The Debate Hall Social Thread

[GoldShadow]

Sunlight? I don't know where you live, but I'd love to have a little sunlight.

 

[blazedaces]

To be honest since the activity is so low here and I don't enjoy the PG all that much I've moved onto other forums. I still check this one just about daily, but see nothing and move on...

-blazed

Edit: I also think there's so few threads and since given some time (another one just did) they get moved to the archives that makes it hard to continue any long-term discussion.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I've pretty much taken a break from debating. I can only really debate authoritatively on one set of topics, and after a while running into the same arguments just gets really tiresome. (Particularly since for every ballin4life who has good arguments and listens to what you say, you get two "lol, but there is contradictionz!" idiots who don't even seem to notice you posted at all.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The screening process here means that there are very few opportunities to pwn (well, since Suntan Luigi stopped coming around ), and the topics are often way too high-brow for me, with too little dissenting opinion on the topics I can really bite down on. Like, on Straight Dope or The Escapist I can name, off the top of my head, 2-5 people on each which disagree with me on just about every issue this side of "should kittens be slaughtered", and post (occasionally truly inane) threads on the subject. I guess you could take this as an admission of surrender; I'm not metaphysical enough for this forum.

 

[rvkevin]

If you're bored, generate a list of topics...

 

[Dre89]

I'm thinking of making a thread on Conway's Game of Life, and whether it actually says something about the possibility of mindless evolution.

 

[blazedaces]

The screening process here means that there are very few opportunities to pwn (well, since Suntan Luigi stopped coming around ), and the topics are often way too high-brow for me, with too little dissenting opinion on the topics I can really bite down on. Like, on Straight Dope or The Escapist I can name, off the top of my head, 2-5 people on each which disagree with me on just about every issue this side of "should kittens be slaughtered", and post (occasionally truly inane) threads on the subject. I guess you could take this as an admission of surrender; I'm not metaphysical enough for this forum.

Yeah, I'm really sorry if this is insulting some of our members, but the "metaphysical" "stuff" is best described by me as abusively obtuse. It's almost as if it's purposefully written in language that is incredibly hard to understand, and after taking the time to actually understand it, you find it really isn't all that impressive. So these days I just skip them.

As for a list of topics, unfortunately it's hard these days for me to think of topics to debate. I have tons of topics that interest me and I would love to discuss, like this TED talk I just watched about how the internet is filtering everything we see, which stops us from learning anything new and different. There's so many interesting implications/ideas that spawn from that, like how it's leading us to be an even more polarized and biased society where we can't understand each other because I never even see the information you're presented with and you never see mine. I could see myself talking about that topic for hours, but I don't see much of a debate. And even if I did, I think my thread would be moved to the archive section within a few weeks, so what's the point?

I hope I don't sound like I'm whining, I'm just trying to explain why I see myself contributing here less and less.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Metaphysics is like formal logic, you can only appreciate it once you can understand it properly.

They're probably the two most important things if you want a justifiable belief system, in that any belief is technically subject to metaphysical and logical scrutiny.

That's probably why the only people who appreciate them are academics, because it's really only they who set out to have intricately justified belief systems.

 

[blazedaces]

Metaphysics is like formal logic, you can only appreciate it once you can understand it properly.

They're probably the two most important things if you want a justifiable belief system, in that any belief is technically subject to metaphysical and logical scrutiny.

That's probably why the only people who appreciate them are academics, because it's really only they who set out to have intricately justified belief systems.

I agree wholeheartedly that the concept is probably incredibly important, but let me put it this way. If I, who has taken quite a few philosophy classes in college myself, who has just graduated last year from spending all those years in academia, who cares so much about having a justified belief system, feels this way about it, what hope does the average person have?

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree that the others on this forum are not interested in having a justified belief system. I instead feel the the language used is simply not understandable to anyone not surrounding themselves by it.

Look, I'm a software developer. And when I was in college, I studied electrical engineering. Many technical experts have an incredibly tough time explaining concepts to layman people, but I personally take that very seriously. I constantly struggle to make sure my explanation of a concept makes sense to people who do not surround themselves with my technical know-how and jargon. I too fail at times, with some things, and in those cases I spend time looking online for ways to explain myself better.

I feel that those threads/posts concerning the subject of metaphysics exhibited absolutely no attempt to try and bring the explanation to a level that layman people could understand. It doesn't make the subject any less important in the same way that a technical person failing to explain himself is talking about something less important, but that is still a big communication problem. There are many ways to explain the same subject and many ways to talk about the same thing, but if you can't communicate your point clearly and concisely than no matter what the subject matter you will never get your point across.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

In mp threads, I usually define terms that I'm using. As for catering the arguments to the uneducated, I can't really make them simpler than I do now without straw manning. I already leave out 90% of the stuff.

As for justified beliefs, I probably was out of line, but most people don't realise it's important to justified belief.

Justified belief is different to true beliefs. Eg. Hardly any atheists justify their metaphysical beliefs, but atheism could still be true, but part of their belief would still be unjustified.

You don't really see many people who have studies mp at depth turning around saying it's pointless. The people who say that tend to be uneducated in it.

 

[Aesir]

So what's everyones view about climate change becoming part of the culture war in america?

 

[rvkevin]

You don't really see many people who have studies mp at depth turning around saying it's pointless. The people who say that tend to be uneducated in it.

I'm curious as to whether you think this supports your point? Would you be able to justify this line of reasoning? Would this line of reasoning be valid for fields other than "mp"?

 

[Sieguest]

So I haven't been the only one... alright I don't feel so bad now.

As for climate change becoming part of the culture war in America, I personally think it's ridiculous (along with a bunch of other things but eh). I basically see it as "Let's take a natural cycle that's been altered due to current trends and blow it to sky high proportions." Now every single change in nature is being marked as some horrendous effect of climate change. In my opinion it's being used as a crux in policy, in domestic establishment, among other things that I can't seem to think of right now. Not to say that climate change is some trivial phenomenon, but it's nothing new and the fact it's gotten to the point where people are desensitized to hearing so much "back-and-forth" about it in our mindset is disappointing to me.

 

[Aesir]

So I haven't been the only one... alright I don't feel so bad now.

As for climate change becoming part of the culture war in America, I personally think it's ridiculous (along with a bunch of other things but eh). I basically see it as "Let's take a natural cycle that's been altered due to current trends and blow it to sky high proportions." Now every single change in nature is being marked as some horrendous effect of climate change. In my opinion it's being used as a crux in policy, in domestic establishment, among other things that I can't seem to think of right now. Not to say that climate change is some trivial phenomenon, but it's nothing new and the fact it's gotten to the point where people are desensitized to hearing so much "back-and-forth" about it in our mindset is disappointing to me.

Climate change is a real problem, the only thing that's being debated on are how bad are the effects going to be. There's an almost universal consensus that it's happening and is being effected by humans. The question is what's going to happen if we allow it to take it's course.

 

[Theftz22]

Honestly, I don't know what there is to debate other than philosophy. I mean, science can't really be debated unless you do research which contradicts some theory. You could debate some of the non-empirical aspects of science, like the physical interpretations of quantum physics and relativity, but then you're wandering into philosophy. I guess there's politics, but firstly politics is a form of philosophy (political philosophy), and most political issues need to be grounded in an ethical framework. We could debate history, but I don't think any of us are historians and know much about historical method and historical debates.

 

[Dre89]

As I said before, we could debate whether Conway's Game of life contributes anything to the discussion on evolution.

Rv- It'd probably work for things like science and maths too.

 

[blazedaces]

As I said before, we could debate whether Conway's Game of life contributes anything to the discussion on evolution.

Rv- It'd probably work for things like science and maths too.

What/how would it contribute?

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

There are somethings that are no brainers, it's just people let their ego's get in the way. Which is a polite way of putting "I wanna watch the world burn."

I'm not seeing how Conway's game of life could really offer a valid debate topic though.


http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...with_students_to_trick_them_into_selling_pot/ pretty shady police force we got here Americans. =(

 

[rvkevin]

http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...with_students_to_trick_them_into_selling_pot/ pretty shady police force we got here Americans. =(

That's nothing compared to what happened in the UK.

Anyway, this shouldn't be an issue in the first place, which only makes this more aggravating. If only our country used evidence in policy decisions rather than the opinion of interest groups...

 

[Nicholas1024]

Actually, I don't think historical debates would be that hard for people to understand. Just set a baseline for what historians consider generally trustworthy, use your common sense as to what might cause a person to lie, whether there might have been changes in the story before it was written down, whether we have reliable copies of the original manuscript, etc. and you're set.

Makes me think of an interesting question. What's the oldest book/story/whatever on record that has better purely historical backing than the new testament does?

 

[blazedaces]

A history topic I am sure people can debate on:

Was the United States justified in dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan at the end of World War 2? There are actually two (in my opinion not quite) equally valid points to be made here.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

A history topic I am sure people can debate on:

Was the United States justified in dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan at the end of World War 2? There are actually two (in my opinion not quite) equally valid points to be made here.

-blazed

I would definitely argue against that.

 

[blazedaces]

I would definitely argue against that.

So would I.

-blazed

 

[GoldShadow]

That'd be an interesting topic. And to be clear, when you guys say "against" you mean the bombings were not justified, correct? In that case, I would argue for (though that's based on the last time I very cursorily researched the topic, about a bajillion and a half years ago; maybe if I reevaluated it now, I'd find myself leaning the other direction).

I also had another thought recently, the idea of this overwhelming obsession with cleanliness in first world countries, and by that I mean cleanliness in regard to germs and microbes. There's so much clamoring for thoroughly washing your hands before each meal, and air filters that remove germs from your home's air, and antibacterial soaps and disinfecting wipes, and throwing out food that's more than a few days old, and unrepentant recommendations against eating undercooked eggs or meat, etc. Is all that really harming us by preventing our immune systems from coming in contact with bugs that our ancestors were regularly exposed to? And I would argue that yes, we are "too clean," "too sterile." Anybody else have thoughts on this?

 

[blazedaces]

That'd be an interesting topic. And to be clear, when you guys say "against" you mean the bombings were not justified, correct? In that case, I would argue for (though that's based on the last time I very cursorily researched the topic, about a bajillion and a half years ago; maybe if I reevaluated it now, I'd find myself leaning the other direction).

Yes, that's what we mean. If that's the case I'll start the thread. I'll try to present it openly.

I also had another thought recently, the idea of this overwhelming obsession with cleanliness in first world countries, and by that I mean cleanliness in regard to germs and microbes. There's so much clamoring for thoroughly washing your hands before each meal, and air filters that remove germs from your home's air, and antibacterial soaps and disinfecting wipes, and throwing out food that's more than a few days old, and unrepentant recommendations against eating undercooked eggs or meat, etc. Is all that really harming us by preventing our immune systems from coming in contact with bugs that our ancestors were regularly exposed to? And I would argue that yes, we are "too clean," "too sterile." Anybody else have thoughts on this?

This is also a very interesting idea. But, this article written in 2011 links to a study and states the following:

Compliance rates for hand washing in American hospitals are only around 40 percent

So I don't know if we're quite at the extreme level of cleanliness you claim we are...

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

^ Basically are we victims of our success? Sounds interesting. I would enjoy a topic like that./

Been wondering what every ones view on this is;

Hypothetical situation, our government as real solid intelligence that a high ranking politician in X country is planning an attack against the United States. We'll call X Qumar (lol if anyone gets the reference). Anyway the idea is, there is some rather convincing evidence that he's planning this attack. What should we do? assassinate said leader? which would halt the plot? or try him with international law with the possibility of him getting off?

assume that said country is considered an ally, and access to said politician isn't impossible.

 

[rvkevin]

Hypothetical situation, our government as real solid intelligence that a high ranking politician in X country is planning an attack against the United States. We'll call X Qumar (lol if anyone gets the reference). Anyway the idea is, there is some rather convincing evidence that he's planning this attack. What should we do? assassinate said leader? which would halt the plot? or try him with international law with the possibility of him getting off?

You would try him in a court of law and since you have 'solid' intelligence, he will be convicted which will prevent the plot from occurring. However, if said evidence is not convincing, then our intelligence was lacking in some way to begin with so he should not be a target. It is often said that we have 'solid' evidence to justify certain actions. If that is the case, then they can demonstrate it in a court of law; we don't need to take their word for it. This also allows us to defend our self against mistaken allegations. This is why we have due process in the first place.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yay drunk posting

Yeah, I'm really sorry if this is insulting some of our members, but the "metaphysical" "stuff" is best described by me as abusively obtuse. It's almost as if it's purposefully written in language that is incredibly hard to understand, and after taking the time to actually understand it, you find it really isn't all that impressive. So these days I just skip them.

As for a list of topics, unfortunately it's hard these days for me to think of topics to debate. I have tons of topics that interest me and I would love to discuss, like this TED talk I just watched about how the internet is filtering everything we see, which stops us from learning anything new and different. There's so many interesting implications/ideas that spawn from that, like how it's leading us to be an even more polarized and biased society where we can't understand each other because I never even see the information you're presented with and you never see mine. I could see myself talking about that topic for hours, but I don't see much of a debate. And even if I did, I think my thread would be moved to the archive section within a few weeks, so what's the point?

I hope I don't sound like I'm whining, I'm just trying to explain why I see myself contributing here less and less.

-blazed

I like you.

So what's everyones view about climate change becoming part of the culture war in america?

The "culture war" is between those who believe in science and those who don't. If it was an actual war, rather than a culture war, we'd have sticks and rocks vs. thermonuclear weapons. Just sayin'.

 

[SuperBowser]

"Anti-science" people bother me because they enjoy all the benefits that science brings them (medicine, technology, travel) but actively disparage anything that conflicts their simplistic world view (evolution, climate change, vaccinations).

It's all based on the same scientific method.

 

[rvkevin]

"Anti-science" people bother me because they enjoy all the benefits that science brings them (medicine, technology, travel) but actively disparage anything that conflicts their simplistic world view (evolution, climate change, vaccinations).

It's all based on the same scientific method.

Yeah, its the 'we want X, but we don't want Y that helps us achieve X' mentality that is incredibly frustrating. It's like the pro-life crowd wants to decrease the number of abortions and then in the next breath advocate policies that increase the number of abortions. When you are counterproductive to even your own agenda, everyone is better off when you don't participate in the discussion. It happens on all levels too; people want more services, but lower taxes. When people propose such plans, it just causes problems.

 

[Dre89]

What anti science people are you talking about? People against stem cell researach? Or just young Earth Creationists?

 

[Aesir]

Both. (ten)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Man, last night was great. I learned two things:
1. That cougar I was flirting with is genuinely interested in me
2. I need to buy larger condoms.

Also, I think I made a really great impression the way I interacted with her 6-year-old daughter the morning after.

...That sounds kinda creepy, doesn't it?

Anyways. Does anyone else think it says something entirely negative about the US population that someone like Santorum can gain any semblance of momentum?

 

[Sucumbio]

Kinda, it just goes to show what sways people. "A thousand points of light" and all that crap. People are generally uninterested in politics until it concerns their wallets, or their freedoms. Anything beside that tends to go unnoticed, and Santorum's got a way of speaking that makes himself sound good, but whatever he's got going on, it's got Obama's attention, cause MSNBC just announced he's come under fire from the administration.

 

[rvkevin]

Faster than light neutrinos measurement due to loose wire. Skepticism for the win.

 

[Sieguest]

Climate change is a real problem, the only thing that's being debated on are how bad are the effects going to be. There's an almost universal consensus that it's happening and is being effected by humans. The question is what's going to happen if we allow it to take it's course.

(Curse me for late responses)
I'm not saying that climate change isn't happening, I'm not even saying that it isn't a problem though I am saying that it's effects are being blown out of proportion and are being used as a social crux(e.g. Everything happening in nature is by fault of global warming etc). The earth has warmed and cooled for ages as demonstrated in a few ways (one such looking at the Earth's geologic record)*. I just believe that the human involvement in climate change will just accelerate the process. Of course... that still may end up bad for us heh heh.

But eh, with school and such I really haven't looked as much into climate change that would suffice to base a position on. (SWF really needs a shrug smilie).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

never mind this

 

[blazedaces]

(Curse me for late responses)
I'm not saying that climate change isn't happening, I'm not even saying that it isn't a problem though I am saying that it's effects are being blown out of proportion and are being used as a social crux(e.g. Everything happening in nature is by fault of global warming etc). The earth has warmed and cooled for ages as demonstrated in a few ways (one such looking at the Earth's geologic record)*. I just believe that the human involvement in climate change will just accelerate the process. Of course... that still may end up bad for us heh heh.

But eh, with school and such I really haven't looked as much into climate change that would suffice to base a position on. (SWF really needs a shrug smilie).

So you have an opinion, but don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion? Am I understanding you right?

-blazed

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

In slightly lighter news: debating in user blogs makes my head hurt. ^_^

 

[Theftz22]

^That thread is garbage anyway.