The Center Stage

[KrazyGlue]

Well all this silly bantering aside... does this thread still have the function that it was originally created for? If so... do we have to pick a subject that has yet to be debated about? I have found some threads on my topic of interest by doing a search but they are all quite old.... so anyway...

If the topic is any of my choosing without limitation... and any DH'ers feel like doing a 1-on-1... let me know and I will present the possibility of the topic.

Yeah we really should return to the point of this thread. Sure Ajna, pick a topic and I'll debate you on it if it's something I can find interest in. (Other than the recent ones obviously).

 

[Ajna]

I imagine its quite possible that this subject may have already been beat to death... but if your game-

how about the legalization of marijuana? I suppose if you find that to be too direct we could debate the legality of drugs in general.. but either way I am prepared to defend the position that it/they should be legal.

 

[RDK]

I imagine its quite possible that this subject may have already been beat to death... but if your game-

how about the legalization of marijuana? I suppose if you find that to be too direct we could debate the legality of drugs in general.. but either way I am prepared to defend the position that it/they should be legal.

The problem is that everyone on this forum shares the same basic viewpoints.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The problem is that everyone on this forum shares the same basic viewpoints.

Except me lol.


Yeah that used to be a subject I was really passionate about, but after months of debating to keep it illegal I kind of got tired of it. Maybe a different topic if you don't mind, Ajna?


EDIT: By the way, you can find my old debate on it here. It's pretty much the first thread I posted on in the DH.

 

[Sucumbio]

not to mention it's a banned subject matter.

thanks for the endorsement, krazyglue.

i'm also waiting to debate aesir on foreign policy, but if you wanna step in on his behalf, be my guest. I'll take you all on.

PLEASE I mean really all this space talk is making my eyes bleed.

 

[KrazyGlue]

not to mention it's a banned subject matter.

thanks for the endorsement, krazyglue.

i'm also waiting to debate aesir on foreign policy, but if you wanna step in on his behalf, be my guest. I'll take you all on.

PLEASE I mean really all this space talk is making my eyes bleed.

Sure, why not! Sorry I didn't respond earlier; I've been extremely busy and tired lately.

This is not the time to be poking China in the eye with a stick. Google is acting irresponsibly, and Clinton though doing her job to a "T" should review the U.S.'s ambitious political socialization techniques and avoid moving ahead too quickly.

I don't really think Google is out of line by threatening to uncensor their services. Google isn't a US government corporation and can do whatever it wants. Moreover, the Chinese already have a censored search engine (called Baidu) which is already used more than Google in China. China has already blocked YouTube as well, so Google has to make a stand. Otherwise there's no point in it being there.

Not sure what you mean by Clinton "doing her job to a 'T'". I agree that the US shouldn't be too aggressive, after all we have a massive debt towards China so we need to maintain at least a tolerable relationship with them. I think it is the responsibility of the people in China to stand up for themselves, but I also think that in order to stop this ridiculous censorship that there needs to be some foreign influence such as the US weighing in on the topic. Basically what I mean is that we should be vocal on the topic, but not aggressive or confrontational.

 

[Sucumbio]

Oh, thank Christ!

I don't really think Google is out of line by threatening to uncensor their services. Google isn't a US government corporation and can do whatever it wants. Moreover, the Chinese already have a censored search engine (called Baidu) which is already used more than Google in China. China has already blocked YouTube as well, so Google has to make a stand. Otherwise there's no point in it being there.

Yes, well this is their stance as well. On Jan 12 they announced they would stop censoring search results, but since then no actual changes have been made, and talks are still continuing between Google and China.

Many analysts believe the Chinese government would have no qualms shutting down an uncensored search engine. But experts on Chinese law warn that Google employees in China could also face prosecution for breaking the law. -source

And with political momentum building -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. Senate have voiced strong support for freedom of expression on the Internet -- Google has room to sit back and let others advance its cause. -source

See this right here. China's fuming, Hilary's stoking the fire, and Google's taking advantage, and the end result -could- be bad. I'm not saying it's 100% garunteed to be bad, it could very well be TOO big of a change for China to do anything about, but ... this is China. I just feel the... pressure building on this issue and I also feel the spigot is aimed at the people, not their government, and when it blows, they'll catch the full brunt of it.

Not sure what you mean by Clinton "doing her job to a 'T'". I agree that the US shouldn't be too aggressive, after all we have a massive debt towards China so we need to maintain at least a tolerable relationship with them. I think it is the responsibility of the people in China to stand up for themselves, but I also think that in order to stop this ridiculous censorship that there needs to be some foreign influence such as the US weighing in on the topic. Basically what I mean is that we should be vocal on the topic, but not aggressive or confrontational.

Clinton as secretary of state is doing her job well, in other words, she's promoting the White House foreign policy accurately and with cause. in this case, on the freedom of information exchange over the Internet, she's ... she is almost too effective. I mean, as you say, we should not be too confrontational, and her speech, just... was. It was a dangerously written speech in parts, which were construed in ways that aren't favorable considering we DO owe China quite a lot of money. Add Google's attitude in this and China has less reason to play nice than ever.

Ironically when I posited this debate topic things seemed really heated, but now, its all hush-hush... China's talks with Google are remaining behind closed doors, so maybe there's a lot of legal posturing going on, I can appreciate that.

Ironically China, who has a division of military devoted to Internet warfare, may be exchanging blows with the NSA -souce

We'll see what happens, but this is definitely a story to keep our eyes on.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yes, well this is their stance as well. On Jan 12 they announced they would stop censoring search results, but since then no actual changes have been made, and talks are still continuing between Google and China.

Many analysts believe the Chinese government would have no qualms shutting down an uncensored search engine. But experts on Chinese law warn that Google employees in China could also face prosecution for breaking the law. -source

And with political momentum building -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. Senate have voiced strong support for freedom of expression on the Internet -- Google has room to sit back and let others advance its cause. -source

See this right here. China's fuming, Hilary's stoking the fire, and Google's taking advantage, and the end result -could- be bad. I'm not saying it's 100% garunteed to be bad, it could very well be TOO big of a change for China to do anything about, but ... this is China. I just feel the... pressure building on this issue and I also feel the spigot is aimed at the people, not their government, and when it blows, they'll catch the full brunt of it.

Could be bad. Could also be one of the biggest victories over corruption in Chinese history. The people do actually have a voice in China. China has shut down Wikipedia several times but the people in China were so vehemently opposed to the plan that the Chinese government had to back off.

I tried to find a source, but couldn't (most likely because the Chinese government is trying to cover it up). I received the information from a Chinese visitor to my school.

This "Baidu" company seems to be the Chinese site to replace Google and Wikipedia. It's already the most visited site in China and 8th most overall, and I'm afraid that if Google doesn't make a move, it will become obsolete in China. And once that happens, the people in China will have very little chance of ever getting uncensored search results. Once Google falls under the radar, if it tries to become uncensored and gets shut down, none of the people there will care enough to try and bring it back. Point is, if Google is going to make a move, it needs to make one soon before it is overshadowed by Baidu.

Clinton as secretary of state is doing her job well, in other words, she's promoting the White House foreign policy accurately and with cause. in this case, on the freedom of information exchange over the Internet, she's ... she is almost too effective. I mean, as you say, we should not be too confrontational, and her speech, just... was. It was a dangerously written speech in parts, which were construed in ways that aren't favorable considering we DO owe China quite a lot of money. Add Google's attitude in this and China has less reason to play nice than ever.

Ironically when I posited this debate topic things seemed really heated, but now, its all hush-hush... China's talks with Google are remaining behind closed doors, so maybe there's a lot of legal posturing going on, I can appreciate that.

Ironically China, who has a division of military devoted to Internet warfare, may be exchanging blows with the NSA -souce

We'll see what happens, but this is definitely a story to keep our eyes on.

I agree both that Clinton is doing a great job in general and that she has been too confrontational with China. Like I said, I want her to be vocal, but not so aggressive. Taking a "change it or else" stance is going to get nothing but anger back from China - as well as an "or else what?" response.

 

[Sucumbio]

I tried to find a source, but couldn't (most likely because the Chinese government is trying to cover it up). I received the information from a Chinese visitor to my school.

This mentions it a bit but I didn't know that until now, heh, in fact apparently China blocks a lot of internet services. I feel bad for the Chinese. It's funny but my grandpa was about 12 maybe 15 when his uncle literally threw him into the holds of an iron vessel bound for N America (landed in Canada) just as the last emperor was dissolved, February 12, 1912. he later watched the movie with a veritable tear in his eye the whole time... he is just so lucky to have gotten out and started his family here where things like freedom of speech are not only valued, but defended and to the death.

 

[KrazyGlue]

This mentions it a bit but I didn't know that until now, heh, in fact apparently China blocks a lot of internet services. I feel bad for the Chinese. It's funny but my grandpa was about 12 maybe 15 when his uncle literally threw him into the holds of an iron vessel bound for N America (landed in Canada) just as the last emperor was dissolved, February 12, 1912. he later watched the movie with a veritable tear in his eye the whole time... he is just so lucky to have gotten out and started his family here where things like freedom of speech are not only valued, but defended and to the death.

Absolutely, America certainly has a lot more freedom. I think it'll actually take the Chinese people standing up against their government to bring these kinds of freedoms to China. Unfortunately they've tried that before and it didn't end up too well. In my opinion, it's going to take more time and incidents like these to bring some of these freedoms to China.

 

[Sucumbio]

Or maybe a large scale revolt? that's what I feared may happen, and especially if they did and we couldn't help them because we're entrenched in Afghanistan, Iraq and now maybe Pakistan will be next, lordy.If there was a revolution I'd wager it'd only be successful with the right people in play, there'd have to be help on the inside, and definitely within the military.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Or maybe a large scale revolt? that's what I feared may happen, and especially if they did and we couldn't help them because we're entrenched in Afghanistan, Iraq and now maybe Pakistan will be next, lordy.If there was a revolution I'd wager it'd only be successful with the right people in play, there'd have to be help on the inside, and definitely within the military.

I doubt that'll happen with the current economic growth and all. So long as the people are rich and can afford their Ipads, they'll be happy. The few who are unhappy can be put in jail, so I don't think we have a situation yet.

Even with a large scale revolt, China has a huge military, so long as that remains for the most part loyal, it'd be able to solve the problem with machine-gun fire, if worst comes to worst.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I doubt that'll happen with the current economic growth and all. So long as the people are rich and can afford their Ipads, they'll be happy. The few who are unhappy can be put in jail, so I don't think we have a situation yet.

Actually, there are many poor people in China. Yes, they had a large economic growth, but many people still living in rural areas are below the poverty line. And even the rich ones won't be happy with constantly censored internet. China won't even deliver proper news to its people. Not too long ago, a massive building that took hundreds of millions of dollars to build went up in flames -- a story that didn't even appear on the nightly news.

Source

 

[Aesir]

I've been super busy with college and interning at my states capital, I just so happen to work for a representative who wants to do good things for his district.

Sorry about that, I probably won't have much time. But krazyglue picking it up is good.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Seriously?

Are we going to really let six months pass by since the last DHer was let in?

Spoiler

btw that would be me, and no, I'm not including Aqua-- larn2deal

Okay, so a little activity has picked up in the PG now, which is good. Here is my quick take on all the posters as of recent:

• Sucumbio--Solid posting for the most part, especially in your thread concerning "The Science of Evolutionism." Also, you aren't overly preachy with your religious beliefs (as many in the PG happen to be unfortunately. )
• Ajna--Sucumbio lite in all honesty. Mostly solid posts, but still has some to learn in order to become a good DHer.
• Dre.--MOAR METAPHYSICS PLOX? Seriously, most of your posts have this metaphysical vibe that almost borders on smart trolling
  Spoiler

  not saying that you are trolling, but if you are confused, get @ me on an IM of your choosing and I'll explain
  . Some of the claims you make need to have more evidence as opposed to anecdotal evidence, which you should avoid in the PG & DH like the plague.
• Bob-Jane T-Mart--Post a little more, and I'll give my two cents.

Even with the posting up, I still don't believe that none of these four are ready for the DH anytime soon. The closest one to being a DH IMHO is Sucumbio, but you are going to have to show me more (

Spoiler

viz making non-scientific threads that are made only by you.

) If you need help with this, look on my old posts in the PG, or get @ me on aim. The rest of you can as well.

Good luck!

 

[Eor]

Honestly I'd disagree with most of your posts and say that they're all good enough to join the Debate Hall, though I won't pass judgement on Bob-Jane because I haven't seen enough of his posts. Dre does mainly deal with metaphysics and philosophy, but that's not bad. He backs up his points with his reasons, even if I disagree with his reasons or conclusions, and I think that's all that's needed. Look at his threads or the places where he debates, they're all intelligent and have a lot of activity. I'd definitely support him for Debate Hall.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Honestly I'd disagree with most of your posts and say that they're all good enough to join the Debate Hall, though I won't pass judgement on Bob-Jane because I haven't seen enough of his posts. Dre does mainly deal with metaphysics and philosophy, but that's not bad. He backs up his points with his reasons, even if I disagree with his reasons or conclusions, and I think that's all that's needed. Look at his threads or the places where he debates, they're all intelligent and have a lot of activity. I'd definitely support him for Debate Hall.

To each their own opinion. That's cool.

Also, mad props for KrazyGlue with some of his ideas.

 

[Sucumbio]

I doubt that'll happen with the current economic growth and all. So long as the people are rich and can afford their Ipads, they'll be happy. The few who are unhappy can be put in jail, so I don't think we have a situation yet.

Even with a large scale revolt, China has a huge military, so long as that remains for the most part loyal, it'd be able to solve the problem with machine-gun fire, if worst comes to worst.

That growth IS quite impressive, but the benefit is focused on urban China, despite Rural China being the catalyst. "Contrary to popular thinking, China owes its astonishing economic expansion not to far-sighted government policy but to hundreds of millions of entrepreneurial peasants." -source

Sound familiar? Public responsibitly, Private gain. It's the cause of OUR problems here in the US, lol... now we're not on the verge of revolution, or military action... really. But we also have far less to lose, we have already attained freedom of speech, assembly, press... the people of China are destined for serious frustration. As the claw their ways to the top, with innovation, and hard work, their profits are sucked away to oil the Communist engine. This just won't do, ultimately. And Google's not helping by threatening to pull the plug. They should stay in business, and allow themselves to be remain censored, and let the State department talk China into easing up off the controlling policies they employ, or there very well could be blood on their hands.

Sucumbio--Solid posting for the most part, especially in your thread concerning "The Science of Evolutionism." Also, you aren't overly preachy with your religious beliefs (as many in the PG happen to be unfortunately. )

Thanks for the endorsement, kazoo.

Even with the posting up, I still don't believe that none of these four are ready for the DH anytime soon. The closest one to being a DH IMHO is Sucumbio, but you are going to have to show me more (

Spoiler

viz making non-scientific threads that are made only by you.

) If you need help with this, look on my old posts in the PG, or get @ me on aim. The rest of you can as well.

oh... heh. hm.. well ok, but I think you may be placing too much importance on quantity than quality. And more on thread count than post count. In point of fact, my exact words in the text box when I applied for PG was:

"for a chance to enter into serious discussion and debate."

And I meant that quite literally... I mean at this point there's more debate going on in the PG anyway but sometimes there's a decent topic in the DH that I think I could bring a unique perspective to. Intellectual Property topic for one, being a published musician and all... I just honestly don't see how making topics demonstrates good debate skills, it just demonstrates good topic creating skills. Posts though, those are where its at. And if you haven't noticed, I've closed the book on almost -all- the topics on the first page of the PG.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Thanks for the endorsement, kazoo.

You only got a thumbs up, not an endorsement.

oh... heh. hm.. well ok, but I think you may be placing too much importance on quantity than quality. And more on thread count than post count. In point of fact, my exact words in the text box when I applied for PG was:

As for this point, you are really gonna have to think before you post. Because here, you are implicitly stating that I feel post count matters more than quality of posts. By the way, that is something which I have never supported. You should be more careful with the words you choose, what say you?

"for a chance to enter into serious discussion and debate."
And I meant that quite literally... I mean at this point there's more debate going on in the PG anyway but sometimes there's a decent topic in the DH that I think I could bring a unique perspective to. Intellectual Property topic for one, being a published musician and all... I just honestly don't see how making topics demonstrates good debate skills, it just demonstrates good topic creating skills. Posts though, those are where its at. And if you haven't noticed, I've closed the book on almost -all- the topics on the first page of the PG.

Where the f**k are you getting this idea that I just want you to make posts to get in?

If you haven't read my threads before I got in the DH, I recommend that you do so. There, I demonstrate quality posting while making new threads. In fact, this was one of the reasons why I got in the DH in the first place! Come to think of it, I mentioned this before:

Edited for a purpose. Read more below.

Since the PG was a lively place when I decided to step in (this is now five months ago ), I can give you a few pointers on how you can make the place a little better. Of course, if you need more, my IM info is readily available for you to ask questions:

1. Read periodicals, especially newspapers. You can easily find five topics worth debating in a newspaper. Find one you like, and go from there.
2. After reading said periodical and picking a topic, choose a side. It doesn't matter which side.
3. Once you pick a side, defend that side. That doesn't mean anecdotes or personal stories (you should use these like you should eat candy, sparingly), it means using verifiable sources. Find all the info to make your claim rock solid.
4. Once you follow steps 1-3, more PGers will naturally want to reply, which leads to more buzz-->CK notices you-->great profit.

I'm not tooting my horn or anything, but if you want to see some of this in action, please feel free to take a look @ some of the articles I made while in the PG. You may find it helpful on how to debate well (especially with the America & Science thread).

Good luck!

Replying in threads is dandy, but it's pretty key to make your own threads. Quite frankly, I don't think you've made enough (and had enough variety in the threads that you've made) to get in the DH. But that's just one guy's opinion.

 

[Sucumbio]

As for this point, you are really gonna have to think before you post. Because here, you are implicitly stating that I feel post count matters more than quality of posts. By the way, that is something which I have never supported. You should be more careful with the words you choose, what say you?

Where the f**k are you getting this idea that I just want you to make posts to get in?

but you are going to have to show me more (viz making non-scientific threads that are made only by you.)

How -else- should I take your words? "Show you more." More what? More THREADS. Forget that you want to see more non-science ones, you are asking for more threads! And it's unfounded, in -this- one guy's opinion.

If you haven't read my threads before I got in the DH, I recommend that you do so. There, I demonstrate quality posting while making new threads. In fact, this was one of the reasons why I got in the DH in the first place! Come to think of it, I mentioned this before:

Replying in threads is dandy, but it's pretty key to make your own threads. Quite frankly, I don't think you've made enough (and had enough variety in the threads that you've made) to get in the DH. But that's just one guy's opinion.

I disagree, actually. But as you say, to each their own. You may have needed tons of threads to finally convince someone to let you in. I should not. But if it's up to you, then sure, I'll blanket the PG with 20 "viable" threads, all great debate topics, and all 4 or 5 of us can have our say and move on? C'mon, man. You're in one breath complaining it's been 6 months, and now you want it take more time? Ridiculous. I'm with Eor, I think myself and bob-T are at least worthy of debate hall participation. It's not like it's not obvious we're good debators, and making threads will suddenly open peoples eyes to that fact. I've been posting in here for months. It's not about topic creation, if you want my honest opinion, I find that aspect fairly irrelevant to debate. It's not about asking the questions, it's about answering them. That's why Presidential debates are the way they are. If candidates could ask their own questions, they'd never be wrong with their answers.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

How -else- should I take your words? "Show you more." More what? More THREADS. Forget that you want to see more non-science ones, you are asking for more threads! And it's unfounded, in -this- one guy's opinion.

Yes, you do need more threads. As I said before, IMHO making and replying to threads is key to being a good DHer. So you know, I made eight threads before getting in the DH (NB I am not saying you have to make this amount, it's just FYI), but replied to countless others. Check my posts for more.

I disagree, actually. But as you say, to each their own. You may have needed tons of threads to finally convince someone to let you in. I should not. But if it's up to you, then sure, I'll blanket the PG with 20 "viable" threads, all great debate topics, and all 4 or 5 of us can have our say and move on? C'mon, man. You're in one breath complaining it's been 6 months, and now you want it take more time? Ridiculous. I'm with Eor, I think myself and bob-T are at least worthy of debate hall participation. It's not like it's not obvious we're good debators, and making threads will suddenly open peoples eyes to that fact. I've been posting in here for months. It's not about topic creation, if you want my honest opinion, I find that aspect fairly irrelevant to debate. It's not about asking the questions, it's about answering them. That's why Presidential debates are the way they are. If candidates could ask their own questions, they'd never be wrong with their answers.

I wish I were at liberty to discuss my admission into the DH, but network regulations stop me from doing that

Spoiler

at least on this site. You can get @ me on AIM and we can discuss this further.

Yes, I do think you need more time, for the reasons above. However, to each their own opinion, which I can respect.

Again, here we go again with this not thinking the posts through. Your last sentence again implies that when I made threads, that the talk was one-sided in my favor. Seriously, read the last sentence again.

 

[Sucumbio]

There's a topic in the center stage right now about google vs china. (so far good response)

There's my debate on US foreign policy regarding terror attacks. (no one seems to want to challenge me on that one)

Also I have to believe that there was more PG activity 6 months ago... your assertion makes sense for the PG of then. For the PG of now, the DH of now, CK's idea is best. And just to appease the few that didn't like his idea so much, I've gone a bit beyond his expectations, and challenged Aesir/Krazyglue to a debate in the Center Stage. With good results, we were able to reach consensus for the most part, still waiting for Bob-T's reply... if it makes you feel better, I will make some more threads, but because of the lack of PG participants at this time, I fully expect you, and other DH members to take their place. I won't make topics that will be ignored, it's a waste of my time. It's hard enough coming up with topics that I care about, thus making them properly argumentative, without exhausting these ideas and no one responds.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

There's a topic in the center stage right now about google vs china. (so far good response)

There's my debate on US foreign policy regarding terror attacks. (no one seems to want to challenge me on that one)

Also I have to believe that there was more PG activity 6 months ago... your assertion makes sense for the PG of then. For the PG of now, the DH of now, CK's idea is best. And just to appease the few that didn't like his idea so much, I've gone a bit beyond his expectations, and challenged Aesir/Krazyglue to a debate in the Center Stage. With good results, we were able to reach consensus for the most part, still waiting for Bob-T's reply... if it makes you feel better, I will make some more threads, but because of the lack of PG participants at this time, I fully expect you, and other DH members to take their place. I won't make topics that will be ignored, it's a waste of my time. It's hard enough coming up with topics that I care about, thus making them properly argumentative, without exhausting these ideas and no one responds.

What am I meant to reply on? If it's about the Terror level I don't live in the USA, so all that terror level stuff, I don't really understand. I may have to do some research. If it's about music, I don't know anything about that... So I'd best be left out of it.

 

[Sucumbio]

What am I meant to reply on? If it's about the Terror level I don't live in the USA, so all that terror level stuff, I don't really understand. I may have to do some research. If it's about music, I don't know anything about that... So I'd best be left out of it.

My bad, I was referring to this from above:

I doubt that'll happen with the current economic growth and all. So long as the people are rich and can afford their Ipads, they'll be happy. The few who are unhappy can be put in jail, so I don't think we have a situation yet.

Even with a large scale revolt, China has a huge military, so long as that remains for the most part loyal, it'd be able to solve the problem with machine-gun fire, if worst comes to worst.

my reply:

That growth IS quite impressive, but the benefit is focused on urban China, despite Rural China being the catalyst. "Contrary to popular thinking, China owes its astonishing economic expansion not to far-sighted government policy but to hundreds of millions of entrepreneurial peasants." -source

Sound familiar? Public responsibitly, Private gain. It's the cause of OUR problems here in the US, lol... now we're not on the verge of revolution, or military action... really. But we also have far less to lose, we have already attained freedom of speech, assembly, press... the people of China are destined for serious frustration. As the claw their ways to the top, with innovation, and hard work, their profits are sucked away to oil the Communist engine. This just won't do, ultimately. And Google's not helping by threatening to pull the plug. They should stay in business, and allow themselves to be remain censored, and let the State department talk China into easing up off the controlling policies they employ, or there very well could be blood on their hands.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well true, but the point is, that the future isn't looking too bad for China. I can't say this for sure, but I'd guess that most of the people in China think this way to. With ludicrous economic growth figures at this time (8.9%!), they ought to be pretty happy. Sure their media is censored, and the internet is censored, but I wouldn't imagine that many people really care. And even if they do, they'll just be "reeducated" in weird prisons. There haven't been many large demonstrations in mainland China, and China is looking pretty stable at the moment. My point is, that the revolution probably won't happen any time soon. It may happen, but it'd have to take place when the current government is weakened severely. And that really doesn't look like happening at the moment.

 

[Riddle]

I am available again to debate with anybody about anything at all. Pick a topic and a side. I'm fairly good at devil's advocate.

 

[Dre89]

Hey just wandering if the Dhers debating in the DH abortion thread could transition to the PG one, because some of the posts in the DH had terrible logic and I'm getting annoyed I can't post in there lol.

 

[Riddle]

Respond to them in here. Nobodies stopping you.

 

[Dre89]

I've got something from the DH that I wanted to comment on, but I don't know how to quote from a board I'm not allowed in. This was a post from Krazyglue in the religion thread-


"Anyway, religion is what you make of it. "

No, it's not really. This is usually only said by the non-religious, or people who don't know much about religion. Religions are beliefs or theories that intend to reveal objective truths of the world, and provide an objective more outline for its followers. It has a similar role to what big bang theory and evolution theory have for atheists, but you don't say that evolution is "what you make of it".

It sounds harsh, but if you don't follow a religion because you've concluded it is the objective truth based on logical premises, you're not following it for the right reasons. Taking a subjective perspective on something designed to be objective is missing the point of it all together.

"On another note, Jam is right: there is more to the belief of God than just some need for justice. Religion is important to people for other reasons, such as the need to find inner peace."

People are supposed to believe in religion because they believe it's the objective truth. Someone who believes in Catholicism doesn't just do it when they feel like searching for 'inner peace', they do it because they feel they have to, because it's the truth.

"Riddle, I agree with you that homophobia would be far less present if there weren't any anti-homosexual implications in the Bible. However, I would also argue that such tendencies are often the product of the way the religion is taught. If people weren't brought up in an environment that was anti-homosexual, I think they would be more open in their opinions on the issue, or at least less violent. I have plenty of Christian friends, however they weren't brought up in a vehemently anti-homosexual environment, and as such they recognize that some people have different tendencies that need to be respected."

If your friends don't have a problem with homosexuality, then they're not really practising Christians (unless their denomination isn't against homosexuality, but I'm pretty sure most are). I know boxing people into groups is harsh, but they come what are called 'marginal' Christains, because they don't follow all practices of the religion.

The morality, or acceptance of homosexuality is debatable regardless of whether religion exists or not. Nowadays, in such a pro-gay society, it's ironic that if you're against homosexuality your instantly labelled narrow-minded, yet no one is ever open to the possibility of it being wrong anymore, because society promotes it now.

I'm not going to go into my personal views on homosexuality, especially as arguments like these may offend gays here, but I will say that the acceptance of homosexuality represents an ever-present trend in modern society. What the unfortunate reality is, is that modern society no longer cares for morality, it seeks to reduce it to merely what is 'socially agreeable'.

Basically, society is gradually moving more towards allowing anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Now some of you may wonder if anything is wrong with that, but that would justify hardcore drug-taking, perving on unknowing women, and viewing child pornography.

You may say that western ancient civilisations such as the Romans did more barbaric practices than us, or that the Greeks practiced homosexuality, but that would be mising the point. To the ancient Greeks, morality was more about seeking personal virtue and achieiving eudaiomon (human flourishing, or an objective state of happiness) rather than just being socially agreeable and not harming others.

Considering that western civilisation was largely conservative against more 'secular' practices, such as homosexulaity, casual sex, sex-chage etc. I'd argue that the emerging tolerance of these is a result of a reduction of morality to victimless crimes, which probably occured as result of the recent eruption of media capabilties (ie. television, internet).

I understand my views are quite controversial (as usual), at least for modern times anyway, so try not to be too offensive in response lol.

 

[KrazyGlue]

"Anyway, religion is what you make of it. "

No, it's not really. This is usually only said by the non-religious, or people who don't know much about religion. Religions are beliefs or theories that intend to reveal objective truths of the world, and provide an objective more outline for its followers. It has a similar role to what big bang theory and evolution theory have for atheists, but you don't say that evolution is "what you make of it".

It sounds harsh, but if you don't follow a religion because you've concluded it is the objective truth based on logical premises, you're not following it for the right reasons. Taking a subjective perspective on something designed to be objective is missing the point of it all together.

Really? So everyone in a religion follows it in exactly the same way? You don't think people interpret the bible (or other holy book) differently? Is there no such thing as fundamentalism and non-fundamentalism?

"On another note, Jam is right: there is more to the belief of God than just some need for justice. Religion is important to people for other reasons, such as the need to find inner peace."

People are supposed to believe in religion because they believe it's the objective truth. Someone who believes in Catholicism doesn't just do it when they feel like searching for 'inner peace', they do it because they feel they have to, because it's the truth.

Right, I'm saying that a sense of justice isn't the only reason people are religious. Wouldn't you agree?

"Riddle, I agree with you that homophobia would be far less present if there weren't any anti-homosexual implications in the Bible. However, I would also argue that such tendencies are often the product of the way the religion is taught. If people weren't brought up in an environment that was anti-homosexual, I think they would be more open in their opinions on the issue, or at least less violent. I have plenty of Christian friends, however they weren't brought up in a vehemently anti-homosexual environment, and as such they recognize that some people have different tendencies that need to be respected."

If your friends don't have a problem with homosexuality, then they're not really practising Christians (unless their denomination isn't against homosexuality, but I'm pretty sure most are). I know boxing people into groups is harsh, but they come what are called 'marginal' Christains, because they don't follow all practices of the religion.

The morality, or acceptance of homosexuality is debatable regardless of whether religion exists or not. Nowadays, in such a pro-gay society, it's ironic that if you're against homosexuality your instantly labelled narrow-minded, yet no one is ever open to the possibility of it being wrong anymore, because society promotes it now.

I'm not going to go into my personal views on homosexuality, especially as arguments like these may offend gays here, but I will say that the acceptance of homosexuality represents an ever-present trend in modern society. What the unfortunate reality is, is that modern society no longer cares for morality, it seeks to reduce it to merely what is 'socially agreeable'.

Basically, society is gradually moving more towards allowing anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Now some of you may wonder if anything is wrong with that, but that would justify hardcore drug-taking, perving on unknowing women, and viewing child pornography.

You may say that western ancient civilisations such as the Romans did more barbaric practices than us, or that the Greeks practiced homosexuality, but that would be mising the point. To the ancient Greeks, morality was more about seeking personal virtue and achieiving eudaiomon (human flourishing, or an objective state of happiness) rather than just being socially agreeable and not harming others.

Considering that western civilisation was largely conservative against more 'secular' practices, such as homosexulaity, casual sex, sex-chage etc. I'd argue that the emerging tolerance of these is a result of a reduction of morality to victimless crimes, which probably occured as result of the recent eruption of media capabilties (ie. television, internet).

Let me explain. These friends of mine aren't homosexual, and would never condone any homosexual activity or marriage. However, they do not feel the need to hate gay people, tell them they are going to burn in hell, or assault them.

And honestly, very few people actually do exactly what the bible tells them. Anyone who does is a fundamentalist. I would probably agree my friends are somewhat marginal, but they are people who regularly attend church, pray, and say grace before they eat. It's not like they're just Christian because their parents were.

I understand my views are quite controversial (as usual), at least for modern times anyway, so try not to be too offensive in response lol.

No problem, didn't really see anything offensive. (It did kind of seem that you were saying acceptance of homosexuality is a "reduction of morals", though.)

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This is just me the moral-relativist jumping in again, but if a crime is really victimless, then why should it be a crime? I mean if both parties are all fine with what occurred, then isn't it perfectly okay?

Also, religion in my opinion is extremely subjective and that's the way it should be. It should deal with people rather than facts, it shouldn't be taken literally and thus objectively- this makes it lose its magic. Most mythologies are stories with deep morals on how you should live your life. If you pretend these mythologies actually happened, then a lot of the morals are lost; it becomes history rather the moral. And if that's the case then it's missed the point, you may as well read history books, they do it far better!

But anyway, don't mind me, I'm just raving on about what I think of religion and religious literalists.

 

[Dre89]

Really? So everyone in a religion follows it in exactly the same way? You don't think people interpret the bible (or other holy book) differently? Is there no such thing as fundamentalism and non-fundamentalism?

Some people are religious for the wrong reasons though. Yes, people interpret the Bible differently, but if they do it because they believe it is an objective belief, then that's fine. If they believe you can interpret the bible however you want, then that's going against the point of religion. That'd be like saying that you can interpret scientific evidence of something however you want, when in reality it only points toward one truth

Right, I'm saying that a sense of justice isn't the only reason people are religious. Wouldn't you agree?

I would.

Let me explain. These friends of mine aren't homosexual, and would never condone any homosexual activity or marriage. However, they do not feel the need to hate gay people, tell them they are going to burn in hell, or assault them.

Of course, Christianity teaches to hate the sin not the sinner. I got the impression they just had no problem with homosexuality whatsoever.

No problem, didn't really see anything offensive. (It did kind of seem that you were saying acceptance of homosexuality is a "reduction of morals", though.)

I'm saying that the recent promotion of homosexuality in modern society is reflection of how it is reducing morality to victimless crimes and what is socially agreeable. My beliefs about homosexuality are irrelevant to the point, my point is that it was once looked down upon, but it, along with other morally controversial practices such as casual sex, are now promoted for the sake of social agreement.

Although I do actually disagree with homosexuality, in this post I'm criticising the premise for advocating homosexuality, not the homosexuality itself, if that made sense.

 

[Dre89]

This is just me the moral-relativist jumping in again, but if a crime is really victimless, then why should it be a crime? I mean if both parties are all fine with what occurred, then isn't it perfectly okay?

Also, religion in my opinion is extremely subjective and that's the way it should be. It should deal with people rather than facts, it shouldn't be taken literally and thus objectively- this makes it lose its magic.

But that argument has no relevance to issue you were addressing.

Whether you believe in religion or not, whether you think it should be subjective or not, the reality is they were designed to reveal objective truths, with objective moral guidelines.

Most mythologies are stories with deep morals on how you should live your life. If you pretend these mythologies actually happened, then a lot of the morals are lost; it becomes history rather the moral. And if that's the case then it's missed the point, you may as well read history books, they do it far better!

Ok I think you're crossing a line you're not really prepared to cross here. I know no one here will beleive it, but the Catholic Church has compiled tons of evidence which points to it being the objective truth. Several miracles have been scientifically and medically verified, several prophecies that came from apparitions in modern times have been fulfilled (eg. The Miracle of The Sun), they've found evidence of a flood where the Noah's Ark story was set, and there are tons of historical, non-religious sources that correlate to the events depicted in the Bible. There is plenty more I could say but I can't think of it now.

Whether you believe that stuff is irrelevant, let's not turn this into a 'it's not scientifically proven' argument. The point is The Church has good reason to believe in the objective truth of its faith.

 

[Dre89]

Just want to reply to this quote by Alt in the DH religion thread-

"I'm not so convinced. I think a great deal of people mistake wish-thinking for actual belief.

There is a great deal of difference between wishing that your recently deceased family member is "in a better place", and actually thinking that it's true. And when I talk to people about this sort of thing, I tend to get an answer similar to: "I just have to believe that XXXX is in a better place, because the alternative is too tragic." "

You're always going to have people who have the wrong premises for a good conclusion. You and I both know there are plenty of religious people beyond the level of thinking you depicted here.



"But more directly to the OP:

This is just a poorly worded rephrasing of the classical theist argument: "If there is no god, then what is the basis of morality?" "

That argument only represents some theistic thought. It's not as if all theists think like that.

"Well, this challenge has already been refuted 2500 years ago by Socrates in The Euthyphro. Making an appeal to a god doesn't help you decide what is and isn't moral. You still have to make up your own mind about the matter. Which, not coincidentally, is what religious people do anyway."

Good reference, I agree completely. If anything, religious people use their personal concept of morality to determine whether Gods in religions are good or bad. Divine Command Theory is not in all religions though.

"It should come as no surprise that readers of the bible skip over the parts that say to stone to death disobedient children. Or the parts that encourage **** and genocide. Because we all know, inherent to our very makeup as social creatures, that these things are wrong."

No they don't. I've never read anything about **** (are you talking about the Catholic Bible? If so can you give me a reference please? I'm curious to see what that's about), but things suchs as stonings mentioned in the Old Testamant are addressed by Old Law vs. New Law theory. Whether you find this theory plausible is irrelevant, the fact is (Catholics at least) don't ignore this stuff.

Sorry for the triple post.

 

[Aesir]

In the OT primarily in the books of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Judges, mostly any book in the OT you will find something about ****, or how to take care of your concubine.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Some people are religious for the wrong reasons though. Yes, people interpret the Bible differently, but if they do it because they believe it is an objective belief, then that's fine. If they believe you can interpret the bible however you want, then that's going against the point of religion. That'd be like saying that you can interpret scientific evidence of something however you want, when in reality it only points toward one truth

Right, I think most people believe their interpretation of the religion is the objective truth. Going back to what I was saying in the original thread, it's not the religion that causes or prevents crime, but rather it is the result of what different people of that religion felt was the objective truth. In other words, you can't blame crime or lack of crime on religion because it is in reality caused by the people who follow the religion and are acting on their interpretation of the religion. That's what I meant by "religion is what you make of it". It probably would have been better worded as "religious beliefs can vary based off of different people's interpretation of that religions's principles".

I'm saying that the recent promotion of homosexuality in modern society is reflection of how it is reducing morality to victimless crimes and what is socially agreeable. My beliefs about homosexuality are irrelevant to the point, my point is that it was once looked down upon, but it, along with other morally controversial practices such as casual sex, are now promoted for the sake of social agreement.

Although I do actually disagree with homosexuality, in this post I'm criticising the premise for advocating homosexuality, not the homosexuality itself, if that made sense.

Fair enough.




EDIT:

No they don't. I've never read anything about **** (are you talking about the Catholic Bible? If so can you give me a reference please? I'm curious to see what that's about), but things suchs as stonings mentioned in the Old Testamant are addressed by Old Law vs. New Law theory. Whether you find this theory plausible is irrelevant, the fact is (Catholics at least) don't ignore this stuff.

Dre is right here, I think all of these mentions occur in the Old Testament. I'm not sure I buy the Old Law vs. New Law Theory, but I really don't want to argue with anyone's religious beliefs, so I'm gonna stop here.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But that argument has no relevance to issue you were addressing.

Whether you believe in religion or not, whether you think it should be subjective or not, the reality is they were designed to reveal objective truths, with objective moral guidelines.

Ok I think you're crossing a line you're not really prepared to cross here. I know no one here will beleive it, but the Catholic Church has compiled tons of evidence which points to it being the objective truth. Several miracles have been scientifically and medically verified, several prophecies that came from apparitions in modern times have been fulfilled (eg. The Miracle of The Sun), they've found evidence of a flood where the Noah's Ark story was set, and there are tons of historical, non-religious sources that correlate to the events depicted in the Bible. There is plenty more I could say but I can't think of it now.

Whether you believe that stuff is irrelevant, let's not turn this into a 'it's not scientifically proven' argument. The point is The Church has good reason to believe in the objective truth of its faith.

Oh really, the miracles have been scientifically verified? That's just wrong! How about you wikipedia those events and read what the criticisms have to say? The apparent Miracle of the Sun occurred in the wrong place! The sun at that time and date should have been in a different spot! These miracles have never made it into peer reviewed literature. They aren't scientifically accepted, they're just eyewitness claims, that can be easily explained away.

The bible is not historically accurate as you are saying! It's just wrong. There are many events that don't make any sense at all, or are just plain wrong. For example Joshua's siege of Jericho occurred when Jericho was UNINHABITED.

Sorry, the point is that the Bible is rather like Homer's Iliad, right on some things, completely wrong on others.

The point is, that religion is subjective. You can take one text, and everyone will have a different interpretation on it. Sure they believe that they're objectively right, but that belief is subjective. That is what they make of it, that is what they make of religion.

 

[Dre89]

Oh really, the miracles have been scientifically verified? That's just wrong! How about you wikipedia those events and read what the criticisms have to say? The apparent Miracle of the Sun occurred in the wrong place! The sun at that time and date should have been in a different spot! These miracles have never made it into peer reviewed literature. They aren't scientifically accepted, they're just eyewitness claims, that can be easily explained away.

This was tens of thousands of people, people who didn't believe in God testified to is. They went to that specific place because the girl who had the prophecy revealed to her said it was going to happen in that place. There were people in other countries who saw it, they probably didn't even know it was going to occur. It was reported in the Portugese newspaper. I even know someone who's grandmother saw it from another country.

Plus, there's plenty more things other than this. The fact that Fatima correctly predicted so many occurences is one of them, or miracles from the Spring of Lourdes have been deemed medically inexplicable by an international panel of experts of different beliefs.

There is a 6-volume book series called The History of Christendom that explains all of the historical and miraculous evidence, all with plenty of third-party references.

The bible is not historically accurate as you are saying! It's just wrong. There are many events that don't make any sense at all, or are just plain wrong. For example Joshua's siege of Jericho occurred when Jericho was UNINHABITED.

That's a pretty good time to make the siege then lol.

Sorry, the point is that the Bible is rather like Homer's Iliad, right on some things, completely wrong on others.

The point is, that religion is subjective. You can take one text, and everyone will have a different interpretation on it. Sure they believe that they're objectively right, but that belief is subjective. That is what they make of it, that is what they make of religion.

No, that's the problem with non-Catholic Christian beliefs. They just make their own interpretation of it, and that's why we have so many interpretations going around. Jesus stated in the Bible that word of the Church has the Holy Spirit or something like that, in other words you follow the Church. Catholics didn't just make their own subjective interpretation of the Bible, they did what Jesus told them to do. Protestant religions base their faith completely on subjective biblical interpretation, whereas Catholicism is not only based on the Bible but on tradition as well.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This was tens of thousands of people, people who didn't believe in God testified to is. They went to that specific place because the girl who had the prophecy revealed to her said it was going to happen in that place. There were people in other countries who saw it, they probably didn't even know it was going to occur. It was reported in the Portugese newspaper. I even know someone who's grandmother saw it from another country.

Look, there is phenomena that looks very similar to this sort of event, it's called a sundog. And besides, the sun was in the wrong place in the sky for this to have happened. Also people there who should have seen it didn't actually see it. See these things are very iffy.

Plus, there's plenty more things other than this. The fact that Fatima correctly predicted so many occurences is one of them, or miracles from the Spring of Lourdes have been deemed medically inexplicable by an international panel of experts of different beliefs.

Yeah if something is unexplainable, it must be god! Seriously it is an argument from ignorance.

There is a 6-volume book series called The History of Christendom that explains all of the historical and miraculous evidence, all with plenty of third-party references.

Yep and there is this book written by a skeptic Joe Nickell: Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions and Healing Cures Prometheus


The point is, that these "miracles" are shrouded in controversy and aren't accepted in the scientific community.

That's a pretty good time to make the siege then lol.

Yeah, and to walk around the city 7 times and blow trumpets and have the walls come down. Strange isn't it.

No, that's the problem with non-Catholic Christian beliefs. They just make their own interpretation of it, and that's why we have so many interpretations going around. Jesus stated in the Bible that word of the Church has the Holy Spirit or something like that, in other words you follow the Church. Catholics didn't just make their own subjective interpretation of the Bible, they did what Jesus told them to do.

Are you sure of that? I'm doubting what you're saying. Jesus spoke in parable correct (at least some of the time)? So how these parable are interpreted are subjective, because there is no method of doing so objectively. You can't measure or push parables through equations etc.

Protestant religions base their faith completely on subjective biblical interpretation, whereas Catholicism is not only based on the Bible but on tradition as well.

Yeah well, I'm not sure about that, I wouldn't really know.

 

[Dre89]

Look, there is phenomena that looks very similar to this sort of event, it's called a sundog. And besides, the sun was in the wrong place in the sky for this to have happened. Also people there who should have seen it didn't actually see it. See these things are very iffy.

Yeah I've heard about the sundog theory, but that's still controversial too. That doesn't change the fact that a little girl correctly predicted it, the Aurora before the war, communism, and I think there were other things too.

Yeah if something is unexplainable, it must be god! Seriously it is an argument from ignorance.

Well if there's evidence of supernatural phenomena occuring, it's pretty logical to assume it's supernatural.

It's not as if there's been just one medically or scientifically explicable phenomena, there's been several.

It's not as if the girl at Fatima was the only one to correctly predict occurences through prohecy, several of these have occurred.

I've even had spiritual things happen to me, and I know of others who have experienced it as well. I'm not talking about 'I saw God' stuff, I'm talking about stuff that requires external influences, so it can't be dellusion.

You guys play the argument from ignorance card because it is easy to do, but the reality is after a point it just becomes more logical to accept spiritual phenomena than to deny it.

Yep and there is this book written by a skeptic Joe Nickell: Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions and Healing Cures Prometheus


The point is, that these "miracles" are shrouded in controversy and aren't accepted in the scientific community.

So because it's not accepted in the scientific community it didn't happen?

The whole point of spirtual phenomena is that it's not scientifically explainable. Science is related to the observation of natural things, supernatural phenomena are not natural things.

The thing is, people like you say that you'll accept it when there is scientific evidence for it, which means you'll only accept it if there is a natural and physical explanation for it, meaning that you were never open to the possibility of it being supernatural.


The whole idea behind the Miracle of the Sun was that Mother Mary was giving proof of the girl's apparitions. If she were to make something that was scientifically explainable, then no one would believe it was supernatural. Alot of the time, the whole point of the event is to prove there is existence beyond the natural, causing phenomena that could be explained through the natural wouldn't really help that cause.

Are you sure of that? I'm doubting what you're saying. Jesus spoke in parable correct (at least some of the time)? So how these parable are interpreted are subjective, because there is no method of doing so objectively. You can't measure or push parables through equations etc.

Jesus said something along the lines that the word of the Church is the word of God, so Catholics follow this. The reason why there's so much different interpretation is that protestants start trying to interpret it in their own ways.

Several protestant denominations also omit several books from the Bible. For example, from what I understand the Baptist Church believes that only adults should be baptised, yet in one of the books that they omit (the Book of James possibly?) entire families are baptised, including the children.

Protestants themselves have traced back the Catholic Church to the early Church.