Total posts: 132
-->
@bmdrocks21
Let's assume State A would be relatively fine without annexing the territory in question from State B.State A might go severely into debt from this war they didn't want to start, and as a result, cannot provide for healthcare, education, and police for its own people. They need some economic benefit to make sure their country doesn't fall into anarchy. In that case, I could see a decent argument for pressuring State B. I might think their tactics are extreme, but if hundreds of thousands of their people might starve, die of disease, and never receive an education, wouldn't you be more on their side?
I agree that what you suggest is plausible. But my purpose with this example is to set up an indisputable conflict between what we would normally consider moral and pursuit of the national interest. This then forces us to ask whether the pursuit of the national interest is itself morally justified. If the pursuit of the national interest is morally justified in its own right, a state could be justified in inflicting suffering on the world that would not occur otherwise.
By the way, thanks for showing interest in my thread. I appreciate your participation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I will keep you in mind, thanks.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Cool. I think that might help me provide an example that could be useful in helping answer the question I posed in post #5.
Alright, here's another attempt at a plausible example:
States A and B are engaged in a war. They want the war to end, and start negotiating a peace settlement. State A believes it would be in the national interest if they could get State B to cede some economically valuable territory in the peace settlement. State B refuses to agree to this, instead offering a white peace.
Rather than accept the white peace, State A decides a little more fighting, in order to wear down State B's will to resist the demand of ceding territory, is in the national interest. Therefore, State A keeps the war going. Hell, maybe they even intensify it a little, sprinkling in some heavy bombing of civilian population centers.
In this instance, State A's actions have resulted in what we would usually consider wrong: the killing of people who did not deserve to be killed. In this instance, State A acted as it did to pursue the national interest (i.e. to force State B to cede the land).
This gets me back to my question in post #5. How far can a state justifiably go in pursuing the national interest? Can it take actions which will result in the killing of hundreds or thousands more to achieve what it considers to be an important interest?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
For the purpose of this discussion, would you agree to the following definition of "the national interest"?
"Any international behavior the government believes would benefit the nation."
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Requested example:
During the Cold War, the US overthrows a legitimately elected leader of a foreign country, because that leader espouses socialist rhetoric and is perceived to be a (potential) ally of the USSR.
This action could be considered wrong, because the people of the foreign country have a right to democratically elect their leaders. Yet, it could be considered in the US national interest, because containing Communism preserves American safety and influence in the long-run.
Another example:
The US generally turns a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's dismal human rights track record, because being on good terms with the Saudis is in our national interest, whereas pressuring them to make reforms is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It's a 20-sided die. Numbers 1-20.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey all, I'm looking for 5 individuals to join me in playing A Horrible One-Sided Deal. This is a "matrix game," meaning it relies on structured arguments and assigned probabilities to determine what happens in the game. You can think of it as sort of like D&D but, in this case, the in-game actors are states instead of individuals. Hopefully, as you read on, the information I provide will make clear what playing this game would be like.
Introduction
This game explores the contemporary tensions between Iran and the US. The game is set in present day. Pages 2-5 of the hyperlinked document provide a decent summary of recent US-Iran tensions. You can also refer to this Vox timeline which is being updated as necessary. This article does a decent job of explaining where Iran is with respect to the JCPOA.
There are 5 actors in the game: the US, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the European Union. Each player will assume control of one of these actors, and they will roleplay according to the interests and values of their chosen actor. In the hyperlinked document, players can find briefing documents for each actor, which outlines their perspectives and general aims. It is up to each player to decide what their specific objectives will be as we play.
How play works
When it is a player's turn, they declare one action their state is taking. They make an argument as to why this action should succeed. Other players will have 24 hours to make arguments as to why the action should fail. The Facilitator (me), after assessing all arguments, sets percentage chance of success. Using this dice roll lobby that keeps everything on the record, the Facilitator will roll to see if the action succeeds or fails, according to the determined percentage.
Example: It is Iran's turn, and Iran declares their action: "We are going to use mines and limited naval attacks to seriously harass oil tankers moving through the Strait of Hormuz." The Iran player justifies this by referring to their briefing document, which says "Iran has the ability to severely impede oil shipments through shore-based missiles, mines, naval and small boat attacks, and covert operations." The Iran player also justifies this by pointing to recent history, in which Iran was alleged to have performed these types of actions.
The US player argues that since it has a Carrier Strike Group in the region (see hyperlinked document), it may be difficult for the Iranian navy to "seriously harass" oil tankers.
The Facilitator considers both arguments, and decides the odds generally favor Iran. They give Iran 70% of success (which means 7 or higher dice roll with a d20). The Facilitator uses the aforementioned dice roll lobby to roll a virtual d20. The outcome is a 10, meaning Iran's action succeeds. The Facilitator announces Iranian success, adding that global oil prices have spiked by 30%.
Each round proceeds as follows:
- Iran's turn
- US' turn
- Saudi Arabia's turn
- European Union's turn
- Russia's turn
At any time during play, any player can make a statement to the rest of the group. At any time during play, any player can direct message another player to hold confidential bilateral discussions.
The game will go on for as many rounds as the Facilitator (with player input) deems best for the construction of a credible narrative.
More things to know before you agree to play
- A player will have 72 hours to declare an action and provide a supporting argument once it becomes their turn. If 72 hours elapse without an action and argument from that player, the Facilitator will announce that player has passed and move the game onto the next person's turn, at which point the 72 hour clock resets.
- When a player declares an action and provides a supporting argument, other players have 48 hours to submit supporting/opposing arguments
- These arguments should be kept relatively brief. A paragraph at most
- When you are declaring an action and providing a supporting argument as a part of your turn, start your text with "ACTION:" to make clear to everyone what's going on. If you are simply making a statement to the group, start your text with "STATEMENT:". If you want to make an out-of-character statement, just start your text with "OOC:".
- There are no pre-defined objectives or victory points. There will not necessarily be an 'objective' winner. However, when the game ends, players will have an opportunity to discuss their goals, decision-making, and achievements.
- The overarching goal is to collectively construct a credible narrative and have fun doing it. We may even learn a thing or two.
I will accept players on a first-come first-serve basis. When you accept, tell me what country you want.
Please feel free to ask questions.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Now that I re-read things a bit, I think I get where you were coming from. Were you referring to the behavior of a state in its own domestic affairs? I guess I never made explicit that when I talk about 'pursuing the national interest' I'm talking about international affairs.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And then it really comes down to whether you are an individualist or collectivist. Are you okay with violating the rights of small groups for the good of the rest of people? Or, do you think that infringements on personal liberty are against the national interest?
I don't see how the individualism/collectivism frame applies here. It seems like in-group/out-group is the better frame. Is it ok to severely hurt the out-group (foreigners) to pursue the interest of the in-group (members of the state)?
Maybe I misunderstood your point, though.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
<br>The point of a nation is to serve its people by looking out for its interests and preserving their rights.
This is pretty much where I see states acquiring their moral right to pursue the national interest. States are social constructs created by 'the people' to serve their interests. In other words, governments are contractually obligated to pursue the national interest.
One could attack this line of reasoning by arguing that the very concept of states is wrong, but I don't think I'm able to do that effectively.
But how far do you think this justification takes us? Can a government do anything to further the national interest, no matter how repugnant?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is it morally permissible or required for the state to stick to pragmatism?
Created:
Are states morally justified in pursuing the 'national interest'? If so, how?
Alternatively, should we remove morality from the question of international affairs entirely?
Personally, I have trouble identifying a solid justification for pursuing the national interest. I think a lot of my trouble with this stems from the fictive nature of states. According to the accident of one's birth, a state may serve them or kill them to serve another. I have more thoughts on the origin and limits of moral justifications for pursuit of the national interest, but I don't feel super strongly about them (or else I'd do a debate on it). What do you think?
Created:
-->
@Alec
I think I make a good case here why retaining minimum nuclear deterrents would be preferable to total nuclear weapons abolition. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1581/conservative-nuclear-arsenals-are-preferable-to-total-nuclear-weapons-abolition
Created:
Posted in:
Short debate on the odds of extraterrestrial intelligence. My opponent forfeited the final round: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1563/extraterrestrial-intelligence-is-more-likely-common-than-uncommon
Created:
Posted in:
My first debate, and my opponent concedes at the end. Easy vote. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1581/conservative-nuclear-arsenals-are-preferable-to-total-nuclear-weapons-abolition
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
A couple things struck me about your reply.
First, you implied that ELOs increase once someone becomes a mod, but you did not provide evidence.
Second, you quoted me as saying "But can you prove this? You have certainly identified the dots, but how can you prove you are connecting them correctly?" To which you replied:
I probably could, but why would I go through the effort it would take? Especially when it would change nothing?
Well, for one, don't you want to believe true things? If you can't provide the evidence/data, how can you confidently hold the position you do? Also, I think you could effect change, if you went about it the right way. Which leads me to my third point of interest.
I'm not attacking people, the system is bad. Things will deteriorate till the problem is fixed. So I will wait. After the horse dies, someone posting "dozens" of links showing how healthy it is won't matter.
Have you proposed a solution? If you think there is a systemic problem, maybe there could be a systemic solution? Until you actually try to propose a change, how can you know trying is futile?
I remain skeptical that your basic position is true, but I am convinced you believe it's true. Furthermore, I can understand why conservative members of the site would share your concerns. On that understanding alone, I would be open hearing any proposals. If a proposal can make more members of the site feel more comfortable (without comprising the quality of the site), then I am all for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Dr.Franklin
Could it not be that mods vote frequently and win often because they are skilled and highly committed to this site?
And could it not be that, as you put it, "conservative" viewpoints often lose because their proponents are poor debaters, or simply because the "conservative" position can't stand up in logical debate?
I have considered the "cabal" scenario, too. Viewed through a cynical lens, mods certainly do look like a self-interested cabal. But can you prove this? You have certainly identified the dots, but how can you prove you are connecting them correctly?
What if the mods are reasonably fair, intelligent, and dedicated to the site, and you just happen to lose often because you are not a good debater, and/or your positions are logically inferior?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well, not intentionally. I forgot he was gay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
<br>He is completely out of touch with what voters want.
Agreed. His decision to jump in is laughable and I seriously doubt he'll accomplish much. I agree with you also, that it reflects his out-of-touch hubris.
People like Warren, Butigeg and, to a lesser degree, Biden should be worried about losing a few points to Bloomberg.
I don't follow the race very closely, but from what I know, I have to disagree on this. I think Warren is too left of Bloomberg for any of her supporters to defect. I don't know about Mayor Booty-Geg. I think Biden, who has centrist appeal, should be most worried about Bloomberg.
Created:
Posted in:
Though the two are partly set in space, they are definitely different types of movies.
That said, which do you prefer?
Both have spectular visuals and great emotional performances, but for me, it has to be Ad Astra. There is something about the slow pace, beautiful visuals, and Brad Pitt's subtle yet engrossing portrayal of McBride that really hit the spot for me.
There's also a lot to unpack about the movies messages and to what extent they overlap/diverge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I think lumping is a great idea. Put whatever you want together. If I want to talk about a political issue, I have no problem with going to a forum section for "Society, Politics, Philosophy," etc. As long as I know where to go, it does not matter to me if there are somewhat unrelated posts lumped together in a forum section. I expect this reform will generally increase participation in all forum posts.
Also, it seems like people are complaining about where in the list order their favorite topic is placed. Who cares? How could it possibly matter if religion is listed last or second-to-last? There are only going to be a handful of sections, so it's not like people couldn't be bothered to scroll down a massive list to stumble upon religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Based on the assumption that primitive alien civilisations are likely to develop in exactly the same way as human civilisation.Which is a fair assumption I suppose. Universal constants and all.Though based on these simple criteria, it would also be fair to assume that other universal civilisations are unlikely to be any more or less developed than our own.
Even if we assume aliens generally develop like us, there is good reason to expect we'd encounter extraterrestrials vastly more advanced and vastly less advanced than us. Human civilization is about 10,000 years old, which is like the blink of an eye on the cosmic timescale. Considered from this perspective, the odds that we would encounter aliens on par with our technological advancement actually seems low. What an incredible coincidence it would be if, in a galaxy that is billions of years old, we found aliens that were in the same basic place as us, technologically speaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Would you agree to the following definition of Extraordinary Claim? "Any claim that seemingly contradicts a great number of facts."
It seems like your escalating bears on the side of the road examples implicitly fit within this definition. In each case, your incredulity rises as the hypothetical claims increasingly fly in the face of what we know about bears in the wild.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I appreciate your reply. For the Archons episode, I just figured Kirk was creating a loophole for the sake of the plot. I never took Kirk's (frequent) circumventions of the Prime Directive seriously, at least not in any philosophical sense.
Stepping aside from direct examples from Star Trek, what do you think about strict non-interference? You said that allowing a civilization to die is immoral. I agree. What about less clear cut situations?
For example, what if a technologically superior alien race had come across Earth while the Black Plague was ravaging humanity - would it have been morally justified for them to unobtrusively intervene by deploying an airborne cure to the disease?
What if technologically superior aliens had encountered Earth in the midst of WWII? Would they have been justified in forcibly ending the hostilities, in order to save lives?
Created:
Posted in:
I think this question is too given to speculation to make for a good debate, but it still interests me.
Basically, Star Trek's heroes must abide by the Prime Directive, an order that forbids them from interfering in the affairs of primitive civilizations. Hardcore fans could probably argue it's more complicated than that, but let's assume it is this simple for the sake of this thread.
I suppose you could make two basic arguments in favor of the Prime Directive: an argument from utility and an argument from principle.
The argument from utility would contend that interference in alien cultures - no matter how benevolent in intention - will likely backfire and cause more problems than it solves.
The argument from principle would contend that interference in alien cultures is wrong simply because a species has a collective right to self-determination and unfettered development. According to this line of thought, there is something intrinsically desirable about a species charting its course without the guidance/influence of extraterrestrials.
But, if one were to adopt a policy of strict non-interference vis a vis primitive alien civilizations, one would commit oneself to the following:
-Permitting genocides and highly destructive wars.
-Permitting plagues, disease, general poor health and misery
-Permitting extinction events
It seems that although the Prime Directive has good intentions, it could result in unjust outcomes, at least some of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I really appreciate your reply - I had given up hope on being able to discuss this with anybody.
I can see the reasonableness of your definition of Extraordinary Claims, and I can see how it would be useful for you (or anyone) when approaching claims that have paradigm-shifting implications.
I guess the only question I have is, are you ok with the fact that one person may consider claim X Extraordinary while another person, who holds a different worldview, may consider claim X non-Extraordinary? Does the subjective nature of Extraordinary reduce its usefulness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I hope you don't mind me tagging you out of the blue. I noticed in your "Bigfoots are Bullshit" description, you seemed to invoke the Sagan Standard. I was wondering if you care to comment on the ideas presented here?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Although I included a plug at the end, I hope you don't think I was being shallow/self-interested. I think it should be evident from the text of my reply that I am genuinely interested in this subject.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
This is an interesting question. If I were to directly answer it, I would, frankly, be engaged in unsubstantiated speculation.
However, I am inclined to ask: is the present state of Earth's biosphere an evolutionary inevitability, given the conditions in which natural selection operated, or is our current biosphere merely one of many possible outcomes given the conditions in which natural selection operated?
If it's an evolutionary inevitability, we may very well find humanoid aliens living on any Earth-like planets we find.
If it's one of many possible outcomes, then aliens could come in truly strange forms, even if they originated from Earth-like planets.
Another question: just how broad is the spectrum of environments advanced life could arise in? Most experts suggest water is a prerequisite for life, but what if there are alternatives?
If you are interested in the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence, you may enjoy reading my debate in progress titled "Extraterrestrial Intelligence is More Likely Common than Uncommon."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This is the really sad thing. I try to engage with fellow thinkers on the basis of my ideas, but my incredible on-screen charisma and endless sex appeal ensure all people want to know is if "I'm the real Jeff Goldblum?"
Created:
Posted in:
The Sagan Standard: "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence"
I often hear atheists on the internet use this line, seemingly to raise the evidence requirements for theistic claims. But something about this sits wrong with me. Shouldn't all claims be evaluated equally (i.e. on their evidential merits)? If someone wants to claim God exists, what makes that claim Extraordinary, compared to claiming the Big Bang happened? Why can't we approach them both as claims, and decide if we accept the claim based on its merit?
I found this article abstract that argues "Extraordinary Claims" should be precisely defined as a claim that is contradicted by a wealth of factual observations. The author defines "Extraordinary Evidence" as a massive number of supporting observations.
Under these definitions, claiming God exists would not be an Extraordinary claim, would it? After all, an invisible metaphysical entity cannot be disproven. To be clear, I'm not some crank trying to justify their god belief by saying the Sagan Standard is misused. I'm just a skeptic.
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
I agree with settling the Moon first. Establishing permanent living quarters on Mars - and maintaining them - would be exponentially more difficult than on the Moon. It takes about 3 days to reach the Moon and 6-9 months to reach Mars. Think of all the logistical challenges you would face on Mars that you wouldn't on the Moon. I can list a couple just off the top of my head:
-Communication. Radio signals take about 15 minutes to get from Mars to Earth. If people on Mars need to communicate urgently with mission control on Earth, the fastest reply they can expect is in half an hour.
-Health issues. The 6-9 month journey to Mars in zero G would be bad for travelers' health, not to mention spending extended time with Martian gravity (.4 G). For the Moon, the journey would be much shorter, and if desired, individuals could more easily spend shorter durations on the Lunar base, which would be better for their health.
-Cost. Space travel isn't cheap. I think the nations of Earth would prefer paying for 3-day trips instead of 9-month ones.
Oh, also, as featured in Ad Astra, you could launch voyages to Mars from the Moon. The benefit in doing this is found in the Moon's low gravity - launching from the Moon requires less fuel than launching from Earth.
I think settling the Moon first is a no-brainer. Since it's close by, it's a perfect training ground where we can perfect the science of settlement.
Created: