Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Do you feel like you are missing a dick or are you okay with having a vagina?
Do you have a thick skin or has, I am assuming this, the harassment too much to handle?
I think women who like being submissive in bed are lazy. What is your response to that?
I think not laying out boundaries before having sex is stupid. What is your response to that?
What do you like about men?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that would be the abolishment of the 2aan accurate question would be are you in favor of abolishing the 2a
that would be the value of gun ownership verses reduction in harm
an accurate question would be are you in favor of reducing harm
guns blazing already? Man either you are really triggered or you've become so irrational that you don't understand just how easy it is to counter what you say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Aren't you a Christian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Do you have a source?the evidence shows that guns save more lives than they kill due to their widespread use in self-defense.
the evidence suggests that gun control and gun bans don't save lives.
Do you have a source?
Instead, they just lead to a decrease in gun deaths accompanied by an increase in deaths from other weapons such as knives. This is why London, after banning guns failed to reduce crime, started instituting knife control.
Do you have a source that compares the UK and US?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Are you against handgun bans and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I just checked he will also go on trial.
What do you think will happen after the trial?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Who are the likely candidates and who are you going to vote for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I am.
Then you are literally avoiding a logically coherent reply from me.
Are sterilized people life under your standard?
They don't meet the reproduction requirement and you said if a thing doesn't meet a single standard they are not life. Here are the quotes:
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
Okay so how many do you need or is something required?All of them
Just to make sure you understand how you are wrong I'll break it down.
A is A if they meet B.
If X don't meet this it isn't A.
X doesn't meet B therefore they are not A.
Life is life if they meet the life standard you brought up.
If sterilized people don't meet the standard it isn't a life.
Sterilized people don't meet the standard you brought up therefore they are not life.
This is literally sound and you can't admit to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Will I get banned for comment #83 and #81 or not?
Yes or no will be fine.
Guess not being discussed publicly. Oh well.
Created:
Posted in:
Lol. I literally proved you are a delusional hypocrite but guess that isn't constructive criticism enough for you. You have also shown another example of being a delusional hypocrite when you have non-stop argued in the irrational madman way you know. Should've guessed you are literally incapable of being rational. If only mods were able to change usernames without the permission of the user.TRN do you ever post anything remotely positive or constructive? It's like you literally come on the website to make everyone else miserable, even the people you are defending.
Where did I ever say anything about best apart from arguing against your irrational responses?
Basically can't attack the argument, attack the character.
Lol
I am so delighted you picked me or maybe constructive isn't similar enough to quality.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Where are the negatives?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Because sterilized humans aren't representative, they're exceptions
I am not speaking about whether or not they are representatives I am speaking about if sterilized humans can be considered life.
You are avoiding what is being said.
You said if 1 of them cannot be met they are not life.
Sterilized humans do not meet the reproduction requirement meaning they are not life under your standard.
Remember this is about sterilized humans not humans that are not sterilized.
This argument would only work if I said all humans are not life but I am not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Just do it one more time because you answered stuff that missed key words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Okay I'll say this again because I made errors above.
I am talking about sterilized people, how can they be considered life when they don't meet 1 criteria as in reproduction?
Created:
Posted in:
Pivot when talking about best. All that Virtuoso needs to say is well we changed the rules or Ragnar isn't disliked by a lot of people.You chose wrong. Few conflicts? You chose Ragnar as deputy mod.
The debate mod actually jas to be comfortable with conflict, especially with particularly angry users.
Guess having an IrrationalMadman is exactly what he wants, oh wait he doesn't. "have proven the ability to think critically in important situations.". There are very few debates you even bother to attempt.
His votes are literally one sentence on average.
If we look at RM's latest vote page, we see that only one debate has he written more than 1 line. Bearing in mind he thinks he would be better suited when he spends his time voting on forfeited debates instead of spending the time to type in non-forfeit debates.
If you think I am lying please look at the latest page of I guess a person who on average types more than 1 sentence? https://www.debateart.com/participants/RationalMadman/debate_votes
If we look at best's latest page I find a vote with 2 lines, a 3 line one, way more than RM comparing just the latest page, a docs file with 3 pages, 2 lines and 3rd highest amount of lines.
If it wasn't clear that RM is so salty that he has become so irrational please stop kidding yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Because that is an abberation from the norm, not a representative example.
So is it normal for people to die or does it happen and you draw the line for them to not be considered a life?
Please also tell me the difference between the two.
I was talking about life in general I am talking about sterilized people. Why are you pivoting to well they are a minority when my argument doesn't concern non-sterilized people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I am guessing this one:Did you not understand my analogies?
butterflies have wings, but if I clip off a butterflies' wings, it doesn't stop being a butterfly.
Humans are still humans even if they can't reproduce is my understanding of the analogy.
Explaining myself: You said reproduction is essential to life so why is a human missing that still a life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Yes.
then sterile people are not life?
I'll just stick to this one because you said you require all of them to be considered a life. If you want me to challenge the others do ask.
You missed me as the receiver.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That is not what I said, no. Again, as an example, butterflies have wings, but if I clip off a butterflies' wings, it doesn't stop being a butterfly.
It was a question. Is reproduction essential to be called a life?
Of what?
The very thing I quoted. "You have to have the ability to change, not that you have to change."
I don't know how you could've missed what I was referring too. If it wasn't clear give me an example of a life's ability to change.
Metabolism is a mechanism, it is a process in which external chemicals and energy are converted into internal chemicals and energy for use.Growth is when the increase in material of an organism is greater than the decrease of material.Metabolism is how organisms grow. It is the process organisms acquire new material.
Talking about this:"maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism."
You basically meant maintaining an increase of material?
No I do not. And it is not "begging the question."
Okay. I had stuff written down but then I realized it was semantical if you agreed with me at the end so I am going to change my question.
Referring to this: "but I think it's more important to understand that just meeting one of these requirements doesn't make something a life."
Okay so how many do you need or is something required?
It is a waste of time for me to challenge this if you simply said well this one isn't important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No. We can define a bicycle as a pedal-powered vehicle with two wheels, but it doesn't stop being a bicycle if I take a wheel of to change it. Being sterile is an deviation from the normal template of a human. They don't stop being living, they are just deviations from that norm.
So reproduction is not essential for calling something a life? This can't be used as well all of them add to something because you have literally rejected reproduction as an important thing for life meaning reproduction shouldn't even be on the list.
You have to have the ability to change, not that you have to change.
Can you give me an example?
Metabolism is the method by which growth happens.
So conversion is growth? Please the link the two to me.
Certainly "response" exists on a spectrum here, but I think it's more important to understand that just meeting one of these requirements doesn't make something a life. But generally a "response" to a stimulus is some change in the internal state of the organism.
This is begging the question. We weren't actually proving God's existence we were proving if it would respond to us. Meaning it was assumed stimuli is life and we are using responses to determine the responsiveness of stimuli not that stimuli is life. Do you think I am correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Genes themselves are not living, they are part of living beings, though.
Is a tree a life?
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
7. So a man or woman who have been sterilized are not life?
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
5. Do you have to show change every single instance of your existence or what is passed onto future generations? Don't know how you would respond to this, just seeing what you would say and I will go from there because I don't really know what example you would use.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. So basically metabolism?
Metabolism (/məˈtæbəlɪzəm/, from Greek: μεταβολή metabolē, "change") is the set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms. The three main purposes of metabolism are: the conversion of food to energy to run cellular processes; the conversion of food/fuel to building blocks for proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and some carbohydrates; and the elimination of nitrogenous wastes.
What does this got to do with growth unless you are saying conversion is growth? Under the assumption I am right anabolism and catabolism are parts of the metabolism.
I don't consider maintenance to be growth if it wasn't clear already. Maintaining is preserving not improving.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
6. This doesn't really seem like something to constitute worth as a measurement of life because I think this is begging the question.
X is life because it responds. Well a rock responds to weather by being moved. No I was talking about stimuli. So responding doesn't actually constitutes life only if you have stimuli that works? This is where you come in
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
I would like the growth one answered before saying stuff about this one. I don't know why maybe because it is getting too much to type about. This will also be my stance to 2 and 1. I started with the end and just picked stuff that I thought I had something to respond too. I think it is best I put these 3 on hold and wait for those answers and we can go from there. It's a feeling not really a likely turn for what will happen. Maybe we can't go passed those points so simply adding more to argue doesn't make it as focused as if I did respond to everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Do you consider a gene to be a life if not what do you consider to be a life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
It was about this statement:
evolution only pertains to the change in life over time via replication. Once you start introducing non-living components, those are outside the scope.
Do you consider nano-machines part of genes that can be passed on to be living?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Definitionally, evolution only pertains to the change in life over time via replication. Once you start introducing non-living components, those are outside the scope. This isn't about what I "particularly want" or what my "call" is, it's about what evolution is.
What did you mean by this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Let me clarify. If some sort of foreign material were somehow integrated into the human body such that it could be passed down via inheritence, then yes, it would become an evolutionary factory.
I did say the foreign material as in nano-machines are going to be passed on as in through the genes. Basically attached to the genes and multiply as the genes will.
That is not reality as far as I know yet.
Whether or not it is reality has no relevance to the thought experiment. It just means it hasn't happened yet.
This is about what we consider evolution not what is reality which is why I asked you for your definition of evolution and this hypothetical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I'll take that as a yes.It has to be passed on. That is what descent means.
Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international philosophical movement that advocates for the transformation of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology.
This isn't about the movement more so about the sophisticated technologies. Basically zed should know it is a movement and for the purpose of this conversation it would be mean sophisticated technologies.
Do you consider nano machines that are added genetically added and passed on to be evolution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Would someone losing eyesight be considered an evolution or does it have to be passed onto a future generation to be evolution?
This is not concerning the amount of people because you didn't really give that in your definition nor about passing on stuff but I wanted to include that in. You can give that if you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Hypothetically if you are able to cure people of their diseases would you do it? As in all people and this doesn't mean an improvement lets say superhuman strength will also be removed. Yes or no and then why would be fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
lolSure, play little games without addressing me personally while I clown you. Big intelligent man you are. A boy perhaps?
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If you can't tell I'm genuine and here on good faith you are a poor judge of character.
lol
Un-ironically saying this when you have shown countless time to not meet a very easy criteria, back up your statements instead of acting like a priest. Me and Singularity don't already believe in your ideology so you require something to get us on your side. Instead of actually doing that you preach to the choir as if we are an audience jerking off the immaterial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Finally being recognized for my good deeds. Thank you for acknowledging what he's doing instead of attempting to try to get to him or not even understand what he is doing at all. It is of course okay to seek out new ideas but if they can't be bothered to meet a pretty easy criteria as in linking a source I don't think that person really wishes to have an honest discussion more so engage in rhetoric to persuade you of what he is saying is true not proving it.and I agree with TRN's assessment of you to be honest. You are not debating in good faith, which is why you don't provide evidence or even back up your premises, and dodge everything thrown at you out of fear of being proven wrong. You are not seeking any truth, you are merely seeking to proselytize because perhaps you believe that you are equal to god and already know everything, so you think you have no room to learn. I disagree that you are god and all knowing though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
So basically EtrnlVw still does not have evidence.
Here is a link to read about the "reliability of eye witness testimony.
Correlated evidence? Can't even point to one to even correlate too and asks you to believe essentially assume he is true without assessing it yourself. You could say I believe and wait for evidence but I doubt he even has any.
The third one he is literally spouting words. Apples, bananas, pears and oranges when you ask him to show them not list them.
Remember cross referencing requires sources which he is so adamant in not giving. From my view he is clearly a bad faith actor intentionally avoiding the key thing to make his ideas grounded. This has happened multiple times which is why I consider this to be bad faith and I doubt he has changed since then.
Remember he is trying to distance spirituality from science because there is no scientific backing for what he says while also having different standards thus making it easier to defend.
Maybe you have already picked up on this so I guess I am simply wasting my time. Oh well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
<br>Agreed, except that Trump has technically been impeached already. He just hasn't been tried or removed from office.
Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.
Okay you are right. What I would say is that impeachment most likely won't lead to him being removed from office. Mainly because the senate is red and you need senate approval for it to occur if I am not mistaken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Basically it is good to hold authority accountable but that isn't how politics works. It is about who has the most favor to leverage that to get what they want. I don't think Trump will be impeached, mainly because I think independents are not really pro it. If this is true then swing states are literally going to go red which will secure a victory for Trump.
Will Trump be impeached?
No
Why?
Not enough favor (support) for it to happen.
But constitution and law
It doesn't matter. People have different standards and they won't admit it instead make excuses for their double standard and/or commit whataboutism.
Created:
Posted in:
Literally told you the same thing almost every single comment yet you didn't understand what I said.
I blocked you as well so I am not notified about your irrational takes. Ironic because of your name but you should already understand that or maybe that is going over your head as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No. He owes an explanation to all those asking him, not just me. So far three others than myself have expressed discontent at this choice. Shut up please.
No he doesn't. There is no rule for this, it is your own rule you want Virtuoso to follow. He can choose to but that isn't what he promised. Now if you so kindly asked him in private messages I am sure he would tell you.
If others have problems they should ask as well. There is of course a place for that. Don't bring others in when they haven't bothered to give more than one response on this topic. You are for sure more annoyed than them if we just go by the irrational ways you are trying to take someone down.
Let me list them down:
1) Want a debate even though it is very unlikely for the moderators to be apart of a public trial
2) Demand a public response to a private matter as in why you weren't picked
3) Disrespecting moderators you know the very people who you could've worked with
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks for your baseless input.
It wasn't baseless. It was literally the problem with your suggestions.
1) best did not accept himself. It was Virtuoso.
2) Your debate most likely won't do anything.
Call it what you want but it was far from baseless. Yours is more baseless because it is basically I am just annoyed about not being a moderator so I am not going to think rationally instead resort to things that won't help.
In other words, he couldn't give me a reason. C_B is some guy with barely any debates and votes compared to me and quite a few others, who somehow was chosen over us all.
Direct message him and find out. No point ragging on best when he didn't decide why you weren't a moderator nor can simply agree to a trial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I can't believe how mad you are getting at this.
1) Even if this best accepts it Virtuoso or Ragnar will have to accept this to go through which most likely won't go through. Reasoning being it is basically publicly shaming someone as in something not allowed and from what I have seen they don't really do trials in public.
2) The best thing you can do is find out from Virtuoso why you weren't picked. This will make you understand what you need to do and fix it. This is more likely to make you a vote moderator than challenging something that I don't think would occur.
It is a public shaming because there is going to be a loser and they are going to be shamed in the votes and in the comment section. It is akin to a trial since it decides an official thing on this site. This would be even closer to one if the moderators do decide to vote on the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
<br>Hello, remember that this forum is not a debate for or against objectivity. Once more it is a discussion about the proofs for objectivity.Thanks for the comment though,
It doesn't matter what you call it. You didn't show any proof to even meet the singular let alone plural of proofs. Only your feelings. I'll wait for you to meet the title you set out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I disqualified you because you already picked yourself and from what Pink said I am sure he would pick you over the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Pinkfreud08
Maybe more deserving people didn't DM him on applying.
Who would be more deserving?
If it was RM apart from him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
First and foremost is the world's tendency towards a moral law. Maybe it is harder for us to see directly, but everything we do is guided by a reasoning of "do or ought not do." It is easily seen when we say "should I", as you do when you make the decision to eat breakfast or go to work. This means we have an evaluation before we make an act. We obviously don't see these type of premeditation in animals (try keeping a hungry chicken from food for example XD), which points us to something else special for us.
This is essentially begging the question.
We abide by moral law because it looks like it.
A is true because it seems to be true.
No actual attempt was made to explain moral law is the case nor our standard in determining that is objective. It is basically a feels arguments. I feel that this is true therefore it is true.
Now we look at our actions to see where objectivity lies.
Bearing in mind no attempt was made to say there is objectivity under whatever definition or standard he uses so it is assumed to be true.
Now we look at our actions to see where objectivity lies. To be objectively moral means to have an objective standard by which you measure things to. When you are cut in line, or are cheated, beaten etc, we always expect the person hurting us to understand the wrongness of what he did, appealing to a common standard (which is why we want him punished). This doesn't mean that we have to follow this standard, but that we both see it. We don't expect these same standards of animals (try telling a mosquito to stop sucking blood ;), but instead expect it of those around us.
Basically objectivity exists irrespective of us. There has been no "Proofs" shown except if you call "appealing to a common standard" a proof even though objectivity is supposed to be irrespective of us. Basically we can't influence so how do we know it exists?
This is big, because just as we have an innate untaught sense to eat, this standard guides us beyond the likes of animals,
Animals also have innate untaught sense to eat. What you said above doesn't even make sense. If you are appealing to science I guarantee the same backing is with animal biology if we even had data on this.
explaining why people from all cultures and backgrounds all point to murder and atrocities such as Hitler's exterminations as objectively wrong.
"all"? That is a pretty hefty claim because white supremacists like Richard Spencer can't denounce Hitler. There is no room for anything in all so even the example you brought doesn't help your case. Link
(once more I only ask for brain storming on the topic of objective morality not a debate on it ;)
Literally said you have these "Proofs" but moved the goalposts to "brain storming". I see this as well I can't really find data on what I feel is right so I'll wait for it to occur. Not realize there is data directly contradicting the very things you say which should mean you actually look into your axioms/core beliefs but alas I don't think that has occurred.
"A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true" - Socrates
"A system of morality which is based not on happiness is stupid" - me
"Force always attracts men of low morality" -Albert Einstein
"Speaking about something you don't know about is stupid" - me
"Truth is certainly a branch of morality and a very important one to society" -Thomas Jefferson
"Truth is whatever we make it to be" - me
Created:
-->
@David
Is there going to be a change in the tags as in a certain limit?
I think there is going to be a point where there is multiple different tags which essentially mean the same thing. It is better to do something now then fix a problem when it is a problem.
You can have a public vote or whatever and then decide on selected tags. I think it would be best to pick ones that transcend forum sections and some exclusive to each forum.
Example: Important to be used in all.
Mafia to be used in the games section.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I called Trump stupid because he is able to do other things to fix his bad eyesight but he doesn't. There was no cure for Stephen Hawking's condition and for you to assume that I think he should be able to things he is not able to is unfair.That's fine. I can list many more people with speech disabilities that you would consider stupid.
There's a word for people like you that judge one-dimensionally.
I would love to know it when I am the one clearly stating what Trump can do but doesn't. He has the money and is not physically unable to do so but still doesn't do it.
You can't defend Trump. Ad hommed me by being a grammar nazi. Gave me an argument when you were using an analogy. Made non-sequitur comments, spouted anti-institution rhetoric, virtue signaled and lied about my position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
I think you should have a standard to determine whose more at fault. Simply always having yourself to blame is bad in acknowledging the problem and fixing. This is under the assumption you haven't done this. You agreed to DA has a fault to it so this is mainly words if you want to read it.
Basically if I do x and I know x is bad in the moment and I am able to change it to be good then I am fault.
If I learn about how bad it was after the fact, I should take steps to make myself aware of what I am doing while I am doing it or at very least reducing the problem.
Bad is in your own system of good and bad not something I am putting on you.
Able is kinda iffy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you measure intelligence with ONLY verbosity, then Stephen Hawking would be an idiot as well. You can be adept in some areas and not so good in other intellectual areas.
Stephen Hawking was a physicist who just so happened to find a way to speak still having his disability. I never thought how easy you are making it to dunk on you. Stephen Hawking communicating was a much harder ordeal than any of the options I gave that Trump can do.
We have had a string of lawyers and professors for presidents, none of them had the spine to tackle the special interest groups working against their constituent's favor. Just look at all the house seats that are going to be lost due to a lack of spine (probably around 20+). The boos from constituents at the town halls aren't proving the professors right or smart in the slightest.
Non-sequitur. Please virtue signal somewhere else.
Maybe instead of trying to teach their constituents about Orangemanbad, they could instead listen to their constituents and do what they want instead of special interests. You don't need a Ph.D. for that, just a spine.
Anti-institution rhetoric pandering to other stupid people. Non-sequitur again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Welcome back. For better or for worse I hope next time you know when to leave if it does make you unhappy. Forums can make people unhappy as well.
However, I recognize that this isn't anyone's fault except my own for allowing DART to consume and transform me.
You shouldn't really accept all the blame. DebateArt does play a role in the cynicism because without it you wouldn't be cynical unless you were trying to be cynical but you weren't.
Basically we don't blame the heroin addict for continual usage of the substance if we care about fairly placing blame not on some free will trash. A lot of questions can arise from this but I think this is okay.
Created: