Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
They still believe in Jesus, and by most definitions worship him, so clearly yes.
We really don't need to play gatekeeper on such a broad term as Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
***
Due to too many user complaints about rudeness, this thread is being locked. It can be unlocked by request after 24 hours, but if continuing to participate in after that, infractions will be viewed worse.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
***
Due to too many user complaints about rudeness, this thread is being locked. It can be unlocked by request after 24 hours, but if continuing to participate in after that, infractions will be viewed worse.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I might be voting on one of those, so I really can't read your review right now. I might come back to it later.
I advise anyone considering voting on said debates, to do likewise until after voting.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
To be clear, I only meant regarding them being brothers in the movies... I guess in the comics too... Going into the myths, gets really weird.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Loki and Thor are not brothers in the Marvel Universe either although they once believed they were brothers.
Brotherhood goes deeper than blood. They were raised for thousands of years as brothers, with the time knowing Loki was adopted as a very very very recent development in the scale of their lives. While there is certainly strife from the revelation, it doesn't change anything about who they are as people.
If blood was everything to Thor, he would have relinquished the throne to any older sibling that showed up.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Is Allah the same as Jehovah? Or are they two different gods?
They are both Abrahamic religions, so kinda yes. However, also kinda no.
To use an analogy: Imagine God was an elephant. One set of people study it, and conclude it's a herbivore; another group concludes it has a diet strictly consisting of vegetarians. The second group further declares the first group is lying when they say herbivore means no meat, when they know the elephant slaughters and eats any vegetarians it can find.
Both sets may have originally seen the same beast, but their interpretations differ so much that the same beast would not be concluded from their descriptions (maybe a distant cousin).
Created:
It would be a profound error to move it, and perhaps antiemetic to not respect where Israel says their capital is within their own lands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kamikaze
Basically don't be a complete douche, and you'll be fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You are having to do massive cherry picking to justify that you're triggered at the notion of Jesus having appeared in the bible (a collection of stories; religious ones to be precise).
If I understand you right, you are offended that anyone declares Jesus came back from the dead, as that is a mythological story; therefore offensive to accuse him of such things. Heck, that he got his feet washed one time is similarly a story about him, thus hurtful to your sentiments that Jesus must be kept in a safe space and never talked about.
Even by your own offered primary definition for myth, they include ones with a determinable basis of fact:
"A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." [changed bolding and underlining for emphasis]
My words are chosen carefully. I have precisely used "mythological" and walked you through the meaning. I did not use "fictional," or "just a myth." To which I would understand strong disagreement (even then not this level of outrage; I mean someone else said this is physically violent of me! Physically violent to use one set of words instead of another with the same meaning...).
In this thread I have similarly accused George Washington and L. Ron Hubbard of being mythological figures. Do you honestly think I believe they never existed? In the case of George Washington, that would mean that the United States (the country in which I live) does not exist (or at least its own basic history is a complete fabrication).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
In short, you're missing centuries worth of steps (basically enough to match the typo in your OP).
But hypothetically, yes, you could go to the USA today with vastly better technology, kill or otherwise drive everyone from the lands you want, and colonize it in the name of wherever. It's just not as easy as declaring possession with stepping foot on occupied lands (well technically you could declare it, but it would not make the ownership valid and free of conflicting claims).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Using a stick to beat us
Conflating my accusations that Jesus appeared in the Bible, with me inflicting violence... Even as hyperbole, wow!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
you make a big assumption that the Bible is a bunch of stories
You honestly think the bible contains no stories? It's a collection of stories! If you believe they are truth or fiction, does not change if they are or at not stories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
you are doing is conflating all myths with Christianity. [underline added for emphasis]
Hardly. There are countless myths in the world, I haven't linked any mythology to Christianity other than Christianity itself. Which to avoid cherry-picking, we can use someone else's offered definition of mythology: "mythology is a collection of myths, or stories, belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition used to explain a practice, belief, or natural ..."
Breaking it apart, does Jesus play a key role in any stories, partially belonging to some religious or cultural tradition? To prove I am wrong, the answer would have to be no; and to deny he appears in such stories, you would have to deny all accounts (aka stories) of him and his miracles.
As I said to someone else: The indignation over this, to me is akin to someone loving blue so taking offense if anyone dares demean it by calling it a color.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That words can contextually have different meaning, does not affect the context to which I have spoken and the clarifications I have given.
Even under your own definitions, that you think Jesus did not appear in any "stories, belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition used to explain a practice, belief, or natural ..." (underline added for emphasis) is odd considering how many stories about him have been mentioned in this thread.
That you think saying he appeared in any "stories, belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition used to explain a practice, belief, or natural ..." is the same as proclaiming "...Therefore, butterflies swim" is laughable. You are of course welcome to prove he never appeared in the collection of stories known as the bible; if you do that, I will yield I was wrong to accuse him of appearing in such stories.
The indignation over this, to me is akin to someone loving blue so taking offense if anyone dares demean it by calling it a color.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
True or false: Jesus is a figure within a religion, which members thereof have a tradition of worshipping as God?
If true, by definition he's part of a mythology. Remember:
Going with the most basic dictionary of Google...
- Mythological: relating to, based on, or appearing in myths or mythology.
- Mythology: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
- Myths: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
As for:
I asked you to explain what you meant by,"If you can prove Jesus did not appear in the bible, I will fully yield that he's not part of that mythology."Did not appear in the Bible? What are you talking about?
You have denied he is a part of Christian mythology, a mythology centered on the Bible. If he's not in the bible as that would require, I will yield that he is not mythological. If he is in the bible, and Christianity is indeed a religion and/or tradition, then he is by definition a mythological figure. That is the non-sequitur you put yourself in with seeking offense and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
mythical or historical
Read above. I have not claimed those two things are mutually exclusive. I have literally said the opposite!
Seemingly for the pure sake of disagreement, you are arguing Jesus is not part of any religious or cultural tradition. Which is wholly non-sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
So you would say L. Ron Hubbard was a mythological figure, for instance?
Yes. I don't know their exact beliefs about the guy, but I suspect they have built up a tradition of proclaiming him to be the earthly avatar of Xenu or something like that. I am not saying they are wrong to worship aliens, I am just saying they have a mythology which no doubt includes him as the link to the divine.
Eh, I don't know. Could make it sound like you're saying L. Ron Hubbard was never a real person.
Not my intent. I would have used a clear word like 'fictional' if I wished to partake in such simple dismissal.
George Washington similarly is a mythological figure in the United States, particularly in the subcultures of the armed services. That someone is/was real, does not prevent them from growing into a mythological figure. Granted, some fictional characters can also grow in significance to likewise be mythological.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You're basing your whole argument on the mention of Jesus in the OP, but the OP concerns itself with eschatology. Stephen is claiming Jesus never came in the glory of the Father before some of His followers died.
Sounds like talk about Jesus. Then while insisting we're not discussing Jesus, you quote Matthew 16: 27-28, which is also talking a lot about Jesus... Need I go on?
If you can prove Jesus did not appear in the bible, I will fully yield that he's not part of that mythology.
I am pretty sure our disagreement is rooted in you having some problem with the word mythological, perhaps confusing it for some word that bears insult?
Going with the most basic dictionary of Google...
- Mythological: relating to, based on, or appearing in myths or mythology.
- Mythology: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
- Myths: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
The Bible's focus is not about Jesus' carpentry life but about His years of ministry as the promised Jewish Messiah and what that means to Israel and the world.
Since you lack a defense for his talents as a carpenter, why are you offended that jokes about it exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not aware of this mythical figure under discussion
Jesus was mention in the first post, to which I assume the topic to be Jesus Christ.
- P1: If someone is key to a mythology, they are a mythological figure.
- P2: Jesus Christ key to Christian mythology.
- C1: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a mythological figure.
nor did I find the video lampooning Jesus humourous but in poor taste,
Jesus apparently spent most of his adult life as a carpenter, before going through a career change at about age 30. Being God made flesh and all that, we should expect him to have made massive lasting impacts in that field (at least rebuild an important historical building or something), yet I have not heard of any. So I doubt a little comedy at an area he seemingly did not excel would hurt his feelings, as he's not a safe-space needing troll like a certain prophet.
I invite you to jump into the thread, take your side, and discuss the topic under consideration.
If the topic is not Jesus, as you've indicated, what is the topic?
Created:
Posted in:
***
This thread has been unlocked by request.
If continuing to post here, please try to do so in a civilized manner. Disagree with topical ideas under discussion, rather than making insults toward the people with whom you are engaging in discussion. The mythological figure under discussion has no such protection; as an example, he could be accused of being a bad carpenter with no repercussions.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
***
Multiple people have asked me to intervene on this thread. It has clearly turned toxic, and as such is being locked.
To most people who are being active here, please refresh yourselves on the Etiquette Expectations; in short, you can disagree with each other without making Ad Hominem attacks the primary means of disagreement (which quite often fails to actually disagree with what they said anyways).
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
As far as callout threads go, this one thus far feels very minor. While it's addressed at a certain user, it does not seem inherently negative; at least not from the onset.
Created:
As someone who is opposed to abstinence only sex education, I'll wholly agree that for education on options abstinence deserves approximately equal time as contraception.
Created:
Posted in:
Date: 04/29/2021
Moderator: Ragnar, Supadudz
BrotherDThomas has been banned for 7 days, due to blatant and repeated clearly antagonistic violations to a 20 day restraining order.
Upon his return, the restraining order shall be extended to 50 days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
who once threatened a pregnant woman,
Any news stories to confirm this? Because it sounds a lot like part of a long debunked conspiracy theory that he’s actually a Spanish rapist who was only pretending to die...
Don’t get be wrong, he was a horrible human being, but I prefer holding people accountable for what they actually did.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks for the invite, but work keeps me way too busy for Mafia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
To me the most damning bit (as shown clearly in the link), was Chauvin refusing to remove his knee from the neck when Floyd agreed to cooperate.
How exactly was he supposed to "get up and get in the car," while still being held down? They might as well have asked him to magically turn into a jet and fly into the sun.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You must defend the rule or we will devolve into anarchy.
You're welcome to devolve into anarchy if you want.
Otherwise gather feedback to refine your proposal for a rule change, turn that into a referendum, and I'll treat it how I would any other.
Granted, I personally don't believe anything in the original debate crossed the line, and would vote against any proposal which outlawed such public criticism of a debate setup.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
in excess to the benefit received by any.This seems an imprecise metric.Does this mean it is not evil to willfully inflict excessive harm so long as at least one person benefits sufficiently?Or perhaps to willfully inflict excessive harm to an individual or small group that as long as enough people benefit?If slavery benefits enough slave owners to a high enough degree does that effect the essential evil that comes from the harm slavery does to the enslaved?
I used this short form related to necessary evils. Vaccine trials are placing risk on a few, for the benefit of all; therefore it is not evil to test vaccines. That vaccines need to be tested for the benefit of billions of people, makes testing them necessary therefore not evil.
The slave analogy could perhaps hold for minor forms of slavery, such as prisoners being used basically as slave labor. The harm to them doing that work while they're in prison already, is fairly low, thus easy to outweigh. Kidnapping someone, torturing them, etc., would be almost impossible to outweigh. Further, any acts of malice toward the hypothetical slave would assure that the slavery evil. ... This is also ignoring that slavery has not been shown to be necessary, to then be tied to the topic under discussion.
To give an example of how this definition can work for excessive harms: I'm a combat veteran. Killing a terrorist benefits the lives of almost everyone they would have otherwise interacted with in future. This may be an excessive harm to them, but the benefits experienced by others is much greater.
A clear evil would be breaking into someone's car. You might steal stuff and sell it for say $100, but the victim is disproportionately harmed immediately with having to spend around $1000 to fix the window, plus replace however much was stolen, and possibly miss work while doing the repairs, and onward. There could be exceptional cases where it is needed for survival (like the La Miss break a window pane to steal a loaf of bread), but such would be few and far between.
Created:
Posted in:
The definition I use for evil is counter to it ever being necessary. In short: the willful infliction of harm in excess to the benefit received by any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
It seems that some Indian teacher found this site and wants to make their students debate each other about various topics, focusing mostly on police brutality but also some other ideas. What do you guys think? I hope they’re here to stay.
I really hope that's what it is, as opposed to certain other possibilities. I actually first got into these sites in a similar way.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That would be a good suggestion for the platform development thread. It would probably solve a lot of problems. Sadly, I do not have access to the coding side of things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"I will beat Joe Biden."
Did he beat Joe Biden, or did Joe Biden beat him? Either way, I wonder what the other's presidency would have been like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What’s he done to suggest this level of comprehension difficulties?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
When I posted this here, it was just copy/paste, with a tiny bit of formatting and changing out of names.
At the time, it was frustrating to be just trying to share something a little funny (which if not actually funny, something to easily scroll past) and have someone accuse me of wanting the president dead because I can see fault with one of his actions.
Reading it again after four years, I can say that I've only seen the trend in whataboutisms grow (I am still not sure why anything about Obama is a defense of anyone else); and I really hope I don't fall into that illogical dead end (save for my usual whataboutism mockery of the didit fallacy).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The difference between saying Trump is "wrong" over Trump is "evil" is that one is a violation and one is not.
IMO like any president, Trump was a mixed bag. Unlike previous presidents, his social media addiction facilitated routine moments of comedy. Within that, him Tweeting a promise to not Tweet, hit me in the funny bone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Knowing you, this isn't the full story
In the first post here, the final paragraph gave added context, literally labeled with that: "For context, in the [reply set] that immediately preceded this one, I was very directly praising one of Trump's promises." Of course, you're free to write more of your ongoing Ragnar fanfiction series.
also don't get why you needed to share this with everyone
Like most topics anyone starts, it was on my mind. Further, it's a (hopefully interesting) sample of me and another skilled debater in an informal debate on a different platform. My S&G errors and over reactions included.
however if this was a private PM and you were the initiator as this implies,
It was not a private PM, it was all very public.
Created:
Posted in:
Ragnar:
When you cite Bush being forced to raise taxes due to circumstances, you are sidestepping the issue. Trump is choosing to actively take action with the intent to break his word (that or he slips and falls on his keyboard, and the Twitting just happens...).
It is not comparable to a math test. To make that comparison, the test taker would have to magically change the rules of math after the fact to make their former statements falsehoods. We're talking about vows for future activity. Not a hypothetical statement of what someone could get away with doing, not exaggerating past actions.
Again, this is not anything outside of him causing his word to be broken, this is not congress blocking him from not logging into Twitter, but his own active choice. We can baby him and say he doesn't have the mental faculties for his word to be meaningful, or we can treat him like an adult who made the choice to break his word.
---
Other Guy:
Ragnar Bush could, of course, have not raised taxes. He chose to because he believed it was better than the other options, even though it broke his pledge.
I think it it is ridiculous to claim that a person should never change their plan when they realize that an alternative is better. for example, suppose a student says they will go a certain school. Then they learn more and decide to go to different school. Nothing forced the change, they just thought better of it. Is the person then immoral scum for making a different choice? Have you ever changed plans from what you originally planned, even though you were not forced too? I have.
---
Ragnar:
Who has said a person should never change their plans? The choice will always be in front of everyone, however the obvious penalty for constantly breaking your word even is that your word becomes worth less and less, and people call you out for it.
As with the con artist example, for them stealing from people is as you'd put it "better than the other options," but it still means they have intentionally committed deceit, and therefore their integrity is in question, marking them as "immoral scum."
Again: "We can baby him and say he doesn't have the mental faculties for his word to be meaningful, or we can treat him like an adult who made the choice to break his word." Which would you prefer?
---
Other Guy:
Ragnar Explain how Trump's changing his mind to tweet rather than not tweet stole from the people. I don't get that at all. If you had built your life around Trump saying he wouldn't tweet and were then crushed when he did you might have a point.
I don't get your point that a con artist stealing is better than other options. If an elected politician says he will do X, and then does Y on the grounds that he decided Y was better, nothing is stolen. I agree that not doing X means the politician's credibility is less, but if the politician's honest opinion is that Y is better for all concerned, then he is obliged to do Y. Are you saying that following through is more important than doing what the person believes is best. If voters think the change was not justified they can speak by voting in the next election.
Explain why you call changing your mind "intentional deceit." Do you really think it is exactly the same as a lie made to deceive from the outset? I am having a hard time believing you cannot tell the difference. "We planned to vacation in Chile, but we changed plans due to the earthquake." "We could have persisted and gone anyway. You are lying scum."
I don't see how you could ever succeed in business with the principle that you always proceed as planned, no matter how many more favorable alternatives are discovered. It makes not sense. Please tell me when, in your aopinion, it is good to change plans. Is it only when forced at gunpoint?
---
Ragnar:
Other Guy 1. When did I say he stole from people? I've been straight forward that he committed a funny blunder; I haven't gone off and said he should be impeached over it, or that he's a Nazi over it, or anything else (not even what he said against himself on issue), merely that he committed a funny blunder. 2. He gave a verbal contract that if enough people voted for him that he won, he would cease a minor activity which was wholly in his power. Even if they would have voted for him anyway, either he did honor his word (or at least attempt to), or his word is worth less (not to say worthless).
I have to use to con artist example to counter you continued claim that no future tense lies exist.
"I don't see how you could ever succeed in business with the principle that you always proceed as planned, no matter how many more favorable alternatives are discovered."
WTF is wrong with you? I already stated "Who has said a person should never change their plans? The choice will always be in front of everyone, however the obvious penalty for constantly breaking your word even is that your word becomes worth less and less, and people call you out for it." (how the fuck do you take that to mean no one should ever change any plans?)
I have not disagreed with Bush changing his plans, which is a fine example as circumstances changed from those when he gave his word. I have not disagreed with Obama changing his plans when faced with reality once he was elected (as much as I already threw a joke about it). Your entire problem is that people should not so much as be called out for breaking their word. If I break a business deal, I'll face being called out on it, in addition to possible legal action; yet I might have to do that at times, but I am an adult who makes adult decisions, rather than a someone who "doesn't have the mental faculties for his word to be meaningful," which you seem to be arguing our president to be, while complaining that anyone hopes for better from him.
---
Other Guy:
Ragnar asks "When did I say he stole from people?" You said, "As with the con artist example, for them stealing from people is as you'd put it "better than the other options," ..." You said Trump was a con artist. That implies that you believe that Trump planned deceit in order to get something that he did not merit; that he stole something.
You say people can change their minds. I shed you under shat circumstance was it justified to change, and you didn't respond. So while at once acknowledging that change can be justified, you say, "[Trump] gave a verbal contract that if enough people voted for him that he won, he would cease a minor activity which was wholly in his power...." You imply it perfectly okay for an ordinary person to change their mind, presumably when the change is justified by it being a better course of action, but in the case of Trump a casual remark about a trivial matter ought to binding as if it were a legal commitment. You should respond to my question and give me the rule you are using by which you determine when it's justified to change course and when it not. How did a remark about twitter become a binding contract, the violation of which is a hanging offense? As far as I can tell from what you have said, the distinction is solely that you hate Trump.
My purpose is to distinguish among (a) lies done deliberately with intent to deceive (If you like your doctor), (b) mistakes (mistaken answers), (c) changes brought by reconsideration or new evidence (Bush, Sr. new taxes), (d) hyperbole (exaggeration for effect), and (e) sarcasm ("I can shoot anyone and get away with it ..."). I said that it is fair to point out a change of direction and to decide if that affects who you vote for. But it is not fair to consider everything equivalent to a lie conjured up to perpetuate a scam. "If you like your doctor .." was a flat out lie told to perpetuate a scam. Deciding to tweet was a change in policy based upon subsequent experience.
You are free to hate Trump all you want but don't conflate lies with changes.
---
Ragnar:
Other Guy you have gone off the deep end of insanity, even insisting that any business person who so much as keeps their word in mind when evaluating actions will never succeed. Like how when you order from Amazon they just pocket the money and never bother to mail anyone anything (sarcasm).
You've even had to pretend to be illiterate during this conversation, and cannot reply to the direct quotes being called out in context.
Now you're outright insisting that I claimed Trump should be hanged for using Twitter ("violation of which is a hanging offense"). That you can no longer tell the difference between mild mockery, and calls for outright execution, show that you've turned into a complete moron.
[END]
Created:
Posted in:
[START]
Initial Post:
“I tweeted today. At ‘realdonaldtrump,’ I tweet. You know it… don’t worry, I’ll give it up after I’m president. We won’t tweet anymore, I don’t think. Not presidential.”
Other Guy:
Let's just say the ThinkProgress list is unreliable. Trump said he would repeal Obamacare immediately, and it's over a month now so Trump lied. Ryan said today he expects repeal and replace by August. I'll grant that Trump is annoyingly imprecise and annoyingly hyperbolic, but few Trump supporters care about precision that ThinkProgress thinks so important. Did it bother any Obama supporter that Obama lied about keeping your doctor or about stopping the rise of the oceans?
---
Ragnar:
Obama honored so many campaign promises... ones made by John McCain.
Anyway I only shared due to the Twitter promise.
---
Other Guy:
Well, then the question is whether Trump lied about giving up Twitter or whether he changed his mind. Obama said that Obamacare would be discussed openly and that there would be no secret deals. Obama wasn't in office for a month before he violated that pledge. Democrats refused to have hearings and Obama did everything behind closed doors. So did Obama lie or change his mind? He said he changed his mind.
---
Ragnar:
Obama could be an angel or a devil, and it would have no baring on if Trump did or did not honor his word on something that is 100% within his power, and further honoring his word would require doing absolutely nothing.
As for if future tense lies exist... Of course they do, if someone borrows money from you, and later decides they don't feel like paying you back (not talking about changed financial means preventing it, merely their mood), I highly doubt you consider them to have not acted in deceit.
---
Other Guy:
Ragnar Are you claiming that it is immoral --or a sign of poor character-- to change one's mind on deciding whether to use twitter or not? Lies do exist. We know the claim "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" is a lie because Gruber revealed that it was known by Obama to be false when Obama said, and Obama said it with the intent to deceive. There is no evidence of intent to deceive in Trump saying he wouldn't tweet; he changed his mind when he discovered how well it worked for him. I think it is a fair criticism of Trump that he makes pronouncements without tinking things through. He also unnecessarily exaggerates -- like the "Mexican" judge comment. I think any president should speak carefully. Trump is on record as saying that the way to negotiate is to start with an outrageous position and then back off from it. He has a bad habit of being outrageous when it isn't necessary. But no, posturing and hyperbole are not the same as deliberately lying to sell a political policy. Ideologues like Obama have all the answers and never change positions. Trump is not an ideologue, so he is able to change positions.
---
Ragnar:
1. My what part of "the irony of Trump's promise to cease with Twitter is just hilarious," do you not understand? Love or hate the guy, this is funny.
2. Unless you think Trump and Obama are the same person, why do you keep bringing up Obama even after it's been outlined this is not a discussion of Obama?
3. Your argument for violating your word based on it working well, was in direct response to the debt analogy. Following the analogy under discussion, but applying a real world example to it: yes, I do consider the con artists I met at church to be "immoral," having "poor character." Them changing their mind based on how well keeping my money worked for them, in no way absolves them. Your argument that it's in no way a lie, does not change the benefit recieved and harm done by the falsehood.
4. Call intentional falsehoods lies or changing ones mind, it still indicates a shortage on integrity. ... such is common on politicians, but see point #1.
---
Other Guy:
1. It is ironic that Trump has come to use twitter so much.
2. Because the issue is distinguishing among lies, mistakes, and changing one's mind. A "lie" requires an intent to deceive, so I gave an example from Obama of proof of intent to deceive. It's unlikely that Trump intended to deceive about using twitter.
3. I don't think Trump received any benefit from changing his mind on using twitter, except the benefit of communicating more directly. The people who care about it would never have voted for him anyway. It is characteristic of business people to change their minds when something works or doesn't work. For Trump, "His supporters took him seriously, but literally while his opponents took him literally but not seriously." You are in the latter category. I don't excuse Trump's loose talk and endless hyperbole on many things. No president should do that. But I understand it for what it is.
I don't know your church story, but I grant that churches pull cons.
4. No, changing one's mind is not an intentional falsehood. The person stated what he believed to be true when he said it, so it's not a lie. Everyone is free to dislike the change or to like it, that's not the issue. George H.W. Bush said "no new taxes," and I think he meant it. But then he raised taxes saying he was forced to by unforeseen circumstances. Voters didn't like it, with the result that he lost the next election. I don't have a problem with your not liking Trump using twitter. I'm not fond of it myself. But I doubt it was a lie.
Other Guy:
Lying is making a statement known by the speaker to be false with the intent to deceive.
"I took a 20 question math test and answered 17 correctly."
"So you lied about the other three?"
"No, I didn't know at the time the answers were wrong. Those were mistakes, not lies."
"I can shoot someone and get away with it because of celebrity."
"That was a lie because you know you couldn't get away with it."
"No, you and everyone else recognizes it is obviously false, so there is no intent to deceive. Jokes and sarcasm are not lies."
"I talked to a million people and everyone agreed with me."
"That's a lie. You know you didn't talk to a million people."
"It's obvious that I didn't talk to a million people, so there was no intent to deceive. It was obvious exaggeration with no intent to deceive."
The last two examples call upon something being obvious. What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another, and everyone can face a borderline case. If you say you talked to thirty people, maybe it's true, maybe it's hyperbole and maybe it's a lie.
Created:
Posted in:
Interesting Facebook memory popped up yesterday, which included an informal debate I had with a fellow debater with whom I had respected and been Facebook friends.
Going to share the conversation below, but in essence...
Ragnar: "the irony of Trump's promise to cease with Twitter is just hilarious"
Other Guy: "How did a remark about twitter become a binding contract, the violation of which is a hanging offense?"
Just sharing the worst conversation line. For context, in the one that immediately preceded this one, I was very directly praising one of Trump's promises for being a great idea, regardless of it it ever became the law of the land (“for every new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated”); so this wasn't started with me looking like some frothing at the mouth Trump-hater.
Created:
Posted in:
***
I've been asked to formally review this thread...
The worst this thread could be accused of being is a defense of others having the right to make calls to violence, while not being such a call in it of itself.
Actual calls to commit or threaten violence are prohibited by the CoC, mere discussion of the limits to free speech are not.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
In the new voting policy, borderline is mainly used to denote hesitation in non-removal but ultimately still non-removal.
It of course does have potential for scope-creep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
There does not presently seem to be a way for users to update their email addresses, which should be fairly easy to fix.
Created:
Passed Measures:
- Ratify the new Voting Policy12 (86%) in favor, 0 against, 2 abstain
- Switch to SupaDudz' suggested handling of Restraining Order violations12 (86%) in favor, 0 against, 2 abstain
- Update the help center debates page10 (71%) in favor, 0 against, 4 abstain
Rejected Measures:
- Allow Kudos points within votes?
3.25 (23%) in favor, 5.65 (40%) against, 5.10 abstain.
Regarding the two main updates, I do not know when we will be able to get them into the Help Center. However, I have provided links for them above.
Created:
It was actually revealed not long ago that all users are actually just alts of Sum1hugme. 🙃
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The referendum is technically still under way, but with the outcome a statistical near-certentiny...
SupaDudz came up with a transparent system for handling Restraining Orders. Here are his own words on it:
First, I believe obtaining an RO or receiving a RO should be harder to obtain than it is now. This site is about expressing freedom of speech. If you dislike someone then that is life. Ignore this user. If you ignore them and they repeatedly follow you, you have enough evidence to claim an RO. This site is about freedom of speech and being comfortable to share our views. To restrict others is being blind and we shouldn't encourage others to do so
Another thing is that restraining orders should not be 90 day long limitations. The most an RO should be is 30 days, as that allows the users to calm down enough to think logically, while not being overly destructive of freedom.
Here are some reforms I have made to make a clear way of RO violations. Right now the definitions are as loose as a plate of jello, so I decided to beef them up into what I think is the ideal standard.The A-H Rule Reform of Restraining Orders on DebateArt.comA) If a person comments on the restrained users original thread that is not a DIRECT response to that person AND/OR is in response to another user that is NOT the user RO'd and the thread itself is a tame/vanilla topic, that user is not warned or punished----A1) If a person comments on the restrained users original thread that is not a DIRECT response to that person AND/OR is in response to another user that is NOT the user RO'd, but the thread itself is a topic of conflict (religion/politics), that user is not warned or punished, but is reminded to remain cautious of the RO.B) If a person comments on the restrained users original thread that is not a DIRECT response to that person, but the moderation team concludes there is enough evidence to warrant that user was looking for a reaction out of the restrained user, that user will receive a warningC) If a person comments on the restrained users original thread that is a DIRECT response, but is not malice, that user is will be notified but no warn will be givenD) If a person comments on the restrained users original thread that is a DIRECT response and there is enough evidence that said user was in malice or response, that user will receive a warnEXCESSIVE REPETTITION OF WARNS DUE TO VIOLATIONS OF A-D WILL RESULT IN A 3 DAY BAN
======================E) If a person comments on the restrained users original threat is a DIRECT response and a situation has escalated due the post made being egregious enough to violate the basic terms of the CoC, that user is subjected to a 7-day ban.F) If a person replies DIRECTLY to a restrained user in a different thread with no malice, that user will receive a warningEXCESSIVE REPETTITION OF WARNS DUE TO VIOLATIONS OF F WILL RESULT IN A 3 DAY BANG) If a person replies DIRECTLY to a restrained user in a different thread and there is enough evidence that said user was in malice, that user will be subjected to a 3-day banH) If a person replies DIRECTLY to a restrained user in a different thread and a situation has escalated due the post made being egregious enough to violate the basic terms of the CoC, that user is subjected to a 14-day ban
Supa will also be taking an active role in determining which cases need an RO. He and and I do differ. He would prefer to do away with ROs, I think there's occasionally a need for them (admittedly less often than I've assigned them). That said, my preferred way to handle my own virtual stalkers is to either ignore them, and/or to mock them mercilessly whenever they show up in my threads and debates.
Created:
A couple days remain, but the presumptive outcome is as follows:
- Ratify the new Voting Policy
11 in favor, 0 against, 2 abstain - Switch to SupaDudz' suggested handling of Restraining Order violations11 in favor, 0 against, 2 abstain
- Update the help center
9 in favor, 0 against, 4 abstain
(technically below that 10 threshold, but this didn't need a vote anyway; it was mainly offered in case anyone wanted further refinements)
If anyone ever wants to do their own referendum, the administration around here will support most efforts. I suggest giving it a week for question suggestions and refinements, then a voting window of a week (while it won't make a real difference in voting, it gives people optimum opportunity to participate, which is much better than people whining later that their freedom of speech was mysteriously violated).
Created: