logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Planning Ahead, Keeping AD's community together
net2007
post Jun 13 2018, 06:03 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I was wondering if anybody else here thinks it's a good idea to have a backup plan just in case Americasdebate goes down. It's possible that Mike and Jamie will come back with further plans for AD because they're continuing to pay for the cost of the domain and thus far when the website has gone down, as it did a few days ago, they've worked to fix the problem but in the scenario that we do lose AD, we'd lose what's left of our debating community and some of us have debated here for over a decade. Personally, I've debated here since 2007, have gotten to know some of the members, and developed a lot of my debating skills here so from my perspective it'd be unfortunate to see that happen. AD is also an interesting concept in itself, I think America should have a dedicated spot to debate a range of issues, including with members of other nations when they find an interest.

As for what we'd plan to do if the website goes down, I'm open to any ideas. Perhaps we could think of a common place we'd meet in the scenario that the website goes down, or exchange contact information and figure that out at a later time, there's a number of things that we could do.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jun 13 2018, 06:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 30)
AuthorMusician
post Jun 25 2018, 03:22 PM
Post #21


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Slatestarcodex.com

Looks pretty darn good to me on the first blush. A few high-level observations:

1) The blog host writes good English, meaning attention is paid to grammar, spelling and punctuation in an academic/AP sort of way.

2) The blog host is careful not to come off as an expert on fields in which he is not an expert.

3) This is indeed a blog, so it has some advantages that a moderated debate site doesn't, perhaps most important is that moderation is centralized to the blog host. This means only one person's opinion counts on what gets published, therefore allowing a consistency that is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve with multiple moderators.

Anyway, I'll be going there more often as a place to maybe understand the thinking behind opinions with which I disagree and weaknesses in my own thinking while keeping in mind that ever-present principle of thinking:

Within all the things that can possibly be known, all I've got is one tiny little grain of dust.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Jun 29 2018, 01:14 AM
Post #22


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



So ask yourself- why is the site going away? Generally, we have no real topics anymore, and most of the really top level debaters have left, what this site needs is not a mailing address, but some refocus. We have a president that calls the press the "enemy of the state" and today we have a shot up newspaper office, and faux news doing a "political purity test" to see if they "deserved it"- how many topics are posted on that right now? I have been here since, I believe 1999 or 2000. Was one of the most prolific posters on this site. I check in now and again to see if anyone is going to start any real topics. Do you see any?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jun 29 2018, 08:46 AM
Post #23


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Looms @ Jun 24 2018, 07:50 PM) *
I can start an AD Discord server (or Mike and Jaime can...I'm obviously not trying to hijack anything). It would help everyone stay in touch, we can also have channels for various debate topics, both text and voice channels. Just an idea.

However, I think there's a much bigger problem, and it's not something that's really AD related. At this point, what is there left to debate? I believe it was Dennis Prager that correctly pointed out that the right considers the left to be wrong, whereas the left considers the right to be evil. How do you debate that? How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration? Arguments can defeat other arguments. Arguments cannot defeat doxing, swatting, getting people fired, unpersoning people entirely, and all the rest of the wonderful behaviors that the #Resistards have been engaging in. On this very site, there are threads that advocate "defooing" from "fascists" (which of course has nothing to do with the actual political ideology of fascism, and is just a catch-all phrase for undesirables). How do you debate the real world version of The Faith Militant? Can you reason with people who behave exactly like Scientologists, with Supressive Persons, Out-ethics, Disconnection policies and all? If someone has an answer, I'd love to hear it. But I won't hold my breath.

I have completely lost faith in discourse. It's over. The only reason any of us are even entertaining this conversation right now is because we know each for a decade. You cannot reason with the deeply religious, and make no mistake: the cult of progressivism is highly religious in nature (I can expound on this point if needed). At this point in time, I don't care to call out the opposition on their logical fallacies...I want the people that made an enemy of me to be stopped (by legal, non-violent means...the fact that I even feel the need to specify this explicitly to avoid problems speaks volumes). Maybe I'm more black-pilled than most, but I don't think so. Take a look at the last thread started by our very own High Sparrow, that exceptional individual known as Cruising Ram. That's the absolute state of political discourse right now. Anything that falls under "muh racism" or "muh sexism" or "muh Islamophobia" will make you an undesirable, regardless of how out of context you're taken, and the morally righteous Stasi will make sure to report you to whoever you can be reported to, and ruin your life. What's the point of talking under these conditions? What's the point of a debate where one party tries to make a solid case for their argument, and the other tries to make a solid case against their opponent's character? What's the point of me talking to people who call me a Nazi EVERY SINGLE DAY (knowing fully well that I'm Jewish and that I had many family members die in the Holocaust), as they do to everyone who is to the right of effing Mao Dse Dung. It's all so tiresome...


What's a Discord server exactly and what do you think that would look like?

I've heard Prager say something along the lines of "the right considers the left to be wrong, whereas the left considers the right to be evil." as well. I've seen the PragerU videos and have watched some of his speeches, although I see his point in regards to some modern liberals I think he overstates things at times, I think the "left", as he defines that movement, is in trouble in many ways as he says, but in some respects I think it's unfortunate because not all of their ideas are bad, in some cases it's more about how they're trying to execute those ideas. As far as how he characterizing things, Prager makes the distinction between the word left and liberal, he describes liberals as many would describe classical liberals (the type who believe that individual liberty and free speech are important), and he uses "left" as a term to explain what a lot of the liberal base has branched into today, (identity politics and promoting liberty or lenient free speech rules but primarily for those who are of a specific identity) and the latter is where they've run into a lot of trouble in many respects.

I believe the base on that side has split as well so I make a similar distinction but I'm leaning towards using the term modern liberal in place of left or leftist when I'm referring to the same group Prager is. I consider that liberals, who have a radically different belief system than that of liberals 40 years ago, are often still self-identifying as liberal even though they've strayed away from the textbook definition of the word to a great extent, so I say modern liberal. I could be wrong but I'm hoping that's less confusing, the word left sounds more broad to me given the definition says it can be a group or party favoring liberal, socialist, or radical views. Other than some disagreements on things like that, I tend to agree with a lot of what Prager says, especially in regards to PC culture.

On this...

"How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration?"

Sometimes you can't rationally debate someone who views you view you as immoral or unworthy, but you can make a liar out of anyone who misrepresents you and if you're doing so in a public forum, the benefit of that is that it hurts their credibility. Perhaps not in the eyes of those who have given up their identity to a political party and cant see past the label but I still think fewer people fit that description than the impression the media gives. I suggested earlier that if you put a truthful and intelligent argument next to one which is untruthful and irrational, that many people can decipher between the two. It may not seem like that's always the case but even if 10% more of the American public got wise to some of the lies and games that get repeated on a daily basis, it'd start making a difference.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Jun 29 2018, 08:25 PM
Post #24


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 28 2018, 10:46 PM) *
QUOTE(Looms @ Jun 24 2018, 07:50 PM) *
I can start an AD Discord server (or Mike and Jaime can...I'm obviously not trying to hijack anything). It would help everyone stay in touch, we can also have channels for various debate topics, both text and voice channels. Just an idea.

However, I think there's a much bigger problem, and it's not something that's really AD related. At this point, what is there left to debate? I believe it was Dennis Prager that correctly pointed out that the right considers the left to be wrong, whereas the left considers the right to be evil. How do you debate that? How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration? Arguments can defeat other arguments. Arguments cannot defeat doxing, swatting, getting people fired, unpersoning people entirely, and all the rest of the wonderful behaviors that the #Resistards have been engaging in. On this very site, there are threads that advocate "defooing" from "fascists" (which of course has nothing to do with the actual political ideology of fascism, and is just a catch-all phrase for undesirables). How do you debate the real world version of The Faith Militant? Can you reason with people who behave exactly like Scientologists, with Supressive Persons, Out-ethics, Disconnection policies and all? If someone has an answer, I'd love to hear it. But I won't hold my breath.

I have completely lost faith in discourse. It's over. The only reason any of us are even entertaining this conversation right now is because we know each for a decade. You cannot reason with the deeply religious, and make no mistake: the cult of progressivism is highly religious in nature (I can expound on this point if needed). At this point in time, I don't care to call out the opposition on their logical fallacies...I want the people that made an enemy of me to be stopped (by legal, non-violent means...the fact that I even feel the need to specify this explicitly to avoid problems speaks volumes). Maybe I'm more black-pilled than most, but I don't think so. Take a look at the last thread started by our very own High Sparrow, that exceptional individual known as Cruising Ram. That's the absolute state of political discourse right now. Anything that falls under "muh racism" or "muh sexism" or "muh Islamophobia" will make you an undesirable, regardless of how out of context you're taken, and the morally righteous Stasi will make sure to report you to whoever you can be reported to, and ruin your life. What's the point of talking under these conditions? What's the point of a debate where one party tries to make a solid case for their argument, and the other tries to make a solid case against their opponent's character? What's the point of me talking to people who call me a Nazi EVERY SINGLE DAY (knowing fully well that I'm Jewish and that I had many family members die in the Holocaust), as they do to everyone who is to the right of effing Mao Dse Dung. It's all so tiresome...


What's a Discord server exactly and what do you think that would look like?

I've heard Prager say something along the lines of "the right considers the left to be wrong, whereas the left considers the right to be evil." as well. I've seen the PragerU videos and have watched some of his speeches, although I see his point in regards to some modern liberals I think he overstates things at times, I think the "left", as he defines that movement, is in trouble in many ways as he says, but in some respects I think it's unfortunate because not all of their ideas are bad, in some cases it's more about how they're trying to execute those ideas. As far as how he characterizing things, Prager makes the distinction between the word left and liberal, he describes liberals as many would describe classical liberals (the type who believe that individual liberty and free speech are important), and he uses "left" as a term to explain what a lot of the liberal base has branched into today, (identity politics and promoting liberty or lenient free speech rules but primarily for those who are of a specific identity) and the latter is where they've run into a lot of trouble in many respects.

I believe the base on that side has split as well so I make a similar distinction but I'm leaning towards using the term modern liberal in place of left or leftist when I'm referring to the same group Prager is. I consider that liberals, who have a radically different belief system than that of liberals 40 years ago, are often still self-identifying as liberal even though they've strayed away from the textbook definition of the word to a great extent, so I say modern liberal. I could be wrong but I'm hoping that's less confusing, the word left sounds more broad to me given the definition says it can be a group or party favoring liberal, socialist, or radical views. Other than some disagreements on things like that, I tend to agree with a lot of what Prager says, especially in regards to PC culture.

On this...

"How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration?"

Sometimes you can't rationally debate someone who views you view you as immoral or unworthy, but you can make a liar out of anyone who misrepresents you and if you're doing so in a public forum, the benefit of that is that it hurts their credibility. Perhaps not in the eyes of those who have given up their identity to a political party and cant see past the label but I still think fewer people fit that description than the impression the media gives. I suggested earlier that if you put a truthful and intelligent argument next to one which is untruthful and irrational, that many people can decipher between the two. It may not seem like that's always the case but even if 10% more of the American public got wise to some of the lies and games that get repeated on a daily basis, it'd start making a difference.


Absolutely can no longer consider a conservative a person worthy of moral consideration. It is the paradox of Tolerance. Conservatives have racism as the base of thier ideology, and anyone that voted for Trump is absolutely devoid of any moral consideration. You voted for a person not only accused of rape- but caught on tape telling HOW he rapes. You voted for a person that is completely racist in every definition. He has literally taken the playbook of Hitler in calling Mexicans (instead of Jews) "rapists, murders and animals"- a direct Hitler quote. He parades Mexican criminals and thier victims to whip up more hate against that. Conservatives have no moral center other than hating a black president and loving a disgusting reality TV show that is a complete enema nozzle. The double standard they apply is beyond the pale. So why listen to them any longer?

I have no problem distancing myself from anyone that calls themselves conservatives anymore- there was a time when that meant "I want a balanced budget" instead of "I want a balanced ish budget, but don't care if military budgets and war mongering causes a huge hit on the economy for the next 150 years. There is no morality or rational thought or fact left in the conservative movement any longer.

Trump has had over 3000 outright lies in his speeches and tweets, 3000 outright lies fact checked on a regular basis, and conservatives claim it is "telling it like it is"- when you have someone that defends that orange enema nozzle, how do you respect that person at all?

There is no chance for civil debate anymore, and Americas debate is going and will go away. I can tell by the soft ball topics like this one that are constantly popping up. Net actually defends Trump- can you imagine someone like Ted or akaCG head exploding if Obama had 17 indictments and 5 felony convictions in his first year in office? Of course not- they are flaming racists that will defend Trump no matter what, and complain that Obama wore a tan suit. So rational people just go away from this board and will continue to until balance is restored again.

Absolutely NET_ the right has turned evil- as soon as they elected this guy, they turned completely evil. Your guy started child concentration camps for gods sake. You own that now.

Net- there is only one side that regularly posts outright lies- and it ain't liberals. Liberals fact check, and eat thier own when they find someone doing it. Conservatives whip it up to the point of violence- remember the pizzagate thing? Case in point. Trump and right wingers like Milo whatshisface and Dana Loeash call for killing journalists- and guess what? You got it. This is on you bro. Own it. Conservatives take no responsibility for the bad things they do to society- even worse, they don't self fact check, and keep repeating faux news lies over and over. And projecting.

This post has been edited by CruisingRam: Jun 29 2018, 08:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Jun 30 2018, 03:26 PM
Post #25


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



There's a difference between a debate and a rant, which might be why people aren't looking for debate sites and instead find more conducive outlets in the comments sections of some news sites. The other news sites either don't allow comments or offer a letters-to-editor alternative, which usually means the editor gets to edit the letters. You know, how it worked before the WWW made the Internet accessible to anyone who can make a mouse go clicky-clicky, circa 1993.

Another problem could be the prolific growth of pseudo-news sites that are nothing more than fake news repeated over and over again, so finding objective news reporting has become more of a challenge.

Out of a desire to foil Trump's tactics to control media, I subscribed to The Washington Post. It delivers the best comments, as determined by the hapless staff members who have to wade through the online slush piles. So far so good, but it does become apparent that quality writing isn't nearly as entertaining as posts from apparently deranged minds either off their meds or on the wrong ones.

Crazy is way more popular than reasonable, and building strong arguments based on facts isn't anywhere near as fun as slinging mud.

Makes me think: If we are not evolved from monkeys, then how come we act so much like them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jul 1 2018, 12:07 AM
Post #26


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 29 2018, 04:25 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 28 2018, 10:46 PM) *
QUOTE(Looms @ Jun 24 2018, 07:50 PM) *
I can start an AD Discord server (or Mike and Jaime can...I'm obviously not trying to hijack anything). It would help everyone stay in touch, we can also have channels for various debate topics, both text and voice channels. Just an idea.

However, I think there's a much bigger problem, and it's not something that's really AD related. At this point, what is there left to debate? I believe it was Dennis Prager that correctly pointed out that the right considers the left to be wrong, whereas the left considers the right to be evil. How do you debate that? How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration? Arguments can defeat other arguments. Arguments cannot defeat doxing, swatting, getting people fired, unpersoning people entirely, and all the rest of the wonderful behaviors that the #Resistards have been engaging in. On this very site, there are threads that advocate "defooing" from "fascists" (which of course has nothing to do with the actual political ideology of fascism, and is just a catch-all phrase for undesirables). How do you debate the real world version of The Faith Militant? Can you reason with people who behave exactly like Scientologists, with Supressive Persons, Out-ethics, Disconnection policies and all? If someone has an answer, I'd love to hear it. But I won't hold my breath.

I have completely lost faith in discourse. It's over. The only reason any of us are even entertaining this conversation right now is because we know each for a decade. You cannot reason with the deeply religious, and make no mistake: the cult of progressivism is highly religious in nature (I can expound on this point if needed). At this point in time, I don't care to call out the opposition on their logical fallacies...I want the people that made an enemy of me to be stopped (by legal, non-violent means...the fact that I even feel the need to specify this explicitly to avoid problems speaks volumes). Maybe I'm more black-pilled than most, but I don't think so. Take a look at the last thread started by our very own High Sparrow, that exceptional individual known as Cruising Ram. That's the absolute state of political discourse right now. Anything that falls under "muh racism" or "muh sexism" or "muh Islamophobia" will make you an undesirable, regardless of how out of context you're taken, and the morally righteous Stasi will make sure to report you to whoever you can be reported to, and ruin your life. What's the point of talking under these conditions? What's the point of a debate where one party tries to make a solid case for their argument, and the other tries to make a solid case against their opponent's character? What's the point of me talking to people who call me a Nazi EVERY SINGLE DAY (knowing fully well that I'm Jewish and that I had many family members die in the Holocaust), as they do to everyone who is to the right of effing Mao Dse Dung. It's all so tiresome...


What's a Discord server exactly and what do you think that would look like?

I've heard Prager say something along the lines of "the right considers the left to be wrong, whereas the left considers the right to be evil." as well. I've seen the PragerU videos and have watched some of his speeches, although I see his point in regards to some modern liberals I think he overstates things at times, I think the "left", as he defines that movement, is in trouble in many ways as he says, but in some respects I think it's unfortunate because not all of their ideas are bad, in some cases it's more about how they're trying to execute those ideas. As far as how he characterizing things, Prager makes the distinction between the word left and liberal, he describes liberals as many would describe classical liberals (the type who believe that individual liberty and free speech are important), and he uses "left" as a term to explain what a lot of the liberal base has branched into today, (identity politics and promoting liberty or lenient free speech rules but primarily for those who are of a specific identity) and the latter is where they've run into a lot of trouble in many respects.

I believe the base on that side has split as well so I make a similar distinction but I'm leaning towards using the term modern liberal in place of left or leftist when I'm referring to the same group Prager is. I consider that liberals, who have a radically different belief system than that of liberals 40 years ago, are often still self-identifying as liberal even though they've strayed away from the textbook definition of the word to a great extent, so I say modern liberal. I could be wrong but I'm hoping that's less confusing, the word left sounds more broad to me given the definition says it can be a group or party favoring liberal, socialist, or radical views. Other than some disagreements on things like that, I tend to agree with a lot of what Prager says, especially in regards to PC culture.

On this...

"How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration?"

Sometimes you can't rationally debate someone who views you view you as immoral or unworthy, but you can make a liar out of anyone who misrepresents you and if you're doing so in a public forum, the benefit of that is that it hurts their credibility. Perhaps not in the eyes of those who have given up their identity to a political party and cant see past the label but I still think fewer people fit that description than the impression the media gives. I suggested earlier that if you put a truthful and intelligent argument next to one which is untruthful and irrational, that many people can decipher between the two. It may not seem like that's always the case but even if 10% more of the American public got wise to some of the lies and games that get repeated on a daily basis, it'd start making a difference.


Absolutely can no longer consider a conservative a person worthy of moral consideration. It is the paradox of Tolerance. Conservatives have racism as the base of thier ideology, and anyone that voted for Trump is absolutely devoid of any moral consideration. You voted for a person not only accused of rape- but caught on tape telling HOW he rapes. You voted for a person that is completely racist in every definition. He has literally taken the playbook of Hitler in calling Mexicans (instead of Jews) "rapists, murders and animals"- a direct Hitler quote. He parades Mexican criminals and thier victims to whip up more hate against that. Conservatives have no moral center other than hating a black president and loving a disgusting reality TV show that is a complete enema nozzle. The double standard they apply is beyond the pale. So why listen to them any longer?

I have no problem distancing myself from anyone that calls themselves conservatives anymore- there was a time when that meant "I want a balanced budget" instead of "I want a balanced ish budget, but don't care if military budgets and war mongering causes a huge hit on the economy for the next 150 years. There is no morality or rational thought or fact left in the conservative movement any longer.

Trump has had over 3000 outright lies in his speeches and tweets, 3000 outright lies fact checked on a regular basis, and conservatives claim it is "telling it like it is"- when you have someone that defends that orange enema nozzle, how do you respect that person at all?

There is no chance for civil debate anymore, and Americas debate is going and will go away. I can tell by the soft ball topics like this one that are constantly popping up. Net actually defends Trump- can you imagine someone like Ted or akaCG head exploding if Obama had 17 indictments and 5 felony convictions in his first year in office? Of course not- they are flaming racists that will defend Trump no matter what, and complain that Obama wore a tan suit. So rational people just go away from this board and will continue to until balance is restored again.

Absolutely NET_ the right has turned evil- as soon as they elected this guy, they turned completely evil. Your guy started child concentration camps for gods sake. You own that now.

Net- there is only one side that regularly posts outright lies- and it ain't liberals. Liberals fact check, and eat thier own when they find someone doing it. Conservatives whip it up to the point of violence- remember the pizzagate thing? Case in point. Trump and right wingers like Milo whatshisface and Dana Loeash call for killing journalists- and guess what? You got it. This is on you bro. Own it. Conservatives take no responsibility for the bad things they do to society- even worse, they don't self fact check, and keep repeating faux news lies over and over. And projecting.


You may want to read this reply, I'm not going to softball these criticisms but if they're taken seriously you'll understand things a little more broadly speaking. I think you actually believe much of what you say and I'm not here to try to convince you that you've been wrong with all of your accusations, you may very well want to stay where you're at as well but what do you think you're accomplishing? With the way you communicate and characterize other groups, you're not going to be convincing to anyone with the exception of those who, more or less, agree with you already.

It's not that everything you're saying is a lie, although there were several. This, for example, was pushing a false narrative...

"Your guy started child concentration camps for gods sake."

With that quote, I'm not talking about the fact that many, if not most people would dispute the idea that the holding facilities on the border are concentration camps, you're also saying Trump is "your guy". Trump's my guy? That's news to me CR, I think that if you look back you'd see that I've criticized him on a regular basis, I also didn't vote for him but I'm not an all or nothing idealogue either. I make criticisms where I think they're justified and accurate and give credit where I feel it's due, otherwise, none of it has meaning. In order to make the accusation that Trump is my guy, you either didn't pay attention, didn't care, or decided to speculate that I'm not being genuine.

Of course, you don't have any proof that I'm not being genuine but you'll say what you feel you have to in order to make a negative association anyway. I don't take that personally for a number of reasons, for starters your character attacks have clearly been a trend in your debates with a number of people. For example, this is not dissimilar from when you claimed that membership at ad.gif has been waning because of conservatives. You did that without presenting a shred of evidence, not even when challenged. You made the claim, trashed half the members of the site, then stopped debating shortly after. Perhaps you got your venting out of the way for that day but you certainly didn't demonstrate your accusations had any merit. What sounds good in your head doesn't necessarily translate into a convincing debate post. That's very much the way Trump behaves when he's ranting so are you quick to criticise him because that behavior is familiar to you?

The lies are one thing, definitely not a good thing when you're complaining about Trump lying, but I actually think the bigger issue is how you present the facts that you come across when you're not doing guesswork. Some of the things you're saying or hinting at above are true, for example, Trump does lie a lot. I don't need a fact checker to reveal that, I think some are becoming overdependent on how others characterize a situation, but at any rate, you're right, Trump lies and he does so frequently. Having said that, even with the things you're getting right you're presenting only half of the picture. A fact here and there doesn't necessarily reveal the truth.

Let me explain with an analogy, I could make water sound like a horrible thing that should be avoided at all cost. It's easy, people have drowned in it, some have been poisoned by drinking large quantities of it or by drinking sea water, it's destroyed coastal areas including neighborhoods, businesses, and sometimes even entire cities, including in and around New Orleans where I grew up. Hell one time when I was about 13 I had to raft my neighbors front porch back to his house after over 25 inches of rain fell in less than 24 hours, so this water is dangerous stuff! I could make it continue to make it sound like a horrible thing altogether, all I have to do is leave out the fact that all life on Earth, including humans, need water to survive.

There's a Star Wars quote that I happen to like a lot, it goes "Only a Sith deals in absolutes". The quote is suggesting that absolutes can lead to a number of bad things. If you know anything about Star Wars, the Sith are obsessed with domination and war, they're well motivated and powerful but generally lacking in things like empathy and kindness. They take action in the best interest of themselves but despite that strive for self-preservation, the Sith are self-defeating because although they're intelligent in regards to what they think will help them, they lack a certain type of wisdom. That's in large part because absolutes can lead to tunnel vision and an ignorance of those who follow a different path.

Getting back to politics, there's usually a little grey when talking about a large group of people. You're sounding off as if conservatives or Trump supporters have no positive characteristics. To do this you focus only on the negative while revealing nothing negative about their opposition. So many horrible things that you think conservatives and Trump are guilty of, some of it's actually true, other things are based upon lies or speculation but the most glaring problem is that there's very little perspective in many of your post.

You're suggesting Trump was accused of rape but leaving out the fact that Bill Clinton was also accused of rape, sexual assault, and at minimum it was verified that he was okay with fooling around while married with someone less than half his age, then okay with ignoring Monica after he got what he wanted and after she had developed feelings for him. In short, he used her and unlike the accusations against Trump all of this happened in the White House during his presidency. To top this off he later lied about it under oath, to the American people, and that barely scratches the surface of what the Clintons were guilty of. You're talking about Trump lying, and while I think that's a fair criticism, there doesn't appear to be an ounce of self-awareness in regards to what you're doing or what's happening with the Democrats.

It's well known that the Clintons lied all the time, the biggest difference between Trump and Hillary on the lying is that Trump is bad at it while Hillary is good at it. So many voters felt they were in a situation where they had to pick between the lesser of two evils and as far as other Democrats, modern liberals, and avid Trump critics are concerned, their problems don't end with the Clintons. I bet you have no idea what's happening within the FBI, DOJ, and within Mueller's investigating team or don't care if you do know. I hold the opinion that the investigation into Trump should continue until they can determine whether or not Trump colluded with Russia, but the truth, whether it's favorable or unfavorable to the President, should be the goal, not trying to impeach Trump at all cost.

Anybody who says there hasn't been bias, lies, misconduct, and at times lawbreaking in regards to Hillary, Mueller's investigating team, and in the upper echelons of the FBI, likely hasn't been paying attention, doesn't care, or has been misled. You also said "Conservatives whip it up to the point of violence" yet violent protests are common on the left, particularly in regards to many modern liberals.

As for your rhethoric, I hope that modern liberals and Democrats don't slip any further into that kind of thing, not because I think it's hurting conservatives but because I think it's hurting them. For the sake of liberals and Democrats who are wanting to contribute to society and have good ideas, I hope those who are siding with them don't slip any further into the type of rhethoric you're presenting or the type of violence we're witnessing in so many of these protests.

I think it's okay and actually healthy to be critical but there should be something justifying your criticisms. If you're going to go as far as trash talking, it wouldn't be near as bad if you at least had something to back up your claims. If you don't want to continue to tarnish your credibility, I'd at least consider that. If you're going to claim that Trump's my guy, that ad.gif membership has declined because of conservatives, or say something as hyped up as this....

"liberal democrats have been 100% correct on every position they have taken since Bill Clinton- proven right in every way." http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simpl...tml/t23031.html

at least have something to back it up, but you won't be doing that right? I doubt you'll even address that seriously at all if you even reply to this because you're not going to be able to substantiate those claims. If you dodge again, keep in mind that you're not helping your cause when you make things up, you're hurting your cause and ruining your credibility. Few people are stupid enough to believe that last quote, including many of whom, dislike our president or conservatism. I take a lot of what you say with a grain of salt due to this kind of thing but by all means, substantiate your claims and improve your credibility. Again, not everything you're saying is wrong or a lie, but you'd be so much more effective with your messaging if you didn't exaggerate and embellish.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jul 1 2018, 12:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Looms
post Jul 1 2018, 02:14 AM
Post #27


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
January 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 429
Member No.: 1,416
Joined: October-11-03

From: Where you are, there you is
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 29 2018, 03:46 AM) *
QUOTE(Looms @ Jun 24 2018, 07:50 PM) *
I can start an AD Discord server (or Mike and Jaime can...I'm obviously not trying to hijack anything). It would help everyone stay in touch, we can also have channels for various debate topics, both text and voice channels. Just an idea.

However, I think there's a much bigger problem, and it's not something that's really AD related. At this point, what is there left to debate? I believe it was Dennis Prager that correctly pointed out that the right considers the left to be wrong, whereas the left considers the right to be evil. How do you debate that? How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration? Arguments can defeat other arguments. Arguments cannot defeat doxing, swatting, getting people fired, unpersoning people entirely, and all the rest of the wonderful behaviors that the #Resistards have been engaging in. On this very site, there are threads that advocate "defooing" from "fascists" (which of course has nothing to do with the actual political ideology of fascism, and is just a catch-all phrase for undesirables). How do you debate the real world version of The Faith Militant? Can you reason with people who behave exactly like Scientologists, with Supressive Persons, Out-ethics, Disconnection policies and all? If someone has an answer, I'd love to hear it. But I won't hold my breath.

I have completely lost faith in discourse. It's over. The only reason any of us are even entertaining this conversation right now is because we know each for a decade. You cannot reason with the deeply religious, and make no mistake: the cult of progressivism is highly religious in nature (I can expound on this point if needed). At this point in time, I don't care to call out the opposition on their logical fallacies...I want the people that made an enemy of me to be stopped (by legal, non-violent means...the fact that I even feel the need to specify this explicitly to avoid problems speaks volumes). Maybe I'm more black-pilled than most, but I don't think so. Take a look at the last thread started by our very own High Sparrow, that exceptional individual known as Cruising Ram. That's the absolute state of political discourse right now. Anything that falls under "muh racism" or "muh sexism" or "muh Islamophobia" will make you an undesirable, regardless of how out of context you're taken, and the morally righteous Stasi will make sure to report you to whoever you can be reported to, and ruin your life. What's the point of talking under these conditions? What's the point of a debate where one party tries to make a solid case for their argument, and the other tries to make a solid case against their opponent's character? What's the point of me talking to people who call me a Nazi EVERY SINGLE DAY (knowing fully well that I'm Jewish and that I had many family members die in the Holocaust), as they do to everyone who is to the right of effing Mao Dse Dung. It's all so tiresome...


What's a Discord server exactly and what do you think that would look like?


This is Discord Click here . It's essentially a much more feature packed version of Skype. You can have multiple channels, both text and voice, based on the various categories we have here, for example. You can still have moderation roles, etc. However, it's not a forum. It's more geared towards real time communication, so it would be different. It's not something I thought through in any great detail, literally the first thing that came to mind.

QUOTE(net2007)
I've heard Prager say something along the lines of "the right considers the left to be wrong, whereas the left considers the right to be evil." as well. I've seen the PragerU videos and have watched some of his speeches, although I see his point in regards to some modern liberals I think he overstates things at times, I think the "left", as he defines that movement, is in trouble in many ways as he says, but in some respects I think it's unfortunate because not all of their ideas are bad, in some cases it's more about how they're trying to execute those ideas. As far as how he characterizing things, Prager makes the distinction between the word left and liberal, he describes liberals as many would describe classical liberals (the type who believe that individual liberty and free speech are important), and he uses "left" as a term to explain what a lot of the liberal base has branched into today, (identity politics and promoting liberty or lenient free speech rules but primarily for those who are of a specific identity) and the latter is where they've run into a lot of trouble in many respects.

I believe the base on that side has split as well so I make a similar distinction but I'm leaning towards using the term modern liberal in place of left or leftist when I'm referring to the same group Prager is. I consider that liberals, who have a radically different belief system than that of liberals 40 years ago, are often still self-identifying as liberal even though they've strayed away from the textbook definition of the word to a great extent, so I say modern liberal. I could be wrong but I'm hoping that's less confusing, the word left sounds more broad to me given the definition says it can be a group or party favoring liberal, socialist, or radical views. Other than some disagreements on things like that, I tend to agree with a lot of what Prager says, especially in regards to PC culture.


I just call them progressives. It's what they tend to call themselves as well, when they're not busy co-opting the "liberal" label (this tends to be mostly a US thing, btw). This is the definitely a hill I will die on: they are not liberals. They do not stand for liberty, they stand for equality. Or SJWs, this is something they called themselves as well, until it became a pejorative based on their own behavior.

QUOTE(net2007)
On this...

"How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration?"

Sometimes you can't rationally debate someone who views you view you as immoral or unworthy, but you can make a liar out of anyone who misrepresents you and if you're doing so in a public forum, the benefit of that is that it hurts their credibility. Perhaps not in the eyes of those who have given up their identity to a political party and cant see past the label but I still think fewer people fit that description than the impression the media gives. I suggested earlier that if you put a truthful and intelligent argument next to one which is untruthful and irrational, that many people can decipher between the two. It may not seem like that's always the case but even if 10% more of the American public got wise to some of the lies and games that get repeated on a daily basis, it'd start making a difference.


I think you misunderstand what I mean by "unworthy of moral consideration". It's not that they view you as simply immoral. It means that they view you as such that they don't need to give any moral consideration as to how they treat you (with regard to harm, for example, or anything else). You are a "racist, misogynist, evil alt-right nazi"...therefore they can ruin your life or cave your head in with a bike lock, and still sleep well at night. See also: dehumanization.

QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 29 2018, 03:25 PM) *
Absolutely can no longer consider a conservative a person worthy of moral consideration.
I know. But thank you for confirming that I was not misrepresenting you in any way, just in case anyone read what I wrote about your position and said to themselves "this is insane...it must be hyperbole".
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
It is the paradox of Tolerance.
I hate my life. There is literally not a week that goes by where I don't have to explain to someone on the left that they are completely misusing Popper's paradox of tolerance. He never suggested that we should not tolerate extreme or intolerant ideas. His point was that those who would shut down dialogue by force (in other words, your Antifa brethren) are not to be tolerated. You are either uninformed or disingenuous.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Conservatives have racism as the base of thier ideology, and anyone that voted for Trump is absolutely devoid of any moral consideration.
Right, that must be it. Racism is the basis of the basis of conservative ideology. I voted for Trump. Am I a racist unworthy of any moral consideration? Or was I already that anyway because I lean right/conservative? And since you declare me unworthy of any moral consideration, I have to ask: how far would you personally be willing to go? Simply doxing my family? Ruining my career? Get me deplatformed whenever I try to express my opinion? Actual violence? At which point do you stop and say to yourself, "this is a person"...do you ever even reach that point, or is your zeal boundless, despite me having done NOT A DAMN THING TO YOU?
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
'You voted for a person not only accused of rape- but caught on tape telling HOW he rapes. You voted for a person that is completely racist in every definition. He has literally taken the playbook of Hitler in calling Mexicans (instead of Jews) "rapists, murders and animals"- a direct Hitler quote. He parades Mexican criminals and thier victims to whip up more hate against that. Conservatives have no moral center other than hating a black president and loving a disgusting reality TV show that is a complete enema nozzle. The double standard they apply is beyond the pale. So why listen to them any longer?

There is literally nothing in that entire statement that resembles a coherent, thought out argument. It's just moral outrage and vitriol, built on a foundation of dishonesty and misrepresentation. Do you not understand why your personal moral outrage is something I just do not care about?
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
I have no problem distancing myself from anyone that calls themselves conservatives anymore- there was a time when that meant "I want a balanced budget" instead of "I want a balanced ish budget, but don't care if military budgets and war mongering causes a huge hit on the economy for the next 150 years. There is no morality or rational thought or fact left in the conservative movement any longer.
Trump has had over 3000 outright lies in his speeches and tweets, 3000 outright lies fact checked on a regular basis, and conservatives claim it is "telling it like it is"- when you have someone that defends that orange enema nozzle, how do you respect that person at all?

Do you not understand that you're engaging in cult-like behavior? Seriously, dude...do you have any degree of self-awareness at all? You are behaving the way hardcore evangelical Christians behave, so don't be surprised when you are universally hated and get completely BTFOd year, after year, after year. What if your kids were Trump supporters and conservatives? What would you do? This is not a rhetorical question, I would genuinely like to know the answer. Would you disown them like a deranged Bible thumper would do to a gay son or daughter?
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
There is no chance for civil debate anymore, and Americas debate is going and will go away. I can tell by the soft ball topics like this one that are constantly popping up. Net actually defends Trump- can you imagine someone like Ted or akaCG head exploding if Obama had 17 indictments and 5 felony convictions in his first year in office? Of course not- they are flaming racists that will defend Trump no matter what, and complain that Obama wore a tan suit. So rational people just go away from this board and will continue to until balance is restored again.

Do you have any evidence that Ted or akaCG are racists? Have they ever professed any sort of belief in the superiority of their race? Or is this just a scarlet letter you are attempting to put upon them? Hint: nobody cares if you call them racist anymore, it lost all meaning. I get called racist 3 times before I manage to have my coffee in the morning for the most banal of reasons, such as believing that borders should exist, or that Israel shouldn't be destroyed. But lets assume, arguendo, that they are, indeed racist (which they are not). So what? People are allowed to have bad ideas. They're still Americans. They're still people. The day they violate your rights, put two in their chest and one in their head. Until then, you can talk to them. Discuss their ideas instead of dealing in moral condemnation and life ruination. I do talk to actual white nationalists (not random people that are slightly right leaning on any given issue, but the real deal). I have an IRL friend who is a black nationalist, full blown "We Wuz Kangz". You know what we do? We either A) avoid politics altogether and talk about music, anime, video games, weed, anything else...or cool.gif when we feel like sparring we do discuss politics and I disagree with them vehemently, but without resorting to any kind of personal hatred. This is called maturity, and actual tolerance, not the "tolerance" you lot screech about while demanding absolute submission.

QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Absolutely NET_ the right has turned evil- as soon as they elected this guy, they turned completely evil. Your guy started child concentration camps for gods sake. You own that now.

CR...now you're just being disgusting. You know fully well that the law in question was put in place by Bill Clinton, enforced by your lord and savior Obama (you know...the reason those pictures you see are from 2014?), and as far as the "concentration camps" claim...let's ask those well-known racists and Nazis at Encyclopedia Britannica:

QUOTE
Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp

Why are you doing this? WHY? Any particular reason?

QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Net- there is only one side that regularly posts outright lies- and it ain't liberals. Liberals fact check, and eat thier own when they find someone doing it.
You're lying. Openly blatantly lying.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Conservatives whip it up to the point of violence- remember the pizzagate thing?
Remember the Scalise thing?
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Trump and right wingers like Milo whatshisface and Dana Loeash call for killing journalists- and guess what? You got it. This is on you bro.

Receipts, bro. Let's see some receipts. Where did Trump or Loesch ever call for killing journalists? And Milo gave his standard troll response in a private message to a journalist contacting him to do a hit piece, which still was not a call to action (you are allowed to "hope" and "wish" all you want...that's not incitement). It was the journalists that spread it in their never ending quest to virtue signal and have a moan about somebody being mean to them on the internet. Not that I see what that has to do with a guy that was stalking the newspaper employees since 2012 for personal reasons that had nothing to do with politics. Again, why are you being so disingenuous?

Here's the thing CR...despite all this madness...despite you declaring those who disagree with you politically as untermensch who are beneath moral consideration, and have it coming, regardless of what "it" is...I still do not consider you to be an evil man. I just think you are a deeply misguided, highly entrenched ideologue and zealot. I sincerely hope you reconsider your extreme Manichean thinking and do not wish any harm to you and yours. That's the difference between you and me.

Edited to fix formatting

Edited a second time to add: Apparently as I was writing this, Antifa, a designated terrorist organization is getting their Richards kicked in over in Portland, because they decided that it's a good idea to throw M-80s at people and hit them with metal bars. This is what happens when people stop talking and start LARPing as good versus evil. To quote you, CR, "This is on you bro." Own it. Own all of it. You did this, by your own logic.

This post has been edited by Looms: Jul 1 2018, 03:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jul 3 2018, 05:07 PM
Post #28


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Looms
QUOTE(Looms @ Jun 30 2018, 10:14 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 29 2018, 03:46 AM) *
QUOTE(Looms @ Jun 24 2018, 07:50 PM) *
I can start an AD Discord server (or Mike and Jaime can...I'm obviously not trying to hijack anything). It would help everyone stay in touch, we can also have channels for various debate topics, both text and voice channels. Just an idea.

However, I think there's a much bigger problem, and it's not something that's really AD related. At this point, what is there left to debate? I believe it was Dennis Prager that correctly pointed out that the right considers the left to be wrong, whereas the left considers the right to be evil. How do you debate that? How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration? Arguments can defeat other arguments. Arguments cannot defeat doxing, swatting, getting people fired, unpersoning people entirely, and all the rest of the wonderful behaviors that the #Resistards have been engaging in. On this very site, there are threads that advocate "defooing" from "fascists" (which of course has nothing to do with the actual political ideology of fascism, and is just a catch-all phrase for undesirables). How do you debate the real world version of The Faith Militant? Can you reason with people who behave exactly like Scientologists, with Supressive Persons, Out-ethics, Disconnection policies and all? If someone has an answer, I'd love to hear it. But I won't hold my breath.

I have completely lost faith in discourse. It's over. The only reason any of us are even entertaining this conversation right now is because we know each for a decade. You cannot reason with the deeply religious, and make no mistake: the cult of progressivism is highly religious in nature (I can expound on this point if needed). At this point in time, I don't care to call out the opposition on their logical fallacies...I want the people that made an enemy of me to be stopped (by legal, non-violent means...the fact that I even feel the need to specify this explicitly to avoid problems speaks volumes). Maybe I'm more black-pilled than most, but I don't think so. Take a look at the last thread started by our very own High Sparrow, that exceptional individual known as Cruising Ram. That's the absolute state of political discourse right now. Anything that falls under "muh racism" or "muh sexism" or "muh Islamophobia" will make you an undesirable, regardless of how out of context you're taken, and the morally righteous Stasi will make sure to report you to whoever you can be reported to, and ruin your life. What's the point of talking under these conditions? What's the point of a debate where one party tries to make a solid case for their argument, and the other tries to make a solid case against their opponent's character? What's the point of me talking to people who call me a Nazi EVERY SINGLE DAY (knowing fully well that I'm Jewish and that I had many family members die in the Holocaust), as they do to everyone who is to the right of effing Mao Dse Dung. It's all so tiresome...


What's a Discord server exactly and what do you think that would look like?


This is Discord Click here . It's essentially a much more feature packed version of Skype. You can have multiple channels, both text and voice, based on the various categories we have here, for example. You can still have moderation roles, etc. However, it's not a forum. It's more geared towards real time communication, so it would be different. It's not something I thought through in any great detail, literally the first thing that came to mind.

QUOTE(net2007)
I've heard Prager say something along the lines of "the right considers the left to be wrong, whereas the left considers the right to be evil." as well. I've seen the PragerU videos and have watched some of his speeches, although I see his point in regards to some modern liberals I think he overstates things at times, I think the "left", as he defines that movement, is in trouble in many ways as he says, but in some respects I think it's unfortunate because not all of their ideas are bad, in some cases it's more about how they're trying to execute those ideas. As far as how he characterizing things, Prager makes the distinction between the word left and liberal, he describes liberals as many would describe classical liberals (the type who believe that individual liberty and free speech are important), and he uses "left" as a term to explain what a lot of the liberal base has branched into today, (identity politics and promoting liberty or lenient free speech rules but primarily for those who are of a specific identity) and the latter is where they've run into a lot of trouble in many respects.

I believe the base on that side has split as well so I make a similar distinction but I'm leaning towards using the term modern liberal in place of left or leftist when I'm referring to the same group Prager is. I consider that liberals, who have a radically different belief system than that of liberals 40 years ago, are often still self-identifying as liberal even though they've strayed away from the textbook definition of the word to a great extent, so I say modern liberal. I could be wrong but I'm hoping that's less confusing, the word left sounds more broad to me given the definition says it can be a group or party favoring liberal, socialist, or radical views. Other than some disagreements on things like that, I tend to agree with a lot of what Prager says, especially in regards to PC culture.


I just call them progressives. It's what they tend to call themselves as well, when they're not busy co-opting the "liberal" label (this tends to be mostly a US thing, btw). This is the definitely a hill I will die on: they are not liberals. They do not stand for liberty, they stand for equality. Or SJWs, this is something they called themselves as well, until it became a pejorative based on their own behavior.

QUOTE(net2007)
On this...

"How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration?"

Sometimes you can't rationally debate someone who views you view you as immoral or unworthy, but you can make a liar out of anyone who misrepresents you and if you're doing so in a public forum, the benefit of that is that it hurts their credibility. Perhaps not in the eyes of those who have given up their identity to a political party and cant see past the label but I still think fewer people fit that description than the impression the media gives. I suggested earlier that if you put a truthful and intelligent argument next to one which is untruthful and irrational, that many people can decipher between the two. It may not seem like that's always the case but even if 10% more of the American public got wise to some of the lies and games that get repeated on a daily basis, it'd start making a difference.


I think you misunderstand what I mean by "unworthy of moral consideration". It's not that they view you as simply immoral. It means that they view you as such that they don't need to give any moral consideration as to how they treat you (with regard to harm, for example, or anything else). You are a "racist, misogynist, evil alt-right nazi"...therefore they can ruin your life or cave your head in with a bike lock, and still sleep well at night. See also: dehumanization.


I apply the same standard as before to those who try to dehumanize me or don't give moral consideration as to how they treat me unless you're specifically talking about violence as you mentioned in the latter part of your reply, either that or a call for violence or something like being followed around and harassed. Other than those types of circumstances, I tend to think it can be beneficial to let the person in question rant, then possibly counter them because I think the exposure often works against those who are mudslinging. Sometimes I apply the same standard to false or nonsensical comments as well. How many people do you think really take a comment like the one below seriously?

"liberal democrats have been 100% correct on every position they have taken since Bill Clinton- proven right in every way."

I don't even think most liberal Democrats would believe that, even though the comment depicts them in a positive light. However, I do worry that comments like that often go unchallenged by those who would have the largest impact, (other liberals or Democrats). It seems to mean a little more when a liberal criticises another liberal or a conservative criticises another conservative because the chance that the criticism was made purely out of bias is greatly reduced. Due to such low numbers of people being critical of their own party or constituency where it's due, extremist groups on both sides are going largely unchecked and growing as a result. From my observations, partisanship is a problem that modern liberals and Democrats currently face to a higher degree, although trends do often change. I have good reasons for saying that but expect that comment to be met with skepticism given that I'm right of center. I view myself as moderate but as before, a comment like that would sooner be taken at face value if the criticism had been made by a liberal Democrat.

Before I get sidetracked let me just say that regardless of the political group, I think the larger point is that incivility and dishonesty are things which are stealing the spotlight. Taking a jab at the other side is one thing, but things have gone way beyond that, as you're hinting at. I think where I'm coming from is that I'd hate to see those who are civil, honest, and fair let those who aren't run the table. That's why there's so much corruption in government, the ones who could do the most to reduce the divisiveness we're seeing or make our government reasonably honest again are often the least politically active. Not that I don't understand where they're coming from, sometimes it appears as if things aren't going to get better.

QUOTE
I just call them progressives. It's what they tend to call themselves as well, when they're not busy co-opting the "liberal" label (this tends to be mostly a US thing, btw). This is the definitely a hill I will die on: they are not liberals. They do not stand for liberty, they stand for equality. Or SJWs, this is something they called themselves as well, until it became a pejorative based on their own behavior.


Edited to add: Perhaps the terminology discussion was a bit of nitpicking on my part. tongue.gif I see where Prager is coming from when he describes the split between the left and liberals, I'm hoping old school liberals start having more of an impact than they are right now. Things don't appear to be headed in that direction but who knows where we'll be 20 years from now. Hopefully with improvements on both sides of the aisle. I still have a little optimism left in me because something has got to give, especially if things get any worse.

(Pa5.) About the Discord server, if a few other members say they want to try this out as well then it could be a good idea. I don't see anybody hijacking the site, but I considered early on that it may help the flow of debates stay higher here if we waited before doing debates at the other location we pick. So, if it's a Discord server we settle on, we'd set that up, anyone here who wanted to try it would then join and create a screen name, then in the scenario that we lose AD the remaining members who joined would have a place to go to. I tend to go with the flow so if the members here don't like the location that's picked, it wouldn't have to be a permanent one, more details could be worked out along the way. The biggest consideration to me is that the members aren't put in a situation where they lose contact permanently if something sudden happens, this assuming the members here want to do something to safeguard against that, I'm open to a number of suggestions.

____________

Does anybody else think a Discord server is a good choice? (see last paragraph (Pa5.) and read looms reply)

This post has been edited by net2007: Jul 3 2018, 06:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Jul 12 2018, 03:53 PM
Post #29


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Julian @ Jun 19 2018, 01:25 PM) *
But the bigger point is, How the heck are you? Haven't seen you around these parts for yonks - no doubt driven by the topic of this very thread, but it's nice to see you here all the same.


It occurred to me I owed, Julian a response. We do share some of the same political beliefs as well as a fondness/weakness for beautiful brunettes (hubba-hubba! wub.gif )

I am more well than not. Life is a series of good days (my wife still loves me and we're well-adjusted to becoming empty-nesters) and bad days (my older brother passed away two years ago and that stings and my younger brother had a stroke in January nine days after his birthday and is still recovering from it six months later). But hell, I can't complain. I still work and I walk a lot more than I used to, and I try to have fun by doing things like going to Louisville, KY to do the Bourbon Trail accompanied by my son.

I still fight the good fight online from time-to-time, but yes, it is true that a good ol' rollicking debate is a rare bird indeed. The slow slide of ad.gif into irrelevance is sad, but look at how our elected officials in Washington interact with each other, how rude and crude Trump treats our allies and slobbers all over our enemies, and it's no surprise the rest of us get along so awfully.

It's a damn good reason to drink more bourbon and start sparking up again. smoke.gif


QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 29 2018, 04:25 PM) *
Absolutely can no longer consider a conservative a person worthy of moral consideration. It is the paradox of Tolerance. Conservatives have racism as the base of thier ideology, and anyone that voted for Trump is absolutely devoid of any moral consideration. You voted for a person not only accused of rape- but caught on tape telling HOW he rapes. You voted for a person that is completely racist in every definition. He has literally taken the playbook of Hitler in calling Mexicans (instead of Jews) "rapists, murders and animals"- a direct Hitler quote. He parades Mexican criminals and thier victims to whip up more hate against that. Conservatives have no moral center other than hating a black president and loving a disgusting reality TV show that is a complete enema nozzle. The double standard they apply is beyond the pale. So why listen to them any longer?

I have no problem distancing myself from anyone that calls themselves conservatives anymore- there was a time when that meant "I want a balanced budget" instead of "I want a balanced ish budget, but don't care if military budgets and war mongering causes a huge hit on the economy for the next 150 years. There is no morality or rational thought or fact left in the conservative movement any longer.

Trump has had over 3000 outright lies in his speeches and tweets, 3000 outright lies fact checked on a regular basis, and conservatives claim it is "telling it like it is"- when you have someone that defends that orange enema nozzle, how do you respect that person at all?

There is no chance for civil debate anymore, and Americas debate is going and will go away. I can tell by the soft ball topics like this one that are constantly popping up. Net actually defends Trump- can you imagine someone like Ted or akaCG head exploding if Obama had 17 indictments and 5 felony convictions in his first year in office? Of course not- they are flaming racists that will defend Trump no matter what, and complain that Obama wore a tan suit. So rational people just go away from this board and will continue to until balance is restored again.

Absolutely NET_ the right has turned evil- as soon as they elected this guy, they turned completely evil. Your guy started child concentration camps for gods sake. You own that now.

Net- there is only one side that regularly posts outright lies- and it ain't liberals. Liberals fact check, and eat thier own when they find someone doing it. Conservatives whip it up to the point of violence- remember the pizzagate thing? Case in point. Trump and right wingers like Milo whatshisface and Dana Loeash call for killing journalists- and guess what? You got it. This is on you bro. Own it. Conservatives take no responsibility for the bad things they do to society- even worse, they don't self fact check, and keep repeating faux news lies over and over. And projecting.



QUOTE(Looms @ Jun 30 2018, 10:14 PM) *
I just call them progressives. It's what they tend to call themselves as well, when they're not busy co-opting the "liberal" label (this tends to be mostly a US thing, btw). This is the definitely a hill I will die on: they are not liberals. They do not stand for liberty, they stand for equality. Or SJWs, this is something they called themselves as well, until it became a pejorative based on their own behavior.

QUOTE(net2007)
On this...

"How do you debate someone that considers you unworthy of moral consideration?"

Sometimes you can't rationally debate someone who views you view you as immoral or unworthy, but you can make a liar out of anyone who misrepresents you and if you're doing so in a public forum, the benefit of that is that it hurts their credibility. Perhaps not in the eyes of those who have given up their identity to a political party and cant see past the label but I still think fewer people fit that description than the impression the media gives. I suggested earlier that if you put a truthful and intelligent argument next to one which is untruthful and irrational, that many people can decipher between the two. It may not seem like that's always the case but even if 10% more of the American public got wise to some of the lies and games that get repeated on a daily basis, it'd start making a difference.


I think you misunderstand what I mean by "unworthy of moral consideration". It's not that they view you as simply immoral. It means that they view you as such that they don't need to give any moral consideration as to how they treat you (with regard to harm, for example, or anything else). You are a "racist, misogynist, evil alt-right nazi"...therefore they can ruin your life or cave your head in with a bike lock, and still sleep well at night. See also: dehumanization.

QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 29 2018, 03:25 PM) *
Absolutely can no longer consider a conservative a person worthy of moral consideration.
I know. But thank you for confirming that I was not misrepresenting you in any way, just in case anyone read what I wrote about your position and said to themselves "this is insane...it must be hyperbole".
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
It is the paradox of Tolerance.
I hate my life. There is literally not a week that goes by where I don't have to explain to someone on the left that they are completely misusing Popper's paradox of tolerance. He never suggested that we should not tolerate extreme or intolerant ideas. His point was that those who would shut down dialogue by force (in other words, your Antifa brethren) are not to be tolerated. You are either uninformed or disingenuous.

QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Conservatives have racism as the base of thier ideology, and anyone that voted for Trump is absolutely devoid of any moral consideration.


Right, that must be it. Racism is the basis of the basis of conservative ideology. I voted for Trump. Am I a racist unworthy of any moral consideration? Or was I already that anyway because I lean right/conservative? And since you declare me unworthy of any moral consideration, I have to ask: how far would you personally be willing to go? Simply doxing my family? Ruining my career? Get me deplatformed whenever I try to express my opinion? Actual violence? At which point do you stop and say to yourself, "this is a person"...do you ever even reach that point, or is your zeal boundless, despite me having done NOT A DAMN THING TO YOU?

QUOTE(CruisingRam)
'You voted for a person not only accused of rape- but caught on tape telling HOW he rapes. You voted for a person that is completely racist in every definition. He has literally taken the playbook of Hitler in calling Mexicans (instead of Jews) "rapists, murders and animals"- a direct Hitler quote. He parades Mexican criminals and thier victims to whip up more hate against that. Conservatives have no moral center other than hating a black president and loving a disgusting reality TV show that is a complete enema nozzle. The double standard they apply is beyond the pale. So why listen to them any longer?


There is literally nothing in that entire statement that resembles a coherent, thought out argument. It's just moral outrage and vitriol, built on a foundation of dishonesty and misrepresentation. Do you not understand why your personal moral outrage is something I just do not care about?

QUOTE(CruisingRam)
I have no problem distancing myself from anyone that calls themselves conservatives anymore- there was a time when that meant "I want a balanced budget" instead of "I want a balanced ish budget, but don't care if military budgets and war mongering causes a huge hit on the economy for the next 150 years. There is no morality or rational thought or fact left in the conservative movement any longer.
Trump has had over 3000 outright lies in his speeches and tweets, 3000 outright lies fact checked on a regular basis, and conservatives claim it is "telling it like it is"- when you have someone that defends that orange enema nozzle, how do you respect that person at all?


Do you not understand that you're engaging in cult-like behavior? Seriously, dude...do you have any degree of self-awareness at all? You are behaving the way hardcore evangelical Christians behave, so don't be surprised when you are universally hated and get completely BTFOd year, after year, after year. What if your kids were Trump supporters and conservatives? What would you do? This is not a rhetorical question, I would genuinely like to know the answer. Would you disown them like a deranged Bible thumper would do to a gay son or daughter?

QUOTE(CruisingRam)
There is no chance for civil debate anymore, and Americas debate is going and will go away. I can tell by the soft ball topics like this one that are constantly popping up. Net actually defends Trump- can you imagine someone like Ted or akaCG head exploding if Obama had 17 indictments and 5 felony convictions in his first year in office? Of course not- they are flaming racists that will defend Trump no matter what, and complain that Obama wore a tan suit. So rational people just go away from this board and will continue to until balance is restored again.


Do you have any evidence that Ted or akaCG are racists? Have they ever professed any sort of belief in the superiority of their race? Or is this just a scarlet letter you are attempting to put upon them? Hint: nobody cares if you call them racist anymore, it lost all meaning. I get called racist 3 times before I manage to have my coffee in the morning for the most banal of reasons, such as believing that borders should exist, or that Israel shouldn't be destroyed. But lets assume, arguendo, that they are, indeed racist (which they are not). So what? People are allowed to have bad ideas. They're still Americans. They're still people. The day they violate your rights, put two in their chest and one in their head. Until then, you can talk to them. Discuss their ideas instead of dealing in moral condemnation and life ruination. I do talk to actual white nationalists (not random people that are slightly right leaning on any given issue, but the real deal). I have an IRL friend who is a black nationalist, full blown "We Wuz Kangz". You know what we do? We either A) avoid politics altogether and talk about music, anime, video games, weed, anything else...or cool.gif when we feel like sparring we do discuss politics and I disagree with them vehemently, but without resorting to any kind of personal hatred. This is called maturity, and actual tolerance, not the "tolerance" you lot screech about while demanding absolute submission.

QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Absolutely NET_ the right has turned evil- as soon as they elected this guy, they turned completely evil. Your guy started child concentration camps for gods sake. You own that now.


CR...now you're just being disgusting. You know fully well that the law in question was put in place by Bill Clinton, enforced by your lord and savior Obama (you know...the reason those pictures you see are from 2014?), and as far as the "concentration camps" claim...let's ask those well-known racists and Nazis at Encyclopedia Britannica:

QUOTE
Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp

Why are you doing this? WHY? Any particular reason?

QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Net- there is only one side that regularly posts outright lies- and it ain't liberals. Liberals fact check, and eat thier own when they find someone doing it.


You're lying. Openly blatantly lying.

QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Conservatives whip it up to the point of violence- remember the pizzagate thing?
Remember the Scalise thing?

QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Trump and right wingers like Milo whatshisface and Dana Loeash call for killing journalists- and guess what? You got it. This is on you bro.


Receipts, bro. Let's see some receipts. Where did Trump or Loesch ever call for killing journalists? And Milo gave his standard troll response in a private message to a journalist contacting him to do a hit piece, which still was not a call to action (you are allowed to "hope" and "wish" all you want...that's not incitement). It was the journalists that spread it in their never ending quest to virtue signal and have a moan about somebody being mean to them on the internet. Not that I see what that has to do with a guy that was stalking the newspaper employees since 2012 for personal reasons that had nothing to do with politics. Again, why are you being so disingenuous?

Here's the thing CR...despite all this madness...despite you declaring those who disagree with you politically as untermensch who are beneath moral consideration, and have it coming, regardless of what "it" is...I still do not consider you to be an evil man. I just think you are a deeply misguided, highly entrenched ideologue and zealot. I sincerely hope you reconsider your extreme Manichean thinking and do not wish any harm to you and yours. That's the difference between you and me.

Edited to fix formatting

Edited a second time to add: Apparently as I was writing this, Antifa, a designated terrorist organization is getting their Richards kicked in over in Portland, because they decided that it's a good idea to throw M-80s at people and hit them with metal bars. This is what happens when people stop talking and start LARPing as good versus evil. To quote you, CR, "This is on you bro." Own it. Own all of it. You did this, by your own logic.


Here's an excellent example of two intelligent people talking AT each other instead of TO each other. Both right on so much and so wrong on so much more. I've engaged in that sort of thing myself with so many others here and elsewhere that I'm intimately familiar with it when I see it.

I don't know what a Discord Server is either, but I do know what Discord is and it you're looking at it. Welcome To The Divided States of America. mad.gif us.gif mad.gif

innocent.gif God loves me and hates you. devil.gif

We are SO screwed.

This post has been edited by nighttimer: Jul 12 2018, 03:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Looms
post Jul 16 2018, 12:56 AM
Post #30


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
January 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 429
Member No.: 1,416
Joined: October-11-03

From: Where you are, there you is
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 12 2018, 10:53 AM) *
QUOTE(Julian @ Jun 19 2018, 01:25 PM) *
But the bigger point is, How the heck are you? Haven't seen you around these parts for yonks - no doubt driven by the topic of this very thread, but it's nice to see you here all the same.


It occurred to me I owed, Julian a response. We do share some of the same political beliefs as well as a fondness/weakness for beautiful brunettes (hubba-hubba! wub.gif )

I am more well than not. Life is a series of good days (my wife still loves me and we're well-adjusted to becoming empty-nesters) and bad days (my older brother passed away two years ago and that stings and my younger brother had a stroke in January nine days after his birthday and is still recovering from it six months later). But hell, I can't complain. I still work and I walk a lot more than I used to, and I try to have fun by doing things like going to Louisville, KY to do the Bourbon Trail accompanied by my son.

I still fight the good fight online from time-to-time, but yes, it is true that a good ol' rollicking debate is a rare bird indeed. The slow slide of ad.gif into irrelevance is sad, but look at how our elected officials in Washington interact with each other, how rude and crude Trump treats our allies and slobbers all over our enemies, and it's no surprise the rest of us get along so awfully.

It's a damn good reason to drink more bourbon and start sparking up again. smoke.gif


Go with Girl Scout Cookies or Sour OG Kush. You're welcome.

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 12 2018, 10:53 AM) *
Here's an excellent example of two intelligent people talking AT each other instead of TO each other. Both right on so much and so wrong on so much more. I've engaged in that sort of thing myself with so many others here and elsewhere that I'm intimately familiar with it when I see it.

I don't know what a Discord Server is either, but I do know what Discord is and it you're looking at it. Welcome To The Divided States of America. mad.gif us.gif mad.gif

innocent.gif God loves me and hates you. devil.gif

We are SO screwed.


Well, first off, allow me to say that being considered an intelligent person by nighttimer is something that I consider to be of worth. I'm not being sarcastic...we disagree on pretty much everything, but I do have quite a bit of respect for you. But to your point...I'm trying to get us to STOP talking past each other. If even those of us that are still on here aren't capable of doing it, then yes, I would agree with your assessment that we are completely screwed. For what it's worth, I don't consider those that disagree with me to be the devil, and I certainly don't believe myself to be on the side of God (even if I did believe in God). But here's what I do know: I have been on here for well over a decade. People that I met on here have wished me luck on deployments, congratulated me on marriage and the birth of my son, helped me through certain personal issues, etc, etc, etc. This is why I'm angry as hell at people who try to draw battle lines where none existed based on a damn election. We always respected each other...what happened to that? Except Julian...he needs a loicense to respect others...I get it smile.gif

This is one of the reasons I suggested Discord...because you do always have the option of jumping into voice chat with someone and simply saying " hey man...that thing you posted, about me allegedly wanting to napalm all puppies...is that how you actually see me?" and have them talk to you about it. Maybe if we do it others would be able to do it as well?

Or maybe I'm just being an idealistic fool and everyone can continue not talking, and just beat each other in the streets, like troglodytes, in which case I have no intention of losing. But I would much rather not see that happen any more than it already is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jul 18 2018, 01:25 AM
Post #31


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



LOOMS!!

Man let's chat, everyone else is welcome of course.

QUOTE
Right, that must be it. Racism is the basis of the basis of conservative ideology. I voted for Trump. Am I a racist unworthy of any moral consideration? Or was I already that anyway because I lean right/conservative? And since you declare me unworthy of any moral consideration, I have to ask: how far would you personally be willing to go? Simply doxing my family? Ruining my career? Get me deplatformed whenever I try to express my opinion? Actual violence? At which point do you stop and say to yourself, "this is a person"...do you ever even reach that point, or is your zeal boundless, despite me having done NOT A DAMN THING TO YOU?
What is this style that conservatives do? What's this tactic called? I see from Net, Mrs P, and just so many conservatives I know.

Its like you get all hyper-sensitive in order to deflect from addressing points. I'm not saying Cruisingram had the greater point in this case, I just REALLY want to know what the tactic called.

Let's say, I say, "that's a racist policy you support" or "you support racism by supporting blah blah blah." The response is not an explanation of how this (blah blah blah) position supported, is not racism. Its ..."Oh I'm such a racist, burn me at the stake..." and on and on without ever actually addressing the point.

To take it completely out of politics, its like I tell my kid "you need to clean your room its messy and I'm sick of telling you" and they respond "I'm just a horrible child, I know! I am dirty filthy and nasty and don't deserve to live under your roof. You should send me to an orphanage" I'm pretty sure this type response has a title. Its not sarcasm I think. Maybe one of you more developed writer can help me out.

QUOTE
Do you have any evidence that Ted or akaCG are racists? Have they ever professed any sort of belief in the superiority of their race? Or is this just a scarlet letter you are attempting to put upon them? Hint: nobody cares if you call them racist anymore, it lost all meaning. I get called racist 3 times before I manage to have my coffee in the morning for the most banal of reasons, such as believing that borders should exist, or that Israel shouldn't be destroyed. But lets assume, arguendo, that they are, indeed racist (which they are not). So what? People are allowed to have bad ideas. They're still Americans. They're still people.
First thing I want to point out. I notice you said "They're still Americans. They're still people." Not a big deal at this point I just think it interesting the idea they are American seems to be put on the same level as they are people. This unconscious connection is important to observe when debating conservative of any group. Their group identity is a part of their being that affords them special privilege.

As to being a racist. I get you and that is part of the Trump effect. Whites are sick of being called racist, even if they do support a policy steeped in racism. Even if in the statistics you can see the effects of racist policies. You guys are starting to embrace that racism with a "So what, WTF you going to do about it" attitude. This is problematic for the left and our nation in general. Ironically, at the same time, you all whole heartedly deny that you are racists. I kind of get it.

Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief. Its one of the "isms" Nationalism, Racism, Classism... It blurs. One thing we can be sure of is that you do not practice humanism. All I can say about conservatism is that you fight to keep a system where "we" remain dominate. DOMINATION is essential to conservative philosophy. You are fine with your government causing suffering to other people if you are convinced it improves your life. There is a catch though, I admit. You all still want to feel that you are good people.

Moving on past all the above. One thing I want to ask, is about morality and debating conservatives. WHEN do I get to judge the morality of your beliefs and make argument for or against it? Lately I feel as though conservatives are hmmmm "hiding" behind this statement of "it's a political belief". Just listen to Fox or just listen to yourselves. Its as if you feel your political beliefs hold NO MORAL weight.

Hear-Me-Out!! Every political decision or belief does not hold moral weight. I don't think it does. Should we change the name of a street sign? No moral weight. Should we change the name of a street sign because some citizens recognize that person as a racist? Some moral weight.

You might ask well "how do we measure which political views hold 'what' moral weight?" Well, there is no calculator I can send you to Google to do calculations. But I would propose that we can look at the most important gauge, human suffering. Sufferance to human life being at the highest level.

Do you and fellow conservatives feel there can be moral weight that we on the left can ascribe to your political beliefs? I know for a fact that conservatives have NO problem ascribing moral weight to other people beliefs, especially foreigners.

One ceiling I know I will NEVER be able to find is the "conservative justification ceiling". Anything can be justified. We had to enslave them, kill them, destroy them, slaughter them, and this isn't hyperbole at all. I've watched people justify the necessity of dropping nuclear bombs on human beings... "it just had to be done" these same human beings couldn't fathom a reason some human being from the middle east would feel justified to come over to our country to kill Americans. My point, before it gets lost, is: I don't want to get into conservative ability to justify why they are moral in their stances that cause human suffering. (I've been in that "false equivalency" argument waaaaay too many times.) I want to understand why it seems to me you all feel slighted when called, bad, evil, immoral, etc. when you support policies that cause human suffering?

If I can show that the policy you support causes the death of tens of thousands of lives, or just the suffering of thousands of human beings can I call that evil? Can I call your support for that policy evil WITHOUT you thinking debate is shut off?

I've stated on this board that conservatives of all nations to include ours are morally corrupt. I believe this. My evidence is the ability to point at actions that support and justify behaviors of domination and practices of human suffering. The more you can justify the more corrupt I think your morality barometer is. Human beings that we refer to as "terrorists" have corrupt senses of morality.

Even saying all that I understand its complicated, thus the need for debate on a MORAL level.

Lastly, if you believe in liberty, but not equality, then you believe in liberty for some, not all, which is not liberty. SUCK ON THAT!! tongue.gif



This post has been edited by droop224: Jul 18 2018, 12:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: July 21st, 2018 - 10:38 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.