Total posts: 3,178
Posted in:
God man, you are so narcissistic its absurd you don't see it 😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
Note, the trend of tech = inequality increase is supported by the entirety of complex society, starting with Agriculture.
The notion of "market forces" driving inequality is not, that was a notion posited by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. A notion predicated upon rational argumentation, but one that is at this current point, not supported by empirical data.
Its important to note also, that lowering of inequality =\= raise to the wealth of the poor. For example, in 1774 the colonies were more equal than they ever have been. But this was not because wealth was shifting to the lower income demographics, but because England was heavily taxing the colonies at the time to recover the expense of costly wars the colonies had gotten them into. Taxes which targeted the wealthy moreso, so as to recuperate the maximal amount.
Again, establishing that National(State) policy plays a heavy hand in income inequality.
The idea of late stage capitalism is absurd as well just for the fact that wealth in total is still increasing and shows little signs of slowing down. The pie just keeps getting bigger, and you still operate as if wealth is a zero sum game 😂😂.
Libertarian Capitalists neglect every societal implication caused by late-stage Capitalism and instead focus on its historical growth or material wealth
Why dont you just come right out and admit you dont give a shit about people living in shitty conditions, only that everyone live in equally shitty conditions. Spicy sense of morality you have there 🔥
Created:
Posted in:
What you blame on Capitalism, is a fault of increasing technology, intelligence, and the ever increasing focus upon empiricism and rationalism. God started "dying" during the Renaissance, well before Wealth of Nations was even written.People are going into debt slavery, the masses are being manipulated, power is being concentrated into (corporatc) elites, worship of religion is being replaced with worship of the dollar, and so forth. Libertarian Capitalists neglect every societal implication caused by late-stage Capitalism and instead focus on its historical growth or material wealth.
Also this idea of late-stage capitalism, and the predicate it is based on of "capitalism creates wealth inequality", you are attributing to capitalism what is primarily the fault of technology, increasing scope of the size of groups(capital pools). From the inception of agriculture and the progress of technology that jump started this has been the cycle:
-Society is equal in wealth
-technology progresses and wealth inequality subsequently increases(as it rightfully should. The person who put into practice agriculture for example, deserves every bit of wealth they got from it.
-Calamity strikes, alot of people die, or those who hold disproportionate wealth are eliminated
-Society is once more equal and begins the cycle anew.[1]
The only two things that have empirically shown the capacity to reduce wealth inequality are calamity[2] and capitalism[3].
Starting in the late 19th century, income inequality began to decrease dramatically and reached historical lows in the late 1970s.
Late 19th century, as in post Wealth of Nations and the generally widespread implementation of Capitalist principles in economics. This even in spite of the long established trend of progress in technology = rise in inequality.
Beyond that,
A universal trend of increasing inequality would be in line with the notion that inequality is determined by global market forces and technological progress. The reality of different inequality trends within countries suggests that the institutional and political frameworks in different countries also play a role in shaping inequality of incomes. This means that rising inequality is most likely not inevitable.
Oh shit 🙊🙉🙈
[2]https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/
[3]https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality
Created:
Next you have to believe that there are significant differences in these races on the genetic level.
There isn't much difference percentage wise, minor differentiation can result in vast physiological changes though. The idea of "pure" races as thought of is pretty bunk at this point given the scope of crossbreeding and population growth that's occurred in the past 200 or so years.
But, the notion that humanity will eventually become an amalgamated species of uniform mixed ethnicity is also equally bunk. Even with the rapid rise to interracial couplings, only one demographic, black males, sits above 10% at 12%. All other demographics fall under 10% with most falling even further to below 5% rates.
This alone would suggest that is not likely to happen, and rather, we will over the course of tens to hundreds of milennia probably see the rise of interbred, bu distinctive nonetheless, races, that will replace the current conceptions of "race" as we consider it 🤔
Created:
it sounds like something a brain dead liberal would try to argue, that there aren't races. of course there is. call a spade a spade.
that is exactly how the dictinoary defines racist, involving prejudice or superority complexes.
Then you agree there is genetic variance and certain behavioal predispositions within those races necessarily.
Unless you dont, then I imagine a conversation about genetics with you is somewhere along the lines of,
Why is that dog the color it is?
because of genes it got from its parents
Why is that dog the size it is?
Because of the genes it got from its parents
Why is that dog not as smart as other ones?
*sweats profusely* uhhhhh, various socio-economic factors of course 🙊🙉🙈
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
I work on cars, minor repairs and maintenance stuff mainly 👍
Created:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Ah my b, and yeah, Sanders was slammed repeatedly. Not reflecting on whether those criticisms were justified, rather its pretty obvious media and the DNC rigged as much as they could to make sure Hillary won 🤔
Created:
To hold someone as necessarily evil by their very existence isnt "dehumanizing" its still humanizing because otherwise dispositions on good and evil would be irrelevant. 🤔
Created:
It doesnt take much to get people to kill others without feeling. You just need to paint their existence as necessarily evil. The conclusion of elimination will be made with or without making it oneself, plenty of others will carry that torch 🤔
Created:
Mob mentality and scapegoating does as you pointed out play a huge role. I feel you arent critically examining the "how" and "why" that scapegoating occurs in specific circumstances though.
If you want to know , for example, the likelihood of people today, succumbing to Nazi doctrine if placed in the past. You need only observe that one of the, if not most, crucial basis for this scapegoating, is still being done today(rich v poor).
You probably look at anti-Semitism and see racism. While ignoring the anti-Semitism is there largely because of the wealth and influence possessed by the ethnic group overall.
Wealth that is vastly disproportionate in relation to other ethnic groups. Seriously, listen to an anti-semite. This point of disproportionate wealth and by consequence, influence, is brought up within the first couple minutes, usually immediately.
They're still Marxists by nature, they just took the next logical step and pinpointed the ethnic/religious group that holds the most disproportionate wealth, not just in the US, but globally 🤔. Nazi's did the same, but had the added benefit of not yet refuted evidence that suggested nords were natural communists, and thus superior to any other group genetically .
Created:
Are you seeing why, when you view good/evil through the respective lenses of poor/rich. And hold these are traits that can be eliminated from human behaviors through eugenic type practices(genocide can be done in the name of eugenics after all), why perhaps maybe Nazi's presented Nords as the master race given present evidence that suggested Nordic tribes lived in a manner that adhered to marxist doctrine?
Why would they not be viewed as such by consequence of such evidence being present? Such evidence essentially declared Nordic tribes were naturally, without interference, Marxists before Marx wrote his manifesto. And if, as the manifesto states, the perfect existence is one in which society as a whole strictly adheres to the doctrine, why would an ethnic group that evidence(now refuted) suggests lived naturally by that doctrine, would not be viewed as consequentially superior to those who did not?
Created:
That Facists went full out into the realm of genetics is no surprise either. In the Communist Manifesto preamble Marx pretty much right off the bat states, "The history of all hitherto existing society, is the history of class struggles."[1]
Hitherto existing society" is a reference to evidence that came out at that time that suggested pre-inception of the various European governances that Nordic tribes lived peacefully and communitarily.[1]. This is important because the theory of evolution was just beginning to be understood. And this would suggest "greed" and "altruism" had a basis in genetics/ethnic groups.
Note, Nordics are known for blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. They are the "Aryans" Nazi's referred to as the "master race"
Are you starting to see, given that the whole idea of, "lets kill all the greedy initially and indefinitely until there are no more greedy people left, or any that will feasibly appear" that is itself based off of the belief that greed is not in itself an intrinsic human behavior, and rather, certain people possess the capacity, certain do not. Would consequentially start making more genetic differentiations? 🤔
Of course, these are absurd eugenic conclusions as weve come to realize. But at both points in time, there wasnt a deep enough understanding to hold such conclusions as absurd. That being, eugenics as a means to selective breed out intrinsic human behaviors 🤔
Created:
Mine usually include mob mentality and dehumanizing the victim. Basically I think the Nazis are a cautionary tale about what can happen anywhere we let hate have complete power.
Its a cautionary tale against anyone having complete power fmpov. The important lesson to be learned is not that Nazi's were vastly different from a normal person, but that they were normal people, and any person placed within that situation/ atmosphere would be likely to succumb to supporting those things, not unlikely.
Because they were not the ones turning the gas on for one.
Indeed, leadership was not necessarily turning on the gas and carrying out genocide. It was average joes who were.
Same as politicians who send kids to war or the guy who thought to give small pox blankets Native Americans.
I'm gonna stop you here. "Who thought to give Native Americans smallpox blankets"
Microbiology and the study of deadly diseases therein wasn't even an existent concept. This is absurd attribution of intention to that which such intention was not even rationally possible at the time because there was no knowledge of things like germs, natural immunities, etc.
I read the transcripts where the Nazis were first meeting to discuss the Final Solution
Yes, and if you read that, and place it into the context of their platform itself. You realize peoples of Jewish faith were not targeted because they were necessarily Jewish, they were targeted because Jews were the top 1% of wealth holders in Germany at the time and held vastly disproportionate wealth.
Nazi leadership, particularly Hitler, did not actually view Jews as subhuman. He viewed them as quite human, but nonetheless nefarious by consequence of holding vastly disproportionate wealth, and by consequence the power that entails.
It was Bourgeois v Proletariat thinking. Just so happens Jews were literally the bourgeois in Germany 🤔. And within that lens, certain nations were held as bourgeois(US, UK, France, etc.) while certain countries were held as proletariat(Germany, Italy, Russia, etc.).
Basically, take Marxism, remove the anarchist aspect, sprinkle it with some nationalism, and *poof* you got yourself a Facist 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Thoth
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/24
Series 1.0 is about to be underway and filled. But, post the dry-run of 1.0, 2.0 will begin.
As someone who lacks experience, if i may suggest signing up for the Beginner Series 2.0? Im not saying this as a means to discourage you from joining this game, the more the merrier.
Just pointing out that we do have a place for beginners and the relatively inexperienced to get their "sea-legs". It'll probably be a few weeks before the next series starts, so joining other games in the meantime is something I'd still encourage 👏👏🔥
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ive watched Yaron Brook quite a bit too. He is a bit better at moral argumentation than Friedman and relating objective aspects of economics to moral conclusions.
Friedman solely claimed Slavery and Colonization was, by the numbers, beneficial overall despite the harms both caused. Particularly in Colonization where colonies were more costly for Colonial nations than wealth gained. Friedman stopped at that, Brook would delve into the moral implications behind that 🤔
Created:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Sanders had a good chance to win the primary. Hillary was the establishment Dem choice. That Sanders was attacked is of no surprise.
The lefts cannibalization of itself isnt some closely guarded secret 😂. "Omg Bernie had 16 negative articles written in a short period of time, this totally disproves media bias!"
Really, a non establishment candidate with solid support getting attacked by media disproves that huh? You have a funny way of defining bias. Also, welcome to every day in media when it comes to conservatives. 🙊
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Consistent, i like it 🔥
Earlier, this came up
Smithers-P1 enables P3 to exist in the first place, so heavy jail term but not as severe as P3, since they don't appear to be capable of killing people themself.Myself-This being a compelling angle on culpability. That offers good reason fmpov why P1 is, per virtue of likely not being capable of such act themselves, not as culpable. 🤔 No P3, likely no killing of P2. P3 even existing constitutes as evidence to support this likelihood in itself fmpov 🤔.
What do you make of this in relation to your determination? Is this an incorrect analysis of culpability? If so, why?
Created:
Posted in:
Not *would* rather *should* they both be eligible for the death penalty? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Good link, solid explanation.
So if the means were deemed heinous enough, would P1 and P3 both be eligible to be put to death? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
meanwhile my boss went home. Thanks guy, I appreciate having to stay here as the ways home slowly get flooded even more 😂. And rains not supposed to stop till 7pm, another 9 hours from now xD
Created:
Posted in:
Its flooding hella intensely where i live. Storm drains have water coming out of them, roads are getting flooded out(water over the hoods of cars), and I'm at work..
watching a retention pond close to work steadily overflow onto a nearby highway on/off ramp 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Please confirm in PM that you have recieved your role. If your role involves a Night Action, please also submit Night Phase 1 actions. Upon both being done, DP1 will being.
*No game talk in this thread from players* 🙊🙊
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
*Homicide is the killing of another person. Murder is another kind of determination, a legal one.Suicide is the killing of oneself. Murder is the killing of another person.
Assisted Suicide is a fancy way of saying, "i killed X, but with their permission."
A physician assisting with a suicide is not killing another person.
This would only be true if the actual act that killed the person who wished to die, was carried out by that person. If the doctors action kills the patient, they have killed another, ergo, homicide.
I thought that "unlawful" was implied in my statement. The problem with only saying "unlawful" is that there are lawful reasons to kill someone that are "justified". That is why the term "unjustified" matters.
No, its not, because again, "I wanted to kill them for their stuff" is justification(justifies) for the act. Whether or not such a killing is "just" in accordance with the law, is an independent matter. A "justified" killing =\= a "just" killing.
Murder
Homicide
Kill
All three are different despite being the same.
To kill is to take somethings life. Justification and ability to prosecute is irrelevant.
To commit homicide is to kill another human being. Justification and ability to prosecute irrelevant.
To commit murder is the premedidated and unlawful, killing of another human being. Ability to prosecute is now relevant, and by consequence the justification for doing so is because that is a factor in adjudicatory decisions.
Without the presence of *unlawful* there is no pertinent difference between homicide or murder as they would be defined. Premedidated homicide is included within the term of homicide.
Murder itself, however, is inherently a legal term. Homicide in itself, though used as a term legally, is not. This is why lawful is important, because lawful incorporates the need for good reason(justified), as deemed, necessary. "Unjustified" does not necessarily incorporate whether or not that killing is lawful. it also does not establish it as a prosecutable crime either, quite the necessity if one is going to see it fit to prosecute killing of one person by another as a crime 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Ok Daytona will be replacing JusticeWept, roles will be issued shortly
Created:
Posted in:
Excellent,
1.Smithereens
2. Virtuoso
3. Earth
4. (???)
5. Wylted
6. Rational
7. 1Harder
We need one more player, or for Justice to make their presence known. then I can reissue roles, collect NA's, for NP1, and begin DP1 👏👏
Created:
Posted in:
Thanks so far to everyone responding btw. This thread was because I was exploring potential mock trial ideas and felt this was a very compelling hypothetical circumstance.
Its also tbh discovering potential independent debate topics as well 👏👏
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Physician assisted suicide is legal in multiple countries and in seven U.S. states
So it's not murder there, but should it, or should it not, be considered as such, independent of whether or not it is lawful in particular areas?
Created:
Posted in:
Murder is the unjustified killing of another person.
*Unlawful
Murdering person X because you can get their stuff afterwards is a justification for killing in itself. Whether or not one agrees it is sufficient justification is a different matter. That is where lawful becomes necessary to the definition as opposed to unjustified fmpov, because justified does not equal that which is just either necessarily or in any signifigant measure.
Created:
Posted in:
Harm and wellbeing are by and large objective.__________justice, if that can even be attained, is of secondary importance to promoting public safety
So, before we go any further into discussing, to clarify, Primary Concern in Jurisprudence to you is Utility, and therein, especially focused upon harm reduction and promotion of general welfare?
This because, as you claim, Harm and Well-being both are objective criteria, at the least, moreso objective? 🤔
Created:
Or to better put it, because the candidate who won, only recieved votes from a signifigant plurality, this necessarily means they should not hold office/those results are invalid?
Created:
a fringe plurality wanted trump or hilary to win, but most everyone else wanted neither of them
And everyone else wasn't able to field a candidate that beat either in primary elections at the end of the day.
If im understanding you right, because the winning primary candidates won, that inherently means the ones who supported candidates who lost, are being deprived of their vote(somehow) wrongly?
Created:
the current system still causes fringe candidates to get into power.
You need to define fringe. Fringe = not having positive approval ratings?
Because fringe could also mean candidates with very little support, or polarized/extreme political ideologies.
Why have a simple majority election at all? Why not just exclusively a run-off system?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Assisted suicide is not murder.
Interesting take, why do you hold this to be the case? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Wouldn't you agree, laws aside, jurisprudence in general ought be rational and consistent, by virtue of being an excercise in the pursuit of Justice?
I apologize for not saying this forthrightly, but tbh, I figured this could go without being said
Created:
Posted in:
Indeed i did, and my response had nothing to do with laws of any nation or any sort of other law.When I asked what our goal was in this situation you left that up to me.
I merely asked for reconciliation of an observed inconsistency. As well as presenting an
an interesting implication if primarily using the supplied metric as a basis for judgement, and why that metric was being used primarily 🤔
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
What if the political spectrum, as thought of in either a horizontal axis ↔or even adding a vertical axis ↕, is a spook 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
@keithprosser
Both p1 and p3 wanted p2 dead, p1 for personal reasons and p3 for the fee, so they both have motive.
True 🔥
Also both take deliberate, conscious steps to bring about the death of p2.
Premeditation 😰
I see both as equally culpable and as just as culpable as if they had acted alone.
I don't disagree facially with them being equally culpable. Something just irks me about how that conclusion comes about. Both having motive to kill, both wanting the death to happen, only one actually does the killing.
This is an interesting area because as Smithereens points out in regards to threat to society at large
P1 enables P3 to exist in the first place, so heavy jail term but not as severe as P3, since they don't appear to be capable of killing people themself.
This being a compelling angle on culpability. That offers good reason fmpov why P1 is, per virtue of likely not being capable of such act themselves, not as culpable. 🤔
No P3, likely no killing of P2. P3 even existing constitutes as evidence to support this likelihood in itself fmpov 🤔
That sounds like an interesting movie 🔥.
Created:
Posted in:
Excellent orator, read some of his stuff previously, but you don't get a sense of how good he is in the aforementioned regard from writing necessarily 🤔.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
Created:
the state controlling production or running social programs has nothing to do with what socialism was meant to be.
I just 😂. Yes, I get that technically Marx's "Socialism" ideally involved zero "state" control and total co-operation among the proletariat regarding means of production and the distribution of what is produced.
This just brings up the immediate issue:
address how you go about ensuring nobody strays from operating according to a communitarian/collectivist doctrine while producing.
*Oops* The State is back, should I tell them to go away? 🤔
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
Idk man, trolling can never realistically be ruled out in this day and age 🤔
Created:
communism/socialism is a classless and egalitarian society
>Bourgeois and Proletariat
>Classless
Pick one, you can't have both 🙃
The modern bourgeois society has... but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.[1] (Karl Marx himself, Communist Manifesto)
*Egalitarian*
Yes, because group A commits genocide on Group B.. how egalitarian. 🙈
Boy, we're done here anyways. You call me brainwashed but you called Communism a classless ideology despite class(identity) being the focal point of the ideology..
Check yourself 🙃
Created:
Hi, its Socialism here to remind you that it was Karl Marx's answer to the issue of the lack of incentive to produce in the utopic vision of global Communism that never was to actually be as such because even in the manifesto Marx states Socialism is a necessary system needed to achieve "Communism."🙃
Hrmmmm, a system that needs to assert totalitarian control on markets... where have i heard of that one before[2]. A system that pushes extreme identitarianism? Hrmmm, where have i heard that before. [1][2][3].
Nationalism is the only crucial differentiator and well, seems national identity would be a logical place to achieve the greatest amount of progress in implementing Socialism eh? Especially if, as seen by the 1930's, capitalism was raising wealth across the board... except in countries like Germany and Italy where foreign measure were crippling their economic abilities 🙈.
And when the view boils down to rich=bad, poor = good. Its pretty easy to start pushing nationality considering there are nations who are wealthy(bourgeois), and nations who are poor(proletariat).
To-morrow, Fascists and communists, both persecuted by the police, may arrive at an agreement, sinking their differences until the time comes to share the spoils. I realise that though there are no political affinities between us, there are plenty of intellectual affinities. Like them, we believe in the necessity for a centralised and unitary state, imposing an iron discipline on everyone, but with the difference that they reach this conclusion through the idea of class, we through the idea of the nation.The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution, Jacob Talmon, University of California Press (1981) p. 494
Indeed, the doctrine of Facism co-authored by Benito Mussolini, with ghostwriter Giovani Gentile[4] rejects Marxism, Socialism, Individualism, etc. but on the grounds that none of them recognize the necessity of nationalism in relation to class. Facism was born from Socialism. Mussolini himself being the leader of the Socialist Party, after being a steadfast member for years, of Italy, which morphed into the Facist party.
So given this, the only effective difference between Facism and Communism/Socialism(two sides of the same coin) is the addition of Nationality.
Two ideologies that share every primary characteristic except Ultranationalism(Identitarian)
>Precise Opposites
Wew lad 🙃🙈
Created:
*specific opposites*
You have a funny way of labeling two things that are vastly similar and differentiate in minor ways 🤔
Created:
-->
@Type1
Communism is literally the precise opposite of fascism
In that Communism is Anarchist and Facism, total state control, yes. That doesn't mean they are precise opposites, or opposites to every degree.
You lack historical perspective on this.
Communism, the creation of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, was an "end-game" ideology. It held that the inevitable result of capitalism was a violent revolution(over increased disparity in wealth and living conditions) and subsequent anarchistic communal adoption of equal distribution of resources.[1]
The following are excerpts from the Communist Party Manifesto authored by Marx and Engels in 1848
The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution... and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.
Well it was actually Russia that such a revolution struck first, but Germany was actually well on the way to such a revolution. Indeed, oft referred to as Facists as they are, the Nazi Party had an interesting 25 point agenda that, "Combines extreme nationalism, racism and some socialist concepts."[2]
Who developed Socialism you might ask? Well none other than Karl Marx again[3]. Socialism was the means of achieving Communism globally.
What will this new social order have to be like? Above all it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole. it will abolish competition and replace it with association.[1]
This is derived from the Communist Manifesto itself, thats an exact description of socialism. Sprinkle in some nationalism and hatred of jews(the top 1% income quintile in Germany at the time 🙃) *oops* we got ourselves a Nazi.
Created:
Posted in:
p1 killed p3 using p2 as a weapon.
So P3 is a weapon(tool)? Not actually the one committing the killing, rather, P1 is by consequence of ordering it? This would mean equal culpability?
I'm struggling to see any difference in the level or sort of crime committed by p1 an p3.
But you supplied a difference in the directly preceding sentence to this 🤔
Created:
tl;dr- if there is gonna be Communism as an ideology choice, there should also be Facism. 👏👏
Created: