The Proving Grounds Discussion

[GoldShadow]

I disagree, I thought the same thing at first about RK but then I actually read his posts in the topic.

It would be one thing if he believed that homosexuality was wrong, but that gay marriage should be allowed regardless because he believed that his views should not be enforced on everybody. Rather, he seems to think that homosexuality is wrong but that it is not synonymous with gay marriage because gay marriage itself is not mentioned in the bible or something (ie, he disagrees with homosexuality but supports gay marriage, as long as no physical homosexual acts are involved in the gay marriage).

 

[Eor]

No I mean if it bothers you, you're in the wrong community lol. Not saying you should say it because everyone else does lol.

It bothers me (not people saying something was *****, the RAPPPE and GET ***** stuff), and I'm not in your community so suck it

 

[adumbrodeus]

I disagree, I thought the same thing at first about RK but then I actually read his posts in the topic.

It would be one thing if he believed that homosexuality was wrong, but that gay marriage should be allowed regardless because he believed that his views should not be enforced on everybody. Rather, he seems to think that homosexuality is wrong but that it is not synonymous with gay marriage because gay marriage itself is not mentioned in the bible or something (ie, he disagrees with homosexuality but supports gay marriage, as long as no physical homosexual acts are involved in the gay marriage).

Well, actually he doesn't believe homosexuality is wrong, reread a bit.

He believes that homosexuality is not synonymous with homosexual sex, and that gay marriage is not synonymous with homosexual sex. It's a very important distinction, and even though some groups equate them, it's obvious his doesn't. Neither do Catholics and LGBTA activists.


Realistically, it's just them attempting to force their definition of "marriage" on him, who said that "marriage" has to include sex? There are plenty of groups that completely renounced sexuality in the past, what prevents his group from defining marriage as "a loving relationship cemented by God in which two people promise themselves to each other for better or for worse until death"?

I find it no different then attempts to define marriage as being "for reproduction" just because it's their belief.


Now if people wish to pull bible quotes out to disagree with the internal consistency (I can't think of any off the top of my head, but there might be some), they can try. But on the face, the philosophy isn't internally inconsistent.


And as I said, it doesn't touch on his opinions of the legality of "gay marriage", because secularly there's no particular exhaustive definition of marriage anyway, so this tangent cannot conclude anything relevant to the conclusion of the topic at hand (since it's "should people who support legalizing gay marriage believe it's sinful or not") so it's irrelevant. It would be better for a different topic.

 

[Aesir]

It bothers me (not people saying something was *****, the RAPPPE and GET ***** stuff), and I'm not in your community so suck it

The examples you gave is exactly what I meant lol.

I thought you didn't play smash?

 

[RDK]

Well, actually he doesn't believe homosexuality is wrong, reread a bit.

He believes that homosexuality is not synonymous with homosexual sex, and that gay marriage is not synonymous with homosexual sex. It's a very important distinction, and even though some groups equate them, it's obvious his doesn't. Neither do Catholics and LGBTA activists.


Realistically, it's just them attempting to force their definition of "marriage" on him, who said that "marriage" has to include sex? There are plenty of groups that completely renounced sexuality in the past, what prevents his group from defining marriage as "a loving relationship cemented by God in which two people promise themselves to each other for better or for worse until death"?

I find it no different then attempts to define marriage as being "for reproduction" just because it's their belief.


Now if people wish to pull bible quotes out to disagree with the internal consistency (I can't think of any off the top of my head, but there might be some), they can try. But on the face, the philosophy isn't internally inconsistent.


And as I said, it doesn't touch on his opinions of the legality of "gay marriage", because secularly there's no particular exhaustive definition of marriage anyway, so this tangent cannot conclude anything relevant to the conclusion of the topic at hand (since it's "should people who support legalizing gay marriage believe it's sinful or not") so it's irrelevant. It would be better for a different topic.

If you expect homosexuals to get married on the condition of not having any sex, you're ridiculous.

 

[Aesir]

Biiiiiiiiiiiiiig Brotheeeeeeeeeeer

 

[Zero Beat]

Let's avoid doing that up there^^^^.

I like you a lot Aesir but I have yet to infract someone. I have a very jumpy trigger at the moment! So, are we ready to bring in FaithKeeper/ Vickey?

 

[adumbrodeus]

If you expect homosexuals to get married on the condition of not having any sex, you're ridiculous.

Why?

If that's the philosophy that they're part of, why can't you expect them to follow through on it?


And you know what, if they screw up you can always ask for forgiveness from God.


There are plenty of philosophies which believe in refraining from sex, why's this any different?

Biiiiiiiiiiiiiig Brotheeeeeeeeeeer

...

I hate this sloppy thinking on the part of debate hall members.

Just because you believe something is immoral doesn't mean you believe it should be illegal.

Plenty of people believe that government should avoid interfering in people's lives in cases like this, and this more then overrules the immorality of the actions. From there, deal with it as a matter of personal choice, in many cases people do have a choice to act immorally, and there's no reason they should answer to the law for it because it makes the government far too and everpresent in people's lives.

 

[Aesir]

You probably didn't understand what I was saying that too but that's okay, I think you're just being kind of defensive right now.


Big brother wasn't aimed at anyone it was just aimed at the idea of interfering in personal lives for the same of morality.

tl;dr, I was being funny, it was a joke.

 

[RDK]

Why?

If that's the philosophy that they're part of, why can't you expect them to follow through on it?


And you know what, if they screw up you can always ask for forgiveness from God.


There are plenty of philosophies which believe in refraining from sex, why's this any different?

My point was that it's not okay to impose that kind of restriction on other people. When people get married, they probably expect to have sex at some point in their relationship. If we take RKJ's philosophy to its logical conclusion, it's easy to see why his view is an unrealistic load of crap.

Expecting people not to have sex after getting married is like taking a bird out of its cage and expecting it not to fly away.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You probably didn't understand what I was saying that too but that's okay, I think you're just being kind of defensive right now.


Big brother wasn't aimed at anyone it was just aimed at the idea of interfering in personal lives for the same of morality.

tl;dr, I was being funny, it was a joke.

In context it definately seemed to be aimed at our discussion, you really should've said it was a general statement.

Regardless, I'm glad I said what I did, you might not have been doing it there, but it is a common fallacy, at least implicitly, and it does need a clear challenge.

My point was that it's not okay to impose that kind of restriction on other people. When people get married, they probably expect to have sex at some point in their relationship. If we take RKJ's philosophy to its logical conclusion, it's easy to see why his view is an unrealistic load of crap.

Again, I disagree with you. By being part of the philosophy that endorses it, they impose that restriction on themselves and I see nothing wrong with that.

Perfection is SUPPOSED to be unrealistic to actually obtain, no matter how you define it. Everybody fails at some point or another. But, that doesn't mean that people can't try towards that goal, because the process is still a constant state of self-improvement.


Ultimately you seem to be coming from the preconception that abstaining from sex is a bad thing, and that underlies your entire argument. His philosophy obviously doesn't have that preconception.

Expecting people not to have sex after getting married is like taking a bird out of its cage and expecting it not to fly away.

I'll tell every falconer I meet that.

 

[AltF4]

I read some of the proving grounds discussions, and I think they need more structure... or perhaps direction.

Specifically referring to the Gay Marriage debate, there is no clearly, explicitly laid out premise. It has to be made perfectly clear what is being debated. Is it a policy decision? Is it a moral judgment?

Most of the arguments in there just to try blur this line. someone will ask "Why should gays not be allowed to marry." and someone will answer "I believe that it is immoral." This is not an answer to the question. This is an answer to a different question, one about morals. And then the discussion gets sidetracked into either religious debate, or debates about the merits of different ethical systems. Then eventually no consensus is ever reached, nor are any head-ways made.

All because there was no clear question to begin with.


Plus, half the topics in there start with a variant of "Here is a topic. Discuss." Which is about as bad as it gets.

 

[Zero Beat]

So join as an active ambassador from the main room and help out. ****ed reenigne!

Send the request and I'll take care of it, since Med is MIA.

 

[Aesir]

I haven't been really that active lately with my duties =(

Seems RK is really the only one who's lacking the structure thing, and everyones kind of giving him a crash course.

and I hate ganging up on people, so I just kinda sit back and chill till I see something really dumb.

 

[RDK]

Again, I disagree with you. By being part of the philosophy that endorses it, they impose that restriction on themselves and I see nothing wrong with that.

Tell that to all the fundamentalist conservative voters that took away the right of gay couples to get married in California.

I'll tell every falconer I meet that.

A wild bird. Smartass.

 

[Zero Beat]

I haven't been really that active lately with my duties =(

If you want to take a break, then adumbrodeus would gladly take that place. Also, we need to get a good sense of who we're going to let back in here because activity in the main room is awful at the moment.

So help with suggesting 2 or three SOLID Temp Debaters would be appreciated.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

OMG the science thread maeks me want to tear my eyes out.

Same with the pre-marital sex thread.

 

[RDK]

Anyone else find it odd that DH activity actually went down after we admitted more people in?

I mean would it kill you guys to at least attempt to keep the DH minimally alive?

 

[Eor]

It's because all the topics are either things people don't really care about, things we all agree on, or (least in the case of the energy one) adds so much restrictions on posting that it's more of a hassle to post then something entertaining.

Least, that's my idea

 

[DtJ Jungle]

THe topics on the PG do seem more open to discussion

The problem I think is that most of those discussions have already been..discussed in the real DH already.

 

[cman]

A big part of the inactivity is finals. That's my excuse. I have a lot of work from several classes. I'll start posting again in another weekish

 

[Mewter]

I'm trying out a new color.
What's bothering me is that most of the new topics in the Proving Grounds are all morality/ethics-based. That, and everyone is just arguing past each other, which makes arguing your point a waste of time.
Like Alt said, they need more direction/structure.

 

[aeghrur]

Morality, ethics, and philosophy is extremely fun to argue, even if I get my *** whooped half the time. I'm trying to keep the DH moving, god. O=<

 

[KevinM]

I know I'm TECHNICALLY not allowed to post here and stuff currently, but I feel comfortable enough in knowing most of you and being here before in saying that you guys probably shouldn't insult the Temp debaters and their topics in a forum they can easily read.

Telling them what they're doing wrong might let them flourish as a debater.

Telling them, or actually posting in a different thread that something you've read makes you want to tear your eyes out, is only going to be disparaging to a fledgling debater.

Sorry again for just abusing SMod power before getting in through the proper channel.

 

[Deleted member]

Exactly. Don't worry about the whole formalities about getting into the debate hall, I'm sure no one cares since you're a competent poster. I'm also pretty sure you used to be a member?

 

[Maniclysane]

Anyone else find it odd that DH activity actually went down after we admitted more people in?

I mean would it kill you guys to at least attempt to keep the DH minimally alive?

I'm sorry. Every time I start to write a post, I just lose the will to even argue because economics are really the only thing that interest me, and I missed some of the recent threads on that.

I could always start another Socialism vs. Capitalism topic to get some activity, but I just finished arguing that. Just about everyone from the temp debate hall argued their best to get in, and exhausted some of their really good thread ideas to get in. Theres not much left that I want to discuss. :/

 

[KevinM]

Exactly. Don't worry about the whole formalities about getting into the debate hall, I'm sure no one cares since you're a competent poster. I'm also pretty sure you used to be a member?

Ehh, I still don't feel like using my power just to get around a temp road block, and yeah I was, I was purged because I hadn't posted here in a few months lol.

 

[Zero Beat]

I hate the overwhelming amount of morality threads, because those WILL NEVER get anywhere.

The suicide thread with Vickey proved it.

 

[Narukari]

Sorry, it's just a bit harder to get into the debates here than it was in the temp hall. Most of the topics have all the points covered, and it's hard to find a new hot topic to start up some back and forth.

 

[Aesir]

time to stimulate the DH with a huge influx of threads. =D


edit: How about this; after we let in another batch of TD's in, we do a little something special? it would be different then your normal debate.

basically we chose some type of idea, for instance how the generic and always loved question: "What would your perfect society look like?" and maybe each week a member of the DH posts his/hers idea of the perfect society and the other posters can either be for or against it.

sounds good? maybe? I dunno it's 4 am and I'm playing WoW gimme a break..>_>

 

[RDK]

We need another Yossarian.

 

[adumbrodeus]

We need another Yossarian.

Should I play Yossarian again?

lol

 

[Zero Beat]

Should I play Yossarian again?

lol

Definitely. I had fun with our debate eventhough I forgot what it was about, that's how terribly off topic we got:-p.

Oh yeah, the beauty of recursion and thinking at that level.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Definitely. I had fun with our debate eventhough I forgot what it was about, that's how terribly off topic we got:-p.

Oh yeah, the beauty of recursion and thinking at that level.

Lol, that was amusing, but that wasn't but I was talking about, I never really played Yossarian in that debate.

I was accused of it, but in context the meaning of generalization I was using had been defined and it was an actual definition of the word, and I had a very substantive argument that never was addressed.


Basically I took that debate because I'm annoyed at how agnostics tend to be treated by other non-theists, so I jumped on it. So... that was partly my annoyance with my school's freethinker's club (which I go to some events for, and am friends with most of the eboard of) for being pretty disdainful of agnosticism among many other things.


Our side debate just was unresolvable really.

 

[Zero Beat]

Did you read my conclusion though on the thread? It settled down the debate and everyone seemed to agree with it. I don't think you gave your input though. At least I don't remember you did.

I'll PM you the post.

Med, CK and me were working on something cool for you guys in the main room but Med's MIA and Finals hit CK and me(as well as all of you in college) so we'll try to get back at it. Lurk on the Proving Grounds and nominate some names to see if we can get something going on here. A lot of people applied to the main room saying they wanted to reply to threads but I don't see much replying going on!

 

[DtJ Jungle]

something cool?!?!


candy perhaps?!?!

 

[adumbrodeus]

Did you read my conclusion though on the thread? It settled down the debate and everyone seemed to agree with it. I don't think you gave your input though. At least I don't remember you did.

I'll PM you the post.

Med, CK and me were working on something cool for you guys in the main room but Med's MIA and Finals hit CK and me(as well as all of you in college) so we'll try to get back at it. Lurk on the Proving Grounds and nominate some names to see if we can get something going on here. A lot of people applied to the main room saying they wanted to reply to threads but I don't see much replying going on!

I meant the regression issue.

But I agreed for the most part with your post, hence the lack of a response, the only thing I really want to point out (and I didn't notice it initially), was that agnosticism towards theism is within the range of lack of knowledge, but also says something about belief.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Hey everyone. I'd just like to say that I'm glad to be here and I hope to have some good debates with you all in the future.

 

[Zero Beat]

Sorry to break it to you KrazyGlue, but this is actually the fake Debate Hall.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

Yeah the real one is in the PG. We thought you were smart enough to realize that

LOL at grimer tacos.