Total posts: 502
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Great Presidents don't last under a liberal democracy and separation of powers. A military dictatorship would secure Brazil's future. Demoracy will allow it to crumble whenever the people begin to fall a little.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Never stated that, I just quoted Bolsonaro.
I really don't care anyways, Constitutions are usually stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
The new President elect Jair Bolsonaro...
- Used to serve the Brazillian military government
- Has been an avid apologist for military rule
- Has criticized the military dictatorship for one thing: not killing enough people
Recently, he has stated
You are my witnesses that this government will defend the constitution, democracy, and liberty.
Why has he said this?
Do you think he will coup and restore the glorious military dictatorship or Brazil, or act as a democratically elected leader?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
What is your opinion on Christianity, and more specifically Catholicism?
Do you believe Christians should support LGBT rights?
What are your thoughts on Gay Pride Parades?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingLaddy01
I'm speaking in the larger scheme of things.
The American Revolution was very liberal for its time. It attacked the institution of Monarchy, and promoted Republicanism. It attacked the influence of religion and promoted secularism. It gave us unrestrained freedoms that eventually led to the moral decay of society. It also left us with an inefficient and weak government that can't do anything.
Modern liberals are the retarded grandchild of 1776.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingLaddy01
No, the Empire was bound to fall like all others.
I'm less pro-Britain than I am anti-Democracy. The American Revolution was a dangerous revolution that promoted and spread liberal ideas. I would not favor something that weakened the institution of Monarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Sounds like a fair punishment for murdering a baby.
Created:
Posted in:
Far right.
Right of Center(ROC): 2
Left of Center (LOC): 0
Created:
Posted in:
Who were the founding fathers of the United States to you? Noble men? The spawn of Satan? Liberal freemasons? Conservative white men?
Please elaborate.
Created:
Posted in:
The American Revolution was a big mistake.
(I am American by the ways).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, all of it sucks.
Democracies, Republics, whatever, all of it sucks.
The ideal form of government is a military regime or monarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
America should have a military coup and cease being a democracy
Created:
Posted in:
The Constitution was a mistake.
The Founding Fathers were wrong about almost everything.
Created:
Posted in:
All LGBT rallies should be shot down by the police and military.
Created:
Posted in:
Bolsonaro was right: The Brazillian dictatorship didn't kill enough people
Created:
Posted in:
Dissent against a traditionalist-conservative authoritarian government should be a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
That's not a fantasy murder you fool, that's a proposed judiciary punishment for illegal abortions. I'd be willing to discuss abortion but you're engaging in pointless back and forths, and are shoving baseless claims in my mouth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I'm not in favor of Church-State separation. That being said, it would be delusional to believe that all arguments are automatically religious. The value of life and wrong-doing of murder, which the pro life side argues for, can very much be a secular argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
No I don't. You're derailing this into a stupid back and forth. I am very well interested in discussing the merits of abortion. Now, we can do this or we can simply draw a deathspiral of "who gave you the right?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Can you actually argue like a mature person or are you going to be insensitive and take everything personally?
Created:
lol who cares about a few freemasons, slaveowners, smugglers, and liberals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Can't wait to restore the military dictatorship in Brazil
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
We can actually discuss the merits of abortion, or we can continue playing this stupid game.
Now as a response: Who gave you the right to post in this thread?
Created:
Posted in:
#FreeSpaceTime
#AirmaxWasBetter
#DeathToTheBsh1Regime
Coup D'état Now!!!!!!
Created:
Posted in:
I am officially claiming credit for starting this tension over slurs and the "Hate Speech" clause of the COC.
Thank me later.
Created:
Posted in:
The risk our republic is pretensed on is totally worth it! As long as we the people remain a virtuous society, we will continue to flourish with a limited government. And the wonders of our limited government includes natural rights which our government is powerless to interfere with, free enterprise and all sorts of built-in mechanisms designed impede government tyranny. On the flip side, as our friend Big Ben Franklin said, only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. The minute we stop being a virtuous society, the American system fails (which is what we're seeing right now). Where you and I disagree at is whether an unvirtuous society should get its just deserts for engaging in the kind of foolishness that leads to special interest groups having so much sway (or an unelected bureaucracy having so much power). I have no problem with this whatsoever. We had a choice. If in the end, it turns out we chose . . . poorly, so be it. Reap the consequences and hope the next generation isn't doomed to repeat our mistakes!
We can agree that a Democracy can temporarily function under a virtuous society. However, the institution of Democracy enables disvirtue (for the lack of a better term) to spread and take over existing institutions. This is not only because human beings are naturally evil, but because disvirtue is more appealing as it is often grounded in hedonism. If people can throw away old traditions and institutions because it feels better, it is likely they may do so as a general population because humans are naturally evil when left to theirselves. Much like how humans resort to murder and extreme violence under the lack of enough government.
Think about modern day degeneracy like feminism, BLM, self-hate and guilt, cultural Marxism, rabid materialism/consumerism, LGBT, and of the like (which I assume you will equally despise as I do being a Conservative). These things became a thing because there wasn't enough force put down on them. A democracy gives these people voice. An authoritarian government or Monarchy would always keep them suppressed.
Because it comes the closest to people having the ability to live their lives the way they see fit without someone else telling them what to do. Freedom if you will. As to this notion that society lasts longer under a monarchy (or hell, lets just call it what it is since I'm rejecting any form of leadership under which one man/woman has absolute power), I've (1) seen no proof of that and (2) don't count longevity alone as being indicative of a good society. There are barbaric cannibalistic Indian tribes who've maintained their traditions for generations, but I wouldn't consider that as being indicative of a good society to live in.
Freedom is valuable why? The freedom to resort to immorality and hedonism is NOT a freedom that should be granted. Morality, law, and order are much more desirable traits in a society than the freedom to violate morality and traditional social norms.
1. No proof? How about Europe before the enlightenment ran loose? Europe was advancing in almost all aspects, scientifically, economically, technologically, etc, long before Classical Liberalism.
Or how about the great empires throughout history? The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for 1000 years. The Chinese dynasties lasted fairly long and would rise again if they ever fell. The oldest Republic I can think of (that is a complex society rather than a homogeneous micro-state) is Rome, which "fell" and rose again in despotism only because it ditched Republicanism that caused its issues.
2. Longevity can often be evidence of societies being strong because they can ward off enemies and not collapse due to internal issues. Your assertion about native tribes is a largely biased and overgeneralized assumption about Native Americans. Regardless, these societies would eventually fall to Native American empires and then the Europeans. Moreover, the civilizations of the Americas are a weird exception to a lot of things because of how isolated they were from the world.
Perhaps a historical example would be more instructive. Tell me, which monarchy throughout say . . . all of human history, got it right? Whose regime would you like to see the US model itself after?
Tough question, as I don't believe any single historical model should be the precise basis for American government. However, I do believe something similar to Imperial China or the Eastern Roman Empire is a good starting point.
We the people of course. And on that front, we've failed and are thus currently experiencing the government we deserve. We have the built-in mechanism in our Constitution to stop all of this however. It's simply a matter of whether we have the will to exercise it.
We can theoretically stop this, but not practically. Most people aren't going to try to save and rebuild things. Most people will just live their lives. This is why a hierarchy is necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Ignoramuses who believe that authoritarian leftists and authoritarian rightists are the same because they dislike democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Who gave you the right to question my stance on abortion penalties?
This is a retarded circle you're pointlessly continuing on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The state has a right to use the death penalty for thpse who commit murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Why should we punish someone for murder, theft, or rape? That's just "subjective morality."
Created:
Posted in:
I personally believe the following:
- LGBTQ communities are harmful, and their rallies should be met with open fire
- Sodomy laws should be restorted
- Transgenderism is a load of BS
Nothing to say about Islamophobia, sexism, or racism though. Except that maybe I do have some issues with Islam and a bit with the muslim community as a whole regarding Wahhabism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Murder for committing murder.
If I believe someone committed murder, they shall surely get the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
First off, the 13 colonies were home to much more heresy than England. The Anglican Church was less heretical at the time than fiercely Protestant Churches.
Additionally, you have an isolated example of a first settlement. In general, England was less anti-Catholic than the Colonists. They literally wanted to put "no popery" on the New York flags during some incident with the British protecting Quebecois Catholics.
And remember how much land Quebec was granted during the Proclamation. Catholics were granted a huge province to themselves under the British.
Created:
You know, it's very ironic that bsh1 is so damn insensitive about using the word "tranny" but then proceeds to crack open vulgar jokes.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
That is some rookie persecution, we need to pump those numbers up!
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
this but unironically
Created:
Petition to coup bsh1
- triangle.128k
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Oh no! My entire argument has been shredded!
Created:
Posted in:
If the people are corrupted and blindly elect poor leaders, oh well! Society is only as good as the people allow it to be. Here in America, the idea was that we would only have government in the limited capacity it was needed and allow the people to take care of themselves in every other avenue of life. We've gotten away from that and it's not because of special interest groups (they are merely a symptom of a much larger problem), but the will of people has continued to falter over the years. That's the risk of a democratic republic. A risk Benjamin Franklin readily understood as indicated by the following quotes:
And that risk isn't worth it. Society can be heavily influenced by its leadership. A Democratic Republic will leave society to itself, while a Monarchy will re-enforce conservative institutions and only enable social change that is absolutely necessary. Feminism, liberalism, church-state separation, LGBTQ+ rights, and elections would not be necessary social changes and undermine the nature of a conservative monarchy.
Because we left society to itself, society fell apart. If we did not leave society to itself and still practiced monarchical absolutism, then our downfall would have been greatly prevented...
Why is this risk of a Democratic Republic worth taking? Society lasts much longer when its under proper control and leadership.
Society doesn't last under a Republican form because humankind is naturally evil, and removing a strong government led by a strong ruler will create a power void that is filled in more local levels - 99.9% being much worse. Think of the example I gave in my OP. Poor/lower class southerners suffered from the American Revolution because the void of the British Crown was replaced by a more powerful planter elite. Had that not happened, the planter elite would be subjugated under anti-slavery acts that the Crown was quite bent on pursuing during the turn of the 18th century.
If things turn south enough in America, hopefully I can save up some money and get out! If I ever get a hold of some serious cash, I'd love to buy my own island, build a nice house on it, have my own water/gas/electricity/satellite/transportation and just live without any concern about how stupid/evil the government is.What if the rule in Republic with separation of powers is too weak to fix anything because of the limitations of the Presidency? Hallelujah! That's good! I don't want the president to fix everything. Not only on the grounds that no one man is smart enough to fix everything, but that no one man needs to have that much power. Otherwise we are at the mercy of said man and all better hope and pray that he and his successors have enough good-will not to start taxing the hell out of us just so he has enough extra cash to pay for his daughter's super ultra deluxe extravagant honeymoon! We better hope and pray that he doesn't decide to get pissed off one day and declare that anybody with "triangle" in their username needs to be sent to the guillotine just cuz it's Thursday!You're damn right that a Republic is flawed institution. No matter how you run it, the concept of government is and always will be stupid and evil. Nevertheless, it is a necessary stupid and evil. Therefore, my proposal is simply to keep the stupidity and evil low enough to where it's a couple of paces above anarchy. You're not seeing that right now in America, but if we could find that magical sweet spot between anarchism and statism, things would be a heck of a lot better!
Why don't you want a President who is capable of fixing things? You would much rather let society rot than have a stronger president who can exert force to keep society in check? Monarchs throughout history have led their nations from a state of chaos into great prosperity, which would not have been possible without an extent of absolutism.
You certainly are giving the most hypothetical of scenarios regarding abusive monarchs... Nothing in this sinful world is perfect. We can go on all days about an absolute monarch partaking in stupid things such as ordering someone to the guillotine. However, the reality is that this stuff does not typically happen. A monarch is either trained from birth to rule, or is carefully appointed (if we're talking about an Elective Monarchy), and this "selection" process would naturally filter out the idea of a psychopath coming to power.
And such cruelty you mentioned is much more common under a more flawed Republican government. Who is to say that the CIA can't suddenly order 10% of the US army to be human subjects for nuke tests? (This actually happened by the ways). I can go on all day listing hypothetical scenarios of a corrupt Republican government or society asserting and embracing inhumane actions (as if it isn't already).
The concept of government itself is NOT stupid and evil. What is "stupid and evil" is the poor rule by governments. Though what enables this more is poor forms of governments such as that of a Republican form. People by nature are evil, and governments help protect and guide people from going insane when left to themselves. Such a concept can not be stupid or evil at all, unless you value lawlessness and immorality under the guise of "freedom."
Created:
-->
@bsh1
However, my message was deleted in spite of you admittingly saying that it did not violate the CoC. As he said, it was a de-facto enforcement whether it was intended as such or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
What if the people are corrupted and blindly elect poor leaders, and what if the democratic system becomes bought out by special interest groups? Your vote won't count when the masses are blind.
What if the ruler in a Republic with separation of powers is too weak to fix anything because of the limitations of the Presidency?
A Republic is a flawed institution. A Monarchy is a good institution with the rarity of flawed rulers. The trade off is worth it since the net negative of the very occasional bad ruler is much less than the net negative of a Republican system's continued failures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
Less of a tendency towards bloodshed? I beg to differ. A monarchy is the most stable form of government, and a hierarchal top-down structure would ensure effective rule. A Liberal Republic on the other hand, is essentially where many different groups fight each other - often descending into violence.
Political violence happens when political groups compete for power. It doesn't happen when those political groups don't have power and are subject to a monarch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
Democracy requires the competence of an entire population. Monarchy requires the competence of one person. Which do you believe is more likely?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It is doing better as of now that is. These are, however, different nations with different circumstances that can't be solely attributed to their political factors. America has been successful much more based on its circumstances rather than its system of governance.
But can you say Britain wasn't successful until recently given their large empire?
Also, do keep in mind that Britain is partly the way it is today because of liberalism. Classical Liberal ideology resulted in a strengthening of power for the Parliament, and the weakening of the monarchy.
Liberalism present in countries such as Britain was further advanced by the American Revolution. There are of course roots in some Enlightenment philosophers and the Protestant Reformation, but the American Revolution did create a huge spike in its trend. It also indirectly led to the French Revolution, which was quite disastrous based on its fundamental principles. It was Liberalism on steroids.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
And as I was saying, I do have concerns with the general implications of listing "hate speech" as a rule. As I mentioned earlier, would it count as hate speech to necessarily criticize certain minority groups and/or advocate for legal repression against them?
If it isn't, then this is something that Debate.org allowed, which you are now restricting as the head moderator of DebateArt.com. It would be in twisting the original rules we ran by in order to enforce your politics by excluding the other end of a political spectrum. Which is, quite frankly, a poor and stupid tactic on your end and an abuse of your power as moderator of a site specifically for debating different viewpoints.
Created:
That's a good question, and something I can use this thread to more clearly explicate. As you'll note in my reply, I said "'idiot' likely does not rise to the threshold of 'invective.'" I take invective to mean particularly vicious criticism. Of course, that is itself open to interpretation, but were you to say something like "gay people are f**king bastards who deserve to be sodomized at the stake," I would take that as invective. Invective is a degree of harshness above mere insult, if that makes sense.
I can see the issue in that statement. However, what about this:
"Homosexuality is inherently harmful to society. For this reason, legal repression in the form of sodomy laws should exist to lessen the influence of homosexuality on society." Or,
"Transgenderism is not an identity, but a mental illness and should be treated as such. Gender reversal surgery should be outlawed, and self-identifying transgenders should be treated legitimately rather than aiding to their mental illness."
And if "Islamophobic" is included under hate speech, I can see the issue where saying "all muslims are sand****** camel jockey terrorists." However, what about general criticism of Islam and Muslims as a group?
In fact, it did. Quoted from the site conduct policy on DDO: "Slurs against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are mere insults. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult. Mere insults are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."
This isn't in the ToS at all? This is the COC of DebateArt (that you likely wrote unless I am mistaking)).
Self admittedly I should have clarified, however, I am taking into regard the de-facto DDO rules along with the de-jure DDO rules. Airmax allowed for racial slurs in the right context, such as discussing its implications in say, "Should the word nlgger be allowed?" Moreover, it was perfectly fine on Debate.org to criticize certain minority groups.
No it would not. As I have said repeatedly to you in private and in public, it is not against the rules to argue that gender is binary. It is not the argument that was the problem, it was the inclusion of the term "idiot" to describe gender non-binary people. You are free to debate whether sodomy laws should be repealed, but you are not free to call gay people "f**gots. In this sense, it is not my goal or my intention to enforce political correctness; it is merely my goal to enforce the COC as it currently exists.I believe in hindsight that I should not have deleted your post, insofar as it did not rise to the level of invective. For that, I apologize and agree that I was mistaken. I do not believe, however, my PM to you was uncalled for or inappropriate in anyway, and I stand by those remarks.
Fair enough. I can admit that this thread may have been wrong to post without permission.
Created:
-->
@blamonkey
I'm not against the principle of preventing inflammatory speech. DDO certainly did have its limits, which are fair and understandable.
That being said, DDO's enforcement was much more lax. For instance, you could say the n word in the right context (not calling someone else it or saying "I fkin hate nggrs!" Along with other slurs.
Nevertheless, that is not relevant to this case. Here we are discussing the term "idiots." You have people using insults against other groups occasionally in the religious and politics section, though it seemed like a lot of that passed...
My concern here is that certain minority groups, precisely those defended by left wingers, are recieving special protections that other groups will not get. DDO never had this.
Moreover, I have a larger concern regarding the "hate speech clause." DDO never had any such thing that specifically called out "hate speech." The use of progressive buzzwords such as "islamophobe" or "transphobe" is worrying to me. What constitutes as hate speech? Would this mean calling LGBTQ+ groups harmful to society is hate speech? Would advocating for legal restrictions against LGBTQ+ groups constitute hate speech?
Created:
And if you can not either insult other groups by calling them idiots, that is fine. That being said, I am worried about this stupid rule of #4. What constitues as "hate speech?" If it is "hate speech" to explain why certain "marginalized" groups are harmful to society and should face some sort of state restrictions, then you are essentially enforcing your own political correctness on this site and restricting certain political positions.
Created: