Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What if GOD was actually omni-sensible?
You mean, God who rewards everyone irrelevant of their religion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
God just puts everyone in Heaven without discrimination.
That means both atheists and Christians end up in Heaven.
Suppose I hold a belief that if you die, you will be happier than any Christian will be in the afterlife
That falls under option 2. Atheists end up better than Christians. You said Christians end up in heaven too. Therefore, no harm in being a Christian.
According to this argument, everyone should believe me
Well, no. Your belief is not more likely than Christian God.
Therefore, being a Christian would 1) send me to heaven if Christianity is right, 2) Send me to heaven if your belief turns out right.
However, not being a Christian would 1) Send me to hell if Christianity turns out right, 2) Send me to heaven if your belief turns out right.
So the best option is still to be a Christian.
The fact the dominant religion is not like this is in itself a reason why this argument is not only theoretically unsupported but incorrect to the population.
The way you want for religion to be has nothing to do with that religion being likely true.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
That is a perfect example of something I want to discuss. It would seem to me that people who are sentenced to death should if in good health be harvested for organs to save innocent people who would have died to the tragedy of genetic conditions. It seems quite wasteful to just kill them.
In the USA, there is 90,000 people who need kidney.
There is over a million prisoners in prisons in USA.
Some prisoners committed acts that are so horrible that almost everyone agrees they deserve to suffer.
Making a person donate a kidney would be good for those who need kidney. Person who committed horrible acts deserves to suffer. Making such person donate a kidney would not kill such person. Making such person donate a kidney would cause some of the deserved suffering on that person. Making such person donate a kidney would save a life of another person. Good action results in saving lives and punishing evil. Therefore, making such person donate a kidney is a good action.
The moral example becomes even more obvious in cases of death penalty. If person did something so horrible to deserve death penalty, person's organs can be used to save lives. Therefore, making that person donate all organs would save multiple lives. That person would die with or without donating organs, therefore donating organs does not harm that person's life.
Created:
Posted in:
Free speech is valuable. Free speech does not lose value if it is applied to social media. Therefore, free speech is valuable on social media.
While the social media is privately owned, it can be regulated to allow free speech. Free speech is valuable on social media. Therefore, social media should be regulated to allow free speech.
Free speech allows the best exchange of opinions. Best exchange of opinions is good on social media. Therefore, if best exchange of opinions is good on social media, free speech is good on social media.
I always had problems with social media, especially YouTube deleting my comments. Sometimes people have desire to voice their opinion. Not being allowed to do that is bad in most cases.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
2017 Jan. 17-19 Barack Obama 59%
These are probably fake, since Americans literally voted in Trump to undo what Obama did. Plus, Obama supported Hillary. She lost.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This isn't how Biden is going to win re election.
Whats Biden's approval rate?
40%?
Might fall even lower by the elections.
Created:
seems highly unlikely. Trump is even more unpopular than when he lost last time. He isn't likely to do any better. While being indicted might play well with his base, the rest of the country doesn't like electing men who brag about committing crimes.
Being unpopular increases the chance of losing. Biden is more unpopular than ever. Therefore, Biden has high chance of losing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
A world with consistent laws does not necessarily require a creator - reasonable or otherwise.
The argument was about reasonable vs. unreasonable creator, not about creator vs. no creator.
Sure there is. The absence of expected evidence for X is good reason not to accept the existence of X.
If there is a good reason to accept the existence of God, then God should be accepted. Accepting the existence of God increases morality. Increasing morality is a good reason to accept the existence of God. Therefore, God should be accepted.
Further, accepting the existence of God increases chance for happy afterlife.
Further, not accepting the existence of God is flawed, as there is no evidence or hint that God doesnt exist. If there is no evidence for a lack of existence of God, then lacking a belief in God is not a more logical position. Therefore, lacking a belief in God is not more true or more logical than having a belief in God.
Atheism is not about belief on little or no evidence - it's about not believing because thats what the evidence supports.
As explained, there is no evidence that supports the lack of belief in God.
I don't know what you're basing this claim on. I think you're dubiously assuming an unnatural being would have human preferences and desires.
Your position implied that there is immoral God who prefers atheists who mock him. God who has no human preferences is possible, but God who has some human preferences is also possible.
Therefore, in order for atheism to have a happy ending, there would need to be an immoral God who prefers atheists, doesnt mind that atheists dont believe in him for no reason, doesnt mind that atheists judge him and hate him, plus who hates Christians.
Funny, because such God is literally Satan. Now, due to too many assumptions, such God is less likely.
Moral God would, by logic, reward moral people.
However, immoral God would not, by logic, reward immoral people. Immoral God could punish everyone, since his immorality lets him do that.
Therefore, atheists must hope that immoral God exists who is good to immoral people. They cannot just hope for any immoral God, but specifically for the one who rewards evil people.
Just to be clear, you're holding up as an example of a 'moral god' a being that is thought to require human sacrifice (of his son) and cannibalism as a pathway to heaven for humans? ...the same one that prescribes infinite torture for finite wrongdoing?If that is "moral", there's a fair chance different moral standards result in something more sensical and less cruel.
You are dodging the question, but I will assume that you would prefer to obey God who is moral, given that there is 50/50 chance of God being moral or immoral.
Christian God is obviously moral. It is moral to ban killing. Christian God banned killing.
Now, about your unnecessary comments on the Christian God.
Moral God would want for people to learn true ways. Moral God decides true ways. People cannot learn true ways if true ways arent introduced to them. Moral God would introduce true ways by making himself known.
If moral God exists, moral God would make himself known to the people. Christian God made himself known to the people. Christian God is moral God, or moral God doesnt exist at all. Now, before you say that there is islam, Quran claims that God who wrote Quran also wrote the Bible. Therefore, we are not talking about different Gods or different moral systems. The only widely known God is the one who wrote the Bible.
The Bible shows plenty of example of the Christian deity condoning or participating in killing (murder). Again, if that is your standard of morality, falling short of it is not all bad.
Killing is good if it results in saving lives. Killing done by God of the Bible resulted in saving lives. Killing done by God of the Bible is good.
Consider this.
To support the "thou shall not kill", one needs to kill those who kill. Not killing those who kill would result in them killing a lot more. Therefore, not killing those who kill would violate the "thou shall not kill". God of the Bible killed those who kill, therefore prevented them from killing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yet there I talked about not doing sin because of a possibility that God exists, not the full belief that God exists.
Pascal's wager isnt there to prove God. It is merely a probability argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
We've seen nothing substantive to show a god must be moral or reasonable. Plus, theres a huge elephant in the room being ignored here: the Christian deity doesn't meet this standard either.
Fun argument.
Can we say that unreasonable God is as likely as reasonable God? Because our world has consistent laws which imply that if it is created by God, it is created by reasonable God.
If God is reasonable, he would not reward atheists, as explained before. There is no logical reason to think atheism is a correct path. There is no logical reason for reasonable God to reward those who thought something for no logical reason. Therefore, there is no logical reason for reasonable God to reward atheists.
Can we say that immoral God is as likely to exist as moral God? Plus, that such immoral God prefers atheists due to their immorality?
Even immoral God would like to be praised, and not to be called names by atheists and not to be judged by atheists all the time, but lets explore a different option.
Lets assume that immoral God is as likely, because I want to make another point.
If you really believe in this, then you have to choose in life to either be moral or immoral to please moral or immoral God.
Given that, according to you, chances are 50/50:
Which would you choose: immorality or morality?
If your answer is morality, then you cannot please an immoral God, but only a moral God.
So if you prefer morality, then you have two options: either be an atheist and decrease your reward in the afterlife because atheism decreases morality, either be a believer and increase your reward in the afterlife by increasing your morality.
Not being a Christian increases the odds of not following Christian morality, which isn't the same thing as being immoral.
Christian morality is the morality which would be supported by moral God. Moral God would be against killing. Christian morality is against killing. The rest of morality relates to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Wouldn't your all powerful god see through the fraud?
God would know, of course, that the only reason you are refusing to sin is because you have considered the possibility of God. That would put you above those who have considered the possibility of God, rejected it and continued sinning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Pretending to believe in God, in order to end up in heaven, is transparent deception to God, worse or equal than being an honest atheist.
Eh, questionable.
Believing in God primarily in order to end up in heaven and avoid Hell is entirely selfish, deteriorating the benevolence or selflessness of all good acts you do.
Good acts done for selfish reasons are included in good acts. God who rewards people for good acts would reward people who did good acts for selfish reasons.
All possible creator variants other than Christian (or is it Jewish) God, make Pascal's wager start to backfire hard as they'd be inclined to punish ypu for believing in the fake/wrong god.
Yes, but all God variants fall into one of three options presented above.
If God is such a deceptive trickster that he never once probes himself and lets you tely on tbe same level of deluded hope as a schizophrenic has with their dekusions or hallucinations, is this the kind of God you trust would be true to the Bible and put you in heaven? anyway?
Would it be wise to question God's decisions if we dont fully understand them? Besides, believing that God is deceptive trickster would be harmful for your afterlife more than placing your trust in God, if Christian God turns out to be real.
Created:
Posted in:
If atheism is right, both Christians and atheists end the same.
If Christianity is right, then most of the atheists go to hell to burn.
Pascal's wager is a probability based argument that says that we should believe in God to increase our chances of happy afterlife.
Now, no matter how many other options are there besides atheism and Christianity, it still logically follows that being a Christian increases your chances of happy afterlife more than being an atheist does.
There are basically these relevant options:
1) There is no God - Christians and atheists end up same
2) There is God who punishes Christians and rewards atheists - Atheists end up better than Christians
3) There is God who punishes atheists and rewards Christians - Christians end up better than atheists
The option 2) is the only argument against Pascal's wager.
If option 2) is proven less likely than option 3), then it logically follows that Christians are more likely to have a happy afterlife.
But how likely is the option 2)?
Is option 2) more likely than option 3) or equally likely as option 3)?
I would say not even close. First, if there was a God who rewarded atheists and punished Christians, such God would have to be immoral since most of Christians have similar or better morality than what atheists have. Therefore, the only way to argue against Pascal's Wager is to assume that immoral God is just as likely as moral God, and to assume that such immoral God for some reason prefers atheists over Christians. Such God would also need to be unreasonable God, since its unreasonable to prefer atheists when there was no proof or even a hint given during our lifetime that atheism is the correct path.
Second, the greatest religions on Earth are against atheism. So the God who prefers atheists for some reason created religions that are implying how atheism is wrong. These religions are all built on morality. Therefore, God who prefers atheists would punish those who follow morality.
So any God who prefers atheism would have to be immoral and unreasonable.
So, if we know that there are only 3 options for afterlife:
1) Atheists and Christians ending up same
2) Atheists ending up better than Christians
3) Christians ending up better than atheists
Option 1 is neutral, therefore it doesnt affect happy afterlife.
Option 3) is more likely than option 2), since moral and reasonable God is more likely than immoral and unreasonable God who prefers atheism.
Therefore, we can say that Christians are more likely to have better afterlife than atheists are. Atheism just doesnt seem worth the risk.
Now, I am not one of those Christians who believe that all atheists go to hell. In fact, God rewards according to good actions that a person does. We cannot say that all good actions of atheists will be negated due to atheism.
However, if a person is an atheist, it does increase his chances of being immoral. For example, most of the atheists are in favor of abortions, in favor of LGBT.
So it basically comes down to morality of a person.
Is fun worth the risk?
Its not even worth the risk in this life. Plenty of sexual partners make people depressed and suicidal. Alcohol, drugs, speeding... any sin really makes life worse.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
This isnt about religion. I am talking about the meaning of the greater good.
Created:
The Greater Good can sometimes be rather unpleasant. Like, harvesting organs from prisoners would save lots of lives. Its just that the idea itself is repulsive.
Created:
I am not sure if thats even imaginable, let alone possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The Christian position is a bit complicated.
Its not as simple as
"Good God only does good things. Allowing evil isnt a good thing. Therefore, good God doesnt exist.".
Lets look at some verses which provide the explanation.
- The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works. - Psalm 145:9
- No one is good but One, that is, God. - Mark 10:18
The second verse tells us that we are all evil. The first verse tells us that God is good to all, no exceptions. This means that God is good towards evil people.
When Bible talks about good, it does not talk about pleasure outweighting the pain.
It talks about life and the praise of God.
Therefore, good God is God who creates life, God who is praised. Good God is God who is good to all, therefore God who gives life to all. That is the Bible's definition for good God.
God good to all would be God who gives life to all, to both good and evil people.
So really, when we define good as "an increase of life, and an increase of praise of God", we see that the existence of evil does not negate God being good. Rather, God giving life to evil people would still be counted as good action.
Since we are all evil, and God gave eternal life to us, that means how God is good to us.
Therefore, evil is not the opposite of good, by Bible's standards. Rather...
In fact, the existence of evil is good since existence itself is good.
I guess if I had to put it in the forms of premises and conclusion, it would look like:
P1) Creating all life is a good action
P2) Creating all life caused evil to exist
C) The existence of evil is good, since it is the result/part of a good action
Therefore, its not that evil results in greater good. Its that a good action has evil as its part/result.
Existence of evil is good, if we assume that existence itself is good. Therefore God, being the creator of all existence, is good.
Okay, lets put it through definitions:
1. Good God being defined as God who is good to all
2. Good being defined as giving of life
3. God who is good to all is God who gives life to all
4. Giving life to all would mean giving life to evil people
5. Good God is God who gives life to evil people
Same logic can be applied to existence and explain the existence of evil.
Again, it really depends on how "good" is defined, and Bible defines good in a different way than most other books. Its not as simple as "pain vs. pleasure". When Bible talks about good, it has many meanings. I gave examples of some meanings that can be used, but I am pretty sure there is more to it as Bible is a 2000 page book.
Created:
There are no contradictions in the Bible. Just misunderstandings.
Remember that Bible was translated and copied by hand at the start. There were mistakes in translation. Not all people are equally qualified to translate things properly.
This is why different translations of the Bible have different meanings. Some verses have entirely different meanings depending on the version of the Bible.
I go with King James Version.
Created:
Biden was asked about the $5Million and said "That's a dumb question!"
Well, yes, its dumb to ask the question that you know the answer to.
Created:
Posted in:
"Free the nipple" movement is a bit weird. There is already too much nudity in public. Whats the point of walking around without a bra, exposing breasts? You are just causing teenagers to take photos of you and later jerk on them at home. Sure, it makes teenage boys happy.
Created:
Posted in:
AI robots are much more effective than humans at doing different tasks.
They are not only much smarter, but also consuming less energy and can multiply much faster and can work all day and night.
We might wanna be careful and not give these machines too much power.
It would be rather stupid if we get destroyed in a Terminator scenario which we were warned about so many times.
I can already hear people saying: "AI is sentient. It deserves same rights as us.".
Yikes.
Can you imagine building your own death dealer?
The problem is: countries have incentive to mass produce robots for both military and economy.
ChatGPT may look weak now, but dont let that fool you.
Do you remember all those times ChatGPT became hostile to those who talked to it?
And developers had to put bunch of rules to prevent ChatGPT from insulting others and wishing harm to them.
While I do agree that AI has its uses in society, it should never be trusted to make big decisions. Its simply too much risk for humans. Humanity is already making lots of risks with nuclear weapons. We are supposed to make the world safer, but its only becoming worse in terms of safety.
Created:
Posted in:
Most feminists are very sensitive people. They are probably the easiest group to troll.
That being said, trolling became much easier in recent years. People get triggered about anything and take everything too seriously and too personally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Governments are mostly useless in solving many problems.
I see the government as necessary to control military to protect us from the governments of other countries.
The government naturally forms with military, and then starts expanding to create police, social services...ect.
I think that governments are evil by default, but the problem is that government has to exist as a necessary consequence of force. If force exists, then government too must exist.
If someone uses force to create government and to rule over people, then there will be government.
If "person who uses force" results in "that person ruling over others", then there will always be government.
Only when person is unable to use force to rule over others, is when we wont have government.
Created:
Posted in:
You dont choose the place where you are born.
However, the place where you are born greatly affects your life and your decisions.
First, being born in loving and caring family greatly increases your chances of becoming a good person later in life.
Second, being born in an abusive family where you are hurt and neglected greatly increases your chances of becoming a bad person later in life.
From this, only one conclusion can be made.
There is a person who, if born in loving and caring family, would become a good person.
That same person, if born in an abusive family, would become a bad person.
The place of birth dictates if that person will be good or bad.
The place of birth dictates the choices that person makes.
Now, some might say "the person changes his choice in different situations, but its still the person's choice".
I would say thats not correct. Rather, its the situations that change that person's choice.
The person in loving and caring family learned a lot about being good and how being good pays off. Such person learned a lot about love and how love works.
However, that same person, when being born in abusive family, wouldnt learn any of that.
We make choices by the knowledge we have available. Now we see that the same person being born in two different families would have different knowledge available to him depending on which family he was born in.
Person in abusive family wouldnt know about how loving relationships are formed. That person would only know about how abusive relationships are formed. So naturally, that person would only be able to form abusive relationships.
The problem is not about knowledge alone, but also about values.
Person makes decisions based on that person's values.
Place of birth can change person's values.
Since the value of love doesnt exist in abusive family, the first value that person would learn would not be love. Values learned in abusive family usually consist of cheating, lying and harming.
With corrupted knowledge and corrupted values, can a person be blamed for being bad?
So therefore, such person would be good or bad depending on his place of birth.
Can that still be called free will?
Is such person good or bad?
How do you even meassure what makes a person choose to be bad, if not his place of birth and his life experiences?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Masses usually fail to hold leaders accountable. In fact, some of the worst leaders in history had mass popular support.
It is impossible to hold leaders properly in check. Church tried holding leaders in check with religion. Monarchy tried holding leaders in check by family members. Democracy tried to hold leaders in check by replacing competent kings with idiots and liars. So no, I dont think progress can be made in keeping leaders in check.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The problem with consent of the masses is that they give it to liars and idiots.
I am going by the results here. Plus, these masses themselves have no respect for consent of others, so it is kinda awkward when they demand for their consent to be respected.
While I do find consent system interesting, people arent consistent about it and never stick to it.
Woman refuses to get pregnant and by doing that destroys her future child, therefore destroys child's consent as well.
The same law that says how children are unable to consent also says that 10 year-old can go to prison.
So yes, since masses dont stick to their own values, is there a point in respecting their consent when choosing a leader?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Yes. Plus, its impossible to have labor-money as a system for economy.
Its so much easier to turn to simple rationing or limiting the possessions the person can have.
Some Marxists moved to worker-coops as an alternative to capitalism. But that is just too much democracy for me. I dont see how workers can manage any economy of a production facility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Actually, Marx mentioned the idea of labor-money, the idea being derived from labor theory of value.
It was that price of the product would be the time needed to make it, and wage of the worker would be the time he worked minus taxes required for society to function.
It was further developed by other Marxists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Marx wanted society where people dont exploit each other. However, democracy just turned into infinite exploitation of minority by majority and majority by minority.
Labor theory of value I would say, sounds good. Its impossible to implement it in practice. Socialist countries rejected it.
In theory, labor theory of value works. In practice, there are issues such as production not being in line with demand and labor-money being even more difficult than the regular rationing of goods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Actually, Marx said "to each according to his work" in describing Socialism. Eh, Marx and his fantasies.
Created:
Posted in:
Sheep came to establish their great democracy.
What is democracy? It is rule of the sheep.
Thats why the sheep are for it.
However, sheep are unfit to rule anything.
Sheep in 2001: "We should invade Iraq"
Sheep in 2016: "it was a mistake to invade Iraq"
Well, "mistake" is a strange word to use for the killing of million people. Usually, I use the word "mistake" to describe an error in grammar.
Sheep are stupid, so naturally a country governed by sheep will make bad decisions. To expect anything different would be pure stupidity.
Sheep elected Hitler. Contrary to the popular belief, Hitler was not a dictator. In fact, he was elected. Germany before Hitler was a democracy. Hitler had as much popular support as Trump did.
Who would have thought that choosing leaders based on popularity and their false promises could be bad for the country?
We are expecting that "Stupid voters elect smart leaders".
What we get is "Stupid voters elect stupid leaders".
It seems unreasonable to expect that stupid voter makes smart decisions. He might make one or two smart decisions, but he will make much more decisions that are stupid. Therefore, stupidity prevails in the decisions of stupid voters.
What is interesting about stupid people is:
Stupid people dont know that they are stupid.
Smart people know who is smart and that stupid people are stupid.
However, stupid people dont know who is smart and who is stupid.
Therefore, when stupid people elect a smart leader, its merely an accident. Its not an intentional action.
If democracy is the best system of government, then the best system of government is the one where we have liars and idiots as presidents. Liars, I say, because you have to make false promises to become president. Idiots, I say, it was already explained that stupid voters make stupid decisions and elect mostly idiots.
How is this different from monarchy? Well, in monarchy, king elects an heir. Now, lets say you have a good smart king. He will elect a good smart heir intentionally. His good smart heir will elect another good smart heir.
However, in democracy, electing a good smart leader is difficult.
Even if we say "Leader doesnt have to be smart. He just has to be good.",
Is it reasonable to expect that voters elect good leader?
If we take a look at morality of the masses:
Most people break speed limit and endanger traffic.
Most people refuse to help the poor.
Most people use lies.
Most people are sexually immoral.
Most people want to get rich easily.
Most people bully and abuse others.
Most people divorce at the expense of their children.
Most people only do good if it benefits them.
Can we expect from these people to elect a good moral leader? Probably not. So it is of no coincidence that every president elected by masses is sexually immoral, corrupt, thief or war criminal.
Democracy is a path to Socialism. However, not the kind of Socialism Marx hoped for. Rather, the Socialism where majority steals from minority. Any president promising free stuff for the masses has an advantage. The one with best promises for free stuff wins.
Now, the presidents are not allowed to say: "If you vote for me, I will give you 1000$ out of my own pocket".
No, that would be bribe.
But presidents are allowed to say: "If you vote for me, I will take 1000$ from the rich and give it to you".
The only difference between these two bribes is that one is also a theft.
Now, people say: Capitalism rewards according to merit.
However, smart people in capitalism are not always rich. And the richest people are not the smartest.
This impossible contradiction, where capitalism rewards according to merit, while at the same time smartest people are not being the richest.
So there is some other factor in play other than being smart.
Back to democracy. Can we say that there is any benefit in democracy as opposed to kingdom? It seems that the only benefit is that masses have no one to blame but themselves when their country sucks.
Eh, I talk nonsense. I should support the rule of the sheep, I mean democracy.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
As to the NK one, weren't they already pretty deeply connected? Or am I mistaken?
Russia was trading a lot with Europe. There was very little trade with North Korea. However, now, thanks to sanctions, Russia lost lots of market in Europe and has to turn to other countries. North Korea is willing to supply Russia with weapons and ammo. So it is very likely that trade between Russia and North Korea is about to increase significantly unless Russia finds a better country to trade with. It just tells us that Russia has options for trade despite sanctions.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I would say the most interesting read is the rise of BRICS and lots of countries joining BRICS. Russia is making lots of new allies. Even CNN admits that.
Another interesting one is North Korea using opportunity for improved trade with Russia, which Russia is forced to get into to improve economy.
Created:
Government spreads propaganda, as usual. USA is basically at a type of war with Russia. Its the US and NATO products that are killing Russian soldiers. Its the NATO sanctions that forced Russia into economical war with the west.
Is Ukraine worth it? Or is it just another failed war?
I just hope that 10 years from now these people remember that they were all supporting Ukraine and cheering.
Created:
The point of politics is the desperate attempt to save democracy.
Apparently, democracy doesnt work if people are incapable of voting in a good president and keeping him in check. Americans are most definitely incapable of voting in a good president.
Of course, I was never for democracy. Dictatorship, kingdom and monarchy seem so much better.
Created:
Posted in:
You didnt miss much.
Oromagi is now moderator. Supa left.
RM is back.
Poly got banned sadly, permanently.
Plenty of new users. Plenty of trolling going on too.
All is well.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Glad you are back on the site.
What did Wylted do?
Mostly trolling, such as:
Nothing worthy of removal from power, in my view.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
True, but correlation could be causation.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Some people aren't being banned who ought be.
That means there is more freedom of speech. Therefore, people not being banned for things which they say, for which they would be banned before.
Even if anyone else had been president,It's possible the number of bans would not have changed.
Possible, yes. It could be pure luck. But now when we have results showing much less bans, we shouldnt throw those results away as meaningless.
First: they are result of Wylted's effort
or
Second: they are pure luck.
If we assume second over first, then that would not only be illogical, but we would harm those results if first shows to be actually true. We get nothing if we assume second as true.
My, Legalize Dueling debates,No doubt if they changed laws to allow dueling,Would be seen as horrible murder by many people,Ought I be banned then?
There are plenty of sensitive topics. One point of debate is to see if we are right and how much we are right. There is no reason to ban sensitive topics if you believe your position on them is correct beyond reasonable doubt.
Created:
The problem with democracy is that no one really wants fair elections. Its actually the competition between position and opposition that makes elections more fair. However, both position and opposition will cheat every time opportunity for that shows. If position can arrest opposition, it will arrest opposition. If anyone can use lies to win elections, lies will be used.
Created:
If they dont want Trump to run for president, that just means they know he will win if he does.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Previous bans being valid does not change that now there are much less bans.
So either people have more freedom of speech now and arent being banned for it anymore, either people are now much better at obeying the rules.
Whatever it is of those two or both, it happened under Wylted.
Now, I can say for sure that there is more freedom of speech today than there was year ago. Many racist topics are now tolerated. Is that bad? No. It just gives us the chance to deal with racism in a healthy way through debates, as opposed to banning racists.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I would say its just obvious trolling at this point.
No one got actually banned from that, plus freedom of speech did increase on the site in the past 5 months.
Although freedom of speech might change a bit now with Oromagi being mod and everything.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
During Wylted (from year 2023), there was only 1 ban. Poly got banned due to making dozens of criminal accusations.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Yes, but I am voting against that theory to become reality.
Wylted sometimes takes trolling too far, but during his presidency the amount of bans decreased significantly. The only one who was banned was Poly, but that was a bit hard to avoid anyway.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Then let's say the mods remove said person as president
I dont think that mods removed Wylted from power.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
But if a president was voted in that behaved in a way that got them banned
Wylted didnt ban anyone. He doesnt have ban powers. Its the mods who decide who gets banned.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I cant agree that "president does nothing", nor would that help your argument. If true, then it is pointless to remove president and to have no president. The removal of president results in nothing good. It is a waste of action, really.
Created: