Total posts: 399
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Your profile says you studied math and economics. None of the views you listed are covered by your education.
Formally studying some topics does not mean you cannot informally study other topics. Look at Bill Nye as an example. Bill Nye hosted a science education program, continued to work in various ways to educate the public in science, etc., but what he formally studied was engineering. Does this mean Bill Nye is uneducated in science? Not at all. He studied science beyond just his formal education in it because he was passionate, the same can be said of many people with many fields of interest. You do not need to have a formal education in something to be knowledgeable in it (hence why many academic journals do accept papers written by people without a formal education in the field, so long as the paper meets the standard for publication).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
- Epistemic nihilism is false. I’m not sure its truth can actually be evaluated, but at minimum, it’s useless and unproductive.
With you on this one, especially pointing out its uselessness and it being unproductive. Just from a pragmatic POV it should be rejected, but even beyond just pragmatism it seems false.
- God almost certainly doesn’t exist.
Disagree here. I remember being quite the defender of this view on DDO (when I went by SNP1), but I no longer feel it is a justified position. I feel as if too much of the debate has been centered on atheism vs monotheism, but the moment you through polytheism into the discussion it changes things.
- Highly uncertain about this, but free will probably exists.
Agreed, but I am curious on if you are a compatibilist or hold to more of a libertarian free will? While I do think compatibilism is easier to support, I do have a lot of sympathies for libertarian free will. Our intuitions just scream that some extent of libertarian free will is true.
- Moral realism is probably true, though highly uncertain.
Mostly agreed.
- The best approximation of a good moral theory that I can think of is preference utilitarianism, albeit somewhat skittish, accounting for moral uncertainty with either expected choice-worthiness or a parliamentary model, and incorporating some unusually strong common sense intuitions.
I tend to think that Aristotelian Virtue Ethics is one of (if not the) best moral theories.
- Creating new happy lives is a good thing, though not as good as making existing people happy. Creating new bad lives is a bad thing (though not as bad, other things equal, as inflicting suffering on existing people).
Agreed. Future people are important, but we cannot sacrifice too much from present people for them. Does not mean certain things that limit present people should not be implemented for the benefit of future people, just that we cannot sacrifice too much in the process.
- Countries don’t have very large special obligations to their own citizens. They should prioritize their citizens a bit more than non-citizens, for pragmatic reasons, but policy should, in general, focus a lot more on the rest of the world.
Pretty strongly disagree here. The purpose of a country is to look after its own citizens. Without that, the country serves no purpose. This does not mean that value cannot be given to people outside the country, just that if a decision is made between the interest of the citizen vs the non-citizen that there needs to be a good reason to do anything but prefer the interest of the citizen for each situation.
- Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.
I do think charity is a virtue, yes. I do think, however, that there are limitations (like in all things), and that certain forms of assistance can be more harmful in the long run.
- We should care, morally, as much about future generations as the current one. Of course, for practical reasons, it often makes sense to prioritize the interests of people alive today, but the moral worth of someone 300 or 3000 years from now is no different than the moral worth of someone alive today.
This is where I disagree and think that you have some conflict in your points. if you assign a future person as having as much moral value as a present person, then how do you justify the view that "Creating new happy lives is a good thing, though not as good as making existing people happy. Creating new bad lives is a bad thing (though not as bad, other things equal, as inflicting suffering on existing people)"? I think future people certainly have moral worth, and we should act to look after future generations, but does that give it equal weight to people here today? I do not think so. Future people do not exist (yet) while present people do. I think more moral value is given to things and people that exist than things and people that do not (similar logic as to why theft, murder, etc. is wrong but playing GTA is alright).
Created:
1.No
2. Yes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
If nothing has the ability to become something then does that not mean that nothing has some property to it, thus it must actually be something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ya, this is just going in circles. I can quote the IEP again, or even the SEP, or any number of philosophical sources at this point, but I doubt it will get us anywhere.
Just as I predicted earlier, this is a waste of time. Peace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You claim it is "very basic logic" yet your example to demonstrate it is to point to things of a single kind (physical things) and go "some have stronger interactions and some have weaker interactions!"
Why do you think even physicalist philosophers don't really use that line of argumentation? All you are talking about are how physical things physically interact with other physical things to produce wholly physical outcomes. None of this deals with the question of interactionism, where the question is a non-physical thing interacting in a non-physical manner on a physical thing and vice versa.
It also, again, goes to the other topic that you decided to ignore the basic paper on before commenting (all the while clearly never having done reading on the topic), the ontology of holes. If one takes the naïve realism approach (of which you have given no good reason not to take this approach yet), then the existence of the non-physical already is demonstrably able to impact the physical. This would, of course, only move the question of doubting the possibility (which is not sufficient to say it is impossible) to questioning the mechanism (which literally goes back to the original point I made).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
my claim is that "mind" and "body" very obviously interact
Yes, and? You are also saying interaction, if the mind and body are, in fact different things (like under substance dualism), is impossible, but that is a claim/assumption on your part and is literally addressed in the quote I just provided.
You can question how such interaction is possible, but asking such a question only would show that the understanding of the mechanism behind dualism is incomplete. Unless you can justify that such interaction is impossible, then, to quote the IEP, so what?
Created:
Posted in:
I'm just going to leave a quote (and a quick insight comment) from the IEP and leave it at that for now,
It is useful to be reminded, however, that to be bewildered by something is not in itself to present an argument against, or even evidence against, the possibility of that thing being a matter of fact. To ask “How is it possible that . . . ?” is merely to raise a topic for discussion. And if the dualist doesn’t know or cannot say how minds and bodies interact, what follows about dualism? Nothing much. It only follows that dualists do not know everything about metaphysics. But so what? Psychologists, physicists, sociologists, and economists don’t know everything about their respective disciplines. Why should the dualist be any different? In short, dualists can argue that they should not be put on the defensive by the request for clarification about the nature and possibility of interaction or by the criticism that they have no research strategy for producing this clarification.
Essentially, asking 'how' or 'how is it possible for' the mental and physical interact does not invalidate dualism, you must provide justification in order to think such interaction cannot occur. It does certainly leave the mechanism behind dualism incomplete, but the same exact thing is true of physicalism (as I stated at the very beginning).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
two things that are fundamentally independent cannot interact in any way
That is the assumption you are making in order to show monism is true. If this was some undeniable fact, like you pretend it is, then substance dualism would have never been prominent and we wouldn't expect to see modern defenses of it. You are essentially taking the Interaction Problem, saying "no longer is it a question of how, let's just assert it as impossible!" then going "Wow, if we assume such interaction is impossible we conclude some form of monism!" Ya, great job there. You managed to make a circular argument that completely ignores the very first point I made in my original comment.
If this is how this conversation is going to continue then we may as well stop here, as it is just going to be a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
holes do not "exist" in the same way that concrete nouns "exist"
I gave you a link to probably one of the most basic, but encompassing, papers on this topic, and instead of even trying to grasp what philosophers think (on a philosophy forum) you decide to essentially just repeat yourself without even addressing what I said.
which means that by pure logic, we know beyond any doubt, that they are both aspects of one "substance
No, we don't know this through "pure logic".
Once more I am reminded why I hate this forum. Almost no one here actually knows even 101 level philosophy, the Dunning–Kruger effect can be observed here more than almost any other philosophy forum I have ever been on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you have made a category error
I really recommend reading 'Holes' by Lewis and Lewis (and the 'Holes' article on the SEP, though that is a more complex article). It is not nearly as simple as you are trying to make it out to be. Here is a link to Lewis and Lewis's article, free to read: rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil375/Lewis1.pdf
A hole is not a 'substance' if you mean it in the way it usually refers to things (as it is usually used to refer to physical things), but do holes exist? If so, what, precisely, is a hole (on an ontological level)? This is where things get tricky. If true things can be said about holes (that hole is filled, that hole is x ft deep, etc.) then it indicates that holes are things that exist (as in order for there to be true things about a hole in reality, said hole must exist in reality). Holes exist, but are made of an absence of physical things. This is strange, no? And so many that reject the naïve realism (as under naïve realism, a hole is an immaterial thing) approach to holes take the view of either redefining holes from the common sense view or deny that holes even exist.
It seems, at least to me, like you are taking the philosophical view that holes do not exist (if I am not mistaken). It certainly is a view some philosophers have adopted, but it comes with baggage as well. If you take this view then that means that 'holes' only refers to something being perforated, which means that the number of holes would chance the necessary shape predicate for the "holed" object. To quote the SEP article, "Challenge: Can a language be envisaged that contains all the necessary shape predicates? Can every hole-referring noun-phrase be de-nominalized? Compare: ‘The hole in the tooth was smaller than the dentist’s finest probe’"
The philosophy of a hole's ontological status is a very complex thing, and every view has baggage. I simply take the naïve realism approach, as it is far more intuitively powerful and follows common sense. The only baggage it comes with is that it means non-physical things exist, but Mathematical Platonism (which the majority of philosophers of mathematics agrees with due to the Indispensability Argument) already comes with that as a conclusion. If you wish to hold to a different ontology then you inherently must sacrifice the intuitive and common sense approach and make an argument while taking on the corresponding baggage to said approach (taking intuitive and common sense approaches tend to mean a significantly lessened BoP).
Created:
Posted in:
I don't really worry too much about the Interaction Problem anymore, though I still find it to be a challenge. It is already well accepted in philosophy, even by physicalists, that physicalists have yet to fully describe the mechanism of a purely physical definition of consciousness. Why should we treat dualists any different? The inability to fully describe the mechanism is true of dualism and physicalism, and so if one wishes to criticize dualism for having such a lack then the same criticism must be applied to the physicalists.
Furthermore, even if the mechanism is not fully understood I believe we are justified in thinking that the immaterial can have causal efficacy. This is something I hold to because I find nominalist explanation for the ontology of a hole to be wanting, instead preferring the more intuitive and common sense to the ontology (which leads to the conclusion that holes are immaterial things, even if they are ontologically parasitic to physical things). A good read would be the paper 'Holes' by Lewis and Lewis. Holes, thus, are immaterial, but yet they clearly have causal efficacy. When asking, for example, why one's boat is taking on water the answer could be the existence of a hole, thus an immaterial thing (a hole) is the sufficient cause of a physical event.
Thus, even if we lack a full understanding of the mechanism of the interaction between the immaterial mind and the material brain, I don't see it as a problem. Immaterial things (like holes) can have causal efficacy and not even physicalists can fully describe the mechanism of their theory.
Created:
Posted in:
Most debates come down to philosophical differences
In which case, referencing quality philosophy resources can be useful and strengthen one's case. Saying something with no source and saying that same thing with a source to a well-known and respected philosophy resource/literature (or whichever relevant academic type of source there is for the type of debate) is different, and they should be treated differently. That isn't to say that one should be able to win off of good sources alone if the opponent made a better case, but that just means having arguments weigh more than sources (which they do).
Now, the issue is how much weight should sources be given, and I think that if we are giving conduct and grammar 1 point each and arguments 3 that putting sources in the middle is actually a good idea. If you want to change sources to be worth less then I would say we would have to rebalance the whole thing, as I think sources should be worth more than grammar and more than conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
Never forget that the Old Testament, in Hebrew, did not use the word virgin as a predictive/prophetic factor. Only when the text was translated into Greek was, due to a mistranslation, the predictive/prophetic factor turned from 'young woman' to 'virgin'. Combine this with the fact that the texts that include (originate?) this "Jesus born from a virgin" concept were written in Greek and that the authors clearly knew the Old Testament. Thus, it seems that they looked at a mistranslated text, saw the word 'virgin', and then invented such a story in order to make it so Jesus' story was more inline with what they felt it should have been.
Created:
Posted in:
Atheists Are Smart
No, you see, atheists (at least in certain online communities) define atheism as being a mere "lack of belief in god(s)". This means that rocks, trees, etc. are atheists as well, and so I think that when we account for every member in the group 'atheist' that we can determine that the average, mean, median, etc. IQ's are all pretty much 0. Therefore it makes more sense to conclude that atheists are (on average) dumb, with very few exceptions.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
but in its days before glitches it let you use images inside debates
Honestly, it is stuff like that as well as the Polls, to a much lesser extent, that I miss.
The Polls were really not a good place, but I feel like on a site with a better userbase that such a thing could be implemented without growing toxic (I swear, the DDO Polls grew toxic before even the Religious Forum).
While minor, I also liked how when you voted on DDO there was the "what was your position before/after the debate". While rarely did anyone ever change their mind, it did make possible bias of the voter more transparent when evaluating their RFDs.
Last DDO feature I miss is private messaging could have multiple people instead of just one-on-one. Probably some of the most productive discussions I participated in were in private chat groups through that.
I still think DART is better when it comes to userbase, and is much less buggy (which is a definite plus), but there are elements of DDO that I do genuinely miss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Wtf you SNP1?
Yup, just don't ever use that old username anymore.
if you want a 2nd debate I'm def open to one
I would be open to one, but no idea what topic would be one that I would want to spend time debating. I just don't have as much free time so I have pretty much decided that I will limit myself to topics that I either think I know well already or I think are important or interesting enough. When I have more free time available then I will certainly be more open to debating almost anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Wow.... I forgot just how bad I used to be at debate. I probably would have come at it in an entirely different way today if I were to redo that debate with you, but I also don't see myself wanting to try that particular debate topic again. I feel like most of my Christian history debates weren't that great.
I still hold some of the views I did back then (though with less certainty), but I feel now like so many of the topics I tried to debate just aren't meant for debates but discussions. I was overconfident and a bit of a narcissist back then (pretty much a complete dick in demeanor) and so just did not expect that I would fail to properly convey these grand ideas in my head, leading to some, honestly, shit arguments. That debate topic in particular is one that, iirc, I basically had only recently heard of the line of arguments I was using and was so convinced by them that I just went straight to seeking debate instead of actually doing more digging.
Out of curiosity, is there a reason you want that debate saved in particular? Not that I'm not flattered a bit that it was a debate with my original account that you want saved, but I honestly don't think that my contributions on it warrant saving.
I mean, thank you to Lemming and Mharman for screenshotting it though.
Created:
Posted in:
So, if you could save someone else's data who would you pick and why?
For me, Envisage was always one of my favorite people to read the debates of and talk with.
I think that it is going to be quite the loss once his content is gone.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
essentially the argument is there may be a way to skirt guns laws, so guns laws are pointless?
Way to oversimplify the point until it becomes a strawman.
No, the point is that we can look at Chicago as an example of a place that has a lot of gun control but high gun crime. Why? Because guns are easily accessible. Technological advances are only going to make guns even more accessible. As it is right now I can, for pretty cheap, make someone a gun within 24 hours. That time will soon be reduced and the quality of the firearm will become better. Anyone that wants a gun will soon be able to just print one, and no laws (unless you create massive privacy violations) will be able to stop this.
It isn't that the law is imperfect, it is that the law will soon become useless as we have grown technologically to the point where gun control just won't work.
Defensive gun use is huge: Maybe, maybe not
Ya, I went with the middle of the two numbers because of that, but the point is that you can go to the middle of the range of defensive uses and you will be at double the maximum estimated hospitalizations, and that is hospitalizations in general, which means some of those people might be there because of the defensive uses (among other reasons).
If you make it so that it is difficult for law abiding citizens to legally have a gun while technology has advanced to the point that anyone that wants a gun can get one no problem, then these numbers will only ever shift in a negative way.
Border controls gun control? : I’m not sure what the argument is here. Are refugees/immigrants gun-toting criminals?
Are you serious? You think that is what is meant? Are you a dishonest hack or is it that hard for you to possible see what the point is? No, the point is that we have horrible border security, there is constant smuggling across the southern border, and if new markets open up they are made use of (which is why cartels smuggled fucking avocados before for a while). All that is going to happen is that a new market will open up for smugglers with new products, especially when you consider that the political party that would need to be in control to implement these gun control laws is the same party that weakens our southern border whenever they have political control.
Gun control won’t work: We have evidence it does
And this is why I think you are either completely ignorant or a dishonest hack (which is disappointing as I actually respected you in our DDO days). You cannot look to the past when the technological situation has changed as dramatically as it has. The technology that is being developed right now has made it so that none of the proposed gun control legislation will matter. Whatever you want banned will be easily accessible anyways, moreso than booze during prohibition. Gun control only ever works to reduce gun crime if there is a way to ensure that whatever is banned is not easily accessible, but that just isn't the reality of the near future.
Basically your entire response at this point is you not actually listening to the points being made, constructing a couple strawmans, etc. As I predicted, it was a wasted effort on my part. This is why I am done taking people seriously here, as even people I actually respected (like you) have fallen so pathetically low that it just isn't worth putting in the time or effort.
None of the points I have made are even new points, they are arguments that have existed (though not in the common debate you see in mainstream media) for a decade now, yet it is clear by how you responded that you either never heard them before or that you have decided that it is best to misrepresent the point at every possible moment. If it is the former then it really raises a question on why you are so certain in your position when it is clear you haven't actually tried engaging seriously with the other side (as otherwise you would have been exposed to this line of argument), and if it is the latter then it just speaks on your character having fallen in the last decade.
Either way, deuces. I'm out.
Created:
Posted in:
Sadly I can't log in to get my content as none of the emails that I can think of or passwords I used to use when I was active seem to work for logging into my old account. If I want to save anything then I will have to do it in a much more frustrating manner.
Created:
Posted in:
Just being reminded of my time on DDO is just giving me a lot of nostalgia. Not for DDO necessarily, though that is part of it, but just because the people I was close to irl when I was active on the site are people I haven't talked to in years. Life just seemed so much simpler back then.
I mean, DDO itself has become a cesspool and so it closing is probably a good thing at this point, but damn there are a lot of memories just flooding in now.
Created:
Posted in:
Feel like this video is appropriate here.
Don't even know why I still have the URL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Laws banning guns in one city does not work in a country where guns are readily available.
Oh no... so you mean... that now that we have 3D printed guns and that such things will only become higher quality and more readily available with advances in technology that...
Laws banning guns will stop working within the next decade or two?
Oh, the horror! Damn you technological advancements! Damn you all!
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Do you have a real argument or is absurdly representing the opposition the entirety of your position?
Oh, I have a real argument, but you must have missed my comment a while back about me no longer taking this place seriously as almost no one here engages in good faith anyways. Why should I put in any actual effort when this place has become so polarized that almost no one actually will take seriously the arguments against their own position?
Technology has moved us past the point of gun control working without requiring massive privacy violations, which I hinted at in the OP and you decided to ignore.
Even if gun control would have worked in the US (which is already doubtful), any policy you could possibly implement will become worthless in the next decade or two. I have guns that are almost entirely 3D printed with the exception being parts I can buy at the hardware store. It isn't that hard to make bullets that are still lethal with a 3D printer + hardware store parts and this will only be easier within the next decade or so. Making your own powder is also really easy. Shells are more difficult, but there are already groups looking at how it could be done and within the next decade or two of advances in 3D printing technology then this will be easy. Etc. Any part you wish to ban will soon be able to be made at home easily, any type of gun you wish to ban will soon be printable, etc. How will you address this without huge privacy violations? How will you monitor private sales, especially with these guns, without huge privacy violations (if you can't, how will you enforce laws around private sales)? Etc. Even if this bans would have worked before, they won't now.
Combine that with the number of defensive uses of guns used each year (average between the estimated highest and lowest point is 1.2 million) compared to hospitalizations due to guns in general (between 500,000 to 600,000), both of these numbers having been on the CDC website, and it is clear that guns are used defensively more often than they hurt people. With the advancement of technology basically making it so that within the next decade or so any gun ban or gun control measure will become pointless, those that wish to do harm will still have easy access to a gun while that that would use a gun defensively will have a harder time gaining access or having one on them to use defensively.
This doesn't even address the poor border control we have in comparison to the usual examples of gun control/bans working (UK, Australia, etc.), doesn't address the benefits of an armed populace, how useless the police are when it comes to protecting people, etc.
The reality is that the issues that need to be fixed have nothing to do with guns, any gun ban or gun control policy you implement won't work in the long term, and with the gun culture being what it is it would take too long for it to have any real impact in the short term either (which means they are all pointless at this point). If you put your focus on implementing gun control or gun bans then, due to advancing technology, you must also sacrifice privacy of the individual on some an extreme measure. Otherwise you are ignoring the realities of where we are and will be technologically.
I could go on and on, but it is pretty much pointless. I put in the effort to make this comment and guess what, no one that is an advocate for gun control/bans here will really give a shit anyways. Sure, some people that are on my side might give me that 'thumbs up' or even expand on the point, but the effort here is wasted. Even those that are on the 'other side' as me that seem to engage now will, in the next month or so, end up having completely reverted to the point they were at before this comment was made, regardless on whether they are able to address the points I brought up. In fact, they will continue making the same exact points without any real change in their rhetoric in the not so distant future. This is clear to see when it comes to basically every single issue that ever gets debated on this website. Look at people's comment histories and it will become clear.
You want me to engage with this level of effort at a minimum, but why bother when it will serve no purpose? People here have grown too polarized, too stubborn, etc., especially compared to DDO when you and I were active on it. Effort is now wasted, and so instead I put a few legitimate points in my trolling. Some people have noticed that I have done precisely this and been able to read between the lines (I know because I have serious discussions through messages with people), others don't. If you fall on the former then it increases the odds that you are worth the effort to talk with, otherwise it typically shows that the person is just another one that effort would be wasted upon.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes, take away the stick. In fact, take away all sticks! Damn sticks, being used wrong! Hey kids, none of you get to have sticks! No one else does either!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And you're currently hung upon 3D printing.Hmmmmmmm.......Not much else one can say about that.Other than, the upside of technological advancement in any field, tends to also come with a downside.
You're right, it is entirely irrelevant. Let's not take technological advances into consideration when determining policies. Gun bans it is! Who cares that such things will be meaningless in the near future and will take too long to actually be effective, it will make us feel better, and us feeling better is more important than doing anything that actually helps!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You are a genius! Let's make it so that the law abiding citizens don't have guns! After all, we all know that while criminals might shoot each other with guns that they will follow the laws around how to acquire them! That we we can change the numbers! Upwards of 2.5 million defensive uses of guns each year can go down to zero and the 500,000-600,000 hospitalizations can... go down as well?
Wait... if a criminal already doesn't give a damn about the law and will go around shooting people... Gasp! Maybe they won't actually care about the laws around how to acquire guns either! Impossible!
But no, no, we can simply look at the past decade in certain nations to see how things will play out, right? It isn't like technology ever advances, don't be ridiculous! My 3D printed guns don't matter and improvements in 3D printing technologies (as well as increased affordability) won't ever play a role in things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What brilliant insight!
Shooting a shooter only means the shooter killed people already, because we never see examples that say otherwise!
Created:
Have you not heard, guns kill people! My gun just tried to shoot me, but luckily it didn't succeed. Screw focusing on mental health, poverty, etc. We all know that it isn't that people kill people, it is those dastardly guns! Damn, my gun just tried to shoot me again!
That's it, we need to ban guns! That will solve the problem!
But wait... some of my guns are 3D printed... And with advances in that technology that means...
Oh no... anyone will eventually be able to print themselves a gun?
But guns are evil things! They kill people! What... what do we do?
I know! I remember reading an instruction manual about this before, what was it called... 1900? No. 1986? Not right either.... Oh well, point is, I have a solution!
Let's just get rid of the concept of privacy all together! Papa government will look after us! And anyone that tries to step out of line by abusing a 3D printer will be caught immediately and punished!
This way there are less of those evil guns roaming around. Damn guns, always trying to kill people. Why can't these things just leave us alone?
But... what if... what if someone still manages to get a gun? Oh no.... now there will be less people there to try and defend themselves or others... the CDC has stated that potentially up to 2.5 million defensive uses of guns occur each year... Oh well, screw that number, it pales in comparison to the estimated 500,000-600,00 thousand hospitalizations each year due to guns. After all, haven't you heard the saying that less is more?
Besides, Papa government has the police, they will protect us! After all, when the person standing in front of me has a gun we know that the police are right there to do something! That is why so often during school shooting tragedies we hear stories about the police just sitting outside doing nothing for quite some time!
Come on everyone, let's kill all those damn guns! After all, it is those guns that kill people!
Let's get rid of all guns and invite Papa government into our homes so we can ensure that with advances in 3D printing that no one ever uses such technology to make a gun!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Answers on the board. The question is, what are some legitimate restrictions on the freedom of speech in the US?
*ding*
you can't yell fire in a building
You can't yell fire in a building, is it on the board?
[X]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
While nothing technically wrong with this, it’s clearly the most absurd. We have already seen countless examples where security and police officers fail to properly engage mass shooters, but we expect teachers are going to get the job done?
Because this point is brought up as the only thing to implement, not just one thing among many. Thank you for the insight that this line of arguing is meant to stand on its own or that the presence of firearms has not worked to deter crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The mods were a joke there even when it was moderated.
Absolutely agree.
I remember that the religious forum was so bad that a sort of pseudo-mod position was created called "Ambassador" that was supposed to help with making sure that that particular section had enough people that could monitor shit and make sure it was moderated.
As someone that was one of those "Ambassadors", I can tell you that nothing was ever done. The position was created, people were given the titles, and then said people were basically ignored.
The site just went downhill with the polarization of American politics that just went crazy in late 2015 though and made the place completely unappealing by any metric.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh yes wise fool, how could I forget, that one just because one finds the pro-life position to be rational that that means that we must agree with all the actions done by others of our kind! Let us rejoice from this wisdom, that if anyone that holds a position we ascribe to does something that that means we must agree with it! Praise be to the wisdom of the fools!
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Oh yes, how idiotic of me! Sure, I developed a sound position to hold based on a duty of care model but didn't ever consider such a thing! Maybe the braindeath is truly working! And bitterness with my mother? I never considered that I had bitterness towards my mother, as we get along and see each other quite often, but as the braindead prophet has so declared, so it is! Hail to the braindead one!
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Hospitals at any rate,Regarding possible child abuse,I'd say have a duty to ask probing questions, or flag investigators.
It is almost like even medical privacy also has limitations... Or could it be that every time that a child is seen with even a bruise the parents are investigated for abuse or neglect? No, that isn't it.... is it credible reporting? Of course, credible reporting! But let's not use a comparable standard when assessing how miscarriages should be handled in a pro-life society, any loss of a child should be the death penalty! Wait.... no, that isn't right either....
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh glory be to the wise fool for showing us that neglect laws never limit otherwise perfectly legal activities! For the duty of care is no duty at all! Praise be for us to hear the wisdom of the fools! Praise the wise fool for sharing with us such wonderful insight!
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
unborn do not ever outweigh the living. Whatever reason a person chooses to not carry their pregnancy to term is none of my business.[...]My view on it is is that a woman is the life support for her unborn and if at any point she chooses to terminate that life support it's up to her. And this completely psychotic off the wall that means you think women should be allowed to hurt neglect or abuse their born children is complete and utter psychotic b*******
Oh braindeath, let us embrace you! For there can never be a comparison between starving a newborn of nutrients and starving an unborn of nutrients, as doing so would require us to forgo our braindeath! Let us not acknowledge the nature of relationships and the nature of duty of care, for doing so might lead us away from braindeath! Whatever reason one has for starving their child of the nutrients needed for life, whether that child be unborn or newborn, let it be the case that it is up to the mother and leave it at that! It is no business of ours! For an unborn shall never have rights, so sayeth the braindead one, and so, for example, a more developed unborn child is worth less than the prematurely born newborn that is less developed! Not because of any rational justification, but due solely to braindeath! Hail braindeath, embrace braindeath! Praise be the braindead prophet for giving us this enlightenment!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, oh holy fuckwad, I, the pagan, am talking about the Bible! Because we all know that only Christians are pro-life, for Secular Pro-Life, Pro-Life Humanists, etc. are not real organizations in the least. Thank you for your divine wisdom, oh holy fuckwad! We must always talk about those damn Christians in every discussion of abortion, as that is the absolute most relevant irrelevancy! Share more of your divine wisdom oh holy fuckwad!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Oh holy fuckwad, whose comment history is filled with numerous examples of irrelevant talking points, teach us your ways! Teach us to bring up irrelevancies and to hold to the view that these irrelevancies are somehow actually relevant? How often must we concuss ourselves to embrace the divine teachings of the holy fuckwad? How often must we concuss ourselves to believe irrelevancies are relevant!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Praise be to the viewing of things in only black-and-white! Either we have total privacy or none at all, I should have realized that adding nuance was foolish and sinful of me! Let the wise fool enlighten us that if we let doctors break privacy to report abuse that we must also let all conceivable instances of privacy violation be lawful! Down with nuance! Let the whole world be simple black-and-white issues! Let us praise the wise fool as we embrace the wisdom of fools!
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It's not just some little topic that you want to discuss these are people's f****** whole existence.
Praise be to the braindead one, for showing us that the entire existence of women is to have consequence free sex! Shall we extend this logic into viewing women as nothing but sex objects? Of course not, because we must embrace braindeath! Through braindeath we learn that fallacies are amazing and logic is sin! Praise be to the braindead one, may praises forever be sung!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Glory be to privacy rights, that let us kill consequent free! Yes, you are wondering why my son didn't come to school today? Don't worry, he is dead! Oh, no need to investigate though, for I have a right to privacy! What's this doctor? You suspect child abuse after giving my daughter a checkup? Well good thing privacy rights exist, otherwise you might call authorities! Praise be to privacy, that protects people's actions entirely! No consequences! Hail privacy! Praise be! As long as I alone consent, it does not matter what occurs, even if other lives are involved! Praise be! Hail privacy!
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Look, I said before that I don't intend to engage seriously except through message, but I do think you at least are genuine with your questioning and so will make one response here.
Rape is non-consensual sex, and thus the outcome of such an act cannot create a duty of care (I don't see a logical way of arguing from a non-consenting act to gaining responsibility for another), thus abortion becomes permissible in the case of rape. It would still be tragic, as it is the ending of an innocent life, but without a rational way of justifying the duty of care extending to the mother there is no way of justifying the violation of bodily autonomy. In consenting acts this is justifiable (as bodily autonomy can already be limited based on certain circumstances, neglect laws, and newborns), but not in cases of rape.
If the life of the mother is at risk then it becomes trickier. Usually in an accident when a paramedic needs to make a rapid decision to save a child or an adult the child is prioritized, which gives some weight to the idea that if only the mother's life is at risk that the child should still be saved, but I am not firm in that view. I tentatively take the view that abortion is permissible (because I do think that the nature of the unborn child is somewhat different than the born child), though an absolute tragedy, in those situations (though I am open to having my mind changed as it is a tentative position). I do want to note, however, that these types of situations are actually very rare.
Lastly, the idea that a fetus with certain development problems is somehow less worthy of life than a healthy one seems, to me, to use the same exact line of reasoning that one would use to argue that children with, for example, Down's Syndrome are lesser.
If you want to have any further engagement in a serious manner, then message me.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
evangelical
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” ~ Inigo Montoya
you realize you're using that same argument by comparing unborn children to born children who have the right not to be abused cuz they're born people with rights protected by the Constitution
All hail the braindead one! Praise be! For the power of false analogies is great and we must recognize it is only proper to embrace braindeath, as otherwise we might think this is fallacious reasoning!
Hail the power of braindeath, as if we don't embrace it we might falsely think that debates on who and what should be legally protected are immaterial, for we shall only use the explicit words of the Constitution except in the case of abortion! We must recognize through our braindeath that the limitation of freedoms in order to protect the born is vastly different and can never be properly compared to the limitation of freedoms in order to protect the unborn! Hail to the braindead one, great praises be sung! For the idea that we shall protect the lives of the innocent is an idea of hatred of women, and we have learned this through the prophet of braindeath! Praise be! Praise be!
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Oh, how I am so foolish, to be an... Evangelical pagan?
Oh, how I am so foolish, to be an Evangelical pagan! Foolish to have forgotten that only Evangelicals can be pro-life, how foolish of me to think that organizations like Pro-Life Humanists, Secular Pro-Life, etc. could possibly be real organizations, for all pro-life views come from the standpoint of the Evangelical... pagan? And so we wouldn't ever expect to find even secular or atheist organizations ever holding up the mantle of the Evangelical!
How foolish of me to think that the same concept of duty of care can be extended to the unborn, I should have known that such an idea was foolish, for the braindead have so declared! For limiting the freedoms of adults that must look after the health and well-being of their born children is so vastly different than limiting the freedom of adults in order for them to look after the health and well-being of their unborn children! Foolish is me who didn't see I only had to go braindead to see this reality!
Foolish is me to think that we should enforce certain moral responsibilities, let's immediately get rid of neglect laws because we should not determine how people live their lives! Thank you braindead one for showing me just how braindead I had to become to know the truth!
Everyone, let's embrace braindeath, let's embrace the power of false analogies and non-sequiturs, let's embrace the power of the fallacious reasoning! Hail braindeath!
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Whoa is me for forgetting that no one ever is responsible for others or for their own actions, whoa is me! We must immediately get rid of neglect laws, for how dare we infringe on the rights of people, even if them doing whatever they want results in dead kids! How dare I forget that all that matters is the selfishness of the braindead! Thank you, oh braindead one, for this enlightenment! Thank you for showing me that I must abandon all reason in order to realize that the pro-life position is woman hate! Thank you for showing that we can reach the pro-choice position through braindeath! No need for logic, no need for reasoning, we must embrace the conclusions that the braindead demand is correct or else we must be haters of some kind!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
your unproposed alternative would be citizenship at conception
Yes, because legal protections are only ever offered to citizens, hail ye who enlightens me that no noncitizens have legal protections! Hail to thee that shows that animal rights are not a thing!
which would also render every miscarriage either murder or manslaughter
Yes, because no death ever occurs without it being murder and manslaughter. Thank you wise fool for showing me that SIDS is not ever an occurrence, that miscarriages must always be viewed in a nefarious light! Oh wise fool, let me bow down to your wisdom! That ye show that any sort of legal protection must be extended only in one particular manner that is fallaciously reasoned! I once more made the mistake of not abandoning reason in order to hold discourse, forgive me of my sins!
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you argue against homosexuality between men because no one here ever brings up women it's because you think a man is acting less than a man.
Oh no! I must immediately tell my boyfriend that we are being lesser men by being together! Thank you for giving me this enlightenment! I never had an issue with homosexuality, but because I am apparently guilty of wrongthink in [insert category here] that means I must also hate gays! I must immediately go lynch myself in order to express this hatred!
Then you think you should get to tell a man who feels like he has the wrong body that he can't do anything to try to live as physically as possible like a woman because it makes him less than a man.
Oh no, I express concern for people's mental health in the wrong way! How dare I! I should have realized sooner that my concern was out of some sort of bigotry towards the stereotype of what makes one a man and what makes one a woman, that is why I have spoken out against such stereotypes multiple times on this website! I must think that men that wish to become women are doing so to be less of a man and that is bigotry! I must also think that me not affirming the bulimics' view that they are fat is also some sort of bigotry I must be holding about the ideal body of people.
Then you want to tell women that they can't make decisions on what they can and can't do with their body when every day people remove clumps of living cells from their body called cancer
How dare I forget that humans=cancer! We are a cancer on this earth and must all be eliminated! Death to cancer, death to humans! There are no false analogies!
But you can continually talk about how the feminine and women are less than men in these situations but think you can say well I don't hate women
How dare I forget that people can create whatever bullshit perception of me they want and it immediately becomes reality! Since you say I hate women it must be so, and so here I am to declare that I hate women! Not because it is the rationally justified conclusion, but because the braindead one has so declared it! Hail to the braindead one! Hail to the one that brings such enlightenment!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
it has no legal status until a magical mystical birth certificate is issued
Oh, how foolish of me! I forgot that when discussing what political views should be adopted that we must appeal to what is the current situation within politics! How foolish of me not to realize that we must never question the status quo! How dare anyone do anything that makes such changes, how utterly foolish of me to forget such a simple fact!
it's about privacy and bodily autonomy
And to even forget that a right that isn't inviolable is actually inviolable! I forgot that I must turn my brain off in order to come to terms with this very concept! How dare I, one that is studying to go to law school forget that in order to have productive dialogues that I must forget everything I read, everything I learned from discussions with lawyers, etc. and instead hold to the truth that bodily autonomy is inviolable despite the current political reality and that we must appeal to the current political reality of a fetus not having a legal status in order to best understand things. Forgive my sins!
Created: