Total posts: 755
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Pretty solid stuff. A couple objections.
"Unproductive" as a challenge to nihilism/skepticism always seems to miss the boat for me, because that's not what it's trying to do. Nihilism doesn't envision a better world, that's almost a contradiction in terms. And obviously nihilism does not care about whether it's considered productive or unproductive. But I think it's useful for strengthening the grounds of our epistemology, and for getting people to consider uncomfortable conclusions.
I don't see why preference utilitarianism implies that creating new people is good. It seems to me that preference utilitarianism might have a strong argument for the conclusion that once there is a person, we should try to satisfy their deeper desires, but not that we ought to create people just to satisfy their desires.
Created:
Posted in:
I disagree with the idea that Nazis think human rights are important, and that's evidenced by how they treated everyone; there was a total disrespect for the rights of humans, not just because they thought rights were subservient to this greater racial cause, but because they really didn't care about rights in the first place. Whatever "right" an individual had in Nazi Germany really was just instrumental to hold the society together; the race was the only thing that foundationally mattered. It's not like Nazism is just like every other value system, except with "extreme racism and antisemitism" just inserted randomly. It's a different kind of thing.
I would say that Nazism is not super coherent, it's really just emotional, idealist fantasizing that is incredibly cruel and unempathetic. Rights can never be secured because there's no grounds for them in Nazi ideology. You could argue that Nazism and other ideologies both want to do "good" things, but even there, the Nazi conception of "good" is so radically divorced from most people's that it's hard to equate them with each other on the most basic level.
Created:
Posted in:
I think you can expand this skepticism. You bring up schizophrenia, which is an interesting example. One key, maybe even fundamental, element of schizophrenia is thought disorder, which is characterized by a failiure to think logically. But you see with schizophrenics that they're convinced they're thinking logically and are often closed to the possibility that they're wrong. This "lack of insight" is one of the most difficult parts of the disorder to treat.
We have to acknowledge that it's possible that all of our logical processes, even apriori ones, are fallacious in the same way. Otherwise we too "lack insight".
Created:
I'm late, but
Atheism: there is no god, therefore there is no afterlife, therefore nothing you do or think matters at all. There is no moral standpoint, only what you like matters.
This is not the correct definition of atheism. Everything goes wrong after the second comma, maybe even the first. It's even self-contradictory: the third and fourth sentences are nihilistic, and the fifth is hedonistic, and I don't think hedonism is compatible with nihilism.
And it's really incorrect to conflate all ethics that don't centrally focus God. I'd agree, for example, that utilitarianism doesn't have a great explanation for why humans matter more than animals, but Kant probably does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
It was an Immanuel Kant joke.
Created:
Posted in:
I Kant believe it.
Created:
Posted in:
Good riddance, to be honest. Debate.org has been Ozymandias for nearly 5 years now and it needs to be put to rest. Looking at it has been depressing since 2017 but there's probably a lot of debates worth saving on there. Not so much time anymore now though.
Fuck this was like my favorite website. It feels like everything I used to like about the internet is dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The former, though I guess it could apply to both
Created:
Posted in:
Compelling debate on this I watched recently: https://youtu.be/nzqHDgSqck8
Very good performance from both sides. Learned a lot from it, though fuck if I remember any of it
Created:
Posted in:
I actually agree with some conservative's criticisms of modern architecture. One of liberal society's flaws is that it's created a maze of options that is tough to navigate if you're the average person and can cut people off from the natural beauty of the world. On the flip side, of course, liberalism has allowed for people to make choices based on their personalities and its pretty impressive how so many different walks of life can peacefully coexist in the same civilization (though there will definitely still be plenty of interference).
Created:
Tell me somethin'You mothafuckas can't tell me nothin'I'd rather die than to listen to youMy DNA not for imitationYour DNA an abominationThis how it is when you're in the MatrixDodgin' bullets, reapin' what you sowAnd stackin' up the footage, livin' on the goAnd sleepin' in a villaSippin' from a Grammy and walkin' in the buildin'Diamond in the ceilin', marble on the floorsBeach inside the window, peekin' out the windowBaby in the pool, godfather goalsOnly Lord knows I've been goin' hammerDodgin' paparazzi, freakin' through the camerasEat at Four Daughters, Brock wearin' sandalsYoga on a Monday, stretchin' to NirvanaWatchin' all the snakes, curvin' all the fakesPhone never on, I don't conversateI don't compromise, I just penetrateSex, money, murder, these are the breaksThese are the times, level number 9Look up in the sky, 10 is on the waySentence on the way, killings on the wayMotherfucker, I got winners on the wayYou ain't shit without a body on your beltYou ain't shit without a ticket on your plateYou ain't sick enough to pull it on yourselfYou ain't rich enough to hit the lot and skateTell me when destruction gonna be my fateGonna be your fate, gonna be our faithPeace to the world, let it rotateSex, money, murder, our DNA
DNA - Kendrick Lamar
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Novice
You are absolutely right, and many of these people carry the same dishonest attitude to debates, so it becomes very hard to have them in good faith
The "defense attorney" attitude that thett is describing is (IMO) appropriate in debates, since the purpose of a debate is to win. Even if you're convinced of an opposing position you're still not supposed to give ground unless it's strategic for you to do so. With the forums, the purpose is (IMO) more about coming closer to the truth through argumentation. In a forum environment, making concessions when you know you're wrong about something is just being a good sport.
Never admitting when one is wrong usually leads to a person building a personality cult/air of infallibility around themselves.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
This is an important debate tactic. I think it would be a mistake to assume our "debate voice" reflects our personality.
I'm more talking about the forums then an actual debate, maybe I should've clarified. But I guess debate tactics are probably also used on the forums considering that people are generally fearful about admitting defeat.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
I do formal debate as well. Though I agree that it requires confidence within an actual round, I've never found much confidence in any kind of worldview through debate and I'm sure many people graduate feeling the same uncertainty that I do. Really I think debate has done something closer to the inverse; it's given me an appreciation for the complexity of the issues and shown how much they eclipse the grasp of common sense and partisan bickering. Ultimately the only way you can come to a greater understanding is to get your hands dirty arguing for one side or the other and, maybe more importantly, researching.
I agree though with you that debating seriously tends not to be something that people "who want to fit in" do. They usually show much more depth in their understanding of moral philosophy or policy. Though you could counter that anyone can just hop on this website and start arguing no matter who they are, even the impulse to do so has a filter attached to it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
That's a very good point. But I'd say that there are probably significant amounts of people who never project an air of confidence or knowledge on any topic regardless of how much they know. Humble people like you say. On this site it's easy to find people who give off that vibe, maybe because people who not only debate but also go somewhere for the purpose of debating are more confident.
Created:
One thing I've noticed about dart is that it's always been home to a lot of unique people, both in terms of their personality and systems of belief.
People on this site tend to have very strong personalities and a lot of them just radiate confidence to the point where it seems like they are certain that they have it all figured out. This is especially conspicuous when you consider that a lot of them have views that are diametrically opposed to one another. I have never been good at projecting confidence and tend to think that self-assuredness conveys some degree of ignorance, but nonetheless it's much more interesting to speak to people who are absolutely sure about these complex views about the world than just speaking to your average joe. Everyone is different, too, in some way or another. Even the trolls tended to share that conviction, not necessarily in favor of any particular side but just in their unwavering desire to watch the world burn.
As for the belief systems themselves a lot of them are normal if not trending towards the extreme a little bit, but also an outsized number came on here holding views that are bizarre, pattern-based, and sometimes even a little disturbed. All of these things I've been talking about are why that personality thread RM made last year got so successful, because it's really not hard to understand some aspects of people here just by looking at their forum posts and debates. Obviously, there are normal people too but normalcy actually is a little abnormal here.
I wonder if debate websites naturally attract these eccentric kinds of people or if online forums do more broadly, though I haven't actually been to too many online forums besides this so I'm not sure. Obviously a debate website probably selects for people with strong opinions. I imagine though that most people are pretty interesting when they're allowed to slip off their IRL identities and just take up a new persona.
I just thought I'd point this out, more as a positive observation than anything else, and see other people's thoughts. This isn't me being snobby and trying to act like I'm much more normal than everyone else. In fact, I don't think I would consider myself very normal at all. For me this website has been a formative experience where I can share my learning and purge all these juvenile beliefs that I've now outgrown into the outside world. I'm much more agnostic now, on everything.
Edit: Obviously things might've changed since it's been a while since I actively contribute here, but. Yeah.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are both fairly famous novels. I don't think you necessarily need to be right-wing to read them or even recommend them.
I guess he could've changed his stances, but I still doubt it.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Bro what happened to your politics?
I think some people, even those on the economic left, are alienated by the broader left's polarizing cultural/social stances.
Created:
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
- Ozymandias, Percy Bysshe Shelley
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I can't see a significant moral difference between the actions of Person 1 and 3. Unfortunately, punishments from current legal systems can never totally match with the degree of immorality of the crime, so I wouldn't be upset if their sentences were different unless the difference was unnecessarily extreme
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't know nearly enough to comment on that narrative. I think a lot of people just take systemic racism to be some kind of racial discrimination or something like that which occurs on the level of any system or institution. Just because there's a racial disproportionality that stems from a system doesn't mean that we have to tear it all down.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Systemic racism by-enlarge causes disparities to some degree. How much of a disparity there is is heavily dependent on the extent of systemic racism and other factors. Meaning that systemic racism contributes to the current problems with Black Americans, but it doesn't condemn them to a certain rate of crime, obesity, poverty, etc.
If your claim is that as long as there is systemic racism there will be some disparity, that's probably true.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I am not referring to the capacity to learn new information, but rather acquired skills typically learned in education. This would include areas such as proficiency in reading, writing, math, and critical thinking. It is often claimed that inequitable access to government dollars in public education results in lower proficiency in those areas.
I don't know if that's what intelligence means. If that's what you're referring to, that's fine, but you may not be referring to intelligence.
This would typically be the result of lower intelligence (as I have just qualified it), as well as being unable to go to college for various reasons.
Maybe that's the case. I'm not sure.
Black people are, on average, less intelligent, poorer, less qualified for skilled jobs, more obese, and commit more crimes than white people, and those disparities will continue to characterize back people as an entire group if the system continues as it is.
I don't know what you mean by "the system". I think there are many systems and institutions in the country. Systemic racism can occur in any one of them.
I think the bulk of your argument(s) are like this: QB of team A (hereafter QB-A and TA) is causing Team B (TB) to lose. Therefore, QB-A causes TB to lose as a necessary outcome. If TB starts winning or losing less, than QB-A must have lost his skill. The second and third sentences are non-sequiturs from the first.
(QB-A = Systemic racism and TB = Black Americans)
Would you now say the claim is racist?
Once again, you're talking about multiple claims. This is an important distinction.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Keep in mind I'm only making statements about the US in this post.
There are a lot of claims there. The claim that black people are less intelligent is complicated because I get the impression that there's a lot the scientific community is uncertain about regarding the existence of intelligence and our ability to calculate it. If you take the view that intelligence is determined by IQ, the tests are completely unbiased, and don't have any significant problems (which I am skeptical of), then black people are less intelligent on average. That is not necessarily a racist claim (but it could be). If you believe that these racial differences in intelligence are determined by genetics, that is a racist claim.
The poorer claim is, to my knowledge, descriptively true and is not racist unless you intended it or implied it to be.
I don't know enough about the qualifications claim to make a statement that I would be confident about concerning it's truth-value. I would guess that the claim is not necessarily racist unless it had racist implications, intentions, etc.
The obesity claim is also, to my knowledge, descriptively true. It's not necessarily racist but could be depending on the context in which you said it.
I don't know if the drugs claim is true. Once again I think whether it's racist depends on the context.
The crimes claim is probably true to an extent and is not necessarily racist.
The claim that black people as a group cannot do anything to change their outcomes in the current system is not true IMO. I guess there are some critical viewpoints that would take a pessimistic view towards the future of African-Americans in the US as a state (Afro-pessimism, I think) and I doubt that that is racist. I think that whether the claim is racist or not also would probably depend on the context, but I imagine there are many situations where that claim would be racist.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No, and probably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I'm not informed about the Afghan president. My point was that leaving the country that you preside over is not necessarily an act of cowardice.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you think that believing in systemic racism and/or that, on average, black people are worse off than white people is necessarily racist?
Created:
Posted in:
I think a lot of leaders leave their country when their government is about to collapse. It seems strategic to me, given that you could become politically active, operate a government-in-exile, or try to return to prominence once the de-facto govt becomes unstable. Better then getting killed. I don't know much about this, though.
I'm not sure how you'd know that all of these men have families/would be able to help them if they stayed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I am very confused. The question of whether a church should have to perform a gay marriage is a different question. Marriages aren't always performed by churches, and I'm sure that there are churches out there that will perform one.
Created:
IMO if Trump did this the groups supporting and opposing the move would be reversed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Read the title of the thread
Created:
-->
@Lemming
There are probably other criteria as well but these are just some that I can think of off of the top of my head.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I'll reword with some elaboration.
Principles that are
- embedded into the most basic laws and cultural aspects of most nations
- agreed upon by such a large majority of people that following them is an uncontroversial and vital aspect of day-to-day life
can be taught in schools.
Principles that are:
- controversial
- considered valid only by some, contested by many others
- reject other principles which do not clearly and obviously call for negative attitudes or actions towards people based on clearly uncontrollable aspects of their person
should not be taught in school.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
No, but make a distinction between principles which are embedded into the laws and culture of most societies in some form and are agreed upon by a huge majority of people who think about things like this and principles where there are controversies and room for a diversity of opinions.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Just because you agree with a political view does not mean that it should be taught to kids. Preventing schools from indoctrinating children and allowing them to come to their own conclusions is a much more important consideration for an issue like this than the question of whether communism is evil or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Presumably that is because he wants to see the opinions of others, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't know why you used my old account name; I wouldn't have known you were referencing me otherwise in notifications.
Oh, whoops. I just wasn't thinking.
But if that's the case, I might have to be an atheist.
Not necessarily, if that is your only reason. Don't you think it'd be unlikely that G-d would agree with all of your moral views?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I am fairly certain that you will not be able to find a religion that squares perfectly with your ethical views.
Created:
Posted in:
To assess how good your poem is in my opinion I would need to know what your intent was in writing it. Would you like feedback?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I take no issue with you thinking that I am Wylted, but if you're interested in finding evidence to the contrary we can see if we can do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
@Vader
I don't see why you're so insistent about this. I've been a pretty active user on-and-off for a while now and different than him in almost every way I can think of. In addition, I've conflicted with him on the forums and DARTvivor on multiple occasions (SupaDudz, Speedrace, and warren42 could probably confirm this if they remember). Hell, I even have DART DMs with his alt, Singularity, and Discord DMs from him which are both from over a year ago (though IDK if I can find the Discord ones or reveal either of them without his consent).
This would have to be an extremely elaborate trolling scheme on my part, but I guess(?) I can understand how you can think that it is given Wylted's history. I do have to ask what the evidence against me is, though.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Thought I'd see you here.
Created:
"A Knight ther was, and that a worthy man,
That fro the tyme that he first bigan
To ryden out, he loved chivalrye,
Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisye.
Ful worthy was he in his lordes werre,
And therto hadde he riden (no man ferre)
As wel in Cristendom as hethenesse,
And ever honoured for his worthinesse.
At Alisaundre he was, whan it was wonne;
Ful ofte tyme he hadde the bord bigonne
Aboven alle naciouns in Pruce.
In Lettow hadde he reysed and in Ruce,
No Cristen man so ofte of his degree.
In Gernade at the sege eek hadde he be
Of Algezir, and riden in Belmarye.
At Lyeys was he, and at Satalye,
Whan they were wonne; and in the Grete See
At many a noble aryve hadde he be.
At mortal batailles hadde he been fiftene,
And foughten for our feith at Tramissene
In listes thryes, and ay slayn his foo.
This ilke worthy knight had been also
Somtyme with the lord of Palatye,
Ageyn another hethen in Turkye:
And evermore he hadde a sovereyn prys.
And though that he were worthy, he was wys,
And of his port as meke as is a mayde.
He never yet no vileinye ne sayde
In al his lyf, un-to no maner wight.
He was a verray parfit gentil knight.
But for to tellen yow of his array,
His hors were gode, but he was nat gay.
Of fustian he wered a gipoun
Al bismotered with his habergeoun;
For he was late y-come from his viage,
And wente for to doon his pilgrimage."
- Geoffrey Chaucer, From The Canterbury Tales
Created:
"Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul."
- William Ernest Henley, 'Invictus'
Created: