|
| Thread: The Death - I suggest a challenge |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 21, 2008 02:53 PM |
|
|
TA:
Sure, that sounds like a good idea. And thanks for agreeing to judge.
Galev:
If TheDeath agrees to one of the topics, maybe we'll have to revise the list of banned words.
Speaking of him, where is TheDeath? It's not like him not to post in the Other Side for so long. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 03:03 PM |
|
|
Maybe it would be better to start with a debate with two clear and opposing sides.
But yeah as you said you'll have to wait for The Death and obviously the both of you would need to have opposite opinions
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 03:31 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:54, 21 Jul 2008.
|
Well I like the idea of this thread but I don't know if we'll have much to debate, or so fast, well at least not filling 5 pages in 2 days you know? Instead of repeating what we say maybe it would be better to just throw out our opinions and then slightly argue with it, not the same thing all over again? I don't know, in theory it works, but practice is different.
Though I would like to see other people debate here not just me and mvass
Quote:
Speaking of him, where is TheDeath? It's not like him not to post in the Other Side for so long.
I remember actually not being on the internet for multiple days in a row though, so I am not always that active -- mostly when I get free time or am bored. Where was I? I slept like 8 hours today, and cleaned up my room. Didn't know I would be missed so fast 
(yeah I clean my room regularly, I HATE dust & dirt, especially coming from me obviously, or unorganized stuff)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 03:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So what's the other 25%, long factual posts by Corribus?
LOL, I like that.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted July 21, 2008 08:45 PM |
|
|
ROUND 1:Quote:
It's about the rights of a government or ruling power versus the rights of the indivual, such as habeas corpus etc.
Where do you draw the line at what people can and can't do and to what extent (if at all) do you need to participate in society the community in order to rightfully have to obey these laws/customs, or are some universal? If so, which ones?
FIGHT!
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 09:13 PM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 09:20 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:20, 21 Jul 2008.
|
Doesn't this subject usually include:Quote:
authoritarian
authoritarianism
abortion
fetus
capitialism
capitalist
progress
nature
environment
socialism
communism
Fascism
Nazism
Hiter
Stalin
moral
immoral
society
selfishness
self-interest
God
religion
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 09:29 PM |
|
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 09:29 PM |
|
|
I dunno
Why don't you just talk about the weather...
or about Pandora's new siggie or MM's latest burst of Insanity ?
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 09:35 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 21:56, 21 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
MM's latest burst of Insanity ?
You know about it?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 10:04 PM |
|
|
Stop getting offtopic. We need TheDeath to agree to the topic, then decide who starts first, and then proceed from there.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 10:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Stop getting offtopic.
Ok ok sorry
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 10:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We need TheDeath to agree to the topic, then decide who starts first, and then proceed from there.
It would be hard to debate that topic without those selected "words". Anyway it's not like I don't agree with it, but I am a bit bored with all debates these days. Feel free however to begin it, I will probably occasionally reply if I feel like it (nothing personal trust me!), but I hope others would join as well.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 11:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
authoritarian
authoritarianism
abortion
fetus
capitialism
capitalist
progress
nature
environment
socialism
communism
Fascism
Nazism
Hiter
Stalin
moral
immoral
society
selfishness
self-interest
God
religion
Come on. Banning those words from an OSM discussion is like driving a car with no wheels. I mean, while you're at it, you may as well ban all adjectives and present simple tense.
Besides, you have cleverly banned words that are most efficient against your argumentation. Like "moral", "nature" and "selfishness".
If you're battling, battle. With everything you've got. Just make sure you don't use the same argument twice in this discussion; unless the opposing side hasn't addressed it well.
My 2 cents. You may slaughter each other now.
PS Perhaps you can lead a discussion about banning words from discussions?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2008 11:55 PM |
|
|
Note that the discussion has not officially started yet, so quote wars don't count at the moment.
TheDeath:
Quote:
It would be hard to debate that topic without those selected "words".
Well, perhaps a few words could be removed from that list. Any suggestions? But any comparisons to Hitler/Nazis should count as an instant loss.
Baklava:
Okay, maybe the list is too large. But part of the reason it is such is to prevent the same old discussions from coming back.Quote:
Besides, you have cleverly banned words that are most efficient against your argumentation. Like "moral", "nature" and "selfishness".
Well, I'm open to more suggestions. And besides, I've tried to be evenhanded, also banning "society" and "progress".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 12:33 AM |
|
|
Well if it's a full-fledged fight between you two, you should start from scratch. Like nothing happened before. Full health, attack and defense for both of you. MVas 0, TheDeath 0. Lap 1. Etcetera.
And society is a double-edged sword... It can be used against anyone at anytime as an argument  There'll always be someone who puts the "sauce" in "society". But then again, every argument can be manipulated, so never mind. I don't really want to get involved in this, I just thought banning words would make it less fun, that's all.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 02:13 AM |
|
|
I have updated the bannned words list (since it's nearly impossible to debate this topic without some of them), and added a new rule. Now, all right, then, let's begin.
The rights of government versus the rights of individuals is a conflict that has, unfortunately, plagued the histories of too many countries. It is unfortunate not only because it often resulted in victories for the state, but that it was a conflict easily avoided if anyone on the government side bothered to remember that the government derives its rights from the consent of the government. Thus, the government can't do anything that the majority of its citizens do not want it to do. (That is not to say that just because a majority wants it, a government can do it.) Thus, it would be beneficial for the governed to place as many restrictions on the government as possible for it to remain actually functioning.
Specifically in the case of habeas corpus, it is a fundamental right. Why? Simply because the majority wants to have that right. Under no stretch of the imagination can the right of habeas corpus be seen as violating anybody's rights, so there is really no reason to restrict that right.
Now, the opponents of that right say that it may be coddling terrorists, or something like that. Yet look at what Wikipedia says about what habeas corpus is:Quote:
Habeas corpus... is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of himself or another person.
I doubt that anyone wants people to be detained unlawfully. When people are captured for some crime, they deserve a fair public trial to determine their guilt. They deserve not to be coerced into confessing. A fair justice system is in the best interests of society.
But the broader question is more nuanced. At what point does one draw a line between what one can and can't do? What I view as the best is the one that combines permissiveness and the rights of others. The right to swing your fist ends at my face. An action is all right as long as all parties to the action are consenting.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 03:53 PM |
|
|
Personally I don't like the idea of a majority of people telling others what they MUST do, especially if such majority can't back up it's claims other than "we are more, might makes right", that is not necessarily FACTS but philosophical arguments as well. For example, the model "all humans are equal" and "their freedom is not dependent on others" (such as the majority) has already quite strong arguments -- since it is impossible to be fair, it's nevertheless a solid argument because it takes everyone and looks at them the same. Now one would know if we should extend not the "humanity" factor but rather the "life" factor, or to more extremists, the "disturbance" factor.
For me there is no difference between a normal hit (such as a punch) or any other direct influence on a person -- it would be foolish, might I say, to distinguish between them. People will always find abuses for loopholes that are not solid or defined concretely. What does a normal hit mean anyway? This is where it is open to interpretation. I would say that defining the influences is a much better way, and my claim is backup up by arguments. When you hit someone, you actually are just influencing his life, and that is objectively (not emotionally, like hate, etc... which is hard to measure). When you go near him and give him your bad breath, it is similar, though obviously influences him much less than a gunshot for example -- so we can take the amount of influence to base our justice system. This obviously also works for ******** (sorry had to use it) by taking the influencing factor into consideration for the "you-know-who"
I have a lot of different arguments that I have used in other threads regarding the superiority of this type of system over the normal "rights violation" system which is quite open to loopholes, depending on the one who interprets it (mostly lawyers).
Now as for the government's influence on the people -- it is practically similar in my opinion (another argument: the universality of my system which works both for people and the government, that is the government can't "break" it, it's equal to people). The government may never influence (negatively) the other people: this does not necessarily mean to violate their rights, but even forcing them to a particular action.
That is, in my opinion, the government must not be able to impose anything on people, when the people don't influence much anything either. That is, when a criminal influences someone's life (let's say he kills him), then the government may also influence the criminal's life at this point. However, a normal "neutral" citizen may not be influenced by the government (in my opinion): this includes taxes. The only way where we make the exception, is the taxes that enforce the law (police/trials/etc), for those people that influence something negatively. This is perhaps necessary because otherwise we wouldn't be speaking about this system at all. That is, the only obligation people have is to keep the system "alive" (via taxes), but not for anything else.
As for justice, as the saying goes: "It's not injustice that we need to fear. What we need to fear is Justice."
Quote:
But the broader question is more nuanced. At what point does one draw a line between what one can and can't do?
Well for me there are several things to consider, and all of them apply with the "influence" (negative influence, let's call it disturb from now on) system. We can restrict it only to our own interests, or we can extend it to the entire Universe (philosophically by taking a look at it's vastness and imagining analogous things and life). The latter approach sounds more promising to me, because it applies as an absolute value (and I always value more absolute values than restricted ones to a certain group). This is to say, the factors we need not disturb are:
1) Life
2) Balance
Seeing as (1) applies to all humans, and beyond to animal life (even if that is disputable, let's just agree that we can't torture them, nor breed them more than a certain amount, and making it miserably so we get profit and pay less for their "comfort"), (2) goes to the very thing that makes the world work as we know it (and not up-side down for example). So given a person that disturbs the above, the government can intervene. And the penalty should never be money, but time, either in prison or in community service. Time can not be bought by money.
Other than that there's pretty much what I wrote from various threads. Don't expect me to be very active, I'm not into debates that much these days 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 05:03 PM |
|
|
I don't like the idea of a majority telling a minority what to do either, unless of course that minority is criminals. But how exactly does one define a criminal? Well, obviously criminals are those people who violate rights. But how does one define rights? That is the whole crux of the matter.
I view it thus: what, exactly, is the purpose of rights? It is to protect individuals from harm brought upon by other individuals. But why would one do such a thing? Why would one harm other individuals? Well, obviously people, like all living things, naturally act in their own self-interest (discouraged word, but not banned). Unfortunately, in doing so, they may harm others. Without restrictions, instead of pursuing their own aims, people would have to worry about protecting themselves and their property all the time. This would actually impede general self-interest. So society (which is composed of individuals) agreed to limit each other. Though in the short run this was acting against people's self-interest, in the long run it was in favor of it.
Now, the question arises, who is included in "society"? Well, obviously society creates rights for individuals that are part of it, to protect each other from runaway selfishness. But who is protected? Who should be included?
The first question that the original "core" society should ask itself is, "Would society benefit from giving these [name of group] rights?" In the case of black people and women, the answer is obviously "yes", for the same reason that rights were created in the first place; that is, if people keep being infringed upon, they can't act in their full maximum capacity, which not only harms them but also everybody else. That is, it makes no sense to keep people forcibly enslaved and denied opportunities simply on basis of their skin color when both sides would certainly benefit from giving them rights. That is, people who work without being forced to do so work better, and don't look for attempts to work as little as possible. When people are paid according to what and how they produce, that will of course be more efficient than slavery.
If the answer to this first question is "yes", then society should give these beings rights, and that's that. But if the answer to the first question is "no", that does not necessarily mean that it shouldn't. Take, for example, TheDeath's favorite analogy: the aliens on Mars are sentinent, but aren't interested in talking to or dealing with humans. Why, then, would it not be all right to force this group into slavery? Simple - because they are sentinent. Society is not agile or shapable. Society can only give general rules - it can't be very specific. If it tries, it seriously risks endangering a group that it is trying to protect, or protecting a group it doesn't want to protect. In this case, if society said, "Enslaving humans is bad, but enslaving these aliens is OK.", some people would ask, "Hey, these aliens are sentinent, just like us. If we can enslave them, why can't we enslave humans?" And they might take action on this line of thought. That is clearly undesirable. Thus, these aliens should also have rights.
But what about animals? Here we run into a problem. First, we can't make animals respect our rights. Thus, any kind of social contract with them would be laughably one-sided. Let's say that a hunter is hunting wildebeest in the savanna, and he runs into a lion. He says, "You know what, I could kill you, and you could kill me. So let's just leave each other alone." The lion replies, "Rawr, no.", and eats the hunter. Not much of a contract, is it? Second, would we, the "core" society, gain anything from giving animals rights? No, except for maybe a few people who would get an emotional benefit. Third, if we use animals, can anyone confuse themselves and think that it's also okay to use humans like that? No, probably not.
Thus, to extend rights to someone, the group of beings has to be able to keep the contract, and also it has to be useful to original group and/or this being could be confused with humans.
As for the question of disturbing, that is far more vague than my system.
Quote:
Time can not be bought by money.
On the other hand, money can be bought with time, and depriving someone of time in which they might earn money is not much different than depriving them of the money in the first place.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 05:20 PM |
|
|
Actually, if you look at it, the aliens are similar. Do we make a social contract with them? Nope. They don't bother us, but we didn't even talk to them (since they're on Mars). What if we go with a spaceship there? Well, they can kill us -- does that mean it's ok to kill them? Remember, we were the one who got there with a spaceship, not them coming to Earth 
The animal example is flawed because it doesn't take into account their incapability to determine whether they are "disturbing" someone else or not. That is for me the whole point of intelligence. You see, a child that kills someone without knowing that killing is bad (bad parents, let's say) is not sentenced as an adult, simply because the child was not able to make the difference. Now go on to animals. It is even more decisive -- for a child CAN understand the difference if properly taught, an animal on the other hand rarely can understand it. It is what we call intelligence.
You can't make a social contract with a lion for not disturbing each other, because he is inferior. You, the superior one, should know that. And there are two cases of superior acts:
1) Tyranny
2) Harmony
The first one means exploitation of the weak, that is we can do to them as long as nothing stops us (for example, if animals are highly dangerous) and that means we act by force -- this is, in my opinion, the same as going down to the animal's level. Why is that bad? Well, simply because we have been gifted with intelligence and it's ability to understand the difference -- but yet we pursue things the as animals. This is even worse than not being intelligent, since in this way we are not "innocent" at all, and we made the "choice" to be like them, even if we HAD the ability to suppress our self-interest instincts (there is a difference between NOT WANTING to do something and CANNOT do something; former applies to humans, latter applies to animals).
(2) means to use our superior capabilities to help the weak, and it is what I believe important. This actually uses our inherited ability gifted from intelligence, instead of ignoring it. We can do something less can't do, and this is it. We don't need to respond in kind to those that are incapable and innocent. If someone doesn't know that punching you in the face is wrong, you shouldn't just punch him back, whether or not you can make a social-contract with him (let's say he's crazy (not his fault) and he can't make any contract; I don't think these kind of people deserve a full sentence like 'intelligent' criminals THAT KNOW their actions disturb others and CAN resist, but they DON'T WANT)!
Now going back to the government, you said that criminals are a minority. However let's take a look at it this way, from my system. The criminal influences negatively other people (or animals, in the case of animal-criminals), or more simply, disturbs them. In my previous post, I said that you should not be forced to DO anything. But once you disturb the two factors (see previous post), you can be 'sentenced' more or less by the amount of influence you had upon the respective factor in question. It is the only place where the government should take action. That is, even if the minority are criminals but do not disturb anyone (didn't kill yet), then the majority can't decide. Similarly, if the majority are criminals, then they shouldn't be able to impose anything (let's say that a neutral government exists) on the minority; as long as the minority don't disturb the two factors (life and balance).
While it may be for the self-interest of society, I think it's more like admitting that we are part of everything, and blending in harmony with our surroundings. It's not like we are animals that can't think or suppress our instincts. We can, and denying and using the lesser path (as animals do; but it's not their fault, since they can't) only makes us primitive IMO, and it's actually worse than being an animal, since we can be blamed for our faults (since we UNDERSTAND them). See the child analogy. 
|
| |
|
|
