Why are we banning wylted?

Author: Lunatic
Hall of Fame

Posts

Total: 302
#91
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
Thank you - I wanted to cut out the unnecessary arguments so I'll address each:

  • The moral obligation of not "offending" others
Aside from calling yourself a nihilist, you said nothing about why you have no obligation; however, I also provided no substantiation so that's fair. However, its impossible to believe that your life has any value and that other people's don't:

P1: IF you value your own life, THEN you ought to value others
P2: You value your own life
CON: Therefore you ought to value others

Now I must defend both premises: P1 is necessarily true - if you value your own life, then any harm done against you is not preferable, and if you don't value other people's lives they have no reason to value yours. Therefore the only way that others will have moral obligation to value your life is if you value theirs; ergo - IF you value your own life, THEN you ought to value others.

Now to defend premise 2: You value your own life - even if this is not true consciously, it is true subconsciously - on an evolutionary level, every single mammal values their life - that is why you flinch back involuntarily whenever you touch a hot stove, or why you have an uncontrollable urge to eat whenever you are hungry - why you have an attraction for others - because you want to live, and to continue on your genetics - it is genetically coded into us.

As both premises are defended, the conclusions therefore stays: you ought to value others. It doesn't matter if you identify as a "nihilist" IF you are being rationally driven, you have an obligation to value other's lives, which would include their mental and physical health - therefore you ought to care about if you "offend somebody"


  • The subjectiveness of harm
The harm we are talking about is psychological harm, which is most likely where the adjective of "subjective" comes from - while it is true that different people react to trauma differently, there is enough empirical evidence of severe psychological damage, that we know of objective harm done to people psychologically [1]:
"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."
Furthermore, common psychological responses to trauma are physically harmful, which are as follows [1]:
"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"

While it is true that harm can be "subjective" it is commonly manifested in things like sleep disorders, depression, and dissociation - all of which increase the rate of suicide among people with them [2] - though Trauma in general increases the rate of suicide [3] - that leads us to a clear scale of importance - 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? 

Even if you don't buy that you should care about others, you ought to care about the number of people in the world, as IF trends continue to increase in suicide, THEN there will be less people to construct societies which empirically help you to live, if not completely facilitate it. However, given the previous argument, this should be a rather important problem.


  • That we should only "cancel" Wylted by not participating in his forums
As previously implied, it is not me that I am worried about regarding the harm done by Wylted, it is those who are at an increased chance of suicide given their trauma already, and impacted by Wylted's "controversial opinions".  Therefore I, a singular member of DebateArt.com, not interacting with Wylted's forums would not change a single thing - however - the alternate option, banning Wylted, would deal with the continuance of the harmful views.  That and deleting these forums would mitigate the trama as much as DebateArt.com could do legally. 

Canceling Wylted would do nothing in terms of actually solving the problem.



  • The legal ramification of discussing harm
You bring up an example of gay marriage, yet that is a blatant false equivalence - one is letting two individuals, who were promised equity of rights by the US Constitution - Amendment 14 - section I [4], marry - it was unconstitutional to not let them marry. Furthermore, there has been no demonstrated harm by allowing homosexual people to marry, in contrast, allowing people to kill one another is intrinsically harmful - in fact - it is intrinsically lethal. There is no comparison.

To supplement my case - the fact of the matter is that to threaten an individual is illegal by the current U.S Government [5]:
"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"
While it is true that the thread in question is not necessarily a threat - it is true that it is more conducive to threats - and the creator of the thread - Wylted - at the very least is arguing that one should be able to murder politicians - which can be reasonably taken by the mod team as a precursor to threats.



. My overarching point here is to question what should and shouldn't be bannable, and of course how sever these bans should be.
I do believe I've made a sufficient basis to state that: Multiple creations of threads that are conducive to legal action, and to harming other people should react in a permanent ban - perhaps I would be more swayed by your argument if this was one and done type deal; however, Wylted has engaged in this conduct consistently throughout the two years that he has been on the website. 
#92
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
#93
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
Original:
 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? 

Edit:
 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? 

#94
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
Just to be clear. 

Wylted has indeed expressed pedophilic notions and crude 'jokes' about things he may or may not have done or want to do. Stop pretending it's a one-off incident. He's done this shit for years, it's fucking disgusting.

Secondly, I said the mods who rise in lax environments are frat-boy and sorority-sister types, not in controlled environments.

Last but not least, I agree with the means and the ends. Wylted was banned far too late and has posted 100% illegal shit such as inciting political assassinations and racist notions, not to mention the age of consent stuff. I got 0 sympathy for him, he's scum.
#95
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Wylted has indeed expressed pedophilic notions and crude 'jokes' about things he may or may not have done or want to do. Stop pretending it's a one-off incident. He's done this shit for years, it's fucking disgusting.
Very well stated - I did not speak with Wylted personally, aside from his Alt accounts, however having read a good deal of his posts for research for this discussion has forced some..... unfortunate truths for Lunatic to face - Wytled is not just "a controversial figure", but an individual who has propagated several empirically harmful notions, and.. well illegal ones

Multiple creations of threads that are conducive to legal action, and to harming other people should react in a permanent ban - perhaps I would be more swayed by your argument if this was one and done type deal; however, Wylted has engaged in this conduct consistently throughout the two years that he has been on the website. 

Topic's author
#96
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
P1: IF you value your own life, THEN you ought to value others: Now I must defend both premises: P1 is necessarily true - if you value your own life, then any harm done against you is not preferable, and if you don't value other people's lives they have no reason to value yours. Therefore the only way that others will have moral obligation to value your life is if you value theirs; ergo - IF you value your own life, THEN you ought to value others.
People do not have any reason to value other people's lives, and for the most part people don't. If you live in a society, there is an ethical reason to respect their rights and freedoms that's protected by the law, but that has nothing to do with a moral obligation to care about the lives of others. It's nice that you care about others, maybe you donate money to every homeless person you see and like to pat yourself on the back as a good Samaritan, but this is not a universal expectation. Most people on the opposite side of the political spectrum from each other could probably care less if people who dis-agreed with them befell some tragic accident. Choosing not to rob or murder someone because you live in a functioning society, does NOT mean you have an obligation to care about their livelihood, how offended they choose to be over something you said, or should expect the law or authoritative figures to have anything to do with enforcing it. That's how reality is, why should mods take action to spare people's feelings online? Especially on a site that specifically is designed to have people challenge their beliefs? 

Now to defend premise 2: You value your own life - even if this is not true consciously, it is true subconsciously - on an evolutionary level, every single mammal values their life - that is why you flinch back involuntarily whenever you touch a hot stove, or why you have an uncontrollable urge to eat whenever you are hungry - why you have an attraction for others - because you want to live, and to continue on your genetics - it is genetically coded into us.

As both premises are defended, the conclusions therefore stays: you ought to value others. It doesn't matter if you identify as a "nihilist" IF you are being rationally driven, you have an obligation to value other's lives, which would include their mental and physical health - therefore you ought to care about if you "offend somebody"
This point fails to prove anything, and also makes several assumptions. First of all you equivalating physical pain to mental pain (talk about false equivalency lol), and also assuming that every should know everyone else's mental triggers at all times. Even if someone did know the mental triggers of everyone they met through some psychic ability, you express them to hide who THEY are and suppress their voice and opinion to save the feelings of another. Essentially you are victimizing one by ostracizing their opinions to prevent victimization of the other, completely removing responsibility of the person who has been traumatized to work through their issues with proper counselling. If controversial opinions are a trigger for someone, that needs to remain their issue. Your point is self defeating since you try to attach it to the clause of having to care about everyone else. The world doesn't hand out. Look out for you and your own, and your making a step in the right direction to not being offended by everything someone else says.

While it is true that harm can be "subjective" it is commonly manifested in things like sleep disorders, depression, and dissociation - all of which increase the rate of suicide among people with them [2] - though Trauma in general increases the rate of suicide [3] - that leads us to a clear scale of importance - 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? 

Even if you don't buy that you should care about others, you ought to care about the number of people in the world, as IF trends continue to increase in suicide, THEN there will be less people to construct societies which empirically help you to live, if not completely facilitate it. However, given the previous argument, this should be a rather important problem.
All this is fine, but I reject your premise that it's the responsibility of others to have to respect that trauma, and think that is a pretty naïve thing to expect from the world. Also I am not going to argue with you about suicide rates, because you are literally stretching the argument into something completely different. This is not a debate on suicide and it's causes, if you can prove a direct correlation to an inconsolable rate of suicide on this website based on someone raising a controversial opinion that they even attempted to defend that's another thing. You can't prove to me that wylted trying to defend his beliefs logically on the forums will lead to mass suicide across the country to the point where we can no longer function as a society (I can't believe that's seriously your argument lol)

As previously implied, it is not me that I am worried about regarding the harm done by Wylted, it is those who are at an increased chance of suicide given their trauma already, and impacted by Wylted's "controversial opinions".  Therefore I, a singular member of DebateArt.com, not interacting with Wylted's forums would not change a single thing - however - the alternate option, banning Wylted, would deal with the continuance of the harmful views.  That and deleting these forums would mitigate the trama as much as DebateArt.com could do legally. 
Canceling Wylted would do nothing in terms of actually solving the problem.
Why would DART include a fancy system for blocking others if they didn't already have their bases covered legally on this? Prime example, I had a dis-agreement with RationalMadman about whether Sascha Baron Cohen was morally despicable for his pranks or not. It was my opinion he is not, and RM blocked me over it. Great, now I can't tag him any more since my views are so disgusting to him, and he doesn't have to be triggered by anything I say. That doesn't stop him (the supposed victim) from responding to me though. You completely take away all responsibility from the person you perceive is a victim with your argument. People on this website already have the means necessary to ignore and not participate with someone they deem harmful to them. Case in point rationalmadman. At some point it's his responsibility to stop responding to me though, why should we expect the mods to silence people who already have the option to block others?

You bring up an example of gay marriage, yet that is a blatant false equivalence - one is letting two individuals, who were promised equity of rights by the US Constitution - Amendment 14 - section I [4], marry - it was unconstitutional to not let them marry. Furthermore, there has been no demonstrated harm by allowing homosexual people to marry, in contrast, allowing people to kill one another is intrinsically harmful - in fact - it is intrinsically lethal. There is no comparison.

To supplement my case - the fact of the matter is that to threaten an individual is illegal by the current U.S Government [5]:
The thing is, how can you know Wylted wouldn't reach a point about utilitarianism, saving the most amount of lives by killing one. Not going to argue his point for him because I don't agree, but I am saying no topic should be taboo. Would you agree killing Hitler would have saved plenty of lives? Sure Wylted would have to make a case that politicians are the equivalent to Hitler, but you cannot reject a premise because the very notion offends you is my point. The very notion of Gay Marriage offended people for centuries, and the idea to even debate it was thought disgusting. This is hardly false equivalence. 

While it is true that the thread in question is not necessarily a threat - it is true that it is more conducive to threats - and the creator of the thread - Wylted - at the very least is arguing that one should be able to murder politicians - which can be reasonably taken by the mod team as a precursor to threats.
I mean you just admitted the thread was not a threat; Hard for me to understand how the mods can reasonably view it as when when, as you say, it clearly isn't one. 

I do believe I've made a sufficient basis to state that: Multiple creations of threads that are conducive to legal action, and to harming other people should react in a permanent ban - perhaps I would be more swayed by your argument if this was one and done type deal; however, Wylted has engaged in this conduct consistently throughout the two years that he has been on the website. 
I have countered your arguments sufficiently, but most importantly your premise is outright rejected. Really all this stems from that. I don't think you can make a coherent argument that requires us to care about other people's feelings in order to function in a society. 
Topic's author
#97
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
Just to be clear. 

Wylted has indeed expressed pedophilic notions and crude 'jokes' about things he may or may not have done or want to do. Stop pretending it's a one-off incident. He's done this shit for years, it's fucking disgusting.

Restating how disgusted you are by him doesn't magically make proof exist that he is a pedophile lol.

Secondly, I said the mods who rise in lax environments are frat-boy and sorority-sister types, not in controlled environments.
Regardless, the mods here are more of the "nerdy" sub type. I guess we all are, but I think it's funny that you always bring up high school/collegiate type class structure anytime you feel ostracized. How very young of you.

Last but not least, I agree with the means and the ends. Wylted was banned far too late and has posted 100% illegal shit such as inciting political assassinations and racist notions, not to mention the age of consent stuff. I got 0 sympathy for him, he's scum.
You don't have to have sympathy for him, or like him. That's hardly the point. All I am saying is that you are a hypocrite if you endorse his ban but think yours wasn't justified lol. 
Topic's author
#98
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Very well stated - I did not speak with Wylted personally, aside from his Alt accounts, however having read a good deal of his posts for research for this discussion has forced some..... unfortunate truths for Lunatic to face - Wytled is not just "a controversial figure", but an individual who has propagated several empirically harmful notions, and.. well illegal ones



It really wasn't well said at all. Rarely is anything RM says exquisite lol. But since he is circle jerking your opinion, I can see why you would say that lol
#99
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
People do not have any reason to value other people's lives, and for the most part people don't. If you live in a society, there is an ethical reason to respect their rights and freedoms that's protected by the law, but that has nothing to do with a moral obligation to care about the lives of others. It's nice that you care about others, maybe you donate money to every homeless person you see and like to pat yourself on the back as a good Samaritan, but this is not a universal expectation. Most people on the opposite side of the political spectrum from each other could probably care less if people who dis-agreed with them befell some tragic accident. Choosing not to rob or murder someone because you live in a functioning society, does NOT mean you have an obligation to care about their livelihood, how offended they choose to be over something you said, or should expect the law or authoritative figures to have anything to do with enforcing it. That's how reality is, why should mods take action to spare people's feelings online? Especially on a site that specifically is designed to have people challenge their beliefs? 
You have failed to render my syllogism: A) invalid, or B) Unsound - either would be necessary in order to disregard its conclusions - until you do so these are only red herrings - After taking a longer break I might engage longer; however this is all that is necessary considering you never actually addressed my syllogism, only its conclusion.

Question: Do you value your own life? If the answer is yes, then you ought to value others. Recall the third part of the sentence above (underlined)
#100
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
Interesting - your assumptions are duly noted; however disregarded as they are simply red herrings
Topic's author
#101
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have failed to render my syllogism: A) invalid, or B) Unsound - either would be necessary in order to disregard its conclusions - until you do so these are only red herrings - After taking a longer break I might engage longer; however this is all that is necessary considering you never actually addressed my syllogism, only its conclusion.

Question: Do you value your own life? If the answer is yes, then you ought to value others. Recall the third part of the sentence above (underlined)

I reject your premise, and demonstrated why. If that isn't sufficient for you, then I doubt you'll change your mind. You can pull an RM though and back out without responding to stuff, I am used to it. I'll take it as a concession. 
#102
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
If that's what an RM is then everyone in the entire website other than you, Theweakeredge and myself has pulled an RM since everyone else is currently not replying to you.
#103
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
It really wasn't well said at all. Rarely is anything RM says exquisite lol. But since he is circle jerking your opinion, I can see why you would say that lol
You misformat 'misspell' and 'disagree' as mis-spell and dis-agree and make countless grammatical errors on the regular. Most of what you write isn't exquisite at all yet I don't go around dragging you into shit even if someone else compliments you. You're the salty one here, not me. It's a dynamic you're not used to as you have a lot of preconceptions about me.

You seem used to dealing with people, in general, who give in if you keep calling them cowards or insulting their ability to write, talk, reason or whatever else.

I am not here to circlejerk anything. I have individually taken you on, refusing to help Theweakeredge rebuke your replies. You are the one who is very used to circlejerking against users like myself, who typically react very wrong to situations where you're baiting us, this makes it easy to then say "ooh, look what he said while he was triggered I am innocent and correct."

I'm not going to take any bait here. You can think my writing is shit and think I've replied to nothing you've written. I've had my contentions consistently be the ones avoided here. Your replies literally admit how bad Wylted is and then try to turn it on me saying I am just as bad or some other weird way to sidetrack the argument.

Each time, I reply calmly to you explaining frankly and sincerely why I support the ban on Wylted despite agreeing with you about the mods in general. You keep biting back with snarky remarks and insults for absolutely no constructive reason that I can tell, unless your intention is to trigger me at some point and hope I say something easy to turn against me.

#104
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
Liking your own posts is probably not the best thing to do if you assumed I am "conceding" You took more than a day to respond to my first arguments, yet whenever I make a post saying I'll get to it later you automatically assume I'm conceding? Does that actually make sense to you - I am curious about the fact that you think that RM is "circle jerking" me, it is quite apparent that you haven't been paying attention. It was only recently that RM unblocked me, we have been in, and are actually still locked in some pretty heated clashes. I would sooner be circle jerking you than RM - not that I care to CJ either of you - just a little comparison.

Furthermore, I thought we already went back and forth with the ad hominem, except, you know - I'm a moody little teenager who can be spiteful - I stopped them, yet you seem to be personally insulted that I would even dare disagree with you, and even more affronted that I would agree with the take of another user. Quite interesting indeed
#105
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
It's 3RU7AL, he likes every single post in threads he reads. I know this because noone else does it and he's done it when he posts and intentionally left only his own posts un-upvoted.
Topic's author
#106
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
iking your own posts is probably not the best thing to do if you assumed I am "conceding"
I didn't like my own post you goober lmao


You took more than a day to respond to my first arguments, yet whenever I make a post saying I'll get to it later you automatically assume I'm conceding? 
You didn't say you were gonna respond later, you just dropped my entire response as a red herring. Also I post mostly on down time at work so there will be a day or so lag time in my responses on my days off. But I will always respond. 

Does that actually make sense to you - I am curious about the fact that you think that RM is "circle jerking" me, it is quite apparent that you haven't been paying attention. It was only recently that RM unblocked me, we have been in, and are actually still locked in some pretty heated clashes. I would sooner be circle jerking you than RM - not that I care to CJ either of you - just a little comparison.
Past beefs aren't really relevant to the circle jerking thing. Me and Coal for example have had plenty of clashes as well. But I didn't respond to him when he dissed you earlier in the thread bolstering his insult against you either. I can fend for my own. You guys both don't like wylted; I don't either. Legit share some of the same opinions about his character; But I always advocate for leniency in modding. I defended RM ad nauseum from getting banned a few months back when the same thing was happening to him. 

Furthermore, I thought we already went back and forth with the ad hominem, except, you know - I'm a moody little teenager who can be spiteful - I stopped them, yet you seem to be personally insulted that I would even dare disagree with you, and even more affronted that I would agree with the take of another user. Quite interesting indeed
Your the only one personally offended about the dis-agreement here. All I did was point out how you circle jerk anyone who shares the same opinion of you. Ad hominem =/= Ad populum. 
#107
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lunatic
I believe we should let the convicts back into the asylum.

I also believe we should be allowed to open multiple accounts.
#108
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lunatic
And of course, we could always give them the option to go here ---->>> [LINK]
#109
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
You have failed to render my syllogism: A) invalid, or B) Unsound - either would be necessary in order to disregard its conclusions - until you do so these are only red herrings - After taking a longer break I might engage longer; however this is all that is necessary considering you never actually addressed my syllogism, only its conclusion.

Question: Do you value your own life? If the answer is yes, then you ought to value others. Recall the third part of the sentence above (underlined)
Did you actually read that post, lemme requote something -


After taking a longer break I might engage longer
Please read
Topic's author
#110
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
After taking a longer break I might engage longer
Please read

Pretty ambiguous lol
Topic's author
#111
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,944
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
You misformat 'misspell' and 'disagree' as mis-spell and dis-agree and make countless grammatical errors on the regular. Most of what you write isn't exquisite at all yet I don't go around dragging you into shit even if someone else compliments you. You're the salty one here, not me. It's a dynamic you're not used to as you have a lot of preconceptions about me.
All I am pointing out is that you refuse to make actual logical points, you literally just make some big block text that refuses to address absolutely any of the points I make. You literally did the same thing here. It's a lazy way to make it seem like you are actually making a point, when usually what you are doing is just rambling about stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the points I am actually making. 

You seem used to dealing with people, in general, who give in if you keep calling them cowards or insulting their ability to write, talk, reason or whatever else.
Baseless accusation. I am just pointing out that you do not respond to actual arguments.

I am not here to circlejerk anything. I have individually taken you on, refusing to help Theweakeredge rebuke your replies. You are the one who is very used to circlejerking against users like myself, who typically react very wrong to situations where you're baiting us, this makes it easy to then say "ooh, look what he said while he was triggered I am innocent and correct."
Right, I ALWAYS do that. That's why I took on the whole mod team when they banned you for dumb stuff. Yep I am such a bullying asshole lol. You realize they were trying to ban you for a toxic interaction with me and mike in the games forum, and I still defended you there lol. It's not about friendship, or ad populum. I wouldn't be saying any of this if I didn't actually have a point that the mod team needs serious changes. You keep trying to take it to a personal level and do not want to deal with the facts. You are okay bashing the mod team when it's you that you feel is the victim, but will rally with them the second they ban someone you dislike. Guess what? I don't like Wylted either. I don't like you, but I still defended you. See that's where you are too immature to separate yourself from disliking someone enough to ever make a coherent argument that will invoke change. You don't want change, your motivations appear completely selfish. You just don't want to get banned. lol

I'm not going to take any bait here. You can think my writing is shit and think I've replied to nothing you've written. I've had my contentions consistently be the ones avoided here. Your replies literally admit how bad Wylted is and then try to turn it on me saying I am just as bad or some other weird way to sidetrack the argument.
If this is your actual take on my argument, you again have completely failed to realize the point so you can play the victim card. This isn't about who's bad, or good. That's a very elementary and immature way to look at things.

Each time, I reply calmly to you explaining frankly and sincerely why I support the ban on Wylted despite agreeing with you about the mods in general. You keep biting back with snarky remarks and insults for absolutely no constructive reason that I can tell, unless your intention is to trigger me at some point and hope I say something easy to turn against me.
If pointing out that you don't respond to my arguments is snarky and insulting to you, then you are beyond help. 
#112
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
"I might engage later"


Yes - so ambiguous 

"After a break" 

Uhuh, totally makes it a mystery
#113
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
First point assumes my conclusion is incorrect, now if you could prove that then I'll address it; however, as its assumptions drive its logic, until you do that I won't acknowledge it, its a red herring - simple as that - the socetal contract gives you more reason to care for others, not less.


Now to defend premise 2: You value your own life - even if this is not true consciously, it is true subconsciously - on an evolutionary level, every single mammal values their life - that is why you flinch back involuntarily whenever you touch a hot stove, or why you have an uncontrollable urge to eat whenever you are hungry - why you have an attraction for others - because you want to live, and to continue on your genetics - it is genetically coded into us.

As both premises are defended, the conclusions therefore stays: you ought to value others. It doesn't matter if you identify as a "nihilist" IF you are being rationally driven, you have an obligation to value other's lives, which would include their mental and physical health - therefore you ought to care about if you "offend somebody"
This point fails to prove anything, and also makes several assumptions. 1. First of all you equivalating physical pain to mental pain (talk about false equivalency lol), and also 2. assuming that every should know everyone else's mental triggers at all times. 3. Even if someone did know the mental triggers of everyone they met through some psychic ability, you express them to hide who THEY are and suppress their voice and opinion to save the feelings of another. 4. Essentially you are victimizing one by ostracizing their opinions to prevent victimization of the other, completely removing responsibility of the person who has been traumatized to work through their issues with proper counselling.
5. If controversial opinions are a trigger for someone, that needs to remain their issue. 6. Your point is self defeating since you try to attach it to the clause of having to care about everyone else. The world doesn't hand out. Look out for you and your own, and your making a step in the right direction to not being offended by everything someone else says.
1. I did not, I used a very broad term - life - does life not include both mental and physical pain - furthermore it is a mental desire to avoid pain that prompts a physical reaction... otherwise your body would not do as it does, because there is no reason.. . if your body wasn't operating on epigenetics informing you to stay alive, then your body wouldn't simple as that. 

2. This has nothing to do with the actual point - IF you know it could harm people, don't do it - that does not give any moral obligation which is unreasonable. You know that Wylted speech can be and is harmful, THEREFORE it ought to be banned, this argument assumes you have the correct conclusion.

3. This does not actually acknowledge my syllogism, nor my defense of it - you simply dislike the fact that your "individuality" isn't worth harming others, you disagree with the conclusion. Half of your points are begging the question and false call-outs to fallacies you don't seem to understand. You are much more opt to ad hominem call outs and "lol"s.

4. When did I claim that the other person has no responsibility for helping themselves? And once again this doesn't have anything to actually do with my arguments, the closest you got there was numero uno. Most of this is assuming that individuality trumps harm and going for there. Ironic that is. Furthermore, taking responsibility for what your words do to others is the same as taking responsibility for what your body can do to others... would you say that arguing that you shouldn't assault people is, "trying to take away responsibility from getting an injury fixed"? No, of course, you wouldn't you would say that's not making the harm worse - and it applies to mental trauma. 

5. Killing all politicians isn't a "controversial" opinion, its a borderline terroristic act... almost literally by its qualifications. Or, "molestations are fine" is also, empirically harmful, as it literally encourages people to rape others, are you saying that raping others... isn't a bad thing? Because that's the only way this can be "controversial" and not harmful

6. This is the most red herring of them all, you have failed to address my arguments - you value your own life - that's what this was responding to , you have literally failed to address any of my points or make any logical conclusions
#114
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
While it is true that harm can be "subjective" it is commonly manifested in things like sleep disorders, depression, and dissociation - all of which increase the rate of suicide among people with them [2] - though Trauma in general increases the rate of suicide [3] - that leads us to a clear scale of importance - 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? 

Even if you don't buy that you should care about others, you ought to care about the number of people in the world, as IF trends continue to increase in suicide, THEN there will be less people to construct societies which empirically help you to live, if not completely facilitate it. However, given the previous argument, this should be a rather important problem.
1. All this is fine, 2 but I reject your premise that it's the responsibility of others to have to respect that trauma,3. and think that is a pretty naïve thing to expect from the world. 4. Also I am not going to argue with you about suicide rates, because you are literally stretching the argument into something completely different. This is not a debate on suicide and it's causes, if you can prove a direct correlation to an inconsolable rate of suicide on this website based on someone raising a controversial opinion that they even attempted to defend that's another thing. You can't prove to me that wylted trying to defend his beliefs logically on the forums will lead to mass suicide across the country to the point where we can no longer function as a society (I can't believe that's seriously your argument lol)

1. So you agree that harm has objective effects on people? Then you have conceded one of the core arguments you were defending before this is literally one of the main points we were arguing.

2. So if you believe that mental trauma has objective affects on people, as you literally just agreed, then this analogy applies - would you not have to respect somebody's physical injury if they had hurt it? Like if somebody had a broken leg, then it is your responsibility to respect that... its that simple - your argument here is a non-sequtur, or, rejecting the premise you espouse but accepting the conclusions of my arguments. 

3. The actual amount of it that the world does is irrelevant to whether it is the correct thing to do, an appeal to populum is nothing in the framework of an argument. 

4. This is the rest of the argument, just... "Suicide, nooooo, that's not relevant to a debate about the harm that words can do to somebody's pyche, which directly leads to suicide!" Do you see how absurd that argument is? You ask 

You can't prove to me that wylted trying to defend his beliefs logically on the forums will lead to mass suicide across the country to the point where we can no longer function as a society (I
Whats that? A strawman? My point is that Wylted's speech does have a direct affect on people with trauma's that's what this section is all about, and you seem to completely hand wave it away, without actually considering the implications of such things. IF psychological harm has objective affects on people, AND people's words can directly lead to psychological harm (which, it very obviously can [LINK]), THEN you should avoid words which will hurt people... .this isn't that big of a deal, its literally just being a considerate human being. And its something everyone has moral obligations to do - regardless if you believe in objective morality or no morality - hint hint - I think objective morality is dog shit, it makes zero sense, I also think that saying a species that was springboarded by innovation and thought has no morality is stupid - our consciousness gives us morality - and yes it is wonderfully subjective, that doesn't mean it doesn't cause empirical impacts on the world we know.

If the most you can get out of my argument is: "But people don't do mass suicide because of words" then you have missed the point.
(Also you literally concede the point, funny that.)
#115
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic

As previously implied, it is not me that I am worried about regarding the harm done by Wylted, it is those who are at an increased chance of suicide given their trauma already, and impacted by Wylted's "controversial opinions".  Therefore I, a singular member of DebateArt.com, not interacting with Wylted's forums would not change a single thing - however - the alternate option, banning Wylted, would deal with the continuance of the harmful views.  That and deleting these forums would mitigate the trama as much as DebateArt.com could do legally. 

Canceling Wylted would do nothing in terms of actually solving the problem.
1. Why would DART include a fancy system for blocking others if they didn't already have their bases covered legally on this? 2 Prime example, I had a dis-agreement with RationalMadman about whether Sascha Baron Cohen was morally despicable for his pranks or not. It was my opinion he is not, and RM blocked me over it. Great, now I can't tag him any more since my views are so disgusting to him, and he doesn't have to be triggered by anything I say. 3 That doesn't stop him (the supposed victim) from responding to me though. You completely take away all responsibility from the person you perceive is a victim with your argument. 4, People on this website already have the means necessary to ignore and not participate with someone they deem harmful to them. Case in point rationalmadman. At some point it's his responsibility to stop responding to me though, why should we expect the mods to silence people who already have the option to block others?
1. I was referencing somebody actually trying to offer psychological aid to the person in need, however, you need a licence to give out therapeutic advice under the guise of therapeutic, therefore unless DebateArt.Com hired a psychologist that was professionally hired, and had proof that they weren't a quack, then they can't do much more to help trauma ridden people then ban topics like Wylted - you've missed the point.

2. Blocking could help RM, it would not help others that happened onto the scene - however, the actual harmfulness of humor is actually subjective - some people might even cope with humor like that - the point is that things like what Wylted is espousing, is actually objectively harmful, that's a false equivalence: the nature of humor makes it literally one of the sole exceptions to the rule, and that isn't even all of the time - satirical humor is often more harmful then it is helpful, the same goes for jokes playing the but as minorities, both are objectively harmful: my point is - satirical is controversial whether its helpful or harmful, and that makes it unique in this instance; however, any other type of humor can be harmful - and RM blocking you only protects him, not other people... because if they see it - yes, even once, that's all that is needed for harm to happen

3. Again, we see the widespread, "the victim has responsibility for being harmed!" mentality... well no, no they don't - because it shouldn't have happened to them in the first place, any "responsibility" they have is second priority to not making their harm worse - you are quite literally victim blaming..... if someone was raped, would you blame them for "not trying hard enough" to not be raped, or the person... that raped them - because cause and effect have a pretty clear, the person who did the bad thing is responsible, and people shouldn't do more bad things to the victim...this type of rhetoric is no joke why so many rape victims don't seek help, because they feel as if its there fault - not Rm specifically - but the larger "the victim has a responsibility". Perhaps they do - is it the priority? No - not harming them more is. 

4. They have an ability to ignore people AFTER some harm has already occurred, which would be the entire point - this is yet another red herring that doesn't have to do with actually banning people - you've shifted the goalpost from canceling to blocking - that's it

#116
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
You bring up an example of gay marriage, yet that is a blatant false equivalence - one is letting two individuals, who were promised equity of rights by the US Constitution - Amendment 14 - section I [4], marry - it was unconstitutional to not let them marry. Furthermore, there has been no demonstrated harm by allowing homosexual people to marry, in contrast, allowing people to kill one another is intrinsically harmful - in fact - it is intrinsically lethal. There is no comparison.

To supplement my case - the fact of the matter is that to threaten an individual is illegal by the current U.S Government [5]:
1. The thing is, how can you know Wylted wouldn't reach a point about utilitarianism, saving the most amount of lives by killing one. Not going to argue his point for him because I don't agree, but I am saying no topic should be taboo. 2. Would you agree killing Hitler would have saved plenty of lives? Sure Wylted would have to make a case that politicians are the equivalent to Hitler, 3. but you cannot reject a premise because the very notion offends you is my point.4.  The very notion of Gay Marriage offended people for centuries, and the idea to even debate it was thought disgusting. This is hardly false equivalence. 
1 - because the title was "killing politicians" as in - in general - with no exceptions - which would fundamentally be un-utilitarian as its with no regard for the subtleties - furthermore, this is an actual slippery slope argument - "Well he could be making a good point" - killing others to make others better is quite literally the opposite of utilitarianism, which is a very "Means matter more than the ends" type deal in most cases - the means are apart of the cost-benefit analysis.

2. Another false equivalence - we know today that Hitler caused millions of deaths, but killing politicians in general would be assigning wide blame for something we don't know all politicians would do - if a politician killed people, you can quite literally charge them intent to murder - now - there is a conversation about corruption in politicians and the inability to charge them, but you this would be assigning an inhumane death penalty across the board - this is bs in its most deliberate form.

3. That is a strawman, while the notion does indeed offend me on some level, the reason I object to it is because its talking about killing innocent people - that's why I object - do you not understand that? 

4. Do you not comprehend the difference between harm and offence - the two are different - you are continuing on with your false equivalence and literally ignoring all of my points, just continuing on with yours, this is why I said I would do it later, because all of your points can be boiled down to false equivalences, strawmen, or outright non-sequiturs. 
#117
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
While it is true that the thread in question is not necessarily a threat - it is true that it is more conducive to threats - and the creator of the thread - Wylted - at the very least is arguing that one should be able to murder politicians - which can be reasonably taken by the mod team as a precursor to threats.
1. I mean you just admitted the thread was not a threat; Hard for me to understand how the mods can reasonably view it as when when, as you say, it clearly isn't one. 

I do believe I've made a sufficient basis to state that: Multiple creations of threads that are conducive to legal action, and to harming other people should react in a permanent ban - perhaps I would be more swayed by your argument if this was one and done type deal; however, Wylted has engaged in this conduct consistently throughout the two years that he has been on the website. 
2. I have countered your arguments sufficiently, but most importantly your premise is outright rejected. Really all this stems from that. I don't think you can make a coherent argument that requires us to care about other people's feelings in order to function in a society. 
1. I said that in it's current form its not a threat legally, however it is very well almost one, and you just agreed - you provide no actual reasoning for the fact that its not a precursor to threat, you are missing the point again.


2. Jesus christ you haven't - you've barely elevated yourself above a sheep of a conservative who victum blames people - I know I said I would quit it with the ad hominem, but I think your tendency to point to the victim as the one as fault has genuine reason for informing your views - in other words - its in support of my argument
#118
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
In a debate, I would really just leave it as a red herring, but I want to cover all my bases here - not for you really - for the "audience" 

P1: IF you value your own life, THEN you ought to value others: Now I must defend both premises: P1 is necessarily true - if you value your own life, then any harm done against you is not preferable, and if you don't value other people's lives they have no reason to value yours. Therefore the only way that others will have moral obligation to value your life is if you value theirs; ergo - IF you value your own life, THEN you ought to value others.
1. People do not have any reason to value other people's lives, 2. and for the most part people don't. 3. If you live in a society, there is an ethical reason to respect their rights and freedoms that's protected by the law, but that has nothing to do with a moral obligation to care about the lives of others. 4. It's nice that you care about others, maybe you donate money to every homeless person you see and like to pat yourself on the back as a good Samaritan, but this is not a universal expectation. 5. Most people on the opposite side of the political spectrum from each other could probably care less if people who dis-agreed with them befell some tragic accident. 6. Choosing not to rob or murder someone because you live in a functioning society, does NOT mean you have an obligation to care about their livelihood, how offended they choose to be over something you said, or should expect the law or authoritative figures to have anything to do with enforcing it. That's how reality is, why should mods take action to spare people's feelings online? Especially on a site that specifically is designed to have people challenge their beliefs? 
1. You quite literally ignore my argument, and just say: "Nope the conclusion is wrong, that's it" - without actually engaging in my argument - that's a red herring bud. Continuing on with it is a borderline hand waving of my argument.

2. Demonstrate that assertion

3. Then you actually agree with my point of not hurting other people, you just don't agree with the premises that make it up - however you have yet to actually debunk my argument - this is seeming like those adds that bring up a "problem" and dally on and on before presenting their solution, do you have one in this argument? 

4. This is just hand waving - why not - do you have any actual objections to my argument - IF you value your life, and you want others to value your life (which you do if you value your life) then the only way to obtain that logically is to value theirs - not valuing others lives is essentially saying, "Well then you don't have to value my life" In other words, you are saying that anybody has a moral right to kill you - that's it. 

5. This is an assertion, please demonstrate it - furthermore - explain how it actually debunks my argument - I am arguing that you have a reasonable moral obligation, not that people know they have it - strawman baked in with assertions without substantiation. 

6. So you espouse, but you fail to actually back up your assertions.... and why are you arguing as if I"m saying that having a societal obligation to others informs a moral one? Cause I'm not,  that was never my argument, and I never actually even talked about societal contracts (though I would widely agree with you that you have an societal contract to not murder others). 
#119
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lunatic
In other words - I was completely in the right for writing you off - you have a construction of assertions, fallacies (stacked fallacies actually - haven't gotten to say that since Selidora), and pessimism - fine you have pessimism - but you have fundamentally failed to actually rebuke my syllogism. 
#120
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
In other words - I was completely in the right for writing you off - you have a construction of assertions, fallacies (stacked fallacies actually - haven't gotten to say that since Selidora), and pessimism - fine you have pessimism - but you have fundamentally failed to actually rebuke my syllogism. 
RUSH TO DISQUALIFY.