Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@David
RM's vote would not have been removed because both of you were asleep. Only bill's would be and Ragnar would vote fairly. If he votes in my favor it could still end in a draw even though RM's vote isn't sufficient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Reproduction: Yes
Happiness: No
Health: I would say yes but that is due to the lack of help for them not something inherent. So this can be fixed so no eventaully when funding is given to gay STI's treatments and preventions.
I think those are the only two things that matter when it comes to what is harmful to society. If the government is removed well I don't think the questions needing answered would change.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Ad hom. Please give an argument or you know don't to show how weak your conviction of God is. It is almost as if your belief in God is as flimsy as your definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@Ramshutu
This can be easily fixed. Simply give more power to the moderators to allow them to take down votes after the voting period is finished or extend the voting period.
Why aren't you doing anything?
Don't give well I don't have time when you had the time to add the question system that barely anyone uses. There is a demand like reporting votes but gets removed when the voting period is over. Not to mention me practically begging Ram to check a vote even though much earlier he removed votes in the same debate.
See debating debate I did where there is 5 day difference between the moderators moderating. That isn't by what Ram said well we were asleep unless you both were asleep for 5 days even though you had activity during that time.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Then you are not talking about God. It is very simple. Yet you pretend you are talking about God.
Then you are not talking about God. It is very simple. Yet you pretend you are talking about God.
Created:
Posted in:
My thread was locked:
Given there is no rule to lock me from creating a forum topic linking another forum topic then this is how I am skirting away from the dumbass lock system.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You say there is no God, but you aren't talking about our God. If you are talking about our God and you actually understand what you are saying, you're an idiot.
You saying there is God but that is not possible. Do you want to make an argument or are you to busy stating because the definitions say so God exist?
You are no idiot right? So you can't have understanding about what you are saying. That being the case, you should abandon your superstitions and take some advice from someone who is well studied in these things.
If you are not an idiot then you are intentionally doing this to avoid a conversation about the thing you have mentioned you understand. I just wish you understand it more than God = Ultimate Reality = Truth because I can simply say God = does not exist = irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
No point tagging others when they don't have the authority that you do.
Created:
Posted in:
In this debate:
billbatard vote bombed in my favor whereas Ragnar vote bombed in WaterPhoenix's favor. Ragnar stated his reason that there was 3 hours left and decided to change his vote because he thought moderators won't be fast enough to remove it.
Quote: "CVB bill.
I would not do this, but 6 hours left, so no guarantee any moderator will be on."
The only vote was RationalMadman which didn't even cover every single Round.
Meaning this entire debate was voted on things which would normally get removed.
See this comment to see why RM's vote would be rejected:
Highlight: "The voter does not appear to sufficiently survey the main arguments or counter arguments of the debate and weigh them to make a decision. While the voter references some arguments - it is unclear why one set of arguments were not sufficient to over turn the other (only statements that they were)."
I don't think I need to show evidence that CVB or what billbatard did is not allowed so I will leave it at that.
My suggestion is that the moderators are able to take down votes when the debate is finished or simply extend the deadline given this extreme circumstance. I have already stated this but nothing has happened. Guess this must be the definition of insanity expecting a different response for the same question.
Created:
Posted in:
I'd actually never heard of you until recently, either.I have no idea what he said or didn't say. Guess it's not outside the realm of possibility that he was unhappy with me and driven to harshness. But it's true that recusal mods are inactive until there is a special case.
It was a while back when I first was on the site.
Created:
Posted in:
Right now, many employees get paid less than a good wage. However, that can change if they find better jobs that only require a highschool degree. If employees did this in masses, then the employers would have to pay the employees more just to keep them working and to prevent them from leaving the company.
Are you actually an NPC? You just said the same thing as before. I have already rebutted this. Please refrain from saying the same thing as if I didn't rebut anything.
They should quit their current job and get a better one that only requires a high school diploma to work.
Easier said than done. Why not make a plan for that instead of some awful ideas you conjure up? I don't think you need to be qualified to give general life advice like how to get a job. How to make sure you meet the requirements etc.
The robots for it already exist, my grandmother has one and businesses can buy robots to automate the janitor.
I would like to see a robot which is as effective as humans at cleaning. I have yet to see one.
Meanwhile, the janitor would then have to find a better job that pays better, which would benefit hi due to his increased salary.
Please make a plan for a janitor instead of making economic plans you are not qualified for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Goes against this:The reason why wages are currently about stagnant is because employees who work low wage jobs don´t consider finding better jobs that require only a high school diploma.
They would pay more to prevent their employees from leaving the company.
Meaning people should quit their job and get an education instead of threatening to quit only to get paid more. Care to clarify?
If they did in masses, then employers would have to pay their workers more or they would have to automate in order to maintain a workforce.
False. A janitor is worth less so whatever education they get doesn't improve their pay instead would require them to find a better job. Meaning the janitor job will be vacant along with other low-skilled work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Wage inequality states otherwise.They would pay more to prevent their employees from leaving the company. This applies until they automate.
Please you are not qualified to talk about this and do not understand the data behind this. Something simple to you may not be as simple as you think. For this reason look into more data. I would say you haven't even looked that far because it took me one Google search to show what you said here is not true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
By "evolution" do you mean change over time? Do you mean naturally selective processes acting upon random mutations? Do you mean common ancestry? Do you mean abiogenesis? "Evolution" is a loaded word.
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Either there's a purpose for us being here or there isn't. It doesn't seem like there's no reason for us being here.
I say it seems like there is no reason for us being here so we both go nowhere. Any argument you want to make?
Created:
Sorry, I'm still lost. Are you saying members should not be allowed to personally attack moderators?
I think we ought to apply the rules to moderators as well
So yes.
Do you know how many outcries of "Tyranny!" there'd be if we started punishing people for insulting mods. I can see it now. So many explosions. So many. Big badda boom.
Irrational conservatives. Nothing new.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I heard that you were an inactive moderator. RM said it in a harsher way.Actually I don't know why Rash would just randomly tell you I existed. Does he randomly tell you that other members exist as well? Like wtf were you supposed to do with that information exactly?
What did he say about me?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I guess you can imply that but me pretty much giving that was not enough so ask the Pink himself.
Created:
I definitely think some debates are worth re-doing.
oke doke.
I don't think I'd mind a cut & paste from a previous content from the same user- that's quite different than plagarism- that is improving on a draft. I'm doing one of those with Wylted now and the cut & paste definitely hurt his argument more than helped.
Don't think I suggested plagarism. Pink is cool.
What did u think of pink's DDO argument? Did he win?
Well...
Pink- do u want to link that here?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Was already done on DDO.
Pink already has used his other debates on DA so I don't think it is unlikely for him to use this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
that makes sense, no one on this site seems dumb necessarily (excluding trolls).
Can you give an example of a borderline dumb thing to do?
I would very much like to know where you draw the line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
This implies we were put here as in evolution didn't occur and we started off as humans. If that is the case I guess to appease our overloards.
I don't think this is true so we are purposelessness. As in we don't know what to do with our lives. We just make it up as we go along.
Created:
-->
@Castin
How about conservatives who think they can take it as well?
Haven't heard any. Given the ones I had the pleasure of speaking to you used tools that hinder free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Your solutions are wrong. I demonstrate how it is wrong yet you still don't understand you are wrong even though a similar critique that you gave here can be levied at you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Shame you can't see the problems of what you propose.If everyone was a CEO, who would they manage?
Created:
-->
@Cogent_Cognizer
Hope that others and you do the best you can to find and act upon a solution.
If someone gives medical advice. Don't listen unless they are qualified.
My advice is speak to the professionals as in doctors and therapists.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I pretty much swore at bsh1 and didn't get banned.I still don't understand what exactly this thread is objecting to.
The title should've been really clear.
Evidence:
Created:
-->
@bsh1
#16
#26-30
Can you do something about this?
Thanks in advance.
Created:
-->
@Alec
No.
I would much rather remove categories that people barely use and have them fit under an umbrella called recreation. This would be Art, Cars, Fashion, Games, Movies, Music, Sports, TV.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I got 107. Sheesh.
My excuse is that I was taking it slow and simply didn't bother with like 5 questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
Take it easy.
You don't need to do be here so do what you want. That is a bad way of me saying great choice. Keep not being here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Don't want to carry on this conversation.
Lets agree to disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
When I highlighted my name. I saw my profile picture in my message. Is there a reason why when I post the comment the image doesn't show up?
Highlight below my picture and stop hold when you have highlighted my name then copy it in the text.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I think he had a problem with bsh1. Didn't want to come back. If you want to talk to him I gave you his discord.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Since I have at no point attacked the person making the argument
Do I need to highlight it? "other attribute of the person making the argument"
Attribute: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.
The feature of my argument was apparent yet you had no go at it and went out of your way to state it was absurd.
If it wasn't clear the argument I make is an extension of myself. Since you can't know what is inside me you would have to trust what I say is what I actually hold dear or don't. By calling an argument absurd you have assigned a negative attribute to an idea someone had. If you actually told me how I was wrong by demonstrating it then it wouldn't be an ad-hom.
then the actual question which sparked the debate will never be discussed, because the conversation becomes bogged down in a never-ending series of prior questions.
The actual conversation can never really be discussed in such an informative way if we don't understand what we hold dear.
Having to debate these kinds of commonsense issues is therefore counterproductive and regressive; if we actually want to talk about spam, then let's talk about spam. Let's not talk about whether intent is determinable.
Societal norms again and the intent is the idea you attributed in order to determine spam. Here is the mention:
Content has communicative purpose if it is intended to communicate something.
I simply asked you a question which resulted you ad-homming what I said. It wasn't me who stifled a pivotal issue to the topic about spam. It was you. Challenging the intent was vital to how you defined what is or isn't spam yet you don't want to discuss that.
Generally, most posts have some purpose, because humans are purposive beings.
Can't demonstrate how we have intent yet still going around in a discussion as if we have agreed upon it. Purpose is a sign of stating there is intent in what a person is doing. I didn't accept that. I questioned that you still accepting it as if that isn't the problem with the spam thread conversation.
Someone who posts "f" 70 times in this thread can be reasonably inferred to be doing so in order to boost their post count, disrupt the thread, etc.
Reasonably inferred by bsh1. If an idea isn't accepted by you it isn't permitted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
You cannot have ad homs against "what is said." Ad homs are personal attacks; they are against people, not content. Objecting to content is precisely the point of debate.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]
Didn't attack the substance of my argument. "That leads into an absurd kind of "can we really know anything" regression." is basically you attaching a negative attribute to what I said.
Ultimately, though, I am not interested in having a debate which moves us out of the realm of commonsense.
Oh so another negative attribute to what I said.
I think it is commonsense that intent can be discerned, often by content clues, explicit declarations of intent, and so forth.
I think your a fucking prick for not discussing this non-banned forum in the PM's with Virtuoso instead you publicly shammed him for a "mistake" you think he supposedly made. Undermining his authority and making him look bad.
I think your a fucking prick for not engaging in discussion instead appealing to societal norms when you can't argue your point across.
Everything is about the foundation (The beliefs you truly hold not the ones we are speaking about in the context of some present day matter) and when I try to engage with the foundation you use ad-hom's and I can't really do it right now to stifle conversation. You don't want to delve into that area because that isn't an argument you win because intent can't be found out ever. We can't go through someone's head and state yes this is exactly what a person is thinking. Believe me neurologists have and some have definitely jumped the gun like Sam Harris.
Back to the topic:
I think it isn't because given how different people are. I can easily be very dismissive to things but you might think of that as a way that I am hiding something. I on the other hand just don't want to talk. You jump the gun and realize you are wrong given the context you forced out of me either by proving by going through something that has the information or me actually speaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Instead of stating how I am wrong you then decide to engage in persuasive rhetoric. Do you have an argument for how do we know intent or am I going to get another ad hom against what I said?That leads into an absurd kind of "can we really know anything" regression. In the context of this thread, it is generally clear that those pressing F are communicating support for or offering a farewell to RM.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay now I am convinced that you are trolling
So you think he was joking?
Created:
-->
@David
No one is above the rules, including the moderators. For example, bsh1 removed a few of my votes that he felt went against the COC. Similarly I think I removed one of Ramshutu's votes for the same reason.
And you or Ramshutu did what to bsh1?
bsh1 like he mentioned in the spam thread he changed stated:
is ultimately my job to decide.
Which means he get to decide what is or isn't on this site. bsh1 is above the rule because he makes them and states how it should be implemented.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Above
Created:
so you admit this is about Dr.Franklin and not about the mods. Good, at least you are being honest now.
It is about the mods but you asked a question about Dr.Franklin so I answered.
Anyway whether he 'adds anything informative' or not I think ignoring him would be a lot more productive than claiming he is breaking the CoC when he clearly isn't and would also help you give off less of a creepy-obsessed-stalker vibe.
It is not hidden that I dislike him.
He does break the CoC like:
c. Hate Speech
Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited when aimed against other users. Whether aimed against other users or not, hate speech is treated as aggravating factor in weighing moderation responses to other violations of the COC. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech.
Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited when aimed against other users. Whether aimed against other users or not, hate speech is treated as aggravating factor in weighing moderation responses to other violations of the COC. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech.
and
f. Fighting Words
Fighting words are posts intended solely to provoke or incite another user into taking prohibited actions. Fighting words are considered personal attacks, even if they themselves might not meet the abovementioned criteria.
Fighting words are posts intended solely to provoke or incite another user into taking prohibited actions. Fighting words are considered personal attacks, even if they themselves might not meet the abovementioned criteria.
This was all found on page 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
How can you know someone's intention?Content has communicative purpose if it is intended to communicate something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
What is communicative purpose?I cannot provide a comprehensive list, as I cannot imagine every situation that might arise where this is an issue. However, I would say that, generally, nonsensical content is content which lacks a communicative purpose or which is literally incomprehensible.
Created: