Barney

-->

@TheUnderdog

I don't recall if there is a set minimum. I would assume if the site truly died it wouldn't be worth the effort to add anything that received literally only one or two votes, especially if that was the peak amount of voting anything received.

Or if you mean how many votes to win: It depends on how popular the other options are. I would guess around 9? Last year the winners for the user category had 13 each.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheUnderdog

Nominations tomorrow through the 8th,

Proper voting on the 9th through the 12th.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

The worst problem with HoF voting to me is when people get obsessed with victory (or victory for their friend), so commit to tactical voting. For example, let's say an imaginary user named Bob were in fifth place, and he and a few friends realized they could get him into third if they all vote for him but not for anyone ahead of him, so they vote for Bob, Type1, and Billatard (the two lowest ranked members on the site). In it of itself this doesn't seem to be a problem, except it takes victory away from someone who likely had way better site contributions than Bob, while being a little insulting by claiming Type1 and Billatard are better than every other candidate except for Bob.

My two cents on a couple of the above issues...

Campaigning:

Spam and/or stealth campaigns are best avoided, due to various issues seen way back at DDO. In essence, out of control campaigning is both annoying, and makes the outcome less meaningful.

That said, I would be in support of controlled campaigning. In fact, IMO that is part of what the nomination week is for.

Self votes:

Voting for yourself as a user, is socially bad. It's a good way to get others to recant their votes away from you. I believe the reason for this is the ego it shows, to which some people intuitively believe to be in violation of unwritten social contracts (social contract theory of ethics).

Voting for your own content however, especially during the nomination stage, is a good way to raise awareness. To this I strongly advice no more than one self vote per category.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

I still do not understand how the Trinity is a coherent concept

-->

@TheMorningsStar

To use a cooking analogy
The problem is, as you pointed out, that this ends up with partialism, which is a heresy, as each ingredient is not equal to a cookie.

Yes. A key problem is that the heresies are often stupid, seemingly (but not always... as some interpretations are simply insane) made by people who want to put Jesus up on a pedestal, then worship the pedestal instead of Jesus.

Two basic biblical facts:

God is all knowing.
Jesus was not all knowing.

So yes, I am defending partialism as biblical, even if many would say whatever book (the bible) I got that from should be burnt.

Jesus being God is of course not simplistic, and it is not meant to be.

All the Voltron lions are Voltron, but they are each not the other lions.
I am unfamiliar with Voltron,

You're missing out! And it would get convoluted to explain the mythos of that cartoon, but basically as explained by Ryan Reynolds: "five mini-lion-bots come together to form one super-bot!"

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

I still do not understand how the Trinity is a coherent concept

-->

@TheMorningsStar

can you explain it in a way that is easily understandable and not heretical?

Yes and no. Easily understandable sure. But since apparently everything is heretical (seriously, I've literally been called a heretic for stating that Jesus didn't hate women), I doubt any explanation I could offer could not be damned as such.

All three parts of the trinity are distinct aspects of one God, separate from each other individually, but part of the greater whole.

To use a cooking analogy:

It's a little bit like if you separated the ingredients of a delicious cookie. Simplified down: Flour, sugar, and chocolate chips. Which are all great and useful in themselves but they are not the same as each other, yet when combined something magical happens. Of course this is where Dogma tends to pull it towards incoherence, as someone could counter that each ingredient alone is not the cookie without the others, whereas Jesus was supposed to be God... Jesus was God, but was not all of God, as God wanted to experience being human and being wholly human, so he had to be empty of certain aspects that would contradict with a human and growing and learning while in that state (granted, some Christians accuse the bible of lying when it says Jesus grew in knowledge...).

To use a pop culture analogy:

All the Voltron lions are Voltron, but they are each not the other lions.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Vader

@MisterChris

Might be a good idea to backup the hall of fame results into the information center. It could be displayed in a much nicer manner there, even if harder to edit.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Mesmer

See the opening of post #2.
Yeah all I see is a concession.

Thanks for coming.

If you're not a just a cowardly forum troll who doesn't believe their own words, issue the debate challenge.

In the mean time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTc--4jz0GQ

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

If you actually can't explain the REASON why you think that disliking someone for a personal opinion they happen have is better (or worse)

See above posts offering said requested explanation (in short: that race isn't a choice and it doesn't affect others, whereas beliefs are a choice and they do affect others), but since scrolling up for the reasons already given is too difficult for you...

What skin color you're born with, isn't a choice. Religion, political party, etc., are choices.

To hate someone for existing in a manner they did not choose to do, is guaranteed to be extremely petty. Whereas hating someone for (often really stupid) belief systems to which they actively choose to ascribe, might be warranted.

...

[Said actions] can be evil for sure, but again, at least those things are based on who you choose to be; not merely the conditions of your birth, [which is outside of their control].

...

Correlated, any the person may opt to change their sincerely held beliefs. Plus the expression of those beliefs may actually affects other people in a way that race never will.

As an example, I was raised by a neo-nazi cult which believes in the importance of murdering people, but I choose to reject it all.

I was born half-Irish, there is literally nothing I can do about that; and it doesn't really affect anyone else anyways.

The magnitude of difference should be self evident. If the police arrested someone for having freckles, that would be absurdly stupid, as it inflicts harm on one person, for zero benefit for anyone else. Whereas if they arrested someone for murdering other people, there is massive benefit to the greater community, no matter how hurt that killer feels for being discriminated against for their sincerely held beliefs.

...

Many times throughout history race (particularly being the wrong race in the wrong location) was against the law.

Race leads primarily to how easily someone sunburns, which affects the individual, but not the greater community.

Beliefs can lead to horrible outcomes for the community.

As an example, no sane person would hate Todd Akin for the conditions of his birth. That as a politician he wanted to decriminalize any rape resulting in pregnancy... His sincerely held beliefs make him repentant.

...

If you actually believe disliking someone for their race is no different than disliking them for their beliefs in support of rapists, please challenge me to a debate on the topic.

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Did they sponsor legislation to this effect, or was this more of a "personal opinion" ?

He generally pushed for religious laws, particularly anti-women ones, but I don't care to look up every bill he sponsored etc.

If you actually think there's no difference between disliking someone for them wanting to de-criminalize rape (at least if it results in pregnancy), and just being born one skin tone instead of another, I don't know what to say to you.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

As an example, no sane person would hate Todd Akin for the conditions of his birth. That as a politician he wanted to decriminalize any rape resulting in pregnancy... His sincerely held beliefs make him repentant.
Please explain.

Todd Akin, a politician in the USA, who served as a member of the House Committee for Science, Space and Technology.

In 2012 he went public with his belief that it scientifically (he seriously claimed science on this) doesn't count as rape if you get her pregnant.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Many times throughout history race (particularly being the wrong race in the wrong location) was against the law.

Race leads primarily to how easily someone sunburns, which affects the individual, but not the greater community.

Beliefs can lead to horrible outcomes for the community.

As an example, no sane person would hate Todd Akin for the conditions of his birth. That as a politician he wanted to decriminalize any rape resulting in pregnancy... His sincerely held beliefs make him repentant.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

They can be evil for sure, but again, at least those things are based on who you choose to be; not merely the conditions of your birth.
Where you are born is highly correlated with your religion and politics.

And even if it wasn't, I'm still not sure it's in any way "better" to discriminate against someone for a sincerely held belief.

Correlated, any the person may opt to change their sincerely held beliefs. Plus the expression of those beliefs may actually affects other people in a way that race never will.

As an example, I was raised by a neo-nazi cult which believes in the importance of murdering people, but I choose to reject it all.

I was born half-Irish, there is literally nothing I can do about that; and it doesn't really affect anyone else anyways.

The magnitude of difference should be self evident. If the police arrested someone for having freckles, that would be absurdly stupid, as it inflicts harm on one person, for zero benefit for anyone else. Whereas if they arrested someone for murdering other people, there is massive benefit to the greater community, no matter how hurt that killer feels for being discriminated against for their sincerely held beliefs.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Religion, political party, etc., are choices.
Isn't killing or imprisoning or denying someone a job because of their religion and or political belief just as "evil" as "racism" ?

They can be evil for sure, but again, at least those things are based on who you choose to be; not merely the conditions of your birth.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

I'm just not sure that "racism" is any more "evil" than hating and or discriminating against someone for their religion (and or non-religion) and or hating people because they believe the earth is flat and or because they don't want to be forced to accept a "vaccine".

Why is it ok to make fun of people for one thing and NOT ok to make fun of them for some other thing??

What skin color you're born with, isn't a choice. Religion, political party, etc., are choices.

To hate someone for existing in a manner they did not choose to do, is guaranteed to be extremely petty. Whereas hating someone for (often really stupid) belief systems to which they actively choose to ascribe, might be warranted.

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@Mesmer

You haven't demonstrated how my arguments are non sequiturs,

See the opening of post #2.

Please stop bullying my text or I'll tell a teacher.

lol!

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Mesmer

Ragnar hasn't addressed any of the counter-argument I provided here: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

Instead, he has restated his conclusion.

This is functionally a concession, of which I accept.

Apply that logic to your own case.

While engaging in wall of text syndrome, you've failed to actually respond the criticism of your flawed grasp of the English language with anything more than non sequiturs.

You're of course welcome to challenge me to a debate on if the term racism has no meaning and/or conveys no intelligible ideas (AKA, the definition of senseless).

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Mesmer

I'll provide a more thorough deconstruction of the term...

You can stand on one foot, pat your head, and rub your belly. None of that denies meaning and intelligible ideas to the term racism.

As previously summarized: "In short: You're confusing the term nonsense with Mesmer dislikes. If the word "racism" were nonsense, no one would have a clue what you're talking about."

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/behavior-2

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@Mesmer

In short: You're confusing the term nonsense with Mesmer dislikes. If the word "racism" were nonsense, no one would have a clue what you're talking about.

Your claims are as non sequitur as someone declaring "Guild Wars 2" is nonsense. Said person might dislike that video game, but the words and concepts tied Guild Wars 2 are quite capable of being understood. If it's the worst video game in history, and its very name "should be considered malicious" would not render said name nonsense.

As you've clearly demonstrated, racism conveys a clear intelligible idea (an idea to which you state that you agree with on principle, even if not picking one that is on aggregate superior).
"Racism" is nebulous and cannot be described in an internally consistent way that maps onto its application in reality

It is done quite easily, and by your own definition. That you don't like the term being generally negative, has nothing to do with paradigms of racism being consistent to the definition. Even using more broad definitions, said paradigms are still accurately encapsulated.

As for why it's a negative term... The fault for that lies at the feet of many proud racists over the years. That you know what I am talking about with reference, again disproves your premise
...when researchers and scientists are also labeled "racist" for producing their sound work, and hand-waved away as being racist, this is where the term goes from being intelligible to being a malicious nonsensical weapon.

I have no interest in sitting through your two hour video. Let me guess, someone was called a racist and booed? Again, this only further supports that the word is not nonsense, since we all understand the connection of said booing to the accusation of racism. If he were attacked because "jabberwasky" one minute, and "blarg" the next, then you would have him being attacked over nonsense (it'd be rather like a toxic Among Us lobby).

You can call racism by any euphemism, and in time it will get tainted again by the many racists who preach mass murder in the name of it.
I'm making a distinction between genuine racial hatred and a nonsensical, malicious attack on science.

That you disagree with the attacks and call them malicious, does not connect to the term being nonsense. Said attacks could not be organized if no one knew what racism meant.

As for the notion that one broad group of people could be determined to be on balance genetically better than all others: it would be a subjective measurement, which would almost certainly overlook the value of variety.
I think most people can agree that having more intelligence is better than having less. I think most people can agree that being taller is superior to being shorter. I think most people can agree that being more physically attractive is superior to being less physically attractive.

As seen above: "it would be a subjective measurement, which would almost certainly overlook the value of variety."

I enjoy being taller, but if I were too tall I would have related heart problems. Height is only better relative to some given task; while I am able to lift things off the top shelf more easily than a short person, they can get the bottom more easily; working together with those who are different leads to greater utility.

Simplifying this down on just intelligence: imagine a society made up primarily of copies of the greatest genius: With that staggering intellect, he's unhappily forced to engage in every low intellect trade to keep the society going, thereby making it torture. Of course on this I do not speak of racism, but Rickism.

Created:

4 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@Mesmer

Nonsense: "words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas"

As you've clearly demonstrated, racism conveys a clear intelligible idea (an idea to which you state that you agree with on principle, even if not picking one that is on aggregate superior). Therefore, it is not nonsense. You've self refuted your own premise.

As for why it's a negative term... The fault for that lies at the feet of many proud racists over the years. That you know what I am talking about with reference, again disproves your premise.

You can call racism by any euphemism, and in time it will get tainted again by the many racists who preach mass murder in the name of it.

As for the notion that one broad group of people could be determined to be on balance genetically better than all others: it would be a subjective measurement, which would almost certainly overlook the value of variety.

Created:

4 years ago

6

Posted in:

What's debate have you worked hardest on?

-->

@Nyxified

I accepted The Bible Teaches That Jesus Christ Is God, knowing my position was unattainable bullshit; and further was pretty sure ideologue fluffers would vote for my opponent no matter what. That one was a ton of work, which I tried to fight on every angle.

One that came to mind first, but in review didn't hold up quite as well was Perpetrators of Minor Crimes Should Not Be Arrested, which I accepted without study, and expecting to lose (didn't mean I would lay down and take it).

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

HELL BOUND MUSLIMS, TRY TO DEFEND ISLAM AGAINST WOMEN!

-->

@MarkWebberFan

This was in the worst parts of Iraq. I think most of the rebels we fought against were not as bad as that (not to say good, just still definable as human).

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

HELL BOUND MUSLIMS, TRY TO DEFEND ISLAM AGAINST WOMEN!

-->

@Lemming

Then again, your profile says Pastafarianism. . .

At the time I was more Catholic than Pastafarian. I literally just updated my profile yesterday to say Pastafarian instead of Catholic, and at some point in the future it will probably rotate back. Of course, these two religions are in no way mutually exclusive.

Anyway, you've been to the Middle East, I think.

Yeah. From what I've seen most of it is normal people; the same basic people you would have in any civilized country... However, I've also been to places where the men padlock their houses when they go off on suicide missions, and tell their families if they leave the house instead of staying and starving to death, that they'll come back and murder them.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Wylted

Once you dig deeper you are relying on original sources anyway, so not sure why anyone would say it isn't reliable.

Hence, as I previously stated: "It is however a decent place to go for preliminary research on most topics, to then use the reliable sources from which it draws."

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Retirement Announcement

While moderating this website gave me a chance to practice certain business skills, as I advance in the field it is now far too reminiscent of my current job.

That said, I do care about this place and the people therein. I'll still be around, and will be willing to help out here and there; but primarily as an adviser, rather than as a decision maker.

Created:

4 years ago

5

Posted in:

-->

@RationalMadman

I admit due to having basically had to teach myself reading and writing, it saddens me when someone fails at it so miserably.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Therefore a following statement that proposes that wikipedia is a decent place to go, undeniably contradicts the previous statement.

A decent place to go for something else... As has been repeatedly explained to you.

Seriously, are you 12 or younger? Your poor grasp of the English language, is strongly suggesting that.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

No, it is not.

It is however a decent place to go for preliminary research on most topics, to then use the reliable sources from which it draws.

And what you called "a completely different answer":

That something is not reliable for every single purpose, does not mean it is not a decent place to go for others.

I bolded direct shared words for you which you claim are "completely different." Of course you also declared it to be a lie that they have any similarities.

Everyone else here understood it easily. You even praised one for later paraphrasing it down to "its a good starting point" [sic].

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Please tell me you're just pretending to be this poorly educated? If not, here's a useful starter for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFukHtFBNGY

Anyone who is not functionally illiterate reading post #2, would see negative to the topic question (as in no, it's not a reliable source to list in a debate or academic paper), with then expansions for something else to which it is useful (finding other sources which may prove be reliable).

That you cannot understand no to one thing but yes to something else, is seriously troubling.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

If you're correct, then please explain the difference between "decent place to go" and "decent place to go"? As a reminder, you're the one insisting those are "completely different" answers, and moreover that it's outright dishonest to say otherwise.

AKA, prove that A ≠ A. That is the task you assigned yourself when you insisted it was dishonest to claim that A = A.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

That problem rests with your reading comprehension skills.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

For RationalMadman's education, given his apparent youth

-->

@fauxlaw

Without the targeted user consenting to this thread, the place for this discussion was in whatever thread or threads he said whatever.

Locking this as a callout thread.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

There is no contradiction.

That something is not reliable for every single purpose, does not mean it is not a decent place to go for others.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in: