"Nice to see you."
Don't know why I am here. Maybe because I am not getting content on DDO so now I flip flop between the two.
"What comment specifically do you want me to address?"
Lets start with the basics. What axioms do use that can prove to be true since from another debate I think you stated you believe in objectivity?
"If so then "Progressivism" is more fitting for your profile because to real leftists liberal just implies a slightly more left wing capitalist"
Yeah your right but would like a political compass quiz to actually have the option of progressivism before I know what I am more of.
"but if people are not reasonable there will always be shitty ideas."
Shouldn't we try to help people? Less dumb people in the world the better.
"The answer is to make people reasonable not to bring in the thought police,"
You can think but you can't say whatever you like.
"When people rely on authority to tell them what is true then authority can tell them things that are not true and they will believe it"
Which is why I want people to be rational not free speech absolutists.
"it is a lifetime of experience dealing with idiots."
Shame you are not trying to help them understand now.
"This is the real problem, and the root cause of idiotic and harmful ideas in the first place."
Don't know about this.
"The ground he's standing on is shaky ground at best."
Objectivity is shaky because then you have to prove your axioms to be true. You can't take them for granted if you do then it might as well be subjective.
What are you axioms?
"then that means that he is right....But it also means that I'm right as well, since we make our own morality in a subjective morality world."
Depends on the morality. If you both have the same version of morality then you both can't be right if you are making contradictory claims. Lets say you both think it is moral to bring the most well-being to the most people. If one says I am not willing to do a wrong thing in order to have more wellbeing to a greater number of people then the person who made that claim if they are following utilitarianism is wrong.
"I have been telling plenty of truth in my time on the internet, more than enough to make up for the odd bit of trolling I do."
Never said you can't be honest. I wasn't annoyed at trolling instead of how you troll.
"When I tell the truth I am usually met with ridicule, censorship and stupidity and it amounts to the same results I would get if I were to tell people the moon is made of onion bagels."
Is this the victim card or are you trying to make excuses for taking reasonable enough actions to stop your "truth" from being distorted?
"I can't help that the vast majority of people are retarded ass wipes and if some schizophrenic nut case takes this seriously and is influenced by what I say the crazy mother fucker would have been set off eventually anyway. The fact that everyone is a fucking idiot other than me should not be grounds for me to be censored."
You should help them understand. If you don't they wouldn't know they are wrong and go around and actual thing what you said in this debate was correct.
What? I wanted regulated capitalism. Is that good enough for you to understand I am not a neo-liberal?
If calling you out on not being reasonable is virtue-signalling then so be it.
I am for public healthcare and withdraw from wars. Is that good enough for you to understand I am not a conservative?
"the way to eliminate shitty ideas is not to censor everything you don't like but to expose people to the truth and raise kids to have critical thinking skills."
It is with education not platforming awful ideas. You don't understand that if people were reasonable and actually made decisions based on rationale then this wouldn't be a problem. Education helps that not freedom of speech.
"Anyone who takes this seriously is a retard who should be in psychiatric ward to begin with."
But there are people who are irrational and do actions based on emotions. What don't you understand about that? A clear example is the vote for Trump. None of them can even defend their vote for Trump rationally instead it was a f*ck you to the system.
"No, people should not be obligated to "remove ideas they don't agree with" you stupid Orwellian wank biscuit."
Don't get annoyed when you find out supremacists are finding comfort in your debates.
"Now go bother someone who gives a rats ass about your whiny, annoying finger wagging BS."
Can't make a good argument. Resort to insults. Come back to me when you know when normalising extreme ideas does make them prone to actually taking those ideas seriously.
It is not funny when people who agree with this don't see the sense of humour. We normalise this and then we wonder why there are so many supremacists. Surely we didn't lessen how bad claims about Jewish people are so that people who are disenfranchised can find meaning in being a supremacist. Everyone has an obligation to take reasonable actions to remove ideas they do not agree with on their platform or at least I hope they do. Nowhere have you given a supremacist or someone who agrees with you a statement stating this is based on humour. Now the closet supremacists can read this debate and confirm their biases or people who are more gullible see the merit in a nonsensical idea.
Trash debate you are deliberately spreading false information. If the mod did delete your previous one they are justified. The question would be why haven't they deleted this one?
Fake News: Fake news or junk news or pseudo-news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.
You would have to state that it was deliberate. For it to be Fake News you need to find a clip of Anderson Cooper knowing it was false information but still reported on it. Stating false information doesn't make it fake news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
What is your definition then?
"Nice to see you."
Don't know why I am here. Maybe because I am not getting content on DDO so now I flip flop between the two.
"What comment specifically do you want me to address?"
Lets start with the basics. What axioms do use that can prove to be true since from another debate I think you stated you believe in objectivity?
"If so then "Progressivism" is more fitting for your profile because to real leftists liberal just implies a slightly more left wing capitalist"
Yeah your right but would like a political compass quiz to actually have the option of progressivism before I know what I am more of.
"but if people are not reasonable there will always be shitty ideas."
Shouldn't we try to help people? Less dumb people in the world the better.
"The answer is to make people reasonable not to bring in the thought police,"
You can think but you can't say whatever you like.
"When people rely on authority to tell them what is true then authority can tell them things that are not true and they will believe it"
Which is why I want people to be rational not free speech absolutists.
"it is a lifetime of experience dealing with idiots."
Shame you are not trying to help them understand now.
"This is the real problem, and the root cause of idiotic and harmful ideas in the first place."
Don't know about this.
So do you agree that the Instigator must show that it is deliberate or are you using a different definition of Fake News?
"The ground he's standing on is shaky ground at best."
Objectivity is shaky because then you have to prove your axioms to be true. You can't take them for granted if you do then it might as well be subjective.
What are you axioms?
"then that means that he is right....But it also means that I'm right as well, since we make our own morality in a subjective morality world."
Depends on the morality. If you both have the same version of morality then you both can't be right if you are making contradictory claims. Lets say you both think it is moral to bring the most well-being to the most people. If one says I am not willing to do a wrong thing in order to have more wellbeing to a greater number of people then the person who made that claim if they are following utilitarianism is wrong.
Depends on your logic.
What logic are you using to get God being the start to be logical?
"I have been telling plenty of truth in my time on the internet, more than enough to make up for the odd bit of trolling I do."
Never said you can't be honest. I wasn't annoyed at trolling instead of how you troll.
"When I tell the truth I am usually met with ridicule, censorship and stupidity and it amounts to the same results I would get if I were to tell people the moon is made of onion bagels."
Is this the victim card or are you trying to make excuses for taking reasonable enough actions to stop your "truth" from being distorted?
"I can't help that the vast majority of people are retarded ass wipes and if some schizophrenic nut case takes this seriously and is influenced by what I say the crazy mother fucker would have been set off eventually anyway. The fact that everyone is a fucking idiot other than me should not be grounds for me to be censored."
You should help them understand. If you don't they wouldn't know they are wrong and go around and actual thing what you said in this debate was correct.
What? I wanted regulated capitalism. Is that good enough for you to understand I am not a neo-liberal?
If calling you out on not being reasonable is virtue-signalling then so be it.
I am for public healthcare and withdraw from wars. Is that good enough for you to understand I am not a conservative?
"the way to eliminate shitty ideas is not to censor everything you don't like but to expose people to the truth and raise kids to have critical thinking skills."
It is with education not platforming awful ideas. You don't understand that if people were reasonable and actually made decisions based on rationale then this wouldn't be a problem. Education helps that not freedom of speech.
What about my definition?
You didn't bring yours in and with mine the Instigator must also show it is deliberate.
He does have ground to stand on but it won't be objective.
Am I allowed to comment on the debate when the debate is currently in progress?
Type1 you got this.
"Anyone who takes this seriously is a retard who should be in psychiatric ward to begin with."
But there are people who are irrational and do actions based on emotions. What don't you understand about that? A clear example is the vote for Trump. None of them can even defend their vote for Trump rationally instead it was a f*ck you to the system.
"No, people should not be obligated to "remove ideas they don't agree with" you stupid Orwellian wank biscuit."
Don't get annoyed when you find out supremacists are finding comfort in your debates.
"Now go bother someone who gives a rats ass about your whiny, annoying finger wagging BS."
Can't make a good argument. Resort to insults. Come back to me when you know when normalising extreme ideas does make them prone to actually taking those ideas seriously.
It is not funny when people who agree with this don't see the sense of humour. We normalise this and then we wonder why there are so many supremacists. Surely we didn't lessen how bad claims about Jewish people are so that people who are disenfranchised can find meaning in being a supremacist. Everyone has an obligation to take reasonable actions to remove ideas they do not agree with on their platform or at least I hope they do. Nowhere have you given a supremacist or someone who agrees with you a statement stating this is based on humour. Now the closet supremacists can read this debate and confirm their biases or people who are more gullible see the merit in a nonsensical idea.
Trash debate you are deliberately spreading false information. If the mod did delete your previous one they are justified. The question would be why haven't they deleted this one?
Fake News: Fake news or junk news or pseudo-news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.
You would have to state that it was deliberate. For it to be Fake News you need to find a clip of Anderson Cooper knowing it was false information but still reported on it. Stating false information doesn't make it fake news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
Next time can you define Fake News?