Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Planning Ahead
America's Debate > Everything Else > Casual Conversation
Pages: 1, 2
Google
net2007
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.
Google
Curmudgeon
I know that there is an e-mail link when you click on my USER NAME. I just checked that filter and deleted unopened circa 50 messages from Donald J Trump...
AuthorMusician
I'll have to use a quote from one of my favorite movies, Michael.

So the archangel Michael learns that Mesopotamia no longer exists, and he says: "Nothing stays the same."

Who knows, maybe now that people are becoming more aware of how bad social media is, they'll come back to the less free-wheeling idea of debate websites, formerly known as bulletin boards back in the 1980s and 90s, before the World Wide Web took over.

Or it might be something entirely different.

It did cross my mind that the broken database a little while back could have marked the end of AD.

My feeling is that it'll die or regain attention but not stay the same. I'm okay with that.
JohnfrmCleveland
It seems to me that the glory days of debate boards are over, even though there is certainly no shortage of political fodder to debate. Problem is, I think, that the left and right are too far apart to have a meaningful, civil discussion these days. You are either fully against Trump, or you are an idiot. (I'm not immune to extreme opinions myself. wink.gif )

I still visit a couple of debate boards on occasion, but those fields have all been plowed. It's the same people, over and over, and I could write their responses for them at this point. You need a large community with constant turnover to stay interested, especially if you have some interests that you like to push.

The longest thread we ever had here on AD was about MMT (the "most replied thread" on the intro page), and it attracted new members who came in just for the occasion. (I'm still in contact with a handful of them via Facebook, including Brinn.) Because of that thread, MMT and economics became my main interest, and that eventually morphed into a Facebook page with over 3000 members (Introduction to MMT, if anybody here is interested). It's a more focused way to discuss a topic, with (mostly) like-minded people. And to reach new people, I post on Quora. Both venues get me lots of looks, and they have counters to prove it. (Long ago, I suggested "like" buttons to Mike, to no avail.)

If AD is going to survive/thrive, we have to attract a LOT of new members. There is plenty to fight about with the Cheeto in power, and plenty of Cheeto fans, still, somehow... There's an important midterm election coming up... We just need new members. And I don't know how to do that. I wish I did.

Just to be safe, I copied the text of my favorite post for safe keeping.

Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Jun 15 2018, 01:36 AM) *
It seems to me that the glory days of debate boards are over, even though there is certainly no shortage of political fodder to debate. Problem is, I think, that the left and right are too far apart to have a meaningful, civil discussion these days.


Yep. Most forums are becoming de facto echo chambers. I guess it's just the nature of humans (and social media).
People feel more comfortable when their biases are confirmed rather than challenged. And no one wants to think of themselves as close minded, so they join a group that confirms their belief system but might allow the occasional outsider a couple of words so the majority can throw brick-bats at them, once again, confirming their strongly held belief system.

QUOTE
Just to be safe, I copied the text of my favorite post for safe keeping.


Hee hee...fun thread! I'd forgotten about that one. biggrin.gif
I've copied a few posts, myself, just in case....though nowhere near the number I'd like to keep. We've had so many great discussions over the years here.
Great to see you, btw.
flowers.gif
Julian
It's hard to say what will happen.

They say that history doesn't repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes. I wonder if the tendency to polarise will not blow itself out eventually, and we'll return to a more consensus debate style; i sense a yearning among the public for that, particularly among those who are broadly interested in news and politics but are switched off by the way most debate (online of real world) is conducted these days.

It either seems to be among members of the same polar group, enforcing ever-more-extreme homogeny to further narrow the already limited set of approved opinions (and using the likes of 'no platforming' to exclude all contrary views, however marginally they might differ). Or, where both ends of any given spectrum do meet, they stay as far away as possible while throwing verbal (or sometimes literal) bombs at one another from behind their walled enclosures. Most mass media comment sites seem to fall into that latter category, though those are increasingly polarised themselves.

I wonder if the tendency to move further and further away from the centre will eventually stretch the 'political spectrum' to breaking point and there will emerge again a demand for consensus opinions, expressed respectfully, and places like ad.gif will come back into something approaching fashion (it was always fairly niche, let's be honest).

I certainly think that the modern tendency, on all sides, to take personal offence at hearing or reading anything which one disagrees with cannot hold. From the extremist liberal snowflakes who no-platform at the first sign of dissent, to the exceedingly thin skinned current POTUS who flies into a Twitter rage and effectively calls anyone a liar who disagrees or criticises with him (what else does 'Fake News' mean?), and all over-sensitives in between, I think we are in a state of flux where old taboos (e.g sex and sexuality, curse words) are breaking down, and new ones (around race, gender politics and identity generally) are coming forward. In such times, it's too easy to take offence and too easy to give it, and people who feel hurt at more likely to lash out than soberly consider what was actually being said.

The long written form - more than a Tweet's worth - is pretty good for that. And I think even a Tweet is preferable to a Facebook post - FB is so determined to tell you what you want to hear, and so constructed to do just that, that it's not really a place where you can easily have discussions with people who think very differently from you. It's a great place to firm up existing opinions, but they need to be tested outside the nursery slopes, as it were, and that's all Facebook can give you.

I heard a comedian say last night that they like Facebook because they would rather get told "Happy Birthday" by someone they vaguely know than Tweeted "I'll kill you" by someone they've never met. Kind of sums it up for me, really. Facebook is nice and sweet but has a particular purpose, as does Twitter, but for real thought you have to go elsewhere. ad.gif used to be that, and still is, but thinking itself it out of fashion. At least, I think so. devil.gif

I keep coming back because it is a place where hands do reach across the aisle from time to time.
Curmudgeon
QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Jun 13 2018, 06:07 PM) *
I know that there is an e-mail link when you click on my USER NAME. I just checked that filter and deleted unopened circa 50 messages from Donald J Trump...

I usually filter my e-mail as I need to know the information for the church bulletin is ready for us to edit and print. I need to know if I get a water bill from the city. For some reason, I had quit checking for e-mail addressed to my Curmudgeon filter... I went to check it again, and deleted 951 messages from Jonathan Garthwaite… I doubt if he is a regular on this site, and all he was doing was to ask me for campaign contributions. I just searched for him and eliminated another 50 e-mails by labeling them as SPAM.

I really doubt that anyone on this site is responsible for the weekly request I get from the Republican Party asking me, as a longtime member, to please contribute not only cash, but my input on where I want the party to go. I suppose that I could tell them that I look forward to their continuing waste of campaign funds, but I don't want to personally waste the cost of a postage stamp.

I have developed a bad habit of logging in, checking for new posts, and finding none, logging out.

Perhaps if those of us who are interested in the site committed to posting once a week to a thread (even at random) we could rekindle the flame. I know that the young lady to my left used to post here frequently, but she has developed the habit lately of reading news articles, reading the comments, and responding to the comments there. It seems a little bit to me like walking out of a restaurant and then remarking about the conversation at another table.

I'll be back, but I am 72 years old. I can't promise to keep performing CPR until our country recovers from Donald Trump... flowers.gif
net2007
Those of you who are addressing the divisive nature of debates these days, it's certainly true that a lot has changed and many people do exist in an echo chamber. I made a thread a few years back where I stated it would be my last debate, in large part due to the lack of ability of some to communicate. Though I found topics at ad.gif often flowed better than other sites, I was done in general, I didn't debate after that point for a couple years apart from occasionally making a comment on Youtube videos. Jamie, from what I understand, is in a similar spot now where current events and politicians are frustrating her, though she showed interest in keeping ad.gif running as well.

After a couple years of not debating, I had an urge again to get my opinion out there. My thinking on it was, why let those who are misleading, divisive, or too biased to see fact from fiction, run the table? I think if good and truthful arguments from those who want to be fair are placed side by side with arguments made by those who don't care whether or not they're fair or truthful, that many people who read such an exchange will be able to decipher between the two. It may be impossible for some to change if they've made that decision to let their disdain for other groups cloud their judgment but I figure that standing up to the insanity with something that makes sense is one of the best weapons that we have.

If it's not to the point of flat out hate speech I now tend to welcome arguments that I know are wrong or unfair because I believe that the exposure works against them in the long run. It often takes checking my emotions at the door to stay involved, people say incredibly stupid things when debating politics, matters of race, and religion, understanding that I'm not going to be able to change that and not taking things personally is where I had to get myself to come back and do this again.

Julian
QUOTE
They say that history doesn't repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes. I wonder if the tendency to polarise will not blow itself out eventually, and we'll return to a more consensus debate style; i sense a yearning among the public for that, particularly among those who are broadly interested in news and politics but are switched off by the way most debate (online of real world) is conducted these days.


I'm confident it will because that saying is true if I'm interpreting it correctly. America, and in fact the whole world has been through much worse times than these and gotten through it. I've probably overused this argument but as far as America is concerned, when I look at the 1960s, by my research that decade was much more divisive than much of the late 70's into the early 2000's.

I first noticed the polarization getting worse again in Bush Jr's second term, the Iraq war divided Americans and more people stopped trying to understand those who disagree with them and instead opted to character assassinate them or talk past them. The divisive nature of American politics got much worse under the Obama administration, and now again things are getting worse under Trump as far as divisiveness goes. Those who have power and influence over others aren't setting a good example, that's part of the problem. Politicians and media pundits often live by the standard of trying to delegitimize their political opponents with divisive rhetoric and don't work with the other party to pass new legislation and the general public often mirrors that.
However, as you hinted at, I think many people are getting tired of the way some people debate politics.

Euporean nations seem to have some of these problems as well with the divide on illegal immigration and Brexit, perhaps the problems here are in some way linked to what's happening in Europe. Either way, if history is any indicator, this is just a phase that'll pass.

JohnfrmCleveland

QUOTE
The longest thread we ever had here on AD was about MMT (the "most replied thread" on the intro page), and it attracted new members who came in just for the occasion. (I'm still in contact with a handful of them via Facebook, including Brinn.) Because of that thread, MMT and economics became my main interest, and that eventually morphed into a Facebook page with over 3000 members (Introduction to MMT, if anybody here is interested). It's a more focused way to discuss a topic, with (mostly) like-minded people. And to reach new people, I post on Quora. Both venues get me lots of looks, and they have counters to prove it. (Long ago, I suggested "like" buttons to Mike, to no avail.)

If AD is going to survive/thrive, we have to attract a LOT of new members. There is plenty to fight about with the Cheeto in power, and plenty of Cheeto fans, still, somehow... There's an important midterm election coming up... We just need new members. And I don't know how to do that. I wish I did.

Just to be safe, I copied the text of my favorite post for safe keeping.


I think you're right about ad.gif needing new members to survive, I've mentioned this site to a few people but none of them joined. Perhaps they see that the replies trickle in and believe that the site isn't active enough for them. I'm confident things could change here if the forum sections were updated, there were new announcements, more annual elections for the members, and the radio program was back. That'd all attract new members and if the radio program wouldn't be an option they could always substitute for a new feature. I like the idea of a like button (no pun intended). I made a thread a few years back asking the members here if a majority would want to propose that feature. mrsparkle.gif http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...showtopic=22571

Right now, looking on the home page and seeing that the last announcement was "State of the Union Address 2013" doesn't help attract new members but personally I think if the site was updated and promoted on social media platforms, that ad.gif would attract new members, you can even pay Google to bump your website in the search results I believe. I think people still want to debate but agree with the members here that the market is saturated with new types of debate platforms like Quora, or when people rant on their Facebook page. That's tough to overcome but it could be done, especially in the age of Trump because people on both sides are fired up and wanting to debate, as you hinted at. I haven't heard Cheeto used to describe Trump yet, but I've heard Oompa Loompa before! My opinion on him is that he has a big mouth and says polarizing things far too often. I don't think he's as bad as some Trump critics think, but I'm definitely not afraid to be critical of him either when I feel it's appropriate.

The "What is so Bad about the Defict?!?!" thread? I don't believe I posted in that one, until recently I didn't have a strong opinion on economics, probably because it turns out that I don't agree with the far left or right on things like the size of government. These days I have a strong opinion that we should have a balanced government so I've been following economics a little closer. It's awesome that that thread spawned a 3000 member Facebook page though, I'd take a look at that just out of curiosity.

______________________________________________________

If you or anyone else is interested, I use Quora for a quick debate now and then and Facebook primarily for keeping in contact with friends or relatives.

Here's one of my answers on Quora which did okay I suppose, for a right of center answer. I think most of the members there are on the left with most of the views and upvotes going to answers which are, in some fashion, sympathetic to that side or critical of conservatives but I often like my ideas challenged so I like to post there regardless.....

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Donald-Trump-t...ael-Matthews-60
(you can click on my profile from there and follow if interested)

My facebook page is here....

https://www.facebook.com/michael.matthews.524

and I'm still open to finding A website where we'd agree to go to in the scenario that AD goes down. I've joined up at Debate.org though I haven't started to do my debates there yet because I'd find it hard to keep up with replies on three websites, so it's there as a backup. They have a forum section and a contest section where two people go head to head in a debate and the other members vote on a winner which I found to be a neat concept.
nighttimer
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 13 2018, 02:03 PM) *
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 thread is similar to one I began in 2014.

QUOTE(nighttimer)
Things sure are quiet.

Too quiet.

I had reason to revisit some of the threads in the Election 2008 forum. My, what a lively time that was. Clinton vs Obama vs McCain for all the marbles and doggone if it wasn't a romping, stomping time where allies became enemies, the topics were plentiful, and the debates came fast and furious.

Looking at all the names of posters who were here and now gone makes me wonder who's dead, who's alive, who went back to lurking, who got bored, who got banned and who found other places on the Internet to hang out? So many come and gone.

America has gone through a lot of changes since 2008. Some good, some bad and some somewhere in between. That's America for you. It keeps on changing even when you might wish it would slow down a bit and not rush into the future.

What hasn't changed is America's Debate itself. With the exception that the names of the members no longer posting as frequently or at all has grown and the names of those who do is confined to a familiar group making familiar arguments, AD looks exactly the same. Same graphics, same layout, same features, same restrictions, same everything.

Mostly the same.

On the launch page under the 100 Newest Topics with Replies, over a quarter of the topics (26) were created in 2013.

As of this writing there are 4,671 registered members. If we were to drill down to active members there probably wouldn't be many more than two dozen. Maybe.

The board's Administrators have been M.I.A. of late. Jaime has posted seven times in 2014 and none since March 19. Mike has been more prolific (eight posts) if limited where he posts. All his 2014 posts were in the NFL 2013 picks thread and with his last made on February 2 before the Super Bowl.

The last thread Mike's created non-football related dates back to July 2012. Jaime's last half-dozen threads have all been birthday shout-outs interrupted by a call to join a chat about the 2013 State of the Union. They both have their blogs, but neither has been updated since April.

I recall Mike (or was it Jaime?) say on America's Debate radio (which I'll get to in a moment) that they had purposefully drawn back from being active participants in debates on America's Debate for reasons I don't recall exactly. Pretty sure they were sound reasons.

At any rate, they seem to be silent partners on their own debate board.

Then there's the AD launch page. Have you looked at it lately? Immediately under the site's masthead is a plug for America's Debate Radio - 314th Live Edition: Oct 21 2012, 09:00 PM. There's still a live link directly to the now defunct radio show. Under Announcements there is the aforementioned State of the Union chat that's a year old, but still the most recent. Under New Resources the "latest" entry is over three years old made by Lesly, who stopped posting three years ago (but just posted on my Facebook feed yesterday) that directs to a link that is dead.

There were no 2012-2013 Year in Review winners. The 2012 Best Overall Debater award was shared between JohnfromCleveland and Raptavio, who despite the current birthday best wishes vanished without a trace in December 2012 and hasn't been seen round these parts since.

Like I said, quiet. Too quiet? ermm.gif

This is not my primary debate board any longer and hasn't been since the 2008 elections. That was an exhilarating year from me, but an exhausting one too. I needed a break from the AD habit and I took one. While I've increased my posts here since the Trayvon Martin tragedy, there aren't as many debates on America's Debate I find engaging. Partly because there simply aren't a wide variance of topics discussed here and most of the participants are the same ones whom have been here as long as I have with akaCG providing most of what passes for "new blood" among the posters.

As fun as it is (occasionally) to spar with akaCG, it's not enough. Ah, ya missed out, akaCG. Back in the day when there was a more varied group of conservatives and Republicans on the board you would have far more support behind you than you do now. The board has become pretty conservative now, but then it was like the Chic song. Good times.

But the nature of the Internet is sites come and sites go and the people who visit and become a part of the cybercommunity come and go even faster. There are peaks and valleys, highs and lows, boom and bust times for every site and America's Debate is no exception to that hard, fast rule.

This is the Comments and Suggestions forum and I've commented. Suggestions? Don't really have any. I know what I think the board needs, but what I think isn't important. This board has a dated, dusty, and diminished look and feel to it. I won't speculate why it is that way, but I can see the evidence before my eyes and what I see is an America's Debate that looks and feels like a once-popular bar in a strip mall fallen on hard times and now nobody new comes in and its kept alive primarily by the old regulars who remember it the way it was and look past the way it is.

In the America's Debate Bar and Grille there's still a jukebox in the corner playing all the big hits of five or more years ago, one old color TV that only gets the three network channels (and PBS), a radio tuned to the AM dial, and a VCR with no tapes to play flashing "12:00" over and over and over.

In the History section of America's Debate (last updated 5/11/07) it boasts of the site upgrade and how The Future Holds Limitless Possibilities.

The Number One movie of 2007 was Spider-Man 3. The Departed won Best Picture and the song of the year was "Not Ready to Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks and the Oakland Raiders chose JaMarcus Russell as the Number One pick in the NFL Draft. Dontreadonme won the Best Overall Debater award.

Who will win the award this year? Does it even matter?

There is a possibility it does. A limited possibility.


Fast-forward from 2014 to 2018 and you know what's changed? Nothing.

That's not a good thing. ermm.gif

net2007
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 17 2018, 06:08 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 13 2018, 02:03 PM) *
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 thread is similar to one I began in 2014.

QUOTE(nighttimer)
Things sure are quiet.

Too quiet.

I had reason to revisit some of the threads in the Election 2008 forum. My, what a lively time that was. Clinton vs Obama vs McCain for all the marbles and doggone if it wasn't a romping, stomping time where allies became enemies, the topics were plentiful, and the debates came fast and furious.

Looking at all the names of posters who were here and now gone makes me wonder who's dead, who's alive, who went back to lurking, who got bored, who got banned and who found other places on the Internet to hang out? So many come and gone.

America has gone through a lot of changes since 2008. Some good, some bad and some somewhere in between. That's America for you. It keeps on changing even when you might wish it would slow down a bit and not rush into the future.

What hasn't changed is America's Debate itself. With the exception that the names of the members no longer posting as frequently or at all has grown and the names of those who do is confined to a familiar group making familiar arguments, AD looks exactly the same. Same graphics, same layout, same features, same restrictions, same everything.

Mostly the same.

On the launch page under the 100 Newest Topics with Replies, over a quarter of the topics (26) were created in 2013.

As of this writing there are 4,671 registered members. If we were to drill down to active members there probably wouldn't be many more than two dozen. Maybe.

The board's Administrators have been M.I.A. of late. Jaime has posted seven times in 2014 and none since March 19. Mike has been more prolific (eight posts) if limited where he posts. All his 2014 posts were in the NFL 2013 picks thread and with his last made on February 2 before the Super Bowl.

The last thread Mike's created non-football related dates back to July 2012. Jaime's last half-dozen threads have all been birthday shout-outs interrupted by a call to join a chat about the 2013 State of the Union. They both have their blogs, but neither has been updated since April.

I recall Mike (or was it Jaime?) say on America's Debate radio (which I'll get to in a moment) that they had purposefully drawn back from being active participants in debates on America's Debate for reasons I don't recall exactly. Pretty sure they were sound reasons.

At any rate, they seem to be silent partners on their own debate board.

Then there's the AD launch page. Have you looked at it lately? Immediately under the site's masthead is a plug for America's Debate Radio - 314th Live Edition: Oct 21 2012, 09:00 PM. There's still a live link directly to the now defunct radio show. Under Announcements there is the aforementioned State of the Union chat that's a year old, but still the most recent. Under New Resources the "latest" entry is over three years old made by Lesly, who stopped posting three years ago (but just posted on my Facebook feed yesterday) that directs to a link that is dead.

There were no 2012-2013 Year in Review winners. The 2012 Best Overall Debater award was shared between JohnfromCleveland and Raptavio, who despite the current birthday best wishes vanished without a trace in December 2012 and hasn't been seen round these parts since.

Like I said, quiet. Too quiet? ermm.gif

This is not my primary debate board any longer and hasn't been since the 2008 elections. That was an exhilarating year from me, but an exhausting one too. I needed a break from the AD habit and I took one. While I've increased my posts here since the Trayvon Martin tragedy, there aren't as many debates on America's Debate I find engaging. Partly because there simply aren't a wide variance of topics discussed here and most of the participants are the same ones whom have been here as long as I have with akaCG providing most of what passes for "new blood" among the posters.

As fun as it is (occasionally) to spar with akaCG, it's not enough. Ah, ya missed out, akaCG. Back in the day when there was a more varied group of conservatives and Republicans on the board you would have far more support behind you than you do now. The board has become pretty conservative now, but then it was like the Chic song. Good times.

But the nature of the Internet is sites come and sites go and the people who visit and become a part of the cybercommunity come and go even faster. There are peaks and valleys, highs and lows, boom and bust times for every site and America's Debate is no exception to that hard, fast rule.

This is the Comments and Suggestions forum and I've commented. Suggestions? Don't really have any. I know what I think the board needs, but what I think isn't important. This board has a dated, dusty, and diminished look and feel to it. I won't speculate why it is that way, but I can see the evidence before my eyes and what I see is an America's Debate that looks and feels like a once-popular bar in a strip mall fallen on hard times and now nobody new comes in and its kept alive primarily by the old regulars who remember it the way it was and look past the way it is.

In the America's Debate Bar and Grille there's still a jukebox in the corner playing all the big hits of five or more years ago, one old color TV that only gets the three network channels (and PBS), a radio tuned to the AM dial, and a VCR with no tapes to play flashing "12:00" over and over and over.

In the History section of America's Debate (last updated 5/11/07) it boasts of the site upgrade and how The Future Holds Limitless Possibilities.

The Number One movie of 2007 was Spider-Man 3. The Departed won Best Picture and the song of the year was "Not Ready to Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks and the Oakland Raiders chose JaMarcus Russell as the Number One pick in the NFL Draft. Dontreadonme won the Best Overall Debater award.

Who will win the award this year? Does it even matter?

There is a possibility it does. A limited possibility.


Fast-forward from 2014 to 2018 and you know what's changed? Nothing.

That's not a good thing. ermm.gif


What you said in that thread about sums it up, kind of sad when getting into the details of it, ya know? The only question now is what to do about it, if anything. akaCG has now left as well along with a few others so I think it really boils down to whether or not Mike and Jamie decide to get involved again. However, to prepare for the possibility of ad.gif becoming just another dead link, I'm willing to collaborate to form a plan B of some kind. The two ideas I'm thinking of is to simply either trade contact info and figure it out at a later time or to agree on a website to meet up on if the worst case scenario does happen. Things would certainly be different if we had to migrate to another debate board but some of the old crew would still be together, at this point consisting of perhaps 10 diehards, give or take, who still show up here fairly regularly.

In the meantime, I'll likely still contribute threads here until that's not a possibility. If I want a quick debate or want to come across someone new, I just jump on Quora. It's not a debating platform per se but has a lot of debates which keep me engaged, including some pretty intense ones when I'm looking for them. I'm still saving a lot of my substantial debates for ad.gif as of now but if things get any slower, I've considered splitting things up by doing identical threads both here and at Debate.org
Google
Trouble
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 13 2018, 12:03 PM) *
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.


Go with the back up plan. I was wondering when the plug will be pulled. While I half expected it to be pulled already there is an emotional component, nostalgia maybe, that wants to hold on and hoard the ideas. Silly isn't it? On a more personal level there is some regret because while I am a cautious person and have learnt the answers to most questions can be observed if one is patient enough, observation also tells me luck favours the bold. I sat out on a good many discussions because I knew the answer would be at hand eventually. Unfortunately by that time the party was over, the lights were out and the embers were black. Still I am a creature of habit and not everyone takes the time to express themselves as thoughtfully as right here. It is with bittersweet melancholy I write this sobering realization to you.

I find myself oscillating between things better left unsaid and things that should have been done for setting the record straight. Remember while throwing shoes at a President is dangerous and rather dumb, it may just open up a promising political career down the road.

For example, I hope Mr. Dingo returns one day to review the steady state society, it is a topic which has never completely left my mind and time and experience have weighed on the matter for me.

I would like to talk about trade, and how the old rules of grievance resolution are now thrown out the window because a demagogue is in office and used an emergency mandate to scrap existing trade agreements.

I wish to rekindle the same anti-war stance I used since I came here during the decision to go to Iraq because now, the mercenary profiteering aspect of war has spun out of control.

I wish to discuss the rise of the snowflake generation, the "I am not asking, I am telling you" shrillness that is keeping me up at night.

I wish to talk about and speculate on the evolution of the political party, how left and right have moved in the last century and where current movements are taking old parties. Could a third political party be possible?

I wish to discuss energy, and by extension peak oil, and while the experts plus myself were wrong on how it would hit the economy, I was right on the effects.

I wish to talk about immigration, both planned and unplanned, and if there could theoretically be a point in time where deportation would make sense.

There are plenty of things I wish to talk about, but finding a receptive ear, that is proving to the be the challenge.


The world didn't stop spinning Net, it is people who stopped looking at the world because they no longer liked what they saw. Perhaps the best time to debate is when the ugliness of existing politics can no longer be ignored?
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Trouble @ Jun 18 2018, 03:05 AM) *
The world didn't stop spinning Net, it is people who stopped looking at the world because they no longer liked what they saw. Perhaps the best time to debate is when the ugliness of existing politics can no longer be ignored?

Maybe so, and maybe people will realize that posting short blurbs that merely parrot stuff everyone already knows is not debate . . . naw, lots of people like to believe we are not descended from apes but act like we are nevertheless.

Perhaps it's just that there isn't much left to debate, now that fascism has its foot in the door. Calling attention to yourself might not be such a good survival plan.

The farmer's in the yard; time to keep yer head down. So with that, I'm off to musical melody land on tunes too old to be a threat to humans aping apes. Tiptoeing through the tulips boss, tiptoeing through the tulips.
net2007
QUOTE(Trouble @ Jun 18 2018, 03:05 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 13 2018, 12:03 PM) *
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.


Go with the back up plan. I was wondering when the plug will be pulled. While I half expected it to be pulled already there is an emotional component, nostalgia maybe, that wants to hold on and hoard the ideas. Silly isn't it? On a more personal level there is some regret because while I am a cautious person and have learnt the answers to most questions can be observed if one is patient enough, observation also tells me luck favours the bold. I sat out on a good many discussions because I knew the answer would be at hand eventually. Unfortunately by that time the party was over, the lights were out and the embers were black. Still I am a creature of habit and not everyone takes the time to express themselves as thoughtfully as right here. It is with bittersweet melancholy I write this sobering realization to you.

I find myself oscillating between things better left unsaid and things that should have been done for setting the record straight. Remember while throwing shoes at a President is dangerous and rather dumb, it may just open up a promising political career down the road.

For example, I hope Mr. Dingo returns one day to review the steady state society, it is a topic which has never completely left my mind and time and experience have weighed on the matter for me.

I would like to talk about trade, and how the old rules of grievance resolution are now thrown out the window because a demagogue is in office and used an emergency mandate to scrap existing trade agreements.

I wish to rekindle the same anti-war stance I used since I came here during the decision to go to Iraq because now, the mercenary profiteering aspect of war has spun out of control.

I wish to discuss the rise of the snowflake generation, the "I am not asking, I am telling you" shrillness that is keeping me up at night.

I wish to talk about and speculate on the evolution of the political party, how left and right have moved in the last century and where current movements are taking old parties. Could a third political party be possible?

I wish to discuss energy, and by extension peak oil, and while the experts plus myself were wrong on how it would hit the economy, I was right on the effects.

I wish to talk about immigration, both planned and unplanned, and if there could theoretically be a point in time where deportation would make sense.

There are plenty of things I wish to talk about, but finding a receptive ear, that is proving to the be the challenge.


The world didn't stop spinning Net, it is people who stopped looking at the world because they no longer liked what they saw. Perhaps the best time to debate is when the ugliness of existing politics can no longer be ignored?


To answer the question at the end, that time would be now! thumbsup.gif Well, the divisiveness we're seeing right now is one of the reasons why I'm involved anyway. For me, it doesn't work to tell myself that my debating or involvement with others in my personal life, is going to change the world. Having said that, ignoring what's going on wasn't a good fit for me. I think the debate scene is dominated too much by those who are dividing or indoctrinating others. Being assertive and taking a jab here and there when something is wrong is one thing, but some have gotten to the point where they're actively trying to demonize anyone who disagrees with them or mislead those who they feel are corrigible.

I'm hoping what will happen is that just enough rational people get involved on both sides to start turning the table some. There's always going to be a degree of chaos, perhaps sometimes we even grow from that, but whenever possible the goal should be cooperation, working together to solve problems and share knowledge.

I remember Dingo, the environment and climate happens to be one of the topics where I agree with Democrats that there are serious problems, many of which humans are contributing to and that's not to be taken lightly. I don't always agree with the approach that the left and Democrats take to solve the problem though, so I presented to Dingo and TedN5 some alternatives to over-regulating. I thought we had some good exchanges and that they presented a lot of information that I think we should be considering. It was interesting watching them go back with Ted, I'll tell you that much. He was very involved in those debates, I think he remains the member with the most post at ad.gif
Julian
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 17 2018, 11:08 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 13 2018, 02:03 PM) *
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 thread is similar to one I began in 2014.

QUOTE(nighttimer)
Things sure are quiet.

Too quiet.

I had reason to revisit some of the threads in the Election 2008 forum. My, what a lively time that was. Clinton vs Obama vs McCain for all the marbles and doggone if it wasn't a romping, stomping time where allies became enemies, the topics were plentiful, and the debates came fast and furious.

Looking at all the names of posters who were here and now gone makes me wonder who's dead, who's alive, who went back to lurking, who got bored, who got banned and who found other places on the Internet to hang out? So many come and gone.

America has gone through a lot of changes since 2008. Some good, some bad and some somewhere in between. That's America for you. It keeps on changing even when you might wish it would slow down a bit and not rush into the future.

What hasn't changed is America's Debate itself. With the exception that the names of the members no longer posting as frequently or at all has grown and the names of those who do is confined to a familiar group making familiar arguments, AD looks exactly the same. Same graphics, same layout, same features, same restrictions, same everything.

Mostly the same.

On the launch page under the 100 Newest Topics with Replies, over a quarter of the topics (26) were created in 2013.

As of this writing there are 4,671 registered members. If we were to drill down to active members there probably wouldn't be many more than two dozen. Maybe.

The board's Administrators have been M.I.A. of late. Jaime has posted seven times in 2014 and none since March 19. Mike has been more prolific (eight posts) if limited where he posts. All his 2014 posts were in the NFL 2013 picks thread and with his last made on February 2 before the Super Bowl.

The last thread Mike's created non-football related dates back to July 2012. Jaime's last half-dozen threads have all been birthday shout-outs interrupted by a call to join a chat about the 2013 State of the Union. They both have their blogs, but neither has been updated since April.

I recall Mike (or was it Jaime?) say on America's Debate radio (which I'll get to in a moment) that they had purposefully drawn back from being active participants in debates on America's Debate for reasons I don't recall exactly. Pretty sure they were sound reasons.

At any rate, they seem to be silent partners on their own debate board.

Then there's the AD launch page. Have you looked at it lately? Immediately under the site's masthead is a plug for America's Debate Radio - 314th Live Edition: Oct 21 2012, 09:00 PM. There's still a live link directly to the now defunct radio show. Under Announcements there is the aforementioned State of the Union chat that's a year old, but still the most recent. Under New Resources the "latest" entry is over three years old made by Lesly, who stopped posting three years ago (but just posted on my Facebook feed yesterday) that directs to a link that is dead.

There were no 2012-2013 Year in Review winners. The 2012 Best Overall Debater award was shared between JohnfromCleveland and Raptavio, who despite the current birthday best wishes vanished without a trace in December 2012 and hasn't been seen round these parts since.

Like I said, quiet. Too quiet? ermm.gif

This is not my primary debate board any longer and hasn't been since the 2008 elections. That was an exhilarating year from me, but an exhausting one too. I needed a break from the AD habit and I took one. While I've increased my posts here since the Trayvon Martin tragedy, there aren't as many debates on America's Debate I find engaging. Partly because there simply aren't a wide variance of topics discussed here and most of the participants are the same ones whom have been here as long as I have with akaCG providing most of what passes for "new blood" among the posters.

As fun as it is (occasionally) to spar with akaCG, it's not enough. Ah, ya missed out, akaCG. Back in the day when there was a more varied group of conservatives and Republicans on the board you would have far more support behind you than you do now. The board has become pretty conservative now, but then it was like the Chic song. Good times.

But the nature of the Internet is sites come and sites go and the people who visit and become a part of the cybercommunity come and go even faster. There are peaks and valleys, highs and lows, boom and bust times for every site and America's Debate is no exception to that hard, fast rule.

This is the Comments and Suggestions forum and I've commented. Suggestions? Don't really have any. I know what I think the board needs, but what I think isn't important. This board has a dated, dusty, and diminished look and feel to it. I won't speculate why it is that way, but I can see the evidence before my eyes and what I see is an America's Debate that looks and feels like a once-popular bar in a strip mall fallen on hard times and now nobody new comes in and its kept alive primarily by the old regulars who remember it the way it was and look past the way it is.

In the America's Debate Bar and Grille there's still a jukebox in the corner playing all the big hits of five or more years ago, one old color TV that only gets the three network channels (and PBS), a radio tuned to the AM dial, and a VCR with no tapes to play flashing "12:00" over and over and over.

In the History section of America's Debate (last updated 5/11/07) it boasts of the site upgrade and how The Future Holds Limitless Possibilities.

The Number One movie of 2007 was Spider-Man 3. The Departed won Best Picture and the song of the year was "Not Ready to Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks and the Oakland Raiders chose JaMarcus Russell as the Number One pick in the NFL Draft. Dontreadonme won the Best Overall Debater award.

Who will win the award this year? Does it even matter?

There is a possibility it does. A limited possibility.


Fast-forward from 2014 to 2018 and you know what's changed? Nothing.

That's not a good thing. ermm.gif



Well, yes.

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.
nighttimer
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 18 2018, 02:35 AM) *
What you said in that thread about sums it up, kind of sad when getting into the details of it, ya know? The only question now is what to do about it, if anything. akaCG has now left as well along with a few others so I think it really boils down to whether or not Mike and Jamie decide to get involved again. However, to prepare for the possibility of ad.gif becoming just another dead link, I'm willing to collaborate to form a plan B of some kind. The two ideas I'm thinking of is to simply either trade contact info and figure it out at a later time or to agree on a website to meet up on if the worst case scenario does happen. Things would certainly be different if we had to migrate to another debate board but some of the old crew would still be together, at this point consisting of perhaps 10 diehards, give or take, who still show up here fairly regularly.

In the meantime, I'll likely still contribute threads here until that's not a possibility. If I want a quick debate or want to come across someone new, I just jump on Quora. It's not a debating platform per se but has a lot of debates which keep me engaged, including some pretty intense ones when I'm looking for them. I'm still saving a lot of my substantial debates for ad.gif as of now but if things get any slower, I've considered splitting things up by doing identical threads both here and at Debate.org


net2007, the nature of the internet is nothing lasts, everything changes, and some websites simply can't change and so they die. That's where America's Debate is in 2018. It's sad and it may have been avoidable, but when the owners of this place go dark and silent, how long until the site itself follows?

At any rate, I see little reason to wring my hands in dismay. Let go. Move on. This board had a great run and we were all part of it. Nothing lasts forever. rolleyes.gif

If you are looking for an alternative here are two for your consideration:

The Colline Gate

AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler Forums

I'm not going to try and sell anybody on these boards. They are their own places and they have their pluses and minuses same as anyplace else. Some of our AD expatriates have landed at AbsoluteWrite, but I am providing this information as nothing but a public service. Both boards are moderated, both boards are more vibrant and lively and topical than this board is and unlike this board, you can actually call "b.s" on them and not have to screw around with initials and censorship software.

I consider that a plus. thumbsup.gif
net2007
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 19 2018, 04:01 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 18 2018, 02:35 AM) *
What you said in that thread about sums it up, kind of sad when getting into the details of it, ya know? The only question now is what to do about it, if anything. akaCG has now left as well along with a few others so I think it really boils down to whether or not Mike and Jamie decide to get involved again. However, to prepare for the possibility of ad.gif becoming just another dead link, I'm willing to collaborate to form a plan B of some kind. The two ideas I'm thinking of is to simply either trade contact info and figure it out at a later time or to agree on a website to meet up on if the worst case scenario does happen. Things would certainly be different if we had to migrate to another debate board but some of the old crew would still be together, at this point consisting of perhaps 10 diehards, give or take, who still show up here fairly regularly.

In the meantime, I'll likely still contribute threads here until that's not a possibility. If I want a quick debate or want to come across someone new, I just jump on Quora. It's not a debating platform per se but has a lot of debates which keep me engaged, including some pretty intense ones when I'm looking for them. I'm still saving a lot of my substantial debates for ad.gif as of now but if things get any slower, I've considered splitting things up by doing identical threads both here and at Debate.org


net2007, the nature of the internet is nothing lasts, everything changes, and some websites simply can't change and so they die. That's where America's Debate is in 2018. It's sad and it may have been avoidable, but when the owners of this place go dark and silent, how long until the site itself follows?

At any rate, I see little reason to wring my hands in dismay. Let go. Move on. This board had a great run and we were all part of it. Nothing lasts forever. rolleyes.gif

If you are looking for an alternative here are two for your consideration:

The Colline Gate

AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler Forums

I'm not going to try and sell anybody on these boards. They are their own places and they have their pluses and minuses same as anyplace else. Some of our AD expatriates have landed at AbsoluteWrite, but I am providing this information as nothing but a public service. Both boards are moderated, both boards are more vibrant and lively and topical than this board is and unlike this board, you can actually call "b.s" on them and not have to screw around with initials and censorship software.

I consider that a plus. thumbsup.gif


You may be right, I know you're trying to be realistic but....

Well, let's just say I'm pretty stubborn, so I'm still hoping for the best case scenario. That being said, I'm willing to branch out as well so what's a rough political makeup of those sites? More specifically, are they dominated by either liberal or conservative members? Anything that's well mixed is what I'm looking for so the site that's closer to 50/50, liberal/conservative, may interest me more.

If the replies come in any slower here I'll probably start doing dual threads, one at AD and one on a new site, I just haven't settled anywhere yet.
nighttimer
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 19 2018, 10:42 PM) *
You may be right, I know you're trying to be realistic but....

Well, let's just say I'm pretty stubborn, so I'm still hoping for the best case scenario. That being said, I'm willing to branch out as well so what's a rough political makeup of those sites? More specifically, are they dominated by either liberal or conservative members? Anything that's well mixed is what I'm looking for so the site that's closer to 50/50, liberal/conservative, may interest me more.

If the replies come in any slower here I'll probably start doing dual threads, one at AD and one on a new site, I just haven't settled anywhere yet.


Between the two, I'd suggest The Colline Gate. It's better suited for moderates such as yourself. AbsoluteWrite swings harder to the left.

I wouldn't hold out much hope of an ad.gif revival. It's possible, but nothing indicates it's likely.

Do as thou wilt. cool.gif
net2007
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 22 2018, 11:39 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jun 19 2018, 10:42 PM) *
You may be right, I know you're trying to be realistic but....

Well, let's just say I'm pretty stubborn, so I'm still hoping for the best case scenario. That being said, I'm willing to branch out as well so what's a rough political makeup of those sites? More specifically, are they dominated by either liberal or conservative members? Anything that's well mixed is what I'm looking for so the site that's closer to 50/50, liberal/conservative, may interest me more.

If the replies come in any slower here I'll probably start doing dual threads, one at AD and one on a new site, I just haven't settled anywhere yet.


Between the two, I'd suggest The Colline Gate. It's better suited for moderates such as yourself. AbsoluteWrite swings harder to the left.

I wouldn't hold out much hope of an ad.gif revival. It's possible, but nothing indicates it's likely.

Do as thou wilt. cool.gif


Thanks man, and we shall see, you could be right because things don't look good the last few years, I'll say that much.
Looms
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...
Mrs. Pigpen
I've seen similar, Looms.
In the real world, I have given up talking about politics for the most part.
I'm more informed about some things than I've ever been, but nothing I can really post about.
My spouse retires soon and then I'll be able to post what I want but I'll be far less informed.

I try to keep this in mind when reading opinions online. The people who are the most knowledgeable often can't talk (depending on the subject of course).
This is a bit different from the days when this forum was new and the exchange of information relatively new too (before blogs or Facebook).
Since then, a lot of people have gotten into trouble for posting information online and it takes a great deal of time out of one's day to post knowledgeably and comprehensively about a topic. Since there's little if anything to gain by doing so the risk/reward ratio doesn't figure so we don't have as many good blogs like Abu Muqawama or Intel Dump.
Michael Totten is still around but he's a journalist so that's his biz.

I don't know if anyone reads the blog Slatestarcodex.com around here, but it's probably the best one around for reasoned discussion.
The author (a psychiatrist) is left-leaning, but fair and even handed. As a result, the participants tend to be reasonable as well.
I know he bans some commentary but it has to be pretty over-the-top.

Scott Adams (left leaning also, but these days the left perceives him as "Alt-right" leaning because he supports Trump) also has an interesting take on human psychology.
I was a big fan when he wrote "How to Fail at everything and still win big". It came out a few years back, and that's when I started reading his blog.
I now think he might be moderately insane, but he still looks at things from an interesting angle, so I listen and read his stuff from time to time.
AuthorMusician
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.
CruisingRam
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?
net2007
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.
CruisingRam
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.
AuthorMusician
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?
net2007
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.
Looms
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.
net2007
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)
nighttimer
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.
Looms
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.
droop224
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

Hobbes
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 30 2018, 09:26 AM) *
Makes me think: If we are not evolved from monkeys, then how come we act so much like them?


We have found a way to fling poo at each other virtually. But also to people across the globe.

That's pretty much the difference. We fling poo better than they do.
net2007
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
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


Hey droop, I'll tell you what, since you mentioned me by name, if you address the primary topic of the thread I'll debate with you on what you wrote. Any thoughts or ideas about the state of ad.gif? Do you think keeping the community together is something we should aim to ensure in case the website goes down or do you think ad.gif has had a good run and we should just let things play out? Any opinion is fine, even if you want to take another swipe at consevatives while giving it. tongue.gif

Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 22 2018, 04:30 PM) *
We have found a way to fling poo at each other virtually. But also to people across the globe.
That's pretty much the difference. We fling poo better than they do.


LOL Yep.
Most of the internet is essentially a high PSI colostomy spray bag.
droop224
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jul 22 2018, 11:13 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
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


Hey droop, I'll tell you what, since you mentioned me by name, if you address the primary topic of the thread I'll debate with you on what you wrote. Any thoughts or ideas about the state of ad.gif ? Do you think keeping the community together is something we should aim to ensure in case the website goes down or do you think ad.gif has had a good run and we should just let things play out? Any opinion is fine, even if you want to take another swipe at consevatives while giving it. tongue.gif

Its a deal, because I'd love to get that conservative perspective.

I have this game "Clash of Clans" Man it use to be easy to recruit new members. But for some reason its nowhere near as easy, couldn't tell you why. But my clan has gone to 30-40 members to about 10 solid and a few "passerbys." Same with ad.gif. It lacks the energy of fresh thoughts. When I joined there were plenty of people that were starting to wind down, but there were plenty of people that were still becoming new members. Now I rarely see a new member post something, I never see them create topics. Could the site be improved, I think so. But I don't think that is the crux of the issue.

We need youth. We need new members to stoke our own fires.

As for keeping the ad.gif community together, same as the game I play, not sure we can. Some communities are built on function. I like playing Ultimate Frisbee. I play and I play and I realy enjoy most of the people I play with. But if for some reason we stop playing Frisbee or the group disbanded, I'm not sure there would be a reason to stay together. I'm down to be the very liberal voice in any way (wait for it) to show you conservatives the light of humanity. ROFL. But I would not do anything other than "join" what ever else was created unless it too had a purpose. Anyways there seems to still be some ad revenue coming in.... I hope, maybe enough to keep the lights on. ad.gif has been a part of my life for like 15 years now I think, I'd have to look when I join, but if it was disbanded tomorrow, I'd be sad, I'd miss you all and debating you all, but I think we would all be alright.











Trouble
QUOTE
To answer the question at the end, that time would be now! thumbsup.gif Well, the divisiveness we're seeing right now is one of the reasons why I'm involved anyway. For me, it doesn't work to tell myself that my debating or involvement with others in my personal life, is going to change the world. Having said that, ignoring what's going on wasn't a good fit for me. I think the debate scene is dominated too much by those who are dividing or indoctrinating others. Being assertive and taking a jab here and there when something is wrong is one thing, but some have gotten to the point where they're actively trying to demonize anyone who disagrees with them or mislead those who they feel are corrigible.

I'm hoping what will happen is that just enough rational people get involved on both sides to start turning the table some. There's always going to be a degree of chaos, perhaps sometimes we even grow from that, but whenever possible the goal should be cooperation, working together to solve problems and share knowledge.

I remember Dingo, the environment and climate happens to be one of the topics where I agree with Democrats that there are serious problems, many of which humans are contributing to and that's not to be taken lightly. I don't always agree with the approach that the left and Democrats take to solve the problem though, so I presented to Dingo and TedN5 some alternatives to over-regulating. I thought we had some good exchanges and that they presented a lot of information that I think we should be considering. It was interesting watching them go back with Ted, I'll tell you that much. He was very involved in those debates, I think he remains the member with the most post at ad.gif


I agree discussion should take place. But finding motivated people has proved to be a challenge. I wish I could post more consistently but I don't have a lot of free time to just talk.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 18 2018, 07:30 AM) *
QUOTE(Trouble @ Jun 18 2018, 03:05 AM) *
The world didn't stop spinning Net, it is people who stopped looking at the world because they no longer liked what they saw. Perhaps the best time to debate is when the ugliness of existing politics can no longer be ignored?

Maybe so, and maybe people will realize that posting short blurbs that merely parrot stuff everyone already knows is not debate . . . naw, lots of people like to believe we are not descended from apes but act like we are nevertheless.

Perhaps it's just that there isn't much left to debate, now that fascism has its foot in the door. Calling attention to yourself might not be such a good survival plan.

The farmer's in the yard; time to keep yer head down. So with that, I'm off to musical melody land on tunes too old to be a threat to humans aping apes. Tiptoeing through the tulips boss, tiptoeing through the tulips.


If there is one point I can make is that the existing political parties are in state of flux. The problem is people have adhered to past aspects that have withered in the active party ages ago. The result is there is no accurate representation across the board of any party but there sure is a lot of disgust with the opposing party.

I'm going to disagree with you, there is much to debate but the will to do so has evaporated. If lighting a fire under someones' backside gets me the persona non grata designation, I've been living in that doghouse for a good long time. You can't be afraid of conflict. And more to the point, the fascism you speak of has no relation to that which was practiced last century. This begs the question, was that a sound byte?
net2007
Droop

QUOTE
Its a deal, because I'd love to get that conservative perspective.

I have this game "Clash of Clans" Man it use to be easy to recruit new members. But for some reason its nowhere near as easy, couldn't tell you why. But my clan has gone to 30-40 members to about 10 solid and a few "passerbys." Same with ad.gif. It lacks the energy of fresh thoughts. When I joined there were plenty of people that were starting to wind down, but there were plenty of people that were still becoming new members. Now I rarely see a new member post something, I never see them create topics. Could the site be improved, I think so. But I don't think that is the crux of the issue.

We need youth. We need new members to stoke our own fires.

As for keeping the ad.gif community together, same as the game I play, not sure we can. Some communities are built on function. I like playing Ultimate Frisbee. I play and I play and I realy enjoy most of the people I play with. But if for some reason we stop playing Frisbee or the group disbanded, I'm not sure there would be a reason to stay together. I'm down to be the very liberal voice in any way (wait for it) to show you conservatives the light of humanity. ROFL. But I would not do anything other than "join" what ever else was created unless it too had a purpose. Anyways there seems to still be some ad revenue coming in.... I hope, maybe enough to keep the lights on. ad.gif has been a part of my life for like 15 years now I think, I'd have to look when I join, but if it was disbanded tomorrow, I'd be sad, I'd miss you all and debating you all, but I think we would all be alright.


I remember Clash of Clans on mobile devices, it looked fun although much of the free time I've had to game lately was already being spent on Hill Climb Racing 1 and 2 so I didn't get into it too much. Though I don't game as much as I used to, I can still get competitive and have fun with that type of thing for sure.

On this...

"But I would not do anything other than "join" what ever else was created unless it too had a purpose."

I think that the ultimate purpose for anything new would be to still be able to debate a range of political and social issues, etc, and still be able to throw in a casual conversation discussion when we want. Other websites are doing just that and have a steady flow of debaters posting. Nightimer mentioned The Colline Gate and AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler Forums, well that as well as Monica Bellucci innocent.gif, Looms mentioned a Discord Server, AuthorMusician mentioned Slatestarcodex, JohnfrmCleveland mentioned an MMT Facebook page, and I brought up Debate.org which has one debate section where members can actually vote on a winner which seems interesting but I don't know too much about them yet, the only experience I have there is having asked some questions and looking at the forums. I do like the look of that site and from what I can tell the members seem okay but there are many options. I'm just waiting on a few members here to say that they're in if this is something our community decides it want's.

If they pick a location, one of the footnotes I was thinking would be smart is to only use the alternate location if ad.gif does go down and in the meantime, it would simply serve as a safeguard so we all have somewhere to meet up in the worst case scenario. I'm suggesting waiting on debating at the other location in order to prevent the flow of debates from dropping at ad.gif any more than it has. I'm assuming that most of us, myself included, already have alternate locations where we debate already so I'm just talking in terms of waiting before redirecting all of the members as a group to an alternate location.

That being said, assuming the members are up for it, we'd still need to choose what that alternate location will be, relatively soon preferably, and sign up in case ad.gif goes down. That's the best idea I have, the only other thing I can think of is to simply share our social media accounts or email addresses, then figure this out in the future if we lose this site.

Thanks for sharing what you wrote, whatever happens, we'll go on, for me personally I'll be going on a lot wiser than I was when I started out here, ad.gif has taught me a good bit about the world and I developed most of my debating skills here, so for that I'm thankful. As promised, I'm going to get to your political post just as soon as I can sit down and write for an extended period, probably in about 2 - 3 days.



Trouble
QUOTE
QUOTE
[net2007]To answer the question at the end, that time would be now! thumbsup.gif Well, the divisiveness we're seeing right now is one of the reasons why I'm involved anyway. For me, it doesn't work to tell myself that my debating or involvement with others in my personal life, is going to change the world. Having said that, ignoring what's going on wasn't a good fit for me. I think the debate scene is dominated too much by those who are dividing or indoctrinating others. Being assertive and taking a jab here and there when something is wrong is one thing, but some have gotten to the point where they're actively trying to demonize anyone who disagrees with them or mislead those who they feel are corrigible.

I'm hoping what will happen is that just enough rational people get involved on both sides to start turning the table some. There's always going to be a degree of chaos, perhaps sometimes we even grow from that, but whenever possible the goal should be cooperation, working together to solve problems and share knowledge.

I remember Dingo, the environment and climate happens to be one of the topics where I agree with Democrats that there are serious problems, many of which humans are contributing to and that's not to be taken lightly. I don't always agree with the approach that the left and Democrats take to solve the problem though, so I presented to Dingo and TedN5 some alternatives to over-regulating. I thought we had some good exchanges and that they presented a lot of information that I think we should be considering. It was interesting watching them go back with Ted, I'll tell you that much. He was very involved in those debates, I think he remains the member with the most post at ad.gif


I agree discussion should take place. But finding motivated people has proved to be a challenge. I wish I could post more consistently but I don't have a lot of free time to just talk.


I can understand that, I struggle as well with having free time these days so I squeeze it in whenever I can. It helps my mind process what's going on to debate it, instead of just hearing about it, for some reason.
Julian
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 12 2018, 04:53 PM) *
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


Yep - life goes on, all right.

I've got a new job (7 months in and it's still a pleasure to come to the office in the mornings, which I take to be a good sign), Kitty's just finishing her reception year in primary school (and turned 5 earlier this month), and Liz and I are getting married (finally) on Friday of next week. So that's all good.

Politics in the UK is all about Brexit at the moment, in the same way that (at least from this distance) it seems to be all about Trump over there. The difference is that after Trump goes (as inevitably he will without a constitutional amendment, so it's only a matter of when, and how much harm/good he does in the meantime), that'll be it. Brexit will be the gift that keeps on giving over here for at least another decade, IMO, if not a generation.

In fact, my hunch is it'll still be a big topic of current political events when I'm back in diapers and having the drool wiped off my tartan dressing gown by my carers while I celebrate my 105th birthday. Only when Kitty gets to that age will it be a matter purely for historians. Even then it'll be a topic that provokes strong opinions; should Britain have ever left the EU? Would the EU have survived until 2050 if Britain hadn't left? Would the Republic of Greater London still be part of something called the United Kingdom if the UK had stayed in the EU? Would the Conservative party still exist today if it hadn't called a referendum on leaving the EU, then stayed in power to implement the departure?

On that kind of time scale, maybe something like ad.gif might be around as a forum for it. That, and for posting links to pictures like this (and if she ages as well as she has so far, she'll still look this good in 2050)
Hobbes
QUOTE(Julian @ Jul 24 2018, 10:59 AM) *
Yep - life goes on, all right.

I've got a new job (7 months in and it's still a pleasure to come to the office in the mornings, which I take to be a good sign), Kitty's just finishing her reception year in primary school (and turned 5 earlier this month), and Liz and I are getting married (finally) on Friday of next week. So that's all good.


Awesome! Congratulations!
QUOTE
Politics in the UK is all about Brexit at the moment, in the same way that (at least from this distance) it seems to be all about Trump over there. The difference is that after Trump goes (as inevitably he will without a constitutional amendment, so it's only a matter of when, and how much harm/good he does in the meantime), that'll be it. Brexit will be the gift that keeps on giving over here for at least another decade, IMO, if not a generation.


I was over there a couple times this year, and I didn't hear so much Brexit on the news (some, yes, but not overwhelming). What I found really refreshing was that the news there actually seemed to have objective coverage of Trump (it wasn't pro Trump, it wasn't anti Trump, it was just...news).
net2007
Droop

Sorry for the delay, this reply became more extensive than I thought it would be. We're off topic a great deal with this exchange but I don't see the harm, perhaps some will find this to be an interesting topic and it will keep the thread going on longer. One of the issues being mentioned here as to why debating isn't what it used it be is that people are talking past each other, perhaps we can make this an example where that doesn't happen. There's been a lot of civil discussions here already so that's good. If anyone else has input on what to do with ad.gif I'm all ears...

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
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


To start this, I want to see where you're coming from, I do on some of what you're saying but can't help but think there's a part of the story you're missing or not considering. I understand that some of what you say applies to the right, though I'd definitely differ with you on the amount of inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals are on the right. I don't think those types represent a tiny problem that we don't need to be concerned about but the worst ones aren't near as mainstream as modern liberals sometimes let on, (I can explain the phrase modern liberal if you want, it's pretty straightforward).

Also, as you read this I hope you understand that there are different levels of how conservative a person can be, just as with any other group. You mention me when you mention other conservatives but I probably side with the right 65% of the time, give or take. So I often will agree with other conservative members here but not always if you read carefully.

One of the most fundamental things that I consider when I'm presented with new information or a new narrative is whether or not it's based in facts or has the potential to do good because basing policy or opinions strictly on things that feel good doesn't necessarily lead to a positive result. I'm not saying that feelings aren't important, they just sometimes get people into trouble if they're not concerned about facts and results along with how they feel about a particular issue or policy. Dennis Prager says something along those lines, that's the guy responsible for the PragerU videos I've shared with you. I'll take what he said a step further and add that I don't suppose it feels too good to resist the groups we more often agree with but if all of our instincts and data are telling us something is wrong then it should be okay to counter or resist groups we generally agree with when a particular topic strikes us as wrong.

You and I debate behavioral trends a great deal and this is one area where I find myself in a LOT of opposition to modern liberals and Democrats, unlike with something like the environment where I see where they're coming from. To address behavioral trends, let's look at this....

QUOTE
"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."


So that I'm not deflecting from your point, I'm not going to say that doesn't happen on the right, some conservatives can be very hypersensitive, it depends on the personality of the individual. I can address hypersensitivity on the right even more in this debate depending on whether or not you give me more substantiation. I'd need specific examples to address, when speaking of conservatives more broadly we would then have at least something to point to, though its only fair to mention those who aren't hypersensitive as well. What we're really talking about is how various groups may be trending and even that can be difficult. I think the wrong way to look at it is to say conservatives or liberals are all as messed up as these two examples I shared.

The primary example of hypersensitivity that you did show was in regards to looms but I don't see how that was a good example. He may have been upset but let me explain, he appears to be saying he is outraged over things like using the word racist to condemn and smear someone where it may not apply, he's also mentioning things like violence, and uncivil behavior. You're saying that's hypersensitive but those are understandable things to comment on and fight against, we should be concerned about mischaracterizations, violence, and uncivil behavior. I'm not saying that there aren't better examples out there so I'll look at other substantiation if you provide it.

Given I've addressed your point and am willing to go further, it's not a deflection to present additional information to reveal a more complete picture. On your end, have you been paying attention to how far gone some left-leaning colleges are getting, along with many protesters, and left-leaning politicians? What about the news media, is there a single left-leaning media pundit that you're willing to say blows things out of proportion due to their own hypersensitivity? Hypersensitivity has been a criticism that's more commonly directed at the left, particularly in regards to modern liberals who have often strayed away from concepts like liberty and equal justice, so below there will be a great deal of criticism. These may not be things that you want to hear but I will try to be fair, I hope you can stick with it but make sure you read the last few paragraphs of this reply if you don't.

So looms is frustrated over things like violence, you're welcome to show a better example of hypersensitivity than that, I'm sure you can find some, but do you see the difference between frustration over violence and uncivil behavior compared to Carleton College going to the extreme of removing weight scales because they think it might hurt the feelings of those who are sensitive about their weight?

QUOTE
""Scales are very triggering," freshman student Samar El Faki told the campus paper. I think people are being insensitive because they simply don't understand. They think eating disorders are a choice when they are actually a serious illness.

This isn't the first time a college campus has banned something innocuous to protect its students from hurt feelings. Last September, the University of Kansas banned images of zoo gorilla Harambe because he was too masculine."


http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/13/univer...s-truth-weight/

I'm not saying that how certain people feel about their weight isn't important, I know this better than most due to someone I care about who struggles but this is a situation where they removed something that serves a useful medical purpose and can be beneficial to most people and they did so based on the feelings of a smaller amount of people, who have the option of not stepping on the scale. I wouldn't be surprised if most people who are overweight would find it unnecessary to take that kind of a drastic action. Not that you'll take this at my word but the person I said I care about, laughed at this article when I showed it to her.

To move on, this one is even more bizarre. The University of Utah thought it was a good idea to allow the opening of a "cry closet" for those who may be nervous about taking exams and yes that's actually a little room where full-grown adults can go so that they have a dedicated spot if they decide they're stressed over exams or need to cry, as an added bonus there are stuffed animals to further help stressed students. I don't know about you but in my schools growing up, I would have gotten my butt busted for going in a room that looks like it was designed for toddlers so that I could cry and I'd feel ridiculous going into it regardless. To be fair some students are taking it as a joke and it's been described as a work of art by some but it's also being taken seriously by others and some are suggesting that all colleges should have them. Just a couple quotes....

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-worl...e209870044.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/university-of-...-during-finals/

QUOTE
QUOTE
""I am providing a space for students who are studying during finals week to go take a five- to ten-minute break in a nice cushy soft environment away from all the harsh lights of the library, Miller told The Daily Utah Chronicle student newspaper.

She padded the closet walls with soft fabric, piled stuffed animals on the floor and installed soft, adjustable lighting."


QUOTE
"Just let it all out," university spokeswoman Jana Cunningham told the station. "Let yourself just get away from your studies for the next 10 minutes."


Not only are some taking the idea seriously, things like this aren't unheard of in left-leaning colleges, it's a trend that's picking up momentum as you can gather from the links below where universities were offering play-doh, coloring books, and therapy dogs for students who were upset about the last presidential election...

http://eagnews.org/universities-offer-play...rt-by-election/
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-college...-and-exclusion/

This type of childlike hypersensitivity isn't only happening within the confines of college either. For example, anti-Trump protesters from across the nation gathered in New York City so they can scream at the sky to mark the anniversary of Trump's election and from what I'm witnessing there isn't a day that goes by where I don't see or hear about someone reacting in a way that's hypersensitive or over the top...

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/35953...trumps-election

Personally, I don't remember something like conservatives organizing a dedicated day to gather and then scream at the sky because Obama was elected, though I have seen hypersensitivity and you're welcome to substantiate further. Things have evolved with modern liberals to the point that they're now inventing phrases like "micro-aggression" for those who are hypersensitive about little things, hence the word "micro", so I'd need to see better examples than one person saying things which suggest they're tired of violence, mischaracterizations, and uncivil behavior.

I can only address one more thing from your last reply because I tend to be thorough so this reply could go on for a while if I'm not careful...

QUOTE
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.


If you're still with me, I'm hoping you'll be able to see more than just the criticisms I'm directing at those who may think like you do because this will be more complicated than that, bear with me on this...

I know that you've stated that you think conservatives are morally corrupt, in fact, at times have gone much further than that. With some conservatives, I'll say again that you'd be right but if you don't see that corruption is on both sides right now, to a high degree, and has been for decades, then you're missing out on a LOT of information or brushing it off as false or insignificant each time something sick happens like far left Hollywood elites and politicians ignoring that Harvey Weinstein was sexually assaulting women for years and often ignoring it because he agrees with them on politics or helped fund Democrats.

How about Bill Clinton following a similar path with allegations that went as deep as rape? Multiple women came out against Bill Clinton and the narrative that he's taken advantage of women and was lying about it, even under oath, was proven creditable when looking into what he did with Monica Lewinsky. Bill and Hillary even openly mocked the victims and lied about other things as well, they're corrupt.

The Democrats are droning on about Trump's foul language and treatment of women, often understandably so over legit claims, yet his approval rating went up and is now holding steady despite that and despite every day being the end of the world or a tragedy in the eyes of many Democrats and media pundits. Why are people brushing off the hysteria on Trump, some of which is based in facts? For three reasons, while some of what they say on Trump is based on facts, some of it's based on lies and misdirection and people often have a hard time distinguishing between the two. You can only cry wolf so many times before fact and fiction seem to blend together into a foggy mess. Another reason is that many people understand that Democrats and modern liberals are frequently guilty of the same types of things that they condemn conservatives for, and finally, a portion of people are simply morally corrupt and don't care about nasty and screwed up language or behavior. The last part is what you focus on a lot but things are more complicated than that alone.

To move on in regards to corruption, there was the IRS targeting scandal where over 400 conservative nonprofit groups claimed to be unfairly targeted due to their association with the Tea Party, a group that had a fraction of the amount of hostility as a group like Antifa, the Tea Party's demonstrations were generally peaceful though there were exceptions. There's still debate over the IRS targeting scandal despite them issuing an apology and a 3.5 million dollar settlement being issued. I suppose though that over 400 hundred different groups are all lying if CNN and James Comey, (who's now seen as corrupt by members in both parties), downplay the scandal.

There's evidence Facebook has unfairly targeted conservatives, Twitter just got busted for shadow banning conservatives who are making standard political statements, there's evidence of corruption at the highest levels of the FBI and Robert Muller composed an investigating team into Trump containing zero known Republicans apart from Muller himself which means nothing considering that this "Republican" composed a team that's full of Democratic donors, at least one of which was proven to have bias and who also hates Trump and his followers. Another of which, Andrew Weisman, has poor ethical standards and used bully tactics to apparently wrongly convict defendants, he's repeatedly had his victories in court overturned and withheld evidence favorable to the Merrill Lynch defense, just to name a few things....

QUOTE
"Time after time, courts have reversed Weissmann for his tactics. This is hardly the stuff of a hero in the law.

Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Next, Weissmann creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron. Four Merrill executives went to prison for as long as a year. Weissmann's team made sure they did not even get bail pending their appeals, even though the charges Weissmann concocted, like those against Andersen, were literally unprecedented.

Weissmann's prosecution devastated the lives and families of the Merrill executives, causing enormous defense costs, unimaginable stress and torturous prison time. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the mass of the case.

Weissmann quietly resigned from the Enron Task Force just as the judge in the Enron Broadband prosecution began excoriating Weissmann's team and the press began catching on to Weissmann's modus operandi."


http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/356...y-interested-in
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politic...tter/836734002/

Edited to add: There are those who don't care about bending or even breaking the rules, or a lack of objectivity, because we're talking about Trump but with all that's being revealed it's likely that this will be viewed as overreach and go down like the investigation into Bill Clinton. When it comes down to crunch time, people will probably understand that there are politics involved here and Muller's approval rating has been dropping. Even if they find something wrong, enough people could see the corruption on the other side and remember that a pass was given to the Clintons. So they better find something illegal on a level that dwarfs what the Clintons did because even if Trump is impeached getting a two-thirds supermajority vote from a divided Congress, which is required to boot a President out of office, is very unlikely.

As an afterthought, there are a lot of little things I'm taking notice of as well. I think it's suspicious that fact checkers, (one of which I was able to confirm originates from a left-leaning media company), are mixing fact's that are condemning for Trump critics and Democrats with something stupid Trump says so that they can say "half true", when there's clearly something wrong regardless of what Trump says....

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...-about-Mueller/

To wrap this up....

All of the major points above, I either have strong evidence for or have been able to find proof for without a doubt, and there's one more thing, in this case something that even conservatives have missed from what I can tell. I believe I've found proof for something very significant, it's debated about at times but very hard to substantiate. I'll leave that one to the imagination, I'll probably have a forum on it within a couple months. I don't expect you to agree with everything I did mention, but Droop, there are those who will look at information like what I've shared here and not acknowledge that ANY OF IT is a problem, and some wouldn't even know what I'm talking about at all because they're not being informed.

That's what happens when a person flips on networks like CNN or MSNBC but refuses to branch out and consider information that may not support their core beliefs, and I'd be lying if I said that some who watch Fox News aren't equally as ignorant to the favorable and beneficial aspects and beliefs of their opposition. People develop a warped sense of reality and sometimes serious hate problems in regards to the opposing political party by turning their back on anything that may cause them discomfort when it comes to their own core beliefs. It happens with conservatives too and it's not going to stop unless people start looking inwards at things that they and likeminded individuals are responsible for.

I think we can fight for what we believe in but do so even more effectively when we're aware of the missteps and flaws that exist with ourselves those who think like us. That's a part of life, people screw up and others even disgrace themselves and those around us but I think those ills of society can be overcome. Now, you seem like you could be a cool guy and as far as your debates here, a competitive spirit isn't a bad thing but I think there's a point where we have to be careful, or at least I know that I do. Politics sometimes has a habit of clouding judgment and sending otherwise decent people down a bad path if they let it. I don't agree with a lot of what you say, I'm sure the feeling is mutual but perhaps some common ground can be reached as well.
droop224
As always Net no worries to your delays, take your time.

QUOTE
To start this, I want to see where you're coming from, I do on some of what you're saying but can't help but think there's a part of the story you're missing or not considering. I understand that some of what you say applies to the right, though I'd definitely differ with you on the amount of inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals are on the right. I don't think those types represent a tiny problem that we don't need to be concerned about but the worst ones aren't near as mainstream as modern liberals sometimes let on, (I can explain the phrase modern liberal if you want, it's pretty straightforward).
No need to define the label of modern liberal, because it would only be an opinion and I've read enough from you to pretty much understand. That being said I think when you sum "inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals" together like you did, it distracts from my point. I don't consider people on the right to counterproductive, unless its counter productive to certain ideals like equality. I don't think the right is generally, anymore "inconsiderate" (although that could change if we were discussing a specific subject). I do think that racism is abound in modern conservatism and historic for that matter, but the mask its hidden behind allows for all the plausible deniability you could hope for.

And for the record I have no problem with the points you make toward leftist hypersensitivity, but I think you miss my point. My point was directed more at Looms statement but I am extremely happy to get other conservative feedback so I'm happy you wrote something.

QUOTE(Droop)
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.
When do I get to call into the question the morality of beliefs, without (I might add) shutting down debate?

So let me pose a completely hypothetical scenario to you.

2 individual are driving in their respective vehicles down a highway. Driver A cuts off Driver B so close that it causes Driver B to swerve and almost wreck. Driver B recovers and speeds to meet Driver A who has stopped at a traffic light. Lets say 1 of the following 3 events happen.

1. Driver B pulls up and flips off driver A and calls him some really bad names laced in profanity.

2. Driver B pulls in front of driver A jumps out the car with a bat and starts physically destroying the car.

3. Driver B pulls beside driver A, reaches into the glove box, grabs a gun and starts shooting into the car, hitting drive B.

Now, my question to you is two-fold.

1. Do you believe that the responses of Driver B all have an equivalent moral weight or do you think behavior in each scenario becomes more immoral?

2. Do you believe, in your opinion, that most conservatives think how you do given this scenario.

I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.






Hobbes
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief.



Classic example of why debate isn't really possible this days.
droop224
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 30 2018, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief.



Classic example of why debate isn't really possible this days.


Surprising as this may sound, I couldn't agree more. What we may disagree is the "why" this kind of remark shuts debate down. My guess is its similar to the point Looms was making. He doesn't think its right, in any form, for his personal morality to come into question, based on his political beliefs. Now, it seems absurd to me as a liberal that you all think you can hold certain positions with out any moral accountability. There are probably a few sociological reasons for you all. But as you see with Net2007 this is what i am trying to accomplish. I'd love for you to tell me your perception of why my statement shuts down debate, but again, i don't disagree.

Hobbes
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 30 2018, 06:25 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 30 2018, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief.



Classic example of why debate isn't really possible this days.


Surprising as this may sound, I couldn't agree more. What we may disagree is the "why" this kind of remark shuts debate down. My guess is its similar to the point Looms was making. He doesn't think its right, in any form, for his personal morality to come into question, based on his political beliefs. Now, it seems absurd to me as a liberal that you all think you can hold certain positions with out any moral accountability. There are probably a few sociological reasons for you all. But as you see with Net2007 this is what i am trying to accomplish. I'd love for you to tell me your perception of why my statement shuts down debate, but again, i don't disagree.


Because there is an assumed inherent character or morality flaw, which therefore becomes the foundation of the discussion, directly or indirectly. There isn't really anything to debate when the other side just assumes you are a morally reprehensible person or its a morally reprehensive belief to start with. This is why most debates devolve into name calling almost immediately. If you even try to be objective about anything going on...not really even defending it...you almost instantly hear "Witch! Witch! Burn her!!!!" You can't really debate with someone who not only has no respect for you, but openly disdains you (this is directed broadly, across many conversations, with many people). Which is pretty ironic, coming from the supposedly open-minded and all inclusive group. There are certainly exceptions (on both sides) but their perspective gets drowned out in the cacophony from everyone else. I and many others I know simple stopped bothering to even try having discussions any more.


Case in point:
QUOTE
Now, it seems absurd to me as a liberal that you all think you can hold certain positions with out any moral accountability.



Who is 'you all'? We've had this conversation before, but I doubt you could explain my beliefs on most things, yet I'm lumped in with some perceived immoral group anyway. As for not holding moral accountability, this gets back to the assumed character/belief flaw. There is an assumed moral failure, without even really thinking about it. Ironic, considered that the religious right would fall into this category, yet they base almost all of their beliefs around moral accountability. But how, or maybe more importantly why, would one debate with that perspective already draped over them? It isn't worth it. You spend all of the time vainly trying to change an ingrained false perspective, which isn't going to change anyway, all while being castigated by people who don't know you at all. There's no point to it. Which is unfortunate, because aren't we at a time in our country when there are actually a great many things that need to be talked about and discussed?


QUOTE
He doesn't think its right, in any form, for his personal morality to come into question, based on his political beliefs



There is a difference between questioning it, and just assuming it is flawed. Actually, even questioning it is probably questionable. Questioning why they might hold a certain political belief is fine. Jumping right past that and questioning the morality behind it is leaping to conclusions without understanding the basis.
net2007
Droop

QUOTE
As always Net no worries to your delays, take your time.

QUOTE
To start this, I want to see where you're coming from, I do on some of what you're saying but can't help but think there's a part of the story you're missing or not considering. I understand that some of what you say applies to the right, though I'd definitely differ with you on the amount of inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals are on the right. I don't think those types represent a tiny problem that we don't need to be concerned about but the worst ones aren't near as mainstream as modern liberals sometimes let on, (I can explain the phrase modern liberal if you want, it's pretty straightforward).
No need to define the label of modern liberal, because it would only be an opinion and I've read enough from you to pretty much understand.

That being said I think when you sum "inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals" together like you did, it distracts from my point. I don't consider people on the right to counterproductive, unless its counter productive to certain ideals like equality. I don't think the right is generally, anymore "inconsiderate" (although that could change if we were discussing a specific subject). I do think that racism is abound in modern conservatism and historic for that matter, but the mask its hidden behind allows for all the plausible deniability you could hope for.


I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism, that part I can agree with but I've never seen anything conclusive which demonstrates that racism is mainstream on the right or inseparable from conservative beliefs. Racism, as well as violence, is "abound" within left-leaning groups but you'll never hear me use words like majority, and believe me, I've seen a LOT. I think we have to look with bigger eyes than that and that a person has to be laser-focused strictly on the flaws and bad deeds of their oppenents to come to the conclusion that groups as large as Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, or Democrats don't have positive characteristics or ideas to contribute, or that our opponents are mostly racist. We have serious problems for sure but right now I think we're in a state of functional dysfunction. In other words, there's chaos and a great deal of hate but we're keeping it together enough to press forward and make progress. If racism is what defined this country that wouldn't be the case, it's a part of our culture, sure, and it was an even larger part of our culture 100 years ago but it never defined us, it's been more like a thorn in our side.

Now, I will say that people are usually tribal in nature and that an unknown amount, perhaps most, have racist thoughts that can creep in but the title racist is better reserved for someone who is inseparable from a mindset that they are superior based on their skin color. Saying someone is a racist comes off as an all-inclusive title, but it appears much more common for people to simply have occasional racist thoughts which don't reflect in their actions.

How about this, on your end see if you make a specific claim that you can prove. If most conservatives are racist, prove it. If racism is what drives conservatism, prove that. I think you'd be able to show that it's a factor and that racism is present but that you're likely to miss the root cause. Conservatism isn't what drives racism, human nature in general often does and because conservates are human you'll be able to give examples but you'll have to leave out that fact that hate and racism is widespread to pin this primarily on the right. The Democrats have a very long history, steeped in racism and the details of that alone throw a huge wrench in many of the claims made by the left about how conservatives or conservative ideology is somehow tied at the hip with racism.


QUOTE
QUOTE(Droop)
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.
When do I get to call into the question the morality of beliefs, without (I might add) shutting down debate?


You can call into question anything as far as I'm concerned, as to whether or not you shut down an argument depends both on how good/fair your argument is and how sensitive the other person may be.

QUOTE
So let me pose a completely hypothetical scenario to you.

2 individual are driving in their respective vehicles down a highway. Driver A cuts off Driver B so close that it causes Driver B to swerve and almost wreck. Driver B recovers and speeds to meet Driver A who has stopped at a traffic light. Lets say 1 of the following 3 events happen.

1. Driver B pulls up and flips off driver A and calls him some really bad names laced in profanity.

2. Driver B pulls in front of driver A jumps out the car with a bat and starts physically destroying the car.

3. Driver B pulls beside driver A, reaches into the glove box, grabs a gun and starts shooting into the car, hitting drive B.

Now, my question to you is two-fold.

1. Do you believe that the responses of Driver B all have an equivalent moral weight or do you think behavior in each scenario becomes more immoral?

2. Do you believe, in your opinion, that most conservatives think how you do given this scenario.

I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.


In the past, I haven't often gone for your multiple choice questions because in some circumstances you've left out details in the questions or left out alternative answers that I'd sooner go for. This type of thing can also narrow the scope of more complicated political topics, containing many variables, down to something simplistic that may or may not translate well to a broader discussion. I'm not saying this because I'm concerned that you could potentially demonstrate something nasty about conservatives with this but I am quite fond of accuracy. I'll give this a try though to see where you're going to go.

To answer your question, in the context of the situation you presented in the question itself, I'd find it unnecessary and unwise to respond with any of the retaliatory responses you laid out for driver B. As for whether or not any of the responses are morally equivalent to cutting off a car and almost causing it to wreck, the third response is not morally equivalent, at least not according to my morals. I believe most people, including conservatives, would agree that responding by speeding up and shooting the other car and driver is not right or morally equivalent. I feel safe saying that for the second response as well, speeding up to catch the other car so you can smash it up with a baseball bat would also be considered worse than what driver A. did in my eyes.

As for responding by flipping off driver A and calling him some really bad names laced in profanity, it still doesn't strike me a morally equivalent although it's closer. How close depends on whether or not driver A. knew they were cutting the other driver off too close and had already considered they could cause him to wreck but simply didn't care. In that situation, both drivers would have done something that made them a danger to others on the road and done so intentionally with knowledge of the consequences, although the aspect of revenge and the verbal offense would still be something additional on the part of driver B in that scenario.

How that hypothetical translates into a real-world political situation depends on a number of things.

Hobbes
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?

QUOTE
I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.



That this is even a question shows the disconnect. People are people, most people everywhere have the same sense of morality. Certainly people from the same culture do, as that's a large part of what defines the culture. We're all part of the same culture, so the assumption would be we all have the same general sense of morality. Our legal system, for example, is completely based on this fundamental assumption. Given that it IS a fundamental assumption...what is the basis for the question? Why change the assumption? This is why questioning morality, as opposed to say actions, gets very problematic, and almost always ends up missing the point. Whereas, if you stick with the assumption, and then seek to understand why one group may have a different approach to something assuming that they have the same general sense of morality...that's a completely different discussion.
net2007
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 3 2018, 01:31 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?


Right, it does work both ways, defining "modern conservative" would be equally important tongue.gif The approach I try to take when referring to large groups of people is to state up front that not everyone fit's perfectly into a category. Political labels like conservative or liberal can give a rough idea of the beliefs of those who identify with that label in some fashion but it's a tricky thing given how diverse people can be, that's especially true in America.

It's impossible to give justice to large groups of people with one or two words so if I need to identify a group of people who have common interest, I try to use the term that's the most reflective of who I'm trying to identify but stay open to their thoughts on the matter the best I can. On another note, that can get complicated in some situations because there are people who actually identify as animals like cats, wolfs, or even dragons and some think this is true literally, I'm not kidding. Those who identify as animals are called Otherkin. So what do you do in a situation where someone isn't what they say they are? That's another consideration.

One of the things I think of when I use a word like liberal is how much liberals have changed. There're often more adamant about gun restrictions now, actually government restrictions in a broader sense as well, they're often less prone to be supportive of concepts like free speech than they once were. Being supportive of individual liberties is actually in one of the definitions of the word liberal, but now conservatives are often as much about individual liberties as liberals are, actually they can be much more supportive of individual liberties than liberals depending on the topic. With that said, I'm more prone to say modern liberal given so much has changed. I've also heard the word progressive used a great deal to distinguish between classical liberals and those who have evolved in their interpretation of what it means to be a liberal.

It's complicated but I think ultimately people just need to acknowledge that not everybody fits into a box where they think exactly alike. Labels wouldn't be so bad if people didn't forget that there are people behind them, but often in debates these days people are prone to taking the following approach... (You're a conservative or liberal so I'll group you together with the worst that your constituency has to offer.) That's definitely complicating our situation and making some people wary of getting involved, unfortunately. There are ways around this though, a strive for communication may not reach everyone but there are those who are willing will hear what you have to say and communicate. I'm also confident that there are those who are absorbing good points made by their opposition even if they don't outwardly admit it, because to some, that's admitting defeat.
AuthorMusician
One of the great strengths of real debate involves rules of not only behavior but of argumentation.

Real debate requires the definition of terms so that all sides (can easily be more than two) understand what they're talking about -- also the audience and especially the judges.

Real debate has judges who award or take away points, depending on the rules of argumentation. There's also some wiggle room for/against creative argumentation.

Since this site has moderators and not judges, real debate doesn't generally happen here, never has. So that leaves it up to participants regarding how it turns out, and gee, it often becomes like family fights. There should be no surprise when people get sick of it all and go do something else.

Still, there's worthwhile stuff that happens too. Maybe it's the times that has drawn people to Facebook and other sites that skew heavily this way or that and all points thereabout. Or maybe we're up to here with fighting for/against whatever. Another possibility is that it has become clear that no amount of argumentation will change minds that are already made up, so people have given up trying to influence folks through various strategies, some more clever than others, and usually the same kinds of tricks I remember my family using regularly.

Then there are the technically sound arguments, but those tend to get lengthy and dull. Real debate is live, with a living audience, and so elements of show biz are often used. That's where the observation that politics is show biz for people with radio faces comes from.

And these live debates use teams more often than not, so getting personal is not only bad argumentation, it's a bad performance, given the environment.

Which brings me to name-calling versus description. I might call you a low-life dirty hippie biker tokin' and pickin' your commie pinko folk music, and that would be calling names while defining a stereotype. Someone else might say I'm a hypocrite, since I pretty much do, or did, all that stuff myself, and that person would be describing me by what I say and do/did. One take is valid, the other isn't.

One take would lose at real debate, and the other would win.

So . . . out here in the Free World (in which one should Keep On Rockin'), what kind of debate is winning?

I'm hoping it's the valid kind but have to admit it's not nearly as entertaining and distracting. Maybe it's just a phase we're going through. The Terrible Two Thousands? Could also be a periodic thing in history where conditions turn insane quickly, a crazy eruption, then carry on from what's left.

We could all be stuck in a VR world too, but I think the Earth being flat has a better chance of turning out true.
Hobbes
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 4 2018, 03:58 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 3 2018, 01:31 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?



It's complicated but I think ultimately people just need to acknowledge that not everybody fits into a box where they think exactly alike. Labels wouldn't be so bad if people didn't forget that there are people behind them, but often in debates these days people are prone to taking the following approach... (You're a conservative or liberal so I'll group you together with the worst that your constituency has to offer.)


Exactly! So...why not simply debate something on its content or merit, without involving stereotypes at all? At best, its a strawman, which is bad debate anyway. What 'group' someone is or isn't from is really irrelevant to whatever issue is being discussed. Never even really could be. Everyone is in a group of one. I, for example, don't know another single person who doesn't think differently than I do on something. Generally, they think differently than I do even on things we might agree on. So, thinking I think what anyone in a group thinks about anything is just almost never correct. Which is why when, in a debate, somebody says 'you think....', they are almost always wrong. They are stating what they think some group thinks (and are often even wrong on that) but unless they possess some supernatural clairvoyance, they really have no idea what I think. Heck, even people who are close friends often don't know what I think. Certainly, somebody who has never met me doesn't know. Combine that with whatever follows 'you think...' is almost always a negative comment, its doubly bad. First, they are wrong on the surface, then they are further alluding negative connotations on top of the false assumption. As I said above, it quickly makes debate completely pointless.
net2007
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 10 2018, 10:21 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 4 2018, 03:58 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 3 2018, 01:31 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?



It's complicated but I think ultimately people just need to acknowledge that not everybody fits into a box where they think exactly alike. Labels wouldn't be so bad if people didn't forget that there are people behind them, but often in debates these days people are prone to taking the following approach... (You're a conservative or liberal so I'll group you together with the worst that your constituency has to offer.)


Exactly! So...why not simply debate something on its content or merit, without involving stereotypes at all? At best, its a strawman, which is bad debate anyway. What 'group' someone is or isn't from is really irrelevant to whatever issue is being discussed. Never even really could be. Everyone is in a group of one. I, for example, don't know another single person who doesn't think differently than I do on something. Generally, they think differently than I do even on things we might agree on. So, thinking I think what anyone in a group thinks about anything is just almost never correct. Which is why when, in a debate, somebody says 'you think....', they are almost always wrong. They are stating what they think some group thinks (and are often even wrong on that) but unless they possess some supernatural clairvoyance, they really have no idea what I think. Heck, even people who are close friends often don't know what I think. Certainly, somebody who has never met me doesn't know. Combine that with whatever follows 'you think...' is almost always a negative comment, its doubly bad. First, they are wrong on the surface, then they are further alluding negative connotations on top of the false assumption. As I said above, it quickly makes debate completely pointless.


I see your point, there's certainly a risk of strawman arguments or miscommunication when using labels like conservative or liberal at all, many other types of labels as well. The way I look at it is that usually depends on the intent of the one making the argument, whether or not they're willing to get detailed, and whether or not they're receptive to any feedback they're getting. I'm willing to use those types of words because I feel there needs to be a way to identify and address those with roughly the same common interest, in certain situations.

There are practical uses for being able to identify those with roughly similar political interest. For example, many states set it up to where a Republican can't vote for a Democrat or vice versa during the primaries. A member of the opposing political party could be less likely to understand the candidates and more likely to cast a vote with ill intent, perhaps by voting for the candidate they feel would be less likely to win a general election. Again, that possibility wouldn't apply to every person who wants to vote in an opposing parties primaries, in fact, you could even say someone could simply be changing their mind about what party they support, so here again, there are risk involved with a political label. What we're really talking about are the varying statistical odds between the two groups. Republicans are more likely to want the best for the Republican party and vice versa, it just doesn't apply across the board.

In a debate, I think there's a difference between saying something like....

"Democrats don't support a border wall so you wouldn't know anything about what the benefits would be"

and

"Democrats less frequently support a border wall, is that where you stand?"

In the second scenario, you still have to be willing to not jump to conclusions but intent and willingness to communicate are often what makes the difference in debates. I definitely understand where you're coming from, too many people are misusing common political terms, just as they misuse words like black or white, but I think it has more to do with the individuals who are misusing those the words rather than the words alone.

QUOTE
Which is why when, in a debate, somebody says 'you think....', they are almost always wrong. They are stating what they think some group thinks (and are often even wrong on that) but unless they possess some supernatural clairvoyance, they really have no idea what I think.


Agreed, I think that's a bad approach unless, perhaps, the other person has already told you what they think. Sometimes I'll say something to the effect of, "Some Christians think that if you don't accept Jesus, you won't go to heaven" because I've heard Christians say that before, but you certainly don't want to state something like that as an absolute for an entire group, or take it to the level of stating that as a fact about someone who's a Christian if they haven't been clear on it. My girlfriend is Christain and doesn't believe it's that simple so judging too fast is never a good thing.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.