No it's not... the question, as presented by the original poster was: "If you were talking to a new friend and they said any of these, which of these statements would you consider unacceptable."
The fact that you were talking to a new friend, while relevant to the question, is somewhat ancillary to the main thrust of the question. The main thrust being: Is it acceptable for a person to hold these beliefs.
Yes, does X is unacceptable imply X deserves legal sanction? Unless you hold that it does, the constitutional rights is irrelevant.
What about my example of driving on the right? Your position appears to imply either (a) the law coincides with morality, and there is a natural obligation for people to drive on the right; or (b) the law doesn't coincide with morality, and people who disobey it are morally blameless. But neither alternative seems like a satisfactory analysis.
The moral imperative is to use a shared resource in a safe and harmonious manner. The obligation to drive on the right is because of the fact that everyone else is driving on the right, not because of the law. If the law was changed to say "Drive on whatever side of the road you want." it wouldn't become ok to drive against traffic.
I see you have made a sticky evolution primer and locked it not allowing responses so i was not sure how to respond to it, i do however feel that something needs to be changed
"
Also, don’t come in here telling me that you’re more evolved than a carrot. Or a bear. Or a bacterium. You’re not. Point of fact, you’re probably less evolved than any of those things, not least of which because humans are generalists. This means that we don’t generally adapt to our environment as much as specialists. The advantage of being a specialist is that you will kick the snot out of a generalist in your niche. The disadvantage is that your niche is probably pretty small, and if a generalist (like us) destroys it, you’re hosed.
The other reason that you’re probably less evolved than a bacterium derives clearly from the points outlined above. We think that E. coli probably diverged around 100 million years ago. That’s around 25 times as long as you to get it’s stuff together and become really good at what it does. (It’s a generalist too, by the way.) Moreover, there are a lot of them. There are probably more E. coli in your gut than there are people on the planet. Probably there are more than twice as many in your gut. And there are others in food, water, and on surfaces. They’re everywhere. The number of them is ridiculous, and the selection pressure is incredible. They’re more evolved than you. Probably by a lot
"
i feel this is a very good example of circular logic. They are arguing against evolution and in your argument for evolution you are assuming evolution to exist. Usually i would not be such a stickler but doing it because as a primer i think its important for it not to have any fallacious arguments. Please let me know if you think i am wrong.
Evolution selects for survival as a species or other genetic grouping. Humans are good at survival. However, so are pine trees and house flies. I can't make a case that humans are better at surviving than flies. So I can't claim that humans are more evolved. There are lots of metrics to compare species, but more evolved isn't one.
I fail to see the circular logic. It is expounding on an aspect of evolutionary theory. If evolution is true, this follows. It nowhere says that evolution is true because of this.
This line of thinking is internally consistent with their beliefs, and therefore, in order for me to say its unacceptable, I'd have to ignore their constitutional rights.
Since when do people have a constitutional right to your friendship? The question is not should people be fined, imprisoned, or otherwise legally sanctioned for these beliefs. The question is would you be friends with or respect people who held these beliefs. The constitution applies to the first, not the second.
Yeah, basically, once people have figured out the optimal use for Card X it's time to say goodbye to it forever, because all it's doing from there on it is dragging down the meta.
True for some cards, ex. channel. Not for others ex. foil.
If Morguloth can't submit an entry by the deadline and drops out by default, would that make this the final round since there would only be two real competitors, or would we have one more?
I half expect Morguloth to drop, he has better things to do:D. That's one reason for the complex challenge. I wanted a challenge worthy for a final round, if this is the final round. If there are only two entries, its the final round.
1. I'm not racist, I just don't like black people (if you wish, you can fill in another race here). I don't let it affect how I interact with them or make decisions regarding them.
Vague statement, the second half contradicts the first. Likely to be just a way of stating # 2 in a more socially acceptable way.
If they meant "I don't have any black friends," I would be a little suspicious for how they interacted with black people, but its no deal breaker. They can't control who they met, and might just move in mainly non-black circles. If it means because someone is black I won't like them then it will cost them some serious respect and probably friendship.
2. I hate black people.
Unacceptable. Of course this assumes they mean I hate black people because they are black. Misanthropically hating black people because they are people is ok.
3. I think women should be subordinate to men.
Likely unacceptable. There is a charitable interpretation. If they meant, "I believe that the man should be the head of the household and the woman his helpmate. I will not enforce this on anyone." I could still be friends, although I disagree.
4. I'm not homophobic, I have gay friends, I just don't think gay people should be able to get married.
Acceptable. I'll try to convince you otherwise.
5. I'm not homophobic, I just don't like gay people. I don't let it affect my vote on things like gay marriage, though.
Probably unacceptable, see #1. Also, why don't you let your beliefs affect how you vote?
6. I think gay romantic love is not a real thing. I think they're all just looking for sex. I'm not homophobic, though.
Unacceptable. It is incredibly arrogant to believe that you understand someone's thoughts better than they do.
7. I believe all people should be converted to my religion (he/she is of your religion. Atheist/agnostic is also considered a 'religion' here).
Acceptable if they mean everyone should freely chose to agree with me, I believe the same thing. Unacceptable if they believe everyone should be made to believe the same thing. The correct phrasing is "everyone should chose to convert."
8. I believe all people should be converted to my religion (he/she is not of your religion. Atheist/agnostic is also considered a 'religion' here).
Acceptable. Same as #7. If you believe your religion is true and important, you naturally want them to believe the truth. This statement follows naturally from "I believe my religion is true." and "I believe people should believe truths rather than falsehoods."
I respect this more than believing I'll go to hell for my atheism and not wishing better for me. This is different from being pushy and not taking no for an answer.
My answer is that the law does not create any moral obligation, it may coincide with some moral obligations (ex. I am morally obligated not to murder, but not because murder is illegal.) However, no moral obligation is created with the law.
1: Have Fun!!! 2: Each round, except round 1 (signup round), will have a theme, and the contestants will design cards to match that theme. 3. Players may submit a new, original card, or any card[s] they have created, so long as they are the players own original design and the card[s] meet the challenge requirements. Last word on meeting these requirements and any penalties is up to the hosts. 4: Each round will have 4 days to submit cards and 3 days to to vote for the cards. 5: Judging is only done by poll and the player with the lowest number of votes will be eliminated. Voting will be public and open to the general public. You may vote for as many, or as few cards as you like (including yourself if you want). The host(s) have final say on the validity of a vote in the case of questionable votes. 6: Any player that doesn't submit a card for any reason will be eliminated. 7: If a player submits a card or cards that does not meet the challenge requirements, that player may receive a DQ and be eliminated. If possible, the player in question will be notified to try and correct the problem before the end of the round. If the mistake is not corrected or is not caught until after the voting has begun, then the hosts will decide if a DQ will be assigned. 8: If there's a tie for the lowest vote total, all those people get to stay in the game but they get a next to their name. Anybody who already had a :symb:, however, is out. Players that get a will keep it until he or she is eliminated or we reach the Top 7 bracket. Anybody with three or less votes in a single round will also receive a :symb:. Similar rules apply. 9: The game will continue until we have a single champion... our Design Idol. 10: If the winner of the last Design Idol returns to defend his or her title (he or she must now sign-up like everyone else), he or she will earn a beside his or her name. This means if he or she would earn a for a round, the falls off instead. Or, if that player would face single elimination, the will convert into a :symb:. If the goes unused by the time we reach the Top 7 Bracket, it will fall off. 11: The Top 4 of the last Design Idol get the right to "shotgun" a place on the new season. The same is true for hosts, only they get shotgun rights for two seasons. (So any hosts of Season VI can shotgun in VII and VIII). They still have to create a card for the first round, however.
New Rule: Renders may be submitted, but text is required. The text of the card will be copied and pasted into the poll with any links.
Last round Phyrexian Editor got the fewest votes. Thanks for playing.
This leaves
Oculus
Twilight Kiwi
Morguloth
This round's challenge is Ravnica revisited. Your design challenge is to chose a guild and replace its guild mechanic (dredge, replicate, haunt, etc.) with a new mechanic of your design. You must design 6 cards showing off your guild and mechanic.
The cards must be 2 commons, 2 uncommons, 1 rare and 1 mythic rare. They must include at least 2 creatures, 1 instant or sorcery, and 1 noncreature permanent. They must include at least 4 cards using your new mechanic. They must include at least 1 monocolored card of each color, 1 hybrid card, and 2 multicolored cards.
As this is a more in depth challenge, I will be giving 1 week to produce entries. The deadline is 3:00 pm eastern time on Tuesday the 13th.
The sum of Captain Morgans points is that any sort of anarchist system demands that all the players be invested, energetic, rational actors making informed decisions. This is a pipe dream. Your fundamental arguments are philosophical whilst you demand point by point refutations of your illustrations, which, when provided, are hand waved away and another ludicrous example of the superiority of the free market and lack of governance is proffered, like 19th century Italy. At which point it is pointed out that there are flaws in the anarchist philosophy and you provide another illustration or attack the message for 'not getting it' or at best defend anarchism with a No True Scotsman or by moving the goalposts, rather than endorse anarchism as a viable alternative. Then, because it's impossible for flaws to exist in anarchism, the cycle begins again.
He's attacking your argument at a philosophical level. This is an attack that is going straight for the jugular of your entire philosophy and illustrates one of its largest flaws - the investment required to maintain an anarchist state (of existence) is in and of itself a full time job apart from any other labor that individuals may be doing. Many of the anarchist answers given have gaping holes in them or simply hand wave away problems like corruption or instability.
Read the argument Jimbo. I never said that 19th century Italy was an anarchist example, or any time in Italy. Nor have I ever claimed that all players must be informed, energetic and rational. I am interested in a debate. One where people can make points and get responses. Please respond what I actually say rather than throwing up strawmen.
If his point is that anarchy is too much of an investment in time or that apathy destroys anarchy, it could do with a clear statement. It also should not be presented as an answer to an unrelated question. I'm willing to discuss it.
Also, please don't just say there are gaping holes. If there are gaping holes pointing them out would be helpful. I won't take your statement that there are gaping holes as evidence that there are gaping holes. Nor will I take the statement of No True Scotsman or Moving the Goalposts as evidence that those are going on. If you have an example of me doing either, I'd like to see it.
Captain Morgan, please stop. Please read this as merely a formal critique on your arguments, not on their content.
You post needlessly long rambling passages, where it is unclear how they answer what they are purporting to answer. Look at your response to coercive monopoly in your last post. None of that is an answer.
You condemn answers for not answering all unasked questions. Is "Does not answer the nature of modern urban warfare." a cogent answer to "The mercenary armies of rennisance Italy compare favorably to traditional armies of the same time?"
You try to project things into other people's belief systems. Saying what someone else believes or approves of without evidence is insulting.
You bring up examples for your position like "19th century local government" or "Mosque building in Texas" as if they are definitive proofs. It would be nice if you said what happened that was so interesting, and what conclusion you are drawing. I'm not psychic.
Please actually answer arguments. Don't just try to fire off prepared rants that don't apply to what they are supposed to answer. I say this because you warned us you were about to fire off a point on behavioral economics.
It is the balance of powers that enables corrections to happen, the public and the private field. Competition is what makes markets "stable enough" to be a "good idea," and without government the private sphere has no competition to make itself robust.
Huh? So we need a coercive monopoly that defines the scope of its own powers. Without it there is no competition.
Pinkertons, Blackwater, and a few others I can think do not lend themselves exactly to "Captain_Morgan's Ginchy List of Ideas." Hell, the Italian peninsula was overrun with private armies and the only reason the Rennaissance happened was because those people were able to stay out of the urban areas and battles were often scheduled and executed limited warfare.
You mean the Blackwater corporation, which does almost all its work for the government and takes its orders from the government proves that private corporations will be as bad as governments. As for the Italian mercenary armies. Odd then if they were worse than the alternatives that the Rennisance happened in Italy. Compared to the military practices of France or England during that time, Italy was much better for the people.
I am no fan of large government, nor a supporter of taxation beyond what are necessary for services. At best, there's been little challenge to the concept of "min anarchism" or some other form of limited government which allows for maximized personal freedoms relative to the amount of population and collectivized issues we face. There are several layers of private governance in the NGO sector which have been effective. Anarchism fails to answer some fundamental questions that government answers, and socialism fails to deal with the market. The market fails to deals with larger scale problems, because it is a human institution fixated on short term solutions making it wholly inadequate to long term planning.
Huh? The government has shown that it is incredibly short term. Almost any problem that falls after the next election is to be ignored. If you want to say that there are failings for the private sector versus the government, don't argue that long term planning is one of them.
Shunning only works in tight communities like the Amish, in a freer flowing environment charlatans become like chameleons and move readily. Due process means nothing without enforcement, which does justify the power of the state and why states exist.
In a cost-benefit analysis, we already have a system that has vastly decreased police brutality and local barbarism in the Southern United States so much that another mass migration of blacks is occurring as we speak. Yet, we must get rid of these institutions because the abuses are intolerable? The abuses are always intolerable under any system of justice, yet through time and the balance of powers we have been able to increase the meriting of justice.
Equally, what you are supporting is an ill defined and totally experimental form of justice that in the past when ill defined contributed to old forms of injustice that have vastly declined with centralization like blood feuds. So when taking a cost benefit analysis, we've vastly mitigated Polio and destroyed small pox, control AIDS development in an okay enough manner that it doesn't trigger massive contagions, but because HIV is still being spread we have to scrap the entire scientific edifice for disease control and start over? Whenever we can just control HIV(corruption) as best we can, make sure it doesn't develop into full blown AIDS (tyranny) and enjoy the comfort that we don't have small pox (insurrection and rebellion) and polio (murder) is kept in check.
So, do only the Amish run credit reports or background checks? Do only the Amish prefer do deal with established brand names? Or does reputation matter to the rest of society as well.
Police brutality has changed. Culture has changed as well. Why is it that the government gets credit for any good change that has happened? Why is this true even if the major change is only in slowing its own abuses?
Also, lets run this cost benefit analysis. Right now we have an organization that imprisons large numbers of people, even for victimless crimes. It takes significant amounts of money from everyone by threatening them. It manipulates the economy to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class. It gives brutes uniforms, badges, and practical immunity. It wages wars that kill many tens of thousands over shaky causes. The rates of serious crimes like murder are not exactly under control. All attempts at significant reform are stymied and the public will is routinely ignored. Either all of this is a good thing, or you are also running a comparison to a purely hypothetical situation.
If you want a medical analogy, putting on some scrubs and claiming to be a surgeon doesn't make a knife wielding maniac good.
Yes, does X is unacceptable imply X deserves legal sanction? Unless you hold that it does, the constitutional rights is irrelevant.
The moral imperative is to use a shared resource in a safe and harmonious manner. The obligation to drive on the right is because of the fact that everyone else is driving on the right, not because of the law. If the law was changed to say "Drive on whatever side of the road you want." it wouldn't become ok to drive against traffic.
Evolution selects for survival as a species or other genetic grouping. Humans are good at survival. However, so are pine trees and house flies. I can't make a case that humans are better at surviving than flies. So I can't claim that humans are more evolved. There are lots of metrics to compare species, but more evolved isn't one.
I fail to see the circular logic. It is expounding on an aspect of evolutionary theory. If evolution is true, this follows. It nowhere says that evolution is true because of this.
Since when do people have a constitutional right to your friendship? The question is not should people be fined, imprisoned, or otherwise legally sanctioned for these beliefs. The question is would you be friends with or respect people who held these beliefs. The constitution applies to the first, not the second.
True for some cards, ex. channel. Not for others ex. foil.
I mean there is only so many weeks I can submit
Black Lotus
Channel
Lich's Mirror
Rishadan Brigand
Decree of Silence
Its the Cadillac of turn 1 wins when undisrupted.
I half expect Morguloth to drop, he has better things to do:D. That's one reason for the complex challenge. I wanted a challenge worthy for a final round, if this is the final round. If there are only two entries, its the final round.
Vague statement, the second half contradicts the first. Likely to be just a way of stating # 2 in a more socially acceptable way.
If they meant "I don't have any black friends," I would be a little suspicious for how they interacted with black people, but its no deal breaker. They can't control who they met, and might just move in mainly non-black circles. If it means because someone is black I won't like them then it will cost them some serious respect and probably friendship.
2. I hate black people.
Unacceptable. Of course this assumes they mean I hate black people because they are black. Misanthropically hating black people because they are people is ok.
3. I think women should be subordinate to men.
Likely unacceptable. There is a charitable interpretation. If they meant, "I believe that the man should be the head of the household and the woman his helpmate. I will not enforce this on anyone." I could still be friends, although I disagree.
4. I'm not homophobic, I have gay friends, I just don't think gay people should be able to get married.
Acceptable. I'll try to convince you otherwise.
5. I'm not homophobic, I just don't like gay people. I don't let it affect my vote on things like gay marriage, though.
Probably unacceptable, see #1. Also, why don't you let your beliefs affect how you vote?
6. I think gay romantic love is not a real thing. I think they're all just looking for sex. I'm not homophobic, though.
Unacceptable. It is incredibly arrogant to believe that you understand someone's thoughts better than they do.
7. I believe all people should be converted to my religion (he/she is of your religion. Atheist/agnostic is also considered a 'religion' here).
Acceptable if they mean everyone should freely chose to agree with me, I believe the same thing. Unacceptable if they believe everyone should be made to believe the same thing. The correct phrasing is "everyone should chose to convert."
8. I believe all people should be converted to my religion (he/she is not of your religion. Atheist/agnostic is also considered a 'religion' here).
Acceptable. Same as #7. If you believe your religion is true and important, you naturally want them to believe the truth. This statement follows naturally from "I believe my religion is true." and "I believe people should believe truths rather than falsehoods."
I respect this more than believing I'll go to hell for my atheism and not wishing better for me. This is different from being pushy and not taking no for an answer.
The rules.
1: Have Fun!!!
2: Each round, except round 1 (signup round), will have a theme, and the contestants will design cards to match that theme.
3. Players may submit a new, original card, or any card[s] they have created, so long as they are the players own original design and the card[s] meet the challenge requirements. Last word on meeting these requirements and any penalties is up to the hosts.
4: Each round will have 4 days to submit cards and 3 days to to vote for the cards.
5: Judging is only done by poll and the player with the lowest number of votes will be eliminated. Voting will be public and open to the general public. You may vote for as many, or as few cards as you like (including yourself if you want). The host(s) have final say on the validity of a vote in the case of questionable votes.
6: Any player that doesn't submit a card for any reason will be eliminated.
7: If a player submits a card or cards that does not meet the challenge requirements, that player may receive a DQ and be eliminated. If possible, the player in question will be notified to try and correct the problem before the end of the round. If the mistake is not corrected or is not caught until after the voting has begun, then the hosts will decide if a DQ will be assigned.
8: If there's a tie for the lowest vote total, all those people get to stay in the game but they get a
Anybody with three or less votes in a single round will also receive a :symb:. Similar rules apply.
9: The game will continue until we have a single champion... our Design Idol.
10: If the winner of the last Design Idol returns to defend his or her title (he or she must now sign-up like everyone else), he or she will earn a
11: The Top 4 of the last Design Idol get the right to "shotgun" a place on the new season. The same is true for hosts, only they get shotgun rights for two seasons. (So any hosts of Season VI can shotgun in VII and VIII). They still have to create a card for the first round, however.
New Rule: Renders may be submitted, but text is required. The text of the card will be copied and pasted into the poll with any links.
Last round Phyrexian Editor got the fewest votes. Thanks for playing.
This leaves
Oculus
Twilight Kiwi
Morguloth
This round's challenge is Ravnica revisited. Your design challenge is to chose a guild and replace its guild mechanic (dredge, replicate, haunt, etc.) with a new mechanic of your design. You must design 6 cards showing off your guild and mechanic.
The cards must be 2 commons, 2 uncommons, 1 rare and 1 mythic rare. They must include at least 2 creatures, 1 instant or sorcery, and 1 noncreature permanent. They must include at least 4 cards using your new mechanic. They must include at least 1 monocolored card of each color, 1 hybrid card, and 2 multicolored cards.
As this is a more in depth challenge, I will be giving 1 week to produce entries. The deadline is 3:00 pm eastern time on Tuesday the 13th.
Read the argument Jimbo. I never said that 19th century Italy was an anarchist example, or any time in Italy. Nor have I ever claimed that all players must be informed, energetic and rational. I am interested in a debate. One where people can make points and get responses. Please respond what I actually say rather than throwing up strawmen.
If his point is that anarchy is too much of an investment in time or that apathy destroys anarchy, it could do with a clear statement. It also should not be presented as an answer to an unrelated question. I'm willing to discuss it.
Also, please don't just say there are gaping holes. If there are gaping holes pointing them out would be helpful. I won't take your statement that there are gaping holes as evidence that there are gaping holes. Nor will I take the statement of No True Scotsman or Moving the Goalposts as evidence that those are going on. If you have an example of me doing either, I'd like to see it.
You post needlessly long rambling passages, where it is unclear how they answer what they are purporting to answer. Look at your response to coercive monopoly in your last post. None of that is an answer.
You condemn answers for not answering all unasked questions. Is "Does not answer the nature of modern urban warfare." a cogent answer to "The mercenary armies of rennisance Italy compare favorably to traditional armies of the same time?"
You try to project things into other people's belief systems. Saying what someone else believes or approves of without evidence is insulting.
You bring up examples for your position like "19th century local government" or "Mosque building in Texas" as if they are definitive proofs. It would be nice if you said what happened that was so interesting, and what conclusion you are drawing. I'm not psychic.
Please actually answer arguments. Don't just try to fire off prepared rants that don't apply to what they are supposed to answer. I say this because you warned us you were about to fire off a point on behavioral economics.
No, I forgot to click it.
Huh? So we need a coercive monopoly that defines the scope of its own powers. Without it there is no competition.
You mean the Blackwater corporation, which does almost all its work for the government and takes its orders from the government proves that private corporations will be as bad as governments. As for the Italian mercenary armies. Odd then if they were worse than the alternatives that the Rennisance happened in Italy. Compared to the military practices of France or England during that time, Italy was much better for the people.
Huh? The government has shown that it is incredibly short term. Almost any problem that falls after the next election is to be ignored. If you want to say that there are failings for the private sector versus the government, don't argue that long term planning is one of them.
So, do only the Amish run credit reports or background checks? Do only the Amish prefer do deal with established brand names? Or does reputation matter to the rest of society as well.
Police brutality has changed. Culture has changed as well. Why is it that the government gets credit for any good change that has happened? Why is this true even if the major change is only in slowing its own abuses?
Also, lets run this cost benefit analysis. Right now we have an organization that imprisons large numbers of people, even for victimless crimes. It takes significant amounts of money from everyone by threatening them. It manipulates the economy to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class. It gives brutes uniforms, badges, and practical immunity. It wages wars that kill many tens of thousands over shaky causes. The rates of serious crimes like murder are not exactly under control. All attempts at significant reform are stymied and the public will is routinely ignored. Either all of this is a good thing, or you are also running a comparison to a purely hypothetical situation.
If you want a medical analogy, putting on some scrubs and claiming to be a surgeon doesn't make a knife wielding maniac good.