Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Of the new members...

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 10:22:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 10:04:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Do we have any more totalitarians?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 11:05:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 10:04:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Do we have any more totalitarians?

Have there ever been any totalitarians on this website?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 11:20:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's pretty lonely being the only fascist in the room...
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 11:29:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 11:20:31 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
It's pretty lonely being the only fascist in the room...

whatchutalkinbout?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 11:33:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 11:05:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/24/2013 10:04:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Do we have any more totalitarians?

Have there ever been any totalitarians on this website?

I can think of at least one.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 11:46:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 11:33:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2013 11:05:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/24/2013 10:04:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Do we have any more totalitarians?

Have there ever been any totalitarians on this website?

I can think of at least one.

Who?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 7:23:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 11:46:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/24/2013 11:33:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2013 11:05:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/24/2013 10:04:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Do we have any more totalitarians?

Have there ever been any totalitarians on this website?

I can think of at least one.

Who?

ore_ele
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 7:36:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 1:09:47 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
Would I still be considered a new member?

Sure, since I don't remember you.

Its just over the years, on the political spectrum, authoritarians and totalitarians have been grossly under-represented.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 9:47:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 7:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:09:47 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
Would I still be considered a new member?

Sure, since I don't remember you.

Its just over the years, on the political spectrum, authoritarians and totalitarians have been grossly under-represented.

you say that like it's a bad thing. Inasmuch as I wouldn't want any nativist or nazi representation, I wouldn't want authoritarian representation. Certain ideologies, by their very nature, preclude meaningful discussion.
"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
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:45:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 9:47:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/25/2013 7:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:09:47 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
Would I still be considered a new member?

Sure, since I don't remember you.

Its just over the years, on the political spectrum, authoritarians and totalitarians have been grossly under-represented.

you say that like it's a bad thing. Inasmuch as I wouldn't want any nativist or nazi representation, I wouldn't want authoritarian representation. Certain ideologies, by their very nature, preclude meaningful discussion.

I would disagree. There can be many meaningful discussion with totalitarians and even fascists, if they are polite about it. Though that politeness is pretty much a requirement for any ideology, not just the shunned ones.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:46:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 9:57:19 PM, Bullish wrote:
I THOUGHT I was authoritarian... But Political Compass told me otherwise...

Well, with how libertarian this site is, you are practically Hitler's long lost grandchild!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 7:14:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 11:45:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 9:47:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/25/2013 7:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:09:47 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
Would I still be considered a new member?

Sure, since I don't remember you.

Its just over the years, on the political spectrum, authoritarians and totalitarians have been grossly under-represented.

you say that like it's a bad thing. Inasmuch as I wouldn't want any nativist or nazi representation, I wouldn't want authoritarian representation. Certain ideologies, by their very nature, preclude meaningful discussion.

I would disagree. There can be many meaningful discussion with totalitarians and even fascists, if they are polite about it. Though that politeness is pretty much a requirement for any ideology, not just the shunned ones.

I respectfully disagree. There are some ideologies--or, at the very least, some aspects of ideologies--which are so repugnant as to not deserve credence. I acknowledge that "repugnant" is a very subjective term, yet it seems, to some extent intuitively, that certain political dispositions just should not be taken seriously. Stalinism and Nazism spring to mind. This is a difficult position to defend, that I also admit. But at the most basic level, I cannot find it meaningful to indulge or entertain such persuasions.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 8:39:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 7:14:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:45:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 9:47:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/25/2013 7:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:09:47 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
Would I still be considered a new member?

Sure, since I don't remember you.

Its just over the years, on the political spectrum, authoritarians and totalitarians have been grossly under-represented.

you say that like it's a bad thing. Inasmuch as I wouldn't want any nativist or nazi representation, I wouldn't want authoritarian representation. Certain ideologies, by their very nature, preclude meaningful discussion.

I would disagree. There can be many meaningful discussion with totalitarians and even fascists, if they are polite about it. Though that politeness is pretty much a requirement for any ideology, not just the shunned ones.

I respectfully disagree. There are some ideologies--or, at the very least, some aspects of ideologies--which are so repugnant as to not deserve credence. I acknowledge that "repugnant" is a very subjective term, yet it seems, to some extent intuitively, that certain political dispositions just should not be taken seriously. Stalinism and Nazism spring to mind. This is a difficult position to defend, that I also admit. But at the most basic level, I cannot find it meaningful to indulge or entertain such persuasions.

At the very least, it is meaningful to understand why they think the way they do. WHAT they support is less important than WHY they support it. You can almost never really understand why someone thinks the way they do if you start the conversation with "I'm not gonna listen to anything you say."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 8:47:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 8:39:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:14:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:45:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 9:47:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/25/2013 7:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:09:47 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
Would I still be considered a new member?

Sure, since I don't remember you.

Its just over the years, on the political spectrum, authoritarians and totalitarians have been grossly under-represented.

you say that like it's a bad thing. Inasmuch as I wouldn't want any nativist or nazi representation, I wouldn't want authoritarian representation. Certain ideologies, by their very nature, preclude meaningful discussion.

I would disagree. There can be many meaningful discussion with totalitarians and even fascists, if they are polite about it. Though that politeness is pretty much a requirement for any ideology, not just the shunned ones.

I respectfully disagree. There are some ideologies--or, at the very least, some aspects of ideologies--which are so repugnant as to not deserve credence. I acknowledge that "repugnant" is a very subjective term, yet it seems, to some extent intuitively, that certain political dispositions just should not be taken seriously. Stalinism and Nazism spring to mind. This is a difficult position to defend, that I also admit. But at the most basic level, I cannot find it meaningful to indulge or entertain such persuasions.

At the very least, it is meaningful to understand why they think the way they do. WHAT they support is less important than WHY they support it. You can almost never really understand why someone thinks the way they do if you start the conversation with "I'm not gonna listen to anything you say."

Well when the content of your position is "I don't believe you have the rights and freedoms necessary to carry out this discussion in the first place"... carrying out the discussion seems to be an exercise in futility for the opposition.
"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
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:04:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 8:47:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:39:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:14:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:45:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 9:47:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/25/2013 7:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:09:47 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
Would I still be considered a new member?

Sure, since I don't remember you.

Its just over the years, on the political spectrum, authoritarians and totalitarians have been grossly under-represented.

you say that like it's a bad thing. Inasmuch as I wouldn't want any nativist or nazi representation, I wouldn't want authoritarian representation. Certain ideologies, by their very nature, preclude meaningful discussion.

I would disagree. There can be many meaningful discussion with totalitarians and even fascists, if they are polite about it. Though that politeness is pretty much a requirement for any ideology, not just the shunned ones.

I respectfully disagree. There are some ideologies--or, at the very least, some aspects of ideologies--which are so repugnant as to not deserve credence. I acknowledge that "repugnant" is a very subjective term, yet it seems, to some extent intuitively, that certain political dispositions just should not be taken seriously. Stalinism and Nazism spring to mind. This is a difficult position to defend, that I also admit. But at the most basic level, I cannot find it meaningful to indulge or entertain such persuasions.

At the very least, it is meaningful to understand why they think the way they do. WHAT they support is less important than WHY they support it. You can almost never really understand why someone thinks the way they do if you start the conversation with "I'm not gonna listen to anything you say."

In this case, the reasons why they hold their beliefs are not worthy of meaningful discussion either, for the exact same reasons that I articulated earlier. For instance, if someone wants to levy a poll tax because they are racist, trying to understand their racist reasoning is wrong because it simply has no value as an argument. Moreover, the only benefit that could be derived from such an exploration is to learn why people become racist, in order to stop other people from becoming racist. Finally, by trying to appreciate their belief systems, you're giving them and their repugnant ideologies credence they shouldn't have. Such an inquiry implies that their perspective might have something valuable to add to societal or philosophical discourse, when, in fact, entertaining these beliefs actually is regressive.

Well when the content of your position is "I don't believe you have the rights and freedoms necessary to carry out this discussion in the first place"... carrying out the discussion seems to be an exercise in futility for the opposition.

I entirely concur.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:15:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:04:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:47:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:39:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:14:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:45:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 9:47:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/25/2013 7:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:09:47 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
Would I still be considered a new member?

Sure, since I don't remember you.

Its just over the years, on the political spectrum, authoritarians and totalitarians have been grossly under-represented.

you say that like it's a bad thing. Inasmuch as I wouldn't want any nativist or nazi representation, I wouldn't want authoritarian representation. Certain ideologies, by their very nature, preclude meaningful discussion.

I would disagree. There can be many meaningful discussion with totalitarians and even fascists, if they are polite about it. Though that politeness is pretty much a requirement for any ideology, not just the shunned ones.

I respectfully disagree. There are some ideologies--or, at the very least, some aspects of ideologies--which are so repugnant as to not deserve credence. I acknowledge that "repugnant" is a very subjective term, yet it seems, to some extent intuitively, that certain political dispositions just should not be taken seriously. Stalinism and Nazism spring to mind. This is a difficult position to defend, that I also admit. But at the most basic level, I cannot find it meaningful to indulge or entertain such persuasions.

At the very least, it is meaningful to understand why they think the way they do. WHAT they support is less important than WHY they support it. You can almost never really understand why someone thinks the way they do if you start the conversation with "I'm not gonna listen to anything you say."

In this case, the reasons why they hold their beliefs are not worthy of meaningful discussion either, for the exact same reasons that I articulated earlier. For instance, if someone wants to levy a poll tax because they are racist, trying to understand their racist reasoning is wrong because it simply has no value as an argument.

That is how it may relate to a particular issue, however when you state that you believe they should have no representation on DDO, you are not talking about a single issue. We are not talking about just a discussion on an issue, but the very act of discussion in general. Which there can be purpose and value.

Moreover, the only benefit that could be derived from such an exploration is to learn why people become racist, in order to stop other people from becoming racist.

That is certainly one value that can be obtained, and so you've just shown that there can be value from discussion.

Finally, by trying to appreciate their belief systems, you're giving them and their repugnant ideologies credence they shouldn't have. Such an inquiry implies that their perspective might have something valuable to add to societal or philosophical discourse, when, in fact, entertaining these beliefs actually is regressive.

I disagree. You are basing your views on a pre-disposed bias that you have for them. Such lines of thinking itself is regressive and oppressive, the very things you claim to despise about them. You are saying their ideas are worthless when you don't even know what they are. You are making an assumption, which is intellectually dishonest.

I feel that I can safely say that most members of DDO, while do not agree with my views, feel that they are at least worth being allowed to be typed and read. Perhaps I should be more humble, but I do believe that is a safe statement. Even though I am extremely totalitarian and even reject the very notion of rights.


Well when the content of your position is "I don't believe you have the rights and freedoms necessary to carry out this discussion in the first place"... carrying out the discussion seems to be an exercise in futility for the opposition.

I entirely concur.

Hobbes' arguments that argumentation proves the existence of rights and self-ownership are easily shown false in this modern age. Though it is understandable how he reached his conclusions based on the time and limits he faced.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 9:58:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:15:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:04:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:47:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:39:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 7:14:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/25/2013 11:45:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 9:47:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/25/2013 7:36:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2013 1:09:47 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
Would I still be considered a new member?

Sure, since I don't remember you.

Its just over the years, on the political spectrum, authoritarians and totalitarians have been grossly under-represented.

you say that like it's a bad thing. Inasmuch as I wouldn't want any nativist or nazi representation, I wouldn't want authoritarian representation. Certain ideologies, by their very nature, preclude meaningful discussion.

I would disagree. There can be many meaningful discussion with totalitarians and even fascists, if they are polite about it. Though that politeness is pretty much a requirement for any ideology, not just the shunned ones.

I respectfully disagree. There are some ideologies--or, at the very least, some aspects of ideologies--which are so repugnant as to not deserve credence. I acknowledge that "repugnant" is a very subjective term, yet it seems, to some extent intuitively, that certain political dispositions just should not be taken seriously. Stalinism and Nazism spring to mind. This is a difficult position to defend, that I also admit. But at the most basic level, I cannot find it meaningful to indulge or entertain such persuasions.

At the very least, it is meaningful to understand why they think the way they do. WHAT they support is less important than WHY they support it. You can almost never really understand why someone thinks the way they do if you start the conversation with "I'm not gonna listen to anything you say."

In this case, the reasons why they hold their beliefs are not worthy of meaningful discussion either, for the exact same reasons that I articulated earlier. For instance, if someone wants to levy a poll tax because they are racist, trying to understand their racist reasoning is wrong because it simply has no value as an argument.

That is how it may relate to a particular issue, however when you state that you believe they should have no representation on DDO, you are not talking about a single issue. We are not talking about just a discussion on an issue, but the very act of discussion in general. Which there can be purpose and value.

Moreover, the only benefit that could be derived from such an exploration is to learn why people become racist, in order to stop other people from becoming racist.

That is certainly one value that can be obtained, and so you've just shown that there can be value from discussion.

I agree--this was a qualification of my earlier arguments. I think that there are really no other benefits.

Finally, by trying to appreciate their belief systems, you're giving them and their repugnant ideologies credence they shouldn't have. Such an inquiry implies that their perspective might have something valuable to add to societal or philosophical discourse, when, in fact, entertaining these beliefs actually is regressive.

I disagree. You are basing your views on a pre-disposed bias that you have for them. Such lines of thinking itself is regressive and oppressive, the very things you claim to despise about them. You are saying their ideas are worthless when you don't even know what they are. You are making an assumption, which is intellectually dishonest.

I certainly understand what you're saying here, but I vehemently disagree. I think that some views should be agreed to be wrong. Racism is one example of this. Some ideas are just flatly unjustifiably, and so too with their outgrowths. I am not opposed to debate, I am opposed to extending legitimacy to the notion that some races are superior to others.

I feel that I can safely say that most members of DDO, while do not agree with my views, feel that they are at least worth being allowed to be typed and read. Perhaps I should be more humble, but I do believe that is a safe statement. Even though I am extremely totalitarian and even reject the very notion of rights.

That is an interesting position, and I don't believe autocracy is inherently immoral, as can be evidenced with the notion of the "benevolent dictators." But yet, I submit still that some actions are inherently wrong, such as racism or genocide. Moreover, I can assert that we should not seriously evaluate or attempt to explore these ideas while still granting someone the right to talk about them. An idea may be inherently wrong, and should not be taken seriously, but that does not mean that I would censor those that believe it unless they attempt to incite violence.

Well when the content of your position is "I don't believe you have the rights and freedoms necessary to carry out this discussion in the first place"... carrying out the discussion seems to be an exercise in futility for the opposition.

I entirely concur.

Hobbes' arguments that argumentation proves the existence of rights and self-ownership are easily shown false in this modern age. Though it is understandable how he reached his conclusions based on the time and limits he faced.

I agreed my position is not only hard to articulate but difficult to defend, but I still personally hold to it. I am open to persuasion on this issue, but for now, this is what I believe.

On a side note, why do you question the existence of rights...? That's very intriguing.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:13:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 9:58:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:15:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:04:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:47:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:39:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At the very least, it is meaningful to understand why they think the way they do. WHAT they support is less important than WHY they support it. You can almost never really understand why someone thinks the way they do if you start the conversation with "I'm not gonna listen to anything you say."

In this case, the reasons why they hold their beliefs are not worthy of meaningful discussion either, for the exact same reasons that I articulated earlier. For instance, if someone wants to levy a poll tax because they are racist, trying to understand their racist reasoning is wrong because it simply has no value as an argument.

That is how it may relate to a particular issue, however when you state that you believe they should have no representation on DDO, you are not talking about a single issue. We are not talking about just a discussion on an issue, but the very act of discussion in general. Which there can be purpose and value.

Moreover, the only benefit that could be derived from such an exploration is to learn why people become racist, in order to stop other people from becoming racist.

That is certainly one value that can be obtained, and so you've just shown that there can be value from discussion.

I agree--this was a qualification of my earlier arguments. I think that there are really no other benefits.

Finally, by trying to appreciate their belief systems, you're giving them and their repugnant ideologies credence they shouldn't have. Such an inquiry implies that their perspective might have something valuable to add to societal or philosophical discourse, when, in fact, entertaining these beliefs actually is regressive.

I disagree. You are basing your views on a pre-disposed bias that you have for them. Such lines of thinking itself is regressive and oppressive, the very things you claim to despise about them. You are saying their ideas are worthless when you don't even know what they are. You are making an assumption, which is intellectually dishonest.

I certainly understand what you're saying here, but I vehemently disagree. I think that some views should be agreed to be wrong. Racism is one example of this. Some ideas are just flatly unjustifiably, and so too with their outgrowths. I am not opposed to debate, I am opposed to extending legitimacy to the notion that some races are superior to others.

Not really, there could be a case made that one race is "better" than another. Of course, it would be a different debate to suggest if any race should be treated differently.

Would you agree, or at least say a case could be made that one species is better than another (and please don't suggest that I'm equating different races with different species, merely showing that different living things can be "better" or "superior").

Would you also agree that different races have different genetic characteristics. Simple evidence is that blacks are larger and stronger, on average.

Would you agree, or say that one could present a reasonable argument, that some traits or characteristics are "better" or "superior" to others?

From this could one not make a reasonable attempt to argue that one race is superior to another? That has nothing to say about "morals" or "rights" or how they ought to be treated under the law, but that is certainly something that could be argued and could be debated and listened to and considered.


I feel that I can safely say that most members of DDO, while do not agree with my views, feel that they are at least worth being allowed to be typed and read. Perhaps I should be more humble, but I do believe that is a safe statement. Even though I am extremely totalitarian and even reject the very notion of rights.

That is an interesting position, and I don't believe autocracy is inherently immoral, as can be evidenced with the notion of the "benevolent dictators." But yet, I submit still that some actions are inherently wrong, such as racism or genocide. Moreover, I can assert that we should not seriously evaluate or attempt to explore these ideas while still granting someone the right to talk about them. An idea may be inherently wrong, and should not be taken seriously, but that does not mean that I would censor those that believe it unless they attempt to incite violence.

That leads to a debate about objective morals, which is certainly a worthwhile debate to have, and one that is definitely worthy of consideration.


Well when the content of your position is "I don't believe you have the rights and freedoms necessary to carry out this discussion in the first place"... carrying out the discussion seems to be an exercise in futility for the opposition.

I entirely concur.

Hobbes' arguments that argumentation proves the existence of rights and self-ownership are easily shown false in this modern age. Though it is understandable how he reached his conclusions based on the time and limits he faced.

I agreed my position is not only hard to articulate but difficult to defend, but I still personally hold to it. I am open to persuasion on this issue, but for now, this is what I believe.

There are two aspects of it.

Hobbes argues that Argumentative Discourse cannot take place without each party first agreeing (subconsciously) to not initiate any force (i.e. let ideas stand for themselves, not be swayed by coercion). The very act of trying to talk things out and convince people of something is admitting that violence is not your preferred method, therefore, talking about engaging in violence, or talking with anyone that you commit violence against would be a contradiction. He believes this enforces the libertarian philosophy of the NAP.

However, the original discourse ethics falsely states that one presupposition is that every party is motivated ONLY by the desire to expand their knowledge and understanding. This is not a real requirement for communication, as we can communicate while I have a hidden agenda. The internet has shown us all too well that many people communicate without being open to expanding their knowledge and understanding. Without this presupposition, and when you understand that actions are weighed on a sliding scale, where we weigh the pros and cons of non-violence vs violence in obtaining our goals, we may falsely believe that non-violence will work and when we realize that it isn't yielding the same pros/cons that were predicted, we switch our methods.

The other is that Hoppe argues that because we are arguing with our bodies, we are admitting that we have self-ownership. However, with computers and internet now can provide us with the example that we are now communicating through computers, but that does not mean we own the computers that we are arguing through. This computer may be owned by my work, or a library, or a friends that I'm borrowing.


On a side note, why do you question the existence of rights...? That's very intriguing.

I question the objective existence of them. They only "exist" in the sense that we created them for ourselves (namely that society creates for the people of society). This means that "rights" which society does not create, are not rights that you have and are being infringed, but are not rights that you have, since they were never granted/created. I believe they exist insomuch as numbers, thoughts, and other abstract concepts do.

Though I make simplistic statements about them to highlight the differences between mine and the standard view.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:53:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:13:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:58:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:15:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:04:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:47:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:39:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

I certainly understand what you're saying here, but I vehemently disagree. I think that some views should be agreed to be wrong. Racism is one example of this. Some ideas are just flatly unjustifiably, and so too with their outgrowths. I am not opposed to debate, I am opposed to extending legitimacy to the notion that some races are superior to others.

Not really, there could be a case made that one race is "better" than another. Of course, it would be a different debate to suggest if any race should be treated differently.

Would you agree, or at least say a case could be made that one species is better than another (and please don't suggest that I'm equating different races with different species, merely showing that different living things can be "better" or "superior").

I can agree that species differ, but by that same token, this--as you noted--is not comparable to races. I don't think there is credible evidence to point to any real distinction in moral value between people. No group is "superior" to any others, and saying so risks a return to the turpitude perpetrated by the likes of Mengele. No race is inherently better than any others, even if one race might have qualities that another does not. Simply because I am slow and you are fast does not mean that you are somehow superior to me--firstly, one would have to show why fast is better, and secondly, there are things that I may do better than you, such as jump. So, how do we evaluate between these things? Is jumping ability better that speed, or vice versa? any answer would be arbitrary and relative, and so we cannot say one or a few traits makes any race better than any other.

From this could one not make a reasonable attempt to argue that one race is superior to another? That has nothing to say about "morals" or "rights" or how they ought to be treated under the law, but that is certainly something that could be argued and could be debated and listened to and considered.


I feel that I can safely say that most members of DDO, while do not agree with my views, feel that they are at least worth being allowed to be typed and read. Perhaps I should be more humble, but I do believe that is a safe statement. Even though I am extremely totalitarian and even reject the very notion of rights.

That is an interesting position, and I don't believe autocracy is inherently immoral, as can be evidenced with the notion of the "benevolent dictators." But yet, I submit still that some actions are inherently wrong, such as racism or genocide. Moreover, I can assert that we should not seriously evaluate or attempt to explore these ideas while still granting someone the right to talk about them. An idea may be inherently wrong, and should not be taken seriously, but that does not mean that I would censor those that believe it unless they attempt to incite violence.

That leads to a debate about objective morals, which is certainly a worthwhile debate to have, and one that is definitely worthy of consideration.

I agree.


Well when the content of your position is "I don't believe you have the rights and freedoms necessary to carry out this discussion in the first place"... carrying out the discussion seems to be an exercise in futility for the opposition.

I entirely concur.

Hobbes' arguments that argumentation proves the existence of rights and self-ownership are easily shown false in this modern age. Though it is understandable how he reached his conclusions based on the time and limits he faced.

I agreed my position is not only hard to articulate but difficult to defend, but I still personally hold to it. I am open to persuasion on this issue, but for now, this is what I believe.

There are two aspects of it.

Hobbes argues that Argumentative Discourse cannot take place without each party first agreeing (subconsciously) to not initiate any force (i.e. let ideas stand for themselves, not be swayed by coercion). The very act of trying to talk things out and convince people of something is admitting that violence is not your preferred method, therefore, talking about engaging in violence, or talking with anyone that you commit violence against would be a contradiction. He believes this enforces the libertarian philosophy of the NAP.

However, the original discourse ethics falsely states that one presupposition is that every party is motivated ONLY by the desire to expand their knowledge and understanding. This is not a real requirement for communication, as we can communicate while I have a hidden agenda. The internet has shown us all too well that many people communicate without being open to expanding their knowledge and understanding. Without this presupposition, and when you understand that actions are weighed on a sliding scale, where we weigh the pros and cons of non-violence vs violence in obtaining our goals, we may falsely believe that non-violence will work and when we realize that it isn't yielding the same pros/cons that were predicted, we switch our methods.

The other is that Hoppe argues that because we are arguing with our bodies, we are admitting that we have self-ownership. However, with computers and internet now can provide us with the example that we are now communicating through computers, but that does not mean we own the computers that we are arguing through. This computer may be owned by my work, or a library, or a friends that I'm borrowing.


On a side note, why do you question the existence of rights...? That's very intriguing.

I question the objective existence of them. They only "exist" in the sense that we created them for ourselves (namely that society creates for the people of society). This means that "rights" which society does not create, are not rights that you have and are being infringed, but are not rights that you have, since they were never granted/created. I believe they exist insomuch as numbers, thoughts, and other abstract concepts do.

What would your response be to the notion of natural rights, or to a transcendentalist perspective on the innate worth within all things that connotes some obligation to treat things with respect?

Though I make simplistic statements about them to highlight the differences between mine and the standard view.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:18:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:53:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:13:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:58:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:15:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:04:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:47:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:39:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

I certainly understand what you're saying here, but I vehemently disagree. I think that some views should be agreed to be wrong. Racism is one example of this. Some ideas are just flatly unjustifiably, and so too with their outgrowths. I am not opposed to debate, I am opposed to extending legitimacy to the notion that some races are superior to others.

Not really, there could be a case made that one race is "better" than another. Of course, it would be a different debate to suggest if any race should be treated differently.

Would you agree, or at least say a case could be made that one species is better than another (and please don't suggest that I'm equating different races with different species, merely showing that different living things can be "better" or "superior").

I can agree that species differ, but by that same token, this--as you noted--is not comparable to races. I don't think there is credible evidence to point to any real distinction in moral value between people. No group is "superior" to any others, and saying so risks a return to the turpitude perpetrated by the likes of Mengele. No race is inherently better than any others, even if one race might have qualities that another does not. Simply because I am slow and you are fast does not mean that you are somehow superior to me--firstly, one would have to show why fast is better, and secondly, there are things that I may do better than you, such as jump. So, how do we evaluate between these things? Is jumping ability better that speed, or vice versa? any answer would be arbitrary and relative, and so we cannot say one or a few traits makes any race better than any other.

From this could one not make a reasonable attempt to argue that one race is superior to another? That has nothing to say about "morals" or "rights" or how they ought to be treated under the law, but that is certainly something that could be argued and could be debated and listened to and considered.


I feel that I can safely say that most members of DDO, while do not agree with my views, feel that they are at least worth being allowed to be typed and read. Perhaps I should be more humble, but I do believe that is a safe statement. Even though I am extremely totalitarian and even reject the very notion of rights.

That is an interesting position, and I don't believe autocracy is inherently immoral, as can be evidenced with the notion of the "benevolent dictators." But yet, I submit still that some actions are inherently wrong, such as racism or genocide. Moreover, I can assert that we should not seriously evaluate or attempt to explore these ideas while still granting someone the right to talk about them. An idea may be inherently wrong, and should not be taken seriously, but that does not mean that I would censor those that believe it unless they attempt to incite violence.

That leads to a debate about objective morals, which is certainly a worthwhile debate to have, and one that is definitely worthy of consideration.

I agree.


Well when the content of your position is "I don't believe you have the rights and freedoms necessary to carry out this discussion in the first place"... carrying out the discussion seems to be an exercise in futility for the opposition.

I entirely concur.

Hobbes' arguments that argumentation proves the existence of rights and self-ownership are easily shown false in this modern age. Though it is understandable how he reached his conclusions based on the time and limits he faced.

I agreed my position is not only hard to articulate but difficult to defend, but I still personally hold to it. I am open to persuasion on this issue, but for now, this is what I believe.

There are two aspects of it.

Hobbes argues that Argumentative Discourse cannot take place without each party first agreeing (subconsciously) to not initiate any force (i.e. let ideas stand for themselves, not be swayed by coercion). The very act of trying to talk things out and convince people of something is admitting that violence is not your preferred method, therefore, talking about engaging in violence, or talking with anyone that you commit violence against would be a contradiction. He believes this enforces the libertarian philosophy of the NAP.

However, the original discourse ethics falsely states that one presupposition is that every party is motivated ONLY by the desire to expand their knowledge and understanding. This is not a real requirement for communication, as we can communicate while I have a hidden agenda. The internet has shown us all too well that many people communicate without being open to expanding their knowledge and understanding. Without this presupposition, and when you understand that actions are weighed on a sliding scale, where we weigh the pros and cons of non-violence vs violence in obtaining our goals, we may falsely believe that non-violence will work and when we realize that it isn't yielding the same pros/cons that were predicted, we switch our methods.

The other is that Hoppe argues that because we are arguing with our bodies, we are admitting that we have self-ownership. However, with computers and internet now can provide us with the example that we are now communicating through computers, but that does not mean we own the computers that we are arguing through. This computer may be owned by my work, or a library, or a friends that I'm borrowing.


On a side note, why do you question the existence of rights...? That's very intriguing.

I question the objective existence of them. They only "exist" in the sense that we created them for ourselves (namely that society creates for the people of society). This means that "rights" which society does not create, are not rights that you have and are being infringed, but are not rights that you have, since they were never granted/created. I believe they exist insomuch as numbers, thoughts, and other abstract concepts do.

What would your response be to the notion of natural rights, or to a transcendentalist perspective on the innate worth within all things that connotes some obligation to treat things with respect?

A complete lack of evidence. If anyone wants to argue that they are anything other than abstract, I welcome any evidence or documentation of rights appearing in nature independent of the human mind. I treat the fact that nature holds no apparent rights in the rest of the animal kingdom and that they cannot be observed outside of our creation of human society that they must be a human creation, that they were something that we made up.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:40:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:18:32 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:53:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:13:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:58:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:15:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 9:04:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:47:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:39:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

I certainly understand what you're saying here, but I vehemently disagree. I think that some views should be agreed to be wrong. Racism is one example of this. Some ideas are just flatly unjustifiably, and so too with their outgrowths. I am not opposed to debate, I am opposed to extending legitimacy to the notion that some races are superior to others.

Not really, there could be a case made that one race is "better" than another. Of course, it would be a different debate to suggest if any race should be treated differently.

Would you agree, or at least say a case could be made that one species is better than another (and please don't suggest that I'm equating different races with different species, merely showing that different living things can be "better" or "superior").

I can agree that species differ, but by that same token, this--as you noted--is not comparable to races. I don't think there is credible evidence to point to any real distinction in moral value between people. No group is "superior" to any others, and saying so risks a return to the turpitude perpetrated by the likes of Mengele. No race is inherently better than any others, even if one race might have qualities that another does not. Simply because I am slow and you are fast does not mean that you are somehow superior to me--firstly, one would have to show why fast is better, and secondly, there are things that I may do better than you, such as jump. So, how do we evaluate between these things? Is jumping ability better that speed, or vice versa? any answer would be arbitrary and relative, and so we cannot say one or a few traits makes any race better than any other.

From this could one not make a reasonable attempt to argue that one race is superior to another? That has nothing to say about "morals" or "rights" or how they ought to be treated under the law, but that is certainly something that could be argued and could be debated and listened to and considered.


I feel that I can safely say that most members of DDO, while do not agree with my views, feel that they are at least worth being allowed to be typed and read. Perhaps I should be more humble, but I do believe that is a safe statement. Even though I am extremely totalitarian and even reject the very notion of rights.

That is an interesting position, and I don't believe autocracy is inherently immoral, as can be evidenced with the notion of the "benevolent dictators." But yet, I submit still that some actions are inherently wrong, such as racism or genocide. Moreover, I can assert that we should not seriously evaluate or attempt to explore these ideas while still granting someone the right to talk about them. An idea may be inherently wrong, and should not be taken seriously, but that does not mean that I would censor those that believe it unless they attempt to incite violence.

That leads to a debate about objective morals, which is certainly a worthwhile debate to have, and one that is definitely worthy of consideration.

I agree.


Well when the content of your position is "I don't believe you have the rights and freedoms necessary to carry out this discussion in the first place"... carrying out the discussion seems to be an exercise in futility for the opposition.

I entirely concur.

Hobbes' arguments that argumentation proves the existence of rights and self-ownership are easily shown false in this modern age. Though it is understandable how he reached his conclusions based on the time and limits he faced.

I agreed my position is not only hard to articulate but difficult to defend, but I still personally hold to it. I am open to persuasion on this issue, but for now, this is what I believe.

There are two aspects of it.

Hobbes argues that Argumentative Discourse cannot take place without each party first agreeing (subconsciously) to not initiate any force (i.e. let ideas stand for themselves, not be swayed by coercion). The very act of trying to talk things out and convince people of something is admitting that violence is not your preferred method, therefore, talking about engaging in violence, or talking with anyone that you commit violence against would be a contradiction. He believes this enforces the libertarian philosophy of the NAP.

However, the original discourse ethics falsely states that one presupposition is that every party is motivated ONLY by the desire to expand their knowledge and understanding. This is not a real requirement for communication, as we can communicate while I have a hidden agenda. The internet has shown us all too well that many people communicate without being open to expanding their knowledge and understanding. Without this presupposition, and when you understand that actions are weighed on a sliding scale, where we weigh the pros and cons of non-violence vs violence in obtaining our goals, we may falsely believe that non-violence will work and when we realize that it isn't yielding the same pros/cons that were predicted, we switch our methods.

The other is that Hoppe argues that because we are arguing with our bodies, we are admitting that we have self-ownership. However, with computers and internet now can provide us with the example that we are now communicating through computers, but that does not mean we own the computers that we are arguing through. This computer may be owned by my work, or a library, or a friends that I'm borrowing.


On a side note, why do you question the existence of rights...? That's very intriguing.

I question the objective existence of them. They only "exist" in the sense that we created them for ourselves (namely that society creates for the people of society). This means that "rights" which society does not create, are not rights that you have and are being infringed, but are not rights that you have, since they were never granted/created. I believe they exist insomuch as numbers, thoughts, and other abstract concepts do.

What would your response be to the notion of natural rights, or to a transcendentalist perspective on the innate worth within all things that connotes some obligation to treat things with respect?

A complete lack of evidence. If anyone wants to argue that they are anything other than abstract, I welcome any evidence or documentation of rights appearing in nature independent of the human mind. I treat the fact that nature holds no apparent rights in the rest of the animal kingdom and that they cannot be observed outside of our creation of human society that they must be a human creation, that they were something that we made up.

What if the rest of the animal kingdom is simply unaware of these rights--simply because things have worth does not mean that such worth is always recognized. In addendum, one could argue that rationality makes us unique among animals, and so rights could inhere to us, but not to other creatures because of our unique nature.

I am curious about these questions, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I don't yet have a fully formed opinion on this question yet.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:07:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:40:33 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:18:32 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:53:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:13:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I question the objective existence of them. They only "exist" in the sense that we created them for ourselves (namely that society creates for the people of society). This means that "rights" which society does not create, are not rights that you have and are being infringed, but are not rights that you have, since they were never granted/created. I believe they exist insomuch as numbers, thoughts, and other abstract concepts do.

What would your response be to the notion of natural rights, or to a transcendentalist perspective on the innate worth within all things that connotes some obligation to treat things with respect?

A complete lack of evidence. If anyone wants to argue that they are anything other than abstract, I welcome any evidence or documentation of rights appearing in nature independent of the human mind. I treat the fact that nature holds no apparent rights in the rest of the animal kingdom and that they cannot be observed outside of our creation of human society that they must be a human creation, that they were something that we made up.

What if the rest of the animal kingdom is simply unaware of these rights--simply because things have worth does not mean that such worth is always recognized. In addendum, one could argue that rationality makes us unique among animals, and so rights could inhere to us, but not to other creatures because of our unique nature.

Worth, as well, is not objective. Different people hold different things at different worths. A simply example is something of sentimental value. The watch my grandfather gave me before passing away, or my baby blankie have for more value and worth to me than to someone else. Something only has the worth that one is willing to give to it. Any claim of objective worth, beyond what it is given by something has no evidence. While lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, it is certainly enough to maintain skepticism.

As these things start to get pushed further and further, they start to resemble a religion more and more. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it does remove the conversation from science, logic, and natural law to more of faith and belief. Which means that an accurate statement would be that one has a belief or a faith in rights, not that they are. One can apply them to the Dawkins scale, where we can say points 0 and 7 are unreasonable and only 1 - 6 are justified.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:53:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:07:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:40:33 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:18:32 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:53:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:13:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I question the objective existence of them. They only "exist" in the sense that we created them for ourselves (namely that society creates for the people of society). This means that "rights" which society does not create, are not rights that you have and are being infringed, but are not rights that you have, since they were never granted/created. I believe they exist insomuch as numbers, thoughts, and other abstract concepts do.

What would your response be to the notion of natural rights, or to a transcendentalist perspective on the innate worth within all things that connotes some obligation to treat things with respect?

A complete lack of evidence. If anyone wants to argue that they are anything other than abstract, I welcome any evidence or documentation of rights appearing in nature independent of the human mind. I treat the fact that nature holds no apparent rights in the rest of the animal kingdom and that they cannot be observed outside of our creation of human society that they must be a human creation, that they were something that we made up.

What if the rest of the animal kingdom is simply unaware of these rights--simply because things have worth does not mean that such worth is always recognized. In addendum, one could argue that rationality makes us unique among animals, and so rights could inhere to us, but not to other creatures because of our unique nature.

Worth, as well, is not objective. Different people hold different things at different worths. A simply example is something of sentimental value. The watch my grandfather gave me before passing away, or my baby blankie have for more value and worth to me than to someone else. Something only has the worth that one is willing to give to it. Any claim of objective worth, beyond what it is given by something has no evidence. While lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, it is certainly enough to maintain skepticism.

As these things start to get pushed further and further, they start to resemble a religion more and more. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it does remove the conversation from science, logic, and natural law to more of faith and belief. Which means that an accurate statement would be that one has a belief or a faith in rights, not that they are. One can apply them to the Dawkins scale, where we can say points 0 and 7 are unreasonable and only 1 - 6 are justified.

Okay--I see what you're saying. I am still finding myself presuming in favor of the existence of rights, though you have persuaded me to remain skeptical of the notion and to the extent to which it is applied. Interesting discussion--thanks!
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:54:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:07:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Though we've gone way off topic, lol.

Yes we have...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...