer specifics to what you are trying to accomplish. Repeating the same thing over and over again isn't doing you any justice.

No, you want someone to kiss your ass and lie to you about things they can't do. If that makes you content, then godspeed, sir.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Though based upon the uncertainty of opinion, it would be better to conclude that neither of our opinions is sound enough, and that two unsound opinions relating to similar data from two separate data sources, have the potential to be both illogical and logical.

No, it would not be better. I can defend my position; you have not. We're not going to appeal to moderation and provide validity to an inconsistent argument simply because you characterize the arguments as "opinion."

Logic is in the eye of the beholder, as it were.

Not really. Logic is a system of well-defined principles. To accept logic is to accept its principles, regardless of one's beer intake.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@RationalMadman

So run me a little more through this then.

These secret planners waited until after already having been declared victorious in the election to pull a stunt that would demonise Trump?

Then, they (these evil masterminds) failed to impeach him anyway?

Were the "democrats" not trying to impeach Trump after he lost the (s)election, which at the time was subject to scrutiny?

Has it ever occurred to you that Trump may be the evil guy after all?

Oh, I have no doubt that he was complicit in that farce. Politicians are entertainers for the most part.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Lunatic

Easy.

"The ability to communicate within a moderation team chat (via Discord) in order to give input on all forms of daily decision-making. Except when completely untenable, the mod team will strive to ensure the President’s viewpoint is heard and honored."

The president gets a direct line to communicate with moderation, meaning they can encourage softer bans, or even no bans.

How does this "lessen" moderation?

"The ability to approve or veto permanent ban propositions."

The president can veto ban's all together.

I don't know how you missed all of that.

You missed this:

Vetos may be overridden by a simple majority vote among the moderation team.

Your presidential candidate is only vying for equal punishment or enforcement, not less. You are assuming the best, based on very little that he has actually said. You are making his case for him. Who cares what the rules do to the community, as long as they are enforced equally.

It isn't within the capacity of the presidential office to change the rules. What better can a president do than to advise and counsel for a uniform and quantifiable implementation and enforcement of the rules?

I didn't say it wasn't, just that he isn't trying to lessen strict moderation, as say someone like wylted is trying to do.

The president cannot "lessen" (strict) moderation. The president can certainly counsel for it particularly in areas where it's quantifiable. Therefore it is crucial that the president commands the respect of the moderation team. There's a lot more confidence in 3RU7AL carrying this out, than there is with Wylted.

Okay you are saying he doesn't care about my vote, well I don't care if he doesn't care either.

Once again, how did you formulate this conclusion?

If he wanted to win my vote or others shouldn't he be trying to answer these questions and be more transparent though?

Transparent? What hasn't 3RU7AL been transparent about?

Even if not for me personally, so others can view the discussion and weigh in on this? I am expressing my opinion on why his campaign isn't better, and will continue to do so since he isn't actually addressing those concerns himself.

3RU7AL has expressed every intention he has within the context of the office's capacity. You, RationalMadman and Wylted are overestimating the capacity of the office. Why would he entertain or address that which lies outside the capacity of the office he would presume?

You [respect] someone as a candidate who [speaks when relevant questions are asked.]

Let me fix that for you.

Interesting, me and RM disagree on a lot but that is abundantly clear. You have more faith in your candidate than your own candidate does apparently, otherwise he would be here fighting his own battles.

It's not a "battle"; it's a conversation. And if you have anything specific you wish to discuss with 3RU7AL, 3RU7AL has already expressed that he's more than willing to indulge:

3RU7AL:

if you would like to discuss a SPECIFIC PROPOSAL i would be more than happy to dissect it

i am more than happy to discuss any SPECIFIC ACTIONS you might have questions about

If you want someone who is okay with over moderation

Please provide a receipt to this statement you allege 3RU7AL made.

and a dead website

Receipt?

and won't bother to use literally the only useful ability the president has to fix that problem,

3RU7AL has already expressed his understanding of the role of President, which you have overestimated and extended beyond an advisory position.

stick with being the mouthpiece for your candidate who is apparently too noble and valiant to fight his own battles, or really even properly explain what he wants to do.

Once again, 3RU7AL has expressed his intentions within the context of the office's capacity.

Lucky he has someone like you to psychoanalyze the whole campaign for him since he refuses to do it. :)

No psychoanalysis necessary; just some good ol' fashioned reading comprehension and deduction.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RationalMadman

"Staged event" that killed a cop and 4 rioters...

How did they pull that part of it off?

Are you asking me how a cop and 4 people died in a riot?

As for for who staged the riot, one can speculate a number of things. But it's always prudent to first gauge the consequences of the riot, which was the foolish attempt to impeach Donald Trump. Once one understands that, the "who" becomes clear.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

As we approach the 1 year anniversary of the attacks on the Capitol I wondered how the DART community as a whole views the days events given everything we now know about what took place that day.

Discuss.

You mean that staged event? One of my siblings birthday is today. And I'll be reflecting and celebrating the day of my sibling's birth, rather than the nonsense that ensued both on and after that day.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Lunatic

None of this lessens moderation or encourages free speech.

Here is the role of DART President as delineated by SupaDudz:

President’s Role

While not a moderating role, the President does retain limited powers with their position, including:
The ability to communicate within a moderation team chat (via Discord) in order to give input on all forms of daily decision-making. Except when completely untenable, the mod team will strive to ensure the President’s viewpoint is heard and honored.
The ability to approve or veto permanent ban propositions. Moderation will be required to submit permanent ban propositions to the President for review unless the user in question is a bot or advertising account, the situation is uniquely urgent or severe, the President is absent and/or unreasonably tardy, or the permanent ban proposition targets the President themselves. Vetos may be overridden by a simple majority vote among the moderation team.
The ability to envision and execute community events, pending the approval and assistance of moderation.
In general, the President will spend the vast majority of their time in service observing the ordinary daily tasks of the moderation team and giving counsel as they see fit.

Point out where in the function of DART President does it list or insinuate that anyone outside of moderation can "lessen moderation"?

Also it's too mathematical isn't it?

No, it isn't. When "3RU7AL" states "QUANTIFIABLE," he means that which is demonstrable as opposed to arbitrary qualifications of "moderator opinion."

It doesn't show that you care about the impact of the rules on the userbase,

How did you formulate such a conclusion?

just that they understand them and are applied equally.

And this is not a benefit?

None of this assuages my worries about moderation.

No one can be responsible for your worries. Not even the DART President. If you intend to vote for someone because that individual makes you "feel better," that is your prerogative. But if you believe that making you "feel less worried" is a qualification of the office, then you are grossly misinformed. 3RU7AL has enough respect for the member community to not patronize them, pander, and appeal to their emotions--much less wager ad hominem attacks toward his opponents. 3RU7AL had already delineated his intentions to sustain the faith of both the community and the moderation staff:

3RU7AL:

maintaining the full faith of the moderators is just as important as maintaining the full faith of the community

If you want some glorified mouthpiece soliciting the ire of the moderation staff while galvanizing the rabble rousing of this site's contrarians, then the other two options are more suited to you. If however you want someone competent who exhibits discipline, possesses awareness--knowing the extent and limitations of the office's capacity--and maintains immeasurable integrity because that is the example he's set from the very start, then I don't see how one's option would be anyone other than 3RU7AL.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RationalMadman

I don't get how you expect 3RU7AL to be better with even less of a track record in any department. That user barely interacts with others in a social sense,

Assumptions; no facts.

the main supporter Athias has been a better spoken figure than 3RU7AL himself during this campaign.

I've just been more prone to entertain your nonsense. Another reason 3RU7AL would function better in this office than you or I.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Double_R

That’s not relevant to my question. Imagine one.

No. You proposed the notion of self-contradiction. If you want one imagined, then you can take the liberty.

You argued that the claim “god does not exist” is inherently illogical. I’m just trying to understand whether you believe that applies to claims of a self contradictory god.

Explain how a God can be self-contradictory. Use examples if you want.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in: