Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This OP should clearly have been edited to read "conflicting equivalencies"Looking only at social outcomes:Flooding orphanages with unwanted babies =/= flooding the slave labor industry with culturally incompatible illegal invaders.
Thanks for the feedback. And good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Just flip the script and you get conflicting pro-choice values
You're welcome to list them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I'm curious how beliefs in stripping women of their rights for the benefit of strangers (AKA "the unborn")that maybe your belief but it's not for pro life people
In your opinion pro-life people no longer want abortion to be illegal. Noted.
...what I find conflicting is pro baby murder then all this nonsense about caring for the issues you listed.
I'm against murder and slavery, and mostly indifferent to the rest of the issues discussed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
1. I disagree that "privacy," as implied by Roe v. Wade...
The basic thing I'm questioning here is if forcing people to become slaves (as proven inside the debate I linked) for the well-being of others in the name of preserving human life, why not force others to do likewise in somewhat comparable ways?
2. One must define what they mean by "health care." ...
As said: "...and likely make less women want abortions when there's not the up front cost of around $12,000 to give birth in a hospital."
3. ... We can prevent 1,000 murders? ... simply banning guns ...
I did not reference the wholesale banning of guns, merely a common sense measure of requiring background checks before selling them.
Here's a snippet from the article used as evidence:
Currently, laws only require background checks from licensed firearms dealers.Research shows states that require background checks on all gun sales had 35% fewer gun deaths per capita between 2009 and 2012 and research from the nonpartisan Rand Corporation estimates universal background checks could prevent 1,100 homicides per year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
1. Slapping labels like "strangers" on babies is a semantics ploy. And no one is equally obligated to help everyone. The assumption that I am equally obligated to help a person trying to break the law and illegally enter the country, as I am to a defenseless, innocent baby who did not ask to be conceived is ludicrous.
For the adults your argument holds up, but for the "defenseless, innocent" children it does not. They "could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens." Granted I am not talking about mandated abortions, I am only talking about unwanted pregnancies. In any case, you currently have zero obligations to any of the groups.
2. Conservatives are against the liberal's methods of implementation of UHC, not the concept itself.
Fair enough.
But your position makes it seem like all pregnant women got that way by rape or some other coercive way...
Nope. Not a clue how you read that in to my stances on consideration to one of the first major costs. I even pointed out what I thought any pro-lifer would take to be a major benefit: "and likely make less women want abortions"
...then expect others to pay for her healthcare is completely unfair.
I don't think it would be completely fair but IMO it would be more fair than forcing her to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want, only to slap her with crippling debt at the conclusion. I'm talking about making birth less unaffordable, thus disincentivizing abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Thanks for your detailed reply.
1. ...They take far more than they give according to FAIRUS estimates of welfare expenditures vs tax collection. This limits the resources available to remedy needs of people already here and who are suffering. Finally, people provide for their children by working. By letting in illegal immigrants that decrease industry wages and working conditions, you are making life more dangerous for American workers and making it harder to provide for their children’s needs.
Well said.
2. Everyone except lobbyists have issues with our current healthcare system. Everyone wants more people covered in terms of health insurance. Believing that improving the system through free market reforms would be better than the government providing health insurance doesn’t make us anti-life.
Obviously if you want reform and women to not risk crippling debt for giving birth, you're not in the camp to which that one would apply.
3. I would question the legitimacy of that estimate, but most people are in favor of universal background checks. The reason why people stonewall it is because it is because then you know exactly who has guns(the first step before any gun confiscation). Being pro-gun is pro-self-preservation, so I find it consistent
Ok.
Created:
Posted in:
So awhile back I committed some Red Herrings in abortion debate. I'm curious if anyone on the other side would like to defend what I take to be hypocrisy. I do not assume any one pro-life person to believe in each of the following; it's rather a starting point for potential discussion.
- I'm curious how beliefs in stripping women of their rights for the benefit of strangers (AKA "the unborn"), line up with investing in a border wall and a general anti-immigrant stance? After-all people who die trying to cross the border could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens.
- Stances against universal health care, which would raise the quality of life for any children forced to be born against the wishes of the mother, and likely make less women want abortions when there's not the up front cost of around $12,000 to give birth in a hospital.
- Gun access at the expense of life. Just universal background checks is estimated to be able to prevent over 1000 murders per year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I have a strong feeling you are disgustedI've been getting the same vibe!I mean, what sort of noob comes on to the board already obsessed with me?
Maybe he's really a noob and you've just got that magnetic a personality? And maybe just maybe, that awful Ragnar didn't just ban him again...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ethang's past behavior (for which he was banned...) does not excuse your current behavior. You're honestly obsessing over Ethang way too much, like approaching DDO religion forum level obsessing over someone.
Comparatively, Ethang is sitting back probably eating popcorn.
Regarding the rule violations, they are in review. I've made my suggestions in the moderator chat, and am awaiting awaiting agreement or counter suggestions.
Created:
Posted in:
***
Regarding the numerous reports this thread has gathered, there are no obvious CoC violations.
People are allowed to discuss politics in the politics forum, even if it's complex and ugly.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Being an atheist does not necessitate committing CoC violations. Nor does being religious prevent them. I've banned members of both groups when their behavior became too indecent.How long before your banning all atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No I have not.you have just given the green light
purposeful devious practice
Thank you for bringing attention to that issue. I have reviewed every post of his within this thread since I issued a warning, and I am not seeing evidence of him having taken my words to be a green light to do those things as you claim.
very clear rule
Thank you for taking the time to read the etiquette guide draft. It is a helpful tool to aim people on the right track, but is not intended to modify the CoC. If this were a case of you said "I like cookies" and he modified to it "I'm a pedo," that would be a direct attack against you, which I would take more seriously due to my hatred of invented quotations; the CoC violation would still be the direct attack rather than his legibility. Similarly, in it I advise two line breaks after each section in a reply such as this, but I'm not banning anyone for using only a single (as much as I'll mock people who wantonly use none).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And did you read the "countless reports" at all Ragnar?
Skimmed. Believe it or not, I do have a life.
fake quotes
While editing quotes to distort the original message is a huge pet peeve of mine, normal slip-ups are understandable. Your reports begin with him replying to BrotherThomas but accidentally tagging you. That you think that's what it is to doctor posts, doesn't make it so.
Someone you dislike does such a minor slip-up, correct them (or even mock them for it). However, spamming reports buries the worst offenses, so I advise saving the reports for the smoking gun rather than the parking tickets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The only reason why it is provoking is the because of the audience of the Religion forum.
Given that there's at least whole other thread about how annoying his threads were, that is patently untrue.
It is not nonsense because he is the only one creating opposing threads in a debate platform.
And you're advocating he should have been outright banned from the site, while complaining that his behavior was reprimanded to a lesser degree. Again, you speak nonsense.
As things stand, he may still engage in any thread within the forum; as he is choosing to do.
It is literally a circle jerk at this point
Please don't turn your fantasies into accusations of what other members literally partake in with each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Salixes is banned from creating threads?
Yes.
green tick box were from replies he made not the thread itself
Context of the offenses were key; as already outlined in the public warning given to him prior to the restriction.
Banning threads when you can ban the users
The same nonsensical statement could be made of giving warnings instead of jumping to bans at the first offense, or even answering dumb questions instead of banning, or ultimately having users instead of just a ban log.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Still a red flag. ... As much as I did consider designing a debate-bot for training new members.
Created:
BrotherThomas is of course welcome back any time after his one month ban expires. However, fixating on any one user in such unhealthy ways will not be tolerated. Generally, conversation should not closely resemble something I could easily automate with a script.
Created:
Posted in:
I just moved this to the politics section, for hopefully more feedback than it received in the religion section.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
@Salixes
***
This thread has been the source of countless reports from and about several members. As per the terms of the prior notification, this thread will now be locked for 24 hours. Please use the time to cool down. You can disagree with each other, without so poorly representing your own sides.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Sounds cool
I suggest the participants agree to a formatting style, to both further hide their identities and to make things better for the readers.
Created:
Posted in:
Seems a worthwhile experiment to repeat sometime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
remind me and I’ll look it up for you in the end game. I just got hammered, and yup, town. Good luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
You can hammer me as I was your pick for today. Since I’m town I obviously won’t do that myself (it’s anti town). But stand by my history of surrendering as mafia to die with dignity when it’s hopeless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
***
Your behavior has crossed the line too many times. Fighting Words are banned within the CoC, and you seem incapable of starting topics as more than that. Accusing people of having boils on their asses for which they refuse medical treatment (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3789/post_links/162530), declaring you did not intend any honest discussion while spewing insults (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3835/post_links/162682), and various other infractions.
Given the previous hard warning, we take your continued behavior to be a request for help with your impulse control. You may no longer start threads (you may appeal this after one month).
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Technically it could be Drafter, if so I concede the game to him.
No heat has been on Oro, so he could be hedging his bets that all the more likely people will be eliminated leaving just him and drafter, and thus making him still win. I think it was yesterday he said he had been sabotaged, which I am not sure if people would get a notice about it (nor am I sure anyone would mention it, much like Speed, Drafter, and I have not mentioned the now pointless notifications of where the mechanic and vest have gone).
Duhhamburglar is new AFAIK, so anything is possible. I'm honestly surprised you have not tried to lynch him for him repeatedly using autistic as an insult.
There's also me, who if mafia would guarantee the game was completely unbalanced.
Created:
Posted in:
If I were mafia, I would have surrendered by now, as I have done previously.
Created:
Posted in:
This feigning not understanding that this is a role passing game is just too much. Had we lynched me yesterday, he would use me carrying the vest as proof that drafter lied.
unvote,
VTL Supa
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Ragnar lied about being MechanicVTL Ragnar
What are you smoking?
Created:
Posted in:
No more NKs. Drafter leading that lynch... I cannot imagine scum busing away that power, so he's got to be town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
Could be. However, if scum have the gun, we have no choice but to use the lynching mechanic.Or drafter is scum, and has the gun and is trying to push a mislynch
Created:
Posted in:
Not much time, and Drafter has been shown to have good instincts on this.
VTL Water
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
As Oro said, it’s looking like scum has the gun. Thus, VNTL isn’t the best option anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That's just the normal mechanic of lynching with extra steps.
It would mean they don’t volunteer their neck for the chopping block. Which if the current holder is town, would be harmful to town; thus something they wouldn’t do (same outcome if mafia, except they would never out themselves).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
GunsmithOut so we can kill you.
Given that you want to just kill the gunsmith, you shouldn't care so much about the existence of the mechanic.
Removing NKs from the game wouldn't be the worst strategy. Such could also be done with the gunsmith outed then the chain of possession tracked; and finally passed to someone we pre-decide to lynch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
If the vest-maker makes Ragnar a vest NP1 he is bulletproof. If the gun-maker makes Ragnar a gun NP1, we have no need of a mechanic...
The mechanic is needed to role-block the saboteur, otherwise both abilities are lost when the gun backfires and the vest is faulty (unless only one is made faulty). This risk of this is minimized by knowing who the mechanic is each day, so if using this system and the shooter dies, we know the mechanic is scum.
and we can instruct Ragnar exactly who he must kill. If anybody other than specified is killed, Ragnar gets killed. At the end of Ragnar's NP, he gives gun, vest, and mechanic to a pre-agreed upon player who follows the same process.
This general process could work. My mind oddly goes to killing people being a general disadvantage. As long as no one dies, Mafia doesn't get closer to their goals. Mafia breaking the loop, would out themselves and invite a lynching.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Sorry, but telling the mafia who exactly is the mechanic is (so they can kill him)...
I disagree. If we're unlucky (28.6% chance) they have the gunsmith already, which is the only way they can kill the mechanic. If they do kill the mechanic, then they'll pass it back and forth, making lynching our only means of victory as seen with normal games. Knowing this is the case, would be valuable.
Assuming mafia lacks the gunsmith (71.4% chance), a town person shooting randomly has a better chance of hitting scum than a random lynch (33.3%). However, if they shoot a vest (one that is not sabotaged), nothing happens. If they don't know where the mechanic is, they might destroy that ability by accident instead of a scum revealing choice.
Created:
Posted in:
The next time someone VNTL the day ends, so anyone have any strategy suggestions before that occurs?
I don't really mind people shitting on my strategy. However, I fail to see any better ideas offered.
And no, I don't consider lynching power roles to prevent those abilities being passed on to be a better strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
In that scenario wouldn't speed race be the sab? As mafia he would past vest to mafia and he came out with that name in the first few posts of the dp
Given the provided random seed from the OP (the post number, as I've used in previous games), it would be one hell of a coincidence if Speed and I were scum buddies. Plus under that, I could equally be the saboteur.
The fact is that a random player has the gun. I've advised them not to kill one certain person tonight, because that would destroy the mechanic ability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
Yes. When someone dies before passing a role, the role dies with them.(3) question. If the gun is targeted by sab and he kills himself is the gun lost ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
Just for clarity, I could be both mafia and a power role. The roles were assigned at random, apparently with the potential for all three to land on the two mafia players.
Created: