Total posts: 2,897
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
D. He needs to read the Seven Realms Series - a medium length series of novels that is full of twists and turns. Karn and Tyburn are ruthless against each other - I’ll promise you that
lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
So you are either
A. Sick of everybody's shit
B. A Jester
or C. Making a bad joke
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
oh shit, yeah good luck with that
Created:
Posted in:
Google really seems to dislike DART, though. Which is unfortunate
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
5 words: VPN, wait that's one word
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Anyway I'm turning in for the night so if you respond I probably won't be getting back to you until tomorrow
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Nope. This is my view summarized in one sentence: “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.”
And physical development, in my view, is not a good metric for justification.
The argument I laid out above pretty much shows why I think differently for animals. They are not moral beings, they can not act altruistically nor do they hesitate to feed on the flesh of their animal peers. I see no reason to feel especially remorseful over continuing the natural order.
Within reason of course. Cruelty and inhumane treatment seems unnecessarily vile, and I'm sure there is a special place in hell for those who practice it. (The reason why this is different, is because in the natural order animals kill eachother for food or other means of survival. Torture and cruelty provides no such benefit other than sadistic pleasure.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Anyone who is pro-life but not vegetarian (especially not with juvenile-animal-meat) is simply a pure hypocrite in my eyes. I am pro-choice up to the third trimester and I believe that so long as no pain is felt and the animal lived a happy enough life, room to move around etc and the kill was mercifully done with a stun gun to the head prior to the bleeding out, the meat industry is not too terrible for now.
How does me opposing women having their babies vacuumed to death require me to be vegetarian? One is human, one isn't. I think that just about covers it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Not really. Calves are cute and everything, and if that's enough for you to want to pass up on veal, that's your prerogative... but as for me, the order of nature has always been that which is on the top of the food chain eats that which is on the bottom, and I see no reason to show remorse about it. Predation is inherently pro-nature. Predation controls populations of organisms on the lower trophic levels that, given a lack of predation, would be able to reproduce to incalculable levels. And, in that process, they would outcompete other organisms and destroy biodiversity.
As for purely ethical arguments...
humans are capable of culture, innovation, and the sublimation of instinct in order to act in an ethical manner while animals are not, and so are unequal to humans on a moral level. This does not excuse cruelty, but it implies animals are not morally equivalent to humans and do not possess the rights a human has.[50] The precise definition of a moral community is not simple, but Hsiao defines membership by the ability to know one's own good and that of other members, and to be able to grasp this in the abstract. He claims that non-human animals do not meet this standard.[49]Benjamin Franklin describes his conversion to vegetarianism in chapter one of his autobiography, but then he describes why he (periodically) ceased vegetarianism in his later life:...in my first voyage from Boston...our people set about catching cod, and hauled up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food... But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and, when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc'd some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs; then thought I, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you." So I din'd upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.[51]
Created:
Wow. And you almost went up to the default 1500. That's crazy
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Didn't expect a full rebuttal, good job lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Yeah if you have buds to play with and you do your homework I'm sure it's good. Problem is everyone I know who plays it is so much more experienced at the game, makes me feel like a total noob.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Gotcha. If I didn't suck at those kinds of games I might play more, but I find them difficult to get into
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
*draws the Duolingo bird holding my family hostage*
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Thanks, BearMan.
RESOLVED: Sometimes I like to copy MisterChris' arguments and then text them to someone random with no context.
OBSERVATIONS:
- Merriam-Webster defines "random" as "being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence"
CONSTRUCTIVE:
CONTENTION 1: PATTERNS
It is impossible for PRO to have sent text messages at pure random. Human brains are innately pattern seeking, the result is innate biases that skew the probability of picking certain elements in a sequence.
CMU.edu notes:
suppose that you were simply trying to generate a random sequence of letters and numbers without worrying about remembering it later. Would that sequence of letters and numbers be truly random? Studies have shown that humans have difficulty consciously generating random sequences of numbers. The ‘random’ sequences that people generated tended to follow predictable patterns that would most likely not occur in a truly random sequence. Most people – when asked to pick a random number between 1 and 20 – will select the number 17.
In fact, this phenomenon is so pronounced that, according to Plos One journal study, an algorithm was able to semi-accurately predict what number each participant would pick next based on both their pick history, and surprisingly, the history of other participants.
Twenty healthy subjects randomly generated two sequences of 300 numbers each. Sequences were analysed to identify the patterns of numbers predominantly used by the subjects and to calculate the frequency of a specific pattern and its variations within the number sequence. This pattern analysis is based on the Damerau-Levenshtein distance, which counts the number of edit operations that are needed to convert one string into another. We built a model that predicts not only the next item in a humanly generated random number sequence based on the item′s immediate history, but also the deployment of patterns in another sequence generated by the same subject. When a history of seven items was computed, the mean correct prediction rate rose up to 27% (with an individual maximum of 46%, chance performance of 11%). Furthermore, we assumed that when predicting one subject′s sequence, predictions based on statistical information from the same subject should yield a higher success rate than predictions based on statistical information from a different subject. When provided with two sequences from the same subject and one from a different subject, an algorithm identifies the foreign sequence in up to 88% of the cases. In conclusion, the pattern-based analysis using the Levenshtein-Damarau distance is both able to predict humanly generated random number sequences and to identify person-specific information within a humanly generated random number sequence.
RECALL: Merriam-Webster defines "random" as "being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence"
Since humans do not allow for truly equal probability for each element of a set, the voter can not affirm.
Back to you, BearMan
Created:
-->
@seldiora
Nevermind, I read it out of curiosity, I don't agree for many reasons but listing them takes effort
Created:
-->
@seldiora
jeez, you're relentless, I'm much too lazy to read and respond to this xD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I lol'd at this. That will be the final phase of environmentalist rhetoric
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think he should even be on this site after literally lying to get me banned, let alone celebrated and glorified.
how I glorify you, O ragnar! How I celebrate your divine accomplishment! How I shower you with praise! Please, O ragnar, receive my children as offerings!
Created:
-->
@seldiora
Then what about past practices that have been since abandoned, like slavery, human sacrifice, etc.?
Already addressed human sacrifice. As for slavery, we condemn it today on the basis that everyone deserves liberty. Many in the past thought that some deserve liberty more than others, some protested it, and others simply didn't think about it too hard as long as they themselves got liberty. It should also be noted that most people had a distaste for it, but it was allowed by society because it was an economic necessity. But nowhere has there been a society where liberty as a principle is abandoned. If it were, people would have been lining up to become slaves in those societies.
Or someone who does not even know language, such as Genie the feral child? Wouldn't she appeal to the most animalistic instincts, believing it is moral to bite things, crawl around, and be used to a starved horrible lifestyle? Or are you saying this only applies to educated persons past a certain age?
Not knowing speech does not translate to being an immoral savage. And as for babies, considering their actual capacity has yet to develop into their potential capacity, I'm not sure we can extrapolate much from studying them... however, there is evidence to suggest that babies have a sense of fairness and compassion.
Otherwise, the children's belief is valid, that it is fine for Santa to violate privacy (sees you when you're sleeping), pollute the North/South pole, monopolize gifts, and control child labor, despite being an absurd fictional story. [Any person other than "Santa" would be condemned for these actions]
I hope you realize why this metaphor doesn't work to say children are immoral. Are adults immoral because we read the Hunger Games?
Created:
Posted in:
Sorry folks, but you can't stop Milankovitch cycles no matter how hard you try.
Created:
-->
@seldiora
Again, moral principles do not differ when observing societies, even in those that were extremist (Also, I will note that government systems and collectivism vs. individualism pertain to how to best organize society. It has nothing to do with the morals of everyday actions, which is what moral principles are mostly concerned with). Fascist Japan thought that men that defected from the military were less than human, and similarly America shunned military defectors. They disagreed as to the extent to condemn them in practice, but in principle they were the same.
Additionally, While intellectually I can call myself an egoist all I want, that does not carry over in practice in the least. If I violate the rights of an egoist because it makes me happy, they will protest despite it fitting their philosophy to do whatever one wants.
Created:
-->
@seldiora
Obviously, we already see problems with P2, the contradictory nature of humans. Kant claims that it is the universal law that makes an action moral. John Stuart Mill claims that the consequence with greater good is moral. In a dispute between Kant and John Mill alone, if they solidly believed in their philosophy, they could arguably both say "to hell with your standard", and stand by their personal claims.
My argument specifically applies to situations where people appeal to the standard subconsciously, thus affirming the existence of one. While Mill can talk about utilitarianism and intellectually affirm it all he wants, if I took his orange juice because it would on balance make me happier then it would make him sad, he would protest it as unfair within a second.
Additionally, while people, civilizations and societies across the world may have certain moral practices that differ, what is truly striking is how in terms of moral principles, they are the exact same. In order to disprove objective morality, you would have to point out totally different moral principles. For example, while the Aztecs and the Spanish might disagree on whether the moral practice of human sacrifice constitutes murder, they both seem to agree that murder is wrong, as a moral principle. Imagine a society where murder is good. Where lying is encouraged. Where double-crossing is met with admiration. No such society exists, but this is what we would be witnessing under a truly subjective moral system.
P2 seems weaker, however, there can still be an objective standard even if only a majority accepts it. For example, it has been proven beyond a doubt that the Earth is Round. But some people lack scientific thinking, or have no experience with experimentation, and therefore believe that the earth is flat, contradicting this idea. But as the majority of scientists and educated men have managed to find and agree on this objective fact, they have successfully established its objective nature.
An objective standard does not require anyone to accept it, because it transcends humanity. People appeal to it, whether they like it or not.
In addition, the "majority of humans" might still believe in something wrong, such as the earth being center of the universe, before exploring outer space. Due to lack of information, they could not find the objective truth.
There is no lack of information as to morality. Stealing, murdering, raping, etc. will still be stealing, murdering, and raping 1000 years from now.
Therefore, I propose an overhaul to the entirety of the universe as a standard. The reasoning behind this is that the vast majority of universe has to follow certain laws: Conservation of matter, speed limit of light, equal and opposite motions, so on and so forth. We have gathered from countless evidence in order to prove the universe's age, not merely from humans or earth, but from the entirety of the universe itself. It would be cherry picking to pick from Earth, after all.
Precisely.
Created:
Posted in:
Easy to vote a lot when your votes are high quality every time and you don't have some strange vendetta against half the users on the site.
Created:
Posted in:
I didn't expect them to actually accept my track on Spotify, but here we are. This is a pretty big landmark for me and my music
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ancap460
If your debating just pull out the strawman thing for good measure....It's generally meaningless, but looks good and might just clinch a vote.
Yeah... no. I disagree with this. I tend to address the central point of my opponent's argument, and if they are using a strawman fallacy, I will sprinkle that in as well. Judges are smart on this site, and will see right through you most of the time if you just throw the word around.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
After Supa's ATLA, you should promo this game again. I'd like to see a POTC game
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
True. Technically you were the first to sus Speed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
You always gotta follow the ways of the cunt nuggets, they cannot fail you.
We can make a religion out of this
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You had a very amazing theme analysis on Speed. I was thinking it was Croc until you pointed that out. Great catch by you
I'll be honest, it just clicked in my brain and I literally said "O shit" out loud
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
You played well, your intuition on supa was awesome. Was that just a hunch or did his gameplay indicate 3p?
Looking back at my notes, this is what I had down for DP1: "POTENTIAL 3rd PARTIES: Supa. Croc. Pie. Bear."
I had used POE to rule out everyone else (can't remember how I got to those 4). From there I looked at subtle differences in behavior... Threw Croc out because he is always impossible to read, Pie was null because he was absent, Bear was.. Bear. Supa was playing very town, it looked like he was legit scum hunting. So it was either town or TP, plus my gut was telling me "Go Supa. Do it you cunt nugget"
Also you were right on your read about speed when it comes to his fake claim so well played.
Thank you thank you
Created: