Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

The biggest problem with this board

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:05:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We have a bunch of psudo intellectual high school losers who think that the way to debate is to question basic understandings when they can't argue anything else for instance a little high school loser apparently doesn't understand child rape is wrong, that assumption really shouldn't be questioned any more. I mean seriously infinite regress is not needed for that. You're right. I will dispute the assumption until you PROVE why child rape is immoral. Oh, that's right. "It just is."_detectableninja.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:07:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's fun to argue with you izbo. It gives me a chance to laugh at the sub-par intelligence of the common forum troll in its natural habitat.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:08:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:05:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
We have a bunch of psudo intellectual high school losers who think that the way to debate is to question basic understandings when they can't argue anything else for instance a little high school loser apparently doesn't understand child rape is wrong, that assumption really shouldn't be questioned any more. I mean seriously infinite regress is not needed for that. You're right. I will dispute the assumption until you PROVE why child rape is immoral. Oh, that's right. "It just is."_detectableninja.

I'm not going to respond in length. "The stupidity speaks for itself"--Izbo10.
I cannot fathom how such a level of ignorance can be exposed on this site, but apparently Izbo10 has superseded my expectations of that level by a mile.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:12:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:05:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
We have a bunch of psudo intellectual high school losers who think that the way to debate is to question basic understandings when they can't argue anything else for instance a little high school loser apparently doesn't understand child rape is wrong, that assumption really shouldn't be questioned any more. I mean seriously infinite regress is not needed for that. You're right. I will dispute the assumption until you PROVE why child rape is immoral. Oh, that's right. "It just is."_detectableninja.

Are there any members on this site that you respect and consider smart enough for you?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:13:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:08:40 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:05:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
We have a bunch of psudo intellectual high school losers who think that the way to debate is to question basic understandings when they can't argue anything else for instance a little high school loser apparently doesn't understand child rape is wrong, that assumption really shouldn't be questioned any more. I mean seriously infinite regress is not needed for that. You're right. I will dispute the assumption until you PROVE why child rape is immoral. Oh, that's right. "It just is."_detectableninja.

I'm not going to respond in length. "The stupidity speaks for itself"--Izbo10.
I cannot fathom how such a level of ignorance can be exposed on this site, but apparently Izbo10 has superseded my expectations of that level by a mile.

You are one of the kings of arguing a premise you agree with because you don't have an actual rebuttal. Child rape is wrong is about as much a prerequisite of a belief to discuss morality as 1+1= 2 is to a math forum.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:14:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:12:03 PM, jharry wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:05:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
We have a bunch of psudo intellectual high school losers who think that the way to debate is to question basic understandings when they can't argue anything else for instance a little high school loser apparently doesn't understand child rape is wrong, that assumption really shouldn't be questioned any more. I mean seriously infinite regress is not needed for that. You're right. I will dispute the assumption until you PROVE why child rape is immoral. Oh, that's right. "It just is."_detectableninja.

Are there any members on this site that you respect and consider smart enough for you?

Me.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:15:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:13:03 PM, izbo10 wrote:

You are one of the kings of arguing a premise you agree with because you don't have an actual rebuttal.
I assume that you wont' consider any rebuttal to your syllogisms 'actual' anyway.

Child rape is wrong is about as much a prerequisite of a belief to discuss morality as 1+1= 2 is to a math forum.

There should be a prerequisite in a debate site: 'Never assume that stating that a premise is obvious is enough to justify its validity'.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:16:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
While i believe child rape is wrong, I definitely do not see it as a ore-requisite for moral debate. Anyone who thinks this seem naive and it reminds me of the naïveté of post-religion, atheistic "common sense morality" espoused by the likes of Dawkins and Harris.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:19:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:16:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
While i believe child rape is wrong, I definitely do not see it as a ore-requisite for moral debate. Anyone who thinks this seem naive and it reminds me of the naïveté of post-religion, atheistic "common sense morality" espoused by the likes of Dawkins and Harris.

Thank you, Tim! You just summed up what I've been trying to say in this long debate I'm having with him in the forums.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:29:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm curious, who is it who said that child rape isn't wrong, or did they just speak in terms of consent?

Either way, fail OP is fail of course.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:30:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:05:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
We have a bunch of psudo intellectual high school losers who think that the way to debate is to question basic understandings when they can't argue anything else for instance a little high school loser apparently doesn't understand child rape is wrong, that assumption really shouldn't be questioned any more. I mean seriously infinite regress is not needed for that. You're right. I will dispute the assumption until you PROVE why child rape is immoral. Oh, that's right. "It just is."_detectableninja.

That type of argument is not limited to high school students. It's a fairly common tactic to deny every premise in hopes of wearing out an opponent. I recommend replying to every denial of a premise with about three rebuttal arguments. So, "Child rape is wrong because adults have an inborn obligation to protect children, use of force against another person for any reason other than self defense is wrong, and it violates UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Now your opponent has three arguments to refute. In general, short argument only require short rebuttals. Don't make the mistake of spending paragraphs refuting one-sentence denials, just up the ante by using a variety of different arguments. If he persists, add three more arguments in the next round. Either your opponent is going to get bogged down with longer and longer replies, or he'll give up and move to something else.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:29:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm curious, who is it who said that child rape isn't wrong, or did they just speak in terms of consent?

Either way, fail OP is fail of course.

I was arguing that you cannot prove that child rape is universally wrong--NOT that isn't wrong.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:33:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:30:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:05:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
We have a bunch of psudo intellectual high school losers who think that the way to debate is to question basic understandings when they can't argue anything else for instance a little high school loser apparently doesn't understand child rape is wrong, that assumption really shouldn't be questioned any more. I mean seriously infinite regress is not needed for that. You're right. I will dispute the assumption until you PROVE why child rape is immoral. Oh, that's right. "It just is."_detectableninja.

That type of argument is not limited to high school students. It's a fairly common tactic to deny every premise in hopes of wearing out an opponent. I recommend replying to every denial of a premise with about three rebuttal arguments. So, "Child rape is wrong because adults have an inborn obligation to protect children, use of force against another person for any reason other than self defense is wrong, and it violates UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Now your opponent has three arguments to refute. In general, short argument only require short rebuttals. Don't make the mistake of spending paragraphs refuting one-sentence denials, just up the ante by using a variety of different arguments. If he persists, add three more arguments in the next round. Either your opponent is going to get bogged down with longer and longer replies, or he'll give up and move to something else.

Excellent post, though I must admit that there appears to be little justification of an objective morality, which is central to this topic. But he construes moral nihilism with an attempt to prove that 'child rape' is moral, so that might explain the recent surge of insults from him to 'high-schoolers' in the debate forums....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:43:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I didn't know there was a UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You guys are awesome, you're gonna help me with my english essays.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:46:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I didn't know there was a UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You guys are awesome, you're gonna help me with my english essays.

That's another asset of DDO. You learn both personally, and in terms of knowledge, from interacting on this site.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 4:24:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I didn't know there was a UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You guys are awesome, you're gonna help me with my english essays.

The US and Somalia have not signed on yet.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 4:41:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 4:24:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I didn't know there was a UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You guys are awesome, you're gonna help me with my english essays.

The US and Somalia have not signed on yet.
Who in their right minds would?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 10:26:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 4:41:13 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 4:24:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I didn't know there was a UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You guys are awesome, you're gonna help me with my english essays.

The US and Somalia have not signed on yet.
Who in their right minds would?

We know that you wouldn't sign it, but do you really question that most people would sign something stating that child rape is morally wrong? Surely you understand that most people agree with that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 10:30:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 4:41:13 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 4:24:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I didn't know there was a UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You guys are awesome, you're gonna help me with my english essays.

The US and Somalia have not signed on yet.
Who in their right minds would?

I read the document, and honestly, why wouldn't anyone sign it? Its a declaration of human rights, the likes of which are already observed and enforced in America. It never actually outright said "child rape is wrong" but it was implied.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 10:32:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 10:30:51 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2011 4:41:13 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 4:24:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I didn't know there was a UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You guys are awesome, you're gonna help me with my english essays.

The US and Somalia have not signed on yet.
Who in their right minds would?


I read the document, and honestly, why wouldn't anyone sign it? Its a declaration of human rights, the likes of which are already observed and enforced in America. It never actually outright said "child rape is wrong" but it was implied.

Actually, the US did sign it. Also, on a side note, I have a copy of the UDoHR hanging on my bedroom wall.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 10:44:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The UN Declaration of Human Rights has some weirdness in it when it comes to education, which is the part that many people oppose.

In a debate, the Declaration is useful because it establishes a common almost-universally-accepted definition of human rights. That's a counter to arguments that morality is completely arbitrary. The Declaration is signed by evil dictators and authoritarian regimes. The UN Human Rights Commission was once headed by the Sudan, the last place on earth to allow slave trading. Iran is in charge of women's rights. What it proves is that even places that deny human rights in practice acknowledge the ideal. They say they cannot actually implement them because present circumstances ... blah, blah, blah. Criminals know they are doing wrong, they just don't care.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 10:56:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 10:44:21 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The UN Declaration of Human Rights has some weirdness in it when it comes to education, which is the part that many people oppose.

In a debate, the Declaration is useful because it establishes a common almost-universally-accepted definition of human rights. That's a counter to arguments that morality is completely arbitrary. The Declaration is signed by evil dictators and authoritarian regimes. The UN Human Rights Commission was once headed by the Sudan, the last place on earth to allow slave trading. Iran is in charge of women's rights. What it proves is that even places that deny human rights in practice acknowledge the ideal. They say they cannot actually implement them because present circumstances ... blah, blah, blah. Criminals know they are doing wrong, they just don't care.

Exactly, Roy. I was the one arguing with izbo10, and if he had provided the UDoHR as proof, I would've let it go. Of course, I feel bad for arguing semantics so heavily, but izbo10 is a bit of a troll/griefer anyway. That, and I don't like the idea of "common sense morality" in arguments.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 10:57:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:05:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
We have a bunch of psudo intellectual high school losers who think that the way to debate is to question basic understandings when they can't argue anything else

Uh....dude...you're on a public INTERNET forum called DEBATE.ORG.

What the hell were you expecting to find? MENSA?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 12:14:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 10:26:38 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/15/2011 4:41:13 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 4:24:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I didn't know there was a UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You guys are awesome, you're gonna help me with my english essays.

The US and Somalia have not signed on yet.
Who in their right minds would?

We know that you wouldn't sign it, but do you really question that most people would sign something stating that child rape is morally wrong? Surely you understand that most people agree with that.

I can tell you're trying to yank my chain, Oreele.

I read the document, and honestly, why wouldn't anyone sign it? Its a declaration of human rights, the likes of which are already observed and enforced in America.
You, however, I'm not sure, but either you've never read it, or you have no idea how America works, or you're yanking my chain.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
All punishment is inherently degrading. Without punishment there can be no rights-enforcement. Contradiction.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law
Without any discrimination, including on one's criminal status? Contradiction for the same reason.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Contradiction. One's reputation consists of other people's opinions about you, either you own it or they do, can't have it both ways.

non-political crimes
Contradiction.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses
A positive right to marriage contradicts a negative right to refuse a suitor, as someone will inevitably be refused universally.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Free at the point of provision protection of the family necessarily involves deprivation of someone's property. 1 implies 2 without the arbitrariness clause anyway so they are foreshadowing more contradiction later. Also, making it "everyone" prevents the stripping of property from criminals, which makes the whole scheme unenforcable again. Also, if everyone has rights alone, then they are as individuals the fundamental unit of society, not families.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Can't happen. No government can operate on a basis of unanimous consent, and any other version of "taking part" is pure nonsense and leads to representatives that are assuredly not freely chosen.

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government
For same reason, impossible. The elections subsequently called for only establish a will of the majority, not "the people."

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security
Contradicts property clause.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment
Contradicts property clause.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Contradicts property clause so hard

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Same.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Not a problem unless some idiot interprets this as forbidding you from firing someone who joins a trade union, which they usually do because this is the UN, which only lib'ruls care about.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Contradicts property clause (hereafter referred to as CPC).

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
CPC

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
CPC.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
Contradicts pretty much the whole notion of human rights.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations
The limits of the rights are in their definitions, anything more denies that the right exists.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Contradicts rights, human, CPC, opinion clause, not being a bunch of fascist asshats...

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
In other words, the Declaration can't be interpreted as authorizing itself, as it's a pseudolegal document rather than mere speech, and thus clearly aimed at destroying any coherent notion of rights, as shown by its contradictions.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 12:18:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@Ragnar: Do you hate all that is government, law, equal rights or something? Are you SURE you're not an anarchist?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault