Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

***Official Tournament Reform Announcement***

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 7:34:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Aloha, DDO!

During the first few weeks of my second term, I've put a lot of focus on revising the tournament system to address many of the concerns expressed by users about the status quo. I understand that many felt that the current system, because it prohibited users from making tournaments without approval, was too restrictive. The reform proposal that has been drafted directly tackles this concern. A mafia-style system, in which any user can sign-up to host a tournament, allows every user who would like to run a tournament to run a tournament, but it also limits how many on-going tournaments there are at once, to prevent tournament burnout/tournament fatigue.

This compromise position thus corrects for the old system's restrictiveness while preserving that system's attempts to avoid having too many tournaments at once, such that people over-commit, lose interest in the short and long terms, and/or reduce the quality of their arguments in order to keep pace.

This compromise is also supported by the DDO userbase. In the most recent survey I conducted [http://www.debate.org...], which concluded about 3 weeks ago, a plurality of respondents (31.11%) endorse a mafia-style system. Additionally, 20% supported the status quo and 24.44% supported unrestricted unofficial tournaments. The mafia-style system is an excellent middle ground between the status quo and the UUT options, for all the reasons that I've already mentioned. This puts it squarely in a middle ground that I feel that both sides of the aisle can get behind.

I arrived at the framework of the plan through detailed discussions with Zaradi, Saph, and the Official Administration Advisory Panel members, who also supported this plan. I want to thank them each for contributing to this policy's development. I also discussed it with Airmax, and have his support to move ahead with these reforms.

The specifics of the reforms to the tournament system are detailed below:

1. Official Tournaments

Official tournaments will remain the same. There will be 1 Beginners tournament per month, and 1 Regular Tournament every three months (Autumn, Winter, Spring, and Summer). Official tournament hosts and set-ups will continue to be vetted through an application process by the President and Moderator.

2. Unofficial Tournaments

There will be a sign-up sheet to which people can add their names. Once a person gets to the top of the list, and once the on-going tournament is at least halfway done, the next tournament can start. This way, no more than 2 unofficial tournaments will be running at any one time. Anyone can run an unofficial tournament, and their set-ups are entirely up to the mod(s). In other words, there are no restrictions on the tournaments themselves, beyond not violating the TOS.

==========

Of course, I am open to taking any questions about this policy, and I hope it will be an effective way of running the tournament system. It should be up and running quite soon. Thank you.
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...
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:49:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Lol, so the only difference is that now there's a sign-up sheet for unofficial tournaments too?

Doesn't seem like it's much less restrictive than the previous system...
Call me King Pootie Tang.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:55:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:49:36 AM, spacetime wrote:
Lol, so the only difference is that now there's a sign-up sheet for unofficial tournaments too?

Doesn't seem like it's much less restrictive than the previous system...

The difference is you don't need a moderator's permission to run a tournament. Anyone can add their name to the sign-up sheet.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 5:11:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:49:36 AM, spacetime wrote:
Lol, so the only difference is that now there's a sign-up sheet for unofficial tournaments too?

Doesn't seem like it's much less restrictive than the previous system...

You are now allowed to run unofficial tournaments, which was the problem before, moderation not allowing unofficial tournaments. Those are allowed now, but regulated (sign up sheet) in order to minimize other problems that come with allowing unofficial tournaments.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 10:44:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Bossy asks me to post this:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 10:46:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
"Oh, the old system was completely fvcking broken? How about we go with the middle ground, incorporating aspects of the old system into the new one!"

- Bossy.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:09:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 10:44:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossy asks me to post this:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:12:53 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:09:05 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:44:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossy asks me to post this:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.

Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity"both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average""equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely"particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of "moderate" integrity?)
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:15:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:12:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:09:05 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:44:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossy asks me to post this:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.

Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity"both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average""equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely"particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of "moderate" integrity?)

Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:18:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:15:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:12:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:09:05 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:44:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossy asks me to post this:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.

Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity"both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average""equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely"particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of "moderate" integrity?)

Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.

This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:18:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Oh good, more rules
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:22:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:18:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:15:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:12:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:09:05 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:44:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossy asks me to post this:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.

Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity"both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average""equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely"particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of "moderate" integrity?)

Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.


This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

Evil, of course, does not exist, because everything is relative.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

Correct. bossy is wrong, and if bossy is not wrong, bossy is unwilling to entertain the idea that his values and loyalties and convictions may be wrong. Anyone unwilling to entertain that they may be wrong is a fool and an extremist.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."

I will not respond to bossy by proxy any further. I will not call him a coward, but I will call his actions cowardly.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:23:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:18:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
Oh good, more rules

The rule repels some rules and leaves all the power in the people's hands. Rejoice, anarchist.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:24:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:23:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:18:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
Oh good, more rules

The rule repels some rules and leaves all the power in the people's hands. Rejoice, anarchist.

If all the power was in the people's hands you wouldn't need to make a seven paragraph post
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:25:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:24:56 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:23:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:18:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
Oh good, more rules

The rule repels some rules and leaves all the power in the people's hands. Rejoice, anarchist.

If all the power was in the people's hands you wouldn't need to make a seven paragraph post

Only one deals with the new system directly though.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:32:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:22:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:18:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:15:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:12:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:09:05 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:44:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossy asks me to post this:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.

Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity"both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average""equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely"particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of "moderate" integrity?)

Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.


This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

Evil, of course, does not exist, because everything is relative.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

Correct. bossy is wrong, and if bossy is not wrong, bossy is unwilling to entertain the idea that his values and loyalties and convictions may be wrong. Anyone unwilling to entertain that they may be wrong is a fool and an extremist.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."

I will not respond to bossy by proxy any further. I will not call him a coward, but I will call his actions cowardly.

OPINIONS OF A SOCK PUPPET:

What makes you think Bossy does not "entertain the idea he is wrong"? One can entertain the notion that one may be wrong and still conclude that one is correct absolutely.

I don't see how it is categorically cowardly to speak through a puppet. In the past Bossy did not shy away from controversy, as you know. Unless you think he suddenly became scared of conflict, a most laughable prospect, you have no grounds on which to call his actions cowardly. He speaks through me because he lacks an account of his own, and makes no plans on returning, for reasons that should be clear to you.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:37:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:32:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:22:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:18:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:15:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:12:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:09:05 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:44:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossy asks me to post this:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.

Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity"both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average""equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely"particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of "moderate" integrity?)

Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.


This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

Evil, of course, does not exist, because everything is relative.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

Correct. bossy is wrong, and if bossy is not wrong, bossy is unwilling to entertain the idea that his values and loyalties and convictions may be wrong. Anyone unwilling to entertain that they may be wrong is a fool and an extremist.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."

I will not respond to bossy by proxy any further. I will not call him a coward, but I will call his actions cowardly.

OPINIONS OF A SOCK PUPPET:

What makes you think Bossy does not "entertain the idea he is wrong"? One can entertain the notion that one may be wrong and still conclude that one is correct absolutely.

I don't see how it is categorically cowardly to speak through a puppet. In the past Bossy did not shy away from controversy, as you know. Unless you think he suddenly became scared of conflict, a most laughable prospect, you have no grounds on which to call his actions cowardly. He speaks through me because he lacks an account of his own, and makes no plans on returning, for reasons that should be clear to you.

I have no interest in starting a flame war, so I will refrain from explaining exactly why bossy chooses not to return,
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:38:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:37:20 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:32:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:22:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:18:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:15:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:12:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:09:05 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:44:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossy asks me to post this:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.

Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity"both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average""equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely"particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of "moderate" integrity?)

Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.


This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

Evil, of course, does not exist, because everything is relative.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

Correct. bossy is wrong, and if bossy is not wrong, bossy is unwilling to entertain the idea that his values and loyalties and convictions may be wrong. Anyone unwilling to entertain that they may be wrong is a fool and an extremist.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."

I will not respond to bossy by proxy any further. I will not call him a coward, but I will call his actions cowardly.

OPINIONS OF A SOCK PUPPET:

What makes you think Bossy does not "entertain the idea he is wrong"? One can entertain the notion that one may be wrong and still conclude that one is correct absolutely.

I don't see how it is categorically cowardly to speak through a puppet. In the past Bossy did not shy away from controversy, as you know. Unless you think he suddenly became scared of conflict, a most laughable prospect, you have no grounds on which to call his actions cowardly. He speaks through me because he lacks an account of his own, and makes no plans on returning, for reasons that should be clear to you.

I have no interest in starting a flame war, so I will refrain from explaining exactly why bossy chooses not to return,

Too bad. Fire has come to your doorstep and has no intention of surrendering.

We can judge, nevertheless, for, as I have said, one chooses in view of others, and in view of others one chooses himself. One can judge, first " and perhaps this is not a judgment of value, but it is a logical judgment " that in certain cases choice is founded upon an error, and in others upon the truth. One can judge a man by saying that he deceives himself. Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver. One may object: "But why should he not choose to deceive himself?" I reply that it is not for me to judge him morally, but I define his self-deception as an error. Here one cannot avoid pronouncing a judgment of truth. The self-deception is evidently a falsehood, because it is a dissimulation of man"s complete liberty of commitment. Upon this same level, I say that it is also a self-deception if I choose to declare that certain values are incumbent upon me; I am in contradiction with myself if I will these values and at the same time say that they impose themselves upon me. If anyone says to me, "And what if I wish to deceive myself?" I answer, "There is no reason why you should not, but I declare that you are doing so, and that the attitude of strict consistency alone is that of good faith." Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgment. For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of freedom itself as such. A man who belongs to some communist or revolutionary society wills certain concrete ends, which imply the will to freedom, but that freedom is willed in community. We will freedom for freedom"s sake, in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. Consequently, when I recognise, as entirely authentic, that man is a being whose existence precedes his essence, and that he is a free being who cannot, in any circumstances, but will his freedom, at the same time I realize that I cannot not will the freedom of others. Thus, in the name of that will to freedom which is implied in freedom itself, I can form judgments
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:39:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
...I can form judgments upon those who seek to hide from themselves the wholly voluntary nature of their existence and its complete freedom. Those who hide from this total freedom, in a guise of solemnity or with deterministic excuses, I shall call cowards. Others, who try to show that their existence is necessary, when it is merely an accident of the appearance of the human race on earth " I shall call scum. But neither cowards nor scum can be identified except upon the plane of strict authenticity. Thus, although the content of morality is variable, a certain form of this morality is universal.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:42:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:38:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.

Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity"both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average""equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely"particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of "moderate" integrity?)

Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.


This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

Evil, of course, does not exist, because everything is relative.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

Correct. bossy is wrong, and if bossy is not wrong, bossy is unwilling to entertain the idea that his values and loyalties and convictions may be wrong. Anyone unwilling to entertain that they may be wrong is a fool and an extremist.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."

I will not respond to bossy by proxy any further. I will not call him a coward, but I will call his actions cowardly.

OPINIONS OF A SOCK PUPPET:

What makes you think Bossy does not "entertain the idea he is wrong"? One can entertain the notion that one may be wrong and still conclude that one is correct absolutely.

I don't see how it is categorically cowardly to speak through a puppet. In the past Bossy did not shy away from controversy, as you know. Unless you think he suddenly became scared of conflict, a most laughable prospect, you have no grounds on which to call his actions cowardly. He speaks through me because he lacks an account of his own, and makes no plans on returning, for reasons that should be clear to you.

I have no interest in starting a flame war, so I will refrain from explaining exactly why bossy chooses not to return,

Too bad. Fire has come to your doorstep and has no intention of surrendering.

We can judge, nevertheless, for, as I have said, one chooses in view of others, and in view of others one chooses himself. One can judge, first " and perhaps this is not a judgment of value, but it is a logical judgment " that in certain cases choice is founded upon an error, and in others upon the truth. One can judge a man by saying that he deceives himself. Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver. One may object: "But why should he not choose to deceive himself?" I reply that it is not for me to judge him morally, but I define his self-deception as an error. Here one cannot avoid pronouncing a judgment of truth. The self-deception is evidently a falsehood, because it is a dissimulation of man"s complete liberty of commitment. Upon this same level, I say that it is also a self-deception if I choose to declare that certain values are incumbent upon me; I am in contradiction with myself if I will these values and at the same time say that they impose themselves upon me. If anyone says to me, "And what if I wish to deceive myself?" I answer, "There is no reason why you should not, but I declare that you are doing so, and that the attitude of strict consistency alone is that of good faith." Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgment. For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of freedom itself as such. A man who belongs to some communist or revolutionary society wills certain concrete ends, which imply the will to freedom, but that freedom is willed in community. We will freedom for freedom"s sake, in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. Consequently, when I recognise, as entirely authentic, that man is a being whose existence precedes his essence, and that he is a free being who cannot, in any circumstances, but will his freedom, at the same time I realize that I cannot not will the freedom of others. T

Free will is a lie because everything is predetermined. Bam. One-shot. Good night.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:43:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:42:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:38:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.

Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity"both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average""equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

The examples of such absurdities can be multiplied indefinitely"particularly in the field of morality where only an extreme (i.e., unbreached, uncompromised) degree of virtue can be properly called a virtue. (What is the moral status of a man of "moderate" integrity?)

Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.


This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

Evil, of course, does not exist, because everything is relative.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

Correct. bossy is wrong, and if bossy is not wrong, bossy is unwilling to entertain the idea that his values and loyalties and convictions may be wrong. Anyone unwilling to entertain that they may be wrong is a fool and an extremist.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."

I will not respond to bossy by proxy any further. I will not call him a coward, but I will call his actions cowardly.

OPINIONS OF A SOCK PUPPET:

What makes you think Bossy does not "entertain the idea he is wrong"? One can entertain the notion that one may be wrong and still conclude that one is correct absolutely.

I don't see how it is categorically cowardly to speak through a puppet. In the past Bossy did not shy away from controversy, as you know. Unless you think he suddenly became scared of conflict, a most laughable prospect, you have no grounds on which to call his actions cowardly. He speaks through me because he lacks an account of his own, and makes no plans on returning, for reasons that should be clear to you.

I have no interest in starting a flame war, so I will refrain from explaining exactly why bossy chooses not to return,

Too bad. Fire has come to your doorstep and has no intention of surrendering.

We can judge, nevertheless, for, as I have said, one chooses in view of others, and in view of others one chooses himself. One can judge, first " and perhaps this is not a judgment of value, but it is a logical judgment " that in certain cases choice is founded upon an error, and in others upon the truth. One can judge a man by saying that he deceives himself. Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver. One may object: "But why should he not choose to deceive himself?" I reply that it is not for me to judge him morally, but I define his self-deception as an error. Here one cannot avoid pronouncing a judgment of truth. The self-deception is evidently a falsehood, because it is a dissimulation of man"s complete liberty of commitment. Upon this same level, I say that it is also a self-deception if I choose to declare that certain values are incumbent upon me; I am in contradiction with myself if I will these values and at the same time say that they impose themselves upon me. If anyone says to me, "And what if I wish to deceive myself?" I answer, "There is no reason why you should not, but I declare that you are doing so, and that the attitude of strict consistency alone is that of good faith." Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgment. For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of freedom itself as such. A man who belongs to some communist or revolutionary society wills certain concrete ends, which imply the will to freedom, but that freedom is willed in community. We will freedom for freedom"s sake, in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. Consequently, when I recognise, as entirely authentic, that man is a being whose existence precedes his essence, and that he is a free being who cannot, in any circumstances, but will his freedom, at the same time I realize that I cannot not will the freedom of others. T

Free will is a lie because everything is predetermined. Bam. One-shot. Good night.

=(
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:44:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:33:16 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Dies ist ein herrliche Politik! Heil Der Fuhrer!

Heil!
Heil!
Heil!


Thank you sir :)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:44:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:43:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:42:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:38:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.


Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.


This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

Evil, of course, does not exist, because everything is relative.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

Correct. bossy is wrong, and if bossy is not wrong, bossy is unwilling to entertain the idea that his values and loyalties and convictions may be wrong. Anyone unwilling to entertain that they may be wrong is a fool and an extremist.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."

I will not respond to bossy by proxy any further. I will not call him a coward, but I will call his actions cowardly.

OPINIONS OF A SOCK PUPPET:

What makes you think Bossy does not "entertain the idea he is wrong"? One can entertain the notion that one may be wrong and still conclude that one is correct absolutely.

I don't see how it is categorically cowardly to speak through a puppet. In the past Bossy did not shy away from controversy, as you know. Unless you think he suddenly became scared of conflict, a most laughable prospect, you have no grounds on which to call his actions cowardly. He speaks through me because he lacks an account of his own, and makes no plans on returning, for reasons that should be clear to you.

I have no interest in starting a flame war, so I will refrain from explaining exactly why bossy chooses not to return,

Too bad. Fire has come to your doorstep and has no intention of surrendering.

We can judge, nevertheless, for, as I have said, one chooses in view of others, and in view of others one chooses himself. One can judge, first " and perhaps this is not a judgment of value, but it is a logical judgment " that in certain cases choice is founded upon an error, and in others upon the truth. One can judge a man by saying that he deceives himself. Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver. One may object: "But why should he not choose to deceive himself?" I reply that it is not for me to judge him morally, but I define his self-deception as an error. Here one cannot avoid pronouncing a judgment of truth. The self-deception is evidently a falsehood, because it is a dissimulation of man"s complete liberty of commitment. Upon this same level, I say that it is also a self-deception if I choose to declare that certain values are incumbent upon me; I am in contradiction with myself if I will these values and at the same time say that they impose themselves upon me. If anyone says to me, "And what if I wish to deceive myself?" I answer, "There is no reason why you should not, but I declare that you are doing so, and that the attitude of strict consistency alone is that of good faith." Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgment. For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of freedom itself as such. A man who belongs to some communist or revolutionary society wills certain concrete ends, which imply the will to freedom, but that freedom is willed in community. We will freedom for freedom"s sake, in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. Consequently, when I recognise, as entirely authentic, that man is a being whose existence precedes his essence, and that he is a free being who cannot, in any circumstances, but will his freedom, at the same time I realize that I cannot not will the freedom of others. T

Free will is a lie because everything is predetermined. Bam. One-shot. Good night.

=(

I thought it was funny.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:47:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:44:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:43:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:42:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:38:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.


Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.


This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

Evil, of course, does not exist, because everything is relative.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

Correct. bossy is wrong, and if bossy is not wrong, bossy is unwilling to entertain the idea that his values and loyalties and convictions may be wrong. Anyone unwilling to entertain that they may be wrong is a fool and an extremist.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."

I will not respond to bossy by proxy any further. I will not call him a coward, but I will call his actions cowardly.

OPINIONS OF A SOCK PUPPET:

What makes you think Bossy does not "entertain the idea he is wrong"? One can entertain the notion that one may be wrong and still conclude that one is correct absolutely.

I don't see how it is categorically cowardly to speak through a puppet. In the past Bossy did not shy away from controversy, as you know. Unless you think he suddenly became scared of conflict, a most laughable prospect, you have no grounds on which to call his actions cowardly. He speaks through me because he lacks an account of his own, and makes no plans on returning, for reasons that should be clear to you.

I have no interest in starting a flame war, so I will refrain from explaining exactly why bossy chooses not to return,

Too bad. Fire has come to your doorstep and has no intention of surrendering.

We can judge, nevertheless, for, as I have said, one chooses in view of others, and in view of others one chooses himself. One can judge, first " and perhaps this is not a judgment of value, but it is a logical judgment " that in certain cases choice is founded upon an error, and in others upon the truth. One can judge a man by saying that he deceives himself. Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver. One may object: "But why should he not choose to deceive himself?" I reply that it is not for me to judge him morally, but I define his self-deception as an error. Here one cannot avoid pronouncing a judgment of truth. The self-deception is evidently a falsehood, because it is a dissimulation of man"s complete liberty of commitment. Upon this same level, I say that it is also a self-deception if I choose to declare that certain values are incumbent upon me; I am in contradiction with myself if I will these values and at the same time say that they impose themselves upon me. If anyone says to me, "And what if I wish to deceive myself?" I answer, "There is no reason why you should not, but I declare that you are doing so, and that the attitude of strict consistency alone is that of good faith." Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgment. For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of freedom itself as such. A man who belongs to some communist or revolutionary society wills certain concrete ends, which imply the will to freedom, but that freedom is willed in community. We will freedom for freedom"s sake, in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. Consequently, when I recognise, as entirely authentic, that man is a being whose existence precedes his essence, and that he is a free being who cannot, in any circumstances, but will his freedom, at the same time I realize that I cannot not will the freedom of others. T

Free will is a lie because everything is predetermined. Bam. One-shot. Good night.

=(

I thought it was funny.

You were forced to =)
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:52:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:47:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:44:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:43:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:42:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:38:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.


Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.


This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

Evil, of course, does not exist, because everything is relative.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

Correct. bossy is wrong, and if bossy is not wrong, bossy is unwilling to entertain the idea that his values and loyalties and convictions may be wrong. Anyone unwilling to entertain that they may be wrong is a fool and an extremist.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."

I will not respond to bossy by proxy any further. I will not call him a coward, but I will call his actions cowardly.

OPINIONS OF A SOCK PUPPET:

What makes you think Bossy does not "entertain the idea he is wrong"? One can entertain the notion that one may be wrong and still conclude that one is correct absolutely.

I don't see how it is categorically cowardly to speak through a puppet. In the past Bossy did not shy away from controversy, as you know. Unless you think he suddenly became scared of conflict, a most laughable prospect, you have no grounds on which to call his actions cowardly. He speaks through me because he lacks an account of his own, and makes no plans on returning, for reasons that should be clear to you.

I have no interest in starting a flame war, so I will refrain from explaining exactly why bossy chooses not to return,

Too bad. Fire has come to your doorstep and has no intention of surrendering.

We can judge, nevertheless, for, as I have said, one chooses in view of others, and in view of others one chooses himself. One can judge, first " and perhaps this is not a judgment of value, but it is a logical judgment " that in certain cases choice is founded upon an error, and in others upon the truth. One can judge a man by saying that he deceives himself. Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver. One may object: "But why should he not choose to deceive himself?" I reply that it is not for me to judge him morally, but I define his self-deception as an error. Here one cannot avoid pronouncing a judgment of truth. The self-deception is evidently a falsehood, because it is a dissimulation of man"s complete liberty of commitment. Upon this same level, I say that it is also a self-deception if I choose to declare that certain values are incumbent upon me; I am in contradiction with myself if I will these values and at the same time say that they impose themselves upon me. If anyone says to me, "And what if I wish to deceive myself?" I answer, "There is no reason why you should not, but I declare that you are doing so, and that the attitude of strict consistency alone is that of good faith." Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgment. For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of freedom itself as such. A man who belongs to some communist or revolutionary society wills certain concrete ends, which imply the will to freedom, but that freedom is willed in community. We will freedom for freedom"s sake, in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. Consequently, when I recognise, as entirely authentic, that man is a being whose existence precedes his essence, and that he is a free being who cannot, in any circumstances, but will his freedom, at the same time I realize that I cannot not will the freedom of others. T

Free will is a lie because everything is predetermined. Bam. One-shot. Good night.

=(

I thought it was funny.

You were forced to =)

Well played, sir. Well played.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:09:40 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:52:18 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:47:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:44:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:43:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:42:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:38:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Tell bossy that extremism is the deadliest poison, that the majority of DDO users do not share his viewpoint, and that if he wants to discuss this or anything else, he should reopen his account and feel free to do so without hiding behind another.


Extremism. Noun. "The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism."

You've unleashed the Kraken

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle"with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor"with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force"with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery"with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice"with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror"and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.


This brings us to the deeper implications of the term "extremism." It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that "anti-concept" is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil.

Evil, of course, does not exist, because everything is relative.

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as "extremism," then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth"any man of integrity.

Correct. bossy is wrong, and if bossy is not wrong, bossy is unwilling to entertain the idea that his values and loyalties and convictions may be wrong. Anyone unwilling to entertain that they may be wrong is a fool and an extremist.

And it is against all these that that "anti-concept" has been and is being used."

I will not respond to bossy by proxy any further. I will not call him a coward, but I will call his actions cowardly.

OPINIONS OF A SOCK PUPPET:

What makes you think Bossy does not "entertain the idea he is wrong"? One can entertain the notion that one may be wrong and still conclude that one is correct absolutely.

I don't see how it is categorically cowardly to speak through a puppet. In the past Bossy did not shy away from controversy, as you know. Unless you think he suddenly became scared of conflict, a most laughable prospect, you have no grounds on which to call his actions cowardly. He speaks through me because he lacks an account of his own, and makes no plans on returning, for reasons that should be clear to you.

I have no interest in starting a flame war, so I will refrain from explaining exactly why bossy chooses not to return,

Too bad. Fire has come to your doorstep and has no intention of surrendering.

We can judge, nevertheless, for, as I have said, one chooses in view of others, and in view of others one chooses himself. One can judge, first " and perhaps this is not a judgment of value, but it is a logical judgment " that in certain cases choice is founded upon an error, and in others upon the truth. One can judge a man by saying that he deceives himself. Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver. One may object: "But why should he not choose to deceive himself?" I reply that it is not for me to judge him morally, but I define his self-deception as an error. Here one cannot avoid pronouncing a judgment of truth. The self-deception is evidently a falsehood, because it is a dissimulation of man"s complete liberty of commitment. Upon this same level, I say that it is also a self-deception if I choose to declare that certain values are incumbent upon me; I am in contradiction with myself if I will these values and at the same time say that they impose themselves upon me. If anyone says to me, "And what if I wish to deceive myself?" I answer, "There is no reason why you should not, but I declare that you are doing so, and that the attitude of strict consistency alone is that of good faith." Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgment. For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of freedom itself as such. A man who belongs to some communist or revolutionary society wills certain concrete ends, which imply the will to freedom, but that freedom is willed in community. We will freedom for freedom"s sake, in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. Consequently, when I recognise, as entirely authentic, that man is a being whose existence precedes his essence, and that he is a free being who cannot, in any circumstances, but will his freedom, at the same time I realize that I cannot not will the freedom of others. T

Free will is a lie because everything is predetermined. Bam. One-shot. Good night.

=(

I thought it was funny.

You were forced to =)

Well played, sir. Well played.

Of course it was. Could it be any other way? (I'm just going to keep making this joke).
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:16:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 10:44:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. You do not have the authority to do this.

I don't have the authority to enforce it, and I wouldn't want it to be enforced via moderation. It is my hope that the community will enforce the standards through social norms, as is the case with mafia.

2. 31 percent is not very much.

That misses part of the analysis I made. 20% support the status quo. The mafia-style system is closer to the status quo then the UUT system, and so it is more likely to appeal to that 20% than that UUT system. Moreover, the mafia-style system is still less restrictive than the status quo, I think it is fair to assume that some UUT voters can also support the mafia system as a compromise position. So, I would suggest that, as a compromise position (maybe not as a first choice), this proposed system probably can get a near-majority if not an outright majority behind it.
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
1/19/2016 12:18:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 10:44:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Bossy asks me to post this:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

This is inanely hyperbolic. No one is going to die as a result of this. No one is going to fall to the dark side. No one is a rubber tube. Like...seriously...lol...
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...