Well I just don't anymore. Around the time I stopped posting here was when I just quit debating and I don't miss it.
There once was a time I really enjoyed it, but eventually it became more of a drain on me where I would put a ton of effort into research, citations, writing and for what?
I was already echoing people with whom I agreed with and people I didn't agree with weren't usually going to be convinced anyway.
Plus my wife and I just had our first kid and I felt that what little free time I had for myself was better spent relaxing and playing games over spending hours writing a response to a debate.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed my time here and I learned a lot of things and even changed my views on a lot things - I just don't really have the desire to get into long winded debates anymore.
-
- Quirkiness101
- Registered User
-
Member for 13 years, 8 months, and 9 days
Last active Wed, Sep, 6 2017 01:04:38
- 0 Followers
- 1,488 Total Posts
- 24 Thanks
-
Aug 15, 20171
FoxBlade posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?Posted in: Talk and Entertainment -
May 11, 20171
Jay13x posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?I've got a private facebook group with other Dads if for some reason my blood pressure is too low.Posted in: Talk and Entertainment -
May 5, 20173
Highroller posted a message on What should People Looking Back on this Forum Learn?Posted in: Debate
Write-in vote for Tiax, who kept me honest by kicking my ass when I said something stupid.Quote from Mockingbird »When reading through, be sure to pay attention to the posts of Blinking Spirit, bLatch, Highroller, Jay13x, osieorb18, myself...ish (I always felt middling), and I am certain many others that I cannot remember at the moment.
The thing I want to instill in people is the importance of thinking. Thinking is important. We must think critically.
It is also important we find environments in which other people think critically, people who are willing to challenge our opinions and our rationale behind them, in order that we may learn, and in order that we may examine ourselves and the ideas we hold. It is through the crucible of critical thought that we must submit the ideas we hold, in order to see if they hold firm.
And it is important to remember that this is not just some abstract, esoteric philosophical practice. The benefits of intellectual discourse and philosophy are not detached from reality, not some vague, metaphysical matter that holds nothing concrete. No, the benefits are very real, very tangible, because what we believe has a profound influence upon the world. How we think governs how we act. The ideas we have govern how we behave. This is why it is very important to make sure our ideas hold up to scrutiny, that they are rooted in fact and reason and logic, that they make sense and stand up to examination, because they will inform the decisions we make, and the decisions we make had consequences.
We cannot avoid talking about the political situation in the world right now, because when people look back on this, they will do so from the perspective of someone who has already witnessed what has come to pass because of our actions, from the vantage point of someone who is living with the consequences – be they good or ill – of the decisions we made.
During the election discussion for the 2016 election, I said that elections matter, that this is the time in which you participate in a decision upon which the fate of the world depends, upon which lives hang in the balance, upon which wars may be won or lost, lives may be saved or extinguished. We will spend a long time talking about the decisions we make politically during this era, not just the United States but globally. But I want to impress one point, which is that the importance for informed decisions has never been greater, because we are in an increasingly connected world, and we can no longer pretend that the affairs of one group of people will not have an effect on us.
It is a tragedy, then, that so many people choose echo chambers. So many would rather stick to places where their own opinions are repeated back to us, instead of choosing to challenge their own opinions in intellectual discourse. Imagine, in light of this, how much different the world would be if everyone had the debate environment we had. I can say right now, we damn sure had better moderators than the presidential debates of 2016.
But that being said, this forum is also an exhortation to never be cynical. People tend to say with regards to online debates: why bother? You'll never change anyone's opinion anyway. Why even bother?
But it's not true, is it?
I looked back to try to find my first post on this forum. It was January 5, 2005. That was twelve years ago. How much have I changed? How much have my opinions and worldview changed since that day?
How many times have each of us been in a debate on this forum with someone who held a contrary view, and that person said something that changed our worldview. Maybe it was only slightly, maybe it was begrudgingly, maybe we didn’t realize it at first and it hit us by surprise only later, in a conversation with someone else. But we were changed. However slightly, our eyes were opened to a truth we hadn’t considered before. Maybe one we would have never considered otherwise. We became wiser.
You never know whose mind you’ll change. You never know how your words will make an impact. How many of us have been changed as a result of reading a conversation between two people, neither of whom were us? How many of us realized it at the time? You never know how much of an impact your words will have, nor will you always realize the impact of the words of others. This is especially true for us. We're faceless people on the internet. I've never met anyone here, or maybe I have, I don't know. But I have been changed by the people here.
You will not always change everyone's worldview. You will not always change someone else's opinion. This is true. You cannot change the mind of the other person.
But your mind might change. And that can mean all the difference in the world.
Your thoughts matter. Your words matter. You matter. Let yourself be challenged, because that is how you grow, that is how you become better and more sure of yourself, and you owe it to yourself to be the best person that you can be.
-
May 5, 20179
Blinking Spirit posted a message on Some final thoughtsBeauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say, but the aphorism is not usually understood as it ought to be: how miraculous must be this eye of the beholder, to serve as source for all the beauty in the universe! Beauty is not a physical phenomenon. No "beauty particle" flies through space to strike the retina. A goldfish or a GoPro could look up at the stars, process the visual image just as well as we, and yet remain unmoved by the sight. Only human beings wonder what they are -- and that wonder is such a deep part of our nature that our youngest children sing about it in nursery rhymes. Immeasurably tiny as we are beneath the cosmos, we have the ultimate power over it, that of appreciation. The laws of physics wrought the stars as blind, dead things hanging in emptiness; it is only in our eyes that they become sublime.Posted in: Debate
And it gets better. We are not merely beholders of stars. When we turn to behold each other, then the magic really begins. Every single human being has their own vision of the universe reflected in their eyes. We all see the same universe, but we all see it differently. Seven billion universes, each one similar enough to our own that communication is possible between them, but utterly unique in its majesty. As if one cosmos were not vast enough to give us endless marvels, we will never run out of new ones to explore. With friends!
We have got to be the luckiest damn creatures in existence.
So don't waste these opportunities. Don't waste this power of appreciation. If you don't see the beauty in stars and rocks and beetles and humans, then nothing else in the universe will.
Don't be so proud as to think that you have nothing to gain from listening to other perspectives. You're missing out on entire universes. And the craziest ones are often the most fascinating.
And don't be so humble as to think that you have nothing to offer others in your perspective. You, too, contain an entire universe, and nobody else can see it unless you let them. -
Dec 30, 2016
2
Blinking Spirit posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016Posted in: DebateQuote from YamahaR1 »My reference to MTGS is because its not really that different. There's a long list of things (or views) you dare not express because you know exactly whats going to happen (say, immigration, abortion or... CLIMATE CHANGE ROFL!) Its either going to be the racist bat, the bigot stick or the dunce hat. And once anyone retaining the last of conservative views is gone, what's left? A group of people just nodding in agreement - like an echo chamber. How much is really achieved?
Not to state the obvious, but this is the Debate section. Your views on immigration, abortion, and climate change are going to be challenged here, because that's the point. Everyone's views are challenged here. Does being challenged make you feel unwelcome? Would you rather we all just smile and accept your viewpoint uncritically? Do you think you might go find other forums where people will do that? Because if so, guess what: you're not condemning an echo chamber, you're looking for one. -
Jul 26, 20164
dox posted a message on Donald Trump's PresidencyPosted in: Debate
Trump's performance has been making me uncomfortable for the entire past year.Quote from Highroller »but still, this is closer than anyone should feel comfortable with. -
Jul 25, 2016
2
Blinking Spirit posted a message on To atheists and agnostics: what makes Christianity unappealing or unacceptable to you?Oh, and by the way, I'm an atheist.Posted in: Religion -
Apr 25, 2016
3
Blinking Spirit posted a message on Donald Trump's PresidencyPosted in: Debate
Every Tom, Dick, and Mary with a preexisting narrative is convinced that they've got "the truth". A scientist is trained to throw out what they may think is "the truth" and to examine the evidence.Quote from HolyJello »The "preexisting narrative" I use is called the truth.
Yeah, see, this is not how the scientific method starts. We don't adopt theories based on what we "think". We adopt theories based on what the evidence supports. You ask whether I think illegal immigrants are more or less likely to commit further crimes? It doesn't matter what I think and it doesn't matter what you think. What matters is that the statistics on this question are very clear and consistent: immigrants are less crime prone than citizens. So if your preexisting narrative -- sorry, "the truth" -- says that immigrants commit more crimes, then "the truth" is not true.Quote from HolyJello »Do you think...
(You also ask how I think illegal immigrants vote, which is just plain nonsensical. If you don't understand that non-citizens can't vote, then I have serious doubts about the validity of your long study of the complex issues of this modern era.)
No it is not.Quote from HolyJello »Voting is a privilege. -
Apr 20, 2016
4
Blinking Spirit posted a message on Donald Trump's PresidencyPosted in: Debate
The same person who represents the millions of citizens who voted for Mitt Romney and John McCain and John Kerry and Al Gore: nobody. Are you saying this is not how it should work? That Trump should become president even if he doesn't win the election because a lot of people voted for him? A lot more people voted for his opponent -- who will represent them?Quote from HolyJello »If Trump does not become POTUS, who will represent the >10 million citizens that voted for him? The crony capitalists? Enlighten.
It is, to put it mildly, challenging for a non-citizen who lives in the country illegally to collect welfare benefits. If you feel compelled to argue that illegal immigrants are detrimental, at least come up with a plausible lie.Quote from HolyJello »The tens of millions of illegal aliens are a net negative for this country. Welfare state and such. But the illegals are a net positive for big gvt.
Do you have a feasible proposal for accomplishing this objective?Quote from HolyJello »And how many more decades should American citizens have to wait before the cartels are blasted into sand?
And some American citizens are rapists. But if Justin Trudeau stood at a lectern and opened a general discussion of American-Canadian relations with the declaration that "Americans are rapists", I'm pretty sure you'd take objection to that.Quote from HolyJello »And some of the illegals are rapists.
Again you're trying to change the subject. Is it okay to engage in blanket discrimination against a group of people because a small percentage of those people commit crimes: yes or no?Quote from HolyJello »The biggest group of racists, by a YUGE margin, in America are those that say blacks cannot succeed and must receive money from others for at least a few 100 years.
The overall trend is that by absolute numbers most Muslims on this planet live peacefully in democratic societies. There is zero evidence to suggest that they cannot live peacefully in our democratic society and copious evidence that they can -- because they do.Quote from HolyJello »You point to one Muslim nation, and I point to the overall trend.
Good advice. Take it.Quote from HolyJello »Focusing on a single data point is staggeringly myopic.
And you're still trying to read my mind. Badly.Quote from HolyJello »I guess you prefer to go with the proven cold-blooded killer, HRC. Invasion of Iraq. Lots of other countries full of non-whites. It is ok, cause she is a Dem.
So you can deflect attention away from the flaws of Donald Trump by going on the offensive against somebody else? No thanks.Quote from HolyJello »I notice that you failed to state which candidate you support? Very basic question that. Enlighten.
Nobody is pandering to the mob in this election more than Donald Trump. He is what the founding fathers were afraid of.Quote from HolyJello »Democracy is the ancient enemy of liberty. America is supposed to have a constitutional republic because it used to be a well known fact that democracy devolves into mobocracy given enough time. -
Apr 9, 2016
6
Blinking Spirit posted a message on Gender neutral bathrooms.I don't think the government has any business legislating who can use which restroom. It's wildly intrusive. The ostensible goal here is to stop men from going into women's restrooms and perving out, right? Okay, that does happen, unfortunately. But when it happens, why not just bring the hammer down on the creep with the normal laws for sexual harassment and invasion of privacy? And as an added bonus, you can even do this when somebody goes into their own gender's bathroom and pervs out there, which happens too, and goes completely unaddressed by these gender-restriction bills. But most importantly of all, it lets you keep your nose out of the business of all the people who just want to pee.Posted in: Debate - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
1
Thanks for all of the advice guys and for making sure my head was on straight!
2
1
The general consensus at the moment is that a fire started near a warehouse that housed several volatile chemicals. The fire is suspected to have started at a nearby petrol station and spread to the warehouse where either the fire or the firemen trying to put it our set off some of the chemicals, leading to the explosions.
1
Not a problem, just wanted to make sure it got addressed.
I think we'll have to just agree to disagree here, because our views on the purpose on the justice system are completely different. I believe (even if it is a bit naive) that the justice system is supposed to take criminals and make them not criminals, and when that process is complete, to release them back into society. If that is believed to be successful, then their prior crimes are inconsequential. If we don't trust that the process was successful, and therefore still believe their prior crimes are relevant, than the idea that we've reintegrated them into society is hollow and the system must be altered to fix this lack of confidence.
To use a less extreme example, say that when I am 10 I get bullied the neighbor (also 10). I tell his parents and they punish him. From that point on, he doesn't bully me or treat me poorly. 10 years later, should I still think poorly of him since for his past nastiness even though his rehabilitation was clearly successful?
I think that someone previously put it well when they pointed out the bizarreness of saying that these former criminals are fit to serve on a jury, but should be banned for a card game. Either they should be fit for both or for neither, but the current set-up is completely non-nonsensical.
1
If we're satisfied that the punishment/rehabilitation has been successful, is continuing to hold the crimes against them anything more than spite?
1
1
As a general rule in debates, if you make a positive claim, particularly one that is relevant to the discussion at hand you are expected to be able to convincingly support your claim. In this case, as the apparent understanding of everyone else in the thread was that men have stronger sex drives, you can't simply say the opposite and not provide evidence. You're in a debate, so people aren't generally going to just take your word at face value.
1
I understand how important it is to not immediately dismiss alleged victims of sexual assault, and I also understand that sexual assault is often a traumatizing and life shattering experience, so not all assaults will be immediately reported.
That said, I don't understand what sort of reasonable solution is expected in this instance. We're talking about decade + old rape cases. The likelihood of being able to find even a shred of forensic evidence that would hold up in court is practically non-existent. Past that, you just have testimony of the victims, meaning it's (literally) a he says - she says case. While the number of victims coming forward seems to imply guilt, five people without proof still means there's no proof.
Part of me understands that if he is guilty, then the only recourse is through the court of public opinion, but the other half of me despises that method as it's contrary to everything our legal system was founded on. It just seems like there's no good answer here.
Thoughts?
1
Suppose you have a coin. Someone in front of you is literally seconds from death with no chance of an external force saving them. You however can flip this coin, and if you get heads they will be instantly healed. If you were to flip tails however, you would both die (you from losing the flip, them from succumbing to their injuries). Would you flip the coin?
Expanding on that, what if the game was to flip two coins, and they would be saved if at least one of them was heads? What if you had to roll a D20 and just had to score anything but a one? At what point would the risk of death be small enough for you to play the game to try to save this person? Would knowing this person make a difference?