Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
The products within the universe have NOT always existed. We know that the products within the universe had a beginning, will have an ending. These are the things we refer to as being "created", we can observe those processes, we correlate those processes with intelligence. If you claim that the universe existed before the BB I'd be fine with that, because it's irrelevant to that which begins within that universe. If you claim the universe began at the BB, I'm fine with that too and then your claim it has always existed doesn't work. Either way, I'm associating time and cause and effect with the products WITHIN our universe after the BB, the processes involved are how we measure time.The universe is like the fabric or backdrop to that which appears within the universe.
Assertion.
Perhaps we can say that the universe is like a body of water per say, and then we have all that exists within that body of water. When we refer to creation, we are referring to that which appears within that body of water.
I'm fine with that, it serves my point. North and South would be our measure of time. Take away the BB and there is no more North and South.No, this is where you don't seem to follow the logic. Time as we measure it, is only relevant to that which we can trace within the universe. Before that, there is no time, it is an illusion because it only exists if processes exist. What I'm saying is that time began the moment creation began, before that there is no linear time scale.The Big Bang is the beginning of creation, you can speculate there is no before but just know you speculate. You can't say, because you can't observe or measure that which precedes that point. At the moment the BB occurred, is the moment time became relevant. God precedes that, which is why I keep harping that God precedes creation, hence precedes time.God's existence before the BB (timeless/uncaused)Big Bang initiated (beginning of time/caused)Processes begin to occur (cause and effect)Products within the universe begin to appearThe current state of our universe
I’ve bolded a number of word. These are temporal words; words that require the existence of time to have any meaning.
Beginning. Requires a time Before without something - then a time after with
End. Requires a time Before with - the a time after without.
Before. Implies time prior go an event
Always. Implies all point of time.
Precedes. Implies something occurring prior to some thing else
Your problem is you are using the above worlds to bridge the gap between time existing and time not existing. The universe and God.
But the gap renders those words meaningless.
There is no before, no preceding the Big Bang, if that the beginning of time. There can’t be, because for there to be a before, there must be time before - which you suggest there isn’t.
God can’t precede the Big Bang, nor create it, nor did time “begin” if the universe contains time - because all of those require there to be a time before the Big Bang in order for God to precede, create peace for time to “begin”.
Your whole argument makes this key error - and I strongly suspect that your obliviousness tp this error is because you haven’t fully wrapped your head round the implicof the beginning of time; and you’re trying to have your cake and eat it, by declaring that time started at the Big Bang: then building up the remainder of the argument assuming it didn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
But there is a point in which the processes of the universe began producing things. You accept the Big Bang Theory correct?
I think your having a hard time wrapping your head around the premise; the question indicates you have missed the point.
The Big Bang is T=0
If there is no T<0 then the universe cant have been created or caused, because the universe has always existed.
Is the universe a piece of string with a defined start and end that can pointed to; or is it like the surface of a sphere; finite(?) but with no physical start or end.
In the case of the Universe, the Big Bang would be, say, the North Pole. And time is North and south.
Notions of creation, or causation requires time before and after - at the Big Bang: there is no before. So talking about creation or causation in that context implies that there is a north of the North Pole - which is simply an incoherent premise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
there is no fallacy when we are following clear parameters of logical thought.
But you’re not: because you’re using an undistrubuted middle in your logic. You are making a formal error. Perhaps explain how you have managed to distribute the features of God.
No I'm not, we are following the outline of each nature (temporal vs eternal).... two distinct things. In post 44 I go over the nature of the universe vs the nature of God. Only the nature of the universe needs to fit within the parameters of cause and effect. It does not logically follow that God has to be subject to a cause, as God precedes creation which precedes the laws that follow creation.
Yes - that’s special pleading. You appear to have accidentally removed the portion of my post where I detailed how we can tell it is special pleading.
Special pleading is when say one thing can do X, but an equivalent thing Y, cannot without offering a justification.
You’re saying that if is possible for God to be eternal by definition, but that it is not possible in any way shape of form, for any aspect of nature, in any respect to be eternal in the same way.
You’re placing metaphysical constraints on one but not the other.
For example; I can posit an physical reality, which exists in way outside traditional concepts of time and space - which sits at the heart of all that exists. It’s follows unknown laws and rules that allow regions of space, time and energy to be exist, and our universe, our laws of physics and causality are emergent in that universe - and do not apply to wider existence.
That meets all the requirements of an uncaused first caused without being God.
You have no basis at all to assess or reject the validity of that solution. None. But it will be rejected as a possibility because you have any notional reason to reject, but it because you assert that only God may have those properties by definition; and normally by extending the limitations of our observed universe into any natural explanation to accomplish that - as opposed to having a coherent reason why the observations of our universe must necessarily also apply to all possible physical explanations.
The remainder, is just chaff you try and obfuscate this fundamental fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The answer doesn’t matter.
In neither case is there any point of time in which the universe does not exist - the answer only separates whether a “cause” is unneeded, or meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
This is where you should have stopped and realized that you're not about to talk about reality.
What I was talking about is actually what happened in reality: I’m explaining how overtly racist laws can produce inequality that can be maintained with a fig leaf of non-racial justification.
I was simply employing a rhetorical device in its delivery.
I think you know this however, and your objection was simply a red herring in order to dismiss an argument you didn’t like.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
You’re presenting links as credible sources of information.
I don’t accept the scientific authority of a website run by two guys, with no apparent credentials on the subjects they are analyzing, and appear not to be impartial in any way.
This means, there is reason to believe that through their own conflict of interest, and lack of credentials - they may have misrepresented, misunderstood, omitted, or made unwarranted assumptions in support of promoting their particular point of view.
Given that the links in question may not be a valid authority - and given that no other argument has been presented - this whole post can be ignored.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Using TAN as an example, the tan button calculates the tan of an angle.
The tan of the angle is the ratio between O/A.
Conversely, There’s normally also an inverse button you can press before TAN that lets you convert from a ratio to its corresponding angle
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
First - that’s still the excluded middle fallacy.
Second, you are special pleading.
You’re declaring that things can be exempt from causality; and then unilaterally declaring that only God maybe exempt.
In this respect, you have no valid reason, of any kind; logical, metaphysical, etc: to suggest that the physical reality in which we live cannot be exempt also.
That is one of the many unsupported assumptions and assertions that you inject in order to be able to argue for God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No it really doesn’t matter in the context of my argument:
Let me draw your attention back to the point I have raised twice now and you have ignored.
That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.
So that’s one side of your definition.
Or specifically related to notions of time; because that’s a complexity that seems to always be ignored - Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect: without the existence of time, that notion of causality as cause preceding effect doesn’t hold. A “cause” that exists outside of the concept of time can’t be a “cause” in any way we understand the word because the very nature of timelessness invalidates the inherent premise of causality.
Or more specially it’s not possible for there a cause that exists outside of time from an effect; because causality has a temporal component. Something cannot be caused if it has existed for all time.
Now, the final possible option is that the rules of causality do not require a cause to itself have a cause - which appears to what you’re trying to sell.
That invalidates your whole argument as you’re basically agreeing that the universe doesn’t need to be caused. This is what I meant in the part of my post you ignored when I said:
“- Is there any point in time in which this universe doesn’t exist?If the answer is no; then it cannot be caused in any way that matches our notions of causality.”
Or to put I another way:
If Everything has a cause: then causality cannot hold.
If not everything has a cause; then the eternal option and the possibility that the universe has no cause is valid.
All options are metaphysically and scientifically alien to us, with the exception of the “uncaused” universe - which is potentially implied by quantum physics effects without classical causes.
This is really just word play though: the real issue is that we have no basis to make any assumptions or statements about the reasonableness of the options in reality when every option breaks some convention.
The theistic argument here boils down to breaking origins into lists of option; pointing out that various options are incoherent - picking the option that moves the problem; then declaring a solution that has the same problems of coherence that you just described, but declaring your solution exempt.
That’s the special pleading element often referred to.
We have no basis to draw conclusions about he origin of our reality (the universe or whatever reality the universe exists within), because all of our ways of explaining them break down, and our notions of what is reasonable don’t really make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
1.) citing God as the first cause is an undistributed middle.
All A’s are C’s
All B’s are C’s
Therefore all B’s are A’s.
Or; the cause of the universe was an uncaused first cause. God is an uncaused first cause - therefore God is the cause of the universe does not distribute the properties of God - will, mind, power, divinity, interest in mankind, etc - so you can’t use it like that.
2.) You’re invalidating causality.
That’s not a bad thing, or wrong: but building up your concept of a timeless uncaused first cause invalidates causality. Causes cannot be timeless - how can something that exists at all points of time be “caused”.
What you’re really saying by an uncaused first cause, and I agree; is that the reason that the universe is here violates all known principles of causality, and cannot be fully expressed in language and terms that we have.
That’s not an issue for me; this is my whole point.
Where it is an issue for you, is that your argument depends on what you have just invalidated.
Or specifically you can’t both assert the universe definitely requires a cause; and then say the cause exists in a way that invalidates causality.
That’s what people here are typically referring to as special pleading.
There’s really two options. Causality as we known it can be applied everywhere, or it can’t.
The former is impossible; and with the latter - all possible bets are off.
3.) Assertions about what some notional metaphysical reality is, are meaningless.
The meandering second part of your post is built up of a series of assertions and bold statements about what reality is.
Unfortunately- that is all absolutely and entirely meaningless speculation with absolutely no basis or baseline for us to even assess whether it is even possible, leave alone probable.
I do find many religious arguments revolve around pretending to know things that you don’t, and this appears to be no exception.
All A’s are C’s
All B’s are C’s
Therefore all B’s are A’s.
Or; the cause of the universe was an uncaused first cause. God is an uncaused first cause - therefore God is the cause of the universe does not distribute the properties of God - will, mind, power, divinity, interest in mankind, etc - so you can’t use it like that.
2.) You’re invalidating causality.
That’s not a bad thing, or wrong: but building up your concept of a timeless uncaused first cause invalidates causality. Causes cannot be timeless - how can something that exists at all points of time be “caused”.
What you’re really saying by an uncaused first cause, and I agree; is that the reason that the universe is here violates all known principles of causality, and cannot be fully expressed in language and terms that we have.
That’s not an issue for me; this is my whole point.
Where it is an issue for you, is that your argument depends on what you have just invalidated.
Or specifically you can’t both assert the universe definitely requires a cause; and then say the cause exists in a way that invalidates causality.
That’s what people here are typically referring to as special pleading.
There’s really two options. Causality as we known it can be applied everywhere, or it can’t.
The former is impossible; and with the latter - all possible bets are off.
3.) Assertions about what some notional metaphysical reality is, are meaningless.
The meandering second part of your post is built up of a series of assertions and bold statements about what reality is.
Unfortunately- that is all absolutely and entirely meaningless speculation with absolutely no basis or baseline for us to even assess whether it is even possible, leave alone probable.
I do find many religious arguments revolve around pretending to know things that you don’t, and this appears to be no exception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It doesn’t matter ; both are violated in the two ways I explained:
That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.
Or specifically related to notions of time; because that’s a complexity that seems to always be ignored - Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect: without the existence of time, that notion of causality as cause preceding effect doesn’t hold. A “cause” that exists outside of the concept of time can’t be a “cause” in any way we understand the word because the very nature of timelessness invalidates the inherent premise of causality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
As I said - and you seem to have missed - we can’t infer from the science, we have no basis whatsoever to determine that inference is valid; and frankly the idea that some region or dimensional plane outside our universe operates by its rules refutes itself.
In reality the assumption is wholly unwarranted and unfounded; and your using this very assumption to draw your preferential conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
At this point, it’s clear you’re unwilling or unable to engage in an intelligent discussion.
In previous posts I’ve provided a full and rigorous explanation of why you’re wrong on all counts; instead of replying to them, or providing a counter argument; you have simply chopped them out of your responses, and answered everything but the arguments I’ve provided. It’s clear at this point you’re unable to defend your point, and you know it: resorting to this petulant repetition of questions I’ve already explained as irrelevant, or answered in detail.
It’s clear that theres’s no point in me trying to drag you kicking and screaming back into an argument you clearly aren’t able or willing to have.
Simply asking the same questions over and over again, in some weird intellectually dishonest attempt at making you feel better about having lost the argument is ridiculous at this point:
I’m not going to answer because a) as I have explained in detail within previous posts - which you have ignored - the questions are not relevant. They have no bearing on the conversation whatsoever. B.) you have cut out vast swathes and entire posts I have made previously - so I’m not going to spend more time and energy constructing a more detailed response to an argument you clearly don’t want to have, and aren’t capable of engaging in. C.) they’re already broadly covered in previous posts.
It seems fairly evident your just going to ignore this; and repeat the same questions again, but frankly if you’re so rooted in denial that you think that’s a valid strategy - I’m just going to leave you to it.
If at any point you wish to actually engage in the substance of what’s being debate: I will refer you back to posts #39 and #41 and prior where my substantive points lie, and remain unanswered.
I do not await your response; which is clearly going to completely ignoring the accusations, and remaining in staunch denial about the critical issues with your questions ; and simply ask the questions again, hoping that in asking these irrelevant questions again, whilst failing to acknowledge anything said will somehow give the appearance that you haven’t comprehensively failed to defend the things you’ve said.
In previous posts I’ve provided a full and rigorous explanation of why you’re wrong on all counts; instead of replying to them, or providing a counter argument; you have simply chopped them out of your responses, and answered everything but the arguments I’ve provided. It’s clear at this point you’re unable to defend your point, and you know it: resorting to this petulant repetition of questions I’ve already explained as irrelevant, or answered in detail.
It’s clear that theres’s no point in me trying to drag you kicking and screaming back into an argument you clearly aren’t able or willing to have.
Simply asking the same questions over and over again, in some weird intellectually dishonest attempt at making you feel better about having lost the argument is ridiculous at this point:
I’m not going to answer because a) as I have explained in detail within previous posts - which you have ignored - the questions are not relevant. They have no bearing on the conversation whatsoever. B.) you have cut out vast swathes and entire posts I have made previously - so I’m not going to spend more time and energy constructing a more detailed response to an argument you clearly don’t want to have, and aren’t capable of engaging in. C.) they’re already broadly covered in previous posts.
It seems fairly evident your just going to ignore this; and repeat the same questions again, but frankly if you’re so rooted in denial that you think that’s a valid strategy - I’m just going to leave you to it.
If at any point you wish to actually engage in the substance of what’s being debate: I will refer you back to posts #39 and #41 and prior where my substantive points lie, and remain unanswered.
I do not await your response; which is clearly going to completely ignoring the accusations, and remaining in staunch denial about the critical issues with your questions ; and simply ask the questions again, hoping that in asking these irrelevant questions again, whilst failing to acknowledge anything said will somehow give the appearance that you haven’t comprehensively failed to defend the things you’ve said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I’m not introducing - in any of my posts- any assumptions at any point.
My post, if you read it, points out that your argument is based on a series of completely unsupported assumptions that you unilaterally declare as likely true - but for which you have absolutely no basis or reason to believe are true.
I covered the energy state one, but will reiterate.
You think that the universe must come from a higher energy state because that’s how things work inside the universe? On what basis can you make that assumption when you have no basis or grounding for drawing that conclusion of any kind? We have no baseline for comparison, can determine no properties, and indeed have no information whatsoever about whether the universe may have came from other than it would be “where the universe came from”.
I am pointing out that you can’t make assumptions about how it works or doesn’t; because we have no baseline grounding on which to refer: how does one attempt to assume the limitations of physics of a metaphysical reality about which we know nothing?
Making any assumptions about what can and can’t be rules out in terms of physical laws or physical operation of the underlying metaphysical reality that contains the universe - is simply pulling assumptions out of your a$$ - probabilities, likelihood’s, validity of one assumption over another can simply not be assessed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Are you saying the concept of an uncaused cause requires a violation of our notions of causality?
Well... uh... yeah.
That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.
Or specifically related to notions of time; because that’s a complexity that seems to always be ignored - Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect: without the existence of time, that notion of causality as cause preceding effect doesn’t hold. A “cause” that exists outside of the concept of time can’t be a “cause” in any way we understand the word because the very nature of timelessness invalidates the inherent premise of causality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I’m sorry - exactly what are you taking issue with exactly, and why.
If you read my post: the issue is that whatever the answer; our concepts of allowable metaphysics - causality - breaks down.
That’s demonstrably true.
Arbitrarily deciding that one solution is preferable to another, not because of a valid reason, but because selecting the place in which metaphysics breaks down is preferable to the conclusion you want to draw, is not coherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The details of specifically why mRNA can be considered safe after a short time is covered in detail post #39. Continuing to ignore the argument that addresses your point - whilst repeating your point is intellectually dishonest. Please Address the argument I made.
Post #39 fully refutes your entire premise, in detail. Continuing to ignore the argument that addresses your point whilst repeating your point is intellectually dishonest. Please Address the argument I made.
.
Post #41 explains in detail why your line of questioning here is completely irrelevant. Continuing to ignore the argument that demonstrates why the question is irrelevant and need not be answered - and repeating the question is intellectually dishonest. Please Address the argument I made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Post #39 explains in detail why we can confident the lack of long term health impacts without waiting two years.
Post #39 completely dismantles your claim that the vaccine mandates empower the government in some way to.
Post #41 and #43 explain in detail why this line of questioning is stupid.
All other previous posts detail why your premise is absolutely stupid.
If you want to pretend this is an intelligent discussion, please go back and actually deal with the arguments I have made; instead of repeatedly ignoring every single point, rebuttal and counter argument.
I’m not going to go through and continue to refute everything you’re saying - only for you to ignore every single last point. If you want to be intellectually dishonest - I’m just going to refer you back to the posts where I have made the arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The list is not correct as it makes a number of implicit assumptions about causality.
Things should be rephrased as follows.
- Is there any point in time in which this universe doesn’t exist?
If the answer is no; then it cannot be caused in any way that matches our notions of causality.
If the answer is yes; then the universe exists within some greater reality. Is there any point in time in which this greater reality doesn’t exist?
Repeat.
There’s only two possible options: that there is infinite regress by always answering yes, in which case our notions of causality breaks down; or you answer no at some point, and our notion of causality breaks down.
The real bottom line, is that to explain our existence requires a violation of our notions of causality.
If we know our notions of causality have to break down - it’s incoherent to prefer an element on the list because it more closely adhere to our notions of causality over others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
All you have done is made an unscientific conclusion.Have we ever observed a test group of humans two years after being injected with an mRNA vaccine?If the answer is no, then however confident and reasonable you are in your explanation, it is still speculation. You have not observed, tested, or repeated those results. Unless the scientific method doesn't apply to this situation.
Incorrect: in post 39 I outlined exactly how and why we can be confident as to that; and explicitly explained the reasons why other vaccines have to wait 2 years - whilst COVID 19 mRNA vaccines specifically do not.
Systematically Ignoring every single argument that I made, and to insist that I’m wrong using an argument I already refuted is just flat out dishonest.
Your entire argument here is that allowing vaccine mandates will somehow cause it to legally allowed to enact forced sterilization.
I never said allowing vaccine mandates will cause forced sterilization. My argument is that the same logic, fueled by fear of climate change predictions, will likely be used to justify compulsory sterilization in the not too distant future.You have at least vaguely reference a law now, so that's a start. But that doesn't show how sterilization would be judicially blocked, for instance, as a requirement for employees of the federal government.If it is determined that climate change is an imminent threat to public health in the form of catastrophic weather, famine, and death, how would the 4th Amendment be sufficient in the face of such a dangerous threat?
what you actually said is:
Then don't be surprised when the government mandates sterilization as a mitigation strategy. We are quickly empowering the government with the authority to take such actions when "public health and safety" is at risk.
Which is nonsense
I said was that we are empowering the government with the authority to make sweeping mandates in the name of public health and safety. Government officials have claimed apocalyptic outcomes in the near future due to climate change. Whether such fears are legitimate or not, if the government decides overpopulation will significantly increase the death toll of climate change, it seems logical they would enforce some type of compulsory sterilization.
and
Then don't be surprised when the government mandates sterilization as a mitigation strategy. We are quickly empowering the government with the authority to take such actions when "public health and safety" is at risk.
If you recall, in the part of my post that you ignored I specified:
My central point is that despite your protest otherwise vaccine mandates will have no legal, social or political Implications on the possibility that at some point in the future will enact forced sterilization; and the premise is ludicrous.
Which is almost exactly what you said...
Your entire argument here is that allowing vaccine mandates will somehow cause it to be legally allowed to enact forced sterilization.
In this respect; I mean the specifics of the legal side (which given that you were talking about the laws) being empowered by the vaccine mandate.
Interestingly; in post #39 and prior I have already deconstructed and refuted even your corrected premise; but you have ignored it.
So really this accusation seems to simply be an attempt to dodge the question.
Either way: I’ve shown this line of questioning is completely irrelevant in post #41 - a point you have ignored.
At this point you seem solely intent on ignoring everything being said. This is not just intellectually dishonest; you’re inability to even acknowledge -that I am making Key arguments - leave alone present a counter - means that this is no longer an intellectual discussion on your part; it’s just you trying to find ways to skip over the parts that can’t argue with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you believe that it is possible for there to be an uncaused cause?
Yes. Or specifically - I believe that the nature of reality or metaphysics allows our rules of causality to exist without itself being predicated on those same rules of causality.
But that’s it.
The issue here is one of equivocation - what theists mean when they say “some uncaused cause”, is “some uncaused cause - that has a mind - a consciousness - has a specific will - ability to alter events at will - is some how indistinguishable from reality itself and appears to have some degree of interest in creating a universe and human affairs.”
Nothing about philosophically accepting the first inherently necessitates pulling all of that other unnecessary nonsense into the definition of that first cause; and certainly not through sneaky implication - the undistributed middle being swept under the carpet with such statements as “that first cause is god”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I have specifically explained the scientific detail of how we can be certain that there are no long term side effects. From mechanism of action, to long term study of coronaviruses, to talking about how other forms of vaccination vector; or endemic diseases have to spend longer; and finally explains why the infinitesimal room for uncertainty is demonstrably less impactful than COVID itself.
I literally explained to you - top to bottom - EVERYTHING you are now asking in reply.
What you just did; was systematically ignore everything I said and pretend as if I had said nothing at all.
In your whole response, you did not actually cite a law to answer this question. If my premise is as ridiculous as you claim, it should be easy to show exactly how such a policy would be repealed by the Judicial Branch. Not answering my specific question makes it seem like it would be legal for the government to enact such a policy, even if viewed unfavorably by the public.
Your entire argument here is that allowing vaccine mandates will somehow cause it to legally allowed to enact forced sterilization.
In the several posts above - which you again appear to have systematically ignored - I detail at great length the specific reasons why this is not the case: balance of rights, precedents, indirect vs direct balance of rights etc. I could draw this backs to explicit legal common law precedent such as Roe vs Wade, or interpretation of the 4th amendment privacy Clause - but hey: I have given you a specific and direct reason, why the vaccine mandates will not allow for or caused forced sterilization from both a legal AND social perspective. You have completely ignored it.
The answer to the question you pose is irrelevant, and I suspect the only reason you’re fixating on it is that you have no answer to the sum of the remainder of my post in which I systematically dismantle everything you said; and you’re rapidly coming off the rails trying to deflect from your utter inability to respond to anything I’m saying.
The reason it is irrelevant; is that if there is currently no law to prevent forced sterilization - then it is currently legal for the government, and your suggestion that vaccine mandates will somehow legally enable something that is already legally allowed - makes literally no sense.
I mean - there’s no explicit law I know of outlawing it, but it’s generally covered by the 4th amendment right to privacy - which vaccine mandates are largely consistent with due to the reasoning willing the post above - which again, you have ignored.
Conversely - if forced sterilization is illegal based on current constitutional interpretation - which I suspect we don’t disagree on; it will remain so, because the precedent of vaccine mandates is not relevant for the reasons I stated in my last few posts - and you have ignored.
My central point is that despite your protest otherwise vaccine mandates will have no legal, social or political Implications on the possibility that at some point in the future will enact forced sterilization; and the premise is ludicrous.
That point is exceptionally well detailed in my posts above: and each key point remains universally unanswered by you.
That central point - that vaccine mandates won’t have any bearing on the Legal, social or political possibility of forced sterilization - is completely unaffected and unchanged by whether or not forced sterilization is already illegal.
That is why my answer to that question was completely valid.
If it’s legal - vaccine mandate can’t make it more legal. If it’s illegal, that legal status won’t be changed by vaccines.
I look forward to seeing exactly what part of this post you decide to completely ignore; or what irrelevant side track you decide to cover instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
1. lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. as far as we know it from our reality, an energy state greater than the universe must have caused it to occur, because we have no reason to think the universe could have caused itself given it had a maximum energy state as a beginning.2. existence should have an infinite beginning given it looks like there's an infinite end. i acknowledge there could be a finite end, but from what we can tell existence will be forever more even if it's emptiness. an infinite ending of our universe cannot have a finite beginning that we see. something else must be the infinite beginning. if i'm wrong, how can a finite beginning cause an infinite end? how does that series play out out of nowhere?
So let me see if I understand this:
The universe exists - and we can make a variety observations of it. Ageed.
From that, you unilaterally declare that the rules of causality must apply as we observe them to the entire physical reality in which we live; even though a) you have absolutely no basis on which to speculate that this is so, and b) the laws of physics and specifically quantum theory have already torpedoed every notion of classical causality you could have.
You then go on to state, matter-of-factly, that there are various limitations and rules of the universe or any potential physical reality that contains that cannot be violated; despite having utterly no basis of any kind, in any way to draw that conclusion.
After making those two specific and completely unjustified assumptions; you then seem to assert or at least imply, that there is no possible physical, or metaphysical configuration, of any kind, of our deeper physical reality that can possibly lead to the existence of this universe given those undemonstrable unjustified assumptions; you make this assertion with absolutely no justification, and no demonstration.
From those two unjustified assumptions, and unjustified assertion you then appear to suggest that any possible physical configuration of the universe that does not boil down to some personal entity with a consciousness, a will, and some desire to create that exists as some deeper layer of reality - and who is immune to the same underlying assumptions you use to Preclude a physical cause: is someone more likely.
This is not a coherent argument and can be countered with the simple sentence
.... either that, or the ultimate laws of physics and causality of our reality do not have the same constraints or limitations as our subset of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
is not currently...
Excellent. So let’s try this one.
Imagine, for a moment, a systemically racist system over a period of more than 100 years that puts policies in place to overtly criminalize, financially and politically disadvantage, and facilitate the social decohesion of a given race.
When those overt policies are taken away; you can replace them with policies and behaviours that maintain that criminalization, financially and politicial disadvantage, and the social de-cohesion; - identical effects on those races - and simply blame it on non race related things
Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Well, the cycle of poverty will keep that going?
Did you over police black neighbourhoods because you criminalize being black, and overtly criminalize drugs used by African Americans over those used by whites, and used it to precipitate a period of mass incarceration; that damaged the generational social fabric? Well now you don’t have to pretend that blacks are dangerous criminals; the poverty, lack of schools and break down of the social fabric of many cities - that one will keep taking care of itself too.
I mean: if you overpolice where there is most crime, arrest innocent people in that area that fit a description, or fit a criminal profile, or police them in a way that is more likely to lead to a detection of a crime , force them to plea bargain because they’re poor; send them to prison, give them tough parole conditions that makes it hard to hold down regular inflexible jobs they could find as an ex-con once they leave; then throw the book at them if they then turn to crime, or violate parole; breaking up families, leading to social de-cohesion that then increases poor behaviour at school, and can increase criminality - you only have to do it for so long before you can say you’re only criminalizing them because they’re criminals - ignoring that the criminality is in part historically because they have been criminalized...
This argument is really a variation of “piss on my head and tell me it’s raining”: Perpetuating the outcome of overtly racist policies, by creating policies that punishing what those policies created in various communities - in a way that maintains those very same problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Okay, so you’ve missed the point.
Explanation of is not evidence for.
With NDEs, God is one of a class of explanations for which God is an explanation. They are not evidence for God because they do not indicate one explanation above another.
Specifically because;
- they can occur without life threatening conditions.
- they are culturally and personally specific to each person, rather than a single consistent deity.
- they contain very similar trends and mental states to drug induced altered mental states.
- they contain very similar trends to hallucinations, and dreams.
- There’s no verified example of any of these extra-corporeal experiences revealing extra corporeal information.
So in this respect, there is no specific aspect of NDEs that explicitly point to God over being the product of an altered mental state. IE: it’s not evidence.
If the NDEs all showed the same God, or showed external information that would only be accessible to people if the vision were real - it would be evidence.
But all the various aspects of NDEs are consistent with them being a product of the brain - which has the capacity to produce visions, dreams and hallucinations based on changes in chemistry and operation - going through the same specific process that causes changes in chemistry and operation during specific events: all of which strongly influenced by the individuals personal beliefs, experiences and culture.
The qualifying statement you need to be able make for it to be evidence is: X is evidence of Y if it’s unlikely for X to be true if not Y
In this case, there are very valid reasons To believe x could be true if not Y.
How you’re justifying things is: X is evidence of Y if it is consistent with Y being true.
That’s why they’re inherently different.
Likewise with the entropy X is consistent with Y.
But you have no basis to make any extrapolations of any kind as to whether the existence of entropy could be possible in any naturally occurring universe. You can’t, it requires information no one has; you don’t even have any plausible reason to presume it would necessarily be true if God existed either.
So you’re pointing to something you see without being able to state with any degree confidence whatsoever that God is likely to have created a universe with entropy over one with something else; and that some naturally occurring universe would likely not have entropy.
That’s the primary issue with most theists idea of “evidence”, the confusion between “I can explain it, you can’t”, and “this is demonstrably unlikely to be true if you are right.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Right, I see what you’re doing; you’re focusing on a really small, unimportant and largely irrelevant part of my argument, so you can ignore the large overarching point I’m making. So I’ll just be quick here. I’m not going to reply on this side track after this.
Medication that is not retained in the body can only have long term effects if it has done damage at the time of administration. We know that applies to mRNA vaccines. Damage done to the body that impacts body function tends to show up rapidly after vaccination.
Because normally - when you’re body stops working - it shows immediately in some way.
For there to be long term effects of this vaccine it has to cause some form of body damage so subtle or so rare that it occurs in a similar incidence as the background control population - IE as close to safe as is possible : OR causes damage that somehow doesn’t show symptoms until much later and has not shown in any clinically significant numbers thus far. IE: cancer. Given that mRNA itself has been studied for a decade, and mRNA therapeutics have been studied for many years too; AND given the mechanism of action would be either via mRNA or spike protein, the former is not an alien substance and has a known and well studied action and behaviour in the body; the latter is the only unknown - but given that other similar protein structures in similar coronaviruses in other related illnesses and in COVID has shown no apparent long term health consequences, that it’s pretty clear that doesn’t have any longer term impacts; the key point. More critically, imagine the infinitesimally unlikely scenario that some unknown action, or some unknown behaviour of the spike protein can somehow, via some unknown mechanism cause long term impacts that we haven’t spotted in any of the other studies of other coronaviruses, or in any other mechanism of vaccination; and have not shown up in any meaningful degree so far in anyone - it’s likely to be a large inherent risk of COVID too... meaning that the long term impacts would undoubtedly be much less significant than the illness itself - so yes that can be ruled out as an issue.
This is not necessarily the case with LAVs or other viral vectors - which are vectors that does something similar to mRNA but have a middle man and may have an unpredictable effect on cells due to them entering them; the mechanism of action has a lot of other potential impacts And a lot of unknowns. So the reality is that mRNA likely needs 2 years to assess long term efficacy; but the long safety can be determined much sooner because of how it works - it’s effectively cutting out the middle man.
A final critical point - is that most vaccines are for endemic conditions. Most of the biggest long term side effects can be related to an immune response do long something bad in the presence of the virus. Dengue fever vaccine for example - to be able to tell you need enough of the participants to be exposed to dengue to have a statistically significant sample: 50,000 in a location with relatively low exposure? That takes a while to build up that confidence. 50,000 in the middle of a raging pandemic? Much quicker.
Saying that; this is all really an unimportant side point, which is not worth derailing the key point with: so I won’t be talking about this again.
You are assuming the government would consider compulsory sterilization to be bad. But let's say government officials are convinced that overpopulation will significantly increase the climate change death toll. They may see it as a public good to save lives through mass sterilization. It wouldn't be the first time that a country has done so.
If it happened it would DEFINITELY be the first time that forced sterilization was carried out and legally justified because of a law mandating vaccines as opposed to, say, laws that restrict the rights of specific groups of people, or explicitly passed to allow for sterilization.
What specific U.S. law would prevent them from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination?
The exact same ones that do now...
You see, the problem here is that I don’t accept your premise that the two things are the same. I keep pointing this out, you keep ignoring it and arguing as if the premise is agreed. It isn’t. They’re not the same.
Laws, rulings and precedents of vaccines mostly operate under the premise that people in various situations have the right not to be potentially exposed to a potentially deadly or harmful pathogen. Their right to not have someone around them putting them at risk of illness or death trumps the other persons right to make personal choices that put others at risk of illness and death; that’s not absolute, and the calculus would change if a vaccine had greater impacts to the one being vaccinated.
This is the same rationale for why people can be forced to take medication - such as anti-psychotics - if they present a danger to others without it; or people must medically manage their epilepsy in order to be able to drive.
The rulings and laws are not, to any degree a broad general decree that the government may force any action on an individual if it serves some broad utilitarian interest; and frankly, you have to either be a thundering cretin, or intellectually dishonest to try and argue it does.
It’s not how common law precedent works, it’s not how the constitutional system works, it’s not how any of this works.
And again - I don’t understand why I keep having to repeat myself - forced sterilization is not the same. Who’s rights are infringed, and how, by how much? by you not being sterilized? What’s the legal calculus balancing the rights?
I don’t know, you don’t seem to want to say?
You inability to potentially have kids at some point in the future has no specific direct potential impact on anyone at all; the potential impact if you had a child, on any other individual is minimal; and until there is a ruling that explicitly specifies that the government can significantly curtail rights, or force a medical procedure on a wider group because the cumulative specific impact of those rights has a large overall indirect impact others rights even though each individual has a minimal contribution - it’s going to stay that way.
What would prevent the government from requiring federal employees to be sterilized as a requirement for work if it will help lower the climate change death toll?
- Workers in the federal government refusing to comply with such a horrifying policy.
- Workers in the federal government refusing to implement such a horrifying policy.
- Congress passing laws outlawing the horrifying policy.
- The executives involved being impeached and removed for such a horrifying policy
- The justice system striking down such a horrifying policy.
- Healthcare workers, surgeons, etc - refusing to implement the policy.
- The military and police intervening to prevent the horrifying policy
- Popular uprisings and opposition that cripples the federal government prevents and the horrifying policy.
Indeed it’s odd that you ask what would stop the government, as specifying what would stop the government has been the central part of my point over the last who knows how many posts.
Or more specifically - the things that would have to happen in order for such a policy to be enforced on even a single person are so significant and antithetical to liberal democracy that the existence of laws to stop it would not present any actual obstacle.
This other flawed part of your premise is like arguing that if there were an anti-genocide law in 1920s Germany, it would have prevented the holocaust...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
A cracked egg lying in the middle of the sidewalk is not “evidence” that a seagull laid an egg in midair.
To be evidence; a particular fact, must be indicative of one explanation over another - even by a little.
Being ridiculously superficial, and simply talking about NDEs, with no detail at all, which not bothering to assess whether it actually points to something - you could possibly argue that multiple people experiencing God is “evidence” of God. But only then.
The detail of NDEs make it no such thing. NDEs are highly similar to various forms of Drug trips, especially things like Ketamin and LSD. Many aspects of NDEs such as out of body experiences can be triggered by drugs or particular environments. NDEs themselves share similarities but are heavily influenced by culture that someone lived in; and experiments relating to whether the experience is real (such as seeing a picture orientated so that it could only be seen If someone was floating above it).
Given that, NDEs do not actually indicate that a supernatural explanation is more likely; quite the opposite.
The “design” of the universe one is sort of assuming your conclusion. What you really mean is that some aspect of the universe seems complex and difficult to understand.
But to be evidence - the thing you’re looking at has to indicate one thing over another.
In this respect, why do you feel the existence of entropy makes it more likely that God exists than any other possibility.
In reality; the big confusion you make is that you’re confusing specific facts being evidence for God and God being an explanation of specific facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Could you please cite 2-year safety data for any mRNA vaccine used in humans in the last 200 years?
Why do you think you need 2-year safety data on mRNA vaccines?
It’s not a medication you take consistently over long periods that may produce subtle damage over time that cannot be detected in the initial trials.
It’s a medication that goes in, is rapidly filtered out of your body; causing whatever specific damage it causes ; and then is gone.
Unless of course you’re trying to tell me that, somehow, for some reason you think mRNA vaccines can cause major or significant immediate damage to the human body which then doesn’t produce any symptoms for up to 2 years?
What I said was that we are empowering the government with the authority to make sweeping mandates in the name of public health and safety. Government officials have claimed apocalyptic outcomes in the near future due to climate change. Whether such fears are legitimate or not, if the government decides overpopulation will significantly increase the death toll of climate change, it seems logical they would enforce some type of compulsory sterilization. Unless you think that this has not happened in other countries before...
The entire premise is ridiculous - I explained why in the post you largely ignored above.
Accepting vaccine mandates does not in any way shape or form enable, cause, allow, or otherwise afford a future “government” The will, capacity, ability or support a forced sterilization program. I mean seriously. What planet are you on.
It seems sometimes “the gubernint” arguments treat the government as one guy that can magically make things happen without any other involvement of anyone else.
We can agree that forced sterilization an obviously bad thing, right? That’s your whole point.
But to do something that bad requires the people in power to not think it’s a bad thing, the people carrying out to not think it’s a bad thing, the people supporting the government to not think it a bad thing; or the military or police who are enforcing it on threat of violence to not think it a bad thing.
This is the reason your argument is so mind boggling ridiculous.
Those things can all happen; absolutely. But whether those things end up happening has nothing - literally nothing whatsoever - to do with whether vaccine mandates are allowed Or not
To be more clear here to spell out quite how cretinous this is.
Imagine Joe Biden suddenly turns around after the Supreme Court ruling saying the mandates are constitutional; he signs an EO mandating forced sterilization.
Are you trying to tell me that it everyone involved will say “damn, I wouldn’t have carried it out, but that vaccination ruling means it’s reasonable”, or the Supreme Court would rule “well, forced vaccination is bad, but that last ruling mean we kinda have to...”
Or conversely, do you seriously think a government that has the capacity, will and power to carry out a sterilization campaign will not do it because the lack of precendent: “well guys, the shock troops were ready to put down protests, we had the army ready to go house to house, loyal medics ready to perform the operations, but Graham just checked a Supreme Court decision about vaccine mandates, so we have to take a rain check.
So in that respect - no - nothing about this could lead to forced sterilization in any way shape or form; as precedent for vaccine mandates being allowed or not do not change any of the fundamental barriers to a government doing that. If the fundamental barriers to a government doing that are removed, the precedent is unnecessary.
I mean, come on.
Created:
If there’s a huge housing shortage, then either the people who are born are either going to be packed into houses, or are going to be homeless.
As the average number of people per home is going down, and the homelessness rate is high, but isn’t enough to make much of a difference.
Companies like Blackwood are a comparative drop in the bucket, and the hilarious suggestion that eviction moratoriums is going to have a big effect, is a rather weird suggestion; but I guess if one wants to engage in blame madlibs, no problem.
The problem isn’t really the lack of housing; it’s the lack of the right type of housing in the right place. And the problem, fundamentally is actually the government listening to the people.
Specifically, if you own a house in a nice neighbourhood; a developer coming and building new units in that area will increase supply, and thus lower price. And that dilutes the value of existing homes - and the people there don’t like that so tend to oppose those types of building.
Alternatively, is that the homes that are built have to be smaller and less desirable to fit more houses into a desirable area.
Locations where that is not a big problem - out of town, not as accessible, far from work; have bigger houses for cheaper, but there comes a point where it’s not practical any more.
It’s very much the case that people may buy a second house to rent as an investment; which drives up competition for houses but decreases the cost of rental, but I don’t think that’s actually a big part of the house prices.
Locally for me where I am, house prices were crazy last year as families from a large expensive metropolis figured out that the property they can buy in a smaller city is better located, larger and cheaper - and if telecommunicating, being in an area for their own enjoyment is better than location with respect to work.
This is, Anecdotally, one of the reasons I’ve heard people I know give for why they’ve moved from San Jose to Austin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The answer is actually yes/no. But let’s assume it was yes/yes for a moment.
If the answer to both is yes, then why would you be opposed to some form of compulsory sterilization to help mitigate such a catastrophe?
On what possible basis would you conclude that the answer is not Because it’s forced sterilization.
What planet are you on where you think that mandating people take a safe and effective treatment for an infectious disease, that has been uncontroversial for 200 years, and has almost no negative consequences or impacts to the individual being vaccinated is somehow the same or equivalent, to forcing individuals to have an invasive medical procedure that prevents them from having children.
I mean seriously, one won’t happen because of the other because they are completely and fundamentally different things on every level.
Created:
Posted in:
Well I’ve been helping fund the site for all that time at least, and consistently lurking; on the pretence of rising from the dead like Jesus to save you all.
So on that note, RM, I forgive you for all your sins, and wash away and absolve you for all your wrongdoing.
I will be happy to vote on any debate you would like to chose, and if I am made president; I will continue to advocate for you like I have always done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don’t know why you went for forced sterilization: you should have gone with, like, the purge or an ingenious method of killing citizens.
“If you let the government enforce vaccine mandates on people today, it will mean they can install pneumatic flippers in random paving slabs for yeeting citizens across the city at random times to reduce the population tomorrow.”
God damnit people THINK OF THE YEETING.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on this site.
Are you seriously, with a straight face, trying to suggest that you believe that “allowing” the government to require people to be vaccinated in certain jobs, and proof of vaccination or negative tests - the former a key health tool that have existed for 200 years - whilst in the middle of a global pandemic of a deadly contagious disease - means that at some point in the future, the government, health professionals, military, the civilian Population; etc, will approve of and help facilitate a mass sterilization program?
And - more specifically - that the only reason that such a government, health system, and military, public, would not oppose such action - is because at some point in the past, we said no to vaccine mandates?
You’re premise, is literally that a manevolent government, in full control of the country, control of the military and all health systems, and has the ability to crush dissent, and enforce such an extreme act on its population; is going to decide that “hey, we had the scalpels and scissors ready, but we can’t implement this policy, because it turns out 100 years ago, it was determined that the government doesn’t have the power to mandate companies that their staff must be vaccinated”.
That’s hilarious.
Absolutely made my day lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
While I appreciate it, it’s a way off yet, and quite a lot may happen between then and now.
I also think Wylted and DrL should also vote for me too; given that the apoplexy it would generate in a small, one person demographic will be amazing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No - it’s an analogy comparing anthropologically caused climate change denial, with titanic sinking denial to help point out the broad absurdity.
In this case, the usage of “lifeboats” In the comparison is not to imply that everyone’s going to die; but as a metaphor for action that will help substantially mitigate the harm of the thing that is definitely happening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
If your group is voting based on fairness and principles, and you come across a group of equal size voting based on their race, at best you'll get an even playing field if you win, but a racially biased system (against you) if you lose. Eventually, you'll lose enough elections to where the race-based group has majority control and implements policies that are not fair.
So, you’re saying that if a single racial group has total control of the country for long enough; they may well construct some some sort of system that generates unequal racial outcomes that is beneficial to them, and not to other races; the racism is no longer individual, but is kinda, I don’t know... systemic?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
If only we had an example of where that happened...
Created:
Posted in:
These Titanic Sinking extremists are crazy with your “Iceberg based sinking” theory; it’s just alarmism.
For the first few hours after we “allegedly” struck this so called iceberg, you told us that the titanic would sink in hours: and look, we’re still here. So why should we believe you that we’re sinking.
You made dire predictions that the compartments would all flood, but the engine room and rear compartments are is fine, and it’s really only the first few compartments that have an issue.
You said that we would be meters closer to the surface by this point, but front of the deck still has many more meters to go before it hits the water.
Look at the stern; it’s even FURTHER out of the water than it was - how can we be sinking? It makes no sense!
We never hit an iceberg, Ships always variably in how high or low it is - there are natural cycles depending on crew and loading, sea conditions, etc. When it was launched, the bow was this low in the water for a short while - so this is just the same variation.
Oh, there’s luggage floating up and down the forward compartments? And? There’s always natural variation in how much water is in the ship - there are pumps to pump out the water for that very purpose? There is always a little water in the ship, and we have pumps to get rid of it - why should we believe it was caused by an iceberg.
You’re all being alarmist - telling us to get to the lifeboats is just an attempt to control us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I also said a lot of other things, all of which you appear to have ignored.
The problem is that I don’t think you are entirely sure how the constitution works or why.
Specifically; if someone makes a law somewhere, or challenges someone’s actions; there has to be some method by which who is right can be determine.
This is called the court system.
To be absolutely fair, in federal matters, there is a process of appeals, and a system in place to allow challenges so that one judge is not solely responsible for far-reaching decisions.
This is the federal circuit and appeal process.
The appeals cannot go on forever: so for any legal challenge there needs to be a final level at which a ruling can be appealed.
This is the Supreme Court.
In any system of government, at all, in any way shape or form; you need someone at that final level of appeal: someone who is able to decide which side is valid.
If voters pass a rule that violates some explicit part of the constitution - who exactly would decide that?
Imagine that judges are now only allowed to invalidate lass that are explicitly part of the constitution.
If that judge overstepped and decided that something was against the constitution - but it wasn’t: who would make that determination?
If you gave the decision to someone else, what’s to stop them making a bad decision?
The fundamental error you make, is you are operating under the premise that a system of laws in a democracy can operate without ultimately falling down to some partisan making decisions.
If things were solely down to democratic votes; then the people who decide what the constitution means are politicians, and the constitution means whatever the people can be convinced it means.
To make sure the laws are stable, you ideally want arbiters that are as impartial as possible. That generally mean lifetime appointments - because you don’t want judgements based on what keeps you popular as opposed to are correct.
You want elected representatives to chose and have the ability to remove if necessary these judges.
Finally, to make sure that what the constitution means, and what the overall law of the land cannot be overridden by a simply majority When one side sweeps power, you want to make fundamental changes, and the ability to purge political roadblocks to be hard to do just by winning a majority of votes.
All of those things are true in the current system.
The ruling made on Prop 187 went to federal court where it was decided based on existing common law precedent that the federal government sets immigration law. It was going through the court system when Gray Davis won a state wide democratic election - and pulled the challenge to the case - essentially removing people 187.
So the democratically elected governor was responsible for subverting the will of the people.
If it has gone on, and was upheld; then the reason it would have failed - despite having the public vote for it - was that the publicly voted for a law was itself not legal as per the understood precedents of common law.
Because immigration is under federal control, in order to keep consistent rules across all states - then the people of California did not have the power to make that determination. Instead they needed to get together with a majority of other states and pass federal law (rather than state law) to make it happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Ever heard of “what gave the Romans ever done for us?”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
By drive off, I mean make people not log onto the site any more.
Put it this way; if someone starts one pro Nambla thread - that provokes debate. If someone, say, bombards multiple threads, and poisons a forum by killing diversity of conversation - you’d need to do something about it.
It’s not an issue with what they’re saying; but the way they’re saying likely to have a real potential detrimental impact the site.
Remember, DDO and createdebate are sites that allow users to say anything they want to any degree; and they are cesspools that do not allow for any meaningful debate or discussion, for the reasons I outlined above. And in that way, having total unbridled free speech is worthless if the exercise turns DebateArt into createdebate or ddo.
Don’t get me wrong; you need pretty excessive behaviour to qualify. Brontoraptor, Type1, and harikrish rise to that level; no one else does. It’s important to distinguish that it’s not their views that are being censored; but their behaviour.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
The fact you have to say /sarcasm on the end there, should tell every prospective voter everything they need to know in order to pull the lever for someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I love arguing - I mean I really love arguing. I like sites that are full of people to argue with, I like arguing formally where I get lots of points to allow me to compare myself to other people I argue with.
Other people’s ability to say things I disagree with is why we’re all here, and people who drive traffic and may say something we can argue with is what gives us a reason to remember to log in and check what’s new.
In that respect the site exists because we disagree, and disagree strongly enough to want to reply. That builds the site.
What destroys the site, is people thinking they’re views are being silenced by mods; and instead of angry posts - they simply quit. In reality, I don’t think this actually happens very often.
What kills the site more often, is when the content drives people away. Ebuc is a case in point, kinda crazy, weird posts, probably arguing in good faith, but arguing is pointless; you do it maybe 5 times and realize that there is literally no point. On his own: no problem. If however, the entirety of a forum is taken up with it; people will log in, argue, then realize that there is no point in arguing; and little other content - and disappear. Forum dies.
There are many examples, Brontoraptor, Harikrish; etc.
The second issue that can kill a site, is the pile on effect. Take Createdebate as great example. The user base is filled up with extreme views, and ends being a cesspool where no one wants to go, and will never grow. Even cases where the political position is unbalanced can just mean any time there is a liberal posting, people just jump in, argue, attack, etc. Overwhelming, unsatisfying - and toxic. The left need allies, the right needs allies, the crazies all need allies.
Other people’s ability to say things I disagree with is why we’re all here, and people who drive traffic and may say something we can argue with is what gives us a reason to remember to log in and check what’s new.
In that respect the site exists because we disagree, and disagree strongly enough to want to reply. That builds the site.
What destroys the site, is people thinking they’re views are being silenced by mods; and instead of angry posts - they simply quit. In reality, I don’t think this actually happens very often.
What kills the site more often, is when the content drives people away. Ebuc is a case in point, kinda crazy, weird posts, probably arguing in good faith, but arguing is pointless; you do it maybe 5 times and realize that there is literally no point. On his own: no problem. If however, the entirety of a forum is taken up with it; people will log in, argue, then realize that there is no point in arguing; and little other content - and disappear. Forum dies.
There are many examples, Brontoraptor, Harikrish; etc.
The second issue that can kill a site, is the pile on effect. Take Createdebate as great example. The user base is filled up with extreme views, and ends being a cesspool where no one wants to go, and will never grow. Even cases where the political position is unbalanced can just mean any time there is a liberal posting, people just jump in, argue, attack, etc. Overwhelming, unsatisfying - and toxic. The left need allies, the right needs allies, the crazies all need allies.
It’s the circle of bullsh*t!
So for me the question isn’t an issue of free speech, there is almost no view I can think that someone could express on their own, in a debate, etc that would make me think “this guy should be banned”, and none whatsoever that we would likely disagree with.
If someone wanted to advocate for Nambla; he would get absolutely destroyed on this site, the only time I would think action would be appropriate, if he started saying it so constantly and so thoroughly that it drowned out other content. Overt Racism, slurs, overt homophobia in the context of discussion, etc; aren’t themselves an issue, only when they occur to the degree people simply log off because they don’t want to deal with that type of toxic nonsense.
I think personal attacks, abuse, etc; almost invariably just need a bit of a cool down ban at most provided that the user is actually contributing the type of controversy that makes us all come back.
A good example, is that I have personally lobbied for RM to not be banned for infractions several times - including threatening to Doxx me, because while his points are of dubious quality and validity at best, he contributes the good type of Drama that makes us click the posts to see what he’s said this time.
That umbrella includes Wylted most of the time too; the odd edgelord post is fine, he’s often obnoxious, sometimes says things that are clearly trolling or obviously dumb - it’s only when the content starts drowning out others that it becomes detrimental - it’s gotten close at points, but I would say that I haven’t seen behaviour that would cross the line from the type of infuriating that makes you want to rage type on your keyboard - which is a good thing. I’d say someone like Ebuc is more problematic - but hey, we can all tolerate the odd weird post, and thread about quantum symmetry vibrations In multiple dimensions and blah blah resonating sine waves
Or to use a non politically charged example - a flat earther coming into the forum - fine - posting dozens and dozens of threads and content drowning - or simply jumps into threads professes flat earthism and insults people, that’s where it gets to be problematic.
So in that respect - I’m think we should all be for free speech, but if free speech is being exercised in a way that drives off everyone who disagrees with you - then that’s every bit as bad as over-moderating controversial individuals for the same reason.
Right now; there are plenty of users annoy the tits off me, but every single one of them that I am aware of is doing so in a context that isn’t detrimental and even positive to the site - so should be largely left alone so as long as they’re not repeatedly insulting people for no reason.
That being said; the only bad thing I have to say about the presidency, is that it’s called a presidency, it really should be couple of people; someone left wing and someone right wing; I think if you had Thett and Oromagi trying to present a users position on a particular issue, people on both sides would have more confidence in the overall decision - which is kinda something I suggested when Bsh quit (some of the people I suggested would probably be a big surprise)
This is all just to say why DrLebronski should not be president; this is going to be someone who you want to be part of the decision making process. You want someone who has the capacity to argue, the capacity to justify their point, and is taken seriously, and whom doesn’t necessarily have identical views, but in the same ballpark.
DrLebronski, is a not a terrible guy from my limited experience - but he is clearly not that guy.
So for me the question isn’t an issue of free speech, there is almost no view I can think that someone could express on their own, in a debate, etc that would make me think “this guy should be banned”, and none whatsoever that we would likely disagree with.
If someone wanted to advocate for Nambla; he would get absolutely destroyed on this site, the only time I would think action would be appropriate, if he started saying it so constantly and so thoroughly that it drowned out other content. Overt Racism, slurs, overt homophobia in the context of discussion, etc; aren’t themselves an issue, only when they occur to the degree people simply log off because they don’t want to deal with that type of toxic nonsense.
I think personal attacks, abuse, etc; almost invariably just need a bit of a cool down ban at most provided that the user is actually contributing the type of controversy that makes us all come back.
A good example, is that I have personally lobbied for RM to not be banned for infractions several times - including threatening to Doxx me, because while his points are of dubious quality and validity at best, he contributes the good type of Drama that makes us click the posts to see what he’s said this time.
That umbrella includes Wylted most of the time too; the odd edgelord post is fine, he’s often obnoxious, sometimes says things that are clearly trolling or obviously dumb - it’s only when the content starts drowning out others that it becomes detrimental - it’s gotten close at points, but I would say that I haven’t seen behaviour that would cross the line from the type of infuriating that makes you want to rage type on your keyboard - which is a good thing. I’d say someone like Ebuc is more problematic - but hey, we can all tolerate the odd weird post, and thread about quantum symmetry vibrations In multiple dimensions and blah blah resonating sine waves
Or to use a non politically charged example - a flat earther coming into the forum - fine - posting dozens and dozens of threads and content drowning - or simply jumps into threads professes flat earthism and insults people, that’s where it gets to be problematic.
So in that respect - I’m think we should all be for free speech, but if free speech is being exercised in a way that drives off everyone who disagrees with you - then that’s every bit as bad as over-moderating controversial individuals for the same reason.
Right now; there are plenty of users annoy the tits off me, but every single one of them that I am aware of is doing so in a context that isn’t detrimental and even positive to the site - so should be largely left alone so as long as they’re not repeatedly insulting people for no reason.
That being said; the only bad thing I have to say about the presidency, is that it’s called a presidency, it really should be couple of people; someone left wing and someone right wing; I think if you had Thett and Oromagi trying to present a users position on a particular issue, people on both sides would have more confidence in the overall decision - which is kinda something I suggested when Bsh quit (some of the people I suggested would probably be a big surprise)
This is all just to say why DrLebronski should not be president; this is going to be someone who you want to be part of the decision making process. You want someone who has the capacity to argue, the capacity to justify their point, and is taken seriously, and whom doesn’t necessarily have identical views, but in the same ballpark.
DrLebronski, is a not a terrible guy from my limited experience - but he is clearly not that guy.
Created:
Ignoring for the moment that absolutely nothing in the title is accurate; and being so intentionally misleading seems to give the impression that the OP is not interested in an intellectual discussion on the matter; there are a few key things that should be pointed out.
1.) This was tragic.
2.) Trump supporters - or anyone - who are singling our Biden, are outrageous hypocrites who are clearly uninterested in facts and reality, and are more interested in finding any way to score points; again showing that the what is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the ever changing present in which the Party is always right, and democrats are always right. These facts are:
- Trump massively ramped up drone strikes, killing hundreds - arguably 1000s - of civilians.
- Obama put in place drone strike kill reporting to help raise accountability. Trump revoked it.
- Trump changed rules of Drone use that decentralized authorization: and led to massive increases in drone strikes, without central authorization and accountability. (Biden revoked this one if I recall)
So, frankly, the bashing of Biden, after 4 years of silence, then 8 years of complaints is partisan intellectual dishonesty, and the type of weaponized hypocrisy one has come to expect of the right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I think the characterization is actually particularly accurate; but as you haven’t objected to anything; it’s largely irrelevant at this point.
I will say something that should be obvious: when people chose a meteor over Trump in an online poll, it does not mean the majority of the left genuinely believe a meteor is better than Trump; the same way it is not the case that most people genuinely wanted the next flavour of Mountain Dew to be “hitler did nothing wrong”.
Frankly; that you seem able to read such things into that poll, tells me that you’re lacking something fundamental that is going to prevent any meaningful intellectual discussion.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
I’m not ignoring it, it’s just irrelevant.
I used to be a smoker, I kinda accepted the possibility that I may get Lung Cancer in the future.
Your argument is like suggesting that as I accepted the risk of cancer, it’s fine to legally mandate that I should not be treated for it - which is just silly.
Likewise: accepting the premise that a woman accepts the risk of pregnancy - which in reality isn’t the most rational times of decision making: is fine. They accept the risk of getting pregnant: but it is possible to avoid all those substantial health impacts once they are if the woman does not want to ensure them.
Suggesting that woman is not being “forced” to have a child, is the same as suggesting that someone who is prevented from being treated for Lung Cancer is not being “forced” to endure cancer.
The same goes for a transplant; while it would suck, I think if you agreed to donate your kidney, signed the papers, were prepped for surgery, and then shouted no as the mask was going on your face - you should be able to withdraw that consent - even though it could well (or definitely) lead to someone’s death.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
If the consequences of being forced to bring a child to term were that you had to have an injection, and a sore arm for two days - we’d all be pro-life.
If the consequences of being forced to have a vaccination (which is not quite the case btw) - was 9 months of health issues, high risk of stroke, and diabetes, weeks of nausea, health tracking, financial burden, significant changes to your body, hormonal imbalances, and high risk of major health issues leading to at best, several hours of excruciating pain or major abdominal surgery; follows by multiple weeks if not months of recovery - then we’d all be anti-vaccine mandate.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It’s all pretty clear cut. People don’t get it, not because they “don’t get it”, because it was never about getting it; but about trying to shout it down. Many people are trying to pretend they want an answer, but really all they want to do is make people go through the effort of discussing it in good faith; only then to deflect, dodge change the subject - or simply pretend that you didn’t answer at all. It happens here all the time, which is odd as you would fully expect people on a debate site to be interested in debate, but I suspect too many people are more interested in trying to feed their own denial.
The vaccines efficacy is currently tracked at around 65%(Pfizer) and 80% (Moderna I beleive) for preventing infection.
What these numbers mean is that if you have a million vaccinated and a million unvaccinated - for each 100 unvaxxed person that get sick, only 35/20 will get sick in the vaxxed group.
For hospitalization and death, the number is 94%.
Meaning that in that same set of groups, for each 100 unvaxxed people that are hospitalized or die, only 4 of the vaxxed group will die.
They should think of it as a new technology in a car that 65% effective and preventing a collision, and 94% effective at preventing you being killed in the accident.
Side effects have been demonstrated to be minimal: you will likely have a generalized immune response - and that response involves arm pain, temperature, etc: but no significant respiratory illness. There are some more serious side effects - such as a small risk of blood clots, and swelling in the heart muscles - the risk actually being substantially lower than the risks of the same thing happening with covid.
So there’s almost no risk in getting the vaccine, and a massive benefit. This is played out in the statistical data in almost every state and countries where vaccine rates are high.
It needs to be reiterated - that vaccines, and vaccine mandates have been unremarkable, and uncontroversial for two centuries; critical tools of public health.
The only reason this is an issue today, now, is that in March last year, there was a major crash in the stock market that made Trump believe that he would lose his economic message and thus the election: mitigating covid and stopping the surge in cases and death has further economic impact: so the messaging was that anything to stop the virus that harmed the economy was bad. As conservatives have been spoonfed a diet of democeatsgungetcha for 30 years now, the best way of selling that was simply to keep yelling about mahrats.
Republicans don’t really care about the vaccine - it’s efficacy or anything. People who are asking with faux furrowed brow why they should be forced to take it, don’t really believe it’s really a big issue of rights; it’s not even about the vaccine at all.
This is just the latest canard in a long list of canards that Trump supporters can digest, parrot and scream so that they don’t have to think about the fact their party and their leaders do not really stand for anything, nor have any policies of note.
All that they really have, is getting people mad, and training them to not listen to information they don’t like.
This is why instead of actually having a discussing about the data, the detail, or the efficacy of vaccines in good faith; you have people attempting to shut down debate by simply pretending you didn’t say any of the things you just did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wylted for president
This is true hate speech right here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Eminem: Says the N word regularly in a context that if Trump said it, the left would be energized enough to vote him out. Also says, “Orange man bad”.
Unless Eminem was a real estate billionaire involved in pretty explicit housing discrimination in the 1970s that I am not aware of; and unless Trump is a leading figure in the predominantly black rap scene, I significantly doubt the contexts are the same.
Likewise, if Eminem was running or was elected president - in some shocking confluence of events - I guarantee you that there would be significant outrage on the left about his use of the N word - just as there was a little while ago when some of these videos surfaced and there was a suggesting that he was being “cancelled”; rather than being hailed as a hero.
Created: