We should ban certain topics

Author: Bringerofrain

Posts

Total: 71
#31
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Vigilante justice often includes (de facto) murder.  For example, "self-defense" is (de facto) murder UNLESS magical "motive" can be "proved" ("self-defense" is vigilante justice).
"Often includes (de facto) murder" demonstrate that claim - and your "example" is based on a supposition that you can't prove motive, which you can. Furthermore, you completely ignored the second part of my argument - the whole legal definition thing.
It is impossible to "prove" motive.

(IFF) you define "murder" as "unjustified killing of one human being by another human being" (THEN) your precarious tautology is begging for a definition of "unjustified"
#32
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
IF you define murder like that - which I clarified that I don't neccessarily 

Furthermore - demonstrate the claim: "It is impossible to derive motive" go ahead, do it
#33
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Conventional War - the benefit from waging war can possibly outdo the negatives from war
I disagree.  The loss of life and trauma integral to the very definition of "war" cannot be recovered.

Nuclear War - everyone loses necessarily - there are no benefits
I disagree. Not every deployment of nuclear weapons causes "everyone to lose".

Very easy bud - furthermore, you have not substantiated your claims, do not shift the goal post
You have failed to substantiate any of your claims.
#34
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Nuclear was necessitates mass destruction - furthermore - it is possible to do many good things through war - it is impossible to do these things through nuclear war. 

Furthermore, either answer my previous questions or I'm done here - I am not doing this song and dance again
#35
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF you define murder like that - which I clarified that I don't neccessarily 

Furthermore - demonstrate the claim: "It is impossible to derive motive" go ahead, do it
It is impossible to quantify the state of an individual human mind post-facto.

All discussion of motive and or intent, even discussion by the individual who actually committed the act itself is indistinguishable from OPINION.
#36
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Nuclear was necessitates mass destruction - furthermore - it is possible to do many good things through war - it is impossible to do these things through nuclear war. 
Nuclear weapons were used in WW2 and many people believe that worked out fine.

Furthermore, either answer my previous questions or I'm done here - I am not doing this song and dance again
Please be slightly more specific.
#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
THIS would end global warming.
#38
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Bringerofrain
I don't think they should be banned. If people want to take an indefensible position like, "the holocaust was good" or something stupid like that, then they should be allowed to take that L
#39
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Bringerofrain
Worse than controversial, I expect such a ban would be deeply unpopular on this site (where even moderate moderators might argue that aborted fetuses make effective currency).

I think you should start a new topic titled STRAW POLL: shall we ban these topics? and list all five in the OP.  DARTers should have the option to ban all, none, or pick and choose.  I personally would vote against banning any of these five.  My guess is that the nays will outweigh the yeas.
#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
I personally would vote against banning any of these five.
IDEAS ARE NOT DANGEROUS.
Topic's author
#41
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I never said Cain was evil, you just asked me the first extremist so I named him
Topic's author
#42
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Not following the topic, but I heard they banned Dr. suess because he depicted a chinese person eating rice with chopsticks.aybe the people outraged think it's racist to assume the Chinese typically prefer chopsticks for eating rice. Again, I have not looked into the topic much
Topic's author
#43
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are missing a benefit to nuclear war and this is why the topic should be banned, just in case a future president is reading this. A nuclear war is beneficial if it destroys all human life, because total han suffering would be eliminated. It's called suffering focused ethics which is popular with those making anti-natalist arguments. 

Arguing against suffering focused ethics is very difficult and is why vegans typically win their debates. Suffering focused ethics is incorrect, but not many people argue well against it. If two equally competent debaters are debating the one arguing a suffering focused ethics will usually win. No matter how wrong they are
Topic's author
#44
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't think they should be banned. If people want to take an indefensible position like, "the holocaust was good" or something stupid like that, then they should be allowed to take that L
The problem is that argument is defensible. If it wasn't defensible it wouldn't be attractive to so many people. Some people are capable of arguing it very well. Kazynski argued very well for primal anarchist philosophy. Probably would beat everyone here on a debate on it. If he has better arguments than his opponent's can muster, they will like prove persuasive to a large portion of the population. 
Topic's author
#45
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@oromagi
Honestly just throwing it out because I think it makes interesting discussion. I am not looking to influence the culture of the site. Not until I learn it at least. 
#46
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bringerofrain
I never said Cain was evil, you just asked me the first extremist so I named him
The point on the table is that banning ideas won't stop extremism.
Topic's author
#47
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think if we banned the media covering any police shootings that it would prevent the riots that followed?



#48
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bringerofrain
There's a core problem with that, and that is that is also eliminates all pleasure - furthermore, you are removing all pleasure from individuals with moral value - which is inflicting more suffering. Even if it isn't conscious suffering.
Topic's author
#49
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
The argument is there is more suffering than pleasure in life. Nuclear annihilation not only removes our suffering but the suffering of trillions who would come to exist in the future. Suffering focused ethics is wrong, but it is very hard to argue against..just like nihilism is wrong but it is a very difficult thing to defeat. 

You also missed that lack of pleasure is not suffering, only suffering is suffering and suffering is the default state of humans. Get out of your first world, upper middle class bubble. Most people eat shit sandwiches for dinner

Topic's author
#50
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
The environment would also recover faster from nuclear annihilation than it would continued human presence. Even other species would be better off. 

Weakeredge,you probably can't defeat those arguments in a formal setting and we have future policy makers who may have their hand on the nuclear button at some point here. It is too dangerous of a thing to allow people to discuss in depth

#51
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Bringerofrain
--> @oromagi
Honestly just throwing it out because I think it makes interesting discussion. I am not looking to influence the culture of the site. Not until I learn it at least. 
Roger that. 
#52
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bringerofrain
Do you think if we banned the media covering any police shootings that it would prevent the riots that followed?
The "media" doesn't bother to mention MOST police shootings.

The "media" only seems to notice when there is the minimum requisite "community outrage".
Topic's author
#53
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
They certainly have an agenda, and the agenda is to ffederalize police, which why they refuse to go in depth with these topics and just report cherry picked stories which are covered in a shallow way
#54
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
For #12:

First, I generally don’t understand why that is a homophobic statement.

Second, if you think this is up to deletion, you could report it and ask the mods.
#55
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Bringerofrain
I have been to China, virtually covering the east coast north to south, many times over nearly 20 years, preferring to eat in the little places tourists don't frequent. It's better food. News flash: they eat rice with chopsticks. Me, too. Who'd a thunk? Certainly, American censorship-loving elitists don't. Yeah, in restaurants existing for tourists they serve forks, and even the Chinese will eat with them, but in the little places, they respect their own culture. We should, too.
#56
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bringerofrain


There are always two extremes, Big Bro.

And you're advocating one of them.


 
Topic's author
#57
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
My only problem with that is I keep practicing but still can't master chopsticks
Topic's author
#58
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Part of my problem. I tend towards extremes. Finding balance is hard for me. Learning about what is feminine and masculine (in the spiritual sense), has made me realize I completely disregard the feminine nature of things and lean hard into the masculine. Almost a fear of the feminine. I am now trying to balance the feminine and masculine aspects of things, because God is in that balance. 

The masculine is expansive and the feminine contains. For example pursuing lots of money would be masculine and I would get burnt out doing it, but once I embraced the feminine by placing limits on that, by spending more time with family, delegating things even if it meant slightly inferior results etc., It has made my life more balanced and happy.

I am fighting hard to embrace the middle path



#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bringerofrain
The masculine (YANG) is active and the feminine (YIN) receptive. [**]
Topic's author
#60
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
That isn't the only difference but yes