@RationalMadman
I've known some people in life,
To say a caveman experience, was a a valuable moment when they learned what can happen when not respecting others.
(They got beaten up for some type of behavior I mean)
I'm not saying it's 'good to beat other people up, especially if not both agreeing to it,
Just the thought I had after reading your post.
@Barney
Fair point on wording,
Alas, too late, I just got back from work.
Well, I wouldn't say right to force someone into a duel,
But right to challenge and accept, or refuse, be what I 'meant.
Lots of rights have caveats though, or legal strings,
Like bearing arms, can't bear arms in some places.
Consent to do something that has been suggested by another person.
Abe demands Bob apologize for some situation, or accept a duel,
Bob is able to decline, with no consequences other than people thinking him to have lost honor,
However Bob states that he 'agrees to the duel.
The two individuals then follow the legal dueling procedure,
Whatever it be, informing the authorities beforehand, using seconds, or whatever etiquette may be.
. . .
Well, 'agree would mean, yes I consent to duel you,
Maybe the dueling culture has it that the challenged party is able to choose the weapons used, time, place, to what extent the duel is to be fought,
I might have to re-read on duels, if someone debates a certain way.
. . .
"Since Lincoln was challenged by Shields he had the privilege of choosing the weapon of the duel. He chose cavalry broadswords "of the largest size." "I didn't want the d—-d fellow to kill me, which I think he would have done if we had selected pistols," he later explained. For his own part, he did not want to kill Shields, but "felt sure [he] could disarm him" with a blade. At six feet, four inches tall, Lincoln planned to use his height to his advantage against Shields, who stood at a mere five feet, nine inches tall.
The day of the duel, September 22, arrived and the combatants met at Bloody Island, Missouri to face death or victory. As the two men faced each other, with a plank between them that neither was allowed to cross, Lincoln swung his sword high above Shields to cut through a nearby tree branch. This act demonstrated the immensity of Lincoln’s reach and strength and was enough to show Shields that he was at a fatal disadvantage. With the encouragement of bystanders, the two men called a truce. "
"Washington and Texas are the only two states in the United States where mutual combat is legal. In Washington, the mutual combat must take place in a public place, and both parties must agree to the fight. Additionally, the altercation must not result in serious bodily injury, or participants can face charges."
https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/mutual-combat-states/#:~:text=Washington%20and%20Texas%20are%20the,or%20participants%20can%20face%20charges.
Also edited my debate to say be able to duel, even to the death.
@Frameworthless Video
Can one really 'not have a framework?
Even if one comes to an intellectual conclusion of nihilism,
They do not drop to the ground, as a puppet, strings cut.
They continue one,
For strings still exist,
Their own nerves, muscles, spine, brain.
Even if one tried the DC Two Face method of flipping a coin,
Well, that's a choice,
To decide at whatever one feels, a framework.
I suppose one might cease to have the ability to choose,
Insofar as we can,
Should they 'damage their mind, brain,
Though if it was a choice. . .
Well, there is always outside chance and outside intention that can damage, without our consent.
. . .
Possessed,
Reminds me of Demons by Dostovesky,
The novel is also called The Possessed, in Russian.
One of it's themes is new ideas, taking hold of people in Russia.
. . .
Man, he sure says framework a lot.
. . .
Bah, a chimp or an elephant can paint art.
. . .
His advice is not normal,
As I, or most people I know would consider it.
. . .
People 'do seem to like beauty, the sublime.
I did notice it was a theme in the debate.
Does the Youtuber speak of a specific framework being cherrypicked,
Or framework pieces in general, being picked and chosen?
Of 'true Stoicism, I don't know much,
But could argue they were concerned with not being enslaved by their own mind,
Rather than their outer condition.
Of thought, typing, I'm uncertain.
. . .
Those three dots, well,
Were in my mind,
A pause, a moment thinking,
I 'think it's more typing out, than thought though.
I like separating out points or places, where a breath of air would feel appropriate in life.
Easier to read, I'd imagine.
I've heard it pointed out before, but what 'exactly is poetic in my speech, misses me a bit.
If the words all rhymed I'd get it,
Or perhaps I'm alliterative in parts,
But I don't much consciously see it.
Thanks,
And thanks for accepting the debate,
I enjoyed it,
Let me air my thoughts,
Let me hear another's views,
Learn more about Stoicism.
Backstory,
I forgot to put in description, on 'reason for debate,
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/484 - Modern Stoic Philosophy, and the authors comments right below the webcomic.
Debate,
Hm, from my view I lack fine details and organization, in debates.
Still, I like a number of my examples, myself,
And don't think my logic is all in the wrong direction.
For you, I think you did a good job laying out what a Stoic historically is, their beliefs and what.
Connecting their ideas to one another,
Arguing against passion/self interest,
And kept on any points you previously made, asking they be specifically addressed, than generally handwaved.
Of debaters claiming points during a debate,
Such as saying they successfully refuted an opponents argument,
Or that an opponent failed to do this or that,
I'm unsure, such 'can be true,
'Can be useful in making a point,
But I think of it like boxing a bit,
The boxers don't call out their own points and score, the judges do, at the end.
A person can always 'claim such, even if they didn't,
Such can create an illusion of they 'did.
More it would be on Con to argue that using Stoicism without adhering strongly to it's ideology is bad.
While Pro would argue that much of the ideology can be thrown out if convenient, yet still be classified as Stoicism, if many of it's methods and ideas are used.
. . .
I suppose an example could be an Atheist using and following much of the Bible,
To gain advantage.
I imagine many might say they are not a Christian,
And/Or not using Christianity.
I suppose I 'might agree with the not a Christian,
But that there 'are Atheistic Christian,
The Jefferson Bible pops to mind, as something in that direction.
Direction though,
People aren't certain on Jefferson's beliefs I think.
(Shrug)
'Still the God of Abraham, (I think)
Still, the blind men, all feel the elephant,
Though different parts,
And by their senses, experiences, actions,
Have different conceptions.
@rayhan16
To experience pain,
Implies to me change,
A person can change from not being in a type of pain,
To being in a type of pain,
Assuming people in the Islamic Hell are not constantly tortured by everything without a millisecond of not being tortured by everything at once.
If change is possible,
Then arguably the mind can change,
New memory experiences can be had,
Assuming everyone doesn't have Dementia or Alzheimer's in Hell.
Thus I'd argue that it'd be feasible for 'everyone to exit Hell,
By becoming Muslims while in Hell,
(Though I don't much like or agree with Hell as torture, myself)
Unfortunately I don't know much of the Christian Bible,
But even less of Islamic texts,
Still,
Christian Bible talks about "refining" a lot,
Which one could argue has to do with refining out impurities,
https://www.openbible.info/topics/refiners_fire
But, (shrug)
Books say a lot of things.
And I'm not a believer myself.
@Thinking to Self
One might argue that,
If an individual orders a dog to attack me, that individual is responsible, for my being bitten.
If I commit some crime or danger to another person, then I hold a measure of responsibility for a policeman ordering a dog to attack me.
If I enter private property, and a dog attacks me, that I hold a measure of responsibility.
If I enter private property unknowingly, Eh, why can't ignorance be an excuse.
From my glancing at the debate,
Sounds that Islam can be war or peace.
As for the Hell argument,
Eh, Con wouldn't need to believe in it themself, to use it in their argument.
Though I'm not sure even if Hell existed, whether it'd make Islam peaceful or not,
Reason being, my mind drifts a bit,
There's the Islamic Deity, The Followers, The World. . .
If there was a religion that was 'super nice on Earth, but claimed a bad afterlife, would the religion be peaceful or not?
Not saying Islam is the nicest religion on Earth, just meant as an example.
Who is doing the torturing?
Does one 'assume the Deity can or ought stop Hell?
That 'sounds a bit weak, to people who say Deities can do and know anything I suppose,
But it's not as though 'we know all the details.
Well. . .
If they existed, myself I'm an Atheist,
But I don't mind people having different views, generally speaking.
@Sir.Lancelot
I think part of the problem is that issues and ideologies are vague, variable, and numerous in general,
Though people have aspects of issues, certain examples in mind,
When they say one is good or bad, wanted or unwanted.
I think it's also a problem when something specific and small is argued,
Such as Individual vs Collective,
I think that these small specific parts, again, easily find their ways into many definitions, issues, sides,
Even opposing issues, ideologies, sides.
@NoOneInParticular
I think,
You can't really have individual or state rights,
Unless there are mechanisms in place to place that.
I think that powerful nations 'require,
Some giving of 'some individual liberties, . . . Maybe.
Though which one's we ought keep, which give away, varies.
And some I 'greatly prefer to keep.
And maybe a strong nation needs some individual liberties,
Eh.
I think that force and coercion can find various ways and methods,
It can be the state, it can be a company, it can be a group or an individual.
Sorry I don't have enough of a takeaway, for a vote,
Might just be me though, rather than the debate.
My take is, definitions used by both were confused and broad,
As well as too much responsibility to said definitions given to historical actions, by both debaters.
@Self
Pro life doesn't tend to see pregnancy and childbirth as significant enough risk, 'not to, if already.
Many individuals have preformed on them aesthetic surgery, 'many individuals.
Hazardous sounds vague enough in this debate, that activity can be argued against being 'excessively hazardous. (Though 'what excessive means, is subjective)
Sorry, deleted my comment of, something like,
Don't trans often claim surgery is necessary, otherwise many individuals kill themselves,
So Con just needs prove not having surgery is more dangerous than, not having surgery.
I forget 'why I deleted it, been awake a while, fell asleep afterward.
As Intelligence_06 says, everything is dangerous,
So the definition by Pro doesn't bother me, one just uses common sense with it,
If someone has a debate that claims medical surgery is dangerous,
I see no problem with a person admitting danger, but then pointing out person with certain bad heart,
I don't see heart issue as unrelated to question of surgery being dangerous or not.
I suppose if long lived intelligences existed,
That saw continual improvement in individuals understanding and control, more they aged,
Such as elves or robots, maybe,
They might have higher age bar,
To entering certain votes, positions.
Though,
If one's situation is effected, one generally wants a say.
I suppose if children were stronger, they'd have a say,
But strength is not only in body and mind, but is societal structure and norms,
A human child waits X years, they're then on the other side, 'have their right to vote, and what.
Well, sometimes people see certain changes to a person, as too wrong/extreme, that the choice, option, ought never be offered/in by society/government.
Optional Suicide Booths, Optional Sterilization of Certain Groups, Optional Sex Change, Optional Lobotomies, Optional Certain Recreational Drugs.
I don't think a moral ruler, is the same as a 12 inch wooden ruler.
. . .
Let's say someone makes a moral ruler, it measures a type of Individual Freedom,
Yes, actions can be measured against the type of Individual Freedom Ruler,
But doesn't make something 'Right, it means that actions can be measured of a type of Individual Freedom Ruler,
Improved, chosen,
But 'still to my view lacking the' objective right and wrong,
Kill an animal for the pleasure of eating,
Kill an animal for pleasure of brag,
Both are pleasure, luxury, for some, though not all.
What with animals being an important food and nutrient source in places and history.
Well, I'm 'not my arm in a sense,
And in another sense 'am,
The arm can be lost, but Lemming will remain,
My spine can be broken, living in an iron lung, but Lemming will remain,
I won't be 'all I was, able to do and feel all I did, but I'll still 'be,
Once my mind is gone?
No, then 'I'm gone,
Make a copy of me, kill me and replace me with the copy,
Well, other people might not notice, copy might not notice,
But Lemming Original sure died,
Personally I'm hopeful that the ship of Theseus we are, manages to 'continue 'being the original by continuous consciousness, I hate the idea of dying X many times in my life, before the copier itself dies.
Saint Augustine: Is consciousness continuous, where we are conscious at each single point in time, or is it discrete, where we are conscious only at certain moments of time?
A corpse would not be Lemming, in a sense.
Mummies find no eternal life in their wrappings, though their echos verb a time longer.
When I die some day (Ideally of old age)
My heart stops to beat, my matter decays and transforms,
I will no longer be,
It doesn't matter to me, that the building blocks that made up me shall continue, for 'I shall not.
A square or a circle, drawn upon a piece of paper may need 'something to 'be,
Whether ink, graphite, or an indentation,
But when the shape has been rubbed or burned away,
Even if energy cannot be destroyed, the square or circle that was, 'has.
Why does it matter if two items are made from energy?
Paint is all pretty much paint, but people differentiate between paintings easily enough.
We're all blood and meat and bones, but differentiate between ourselves easy enough.
Even without a center of the universe, two things in relation to another can easily enough be separated?
Without emerging, how can a self exist?
Two flowers upon a vine, are not each other, though sharing the vine, and before budding, they were not, when they die, they will be, not.
From what I've read, a split brain doesn't have two consciousness, only one.
Just because one half of the brain can't transmit to the other doesn't mean both are conscious, just because one's eyes get removed from one's head, doesn't mean the eyes acquire or 'were ever conscious.
I don't really understand what atoms and molecules are,
But looking at online pictures, they look like spheres, sphere's have centers,
Therefore, what we're made of has centers.
As for distinguishing one clone from another, one Ship of Theseus from another,
Well despite being the same shape,
They're not in the same location in existence,
My clone is not me, 'I'm me, thinking my 'own thoughts, feeling my 'own experiences.
I currently think it's a reasonable enough position to hold,
To sort all energy (People) into a single set of sorts,
Though I prefer to be an individual Egoist, myself.
My pinky is identifiable as it's own finger, capable of being hurt on it's own,
Though a pain in it may resonate out to other body parts, or other body parts resonate to it,
Shares blood with the rest of the body, acts in tandem, is usually thought of as part of a whole body.
But is replaceable, that the whole see's no difference between a transplanted pinky and the old, (Assuming no transplant rejection).
Though sometimes I worry about consciousness, individuality, if we're material, where does it lay.
Cerebral cortex, some might hazard, but if all about it get's replaced, material and experience,. . . . Feels there's no holding on at times, to our 'selves, but I ramble.
In the end I hold to the visceral experience of 'appearance of self.
Even when one believes in a might is right philosophy, or that greed or self interest is good for the individual, ought be pursued. . .
Seems to me little reason to 'preach such, or encourage said philosophy in others.
One benefits most by others being altruistic, while oneself is selfish,
Secretly breaking one's own word whenever beneficial, while always trusting others to keep theirs.
Course, that's only 'if said philosophy actually 'is good for oneself,
Are many other arguments that being straight and honest, right by others is good for oneself, 'other than in the sense of the group, but for the individual as well.
Truly unhappy some would argue, are those unable to emphasize or do right.
Like Barry HBO or Homelander (The Boys)
I suppose it 'does sound better to be a united powerful nation, than a weak nation or number of smaller warring nations,
But. . . Ends are not always what they seem,
And Means Ends in themselves.
I'm not negative towards this debate, but curious.
All a person would have to do is block the exits of a building in which people gather, and light a fire with gasoline and tinder in the right locations.
For mass murder, I think of guns as a subpar method for an individual.
What matters is the insanity, weakness, and twisted minds of the perpetrators, and perceived popularity of guns.
'Maybe.
As for war, the 'number of people on Earth, might be more a cause of death in war, than guns.
Supply chains if broken causing starvation, thirst, disease,
Masses of repeated combat,
I'd hesitantly offer the Taiping Rebellion, as an example of less guns rather than more, yet an enormous death toll, even in modern times.
Besides, armies of powerful nations will never get rid of their guns, even if they strip them from the citizens to remove their autonomy.
I think.
Honestly I don't know,
Men and women are different biologically,
Different roles depending on culture,
Have their own difficulties and eases in life,
Shivering in the cold or baking in the heat, both hard situations.
I'm not saying either sex is the cold or the heat, just that even in different situations, either situation can be difficult in it's own way.
Could be I don't have an accurate view of Black Pill viewpoint,
Just to me, is that the statement that if something appears to offer/be more beneficial, that it attracts people more than something that appears to 'not offer/be more beneficial.
Seems clear cut, so I'd assume Black Pill argues something 'more.
(Edit on reading #17)
Eh, to my thinking statistics don't matter so much as desire.
If one 'wants a girlfriend or boyfriend, I imagine they can improve themselves some, search till they find a person.
It's not a 'certainty, success or failure,
But I think they'd be able to succeed more often than not, so long as they have their head on straight, and are not mentally dysfunctional, cruel in word and deed. Able to identify people 'worth spending one's life with.
In that sense, it's what's inside, rather than outside mattering, to my mind.
I'm not saying unattractive people have the exact same effort, as attractive people,
Because they don't, it's 'literally in the wording of Unattracting, attracting.
Though 'what people consider attractive varies from culture to culture.
But Black Pill, sounds like it's claiming that women 'only care about looks, and some individuals have no chance of getting with another person, so they ought not even try.
I'll admit,
Doesn't really seem feasible to argue that physical attraction has 'no power,
Humans rely on their eyes, visual images, first impressions,
Stands to reason it'll be important.
Your suggested black pill sounds a bit 'gray though,
A lighter shade of black so to speak.
People's choices can effect their looks, their mannerisms, actions.
There exist people attracted to what is inside a person, though that's not to say the outside 'doesn't tend to matter to people.
Still, when I Google Black Pill, result I get is
"Black Pill adherents believe that looks are genetically determined, and that women choose sexual partners based solely on physical features (“lookism”), so whether or not a person will be an incel is predetermined."
Just sounds 'way too self defeating to my ears,
To say 'solely physical features, and predetermined.
Ignoring causation that is, and speaking practically, by how people make choices, see choices available,
Predetermined doesn't matter 'too much, as an end is often not known, until one arrives.
Eh, corrupts 'and enhances, I'd suppose.
Though if one 'only used social media for interaction with other humans, I'd think there'd be some 'severe malformed development and interactions,
But maybe human'd adapt.
'Lot goes into human interaction, visual, audio, even touch with some people, touchy feely.
Intricate cultures where even how one sits with their leg, effects what's being conveyed, some say.
Still, social media 'does make it easy to find information, keep notes, sources, find more people, converse at one's own pace.
Letters were 'long an instance in human history, learned humans having conversations, well thought out between one another.
@NoOneInParticular
Eh, religions are not a 'single type of mass produced axe.
Some axes are better than others,
Some are better for certain tasks,
Sometimes you pick the same type of axe as those around you, even if it's just the same color.
Some people don't want an axe, but many in the lives they live, find it useful.
People argue a 'lot about the 2nd Amendment in America.
Various meanings in fiction books.
Or far the viability or righteousness of different political systems.
I suppose the importance/difference of saying what something 'be, or what something 'might be.
Is that if self practicing, one only needs 'reasonable certainty.
But in subjugating or forcing the cooperation of others, one needs 'certainty.
Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory
Galileo suffered through the humiliation of having to deny his theories in order to save his life. He was Catholic, believed in God, but, on the other hand, he was a great believer in the role of science and the fascinating beauty of God's creation.
Gregor Johann Mendel was a meteorologist, mathematician, biologist, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate of Moravia.
Through his work on pea plants, discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance
A person doesn't need religion to discriminate against homosexuals and women, sends people to death for blasphemy against oneself, the state, or favorite anime.
I disagree that religion is a wall between people and the pursuit of truth.
Matthew 5:27-28, is just common sense, (In my view of it)
Of how thoughts can effect a persons 'heart, or even their actions in time, should it fester.
If religions are often just what people think reality 'is, a history of what 'was, and how people 'ought act, what's so dissimilar in atheist groups who believe in the same reality, history, and ethics?
Though I might be taking liberties, with the three examples I give,
Posts number ,
#50 and #56
Of the thread,
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6396-systemic-racism-exists?page=1
I take the view myself, that it comes from a manner of nature and nurture.
The things we call good and evil, in a person.
With 'or without a focus on religion, people often enough have based hierarchies based on how well we can kill each other.
The 'error, in my opinion, is the idea that a human can be 'without religion.
Oh 'sure atheists exist, and people so called as opposed to religion.
But they mistake themselves, 'I think.
They are not without 'creed, subjective valuation of themselves, others, and the world they inhabit.
He spouts off about replacing religion with 'reason, as if the practitioners of organized religion as we traditionally see it have lacked for reason.
Failed to use it in their understanding of their religion, and the world.
Unless one is talking about some 'math equations, we aren't likely to arrive at the same conclusions using reason.
There's plenty of educated Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Criminals, Cops, Law Abiders, and Anarchists.
People's values are not likely to disappear, and that's in a way what religion 'is, in my way of thinking.
Values.
If you gave 'everyone the exact same genetics, exact same experiences, prevented 'any deviation, that we shone, reflected, myradiated like a set of geometric patterns on a mirror, we'd arrive at the same conclusions.
Though there's no objective 'reason, that the starting point and conditions following 'ought be.
Rambling. . .
Anyway, even with reason, I disagree that people will reach harmony, or the same conclusions on interactions, situations, disagreements.
Unless you surgically remove many instincts in humans, desires, we will 'always have a degree of greed and callousness.
Ah, but I'm incoherent, and rambling, post #3 was rude of me I'm sure.
Still, the part you quote, stands 'against his earlier statement of
"Without religion it is hard to justify cutting off the tip of a baby's penis. Without religion it is hard to pin down why liking the same sex is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why women should be submissive to men. Without religion it is hard to justify how owning another human being is just. Without religion it is hard to explain why changing your gender is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why killing someone for doing work on a certain day of the week is permitted."
Besides which your quote,
"Without [religion] I am practically certain that our hierarchy would still be based off of people's sheer strength and those who were weak were killed or left behind."
Of his misses the context, that he's implying we 'won't be like that now (Using Atheism and Logic), but only needed religion as training wheel.
My thoughts on Pro's round 1 argument.
I don't know why it so often amazes me, how stupid I think some atheist arguments are.
I suppose it's because I expect 'more from atheists, though I 'really shouldn't.
Maybe I just don't pay as much attention to people who make religious arguments.
Well, you can encourage prison violence if you like,
Not my angle in this debate though.
Until the prisons overflow.
@RationalMadman
I've known some people in life,
To say a caveman experience, was a a valuable moment when they learned what can happen when not respecting others.
(They got beaten up for some type of behavior I mean)
I'm not saying it's 'good to beat other people up, especially if not both agreeing to it,
Just the thought I had after reading your post.
@Barney
Fair point on wording,
Alas, too late, I just got back from work.
Well, I wouldn't say right to force someone into a duel,
But right to challenge and accept, or refuse, be what I 'meant.
Lots of rights have caveats though, or legal strings,
Like bearing arms, can't bear arms in some places.
Consent to do something that has been suggested by another person.
Abe demands Bob apologize for some situation, or accept a duel,
Bob is able to decline, with no consequences other than people thinking him to have lost honor,
However Bob states that he 'agrees to the duel.
The two individuals then follow the legal dueling procedure,
Whatever it be, informing the authorities beforehand, using seconds, or whatever etiquette may be.
. . .
Well, 'agree would mean, yes I consent to duel you,
Maybe the dueling culture has it that the challenged party is able to choose the weapons used, time, place, to what extent the duel is to be fought,
I might have to re-read on duels, if someone debates a certain way.
. . .
"Since Lincoln was challenged by Shields he had the privilege of choosing the weapon of the duel. He chose cavalry broadswords "of the largest size." "I didn't want the d—-d fellow to kill me, which I think he would have done if we had selected pistols," he later explained. For his own part, he did not want to kill Shields, but "felt sure [he] could disarm him" with a blade. At six feet, four inches tall, Lincoln planned to use his height to his advantage against Shields, who stood at a mere five feet, nine inches tall.
The day of the duel, September 22, arrived and the combatants met at Bloody Island, Missouri to face death or victory. As the two men faced each other, with a plank between them that neither was allowed to cross, Lincoln swung his sword high above Shields to cut through a nearby tree branch. This act demonstrated the immensity of Lincoln’s reach and strength and was enough to show Shields that he was at a fatal disadvantage. With the encouragement of bystanders, the two men called a truce. "
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/abraham-lincolns-duel#:~:text=Since%20Lincoln%20was%20challenged%20by,pistols%2C"%20he%20later%20explained.
"Washington and Texas are the only two states in the United States where mutual combat is legal. In Washington, the mutual combat must take place in a public place, and both parties must agree to the fight. Additionally, the altercation must not result in serious bodily injury, or participants can face charges."
https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/mutual-combat-states/#:~:text=Washington%20and%20Texas%20are%20the,or%20participants%20can%20face%20charges.
Also edited my debate to say be able to duel, even to the death.
Yes.
@Frameworthless Video
Can one really 'not have a framework?
Even if one comes to an intellectual conclusion of nihilism,
They do not drop to the ground, as a puppet, strings cut.
They continue one,
For strings still exist,
Their own nerves, muscles, spine, brain.
Even if one tried the DC Two Face method of flipping a coin,
Well, that's a choice,
To decide at whatever one feels, a framework.
I suppose one might cease to have the ability to choose,
Insofar as we can,
Should they 'damage their mind, brain,
Though if it was a choice. . .
Well, there is always outside chance and outside intention that can damage, without our consent.
. . .
Possessed,
Reminds me of Demons by Dostovesky,
The novel is also called The Possessed, in Russian.
One of it's themes is new ideas, taking hold of people in Russia.
. . .
Man, he sure says framework a lot.
. . .
Bah, a chimp or an elephant can paint art.
. . .
His advice is not normal,
As I, or most people I know would consider it.
. . .
People 'do seem to like beauty, the sublime.
Ah, I recognize that guys face,(Jreg)
After I just looked him up on YouTube,
Does a 'lot of videos on various ideologies,
Ran for mayor in a city.
I did notice it was a theme in the debate.
Does the Youtuber speak of a specific framework being cherrypicked,
Or framework pieces in general, being picked and chosen?
Of 'true Stoicism, I don't know much,
But could argue they were concerned with not being enslaved by their own mind,
Rather than their outer condition.
Of thought, typing, I'm uncertain.
. . .
Those three dots, well,
Were in my mind,
A pause, a moment thinking,
I 'think it's more typing out, than thought though.
I like separating out points or places, where a breath of air would feel appropriate in life.
Easier to read, I'd imagine.
I've heard it pointed out before, but what 'exactly is poetic in my speech, misses me a bit.
If the words all rhymed I'd get it,
Or perhaps I'm alliterative in parts,
But I don't much consciously see it.
Thanks,
And thanks for accepting the debate,
I enjoyed it,
Let me air my thoughts,
Let me hear another's views,
Learn more about Stoicism.
Backstory,
I forgot to put in description, on 'reason for debate,
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/484 - Modern Stoic Philosophy, and the authors comments right below the webcomic.
Debate,
Hm, from my view I lack fine details and organization, in debates.
Still, I like a number of my examples, myself,
And don't think my logic is all in the wrong direction.
For you, I think you did a good job laying out what a Stoic historically is, their beliefs and what.
Connecting their ideas to one another,
Arguing against passion/self interest,
And kept on any points you previously made, asking they be specifically addressed, than generally handwaved.
Of debaters claiming points during a debate,
Such as saying they successfully refuted an opponents argument,
Or that an opponent failed to do this or that,
I'm unsure, such 'can be true,
'Can be useful in making a point,
But I think of it like boxing a bit,
The boxers don't call out their own points and score, the judges do, at the end.
A person can always 'claim such, even if they didn't,
Such can create an illusion of they 'did.
Wanna wager the grammar point on who can tell the best two jokes, one in each round?
Yes, I'd be up for that.
Well, I've pretty much said my piece,
And beginning to feel a 'bit repeated.
If you're inclined, we can waive rounds 4 and 5,
Which is my preference,
Or we can keep going in rounds 4 and 5,
Which 'might be your preference,
Which if so, I don't mind continuing in 4 and 5.
I like having max rounds,
As debates can develop unexpectedly,
More space if needed, but can always be finished early.
More it would be on Con to argue that using Stoicism without adhering strongly to it's ideology is bad.
While Pro would argue that much of the ideology can be thrown out if convenient, yet still be classified as Stoicism, if many of it's methods and ideas are used.
. . .
I suppose an example could be an Atheist using and following much of the Bible,
To gain advantage.
I imagine many might say they are not a Christian,
And/Or not using Christianity.
I suppose I 'might agree with the not a Christian,
But that there 'are Atheistic Christian,
The Jefferson Bible pops to mind, as something in that direction.
Direction though,
People aren't certain on Jefferson's beliefs I think.
(Shrug)
'Still the God of Abraham, (I think)
Still, the blind men, all feel the elephant,
Though different parts,
And by their senses, experiences, actions,
Have different conceptions.
@rayhan16
To experience pain,
Implies to me change,
A person can change from not being in a type of pain,
To being in a type of pain,
Assuming people in the Islamic Hell are not constantly tortured by everything without a millisecond of not being tortured by everything at once.
If change is possible,
Then arguably the mind can change,
New memory experiences can be had,
Assuming everyone doesn't have Dementia or Alzheimer's in Hell.
Thus I'd argue that it'd be feasible for 'everyone to exit Hell,
By becoming Muslims while in Hell,
(Though I don't much like or agree with Hell as torture, myself)
Unfortunately I don't know much of the Christian Bible,
But even less of Islamic texts,
Still,
Christian Bible talks about "refining" a lot,
Which one could argue has to do with refining out impurities,
https://www.openbible.info/topics/refiners_fire
But, (shrug)
Books say a lot of things.
And I'm not a believer myself.
@Thinking to Self
One might argue that,
If an individual orders a dog to attack me, that individual is responsible, for my being bitten.
If I commit some crime or danger to another person, then I hold a measure of responsibility for a policeman ordering a dog to attack me.
If I enter private property, and a dog attacks me, that I hold a measure of responsibility.
If I enter private property unknowingly, Eh, why can't ignorance be an excuse.
Not everyone believes Hell is eternal.
From my glancing at the debate,
Sounds that Islam can be war or peace.
As for the Hell argument,
Eh, Con wouldn't need to believe in it themself, to use it in their argument.
Though I'm not sure even if Hell existed, whether it'd make Islam peaceful or not,
Reason being, my mind drifts a bit,
There's the Islamic Deity, The Followers, The World. . .
If there was a religion that was 'super nice on Earth, but claimed a bad afterlife, would the religion be peaceful or not?
Not saying Islam is the nicest religion on Earth, just meant as an example.
Who is doing the torturing?
Does one 'assume the Deity can or ought stop Hell?
That 'sounds a bit weak, to people who say Deities can do and know anything I suppose,
But it's not as though 'we know all the details.
Well. . .
If they existed, myself I'm an Atheist,
But I don't mind people having different views, generally speaking.
@Sir.Lancelot
I think part of the problem is that issues and ideologies are vague, variable, and numerous in general,
Though people have aspects of issues, certain examples in mind,
When they say one is good or bad, wanted or unwanted.
I think it's also a problem when something specific and small is argued,
Such as Individual vs Collective,
I think that these small specific parts, again, easily find their ways into many definitions, issues, sides,
Even opposing issues, ideologies, sides.
@NoOneInParticular
I think,
You can't really have individual or state rights,
Unless there are mechanisms in place to place that.
I think that powerful nations 'require,
Some giving of 'some individual liberties, . . . Maybe.
Though which one's we ought keep, which give away, varies.
And some I 'greatly prefer to keep.
And maybe a strong nation needs some individual liberties,
Eh.
I think that force and coercion can find various ways and methods,
It can be the state, it can be a company, it can be a group or an individual.
Sorry I don't have enough of a takeaway, for a vote,
Might just be me though, rather than the debate.
My take is, definitions used by both were confused and broad,
As well as too much responsibility to said definitions given to historical actions, by both debaters.
Well, it's gotta be catchy, if they want the voter behind it.
: D
The Ffffffbeee.
@Self
Pro life doesn't tend to see pregnancy and childbirth as significant enough risk, 'not to, if already.
Many individuals have preformed on them aesthetic surgery, 'many individuals.
Hazardous sounds vague enough in this debate, that activity can be argued against being 'excessively hazardous. (Though 'what excessive means, is subjective)
Sorry, deleted my comment of, something like,
Don't trans often claim surgery is necessary, otherwise many individuals kill themselves,
So Con just needs prove not having surgery is more dangerous than, not having surgery.
I forget 'why I deleted it, been awake a while, fell asleep afterward.
As Intelligence_06 says, everything is dangerous,
So the definition by Pro doesn't bother me, one just uses common sense with it,
If someone has a debate that claims medical surgery is dangerous,
I see no problem with a person admitting danger, but then pointing out person with certain bad heart,
I don't see heart issue as unrelated to question of surgery being dangerous or not.
I suppose if long lived intelligences existed,
That saw continual improvement in individuals understanding and control, more they aged,
Such as elves or robots, maybe,
They might have higher age bar,
To entering certain votes, positions.
Though,
If one's situation is effected, one generally wants a say.
I suppose if children were stronger, they'd have a say,
But strength is not only in body and mind, but is societal structure and norms,
A human child waits X years, they're then on the other side, 'have their right to vote, and what.
It 'is a fun game,
Though the loophole of people being able to group can be a bit annoying, though such doesn't happen for all games.
Well, sometimes people see certain changes to a person, as too wrong/extreme, that the choice, option, ought never be offered/in by society/government.
Optional Suicide Booths, Optional Sterilization of Certain Groups, Optional Sex Change, Optional Lobotomies, Optional Certain Recreational Drugs.
I don't think a moral ruler, is the same as a 12 inch wooden ruler.
. . .
Let's say someone makes a moral ruler, it measures a type of Individual Freedom,
Yes, actions can be measured against the type of Individual Freedom Ruler,
But doesn't make something 'Right, it means that actions can be measured of a type of Individual Freedom Ruler,
Improved, chosen,
But 'still to my view lacking the' objective right and wrong,
Kill an animal for the pleasure of eating,
Kill an animal for pleasure of brag,
Both are pleasure, luxury, for some, though not all.
What with animals being an important food and nutrient source in places and history.
Well, I look forward to what you will say here, and find it so far, interesting.
Well, I'm 'not my arm in a sense,
And in another sense 'am,
The arm can be lost, but Lemming will remain,
My spine can be broken, living in an iron lung, but Lemming will remain,
I won't be 'all I was, able to do and feel all I did, but I'll still 'be,
Once my mind is gone?
No, then 'I'm gone,
Make a copy of me, kill me and replace me with the copy,
Well, other people might not notice, copy might not notice,
But Lemming Original sure died,
Personally I'm hopeful that the ship of Theseus we are, manages to 'continue 'being the original by continuous consciousness, I hate the idea of dying X many times in my life, before the copier itself dies.
Saint Augustine: Is consciousness continuous, where we are conscious at each single point in time, or is it discrete, where we are conscious only at certain moments of time?
A corpse would not be Lemming, in a sense.
Mummies find no eternal life in their wrappings, though their echos verb a time longer.
When I die some day (Ideally of old age)
My heart stops to beat, my matter decays and transforms,
I will no longer be,
It doesn't matter to me, that the building blocks that made up me shall continue, for 'I shall not.
A square or a circle, drawn upon a piece of paper may need 'something to 'be,
Whether ink, graphite, or an indentation,
But when the shape has been rubbed or burned away,
Even if energy cannot be destroyed, the square or circle that was, 'has.
Why does it matter if two items are made from energy?
Paint is all pretty much paint, but people differentiate between paintings easily enough.
We're all blood and meat and bones, but differentiate between ourselves easy enough.
Even without a center of the universe, two things in relation to another can easily enough be separated?
Without emerging, how can a self exist?
Two flowers upon a vine, are not each other, though sharing the vine, and before budding, they were not, when they die, they will be, not.
From what I've read, a split brain doesn't have two consciousness, only one.
Just because one half of the brain can't transmit to the other doesn't mean both are conscious, just because one's eyes get removed from one's head, doesn't mean the eyes acquire or 'were ever conscious.
I don't really understand what atoms and molecules are,
But looking at online pictures, they look like spheres, sphere's have centers,
Therefore, what we're made of has centers.
As for distinguishing one clone from another, one Ship of Theseus from another,
Well despite being the same shape,
They're not in the same location in existence,
My clone is not me, 'I'm me, thinking my 'own thoughts, feeling my 'own experiences.
I currently think it's a reasonable enough position to hold,
To sort all energy (People) into a single set of sorts,
Though I prefer to be an individual Egoist, myself.
My pinky is identifiable as it's own finger, capable of being hurt on it's own,
Though a pain in it may resonate out to other body parts, or other body parts resonate to it,
Shares blood with the rest of the body, acts in tandem, is usually thought of as part of a whole body.
But is replaceable, that the whole see's no difference between a transplanted pinky and the old, (Assuming no transplant rejection).
Though sometimes I worry about consciousness, individuality, if we're material, where does it lay.
Cerebral cortex, some might hazard, but if all about it get's replaced, material and experience,. . . . Feels there's no holding on at times, to our 'selves, but I ramble.
In the end I hold to the visceral experience of 'appearance of self.
Even when one believes in a might is right philosophy, or that greed or self interest is good for the individual, ought be pursued. . .
Seems to me little reason to 'preach such, or encourage said philosophy in others.
One benefits most by others being altruistic, while oneself is selfish,
Secretly breaking one's own word whenever beneficial, while always trusting others to keep theirs.
Course, that's only 'if said philosophy actually 'is good for oneself,
Are many other arguments that being straight and honest, right by others is good for oneself, 'other than in the sense of the group, but for the individual as well.
Truly unhappy some would argue, are those unable to emphasize or do right.
Like Barry HBO or Homelander (The Boys)
I suppose it 'does sound better to be a united powerful nation, than a weak nation or number of smaller warring nations,
But. . . Ends are not always what they seem,
And Means Ends in themselves.
I'm not negative towards this debate, but curious.
All a person would have to do is block the exits of a building in which people gather, and light a fire with gasoline and tinder in the right locations.
For mass murder, I think of guns as a subpar method for an individual.
What matters is the insanity, weakness, and twisted minds of the perpetrators, and perceived popularity of guns.
'Maybe.
As for war, the 'number of people on Earth, might be more a cause of death in war, than guns.
Supply chains if broken causing starvation, thirst, disease,
Masses of repeated combat,
I'd hesitantly offer the Taiping Rebellion, as an example of less guns rather than more, yet an enormous death toll, even in modern times.
Besides, armies of powerful nations will never get rid of their guns, even if they strip them from the citizens to remove their autonomy.
I think.
Honestly I don't know,
Men and women are different biologically,
Different roles depending on culture,
Have their own difficulties and eases in life,
Shivering in the cold or baking in the heat, both hard situations.
I'm not saying either sex is the cold or the heat, just that even in different situations, either situation can be difficult in it's own way.
Each to their own devices, jah.
And likely some pursuits more likely to bear fruit, than others.
Could be I don't have an accurate view of Black Pill viewpoint,
Just to me, is that the statement that if something appears to offer/be more beneficial, that it attracts people more than something that appears to 'not offer/be more beneficial.
Seems clear cut, so I'd assume Black Pill argues something 'more.
(Edit on reading #17)
Eh, to my thinking statistics don't matter so much as desire.
If one 'wants a girlfriend or boyfriend, I imagine they can improve themselves some, search till they find a person.
It's not a 'certainty, success or failure,
But I think they'd be able to succeed more often than not, so long as they have their head on straight, and are not mentally dysfunctional, cruel in word and deed. Able to identify people 'worth spending one's life with.
In that sense, it's what's inside, rather than outside mattering, to my mind.
I'm not saying unattractive people have the exact same effort, as attractive people,
Because they don't, it's 'literally in the wording of Unattracting, attracting.
Though 'what people consider attractive varies from culture to culture.
But Black Pill, sounds like it's claiming that women 'only care about looks, and some individuals have no chance of getting with another person, so they ought not even try.
I'll admit,
Doesn't really seem feasible to argue that physical attraction has 'no power,
Humans rely on their eyes, visual images, first impressions,
Stands to reason it'll be important.
Your suggested black pill sounds a bit 'gray though,
A lighter shade of black so to speak.
People's choices can effect their looks, their mannerisms, actions.
There exist people attracted to what is inside a person, though that's not to say the outside 'doesn't tend to matter to people.
Still, when I Google Black Pill, result I get is
"Black Pill adherents believe that looks are genetically determined, and that women choose sexual partners based solely on physical features (“lookism”), so whether or not a person will be an incel is predetermined."
Just sounds 'way too self defeating to my ears,
To say 'solely physical features, and predetermined.
Ignoring causation that is, and speaking practically, by how people make choices, see choices available,
Predetermined doesn't matter 'too much, as an end is often not known, until one arrives.
Eh, corrupts 'and enhances, I'd suppose.
Though if one 'only used social media for interaction with other humans, I'd think there'd be some 'severe malformed development and interactions,
But maybe human'd adapt.
'Lot goes into human interaction, visual, audio, even touch with some people, touchy feely.
Intricate cultures where even how one sits with their leg, effects what's being conveyed, some say.
Still, social media 'does make it easy to find information, keep notes, sources, find more people, converse at one's own pace.
Letters were 'long an instance in human history, learned humans having conversations, well thought out between one another.
@NoOneInParticular
Eh, religions are not a 'single type of mass produced axe.
Some axes are better than others,
Some are better for certain tasks,
Sometimes you pick the same type of axe as those around you, even if it's just the same color.
Some people don't want an axe, but many in the lives they live, find it useful.
People argue a 'lot about the 2nd Amendment in America.
Various meanings in fiction books.
Or far the viability or righteousness of different political systems.
I suppose the importance/difference of saying what something 'be, or what something 'might be.
Is that if self practicing, one only needs 'reasonable certainty.
But in subjugating or forcing the cooperation of others, one needs 'certainty.
Many different denominations pop up though.
Whether in religion, politics, or philosophy,
Because different people have different interpretations.
Difficult to say something 'does or doesn't, sometimes?
Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory
Galileo suffered through the humiliation of having to deny his theories in order to save his life. He was Catholic, believed in God, but, on the other hand, he was a great believer in the role of science and the fascinating beauty of God's creation.
Gregor Johann Mendel was a meteorologist, mathematician, biologist, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate of Moravia.
Through his work on pea plants, discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance
A person doesn't need religion to discriminate against homosexuals and women, sends people to death for blasphemy against oneself, the state, or favorite anime.
I disagree that religion is a wall between people and the pursuit of truth.
Matthew 5:27-28, is just common sense, (In my view of it)
Of how thoughts can effect a persons 'heart, or even their actions in time, should it fester.
If religions are often just what people think reality 'is, a history of what 'was, and how people 'ought act, what's so dissimilar in atheist groups who believe in the same reality, history, and ethics?
Though I might be taking liberties, with the three examples I give,
Posts number ,
#50 and #56
Of the thread,
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6396-systemic-racism-exists?page=1
I take the view myself, that it comes from a manner of nature and nurture.
The things we call good and evil, in a person.
With 'or without a focus on religion, people often enough have based hierarchies based on how well we can kill each other.
The 'error, in my opinion, is the idea that a human can be 'without religion.
Oh 'sure atheists exist, and people so called as opposed to religion.
But they mistake themselves, 'I think.
They are not without 'creed, subjective valuation of themselves, others, and the world they inhabit.
He spouts off about replacing religion with 'reason, as if the practitioners of organized religion as we traditionally see it have lacked for reason.
Failed to use it in their understanding of their religion, and the world.
Unless one is talking about some 'math equations, we aren't likely to arrive at the same conclusions using reason.
There's plenty of educated Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Criminals, Cops, Law Abiders, and Anarchists.
People's values are not likely to disappear, and that's in a way what religion 'is, in my way of thinking.
Values.
If you gave 'everyone the exact same genetics, exact same experiences, prevented 'any deviation, that we shone, reflected, myradiated like a set of geometric patterns on a mirror, we'd arrive at the same conclusions.
Though there's no objective 'reason, that the starting point and conditions following 'ought be.
Rambling. . .
Anyway, even with reason, I disagree that people will reach harmony, or the same conclusions on interactions, situations, disagreements.
Unless you surgically remove many instincts in humans, desires, we will 'always have a degree of greed and callousness.
Ah, but I'm incoherent, and rambling, post #3 was rude of me I'm sure.
Still, the part you quote, stands 'against his earlier statement of
"Without religion it is hard to justify cutting off the tip of a baby's penis. Without religion it is hard to pin down why liking the same sex is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why women should be submissive to men. Without religion it is hard to justify how owning another human being is just. Without religion it is hard to explain why changing your gender is bad. Without religion it is hard to explain why killing someone for doing work on a certain day of the week is permitted."
Besides which your quote,
"Without [religion] I am practically certain that our hierarchy would still be based off of people's sheer strength and those who were weak were killed or left behind."
Of his misses the context, that he's implying we 'won't be like that now (Using Atheism and Logic), but only needed religion as training wheel.
My thoughts on Pro's round 1 argument.
I don't know why it so often amazes me, how stupid I think some atheist arguments are.
I suppose it's because I expect 'more from atheists, though I 'really shouldn't.
Maybe I just don't pay as much attention to people who make religious arguments.