Lunatic

1. So then there are no ethics outside of legal matters? You have then yet to substantiate that is true - please address my syllogism - your own framework is flawed, because I actually did show that there are legal consequences for verbally abusing somebody - you can actually be jailed and fined.  

2. There are more to morals than the legal system - otherwise you are literally just a democratically elected moral system  - and that is all your ethics amount to - that's shaky foundation as well as your only justification being a social contract, which works on the assumption that there are moral principles that society is based on - ergo - your own ethics require for there to be morality. 

1. Those were not "claiming" to be affected as so - that was an empirical study recording the data - you are now arguing against empiricism - empirically speaking it has objective harms - now - answer the question - which is worse - disturbing the peace or causing psychological harm?

1. Why does the vastness of the harm cause effect your responsibility in regards to it - should you not care for physical battery because of the vastness of the harm? Well no - you still don't punch people because some you can also tickle them, this is a ridiculous non-sequitur

2. You should do that before you make the debate

3. Because you have failed to show how "fallacies" can result in extreme psychological harm - in contrast - literally arguing that your rapist was correct to rape you would result in extreme psychological harm - similar to how veteran react in situations like that - only worse . 

4. Or you are an extremely dishonest individual who fails to consider the objective nature of the universe - a false dichotomy as it were bud.

1. You have, again again, again, failed to consider the thing you did concede to (now I'm saying that to annoy you) - mental harm can lead to a plethora of things I have already demonstrated. You have failed to make a meaningful argument.

1. I am saying that BY THE TIME THEY CLICK OFF THE THREAD or BLOCK HIM they wold have already received the psychological harm - that is simple cause and effect

1. You do not "Choose" how you feel about a thing, you cannot "choose" to feel depressed - that is ignoring centuries of psychology that has made itself apparent - you are working on deeply ignorant assumptions of how the human mind works

2. If you are dead THEN you cannot have liberty one of the effects you AGREED to being the cause of psychological harm was suicide and depression

No - no you have not - I argue against every single thing actually line for line, and explain what fallacy is behind it - you are pretending in every aspect to be correct - including even parroting my little end cards about how wrong you are. 

Then point out every fallacy and explain why I made it - you say you didn't make the fallacy, but refuse to actually address my arguments, in some case, not answering the point blank question I asked you - I've already seen two examples of that - the difference is that i actually have proof for my claims, and you have your "feelings" ironic that is - as for "circle-jerking RM" do you think me agreeing with a thing he said means circle jirk? You have the maturity of a middle schooler bud. 

You have failed to actually read the things I posted that empirically proved such a thing, and your own words regarding it.

1. You have failed to argue against my point  - you have failed to substantiate any subjectiveness to mental trauma - you have quite literally hand waved everything away - if this is the extent to your arguing skills I see why you don't debate.

1. You have failed to address the question

2. You are conflating empirical data with "subjective views" you have failed to answer the question - the text you are responding to shows the empirical physical effects of psychological trauma - stop running away, please.

3. You have failed to address the question, instead, you have repeated yourself - substantiate what relevance it has to the conversation at hand

4. You have failed to address the question

5. You have failed to address the question

"So you agree that harm has objective effects on people?"

I can only conclude that you, therefore, concede the point. You agree that MENTAL HARM is as bad if not worse than PHYSICAL HARM

1. This is a false comparison, the harm I am talking about is not "hurt feelings" 

2. How are any of these things be resolved by "tougher skin" or "counseling" which is not always, if not most of the time, not effective - furthermore exasperating the problem, does not HELP - it further HARMS the individual - furthermore - you cannot "choose" to have these symptoms - you are not thinking through what you agreed to. 

3. So you claim, demonstrate that

4. We are talking about removing Wylted and his posts, which are already posted, people can and will continue to see them - there is choice in that matter bud.

We could go back and forth, but your primary claim is that mental harm isn't the same as physical harm despite the empirical proof I demonstrated - that gives me very good reason to doubt the truth of your statement "Everything I have said has been substantiated with the reasoning"

Anecdotal evidence does not provide a demonstration to the whole - furthermore - I do actually give most of my money whenever I see homeless people, do I do so every time? No - because while it is true you should care for others there is also a need to care for yourself, after all, if you can't support yourself, then there isn't a way for you to sustain such good deeds. Having a moral obligation and being realistic do indeed coincide. In addition, people who receive organs are actually constantly on medication to continue surviving, as the foreign organ is rejected by the body - it will eventually shut down - and a lot of people - myself included - need to kidneys due to underlying conditions. Your gotcha's are unconvincing.

As you stated:

If you live in a society, there is an ethical reason to respect their rights and freedoms that's protected by the law

Therefore you agree that people should not have their lives harmed by others, no? This includes mental harm as I have previously demonstrated its harmful physical effects on people. 

Again physical harm =/= mental harm

You have ignored your concession in regards to the physical effects of mental trauma. Mental trauma is worse than Physical trauma 

People in the capital riots literally murdered people, and had intentions to murderpolitical captives if they were to be found. Again you are ignorant or naive to assume people on the opposite ends of the political spectrum wouldn't do these things to each other.

You are arguing about a select group of people, hundreds in contrast to the millions of people total - this does apply proportionally - to say I am "naive" while using a small percentage of people to represent the opinions of the majority marks you as the true "naive" - factually naive.

Because I am making a direct correlation to reality (something you seem to live out side of) to the website. If we act a certain way in society why allow certain things why should it be any different online? Especially on a website that encourages differing viewpoints?

Because you can't entirely block somebody in person - people should absolutely be punished for harming people mentally and with words, and OH LOOK - THEY DO:

1. CURRENTLY not a threat -as it could turn into a threat very easily, and could reasonably be interpreted as a threat by politicians on the website - please actually demonstrate your claims.

1. People can be psychologically harmed, and it has EMPIRICAL AFFECTS on the person, which you conceded to. DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIMS

1. So, do you have an actual argument? You're saying that I'm wrong by your "judge a book by its cover", but do you have an actual argument to support that. You're saying i need to learn, please educate me, or find someone who actually has the brain too, because you haven't substantiated a thing bud.

1. You miss the point we KNOW that Hitler caused millions of deaths, we DO NOT KNOW that all other politicians will - please read carefully.

2. That is your opinion, please substantiate that A - it is accurate, and B - that it is relevant

3. Is it or is it not a harmful act? That is a rhetorical question, yes, yes it is harmful - you have yet to actually rebutt my point, simply ignored words and rambled about your opinions without substantiation. Do you need a break? While the last one was similar in some instances, it had more work put into it.

1. That is a claim that is across a BROAD SPAN OF POLITICIANS - it is a ridiculous sweeping statement, like saying that all card makers are pedophiles - it is absurd claim that also says nothing about the legal action of the thing in question - furthermore, morality is subjective, however it has objective foundations, and apply in all cases rationally - therefore arguing that ALL of a specific group of people should be killed assumes they are all guilty, which, on a legal level doesn't work - because there are, in fact, Politicians that have been charged and acquitted.

Make a substantial argument

1. You have claimed that its different in laws and ethics - now - lets say I buy the first point; that there is a distinction in law, you have not here substantiated that there is a difference in ethics. You have claimed that it shouldn't be your responsibility, but you haven't backed that up. 

2. So let me ask you a question - which is ethically worse - disturbing the piece, or causing psychological harm? Because you conceded that psychological harm has objective physical effects. 

3. The ethical foundation of this claim is what I find unsubstantiated - why is it not your responsibility, ethically, to avoid mentally harming others? You have the physical obligation, and ethically speaking - it falls under the broad spectrum of life, which you haven't rebuked here. 

1. You have already conceded that there is objective physical harm done to people who are subjectively harm, are you saying that you should be allowed to assault people because the level of harm is "subjective"? This is a contradiction in rhetoric.

2.  The damage, the psychological harm, is already done - are you, again, saying that if you are assaulted on the street you should simply, "block the individual, not respond to the individual, or can choose to turn the other cheek and not be offended"? No! Of course, you wouldn't say that -and I'd argue that the myriad of psychological harm's objective effects are worse than a slight bruise on the arm - why the double standard?

3. Using a slightly different analogy: is it the individual's responsibility to have dodged the the knife that was used to mug them with? Or their fault for not running fast enough? This is all - fundamentally - working on assumptions that individual freedom is more important than another's life - keep in mind the societal contract's phrase: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - because without life you cannot have liberty, and without life or liberty you cannot have happiness - life is more important than liberty - because you cannot have liberty without life, ergo, hurting people has a bigger impact than "i wanted to say the harmful thing". 

4. This paragraph does not actually rebut any of my arguments - the latter half assumes your own conclusion, and the front half is just you repeating the same point with no actual engagement to my rebuttals. Begging the question and non-sequiturs.

You ignore that I actually had rebuttals beforehand, you don't seem interested in genuine conversation - ah - I see- I suppose RM's analysis of you was correct, you are not used to people actually sticking around after your "bullying" as he calls it - you're used to Mafia and getting your way, so you resort to repeating your arguments and making non-sequiturs whenever pressed. Furthermore, why haven't you responded to my assertion of your arguments being fallacies? Do you concede the point?

1. You have already concluded that there are objective physical harms to mental trauma - did you forget that? Mental trauma is empirically worse than physical trauma, and you seem to continuously forget that you had conceded the point 

2. That is not my argument, my argument is that: Based on the EMPIRICAL levels of harm that can be done to an individual through mental trauma, one has the SAME level of responsibility to avoid doing it to others - you are the one that has yet to demonstrate any "subjectiveness" to mental trauma. IF you feel I'm arguing so poorly, then let's have a public debate eh? We'll see how well you do. 

3. That's.... not what a slippery slope is, a SS is, and I quote, "a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen" [LINK] - what you are referring to is a rebuttal - now if you said that my argument was a slippery slope BECAUSE of the your point here- then that would apply. Furthermore, that is not what I aruged, I argued, that "IF you know something you said is harmful, THEN you shouldn't say it" And we know - that saying that molestation is good, is harmful - there is a very direct linkage of affairs. 

4. Well... actually cutting somebody off can lead to a car accident... so - that is not at all an equivalent comparison - as saying something like "molestation is good" or "we should kill politicians" isn't remotely the same thing - you are describing somebody doing wrong to you, and then you responding - is the person with trauma simply existing a "wrong" that allows Wylted to harm them more? Is that your argument bud?

5. Because first of all - ethics and law don't necessarily equate - second of all - calling somebody a "piece of shit" is not at all comparable to saying "molestation is good" because one directly justifies a horrific and painful crime done by a person, and the other is a curse word.... do you fail to comprehend the difference? And actually, saying that type of stuff can actually get you put on a watch list "molestation is good" not "piece of shit" so... yes I would actually call the cops if Wylted was talking to me... Furthermore, blocking Wylted isn't calling the cops, not in the slightest.

1 I ask again, is your argument that rape isn't empirically harmful to others? Because if your answer is no, then we should be having an entirely other conversation about your ability to comprehend rape, not this. 

In other words - I was completely in the right for writing you off - you have a construction of assertions, fallacies (stacked fallacies actually - haven't gotten to say that since Selidora), and pessimism - fine you have pessimism - but you have fundamentally failed to actually rebuke my syllogism. 

In a debate, I would really just leave it as a red herring, but I want to cover all my bases here - not for you really - for the "audience" 

1. You quite literally ignore my argument, and just say: "Nope the conclusion is wrong, that's it" - without actually engaging in my argument - that's a red herring bud. Continuing on with it is a borderline hand waving of my argument.

2. Demonstrate that assertion

3. Then you actually agree with my point of not hurting other people, you just don't agree with the premises that make it up - however you have yet to actually debunk my argument - this is seeming like those adds that bring up a "problem" and dally on and on before presenting their solution, do you have one in this argument? 

4. This is just hand waving - why not - do you have any actual objections to my argument - IF you value your life, and you want others to value your life (which you do if you value your life) then the only way to obtain that logically is to value theirs - not valuing others lives is essentially saying, "Well then you don't have to value my life" In other words, you are saying that anybody has a moral right to kill you - that's it. 

5. This is an assertion, please demonstrate it - furthermore - explain how it actually debunks my argument - I am arguing that you have a reasonable moral obligation, not that people know they have it - strawman baked in with assertions without substantiation. 

6. So you espouse, but you fail to actually back up your assertions.... and why are you arguing as if I"m saying that having a societal obligation to others informs a moral one? Cause I'm not,  that was never my argument, and I never actually even talked about societal contracts (though I would widely agree with you that you have an societal contract to not murder others). 

1. I said that in it's current form its not a threat legally, however it is very well almost one, and you just agreed - you provide no actual reasoning for the fact that its not a precursor to threat, you are missing the point again.

2. Jesus christ you haven't - you've barely elevated yourself above a sheep of a conservative who victum blames people - I know I said I would quit it with the ad hominem, but I think your tendency to point to the victim as the one as fault has genuine reason for informing your views - in other words - its in support of my argument

1 - because the title was "killing politicians" as in - in general - with no exceptions - which would fundamentally be un-utilitarian as its with no regard for the subtleties - furthermore, this is an actual slippery slope argument - "Well he could be making a good point" - killing others to make others better is quite literally the opposite of utilitarianism, which is a very "Means matter more than the ends" type deal in most cases - the means are apart of the cost-benefit analysis.

2. Another false equivalence - we know today that Hitler caused millions of deaths, but killing politicians in general would be assigning wide blame for something we don't know all politicians would do - if a politician killed people, you can quite literally charge them intent to murder - now - there is a conversation about corruption in politicians and the inability to charge them, but you this would be assigning an inhumane death penalty across the board - this is bs in its most deliberate form.

3. That is a strawman, while the notion does indeed offend me on some level, the reason I object to it is because its talking about killing innocent people - that's why I object - do you not understand that? 

4. Do you not comprehend the difference between harm and offence - the two are different - you are continuing on with your false equivalence and literally ignoring all of my points, just continuing on with yours, this is why I said I would do it later, because all of your points can be boiled down to false equivalences, strawmen, or outright non-sequiturs. 

1. I was referencing somebody actually trying to offer psychological aid to the person in need, however, you need a licence to give out therapeutic advice under the guise of therapeutic, therefore unless DebateArt.Com hired a psychologist that was professionally hired, and had proof that they weren't a quack, then they can't do much more to help trauma ridden people then ban topics like Wylted - you've missed the point.

2. Blocking could help RM, it would not help others that happened onto the scene - however, the actual harmfulness of humor is actually subjective - some people might even cope with humor like that - the point is that things like what Wylted is espousing, is actually objectively harmful, that's a false equivalence: the nature of humor makes it literally one of the sole exceptions to the rule, and that isn't even all of the time - satirical humor is often more harmful then it is helpful, the same goes for jokes playing the but as minorities, both are objectively harmful: my point is - satirical is controversial whether its helpful or harmful, and that makes it unique in this instance; however, any other type of humor can be harmful - and RM blocking you only protects him, not other people... because if they see it - yes, even once, that's all that is needed for harm to happen

3. Again, we see the widespread, "the victim has responsibility for being harmed!" mentality... well no, no they don't - because it shouldn't have happened to them in the first place, any "responsibility" they have is second priority to not making their harm worse 

 you are quite literally victim blaming..... if someone was raped, would you blame them for "not trying hard enough" to not be raped, or the person... that raped them 

4. They have an ability to ignore people AFTER some harm has already occurred, which would be the entire point - this is yet another red herring that doesn't have to do with actually banning people - you've shifted the goalpost from canceling to blocking - that's it

1. So you agree that harm has objective effects on people? Then you have conceded one of the core arguments you were defending before this is literally one of the main points we were arguing.

2. So if you believe that mental trauma has objective affects on people, as you literally just agreed, then this analogy applies - would you not have to respect somebody's physical injury if they had hurt it? Like if somebody had a broken leg, then it is your responsibility to respect that... its that simple - your argument here is a non-sequtur, or, rejecting the premise you espouse but accepting the conclusions of my arguments. 

3. The actual amount of it that the world does is irrelevant to whether it is the correct thing to do, an appeal to populum is nothing in the framework of an argument. 

4. This is the rest of the argument, just... "Suicide, nooooo, that's not relevant to a debate about the harm that words can do to somebody's pyche, which directly leads to suicide!" Do you see how absurd that argument is? You ask 

Whats that? A strawman? My point is that Wylted's speech does have a direct affect on people with trauma's that's what this section is all about, and you seem to completely hand wave it away, without actually considering the implications of such things. IF psychological harm has objective affects on people, 

AND people's words can directly lead to psychological harm (which, it very obviously can [LINK]), THEN you should avoid words which will hurt people... .this isn't that big of a deal, its literally just being a considerate human being.

And its something everyone has moral obligations to do - regardless if you believe in objective morality or no morality - hint hint - I think objective morality is dog shit, it makes zero sense, I also think that saying a species that was springboarded by innovation and thought has no morality is stupid - our consciousness gives us morality - and yes it is wonderfully subjective, that doesn't mean it doesn't cause empirical impacts on the world we know.

If the most you can get out of my argument is: "But people don't do mass suicide because of words" then you have missed the point.

(Also you literally concede the point, funny that.)

"I might engage later"Yes - so ambiguous -"After a break" -Uhuh, totally makes it a mystery

I did not, I used a very broad term - life - does life not include both mental and physical pain - furthermore it is a mental desire to avoid pain that prompts a physical reaction... otherwise your body would not do as it does, because there is no reason.. . if your body wasn't operating on epigenetics informing you to stay alive, then your body wouldn't simple as that. 

2. This has nothing to do with the actual point - IF you know it could harm people, don't do it - that does not give any moral obligation which is unreasonable. You know that Wylted speech can be and is harmful, THEREFORE it ought to be banned, this argument assumes you have the correct conclusion.

3. This does not actually acknowledge my syllogism, nor my defense of it - you simply dislike the fact that your "individuality" isn't worth harming others, you disagree with the conclusion. Half of your points are begging the question and false call-outs to fallacies you don't seem to understand. You are much more opt to ad hominem call outs and "lol"s.

4. When did I claim that the other person has no responsibility for helping themselves? And once again this doesn't have anything to actually do with my arguments, the closest you got there was numero uno. Most of this is assuming that individuality trumps harm and going for there. Ironic that is. Furthermore, taking responsibility for what your words do to others is the same as taking responsibility for what your body can do to others... would you say that arguing that you shouldn't assault people is, "trying to take away responsibility from getting an injury fixed"? No, of course, you wouldn't you would say that's not making the harm worse - and it applies to mental trauma. 

5. Killing all politicians isn't a "controversial" opinion, its a borderline terroristic act... almost literally by its qualifications. Or, "molestations are fine" is also, empirically harmful, as it literally encourages people to rape others, are you saying that raping others... isn't a bad thing? Because that's the only way this can be "controversial" and not harmful

6. This is the most red herring of them all, you have failed to address my arguments - you value your own life - that's what this was responding to , you have literally failed to address any of my points or make any logical conclusions

Can mime cop out their reports?

Be that as it may, there are two scum left in this game, and as Luna cannot be lynched

You misformat 'misspell' and 'disagree' as mis-spell and dis-agree and make countless grammatical errors on the regular. Most of what you write isn't exquisite at all yet I don't go around dragging you into shit even if someone else compliments you. You're the salty one here, not me. It's a dynamic you're not used to as you have a lot of preconceptions about me.

You seem used to dealing with people, in general, who give in if you keep calling them cowards or insulting their ability to write, talk, reason or whatever else.

I am not here to circlejerk anything. I have individually taken you on, refusing to help Theweakeredge rebuke your replies. You are the one who is very used to circlejerking against users like myself, who typically react very wrong to situations where you're baiting us, this makes it easy to then say "ooh, look what he said while he was triggered I am innocent and correct."

I'm not going to take any bait here. You can think my writing is shit and think I've replied to nothing you've written. I've had my contentions consistently be the ones avoided here. Your replies literally admit how bad Wylted is and then try to turn it on me saying I am just as bad or some other weird way to sidetrack the argument.

Each time, I reply calmly to you explaining frankly and sincerely why I support the ban on Wylted despite agreeing with you about the mods in general. You keep biting back with snarky remarks and insults for absolutely no constructive reason that I can tell, unless your intention is to trigger me at some point and hope I say something easy to turn against me.

After taking a longer break I might engage longer

Please read

iking your own posts is probably not the best thing to do if you assumed I am "conceding"

You took more than a day to respond to my first arguments, yet whenever I make a post saying I'll get to it later you automatically assume I'm conceding? 

Does that actually make sense to you - I am curious about the fact that you think that RM is "circle jerking" me, it is quite apparent that you haven't been paying attention. It was only recently that RM unblocked me, we have been in, and are actually still locked in some pretty heated clashes. I would sooner be circle jerking you than RM - not that I care to CJ either of you - just a little comparison.

Furthermore, I thought we already went back and forth with the ad hominem, except, you know - I'm a moody little teenager who can be spiteful - I stopped them, yet you seem to be personally insulted that I would even dare disagree with you, and even more affronted that I would agree with the take of another user. Quite interesting indeed

You have failed to render my syllogism: A) invalid, or B) Unsound - either would be necessary in order to disregard its conclusions - until you do so these are only red herrings - After taking a longer break I might engage longer; however this is all that is necessary considering you never actually addressed my syllogism, only its conclusion.

Question: Do you value your own life? If the answer is yes, then you ought to value others. Recall the third part of the sentence above (underlined)

Very well stated - I did not speak with Wylted personally, aside from his Alt accounts, however having read a good deal of his posts for research for this discussion has forced some..... unfortunate truths for Lunatic to face - Wytled is not just "a controversial figure", but an individual who has propagated several empirically harmful notions, and.. well illegal ones

Just to be clear. 

Wylted has indeed expressed pedophilic notions and crude 'jokes' about things he may or may not have done or want to do. Stop pretending it's a one-off incident. He's done this shit for years, it's fucking disgusting.

Secondly, I said the mods who rise in lax environments are frat-boy and sorority-sister types, not in controlled environments.

Last but not least, I agree with the means and the ends. Wylted was banned far too late and has posted 100% illegal shit such as inciting political assassinations and racist notions, not to mention the age of consent stuff. I got 0 sympathy for him, he's scum.

P1: IF you value your own life, THEN you ought to value others: Now I must defend both premises: P1 is necessarily true - if you value your own life, then any harm done against you is not preferable, and if you don't value other people's lives they have no reason to value yours. Therefore the only way that others will have moral obligation to value your life is if you value theirs; ergo - IF you value your own life, THEN you ought to value others.

Now to defend premise 2: You value your own life - even if this is not true consciously, it is true subconsciously - on an evolutionary level, every single mammal values their life - that is why you flinch back involuntarily whenever you touch a hot stove, or why you have an uncontrollable urge to eat whenever you are hungry - why you have an attraction for others - because you want to live, and to continue on your genetics - it is genetically coded into us.

As both premises are defended, the conclusions therefore stays: you ought to value others. It doesn't matter if you identify as a "nihilist" IF you are being rationally driven, you have an obligation to value other's lives, which would include their mental and physical health - therefore you ought to care about if you "offend somebody"

While it is true that harm can be "subjective" it is commonly manifested in things like sleep disorders, depression, and dissociation - all of which increase the rate of suicide among people with them [2] - though Trauma in general increases the rate of suicide [3] - that leads us to a clear scale of importance - is allowing these things to be publically discussed worth an increased rate of suicide in an individual (According to source 2 - higher than 35% more likely), which (according to source 3) accounts for all deaths worldwide? 

Even if you don't buy that you should care about others, you ought to care about the number of people in the world, as IF trends continue to increase in suicide, THEN there will be less people to construct societies which empirically help you to live, if not completely facilitate it. However, given the previous argument, this should be a rather important problem.

As previously implied, it is not me that I am worried about regarding the harm done by Wylted, it is those who are at an increased chance of suicide given their trauma already, and impacted by Wylted's "controversial opinions".  Therefore I, a singular member of DebateArt.com, not interacting with Wylted's forums would not change a single thing - however - the alternate option, banning Wylted, would deal with the continuance of the harmful views.  That and deleting these forums would mitigate the trama as much as DebateArt.com could do legally. 

Canceling Wylted would do nothing in terms of actually solving the problem.

You bring up an example of gay marriage, yet that is a blatant false equivalence - one is letting two individuals, who were promised equity of rights by the US Constitution - Amendment 14 - section I [4], marry - it was unconstitutional to not let them marry. Furthermore, there has been no demonstrated harm by allowing homosexual people to marry, in contrast, allowing people to kill one another is intrinsically harmful - in fact - it is intrinsically lethal. There is no comparison.

To supplement my case - the fact of the matter is that to threaten an individual is illegal by the current U.S Government [5]:

While it is true that the thread in question is not necessarily a threat - it is true that it is more conducive to threats - and the creator of the thread - Wylted - at the very least is arguing that one should be able to murder politicians - which can be reasonably taken by the mod team as a precursor to threats.

I do believe I've made a sufficient basis to state that: Multiple creations of threads that are conducive to legal action, and to harming other people should react in a permanent ban - perhaps I would be more swayed by your argument if this was one and done type deal; however, Wylted has engaged in this conduct consistently throughout the two years that he has been on the website. 

I'm finding the point to point rebuttals tiring and unnecessary, instead, I will acknowledge the biggest points here - correct me if I'm wrong - we disagree on:

• The moral obligation of not "offending" others
  
• The subjectiveness of harm
  
• That we should only "cancel" Wylted by not participating in his forums
  
• The legal ramification of discussing harm
  

Before I go into detail, are these the main points we disagree on?

I did not do that. I have gone out of my way to defend the ban despite having every reason to side with you against the mods if this was about me being vengeful to those who stood in my way.

I don't like Ragnar or David. They indeed can often twist things out of proportion to justify bans. If you made a thread that was not specifically about that one Wylted incident, I would be on your side 100%. I am furious that they still have written those things about me on the moderation thread because they are literally lies that someone will come and read.

When I say 'furious', no I am not sitting here anymore actively raging about it but it caused me severe distress at the time and remains a source of irritation for me. This site meant a lot to me back then, that act was one of the biggest reasons I couldn't give the slightest shit if this site shut down right now, today. I'd find somewhere else to debate.

I do dig the idea of this website in the same way I loved the idea of DDO, the problem is not in the concept and is why I will still use this website even though I have reasons not to and definitely don't 'love' it anymore.

I am sided both against the moderation and against Wylted and this is 0% the time for me to feign resentment towards the mods for flexing their muscle. Even when Bsh1 was in charge, I congratulated him when he correctly punished prominent and popular members such as samstevens who had been bullying me in particular and forcing me to bite back as Bsh1 had sat back and done nothing.

There is such as thing as too lax/little moderation and it's a very nasty atmosphere which you may personally desire (only the most emotionally gritty people will remain in the long run). The problem with moderation that starts off like that is that it inevitably, over time, becomes 'ban the unpopular troublemakers' anyway, since only the corrupt 'frat boy' or 'sorority sister' types end up as mods.

There are many less well known forums, discussion boards etc moderated in this way, it's not rare.

The mods here are annoying, they don't reason with us about their bans and it's such a small community that it does kind of matter.

I am here defending their actions because this one in particular strikes me as a solid ban, this time I don't have an agenda. I wish they'd speak but I will speak on their behalf since all that was done here is David said 'it's for legal reasons end of discussion' and I can understand what he means if he means the hate speech and way Wylted defends very nasty things but you and him disagree that most on the final act and what exactly the context was.

I wish he'd reply to you, I wish Ragnar would post here. Instead, they sit back and let members such as myself and theweakeredge defend on their behalf and I am happy to do so because justice and debating do matter to me and you in particular are making this thread out of genuine concern, not to troll the mods.

I concede absolutely nothing. In the Chief Mod position, I'd permaban Wylted.

So.. which part about "we should kill politicians" doesn't achieve those standards? IS it not specific enough? Because then it would not be a slippery slope that the process of the conversation would undoubtedly create specific threats - in fact - Wylted has made such threats... and we don't even have to look to politicians... just how he interacts with other users on the site. It is clear that this is at best legally questionable, and at worst an offence that could have the site leaders culpable. 

We are not talking about "controversial movies" we are talking about harmful movies, there is a very big difference, and to pretend as if there isn't is a false equivalence. To be traumatized and harmed by a film is not to be "offended", there is a fundamental difference is there not? Furthermore, cancel culture is not necessarily about silencing people, it is about social ostracization as a form of punishment - not that I necessarily agree with it - but it is something that I find sometimes practical.

This is a fundamental individualistic take, you have a moral obligation to not do harm to others no? Perhaps you disagree with that sentiment, but then if you are aware that your "takes" are harmful to others, then you are intentionally harming others, especially in such instances as rape and molestation. I am not saying that the real world is to shelter people, but the real world does have a moral obligation to not make it worse. Again - having conversation is not worth harming people - your argument against such a thing is essentially that it will happen anyway - just because something will happen, does not mean that you have the right to speed that along - just because people will die does not mean you have the right to kill them, 

First of all, this isn't the main point, but something "offending" people is not the same as empirically harming them, such as allegories in the 1950s harming black people with their black face demonization. 

That is something that should be canceled because it is recognized as wrong - yes people can change their minds I agree, but not in a public manner capable of harming other people.

"Saving" people from a harmful mindset does not excuse people from a moral obligation to "protect" those with a damaged one. It comes down to the means not justifying the ends - if changing the mind of a person, ultimately causes more harm, then what was the point? Again, yes, discussing these things can be and are sometimes helpful; but, it is not worth it to do thin public, rather than privately, which is typically more conducive for changing minds anyways. There are PMS about this after all.

He should not be banned because everyone dislikes him, we agree on that. He should be banned and is disliked. They are not entirely coincidental, the reason for both is the missing link you don't see. It's the 'why'.

Since you're trying to shake away just how severely bad he is, I request you to reply to this post: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5791/post-links/252861

I am shocked and appalled at how you downplay just what being a full-on racist itself is but he is much more than just that (and not in a good way of being 'more than that'). I elaborated in the linked post.

Since the closing statement of your most recent post at the point of me replying this admits how bad Wylted is, I won't assume you're demanding proof.

Moderators are guardians, they are supposed to safeguard the community that they moderate. I cannot fathom how blaming victims by default is efficient moderation but you keep saying it is.

I am not going to buy into the notion that I am even disliked in the same way and to the same level that Wylted is (by the general userbase).

 This tactic is not just you alone. Many people like to use this tactic of 'everyone dislikes you, some even hate you' and it's a terrible thing to feel and experience. I have sat back and really considered if I am truly loathed by all here before returning. The haters are more readily vocal about their views. That's all. 

Wylted, on the flip side, is indeed resented by almost all users. He has gone out of his way to ensure this is the case. I cannot begin to grasp how you are defending him while admitting what he has said and done. You're solely focusing on the final act, rather than seeing the bigger picture.

I think there is a core difference in somebody who makes a claim that is intrinsically violent or harmful (such as if molestation is good or if we should kill politicians)  and points that we disagree with. That kind of talk is illegal in most instances... so even if you disagree with the banning on an ethical level, for legal protection its for sure the right move - 

its similar to why I think movies can be "canceled" its about how harmful the rhetoric is - that rhetoric that could and has harmed people who were molested, or people who were assaulted, and its not like that's a tiny number.

anywho - my point is that being allowed to have a conversation - is not worth somebody being harmed - especially not with the level of trauma that these extreme subjects bring up -

my point is that being allowed to have a conversation - is not worth somebody being harmed - especially not with the level of trauma that these extreme subjects bring up - now - if it were - say - to say how we could reduce the number of people getting assaulted, fine - that could actually stop somebody from going through the same experience, but arguing if its "right", yeah - the moral exchange is just not equal.

Other than my accusation to Mikal, I wasn't banned for my views. There areassice differences between Wylted and myself, it's you failing to see that which is more disturbing than the idea I'm a hypocrite.

There are thick, strict lines Wylted has crossed. He is racist to a strong lev. This is a fact. If you're trolling and pretending to be racist, you deserve to be punsihed for what you're typing, not what we assume you really are.

When it comes to views, Wylted is the epitome of abhorrent but that's not all there is to it. His interactions all revolve around getting the most distress out of other users as is possible. I am aware it's possible you think I'm the same, which is complete nonsense and part of the entire idsue with the recent ban I received and way the mods handled it.

I can and have been toxic (less so bow than years before) but I've matured and learned harsh lessons in life. The current me wouldn't have clashed much with Bench back then, I'd have blocked him and got on with my life. Regardless, even at what you think is my absolute worst, my intentions and people I beefed with were never based on who is eays to prey on and wind up.

Wylted actively, consistently picks out any member who is easy to wind up and goes out of his way to piss them off if they happen to grab his attention for any reason. This is also why he resents bsh1 for beating him in a DDO presidency election where Wylted was running as the equivalent of Trump; intending to both incite conflicts within DDO and make a complete mockery of Juggle and the entire establishment.

You can argue this way and that about who I am and how I am wired. It's your perogative to delude yourself into thinking I'm the simplistic thug like troll that you identify someone like Wylted as but you're wrong. 

You're playing a dirty game here where you try to alter the conversation to be about me or theweakeredge and our character. I'm not going to play that bullshit game and attack your character.

Wylted's behavior is atrocious and much more than that one event. If you'd like I will compile a series of posts and threads solely from DART to show you the type of person you're defending.

Aside from you kind of lying and downplaying what Wylted has done (he has indeed joked about what you said he hasn't joked about), would you like to treat this topic as about more than that one act where he said he was an age he wasn't?

Most people, including me even, are not. I actually side closer to you on the general idea of free speech but the issue isn't just what he's saying, it's what it actually means and represents.

You would agree with me if I said to you that people who say the wrong thing can get it twisted out of proportion. However, you suddenly disagree when I suggest the opposite can occur. You are doing to Wylted, the inverse of what cancel culture is. You are part of a phenomenon I would dub as vindication culture.

To avoid this being solely an attack and refusing to find middle ground I will ask both you and theweakeredge to answer me the following:

Rules, in their true form, should represent aspects of a type of bad actor or personality that needs to be tamed and avoided for the good of the community, would you not agree? If so, what type of person is Wylted and what do you suggest we do to make him become anything other than negative for the community of DART?

See - the thing is - you guys are literally the ones to start the whole "oh, he's a stupid kid" thing - let's not even start trying to blame me for your immaturity - a tu quoque, as I've said before, does not somehow give you the high ground bud.

Let's back up bud - your claim is that he was joking about being a pedophile, "thinking" that his interlocutor was an adult.

I will concede then - if I don't have the evidence available then I won't continue trying to argue it. Period. I would like to submit the following for the sake of asking if Wylted and his alts ought to be banned however:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1130-we-have-a-moral-obligation-to-murder-politicians

So... yeah - jesus christ - I have spent an hour looking through his posts - the amount of times he tells somebody to "not reproduce"...

Next point - I said that Wylted was homophobic, not you, perhaps that was unclear - I made this argument with only a specific information as his Rain account, but... wooo boy his posts just... hammer that in.

Not unfair - however saying that Wylted is ablist or homophobic isn't really baseless... considering he was saying that being disabled made you inferior to others... the forum was literally called "are incels right", furthermore, please don't make me go back through Wylted's fucking posts, I will literally lose my mind if I have to drag one of his posts through here. 

And I could go on and on, but if I were to post every single post that was ban worthy.... that would take quite a couple hours that I am not willing to put in. So sorry for being a spiteful little shit - not sleeping does that to you - do I still think it was probably pedophilac what Wylted did? Yeah - but I don't have the evidence to necessarily demonstrated so I won't

Why grey??