Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I disagree with the enlightenment (for lack of a better word) idea that the basic building block of a society is the individual. A society of solitary individuals is not a society at all. Not any more than solitary bears and tigers can be described as having a society.
You've missed the point. Enlightenment philosophy never suggests that society consists of "solitary" individuals. It suggests that society starts at the individual level--hence, individuals are the building blocks.
The basic building block of society is NOT the individual, but rather the relationships between individuals.
Relationships which have no meaning without the individual.
The most basic, and the most powerful, of which is the family.
The family is a prominent and fundamental catalyst in the psychological development of an individual, indeed.
So when money passes from parents to their children, I don't see it as a transfer of wealth from one person to another, but rather I see it as wealth remaining within the same entity, like how property and copyrights and such remain within a corporation even when there is turnover. It's the same entity. I also completely disagree with the Anglo-American/Protestant idea that as soon as someone is 18, their parents are done with them.
But families aren't a single entity. Like any group, families comprise of individuals. Personally, I'm very much enamored with and partial to the concept of family, thus informing the value I place on members of my own family. Nevertheless, I do not conflate my sense of self with theirs--not unless one poses a threat to them, in which case rules be damned, and the aggressor will face my wrath.
I not only support inheritance and intergenerational wealth transfers, but see them as a moral imperative. When I see parents with means allow their children to take on student loan debt and struggle to make rent, I see parents who are failing in their obligations and who are aborting their potential grandchildren.
You may be exaggerating a bit. There's no dereliction in parental obligation if one chooses to teach one's child self-sufficiency and self-reliance. My parents taught self-reliance to my siblings and me, despite their having means. And one's financial circumstances should always be a factor when considering the feasibility of having children. One is not aborting one's potential children because one decides against it while being broke.
I believe that the entire point of building wealth is so that you can give it to your children, to ensure that they lead lives of high quality, and bear you grandchildren.
Personally, I agree. I don't see any point to wealth-accumulation if not to one day hand it over to one's children. With that said, the alienation of wealth--mass or not--is still subject to individual discretion.
My personal backstory is one of lots of financial support from my family. I've never received an inheritance and my parents never straight up gave me money, but they paid for my college and allowed me to live at home rent free for a few years before I got married. This constitutes a very significant wealth transfer, well into the six figures. It also resulted in me being financially ready to have a child long before most of my peers, so I think it will end up being a very good deal for their personal happiness. This is something that I want to do for my kids when the time comes, if not support them even further.
And it is my opinion that you shouldn't be ashamed of this past experience (not that you implied that you were.) I agree with your earlier statement that 18's being an arbitrary division. If your parents supported you financially until such a point where both you and they felt that you were ready to embark on your own financial independence, then that's all that matters. And I think it's admirable the amount of thought you've put into having children and your capacity to financially support them.
I was actually on my own (financially) since the age of 15. But that's a story for another time.
If you receive in inheritance you have an obligation to take care of it, to keep it healthy and to pass it on when your time comes.
Yes, yes, and yes. Although, I would modify obligation with the descriptive, "personal." I do not believe any other institution should interfere.
The lazy bum living a lavish lifestyle off the sale of his dads company is acting immorally not because he has an obligation to society to work, but because he has an obligation to his family not to squander what previous generation have earned.
In order to establish "immorality," one would first have to establish an undue deprivation of that to which another has claim. And even if the recipient of an inheritance were to squander his or her wealth, he or she would have the right to do so.
Politically this means I am opposed to an inheritance tax.
So am I.
so an inheritance tax constitutes an act of double taxation.
Very astute observation. So what does that convey to you about the purpose of an inheritance tax?
I would contend that a person should ABSOLUTELY be able to inherit millions of dollars without the government getting involved at all. Something I don't think most people would agree with.
I would take it a step further. I would contend that any transfer of money consisting of any amount should be insulated from government interference.
I hope this didn't come off as preachy but instead articulated a viewpoint.
Not preachy at all. And despite my disagreeing with you here and there, it's articulate and considerate.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You currently see a 3-way election and Athias is actually probably inclined to vote against me if anything. Nonetheless, I wish to make it clearer why I believe I'd be a better site president than 3RU7AL. This will focus on me, not him/her/them (will use them/they).
I do not intend to vote against you. I intend to vote for 3RU7AL. I think the extent of the experience you tout spans no further than the fact that you want the presidency. And your "hold on the mods"? If you in fact have a "hold" on the mods, then your presidency would do little to address the issues which inspired this office's inception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What if the god proposed is logically contradictory?
Identify and sufficiently explain the contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
If there is not a God.Your kid gets run over by a drunk.You die from cancer.If there is a God.Your kid gets run over by a drunk.You die from cancer.
Yeah, let's pretend that's the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You do not apply certain measures, because they can corrupt your personal system of logic.
I don't apply certain measures because said measures are irrelevant as it pertains to the description and use of the term, exist. Systems of logic do not require modifications such as "personal."
Introducing modifications to your proposed system, simply shows how your system is flawed.....Missing key data as it were.
Introducing modifications reflects your dogma, and nothing more. You presume a metaphysically objective "external" existence to which we are all subject, yet you are incapable of rationalizing this while sufficiently controlling it independent of your "internal representation system." You attempt to argue an ontological distinction between the "physical" and the "imaginary," yet you have not sufficiently explained how the two interact, much less how one (Laws of Physics) is fundamentally dependent on the other (Mathematics a.k.a. imaginary concept.) As I've aptly demonstrated before, my reasoning is not flawed; yours is.
Externally derived data, is that which we acquire from the abundance of external data available....Not absurd at all.
Assumed externally derived data which is incapable of being rationalized independent of one's internal representation system. Yes, your proposition is very absurd.
We can also create data internally.....Imagination.....This process is also not absurd.
This is self evident. The qualification, "internally," is irrelevant.
Though suggesting, that which is imagined must actually be representative of an external reality, often results in absurdity.
Proposing an "external reality" while bearing the incapacity to sufficiently rationalize an "objective" externality and control its independence from one's "internal" representation is an absolute absurdity. And it is here where you are arguing against straw men. I'm not arguing that God is "external" or "internal." Such modifications are irrelevant. I argue that God merely is. Not only is God perceivable, God is identifiable--a trait necessarily excluded from that which is nonexistent.
On the other hand:If mathematics is abstract, then so must be GOD......Athias derived logic as it were.
That's not "my derived logic" at all. "If Mathematics is abstract..."? Mathematics is abstract, zedvictor. If you want to somehow connect the abstractness of Mathematics to your proposition that God must also necessarily be abstract, then you're going to have to do more than just misinterpret my syllogism.
we can conclude that all data derived of internal function and process, irrespective of sensory abilities, must also be abstract.
You're getting warmer, though I would remove "irrespective of sensory abilities."
So can we never perceive an external reality?
The proposition of an "external" reality is absurd, as I've repeated often. Do you think your senses are independent of your mind? How do you perceive that which is independent of your perception as it is "independently represented" (logical absurdity) without subjecting it to your perception's representation?
Therefore......Existence and therefore GOD, and therefore everything is abstract.
Even warmer. But explore whether the term abstract is apropos. If the physical is fundamentally dependent on the abstract, does the distinction really matter?
Though I do like to think that my sensory capabilities, can capture the essence of an external reality.
Once again, do you think that your sensory capabilities function independently of your mind?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't speak on behalf of 3RU7AL. 3RU7AL has already spoken on behalf of himself and his platform. He was concise and straight to the point, and willing to answer your queries as long as they were relevant. But you have brought something to my attention: I have engaged you in this back and forth long enough and don't intend to derail others from participating. And while I will not completely end my participation, I will excuse myself for the time being. Enjoy your night, sir.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
That will influence moderator decisions and balance out their bias, correct?
I'm not saying one can't influence their decisions. But the individual who assumes this office must command the respect of the moderators as well as those over whom said individual presides. And that individual is not you. I understand this; 3RU7AL understands this; you don't.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What example is that? Most of the posts of this user are either one-word/one-liners, URLs or something along the lines of seemingly robotic interaction with zero awareness of nuances or social aspects.
And how much equity do you think you can gain by attempting to insult 3RU7AL?
This isn't me just insulting,
Yes it is.
in this thread alone, 3RU7AL has completely struggled to follow what I am saying and therefore has replied overall either incoherently or outright sarcastically about 'opinion versus fact' type stuff implying nothing I state is a fact or somehow is ad hominem when really it was a fact-based conclusion that I wanted a reply to.
3RU7AL was very straight to the point with you from my observations. And that's because his statements reflect his capacity to filter through the volume of extraneous details which you dumped his way.
You, yourself, are actually a lot more capable of a role involving heavy communication and social interactions with moderators than the user you have nominated. I genuinely don't understand why it isn't you running and if you swapped right now, I'd be more interested in the dialogue that would ensue.
Really, you think so? No one has ever believed in me before. Now that I think about it, you're right. Why don't I just run myself?
Try harder, next time.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
when I said 'you' I meant plural you as in you and 3RU7AL as a duo, you not being the candidate but the most ardent supporter and in fact you have typed more than 3RU7AL has about the exact stance or advantage of such a presidency.
Show me the rule or stigma against being an ardent supporter.
If the 'fact' you based me not becoming moderator ever is that I've been temp-banned and have been at odds with the moderators, Wylted has done so just as much if not slightly more. So what facts is it you're hinting at here?
Why do you perpetuate that this is still a competition between just you and Wylted? As far as my capacity to participate in this campaign process as well as my capacity to vote, this competition is between 3RU7AL and the rest of the candidates, which includes you.
Why don't you say what you think will go on between the President and moderators in the discord and on-site chats they'll have?It's clear that you don't know what the President does.
3RU7AL is the only candidate who understands that this office is primarily and advisory position.
3RU7AL:
i will not act as a moderator for DebateArt.comi will act as an advisor to the moderators and an advocate for UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT
President’s RoleWhile 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.
Did I miss anything RationalMadman?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So, you want to leech at my base for the benefit of who exactly?You won't beat Wylted or me, I'm very sure of that.
First, I'm not running. (I am capable of self-awareness.) Second, your behavior suggests that you don't believe that statement either.
If you really think that's me showing no self control because I post that in a thread where you nominate 3RU7AL, so be it.
Yes, I in fact do.
Wylted won't likely every enter their ranks either and to my knowledge you and 3RU7AL are both barely known to them at all, including positively known but what would I know right?
Assumptions; no facts.
I'm not applying to be a moderator, I'm applying to balance out moderator power.
Another example of your lacking awareness. How do you plan to "balance out moderator power"? You state that you're familiar with the functions of the office but statements like these make me think otherwise. That is, unless you're attempting to propagate demagoguery.
A position in fact that is best held by someone who knows their dark side, which you are trying to refer to me having seen.
Are you under the impression that you, 3RU7AL, and Wylted are running for a position on the Jedi counsel? Knowing one's "dark side" and not letting one's "dark side" interfere with the example one has set and intends to continue setting are two different things. I have much more confidence in 3RU7AL's example, than I would ever have in your words.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Whiteflame has explicitly stated in Wylted's campaign thread that Wylted is wrongly assuming he has more of a hold on Whiteflame than I do/would as President.Are you suggesting that 3RU7AL is above the both of us in how readily Whiteflame and his team of moderators will take given advice from him/her/them?
First, I think we should avoid entertaining competitions over who "has more of a hold on Whiteflame?" No one here is an authority on how Whiteflame thinks other than Whiteflame himself. Now, if you're asking me whether I have confidence that 3RU7AL in his office can garner Whiteflame's respect particularly as it pertains to 3RU7AL's counsel, then yes--absolutely. 3RU7AL is intelligent and unfailingly respectful; Whiteflame is intelligent and unfailingly respectful. Far from a recipe for disaster.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You possibly are taking Wylted not posting here as him respecting you but it's the very opposite. He doesn't fear you and is hoping you will attract voters who'd vote for me or that I'll say something here he can use against me.
I don't think Wylted is really concerned; I don't think Wylted is concerned about anything else in this campaign other than that his bid bothers you.
What I am asking you to do is seriously consider (both yourself and Athias) who, for the next year (I am under the impression this is an annual role, no less) should lead the website and guard vulnerable members from unfair (either too over-strict or over-lenient) moderation and furthermore who it is that you believe will have your back genuinely when you're up against the wall.
My answer would be 3RU7AL. With that said, I wouldn't expect anything from 3RU7AL beyond the capacity of his office.
I am saying you, as in literally you 3RU7AL and you, Athias. I do not believe you will win this election and I say that without any arrogance, it is about how late you entered it and how many have already gotten behind myself or Wylted.I am asking you 2 to consider who will better serve the very interests you cherish:
Five days is late? And you're transparent RationalMadman. You're so weary of being Ross Perot'd or Joe Lieberman'd that you're attempting to discourage 3RU7AL's bid. [It's all counterintuitive anyway since a select number of us have interacted with each other at some point for years.] And you're overestimating the popularity of your platform. Your platform may have been appealing when Wylted was your only competition. Again: lesser of two evils. But with 3RU7AL we have a good platform--one that's especially aware of that which he can and can't do. An awareness that you lack.
Myself or Wylted?I can promise you I absolutely vehemently will push for completely uniform and fair treatment to the both of you vs all other users. It's also why I'm posting so fervently in this thread, because no matter how sure I am that you will lose I respect you as a genuine opponent. I am grateful to you for not using any of the slimy tactics Wylted does and whether you drop out and back me or not, it is so genuinely refreshing to see somebody run for president other than myself who has their morals in tact.I respect your honesty and integrity and am not a hypocrite to suggest you drop out in spite of it because I am also honesty and have high integrity, we are equals in that department in my eyes. You need to properly read through Wylted's campaign thread and perhaps see his style of derailing any attempt I have at serious discussion and twisting truth in the following threads:I respect you both for being on the side of uniform application of rules but you have me, somebody who chose option 2 in that scenario and who is anti-corruption and a guy who flexes his friendship with Whiteflame, who mocks female users brutally berating them even saying he'll seduce and fuck them and who has dedicated his campaign to being a really cruel, twisted persona.I wish you well no matter what you choose but I beg you not to back Wylted if you do change your minds later because he is not the right person to defend users of this website.
You haven't even maintained the rule you yourself cited about candidates campaigning in other threads--this being the second thread, now, to my knowledge. Why should I, 3RU7AL, or anyone for that matter give you their confidence if you've exhibited no discipline or self-control? What have you demonstrated other than the fact you covet the office?
The moderation staff had historically denied you entry into their ranks. Why is that? And you expect me as well as everyone else here to believe that you can somehow maintain the confidence of the moderation staff against whom you've wagered personal intifadas as well as the community consisting of many members with who whom you have frequently feuded?
Your responses have primarily consisted of comparisons between you and Wylted, which I suspect is a competition with which you're more comfortable. But you haven't substantiated by any sufficient measure the reason you'd be a better a option than 3RU7AL. And the reason is: you can neither lambast nor lampoon 3RU7AL. You can't reference an itemized list of closeted skeletons. Because what I said before was true: 3RU7AL through his decorum sets a good example. 3RU7AL has integrity. This office can truly do no better than 3RU7AL. And your discouragement does little to convince me.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i cannot speculate on your state of mind and or any hypothetical future actions you may or may not initiatei cannot speculate on your opponent's state of mind and or any hypothetical future actions they may or may not initiatei will not act as a moderator for DebateArt.comi will act as an advisor to the moderators and an advocate for UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT
&
you seem to be under the impression that "DebateArt.com President" will be in some position to tell the moderators what they should dothis is not the casethe moderation team can over-rule any recommendations that "DebateArt.com President" might be inclined to suggestmaintaining the full faith of the moderators is just as important as maintaining the full faith of the community"DebateArt.com President" has no leverage whatsoever over the moderators
Well stated. RationalMadman is overestimating the capacity of the office, thus demonstrating a lack of awareness. You're being honest about what you can and intend to do, as opposed to engaging demagoguery to curry favor. And I agree with you as it concerns the capacity of the office that having the trust and faith of the moderators is just as important as having the trust and faith of the community over which you would preside.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
One more technicality... I'm under the impression 2 need to endorse/nominate a candidate for them to be properly official. As in you are 1 person, there needs to be another who offically backs 3RU7AL.
RationalMadman, the rules are available to everyone participating in this site. I even posted them above. Given that the bare minimum is nominating oneself, then even if we were to indulge this "technicality," my nominating 3RU7AL and his accepting the nomination should suffice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I accept the nomination
Great. I wish you luck during the campaign process. And if I can help in any way, let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
He's likely to attract people who would vote for you more than people who would vote for me based on what I predict his platform will be.However, by all means encourage it.
I believe that the competition as it stood presented options of the "lesser of two evils." The concern with that is one would still be obliged to choose evil. (Of course I'm using the term, evil, figuratively; I don't mean to suggest that either you or Wylted is evil.) With 3RU7AL's entry into the race, members will have an option to choose good.
It is easy to judge someone who has actually been under pressure before. 3RU7AL has never faced a high pressure situation here, they've faced scenarios of pure neutrality and idea exchange, completely ignoring the social side of the website.
Assumptions; no facts.
Wylted is more erratic than I am, including how he lept from being against me to for me to against me again purely based on where his ego and impulses led him.
First, you've done your fair share of insulting him and making irrelevant references to statements and comments that have nothing to do with the office he would hold. If his behavior is subject to referendum, why would your behavior not be?
Second, I nominated 3RU7AL. So why have you submitted to me a comparison between you and Wylted? With respect to decorum, 3RU7AL has both of you beat, bludgeoned on the floor, bleeding out, and grasping for breath.
It's all fine by me whatever you think or vote for, in the end the site will suffer not me alone and that is the nature of democracy if the majority are too ignorant of the reality at any one election.
You're preemptively (damn it, 3RU7AL) insulting the would-be majority who votes against you at the prospect of your loss? I'm not concerned whether "it's all fine by you" what I think and how I vote. You may not like it, but I flat-out informed you that I would never endorse you. And here's a key difference between you and 3RU7AL: 3RU7AL has set a good example from the very start. He hasn't modified his behavior to curry favor. Because anyone who sets a good example understands that if one wants to influence the behavior around them, it first starts with oneself. And RationalMadman, you have not set a good example, I mean, at all. Furthermore, I have no doubt that 3RU7AL will maintain a respectful rapport with the moderation staff. 3RU7AL's assuming the office of presidency would be nothing other than a benefit to this site. The same cannot be said for you, especially if these statements I've been making are a tough pill to swallow.
Alright, please be sure to make a thread outlining your campaign with promises, otherwise you have not yet officially announced your candidacy. I am telling you this to help you out and part of that is to tell you that now that you announced you accepted the nomination, you are not allowed to discuss your candidacy outside of either your own campaign thread (not this one) or other's campaign threads (Wylted's and my own) that's how it works.
And what of discussing your own candidacy in someone else's nomination thread?
Created:
Posted in:
"Everything that can be perceived must exist".But a GOD has never been perceived per se.A God has been constructed internally, and continues to be constructed internally.Now, if we regard definition to the letter, then concepts are perceptions.But it does not follow that GODS must exist, other than as an internal construct.
Once again, you're moving the goalposts by suggesting modifications I did not make. My argument has never applied nor is it subject to that metric (i.e. "internal" or "external.") The conclusion rendered is simply "Therefore, God must exist." And unwittingly, you've conceded to this conclusion even if you've subjected it to your modification--the portion of your comment which I've emboldened. Your presumption of the "external" is no less subject to the irrationality of objectivity because once again, and you have not answered this--nor do I expect you to: how does one control for observations of the "external" independent of one's "internal"?
You're playing the semantics game in order to validate the absurdity of your belief in something that cannot actually be proven to exist externally.It's an age old theistic trick.So there is a logic to your trick, borne out of necessity.
No, it's not a "semantics" game. Yes, as a matter of form, I will make sure to make certain definitions clear. With that said, it is the logic and the consistency with which it is sustained that matters most. It appears only as a "trick" to those for whom logic is nothing more than a novelty to be invoked at whim by one who misunderstands it.
But on the other hand:1. Because Athias thinks that there is a GOD.2. Therefore, there must actually be a GOD.Is not consistently logical.
There are a few premises missing, so of course more would be needed. Then again, I haven't argued this.
And numbers and mathematics are a completely different kettle of fish, to imaginary entities.
No, they are not. Math is logically consistent to tee for sure, but it's still abstract.
Borne out of externally derived perception
Externally derived perception is an absurdity.
we can create an internally representative system whereby we can distinguish, record and label objectives separately.
YOU ARE ASSUMING THIS (I remember telling you as much before.) How do I know? Because you have not controlled for that which is independent of this "internally representative system." And controlling for it is logically incoherent.
And this is one of the breads and butters of my argument: how does one observe that which is independent of one's capacity to observe? How does one observe the "actual" representation of that which must necessarily be independent of one's representation? And no, consensus does not remedy this. Consensus is necessarily not "objective."
So, we can also derive an internal construct, whereby we refer to everything as being resultant of a GOD.But it still does not logically follow, that a GOD must actually exist externally.Otherwise it also logically follows, that any imaginary entity that has ever been or ever will be internally constructed.Must simply, by virtue of Athias's system of logic, therefore actually exist.
Once again, you are attempting to subject my argument to measures I did not apply. Modifications such as "internal" and "external" are irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Okay, enjoy the rest of your evening ma'am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
He's already made it clear he's completely biased to certain people.
Who?
And it's been discussed before December 27th
I don't deny that it's been discussed before the 27th. But suggesting that some deadline of candidacy has been missed is clearly undermined by SupaDudz site-wide announcement.
not my fault you don't come to the site more often
It's not my fault, either.
Lastly, I don't give a f*** who runs and who doesn't.
So why does my nominating 3RU7AL at this point in time bother you?
It's a goddamn joke position.
So why have you participated in discussions over the subject to the extent that you have?
It's the same thing they tried with what's her name and we all saw how that worked out.
I request a bit more than ambiguous references. Who is the she to which you refer, and how did it work out?
Let me also add: do you have any questions as to 3RU7AL's capacity and competence? (We should attempt to keep this discussion focused on subject.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I can see issues with them as a presidential candidate
"Them"? I nominated just one person.
3RU7AL's more cut out for a non-sociable role.
I strongly disagree. Not only has 3RU7AL not displayed to my knowledge any anti-social tendencies, but if we were to use these "friends lists" as an index of sociability, 3RU7AL, would be more social than you. He's far more respectful than you are; and he doesn't block other members because he disagrees with them. He maintains a respectful decorum even in situations of conflict; you on the other hand have exhibited no such capacity. I think 3RU7AL is more than well-suited for the position.
I would encourage them (gender not displayed in profile) to endorse me despite some disagreements with me. I'd even encourage you to do the same.
I would never endorse you for any serious office. You're without doubt very intelligent; but you're also very erratic. You don't have your emotions under control even with the convenience of anonymity. I meant what I said: I could imagine no better candidate than 3RU7AL; hence, I took the initiative to nominate him. It's like apples and plastic imitations. I've read what you said (especially in reference to your candidacy as well your lambasting Wylted) and you haven't convinced me otherwise.
The president overall serves three purposes:
- Making the bans of users be held up to a high standard of fairness (which can involve things prior to that ban and how the mods dealt with things in between it in broken-down steps).
- Holding fun events like official debate tournaments (that's the only one I can think of for now as gaming tournaments are able to be held by anyone anyway).
- Both representing the website as some form of ambassador-account on the outside and by chain reaction of 1 and 2 making the site appealing on top of their own 'appearance' for people who come across the website to think 'wow this is tiny but a fun place to join!'
Are you and Polytheist_Witch under some impression that I don't know how to read? I've read the functions of the President as delineated by SupaDudz:
President’s RoleWhile 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.
And let me once again remind you: 3RU7AL has experience with site administration. If you want to know more, take a closer look at his profile. (I don't know if it's permitted that I post the reference here.)
I can achieve this, it's up to you to believe it or not.
Maybe you can. Do I believe you are better suited to carry out the functions of the office than 3RU7AL would be? Not by a mile.
Since you're a candidate, I've offered you the courtesy of a response, and will only respond to you in this capacity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
This President thing's been going on for 2 to 3 weeks I don't understand why now somebody thinks they should get to throw their name in the hat.
I don't log in as much as I used to, but if I'm not mistaken, this is what I read in the announcements:
DART Presidential ElectionGreetings DART!The presidential process will begin starting Dec 27th.From December 27th to January 16th, any user may nominate themselves. From that time, users may campaign for themselves following the regulation set.On January 17th, the preliminary voting stage will begin, where the top three candidates move on to the general electionOn January 20th, the final voting stage will begin, where a simple majority vote decides the presidentOn January 21st, the president is inauguratedFor more info on campaign rules, please read here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PIsh9UDic938MMM3YX-H1nn15H7OriOvfOSFigXXsX0/editHope everyone has a safe and happy holidaysGodspeed, SupaDudz
Second, 3RU7AL didn't throw his name into this race. I did.
Campaigning Rules & GuidelinesDuring the designated campaigning period, users may advocate election for themselves or others by doing any of the following:
Last, if you intend on penalizing 3RU7AL's candidacy because his nomination occurred just five days after the process officially began, then that is your prerogative. But the suggestion that 3RU7AL's candidacy is past some deadline because informal campaigning has occurred for the past two to three weeks doesn't hold any weight, Polytheist_Witch.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not sure what is allowed or how much I'm supposed to say in these nominations, but I'd like to nominate 3RU7AL for DebateArt President. I've spoken with and informed 3RU7AL of my intentions to throw his hat in this race. And to be frank, I normally wouldn't get involved in these sort of procedures as it relates to site management, but I sincerely couldn't imagine a better candidate for the job. 3RU7AL has actively tried to make this forum a better place whether it be his suggestions on the modification of voting rules, his suggestions on Civil Debates, but most prominently the example he sets through his own decorum, which have not only garnered my respect but that of many others. Not to mention, 3RU7AL has experience with site administration. 3RU7AL would be the only candidate (currently?) whose intentions with the office wouldn't be a residual of an effort to "seek authority" after failed attempts, or an expression of some nihilistic fervor to watch the site's rules burn. 3RU7AL in his time here has unfailingly shown respect not only to this site's moderation staff, but also to this site's members. And even when there's a disagreement with some of the measures taken by the moderation, 3RU7AL seeks an open forum to discuss them, not just poo-pooing on their authority. If the DebateArt Presidency is meant to be a serious position, then DebateArt could do no better than 3RU7AL.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
If they approach Yu Yu Hakusho in the same way they approached Bleach, then I think it should be fairly decent--maybe better. But setting will be everything. Yu Yu was pretty much a 90's anime which captured an 80's style. Essentially, no pompadours, no go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Perception does not necessarily prove existence.
Yes it does. Your presumption that reality is distinct from one's perception cannot be substantiated. We've had a similar discussion. I know you maintain that there's a metaphysically objective (physical) reality (or plane of existence) in which we all acquire and process data from the environment while subjecting it to the bias of our brains' limitations. The issue with this is that it's a posit with no logical foundation. You are just assuming this to be the case. In order for you to substantiate that existence is distinct from one's perception of it, you would first have to control for your observation of this metaphysically objective existence independent of your capacity to perceive. That means no logic, no math or science, no words, no thinking, no mind at all. How does one do that? (I don't actually expect you to answer this because this suggests a reductio ad absurdum.) Anything outside the grasp of your mind is a logical incoherence. Because it is your mind which rationalizes everything. This is the reason metaphysical objectivity is absurd, a logical incoherence. You can neither think about nor rationalize that about which you can't think or rationalize. It's an epistemic irrelevance.
God is perceived.....Therefore God must exist....Is a leap of faith, and not a rational or logically consistent argument.
No it isn't a leap of faith. It is the logical extension of substantiated premises. If you wish to challenge any of these premises, then do so and substantiate your contention. I welcome it.
In this instance perception results in imagination.......So "therefore God must exist" is not rational and does not logically follow.
Okay, let's try this:
P1: Everything that can be perceived must exist.
P2: Numbers are perceived.
P3: Therefore, numbers must exist.
Athias then claims, using zedvictor's rationale (imagined = irrational, logically inconsistent, and nonexistent) that numbers are imagined. (Reason: numbers bear no physical properties; they're maintained via the mind as abstracts; they're functionally no different from the "imagined.")
So then it would follow:
P1: That which results from imagination is not rational and does not logically follow.
P2: Numbers are imaginary. (Refer to the reason above.)
C1: Therefore, numbers aren't rational and do not logically follow.
P3: Mathematics is based on numbers.
P4: Numbers are irrational (Refer to C1.)
C2: Therefore, Mathematics is based on the irrational.
P5: Proofs must be rational.
P6: All physical laws must be mathematically proven.
P7: Mathematics is based on the irrational. (Refer to C2.)
C3: Mathematical proof therefore is irrational or There's no such thing as mathematical "proof."
C4: Therefore Physical Laws must be irrational or There are no Physical Laws.
I'm not negating your arguments to merely contradict you, zedvictor. I'm negating them because they're absurd. Your arguments are based on materialistic dogma, not logically sound premises with conclusions which rationally extend them. This is the reason I state that my argument is logically consistent, and your argument is not. Because in order to sustain your argument, you would have to undermine the very measures by which you are creating your distinctions. Your contradicting my arguments using your materialistic measures rather than the ones I've defined and substantiated neither demonstrates a "leap of faith" or "irrationality." You don't simply get away with stating "well, I believe the imagined is irrational, and therefore your argument is irrational." You want to challenge my argument? Challenge my premises. Substantiate your contention. And provide a counterfactual or counterargument of your own that is consistent not with my measures but with your own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book The Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe
It is reasonable to ask. That however is seldom the subject of discussion.
but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God.
Also reasonable. I would only add "or what..."
Both authors claim that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.
Claiming that a question can be answered is not the same as answering a question.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Well stated. I don't really have much to add except that I, too, thought that the recent Bleach Live Action was quite good. It was charming and funny and left the impression of a Bleach property. It felt like I was watching Bleach. If only these studios would understand that these changes are okay here and there so long as the audience is left with the impression that they're watching the property on which the adaptation is based.
And I agree as well that the prospects of a One Piece Live Action (though limited as my knowledge on the series as a whole may be) are looking bleak. I'm sure the same is true for another beloved anime of mine: Yu Yu Hakusho which NETFLIX plans to release next year, I believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
One's rationale is subject to one's own dogma.
It can be.
Which would include ones own interpretation of existence.
It would be if I were simply offering my own interpretations:
Hence why we continue these inconclusive discussions.
It isn't that our discussions are inconclusive. I don't need you to share my position to validate my position. I have these discussions with you not to convince you, but to demonstrate the logical consistency of my position, and the logical inconsistency of yours. All I can do is frame my argument as consistently as possible. If you acknowledge some, if any, value in logically consistent arguments, then great. If not, then you must accept the responsibility of maintaining a logically inconsistent argument. I don't take issue with some atheists stating "God does not exist" or that "I don't believe in any Gods." I take issue with some atheists stating that "God does not exist" is a rational or logically consistent argument.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Wonderfully stated--all of it. Your gripes very much mirror my own. Let me just remark that if this series were a standalone, of course the last ten to fifteen minutes being purged from all planes of existence, I would have very much liked it (though that lesbian scene with the mechanic would still have left a sour taste.) It's these sort of adaptations which vex me most: not the ones which one can see will be bad from a mile away--*cough* "Death Note" *cough*--but the ones which squander the adaptation's potential (e.g. this and "Ghost in the Shell (2017).") I don't mind changes to the story conveyed by the anime on which they are based; I've actually seen adaptations which in some spots improve on the story (e.g. "Rurouni Kenshin: The Beginning & Final--which were really good in my opinion); as long as the core themes are preserved, changes in service of said themes would be met with better reception. And while you may not share my opinion that these changes to the story in the Cowboy Bebop: Live Action were necessarily "agenda driven," I still maintain that these changes (i.e. lesbianizing Faye, sex-changes to Whitney H.M., Mao Yenrai, Bob, etc, Julia's coup in the Red Dragon syndicate, the sassy gay lackey Gren (lmao) etc.) were meant propagate certain notions by using a beloved property like Cowboy Bebop. But I suppose it doesn't matter much at this point. Like you referenced, the consumer base rewarded this pandering with a canceled second season.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
One is one's own authority.
True.
Athias says so Athias must be correct.Zed says so Zed must be correct.
Also true. But it behooves me to point out that since the subject focuses on "rationality," that just one of our statements is logically consistent. Not only is the claim "God does not exist" irrational, but also it uses metrics which are fundamentally based on that which you'd claim is "nonexistent."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
God is perceived.Is a blatant metaphysical misrepresentation.
It isn't a "metaphysical" anything. It's an epistemic inevitability; a logical consequence.
The only logic in presenting a blatant misrepresentation in place of a fact, is to deceive.
Do inform on how you bear the capacity to observe something you claim as nonexistent as my intent.
P1. Physical GODS are not perceived.
Don't modify my statements. I never qualified God with any particular adjective. I will not be held responsible for your non sequitur.
P2. A metaphysical image or thought of a GOD could be perceived.P3. But a GOD is not actually known to exist.
You still have not addressed the dilemma of your contradiction. How do you control for that which is independent of what you think?
Everything you know to exist is necessarily everything you think exists. Your second premise neither results in nor informs your third premise.
There's never any "must exist" about it.
Of course, there is. The "must exist" is a logical necessity which results from the substantiation of the previous two premises. That is a how a syllogism works.
Otherwise, anything and everything must exist.
Exactly! Everything and anything must exist. Only nothing does not exist (the logical inverse of the aforementioned statement.) Because everything and anything must be perceptible to be everything and/or anything. Nothing is nothing (tautological.) Nonexistence is nonexistence (also tautological.) And therefore, it provides no empirical information whatsoever to inform any such statement that "X does not exist." Your pseudo-metaphysical conclusion, "A God is not known to exist" presumes you know the unknown--a logical absurdity.
P1. I have just quickly perceived....(As in a metaphysical thought).
This is irrational. How does one conceive a "metaphysical" thought?
P2. A trillion intergalactic octopi.P3. Therefore a Trillion intergalactic octopi must exist.
Fix your first premise and I'll indulge your conclusions.
Words [are] easy Athias.
Not quite. Materialistic dogma is easier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
P1. Everything that can be perceived must exist.P2. GODS are imagined but never perceived.P3. Therefore GODS are not actually perceived and are currently not known to exist.
Even if for the sake of argument we were to indulge that Gods are "imagined," that does not mean that imagination lies outside of perception. Quite the opposite actually given that imagination is conceptions via thought. And thoughts lie within the realm of perception. In fact, they are necessary for perception. If we were to indulge this absurd second premise of yours, then nothing exists (an irrational claim which I've already explained.) Any forms, ideas, concepts, you conceive (or imagine) in order rationalize data accumulation (which is nothing more than a concept functionally identical to one's imagination) through vision, audition, olfaction, gustation, and somatosensation, would be nonexistent. And it would therefore beg the explanation on how the existent (rational) can function with, much less depend on the nonexistent (irrational.) But you will not answer this. Because in the years I've argued this subject, not one single individual has been capable of discerning/filtering the data they accumulate using controls which render it independent of the bias of one's mind--or as I prefer to put it: "imagination."
One could compile similar sets of statements all day long.
I'm sure you could. The exception is that the one I've provided is logically sound. Your revision is a pseudo-metaphysical contradiction.
Keep going Mr A.
You know my name, Ditko. Use it.
Created:
Continued (I apologize for the delay):
Julia: First, let me start off with probably the one pro--it didn't bother me that the show's creators made her a lounge singer. And it could somewhat be tethered to the 1998 anime when Spike hears her humming at the end of "Ballad of Fallen Angels" as well as her interactions with Gren in "Jupiter Jazz." With that said, if there was anything more agenda-driven, it would be Julia. I read somewhere that it was stated, and I'm paraphrasing, "NETFLIX fixes Julia." I mention this because it allows me to assume that the showrunners of this 2021 live-action adaptation may have had issues with Julia's being the driving force behind Spike and Vicious's conflict as well as the object over which they fought. She stopped being this wonderful enigma on which these characters' motivations were based, but instead this damsel, of which there wasn't the slightest hint in the show's anime incarnation. I suppose that the show runners thought that they could somehow balance this with that monstrosity of an ending where Julia seizes control of the Red Dragon syndicate by shooting Spike and holding Vicious hostage. She's now the leader because like everything in marriage, property is commutative. BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS IN GANGS! If anything, leadership would have passed to one of Vicious's capo's, or a rival syndicate would have absorbed the Red Dragon into their own. Even Julia's machinations which led to this monstrosity made no sense, i.e. her hatching some plot with the sex-changed Mao Yenrai for a larger percentage of control over the syndicate, a percentage Julia, as wife, would be in absolutely no position to offer. And with Mao gone, who supports her claim? Are the grunts really supposed to just take Julia's word (considering she's never really been involved in any syndicate management) without any sight or spoken word from Vicious himself? Why is her role being taken in this direction to begin with? This is--and excuse my profanity--SO FUCKING STUPID! And what irks me more was that this monstrosity of a plot was associated with perhaps Cowboy Bebop's most beautiful and compelling scene from Ballad of Fallen Angels. As I had mentioned earlier, one of the finer points in this live-action were the sets/settings, especially the attention to detail. And what could've been a great adaptation of an especially visually stunning scene was reduce to an SJW hack-job.
As for the rest, I originally had more to say, like with the unnecessary sex changes, Gren, etc. but after venting on the botched plots, nothing else really matters. See you, Space Cowboys. I'll let you live with that burden.
To be continued, maybe...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
f God could create Man out of dust, why did he have to rape Mary to create Jesus?
I won't give credence or legitimacy to a nonsensical point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
Athias 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.The claim that needs to be supported is “Atheism is irrational.” But since no one is willing or able to deliver, we will have to settle with a weaker claim. Why is “God does not exist” an irrational statement ?
"God does not exist" is an irrational claim because it presumes the perception of or information on the nonexistent. Since perception requires perceptible data, it necessarily follows that nonexistence cannot be perceived since it's devoid of any and all data. That is, if something does not exist, you don't know it does not exist, because it does not exist. Any information the nonexistent can provide on itself is not there because "its self" is not there. The fact that one is capable of identifying "God" and much less place him as the subject in a claim already defeats and undermines the purpose of "proving his nonexistence."
Everything is perceptible (and therefore exists)
Nothing is not perceptible (and therefore doesn't exist.)
God falls within the realm of Everything. God has a name; God has a form and being; God can be identified; God is perceptible; therefore God exists. If you want this in a syllogistic form then it would go as such:
P1: Everything that can be perceived must exist.
P2: God is perceived.
C: Therefore God must exist.
Should one's belief rests entirely with the irrational claim that "God does not exist," then I suppose one could characterize said belief as "irrational."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The men who wrote the Bible claimed Mary submitted obediently when she became the Mother of God. That does not mean she was not raped.
I think that's exactly what it means.
She was raped because she could not possibly have consented.
Why not?
The Biblical narrative makes it clear Mary was afraid.
Afraid of the divine phallus or the responsibility with which she was charged?
She had no idea what the consequences would be for refusing her assigned role as Mother of God.
Yes, she did. She was a child of Israel. Her obedience to God was not informed by ignorance.
Consent to impregnation presumes a relationship of equals which cannot possibly be presumed between a young teen girl and an omnipotent Father God. There was an enormous difference in power. The youngest age of consent in the United States is 16, and an eternal Father God would not pass for an age-gap exception to United States statutory rape laws.
Consent presumes a reflection of one's intent and values, which can be, but not necessarily restricted to, a relationship between "equals." Second, the lowest age of consent is 11 years old (in Nigeria, I believe) which is a lot closer to Nazareth than the yet to be formed United States. Third, in the Judaic religion, a girl reaches womanhood at the age of 12 (the term Bat Mitzvah is used by Caucasian Jews); and last, what do think mattered to Mary more: the decrees of the United States which wasn't around then, or the commands of her God?
You're arguing a nonsensical legal absolute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Ok, let me try asking like this… what form of government would take power of US democracy falls?
I'd presume Communism if the U.S. sponsors are done with the pretense.
Created:
Continued:
Con's:
"Fearless": I actually understand what they were trying to do with this. Not only was it an attempt to synchronize Spike and Vicious' connection, but it was also an attempt to mythologize him, and make his backstory more ambiguous. In other words, make him a bit of an urban legend--hence, "Fearless." But this was entirely unnecessary. The dichotomy in Spike's alter egos could've been handled with competent storytelling (e.g. the 1998 anime's brilliant metaphors with Spike's left and right eyes) not lazy exposition. Watching the 1998 anime would naturally lead one to believe that Spike was "fearless." They didn't have to give him that name to show this. Spike's noteworthy fatalist philosophy would have more than sufficed.
Lesbian-izing Faye Valentine: Yes, I have a problem with this. Because it was clearly pandering to the LGBTQ representation nuts. Faye in the original was never implied to be a lesbian (unless one counts her kissing Edward in "Hard Luck Woman" which was clearly meant to be comedic.) She was shown to have been attracted to Gren ("Jupiter Jazz") Whitney Hagas Matsumoto ("My Funny Valentine,") who rather than being a love interest, had a sex change and served as a "mother-figure" to Faye, Andy (Cowboy Funk) and Spike (as early as "Honky Tonk Women.") Instead, they have her engage lesbian coitus with some random female mechanic--couldn't be more obvious--who "surprise, surprise," knows more about the subject than Bebop's resident mechanic, Jet Black. The live-action made a clear point to not sexualize Faye by having her wear her red jacket over her torso, as opposed to letting it hang off her elbows, and opted to have wear leather hot pants over full-length pants, instead of just the hot pants she wore in the anime incarnation. Yes, they made a point to not sexualize her, except to Lesbians. And while I did for the most part enjoy Daniella Pineda's portrayal of Faye, especially in moments of comic relief*, I get particularly annoyed when the integrity of a character is altered/compromised purely for the sake of pandering.
Role Reversals: Yet another thing by which I was annoyed in the live-action adaptation. In their attempts to revise Faye's perceived "damsel" role in the anime incarnation, the live action decided to switch gears and have Faye be the rescuer, and Spike be the damsel. I'm annoyed most by the fact that there were many instances in the anime series where Faye has either helped or attempted to come to the assistance of Spike (e.g. "Gateway Shuffle," "Waltz for Venus," "Pierrot Le Fou," etc.) Instead two of the times where Spike saves Faye ("Ballad of Fallen Angels" and "Brain Scratch") are replaced with Faye saving Spike. Clearly, agenda-driven pandering.
To be continued...
(Don't fret, there's more. I will get to Julia and the last episode.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, the Christian God did rape a 14 year old virgin, so I guess Muhammed wanted to be just like him.
You mean Mary? God did not rape her. Not even a little bit.
Created:
Posted in:
You can't kill someone from a hundred meters away with a rope, and you'd be damn lucky to do it with a knife. Similarly you would need to be damn quick to run away from a gun
And how often do firearm related homicides happen from 100 meters away?
Guns are designed to be effective remote killing machines.
And baseball bats were designed to hit baseballs, but that doesn't mean one cannot bludgeon another over the head with one. "Design" submits to intentions.
B. "The target is subject etc"......Obviously.
Is it? Because then what is the relevance of your reference to "design"?
I have handled firearms in a military capacity.......I can remember the first time I fired live rounds from an SLR. I certainly experienced a sense of power, fear and an intense need for self control.
And how many of those you allege experience this weapons effect have handled firearms in a military capacity like you? I'm not stating that it's impossible for individual firearm owners to experience this "weapons effect," which I don't believe you're describing accurately, only that it's presumptuous of you to assume it's relevant or plays a key role in firearm possession.
The weapons effect is a known psychological phenomena, which we will all be subject to.
I've just told you that I've never experienced this effect. So which one of us is right?
That's all right then?
I reserve affirmation and negation, since suicide can be its own detailed discussion. But is the crusade to regulate and/or prohibit firearm ownership really about suicides? It's not even a little bit about suicide.
Created:
Well, I recently got through NETFLIX's live action interpretation of the acclaimed 1998 series "Cowboy Bebop." Cowboy Bebop is my all-time favorite anime, and I'd been anticipating the live-action portrayal since it was announced several years ago. I have some mixed feelings about this now that I've seen it for myself, so I'll start off with some Pro's:
1. The setting, lighting, colors, and tone of the live action are gorgeous. If there was any justice done to this series, it would be to the aforementioned. Whether it was the Church that made its illustrious appearance at the end of the season, or New Tijuana in the beginning of the season, the theme park that served as setting for Spike and Mad Pierrot's showdown, or the inside of the Bebop, all were gorgeous. I even liked how they did the intro, the one accompanied by "Tank." I have absolutely no complaints.
2. The Music, Style, and Pacing were quite good. As I understand it, Yoko Kanno reprised her role as composer for this live-action adaptation which explains the reason the music was on point, and quite timely. Stylistically, I really liked it as well. I've loved the film-noir genre since I was a kid (e.g. "Detour," "the Killers," "Touch of Evil," etc.) And admittedly I have a bias for it. I also liked how the series was competent in its capacity to alternate between comedic, dark, and poignant moods.
3. Mustafa Shakir. Now, I understand that as always, especially as it concerns live-action adaptations of beloved anime, there's an an issue of "-washing." Whether it was "Asian-washing" Spike Spiegel, or "Mexican-washing" Faye Valentine, or "white-washing" Edward, or even "Black-washing" Jet. (Thank goodness, Ein was spared.) And to some extent, I understand given that washing the characters come off more as pandering than anything integral or organic. With that said however, I never understood the online controversy with Jet's "Black-washing." Aficionados of the 1998 anime, especially the English Dub, with a bit of research would know that Jet was voiced by a so-called "Black" man. And Mustafa Shakir does a great job not only mimicking Jet's mannerisms, but his voice as well--even the inflections. Shakir's rendition of Jet's character is probably my favorite portrayal of the whole adaptation (second would be Edward in spite of her brief appearance.)
Now for the con's:
Vicious: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, nononononononononononononononononononononononononono! NO! No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO! What the hell were they thinking with this? Rather than the stoic, enigmatic, soft-spoken, serpent-like character of his anime incarnation, the live-action decides to flip the script, and portray Vicious as an overly-talkative, overly emotional, Wal-Mart version of Hugh Grant who's preoccupied with his father's approval. No, NO! This is one of the most egregious faux-pas of the live-action. I wanted to laugh, but I was so annoyed with this portrayal, I couldn't.
To be continued... (and trust me there's more!)
Created:
Posted in:
As I said to ILikePie5....Nice but impossible.....You've got what you've got and no collective will to do any different.Shared intent then....Guns just make it easy.....Though unpremeditated defence would be more luck than judgement, even for the best gunslinger.....Though my previous comment was with regard to any method of murderous intent, in relation to homicide rates.....And of course, random killings is random killings and guns make this modus operandi very easy.
To facilitate is not the same as to act. While guns make it easier to kill, so does a knife, a rope, bleach, etc. The "making it easier" argument adds little to nothing as far as justifying regulation or prohibition because if we were to take the rationale "easier = more dangerous" and apply it to another context, for example: "getting drunk makes it easier to 'date rape' therefore alcohol should be stringently regulated and/or prohibited, we'd see not only how ridiculous these conclusions are but also how impractical they are.
But as I said the issue isn't intent per se.....The issue is guns.....Devices designed with specific outcomes in mind.
Guns are designed to fire small aerodynamic projectiles from a clip and/or chamber. The target is subject to the decisions of the individual wielding it.
And of course the psychological effect that the handling of weapons induces, especially guns......Known as the weapons effect.....Seemingly a day to day aspect of the collective U.S. consciousness......Guns make you feel powerful and therefore safe.....Same as the other person though......A false sense of security as it were, based upon an acquired sense of insecurity.
And what about the psychological effect of projection? I have handled firearms. I haven't felt a sense of "security" as a result of an inner insecurity. Aren't you being presumptuous about a subject you couldn't possibly understand personally?
So you survive and John Doe cops it....So what....Same difference as far as the neutral observer is concerned.....And there's millions of people in the U.S that won't give either you or John Doe a second thought.
It's interesting that you say that given that an overwhelming majority of registered firearm owners in the U.S. have never used their firearms in a violent act. In fact, most firearm related deaths are self-inflicted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then please explain what you believe will actually happen if we were to actually lose our democracy.
It depends on the region, I suppose. If we're talking about inner Chicago, for example, I'd imagine something like "the Purge" would occur. If however, we're talking about Lewiston Idaho, I'd imagine they'd carry on just as they always have.
And in so doing, please explain why every democracy in the world that has slid back has been replaced by authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism is sponsored, not an inevitable consequence (information courtesy of every surviving dictator.)
Why is America so different?
There's power in belief. America is the gorgeous figurehead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
because they are not part of "the big club" as Carlin puts it.
I believe there's more to it than that. The concept of self-reliance has withered throughout the decades--century perhaps. I think that there are people who'd rather delegate authority to some nebulous government than to take responsibility themselves. Because that means that they don't have to own up to their fuck-ups, and readily rabble-rouse when politicians fuck up. This is the reason I don't simply blame manipulation by the elites. The voting populace are supposed to be adults. And in the age of information, where clicking--and not even that--can grant you access to information, not knowing is no longer an excuse.
That's the beauty of the jury system. That district gets a yes vote if all 12 agree, a no vote if all 12 disagree, or no vote if there is no unanimous consent.That insures only the most affected districts across the country with the most to gain or lose actually direct National policies instead of the highest paid lobbyists. Political parties are not required for this system. Only concerned citizens just like a jury.
So decentralization with community-based policies. So I ask, again, what is the point of democracy? Why not just have concerned citizens participate at their own discretion?
Created:
Posted in:
Where's the accusation levied in those two sentences, explicitly?
ludofl3x:
24 Hours, No MI School Shooting Topic?Just strikes me as strange, it's like we don't even care.
Cool, thanks for the unsolicited advice. Can I offer some in return? Suck my dick.
I'll pass; it didn't turn out well for the last guy you asked.
Next topic: "Fathers soliciting fellatio online. Should we care?"
Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If we trust 12 people on a jury to make a single decision, and we say the jury system works, then we should have 12 per Congressional district to make their 1 decision for that district.
So over 642 districts, with 12 per district, which would be over 7,704 representatives total per year. How do 12 representatives per district ameliorate the functions of one representative? What happens should one or more representative disagree?
Constitutional amendments, or a new constitution after the USA fails.
And what would be the details of amending and/or ratifying a new Constitution?
It eliminates the current illusion of choice when candidates are selected by the wealthy elite. People can instead choose to have their names put into the lottery for public service.
How is this much different from what happens now? I mean, any naturalized 35+ year-old citizen who's been a resident for at least 14 years can hold a public office. Why do you suppose the "ordinary" citizen doesn't run for public office, as oppose to relinquishing the prospects of the public offices to the manipulation of sycophantic sellouts? Would you have these requirements changed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Next time I'll wade through all the pages of topics to find out what everyone thinks about school shootings, there's probably going to be another one next week, so that'll come in handy.
You'd first have to figure out what it is you're looking for. If you're seeking to vent your frustrations, then you can simply state as much. Perhaps there's something you want to state, but are avoiding because it would trivialize your stated intentions. (I'm just guessing.) Whatever it is, just remember: no one here stated that they didn't care. That is a prejudicial statement which laces every sentence of your O.P. You resent that a topic wasn't created within 24 hours of the event--the solution simply would've been to create one yourself, and you did--but rather than invite discussion on the matter, you levied an accusation which would naturally provoke a defensive response. And rather than confront your issue with this presumed complacency you accuse the members here of indulging as it concerns school mass-shootings, you placed the onus on the members here to demonstrate to you that they care. In a discussion centered on emotions, here's a bit of advice: you can't control how people feel, much less, "how" they feel it. [It's protocol in any debate venue, at least as far as I'm concerned, to avoid discussions over emotions.]
Outrage, but that's just my opinion, and I'd settle for not forgetting about it after a few days.
And what is it that outrage and remembrance will accomplish?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well that's one hell of a doozy. How about we assign representatives by a lottery system like we select juries. 1 year mandatory service.
Three questions:
- How many representatives?
- What happens if this mandate is breached?
- What changes do you believe a lottery system effectuates in contrast to the current democratic system?
President is then selected by the "jury" of Congress.
I repeat question 3.
Created:
Posted in:
As far as policy decisions being unanimous, you also have to recognize the problem of the crony bundling of legislation. It's so bad right now that people are willing to give crooked politicians and their lobbies 90% of a spending bill if it means they MIGHT get to see 10% of it. (of which they paid 100% of it)In a better system, the majority of the people would get all of it.
So how would you propose the system better itself so that it functions in accordance to its ideal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So when has the U.S. ever seriously attempted to regulate firearms?
So, by which standards would you have the U.S. seriously attempt to regulate firearms?
And for sure, if someone is intent on killing you, they will do so.
Unless you stop them.
Murderous intent isn't the issue though.
What is the issue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
We have our obvious disagreements on what our system of governance should be, but do you seriously deny that the death of democracy will only be replaced by authoritarianism?
Of course i do.
Do you think that is better?
Do I think that authoritarianism is better? No. But then again, I have explicitly denied that authoritarianism is the inevitable result of an absent democracy.
Created: