Default banner

#SirLancelot

This tag does not yet have a description

Total topics: 3

The following are a series of bullet points that really are linked thoughts.
  • At present it would appear...
  • he gets away with his name being saved from you putting in the moderation log the real reason he was banned
  • because he 'asked for it'
  • also I need to know if under the rules him asking for it means he can make an alt
  • or if he's permanently banned

There are 2 fundamental issues, ignoring my own aggrievances here.

The issues are:
  1. All users that are permanently banned cannot legally make alts here and almost no member here other than Death23 with doxxing threats has deserved a permaban as much as Lancelot has.
  2. All banishments of users require the real reason(s) to be displayed, whether or not the users asked for it if that includes other reasons. On their profiles and to the userbase via the moderation log.
I am unclear on if on a technicality he's evaded justice and is allowed to make alts like all other users who self-request bans are permitted. What I am clear on is that we the people of DART and I personally ought to know if this absolutely sadistic and vile bully is banned for good or not. I have endured quite enough abuse, he has essentially told me that I'm worthless and to hate myself and off myself and gone through votebombing and other things to achieve that goal, goading me to feel insane or idiotic for thinking he was doing those things to me. I ought to at the very least have the justice of seeing his name have the genuine violations he committed on his profile and told to all.

There is no reason not to do so at all, it's not cleaner, better or more justified, it just makes members confused, frustrated and/or ill-informed regarding a major moderation decision here.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
16 7
For the libertarians, it's "small government", which they argue leads to, "you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others".  This justifies their stance on weed, gun control, immigration, wars, healthcare and other issues.  They are pro weed, anti gun control, anti ICE, anti war, and anti Medicare for all (because all of these beliefs are consistent with, "you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others".

For leftists, it's "anti pain" (even if democrats don't realize this).  This justifies their stance on weed, gun control, immigration, wars, healthcare and other issues.  They are pro weed, pro gun control, anti ICE, anti war (at least when America does it; but sending foreign aid to Ukraine helps reduce their pain), and pro Medicare for all (because all of these beliefs are consistent with, "we should minimize pain".

The conservatives have no consistent ethos. 

They stand for, "small government" unless it's immigration, the police, or military spending (strangely enough, conservatives want a higher military budget while not funding Ukraine's military even though America's military is almost exclusively for other country's goals if they are allies with the US), or for LGBT freedoms.

They stand for, "life" while being against Medicare for all, gun control, or an open border policy (which saves lives).

They stand for, "American tradition in 1980" unless it's Roe V Wade (an American tradition for 50 years).  No matter what year conservatives think is the ideal year to base American policy off of, there will be SOME reality present in that year that conservatives will be opposed too.  Any time before 1980 in the US had very high income taxes (unless the time was early enough to where segregation or slavery was reality, which conservatives SHOULD oppose).  So no time period before 1980 has conservative ideals 100%.  After 1973 (but before 2022), Roe V Wade was the law (and conservatives don't like Roe V Wade).  Since all time is either after 1973 or before 1980 (or both), conservatives don't consistently stand for American tradition.

They stand for, "Chirstian tradition", which is code for, "Bible law" or, "Theocracy".  The bible advocates open borders nearly all times immigrants are mentioned (What Does the Bible Say About Immigration? (openbible.info) contains dozens of pro open border bible quotes).  The bible also advocates that loving money/capitalism is bad (What Does the Bible Say About Wealth? (openbible.info)).  The bible also has some anti gay quotes (25 Bible Verses about Homosexuality - What Does Scripture Say? (biblestudytools.com)).  The bible says that people that have gay sex should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13).  I think ALL of these positions (except immigration) are horrible positions and the conservatives believe that at least SOME of these positions are horrible positions.  But if conservatives were consistently pro bible in their policies, I would agree with basically none of it, but at least I can respect it (like I only agree with democrats about 47% of the time, but at least I RESPECT their ideology).

They stand for, "Everything Trump says, I support" unless it comes to Trump telling his followers to get boosted against COVID.  The vast majority of Trump supporters aren't boosted (and I think this is fine since I don't like vaccine mandates).  But then don't act like Trump is so smart that you agree with everything he says, because he told you to get boosted and you claimed he was a sell out.

So I will tag some conservatives and ask them to define what their party consistently stands for.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
34 9
Without divine authority, you cannot have objective morality. 
I'm not convinced that is true. I'm also not convinced morality need be objective to function. Convince me. 
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
94 11