Lemming

What's different in a live debate, other than the vocalization of one's written argument?

I suppose a live debate could show a persons quality, rather than that of his argument.

But what's the necessity of it I mean, unless the 'person, is what one is debating on.

Eh, I think he did.

But you know how it goes,

Been plenty of people history, but we can't always see them clearly, like statues in the rain, their refined features blur.

Yet are famed enough, that reproductions abound, and what they may have been, 'is.

Or is what exists an idealization?

I think it's too bad when I glance at some older philosophies whether ancient China, or ancient Greece.

Philosopher we only know the nubs and gists of their ways.

Still, some histories and words seem reasonably enough preserved.

Well, I'd say more people are on board with it 'now, but I think there were a number of mixed messages early on.

People who claimed wearing a mask would 'prevent you from becoming infected, when the truth is it 'helps prevents the infected from infecting others.

And even 'after that misunderstanding was cleared up, some people figured that if they weren't sick, why bother wearing a mask to protect others from nothing,

'Then information came out arguing that some people can be carriers but not sick.

Leadership in America was also on the backfoot in leading by example, and even when the Democrats got on board with it, the 'way they did it, seemed more like political grandstanding and sneaking politics in a time of crisis, than an actual attempt to work with and convince their political counterparts.

Nor have the people who go about the argument to wear masks in a confrontational manner helped, throwing their weight around, jamming their fingers into people's chests and saying OBEY.

I wear a mask in public.

I think other people 'should wear masks,

I think that the law supports it,

Not sure I think people not on board yet are Absolute Morons, maybe just need to be convinced in the right manner, and need our government leading correctly.

I wouldn't say it's the 'only reason Americas done worse,  us being slow on the uptake hasn't helped.

Not like it hasn't happened before,

And I can't say I'm 'fully convinced that masks help much, but I'm convinced most of society acts like they think that.

And I don't have any breathing condition, so, eh.

"Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it! If you had to like it, it'd be called the Museum of Acceptance! [the audience looks on] "Tolerate" means you're just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off! Jesus Tapdancing Christ!" - Mr. Garrison

I find a 911 conspiracy more reasonable than a Chupacabra, all a person has to do is reign back the 'scope of the 911 conspiracy for it to be reasonable, but even with that I don't believe the American government caused 911.

I'd imagine the humans noticed the asteroids before they hit, they just must not have had Bruce Willis around to blow it up Armageddon (1998).

But sure, could go with the belter theory as well.

Well, makes the asteroid part a suspension of disbelief I suppose.

That or it really was the human government, who launched asteroids that were closer to Earth, and blamed the Bugs.

A man can lift a rock easily, but what about a mountain.

There's also the case that maybe the asteroid tossing blasting method, needed something massive to be built in a fixed location to throws the asteroids. For instance a gigantic rail gun in space, I assume wouldn't have to be a literal giant gun, but a bunch of accelerators placed at different distances from one another, in the direction of their target.

What, you mean nudge the Earth?

Might have been the book Armor by John Steakley, but I think it's just an idea that pops into people's heads a lot in science fiction.

Pretty sure the Terrans in StarCraft has the same plan to use the Zerg as a threat that way, until the Zerg started killing everyone.

I mean with no technology ever shown being used, easy to view them as something easy to take advantage of, as little threat on a galactic scale.

I remember in the book though, that the path to citizenship was open to 'anybody though, Did seem in the movie like an intentional attempt to weed out the people mentally unfit/unprepared for the infantry though.

I forget if there was such a scene in the book or not.

"The Federation makes the opportunity of Federal Service open to everyone, able-bodied or not. A doctor giving a medical examination says "if you came in here in a wheelchair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find you something silly to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe." The only impediment that can render one ineligible for federal service is if a psychiatrist determines that one cannot understand the oath of service." - Wikipedia, Terran Federation (Starship Troopers)

I'd be scared of fighting in the movie, following those strategies and tactics.

A lot of people have the theory the movie Bugs are a fake threat, and are used by the government as a means of controlling the population and giving everyone an enemy to rally against.

I found the mercy killings interesting, I 'think I'd prefer to struggle and be eaten alive, but perhaps not, or perhaps I'd regret it.

Maybe just bad luck?

I liked that the recruiter guy was missing both of his legs.

I thought it was a fun, cheesy, action, comedy. Seems to me it's aged well. Vastly different than the book. Really only liked the first movie.

Because America is politically divided at the moment, 'probably Trumps fault.

And his handling of the  Corona virus really hasn't helped.

Personally I'd go with option 3, but wear a mask anyway.

It's my opinion the left goes about their fight against Trump in the wrong fashion, the only thing that helps them is Trumps. . . bizarre eccentricity.

Seems to me they would have been better trying to velvet glove a number of Republicans and opposing Trump, instead they went straight up against him, commendable principles, but seems foolish practicals to me (Though I'm a know nothing of politics).

I don't particularly 'dislike Biden, but I don't like him either.

I look back to the past election, and I think, hm, pretty sure one of the reasons people voted against Hillary was they saw him as part of the establishment. Biden's got the same problem. And much like last election, they're harping 'much on we 'must defeat Trump.

When they'd be better off saying what they'll do for the country, though they 'are doing that.

I think they're seeing the situation too much from their own biases and opinions.

I think a 'significant amount of the population has a different viewpoint than them.

Oh!

Sluggy Freelance!

Nice!

If a person can't be born evil, can a person be born good?

People can have 'supposedly evil genes/nature/tendencies,

But depending on how they grow up, be good people.

. . . Anyone ever watch the Genetic Opera? Weird movie,

But I bring it up to say 

For intents and purposes, practicalities and generalities, rules of thumb and pragmatism. Though.

I suppose some people could claim that a person could be born evil.

One see's that in fantasy often enough, 'evil races, with a tendency toward evil.

Rambling a bit.

. . .

Mm, no I take that back, I'll change my opinion to everyone is born neutral, but some people are 'very likely to go one way or another based upon their nature/nurture.

Hm. . . . . . In.

Faith's a justified belief in itself, to my thinking anyhow.

People can possess many beliefs, based at least partially upon faith I think.

And contradictions aren't an end all be all I think.

Courts and debates have two sides of a case being argued. And sometimes there's parts that don't clear up, but remain in contention, but a decision is reached none the less.

Sigh, you press my memories farther than I care about really. . .

Still,

There 'is some real history in the Bible,

If I can believe in American history now, I could believe in the Bible back then.

There are Biblical lessons that taught practicality in life,

If I can believe in game theory now, I could believe in Biblical practicality back then.

There are parts of the Bible that contain humility, kindness, empathy.

If I can believe in nature and nurture, humanity and habit, now, I could believe in those parts of the bible then.

There are religious families which lead through example, who show themselves to their children, as people worthy of their trust in them.

 If I can understand human nature, patterns, and such now, I could believe in my parents as worthy of my trust then.

Though I'm an atheist now.

My faith back then was not unjustified, did not appear from nowhere.

It was. . . Bah, I'm rambling.

So I still don't really get what you're saying by,

"there is nothing that cannot be believed on faith"

Hm, I don't quite get what you're saying in post #18. . .

Oh jah, I was totally saying the human mind is a dead piece of wood, how insightful you are in reading my arguments.

Hm, you made a post titled "Facts are fundamentally just feelings", though. . .

Jah.

Eh, maybe not 'the basis, but 'a chair leg is 'one of the bases for the chair standing up, even if there are other legs.

Some people just identify strongly with one reason or another.

If my eldest brother had been charged with the crime of trying to murder him, my faith in him would be a strong 'reason for me personally, in believing that he would not commit such an action.

Sure I could be wrong,

Sure you can't much expect other people to accept your beliefs just because you believe them.

Sure, I hold such a belief because of positive and loving interactions with him.

And sure maybe my opinion could change with enough evidence.

But the faith would remain a strong basis, I think.

Not to the individual, it seems to me.

Seems to me that faith doesn't always appear out of nowhere, it usually occurs out of some persons experiences in life, or way in which they see life.

Reminds me a bit of instinct.

Not that I'd say follow every instinct you have, or that instincts can't be tricked, false, or misleading.

But instinct is worth paying attention to, I think.

But maybe flawed dichotomy in my example.

Oh, why do you disagree?

I'm willing to listen.

Well, going by merriam webster, one of the definitions of fact is.

"A piece of information presented as having objective reality"

Seems to me one of the more common definitions really. Information, isn't really a feeling though.

Ben Shapiro's even well known for saying "Facts don't care about your feelings."

Sure you can argue against that, though it becomes semantic reasoning eventually, I think.

Not that it's not 'worth doing, or can't teach a person a bit of humbleness when using facts,

"1500 years ago, everybody 'knew that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody 'knew that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you 'knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll 'know tomorrow." - MIB

But plain speaking, I think of facts as what's Reasoned/Recognized as true.

If a community doesn't wear masks, mingle in crowds, or drink bleach, it's too bad.

But even whatever I recall Trump saying so far, the people who make such decisions of their own free will, bother me more than Trump.

I don't like Trump, but the current left is still too far left for me.

Most I might do is vote for a third party, but not Biden at the current time.

It seems to me a reasonable choice for someone who wants to bang other people, but avoid having kids.

Though there's other methods to lower the chance of having kids, just not as surefire maybe.

I think a person would 'really want to avoid having kids though.

Maybe better to put some sperm aside on ice, in an accredited medical service though, if one changes their mind later.

As I recall, I liked Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl, better than Night by Elie Wiesel.

I don't remember them too well, but as I recall Viktor Frankl's book gave me some philosophical comfort, in some of the ways he looked at his situation during and after, while Elie Wiesel's book mainly just left me down. Not that Night is a 'bad book, from what I remember of it, it's valuable as a book in learning of and understanding part of history, but it's a downer.

Positive thinking though. . . I 'really haven't read that much about psychology, but it seems a fairly logical thought, if a person has verbal abuses and disparagements flung at him all throughout a day, weeks, and months, and years on end. He's going to have problems.

I suppose if a person had sugary thoughts sprinkled on him all throughout his life with no realism ever given to him, he'd have problems as well.

But I don't think positive thinking needs to be backed that far.

Seems enough that a person given positive, but realistic encouragement, maybe with some warnings about dangers, would do the best of the three.

I don't know the answers to your questions.

But you could probably find some users willing to get into verbal discussions/arguments online, with the express purpose of reviewing the debate afterward, perhaps by having a third party ask the two debaters 'separately their thoughts during certain parts of the debate, what their justifications were for why they responded with certain statements, or what emotions they might have felt.

Which could be accomplished by either audio recording the debate, or taking notes.

I think that George Floyd isn't the poor saintly martyr, some people like to icon him as. Though his death is unfortunate.

I think that people with a history of trouble with the police run into more trouble, including when they resist arrest.

My second brother has multiple problems with the law, I worry the police might shoot 'him one day if he does something dangerous or threatening.

I think that the police 'should be held accountable for their actions.

I think that the protestors handled their protests poorly in many places with violence and riots, at a poor time, what with the pandemic and all. But hey, there's peaceful protests in places too.

I think the 'police in many places have handled the protests poorly, though not in all places.

I think the media has handled the BLM movement a 'bit poorly by their often refusal to broach any criticism of some of the movements actions.

But the media did handle the brain fart of an idea made by protestors alright. By that I speak of defund the police, as if many police departments weren't poorly funded enough. The media made the intelligent decision to pretend as though the people rhythmically chanting defund the police meant shift some of the police responsibilities and funds to other methods to help the community.

I think the way in which parts of BLM has been run, has resulted in a boon to the likelihood of President Trump being re-elected.

Hello, I'm Lemming. Actually just popped in here to ask if anyone knows where airmax1227 is?