Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The mythical nostalgic american past

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Often, people claim that "America is moving away from it's roots". They criticize current policies by comparing them to the early days of America.

In the past little or no economic data was taken or available. People kept slaves and were allowed to abuse their wives. Problems were settled by a duel to the death. Racism was high, genocide against Native Americans was acceptable. America was not even a superpower after WW2!

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country. That would be like reviving Ghangis Kahn or Napolean to run the modern day USA Army.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 9:16:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.

If the FF philosophy was perfect, why was racism, slavery, dueling, no woman's rights be permitted for so long? Is it possible to create an absolute perfect philosophy for 100s od years in the future with present day knowledge? If the FF philosophy was perfect why was their room for amendments in the constitution?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 9:30:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:16:28 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.

If the FF philosophy was perfect,

I didn't say it was. I'm explaining to you the thought process behind sticking with principles over time. I'm not saying the FF were perfect or that they were 100% right. I'm saying that if one's philosophical principles are sound then, in principle, there isn't need to revise them in light of empirical changes to the composition of society. I honestly don't care about whatever it is yer saying about the FF being wrong about X or Y. I personally think they got the whole damn alphabet wrong.

why was racism, slavery, dueling, no woman's rights be permitted for so long? Is it possible to create an absolute perfect philosophy for 100s od years in the future with present day knowledge. If the FF philosophy was perfect why was their room for amendments in the constitution?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 10:52:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:16:28 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.

If the FF philosophy was perfect, why was racism, slavery, dueling, no woman's rights be permitted for so long? Is it possible to create an absolute perfect philosophy for 100s od years in the future with present day knowledge? If the FF philosophy was perfect why was their room for amendments in the constitution?

What's wrong with dueling?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 10:55:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 10:52:11 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:16:28 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.

If the FF philosophy was perfect, why was racism, slavery, dueling, no woman's rights be permitted for so long? Is it possible to create an absolute perfect philosophy for 100s od years in the future with present day knowledge? If the FF philosophy was perfect why was their room for amendments in the constitution?

What's wrong with dueling?

Ending someone's life, or dying yourself and leaving your loved ones over a petty disagreement seems barbaric, don't you think?

Surely, there are better ways to solve problems, no?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 10:59:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You argument is fallacious, as it assumes that anything which we do now is better than the way it was done originally because it is new. Ideas ought to be examined and discarded based on merits alone, not age. The founding fathers are revered, and their ideas put on pedestal because many of their ideas were very good ones. The founders were simply better versed in political philosophy and history than many of their successors. If you have a criticism of a specific idea, present it. But to throw out an entire system of thought because it is old, or because small components of it were wrong, is simply ludicrous.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:08:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 10:55:42 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:52:11 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:16:28 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.

If the FF philosophy was perfect, why was racism, slavery, dueling, no woman's rights be permitted for so long? Is it possible to create an absolute perfect philosophy for 100s od years in the future with present day knowledge? If the FF philosophy was perfect why was their room for amendments in the constitution?

What's wrong with dueling?

Ending someone's life, or dying yourself and leaving your loved ones over a petty disagreement seems barbaric, don't you think?

Surely, there are better ways to solve problems, no?

Both parties consent to it and accept the risks. And it doesn't have to be a duel to the death.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:14:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 10:55:42 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:52:11 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:16:28 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.

If the FF philosophy was perfect, why was racism, slavery, dueling, no woman's rights be permitted for so long? Is it possible to create an absolute perfect philosophy for 100s od years in the future with present day knowledge? If the FF philosophy was perfect why was their room for amendments in the constitution?

What's wrong with dueling?

Ending someone's life, or dying yourself and leaving your loved ones over a petty disagreement seems barbaric, don't you think?

It doesnt seem barbaric, it just seems stupid. It's still a contractual, voluntary agreement. In my mind it seems barbaric to prohibit people from doing something that harms no one else, even if it's a stupid method for solving problems.

Surely, there are better ways to solve problems, no?
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
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:20:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 10:59:31 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You argument is fallacious, as it assumes that anything which we do now is better than the way it was done originally because it is new. Ideas ought to be examined and discarded based on merits alone, not age. The founding fathers are revered, and their ideas put on pedestal because many of their ideas were very good ones. The founders were simply better versed in political philosophy and history than many of their successors. If you have a criticism of a specific idea, present it. But to throw out an entire system of thought because it is old, or because small components of it were wrong, is simply ludicrous.

I already criticized how society under the FF allowed slavery, extreme sexism + racism, duels, genocide of natives.

I also argue FF philosophy does not take into account modern information.

I do not argue the FF philosophy should be thrown out or changed. I just think it is ignorant how people assume the FF believe in their personal particular vision (Christians think FF were Christian, atheists think FF were atheist ect), and that America was perfect back in the day.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:30:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:14:38 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:55:42 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:52:11 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:16:28 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.

If the FF philosophy was perfect, why was racism, slavery, dueling, no woman's rights be permitted for so long? Is it possible to create an absolute perfect philosophy for 100s od years in the future with present day knowledge? If the FF philosophy was perfect why was their room for amendments in the constitution?

What's wrong with dueling?

Ending someone's life, or dying yourself and leaving your loved ones over a petty disagreement seems barbaric, don't you think?

It doesnt seem barbaric, it just seems stupid. It's still a contractual, voluntary agreement. In my mind it seems barbaric to prohibit people from doing something that harms no one else, even if it's a stupid method for solving problems.

Surely, there are better ways to solve problems, no?

It affects the families of those involved in the duel. Laws require people to were seatbelts, helmets on motorcycles ect. I'd say it is immoral to end someone's life over a disagreement (which is what dueling is). In Germany someone consented to be killed and eaten by a pyscho cannibal and died. Should the cannibal not be jailed? Should someone be able to "bet their organs" on a sports game? Or sell themselves into slavery? People would be in a emotional duress state when they consent. It seems their should be regulations to protect society and individuals from stupid decisions.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:33:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
^
What if rival gangs consent to a gang duel? Should society stand back where a bunch of misguided young adults murder each other?
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:36:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:30:11 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:14:38 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:55:42 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:52:11 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:16:28 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.

If the FF philosophy was perfect, why was racism, slavery, dueling, no woman's rights be permitted for so long? Is it possible to create an absolute perfect philosophy for 100s od years in the future with present day knowledge? If the FF philosophy was perfect why was their room for amendments in the constitution?

What's wrong with dueling?

Ending someone's life, or dying yourself and leaving your loved ones over a petty disagreement seems barbaric, don't you think?

It doesnt seem barbaric, it just seems stupid. It's still a contractual, voluntary agreement. In my mind it seems barbaric to prohibit people from doing something that harms no one else, even if it's a stupid method for solving problems.

Surely, there are better ways to solve problems, no?

It affects the families of those involved in the duel.

Sure but harms aren't rights violations. Who's rights are being violated in a duel? No ones.

Laws require people to were seatbelts, helmets on motorcycles ect.

And those laws are stupid and violate peoples rights

I'd say it is immoral to end someone's life over a disagreement (which is what dueling is).

If the other person agrees to the risk, where exactly is the moral issue?

In Germany someone consented to be killed and eaten by a pyscho cannibal and died. Should the cannibal not be jailed?

Not if there is actually proof of consent...the cannibal is obviously a freak but you can't violate his rights because as of yet he hasnt harmed anyone who didnt first give their consent

Should someone be able to "bet their organs" on a sports game?

Yes. They'd be idiots to do so, but they arent violating anyones rights now are they?

Or sell themselves into slavery?

Why not?

People would be in a emotional duress state when they consent. It seems their should be regulations to protect society and individuals from stupid decisions.

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.
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
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:39:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:33:25 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
^
What if rival gangs consent to a gang duel? Should society stand back where a bunch of misguided young adults murder each other?

Not necessarily stand back, people can do all they can to dissuade them and can refuse consent for the fight to occur on their property, but ultimately the decision to fight to the death lies with the individual, no one else.

I'd debate you on legalizing dueling if you want
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
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would. And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:48:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Often, people claim that "America is moving away from it's roots". They criticize current policies by comparing them to the early days of America.

In the past little or no economic data was taken or available. People kept slaves and were allowed to abuse their wives. Problems were settled by a duel to the death. Racism was high, genocide against Native Americans was acceptable. America was not even a superpower after WW2!

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country. That would be like reviving Ghangis Kahn or Napolean to run the modern day USA Army.

Dude Genghis Khan would kick @$$ in today's army. :o
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:53:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 9:16:28 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.

If the FF philosophy was perfect, why was racism, slavery, dueling, no woman's rights be permitted for so long? Is it possible to create an absolute perfect philosophy for 100s od years in the future with present day knowledge? If the FF philosophy was perfect why was their room for amendments in the constitution?

To answer the bolded, it's because of PROGRESSIVE rights. What the FFs advocated was progress towards liberalism, which they encoded into this nation's founding documents.

When people complain about deviating from the FFs, they talk about how generally, progress is going in the wrong direction, like the privation of liberty and speech, or the trend towards socialism and less limited government. Such trends go against the progressive spirit that the FFs had. Basically, 1st derivative arguments.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:54:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would.

What makes you make that assumption? Just because you don't like something doesnt mean only a lunatic would do it.

And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?

I'm not sure. I was actually hesitant to put that bit in because I don't really have a good enforcement mechanism. There's no need to get checked out however unless theres compelling reason to think someone isn't of sound mine
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
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:06:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:54:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would.

What makes you make that assumption? Just because you don't like something doesnt mean only a lunatic would do it.

And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?

I'm not sure. I was actually hesitant to put that bit in because I don't really have a good enforcement mechanism. There's no need to get checked out however unless theres compelling reason to think someone isn't of sound mine

I think willing to risk your life in a duel is reason enough to be insane. Further, I don't see how the attitude "Sorry, I just killed your father, and I killed your husband, but my conscience is clear, he consented" is anywhere remotely close to being a moral thought?
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:10:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 10:55:42 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 10:52:11 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:16:28 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 9:09:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country.

I think when people call back to the FF's they're speaking in regards to the philosophical principles of governance defended by them. These principles don't change based on era or time period, meaning that if said principles are sound, then it doesn't matter in what age they're applied in.

If the FF philosophy was perfect, why was racism, slavery, dueling, no woman's rights be permitted for so long? Is it possible to create an absolute perfect philosophy for 100s od years in the future with present day knowledge? If the FF philosophy was perfect why was their room for amendments in the constitution?

What's wrong with dueling?

Ending someone's life, or dying yourself and leaving your loved ones over a petty disagreement seems barbaric, don't you think?

Surely, there are better ways to solve problems, no?

dueling is still legal. just not as people look at it. dueling has left the killing days
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:11:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 12:06:34 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:54:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would.

What makes you make that assumption? Just because you don't like something doesnt mean only a lunatic would do it.

And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?

I'm not sure. I was actually hesitant to put that bit in because I don't really have a good enforcement mechanism. There's no need to get checked out however unless theres compelling reason to think someone isn't of sound mine

I think willing to risk your life in a duel is reason enough to be insane. Further, I don't see how the attitude

That's what you think but you've continually asserted without warrant that risking your life qualifies someone as insane. This is an assertion not an argument

"Sorry, I just killed your father, and I killed your husband, but my conscience is clear, he consented" is anywhere remotely close to being a moral thought?

Sure. I doubt my conscience would be clear in that situation but a duelist has no moral obligation to the other family because they didnt violate anyones rights. Stop letting emotion get in the way and consider the actual arguments at hand--*why* is it immoral to kill someone who consented to a fight to the death with you?
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
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:21:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 12:11:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:06:34 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:54:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would.

What makes you make that assumption? Just because you don't like something doesnt mean only a lunatic would do it.

And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?

I'm not sure. I was actually hesitant to put that bit in because I don't really have a good enforcement mechanism. There's no need to get checked out however unless theres compelling reason to think someone isn't of sound mine

I think willing to risk your life in a duel is reason enough to be insane. Further, I don't see how the attitude

That's what you think but you've continually asserted without warrant that risking your life qualifies someone as insane. This is an assertion not an argument

"Sorry, I just killed your father, and I killed your husband, but my conscience is clear, he consented" is anywhere remotely close to being a moral thought?

Sure. I doubt my conscience would be clear in that situation but a duelist has no moral obligation to the other family because they didnt violate anyones rights. Stop letting emotion get in the way and consider the actual arguments at hand--*why* is it immoral to kill someone who consented to a fight to the death with you?

If someone is about to risk their life to do something stupid, I believe people have the moral obligation to stop it. People should care for each other and look out for each other, not look for angles to murder people. By dueling not only are you not stopping someone from risking their life, you are allowing them too because it takes two to duel. Your conscience tells you dueling is immoral. I think it is pretty inherent that orphaning children and widowing wives over a disagreement is immoral, even with consent. I think most people are good, and listening to your conscience is a better moral theory than some logical, deep, cold, calculated "moral theory".
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:25:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 12:21:33 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:11:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:06:34 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:54:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would.

What makes you make that assumption? Just because you don't like something doesnt mean only a lunatic would do it.

And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?

I'm not sure. I was actually hesitant to put that bit in because I don't really have a good enforcement mechanism. There's no need to get checked out however unless theres compelling reason to think someone isn't of sound mine

I think willing to risk your life in a duel is reason enough to be insane. Further, I don't see how the attitude

That's what you think but you've continually asserted without warrant that risking your life qualifies someone as insane. This is an assertion not an argument

"Sorry, I just killed your father, and I killed your husband, but my conscience is clear, he consented" is anywhere remotely close to being a moral thought?

Sure. I doubt my conscience would be clear in that situation but a duelist has no moral obligation to the other family because they didnt violate anyones rights. Stop letting emotion get in the way and consider the actual arguments at hand--*why* is it immoral to kill someone who consented to a fight to the death with you?

If someone is about to risk their life to do something stupid, I believe people have the moral obligation to stop it. People should care for each other and look out for each other, not look for angles to murder people. By dueling not only are you not stopping someone from risking their life, you are allowing them too because it takes two to duel. Your conscience tells you dueling is immoral. I think it is pretty inherent that orphaning children and widowing wives over a disagreement is immoral, even with consent. I think most people are good, and listening to your conscience is a better moral theory than some logical, deep, cold, calculated "moral theory".

but I believe that if that is their choice then you should respect it. if you don't you are taking there right of freedom of choice away from them and that is morally wrong
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:30:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 12:25:01 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:21:33 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:11:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:06:34 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:54:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would.

What makes you make that assumption? Just because you don't like something doesnt mean only a lunatic would do it.

And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?

I'm not sure. I was actually hesitant to put that bit in because I don't really have a good enforcement mechanism. There's no need to get checked out however unless theres compelling reason to think someone isn't of sound mine

I think willing to risk your life in a duel is reason enough to be insane. Further, I don't see how the attitude

That's what you think but you've continually asserted without warrant that risking your life qualifies someone as insane. This is an assertion not an argument

"Sorry, I just killed your father, and I killed your husband, but my conscience is clear, he consented" is anywhere remotely close to being a moral thought?

Sure. I doubt my conscience would be clear in that situation but a duelist has no moral obligation to the other family because they didnt violate anyones rights. Stop letting emotion get in the way and consider the actual arguments at hand--*why* is it immoral to kill someone who consented to a fight to the death with you?

If someone is about to risk their life to do something stupid, I believe people have the moral obligation to stop it. People should care for each other and look out for each other, not look for angles to murder people. By dueling not only are you not stopping someone from risking their life, you are allowing them too because it takes two to duel. Your conscience tells you dueling is immoral. I think it is pretty inherent that orphaning children and widowing wives over a disagreement is immoral, even with consent. I think most people are good, and listening to your conscience is a better moral theory than some logical, deep, cold, calculated "moral theory".

but I believe that if that is their choice then you should respect it. if you don't you are taking there right of freedom of choice away from them and that is morally wrong

All morals limit the freedom of choice. Basic rights theory says your rights end where someone else's begins. Basically, you don't have the right to kill someone as that would be a violation of their rights. That is a limit on your choices.

So all you can argue about is where that limit ought to be drawn.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:34:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 12:25:01 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:21:33 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:11:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:06:34 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:54:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would.

What makes you make that assumption? Just because you don't like something doesnt mean only a lunatic would do it.

And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?

I'm not sure. I was actually hesitant to put that bit in because I don't really have a good enforcement mechanism. There's no need to get checked out however unless theres compelling reason to think someone isn't of sound mine

I think willing to risk your life in a duel is reason enough to be insane. Further, I don't see how the attitude

That's what you think but you've continually asserted without warrant that risking your life qualifies someone as insane. This is an assertion not an argument

"Sorry, I just killed your father, and I killed your husband, but my conscience is clear, he consented" is anywhere remotely close to being a moral thought?

Sure. I doubt my conscience would be clear in that situation but a duelist has no moral obligation to the other family because they didnt violate anyones rights. Stop letting emotion get in the way and consider the actual arguments at hand--*why* is it immoral to kill someone who consented to a fight to the death with you?

If someone is about to risk their life to do something stupid, I believe people have the moral obligation to stop it. People should care for each other and look out for each other, not look for angles to murder people. By dueling not only are you not stopping someone from risking their life, you are allowing them too because it takes two to duel. Your conscience tells you dueling is immoral. I think it is pretty inherent that orphaning children and widowing wives over a disagreement is immoral, even with consent. I think most people are good, and listening to your conscience is a better moral theory than some logical, deep, cold, calculated "moral theory".

but I believe that if that is their choice then you should respect it. if you don't you are taking there right of freedom of choice away from them and that is morally wrong

So you could in good conscience allow to people to kill each other over a disagreement? How much do you value the human life? Could you in good conscience kill someone who consented to you in a duel? If two people in your town were going to duel and you could "veto" it, you would let it happen? Would not the thought of a family growing up say without a father, who died over a trivial matter, that a law could have prevented upset you? How can a society allow barbaric bloodshed like duels in good conscience?
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:40:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 12:34:38 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:25:01 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:21:33 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:11:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:06:34 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:54:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would.

What makes you make that assumption? Just because you don't like something doesnt mean only a lunatic would do it.

And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?

I'm not sure. I was actually hesitant to put that bit in because I don't really have a good enforcement mechanism. There's no need to get checked out however unless theres compelling reason to think someone isn't of sound mine

I think willing to risk your life in a duel is reason enough to be insane. Further, I don't see how the attitude

That's what you think but you've continually asserted without warrant that risking your life qualifies someone as insane. This is an assertion not an argument

"Sorry, I just killed your father, and I killed your husband, but my conscience is clear, he consented" is anywhere remotely close to being a moral thought?

Sure. I doubt my conscience would be clear in that situation but a duelist has no moral obligation to the other family because they didnt violate anyones rights. Stop letting emotion get in the way and consider the actual arguments at hand--*why* is it immoral to kill someone who consented to a fight to the death with you?

If someone is about to risk their life to do something stupid, I believe people have the moral obligation to stop it. People should care for each other and look out for each other, not look for angles to murder people. By dueling not only are you not stopping someone from risking their life, you are allowing them too because it takes two to duel. Your conscience tells you dueling is immoral. I think it is pretty inherent that orphaning children and widowing wives over a disagreement is immoral, even with consent. I think most people are good, and listening to your conscience is a better moral theory than some logical, deep, cold, calculated "moral theory".

but I believe that if that is their choice then you should respect it. if you don't you are taking there right of freedom of choice away from them and that is morally wrong

So you could in good conscience allow to people to kill each other over a disagreement? How much do you value the human life? Could you in good conscience kill someone who consented to you in a duel? If two people in your town were going to duel and you could "veto" it, you would let it happen? Would not the thought of a family growing up say without a father, who died over a trivial matter, that a law could have prevented upset you? How can a society allow barbaric bloodshed like duels in good conscience?

a duel is not like that anymore if you have read any you would no that modern day duels are used for such purposes so your arguments is irrelevant to modern day life. I wasn't talking about colonial duels
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:42:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 12:40:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:34:38 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:25:01 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:21:33 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:11:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:06:34 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:54:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would.

What makes you make that assumption? Just because you don't like something doesnt mean only a lunatic would do it.

And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?

I'm not sure. I was actually hesitant to put that bit in because I don't really have a good enforcement mechanism. There's no need to get checked out however unless theres compelling reason to think someone isn't of sound mine

I think willing to risk your life in a duel is reason enough to be insane. Further, I don't see how the attitude

That's what you think but you've continually asserted without warrant that risking your life qualifies someone as insane. This is an assertion not an argument

"Sorry, I just killed your father, and I killed your husband, but my conscience is clear, he consented" is anywhere remotely close to being a moral thought?

Sure. I doubt my conscience would be clear in that situation but a duelist has no moral obligation to the other family because they didnt violate anyones rights. Stop letting emotion get in the way and consider the actual arguments at hand--*why* is it immoral to kill someone who consented to a fight to the death with you?

If someone is about to risk their life to do something stupid, I believe people have the moral obligation to stop it. People should care for each other and look out for each other, not look for angles to murder people. By dueling not only are you not stopping someone from risking their life, you are allowing them too because it takes two to duel. Your conscience tells you dueling is immoral. I think it is pretty inherent that orphaning children and widowing wives over a disagreement is immoral, even with consent. I think most people are good, and listening to your conscience is a better moral theory than some logical, deep, cold, calculated "moral theory".

but I believe that if that is their choice then you should respect it. if you don't you are taking there right of freedom of choice away from them and that is morally wrong

So you could in good conscience allow to people to kill each other over a disagreement? How much do you value the human life? Could you in good conscience kill someone who consented to you in a duel? If two people in your town were going to duel and you could "veto" it, you would let it happen? Would not the thought of a family growing up say without a father, who died over a trivial matter, that a law could have prevented upset you? How can a society allow barbaric bloodshed like duels in good conscience?

a duel is not like that anymore if you have read any you would no that modern day duels are used for such purposes so your arguments is irrelevant to modern day life. I wasn't talking about colonial duels

What is a "modern day duel" like?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:48:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/2/2013 8:59:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Often, people claim that "America is moving away from it's roots". They criticize current policies by comparing them to the early days of America.

In the past little or no economic data was taken or available. People kept slaves and were allowed to abuse their wives. Problems were settled by a duel to the death. Racism was high, genocide against Native Americans was acceptable. America was not even a superpower after WW2!

Founding fathers had zero understanding of modern day economics, technology, or world environment. If the founding fathers could be brought back, I would not want them to run the country. That would be like reviving Ghangis Kahn or Napolean to run the modern day USA Army.

Dude Genghis Khan would kick @$$ in today's army. :o

how about sun tzu? or is that zeitgeist dead too?
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:46:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 12:42:26 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:40:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:34:38 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:25:01 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:21:33 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:11:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 12:06:34 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:54:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/2/2013 11:45:57 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

If someone isnt of sound mind when they give consent, it's not really consent.

I won't have time to debate or a while, but how can someone be of sound mind when they consent to risk their life in a duel? No sane calm sound person would.

What makes you make that assumption? Just because you don't like something doesnt mean only a lunatic would do it.

And, how can I know the person who I killed in a duel was of sane mind? Do, I take their word for it? Or do we each get checked out prior to the duel?

I'm not sure. I was actually hesitant to put that bit in because I don't really have a good enforcement mechanism. There's no need to get checked out however unless theres compelling reason to think someone isn't of sound mine

I think willing to risk your life in a duel is reason enough to be insane. Further, I don't see how the attitude

That's what you think but you've continually asserted without warrant that risking your life qualifies someone as insane. This is an assertion not an argument

"Sorry, I just killed your father, and I killed your husband, but my conscience is clear, he consented" is anywhere remotely close to being a moral thought?

Sure. I doubt my conscience would be clear in that situation but a duelist has no moral obligation to the other family because they didnt violate anyones rights. Stop letting emotion get in the way and consider the actual arguments at hand--*why* is it immoral to kill someone who consented to a fight to the death with you?

If someone is about to risk their life to do something stupid, I believe people have the moral obligation to stop it. People should care for each other and look out for each other, not look for angles to murder people. By dueling not only are you not stopping someone from risking their life, you are allowing them too because it takes two to duel. Your conscience tells you dueling is immoral. I think it is pretty inherent that orphaning children and widowing wives over a disagreement is immoral, even with consent. I think most people are good, and listening to your conscience is a better moral theory than some logical, deep, cold, calculated "moral theory".

but I believe that if that is their choice then you should respect it. if you don't you are taking there right of freedom of choice away from them and that is morally wrong

So you could in good conscience allow to people to kill each other over a disagreement? How much do you value the human life? Could you in good conscience kill someone who consented to you in a duel? If two people in your town were going to duel and you could "veto" it, you would let it happen? Would not the thought of a family growing up say without a father, who died over a trivial matter, that a law could have prevented upset you? How can a society allow barbaric bloodshed like duels in good conscience?

a duel is not like that anymore if you have read any you would no that modern day duels are used for such purposes so your arguments is irrelevant to modern day life. I wasn't talking about colonial duels

What is a "modern day duel" like?

lets take fencing that can be considered a duel. or a duel of cards. duel has turned into many things. when two people are left in a paint ball game one could call that a duel couldn't they
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.