Theweakeredge

 is allowing these things to be publically discussed worth an increased rate of suicide in an individual (According to source 2 - higher than 35% more likely), which (according to source 3) accounts for all deaths worldwide? 

 is allowing these things to be publically discussed worth an increased rate of suicide in an individual (According to source 2 - higher than 35% more likely), which (according to source 3) accounts for 1.4% of all deaths worldwide? 

• The moral obligation of not "offending" others
  

• The subjectiveness of harm
  

"Trauma, including one-time, multiple, or long-lasting repetitive events, affects everyone differently. Some individuals may clearly display criteria associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but many more individuals will exhibit resilient responses or brief subclinical symptoms or consequences that fall outside of diagnostic criteria. The impact of trauma can be subtle, insidious, or outright destructive. How an event affects an individual depends on many factors, including characteristics of the individual, the type and characteristics of the event(s), developmental processes, the meaning of the trauma, and sociocultural factors."

"Initial reactions to trauma can include exhaustion, confusion, sadness, anxiety, agitation, numbness, dissociation, confusion, physical arousal, and blunted affect.....Delayed responses to trauma can include persistent fatigue, sleep disorders, nightmares, fear of recurrence, anxiety focused on flashbacks, depression, and avoidance of emotions,

sensations, or activities that are associated with the trauma, even remotely"

• That we should only "cancel" Wylted by not participating in his forums
  

• The legal ramification of discussing harm
  

"In some situations, speech can even constitute a crime, such as in the case of criminal threats. A criminal threat, sometimes known as the terrorist threat, malicious harassment, or by other terms, occurs when someone threatens to kill or physically harm someone else."

"It’s a criminal offence for someone to threaten to kill you or threaten to seriously injure you (cause you “grievous bodily harm”), or to send you a letter, text, email or other written material containing this kind of threat. The person can be jailed for up to seven years for this"

. My overarching point here is to question what should and shouldn't be bannable, and of course how sever these bans should be.

• The moral obligation of not "offending" others
  
• The subjectiveness of harm
  
• That we should only "cancel" Wylted by not participating in his forums
  
• The legal ramification of discussing harm
  

I think there is a core difference in somebody who makes a claim that is intrinsically violent or harmful (such as if molestation is good or if we should kill politicians)  and points that we disagree with. That kind of talk is illegal in most instances... so even if you disagree with the banning on an ethical level, for legal protection its for sure the right move - 

I don't think discussing moral implications around killing politicians is quite the same as actually threatening government officials. 

There are three elements of the offense of making an illegal threat: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another. (1)

its similar to why I think movies can be "canceled" its about how harmful the rhetoric is - that rhetoric that could and has harmed people who were molested, or people who were assaulted, and its not like that's a tiny number.

There are plenty of movies with controversial views, namely documentaries. If people want to "cancel" something they find offensive they have the right to choose not to participate in it or publicly talk about why that thing is harmful. Freedom of speech right? The government isn't silencing these movies though, and that's all I am suggesting we do with controversial people here as well. Don't silence them, make a point the way cancel culture people make a point about something that disgusts them. 

anywho - my point is that being allowed to have a conversation - is not worth somebody being harmed - especially not with the level of trauma that these extreme subjects bring up -

I wholeheartedly dis-agree with this. I don't think someone's views has to harm someone who views otherwise, and that is a slippery slope that you can get loosey with the definition of. If you are a victim of rape, abuse, etc, you can't expect the real world to shelter you from these things. It's a sad but harsh reality, but they need to seek counseling, and find with ways to deal with these triggers, because you can't call up the police everytime someone triggers you with an offensive rape joke. If you join a website where controversial opinions are encouraged (surely a debate site would fall under this category) then you should be prepared to face others with conflicting ideas and backgrounds who don't see things the same way. 

my point is that being allowed to have a conversation - is not worth somebody being harmed - especially not with the level of trauma that these extreme subjects bring up - now - if it were - say - to say how we could reduce the number of people getting assaulted, fine - that could actually stop somebody from going through the same experience, but arguing if its "right", yeah - the moral exchange is just not equal.

This is to suggest having a conversation with someone can't overall influence who they are as a person and effect their beliefs. I know their are a lot of stubborn people, but I've seen a great many people cahgne their minds on a subject they've debated thoroughly. I'd say you probably stand a better chance changing someone's perspective by discussing an issue with them, rather than calling to have them banned over their opinions. In the case where you feel that person's views aren't changeable, and their views are harmful to your mental health, you can easily block the individual or refuse to engage them further. You can't completely remove all responsibility from a victim to not get offended or react when something they feel is harmful to them happens. Again this is the real world.

 I'm calling him out because he is trying to school someone who has much more knowledge on Greek history than he does, which I find unironically funny

"“Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration."

What? When have I said I was some great debater? Yes, I had a fun little post about getting to the top 10, but that's mostly because I never thought I would be able to - jesus fuck you guys are talking about "character assassinations" while being as hypocritical about it as you can 

Yeah, that's kind of the point lol. You want to substitute personal attacks and mis characterizations about someone instead of sticking to the argument, so that's why I am doing it right back at you. See how it has nothing to do with the original point?

 secondly I did respond - again with the entire "latching onto the one thing you're might be right about" and then you disregard the entire sentence proceeding that. Do you need me to repeat it for ya?

You admitting I was right on one point doesn't provide evidence that he's a pedophile, which is what the admins and others are claiming are the main reason behind his ban. I literally have the screenshots, and posted an argument to you posing how someone can be a pedophile if they themselves are the one pretending to be underage trying to "chris hansen" someone which demonstrates they think the other party is an adult. You completely dropped that and started swinging mis-characterizations at me in a rage because I proved you wrong lol.

There literally wasn't anything prior, as I just pointed out. You can pretend you have an argument here, but I really don't see one other than baseless assertions. Your memory of the thread is either mis-guided, mis-remembered, or biased based on your dis-like of Wylted, which shouldn't be relevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not pedophilia is an accurate charge in this situation, is. Until you can prove to me that it is, this conversation will go no where.

. If you would take the time to read, it was when the Draco code was reformed to have reasonable laws that work for the people. That was peak. In society where there was no laws, it was no the peak of Greece. Please read the information I stated

 I say the reforms of DRACO to HELP the PEOPLE and PROTECT the PEOPLE were PEAK, in 429BC.

This is becoming my venting place, anyone else know the people who suddenly stop responding whenever you ask for them to actually look at your evidence?

"Assuming" uhuh - it seems to me more like your trying to explain away pedophiliac behavior to me - furthermore - you have completely ignored the entire - being ableist and homophobic... like you just latch on to the one thing you might have a point on and ignore everything else

like you just latch on to the one thing you might have a point on and ignore everything else

""Assuming" uhuh - it seems to me more like your trying to explain away pedophiliac behavior to me - furthermore - you have completely ignored the entire - being ableist and homophobic"

"Draco's laws were known for their cruelty and their bias towards the rich landowners as opposed to those who found themselves owing money. His series of drastic punishments (the origin of the term 'draconian') for a variety of crimes were not actually in force for long and certainly did not succeed in their aim. This rudimentary law-code of which we know only the provisions regarding homicide were written, according to tradition and myth in blood because of their perceived cruelty. Below are some examples quoted in The Athenian Contitution (translated by the author according to Inscriptiones Greacae 1 115):"

…political rights (in Athens) can only belong to those that carry weapons. These rights are especially for lower rank lords whereas in order for someone to be elected as a general or head of cavalry (ίππαρχος, ipparxos) he should have a fortune of over 100 mnes and have a legitimate Athenian wife and children over 10 years old.

He who kills another Athenian, without a purpose or by accident should be banished from Athens for ever. If the killer apologizes to the family of the murdered man and the family accepts the apology, then the murderer may stay in Athens.

A relative of a murder victim, can hunt and take into custody the murderer and thus hand him to the authorities where he will be judged. If a relative kills the murderer he will not be allowed to enter the Athenian Forum («αγορά», agora), or participate in competitions or set foot into sacred places...

He just comes across to me as very opinionated, but he doesn't know what he is talking about.  Which is typical, I guess.  I was pretty opinionated and didn't have any idea what I was talking about at 14 too.

Though because I like YouTube videos, Jocko Willink has the best perspective on why defunding the police is a bad idea that I've seen yet.  I don't see the point in repeating things others have said.   If we want to talk about police reform, there's a meaningful conversation to be had there; but that's a very different question than whether we should "defund" the police.  A good starting point on police reform would begin, on the left, with Malcolm Gladwell.  And that would require dispensing with a lot of the standard narrative talking points that do not address the substance of the issues that police brutality implicates.  

In my experience, the majority of the kids that want to talk about police reform do not actually care about reforming the police, however.  Instead, they want to make arguments like "cops are racist and therefore should be defunded," or "the police are so bad that they cannot be reformed, and instead must be abolished."  In the same instance, they also want to blame all bad things that happen to black people on external factors and ignore any potential internal causes; while attributing all good things that happen to black people to internal characteristics, while ignoring external causes.  

But the problems with defining "blackness" as such.  The concept of "black" identity is a figment of white liberals' imagination, just like the supposed external reasons why bad things happen to black people on the basis of their race (white privilege, institutional racism and the like).   In this way, white liberals use black people as their political puppets while cloaking themselves in a moral superiority that can only be obtained from virtue signaling.  It is perfectly acceptable for them to "paint" with that that broadest of brushes when defining blacks into the servient political position of perpetual victimhood; yet an atrocity to speak of trends in criminology of which we are all aware in statistically accurate terms.  Thus, progress is never made yet in the same instance they create the fiction of movement towards it.  

So if you expect me to take seriously any potential argument you have on "defunding the police," don't hold your breath.  It's too stupid to even merit serious consideration. 

In the early 1600s, a certain Italian astronomer came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of the Copernican view that the Earth revolves around the sun. Galileo, himself a Catholic, was tried for heresy in 1633 by the Roman Inquisition, which forced him to recant his views and live out his days under house arrest. It wasn't until 2000 that former pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for the church's treatment of Galileo.

The church's views on evolution have themselves evolved over the years. For the first hundred years or so after Charles Darwin first put forth his theory, the church took no formal stance on evolution, though some church figures rejected it. As late as the 1950s, the church maintained a neutral position on the subject, but by the end of the 20th century the Catholic Church showed general acceptance of 'theistic evolution,' which states that God created a universe where cosmic and biological evolution occurred.

"The theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge," former pope John Paul II said in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican in October 1996. [The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)]

When it comes to reproductive issues like contraception and abortion, the Vatican has taken a consistently conservative stance. In 1968, Pope Paul VI formally rejected the use of contraception, including sterilization, in his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" (On Human Life). "An act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design," the pope wrote.

To combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS, the church advocates monogamy and abstinence before marriage over the use of condoms. The church has been a world leader in providing care for victims of HIV/AIDS, but Pope Benedict XVI drew fire from health experts in 2009 when, while on a trip to Africa, he stated that condoms would worsen the AIDS epidemic.

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope said of the AIDS crisis. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

In recent years, the church has taken issue with research using human stem cells, which have the ability to develop into different tissue types, making them promising for disease therapies. The church has mainly confined its opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells because of the Catholic view that life begins at conception.

''Scientific research must be encouraged and promoted, so long as it does not harm other human beings, whose dignity is inviolable from the very first stages of existence,'' Pope Benedict XVI said in June 2007, the New York Times reported.

"The main question should be what benefit can come out of stem cell research," Utkan Demirci, a stem cell researcher at Harvard University Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, told LiveScience. "The potential benefit of stem cell research is huge."

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences held a workshop on stem cell research in 2012. The event focused on the potential of induced pluripotent stem cells, which have the ability to develop into different cell types, but don't have to come from embryos.

The workshop is a good example of how the Vatican is willing to listen to scientists, said Arber (president of the academy).