Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Why doesn't Debate.org have a place

lastrequest691
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 9:58:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
for Vodafone mobile service user in India ?

I cannot vote for rogue!
"That song was absolutely waste of talent; you sounded like a wounded animal and who told you to play the guitar by yourself." Simon Cowell
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 10:25:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 10:24:47 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
But yes, the answer to "why?" is WebCorp is lazy and stupid and apathetic to its users.

Seconded.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense. Do you really wish that DDO was populated with people obsessed with getting the highest score?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2010 11:39:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense.

You libertarians just hate democracy, don't you? XD
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 8:25:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/24/2010 11:39:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense.

You libertarians just hate democracy, don't you? XD

I think it's more apt to say that libertarians hate reality and everything real.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 9:28:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 8:25:21 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:39:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense.

You libertarians just hate democracy, don't you? XD

I think it's more apt to say that libertarians hate reality and everything real.

Indeed.

*has no idea what the f*ck Kleptin is going on about*
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 9:32:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 9:28:44 AM, Kinesis wrote:
*has no idea what the f*ck Kleptin is going on about*

For kleptin... SOCIETY is real... people are not.

It's prolly the whole coming from a confucian tradition thing...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 11:04:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 8:58:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:39:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense.

You libertarians just hate democracy, don't you? XD

Good thing he isn't a libertarian.

Don't tell me you buy that "Objectivists aren't libertarian" nonsense.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 11:05:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 9:32:22 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/25/2010 9:28:44 AM, Kinesis wrote:
*has no idea what the f*ck Kleptin is going on about*

For kleptin... SOCIETY is real... people are not.
Erm, people aren't real for me either. Persons are. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 5:08:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 11:04:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2010 8:58:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:39:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense.

You libertarians just hate democracy, don't you? XD

Good thing he isn't a libertarian.

Don't tell me you buy that "Objectivists aren't libertarian" nonsense.

It isn't nonsense, it's true. And Ayn Rand not only admitted it but promoted the conception.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 5:10:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 11:04:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2010 8:58:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:39:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense.

You libertarians just hate democracy, don't you? XD

Good thing he isn't a libertarian.

Don't tell me you buy that "Objectivists aren't libertarian" nonsense.

I mean in a very strict sense of the word libertarian. To say that you're libertarian, rather than Objectivist, seems to be philosophically limiting.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 5:10:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 5:08:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
And Ayn Rand not only admitted it but promoted the conception.

Genetic fallacy. Also, appeal to Rand.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 5:11:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 5:08:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/25/2010 11:04:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2010 8:58:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:39:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense.

You libertarians just hate democracy, don't you? XD

Good thing he isn't a libertarian.

Don't tell me you buy that "Objectivists aren't libertarian" nonsense.

It isn't nonsense, it's true. And Ayn Rand not only admitted it but promoted the conception.

Well, she was discussing libertarianism in a more classical sense - what amounts to anarchism, essentially.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 5:12:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 5:08:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/25/2010 11:04:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2010 8:58:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:39:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense.

You libertarians just hate democracy, don't you? XD

Good thing he isn't a libertarian.

Don't tell me you buy that "Objectivists aren't libertarian" nonsense.

It isn't nonsense, it's true. And Ayn Rand not only admitted it but promoted the conception.

Maybe pay attention to what she thought it was first. :P Her main issue was that libertarianism was a proponent of anarchism.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 5:13:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 5:10:40 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/25/2010 5:08:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
And Ayn Rand not only admitted it but promoted the conception.

Genetic fallacy. Also, appeal to Rand.

Well, if we're discussing Objectivism, and Objectivism is Rand's philosophy, there's no problem in appealing to her. Also keep in mind that it isn't a genetic fallacy that's being committed. Objectivism is the exact same thing that it was when Rand created it. Objectivism neither evolves nor changes.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 5:29:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 5:13:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/25/2010 5:10:40 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/25/2010 5:08:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
And Ayn Rand not only admitted it but promoted the conception.

Genetic fallacy. Also, appeal to Rand.

Well, if we're discussing Objectivism, and Objectivism is Rand's philosophy, there's no problem in appealing to her. Also keep in mind that it isn't a genetic fallacy that's being committed. Objectivism is the exact same thing that it was when Rand created it. Objectivism neither evolves nor changes.

Oh? Is Rand infallible? Do modern objectivists believe exactly the same things as Rand?

Rand believed that homosexuality was inherently immoral, and that a woman's moral duty in a relationship should be to submit herself to her man. These claims are unfounded.

Rand also rejected libertarianism. Ragnar obviously endorses it. Does that mean Ragnar is wrong? Well, he's wrong in the eye's of Rand and her views on libertarianism. But it doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong with Objectivism. So, yeah, genetic fallacy.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 5:43:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 5:10:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/25/2010 11:04:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2010 8:58:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:39:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense.

You libertarians just hate democracy, don't you? XD

Good thing he isn't a libertarian.

Don't tell me you buy that "Objectivists aren't libertarian" nonsense.

I mean in a very strict sense of the word libertarian. To say that you're libertarian, rather than Objectivist, seems to be philosophically limiting.

The strict sense of libertarian is "Against the initiation of force." That's as strict as it gets. It's not "libertarian rather than Objectivist." It's "Libertarian-- specifically, Objectivist." It's sort of like "Christian-- specifically, Messianic Jew." With Objectivism as a starting point, one is, among other things, ipso facto, libertarian. If you are Jewish, and you are convinced Jesus is your Messiah, you are, ipso facto, Christian. The fact that you arrived at these conclusions from premises not common to all who hold those conclusions, does not change the fact that, whether you like it or not, you meet the definition. You are free to dislike other libertarians, for being subjectivists and whatnot-- but only those who are, and you should recognize what the term "libertarian" refers to.

Rand had a mistaken conception of what "libertarian" means. Whether she arrived at it honestly I don't know (Branden suggests no, the fact that I disagree with Branden on some other things does not demonstrate he is wrong, contrary to Peikoff). But it is no more her prerogative to define away "Libertarian" because she dislikes being described with the term than it is Reasoning's prerogative to define away "Capitalism" because he prefers the term "Socialism" to refer to exactly what the capitalists are referring to.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 5:49:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 5:29:00 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/25/2010 5:13:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/25/2010 5:10:40 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/25/2010 5:08:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
And Ayn Rand not only admitted it but promoted the conception.

Genetic fallacy. Also, appeal to Rand.

Well, if we're discussing Objectivism, and Objectivism is Rand's philosophy, there's no problem in appealing to her. Also keep in mind that it isn't a genetic fallacy that's being committed. Objectivism is the exact same thing that it was when Rand created it. Objectivism neither evolves nor changes.

Oh? Is Rand infallible? Do modern objectivists believe exactly the same things as Rand?

In terms of Objectivist principles? Yes. If they don't, they can't rightly be Objectivists.

Rand believed that homosexuality was inherently immoral, and that a woman's moral duty in a relationship should be to submit herself to her man. These claims are unfounded.

Rand's personal beliefs aren't the same thing as the objective principles she established. I'm sure that Rand and I may disagree on our tastes in music, as well.

Rand also rejected libertarianism.

Libertarianism in the sense of anarchism - not in the sense of minarchism.

Ragnar obviously endorses it. Does that mean Ragnar is wrong? Well, he's wrong in the eye's of Rand and her views on libertarianism. But it doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong with Objectivism. So, yeah, genetic fallacy.

The meaning of Objectivism hasn't changed - only the usage of the word libertarianism. If anything, the fallacy is on your part.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 5:53:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 5:43:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2010 5:10:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/25/2010 11:04:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2010 8:58:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2010 11:39:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/24/2010 10:28:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It might just happen to matter that debate.org is a better place the less people care about this "Voting" nonsense.

You libertarians just hate democracy, don't you? XD

Good thing he isn't a libertarian.

Don't tell me you buy that "Objectivists aren't libertarian" nonsense.

I mean in a very strict sense of the word libertarian. To say that you're libertarian, rather than Objectivist, seems to be philosophically limiting.

The strict sense of libertarian is "Against the initiation of force." That's as strict as it gets. It's not "libertarian rather than Objectivist." It's "Libertarian-- specifically, Objectivist."

I never claimed it was an either/or sort of thing. Only that the libertarian school of thought doesn't (to my knowledge) include things like epistemology and metaphysics, whereas Objectivism is actually comprehensive enough to include all parts of a philosophy.

It's sort of like "Christian-- specifically, Messianic Jew." With Objectivism as a starting point, one is, among other things, ipso facto, libertarian. If you are Jewish, and you are convinced Jesus is your Messiah, you are, ipso facto, Christian. The fact that you arrived at these conclusions from premises not common to all who hold those conclusions, does not change the fact that, whether you like it or not, you meet the definition. You are free to dislike other libertarians, for being subjectivists and whatnot-- but only those who are, and you should recognize what the term "libertarian" refers to.

I do. What I'm saying is that, in the sense Rand argued it, Objectivists aren't libertarians (by the anarchistic definition); in contemporary use of the term, I would say that Objectivism subsumes libertarianism, since the former is a complete philosophy, and the latter is not.

Rand had a mistaken conception of what "libertarian" means. Whether she arrived at it honestly I don't know (Branden suggests no, the fact that I disagree with Branden on some other things does not demonstrate he is wrong, contrary to Peikoff). But it is no more her prerogative to define away "Libertarian" because she dislikes being described with the term than it is Reasoning's prerogative to define away "Capitalism" because he prefers the term "Socialism" to refer to exactly what the capitalists are referring to.

I'm very much aware of that.