Kurotsune

140 characters means I can send about 23 lottery ticket numbers. Without saying what they're for even. Just a string of 138 characters. Since I'm me and I was already way into adulthood five years ago I'm guessing I'd know what I meant but if I didn't I'd sure feel stupid when I finally got the time machine

If it is Techie Jonathan, I hope Team Meteor updates the game constantly so they don't get that one version where he had a Mega Rayquaza.

I was scrolling down to write this and was pleasantly unsurprised to see you saying the same thing. Good on you as always, shortcake. At the end of the day... Yeah. It's far past the point where she's being "tricked"; She enjoys it for one reason or another, and those reasons are her own. It's ultimately her choice, and unfortunately all you should do is accept it. That's just life. Humans have this problem were we tend to cheer for the underdog, to want the unwanted. Odds are the more you try to force her to abandon him, the more compelled towards him she feels, which means your efforts are ultimately moot. There's also the point that she might not care at all; Frankly put, it might just be the case that their interactions "rustle her jimmies" in a good way but she has no real interest in this nameless person, only in the pleasure they provide her. And that's okay, too. At the end of the day though, I'd just suggest you politely tell her you won't agree with her decision but still support her. The only time you should step in is when you're absolutely sure this person poses a real danger. I'd tell her to cut the sharing PI online thing though, that shit's dangerous

You've beautiful eyes, dude!

Right because that's not widely recognized as an invalid way to present a point at all and would totally be accepted in a legitimate debate. That's literally all I'll post here, and I'll make it a point not to even look at this thread again. It's widely known how much I dislike attention-grabbing posts that claim to be anything but that, and I know I wouldn't be able to argue with you without losing my cool - Because you make it nearly impossible for anyone to do so. So with that, I'm out.

Sure, I'll bite. If only because I entirely disagree with Nozick's views and this gives me the opportunity to tackle his points one by one. "It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them." Yes, and it's because the actions are pleasurable that we continue doing them. The brain works through a simple reward system for habit-creation, and the hormonal discharge when we accomplish the things our brain considers "good habits" is what keeps us coming back. Sure living in the fabricated reality means things would "lose their appeal" but using that same logic you could just live another experience - That's the main problem with Nozick's statement; He's effectively arguing between living on Earth or going to Paradise. And the last two can be argued as one piece: "Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob." Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality (it limits us to what we can make). This in particular is a demotivator for people who want to self-actualise or discover a greater meaning to themselves, or to use a cliché, people who want some kind of enlightenment or spiritual or philosophical growth. With the pleasure machine, there is no actual contact with any deeper reality (though the experience of it can be simulated, it is again a man-made fallacy.) Because they're completely subjective. Not everyone wants to be hooked to a machine, yet not everyone would disagree with it either. Some people don't give two shits about accomplishment and simply want comfort. But ultimately, the downside to Nozick's point is that... His arguments effectively fuel hedonism. Because what he does is simply describe a situation that wouldn't give him pleasure. Because Nozick makes it clear in his statements that he gains pleasure from real achievement, and what fuels him is real achievement. At the end of the day, he's saying that it's his pleasure for those achievements that move him, and thus, he's supporting Hedonism while attempting to disprove it. But at the end of the day none of that matters because Hedonism is okay for some people and isn't for others. Most schools of thought work like this. Some people are moved by pleasure and some aren't. Some people are moved by logic and some aren't. Some people are moved by emotion and some aren't. Hedonism never has nor will apply to everyone, which is why trying to prove that it doesn't do just that is entirely moot. But it is a cool read, at least.

I think a petition - Although I personally have no interest in making the idea happen on my own, as I've made abundantly clear that this will be my one and only contribution to this subject matter - would help if paired with sensible arguments on why the forum should exist. At the end of the day it's not "forcing it down your throats" insomuch as it is a show of hands of how many people would actually care about such a thing. As I've mentioned in my first post I've been aware of the debate hall not being agreed upon since day one, but I was also told the biggest reason this would be the case was because it's the belief that the forum would be inactive. If there are a lot of people saying they want that forum to exist, that means this reason definitely is no longer valid - Or, at least that the subject is worth being discussed with more care. But then, I'd expect some pretty good arguments to follow this show of hands - After all, what'd be the point of a debate hall if its denizens weren't good at debating to begin with?

I'd try and have a more fleshed out idea and system before that. This could be used as a ruleset, sure, but a more forum-centric definition should be made for things like "who is moderating?"

I like the last one! It practically screams "I don't need Amethyst I can just go and hunt myself someone else"

It's one of, if not the, most important aspect to debates in general, and oft goes ignored.

I see no reason not to make a petition for it, sure.

ididn'treallymeantomentionyouhereatallsoi'mnotsurewhichpartyou'rereferringto Although being honest I kind of get the "scolding" thing. Anyone who I've ever taught can attest to the fact that I'm a harsh teacher, and when my mindset is to educate someone, I tend to be strict.

Since Amethyst has straight up abandoned me with the Lux/Jinx avatar, I want a new one. One that screams "I don't need you or your love anymore, I've got this rad avatar instead"!

You don't have to be capable of emotional empathy to use it - That's just the name of the rule. The idea of empathy is simple rationalization. Understanding why your opposition thinks the way they do requires thoughtful reflection for some (like myself) and emotional connection for others, but everyone can do it. So while I wouldn't say anyone is forbidden from doing anything - since this is highly informal as mentioned - I'd say they're not encouraged to try to debate other's points if they're unwilling or incapable of doing that type of mental work. While then you're definitely and completely able to voice your opinion, if you don't want to follow the rules of engagement, it'd be better if you simply voiced it and didn't contest anyone else's, which I think is just fair, but is ultimately not debate. Since this is about debate, the short answer is yes, you'd be more or less forbidden if you were to strictly follow this rule set. Even if it's a biological flaw in some aspects - My own biological flaws make it so I'm a horrible shot, for example, yet I'd get no special treatment in a shooting competition. No reason to give someone special treatment because they'd be disadvantaged in an intellectual one instead. (And I realize the use of competition is hypocritical due to the first rule itself, but bear with me, it made for a better sentence.) That's the idea of the Debate Hall subforum that I've vied for during a few months.

That sentence refers to: It's just me pointing out that I'll not make another attempt at anything similar to this since it'd be half-hearted. Like I mentioned, my honest-to-god opinion is that at this point debates about "polemic subjects" (I.e. politics and religion) should just be straight-up abolished to avoid the headache they come with. But at the same time my principles are all about everyone being allowed to say everything they want so I'd rather go down swinging at least this one time and try to throw the community the idea of a system they can uphold themselves.

Also known as "The one where Kuro tries to fruitlessly bring civilty to online forum discussions" So, let me start this by saying that I have always championed the idea of some sort of debate hall where discussions would happen with moderators - Not forum auth but rather specific "debate moderators" - would keep to the basic ideas of debate and keep the discussion from spiraling down. This idea has not and likely will not happen for a multitude of reasons, even though I'd claim that certain threads - Like Virisdescent's Philosopher's Gazebo - point to the possibility of there actually being fair discussion about a plethora of topics as long as the discussion has one dedicaded administrator to keep it from going awry. Where other threads like Chase's multiple threads about several different subjects display a need/want for this type of format. So while that format is not a thing, I've decided to create a short exposition on debates that could be referred to and, hopefully, followed within the forums. Since it's a complicated format to adapt to that usually takes a long time of accumulated experience before social conceptions of what a discussion is are won over - That is, until you lose the mentality of "whoever yells the loudest wins" - I'd rather start with a simple set of rules to be followed and strictly adhered to in an attempt at making debates flow more seamlessly and require less attention from forum moderators. Since this is an informal thing, it'd require members themselves to be the ones to - politely - policy others and themselves to make sure these are kept to. Of course, this can naturally also be disregarded and not followed in any way. In this case I'll gladly let this topic sink and die knowing that I've said my peace and made my attempt. So, cutting to the chase we'll have three basic rules - And to make them sound official we'll use latin names - we'll call them Empathia, Detorqueo and Principium. These rules are watered down versions of what is already considered proper debating form and, thus, could serve as a good stepping stone for this sort discussion. Onto the rules! Empathia - Or the empathy rule, is an addendum to the existing forum rule of being respectful. The only way to properly argument a point is to see yourself from the other side's shoes. Therefore the only way to truly argue a point is to momentarily throw away your own viewpoint and fully immerse yourself in the opposition's. "Why do they think that way? If I were them, would I have done anything different? Is there anything my side could do to better compromise with theirs?" The last sentence is key - Most successful debates end with no one "winning" - They end with compromise. The first rule dictates that the purpose of a debate is to find a solution both sides are satisfied as opposed to convincing one side of the other's opinion. No one has to concede; Both have to acquiesce. Detorqueo - Or the misdirection rule, refers to what we call "Ignoratio Elenchi", or irrelevant conclusion. Such a fallacy is any argument that doesn't pertain to the discussion and instead serves solely to divert attention from the main subject to either buy the user time to think of a proper retort (Red herring), or hurt the reputation of the opposition by either directly offending them (Ad hominem) or appealing to their emotions to win their over in the absence of evidence (Argumentum ad passiones) or using any other such method to attempt to "win" the discussion - Which directly contradicts the "empathy" rule. "Am I actually saying something relevant to this discussion?" There's a great website called Logically Fallacious that lists nearly every fallacy known to man; And it's a great way to learn them for those who are curious. But for those who aren't, simply stick to the above mindset and you'll be fine - The second rule dictates that all premises in a discussion must be related to the subject of the discussion and not the subjects discussing it, and all conclusions derived from these premises must be directly and coherently related to the premises themselves. Principium - Or the quotation rule, is by and far the simplest one to explain and refers to quoting and utilizing credible sources to back your points. It's easy to say "X has said Y!", but it's just as easy to go the extra mile and find the credible source. And while we're at it, the definition of a credible source is a recognized third party that has no emotional investment in the subject being discussed. An example - Looking up any feminist blog will find you data on the "Wage Gap" when finding an actual study from Stanford quickly discredits these claims based on the actual sources. "Am I quoting someone who's done a truly impartial research - And am I providing valid evidence to those claims at all?" The third rule is the simpler one, and it thus dictates that should you quote any one source of information other than your own logical rationality in your premises, you should provide valid evidence to that statement backed up by recognized sources, unless you're directly quoting the source. For now, this is all I can think of - I find this, personally, to be a sensible and easy-to-follow format that shows a modicum of promise in proving the capability of actual debates being held within the community. I think being able to maintain something like this a while would do a great deal not only to show the forum's authority that such debates can be left to the devices of the community with no ill effects and to potentially prevent all such debates from eventually being prohibited. I say this because honestly, I'm partially in favor for that. I've started feeling every discussion I read lately in here I see the same downward spiral and at this point I think the majority is so tired of it that I'd personally be just done with them entirely. But I believe moreso in freedom of speech and in allowing everyone to voice their opinions in a respectful environment regardless of the opinion itself - And consider this my last effort in trying to collaborate to this dream environment of mine. I'm sorry if I sound cynical - I've the best interests of this community in my heart, but I'd not lie to everyone on my opinions just to keep a facade of positivism. Thank you all for reading and I hope that, even if not followed, this was enlightening or, at least, slightly entertaining.

Saying there's a line between say and do looks good on paper and also ultimately misses the point. The appalling fact is not the inherent possibility of the man acting up on his opinions but rather that, when those opinions were public knowledge, this man was elected to the second highest seat of power within the American government. If he's going to act on it or not is not as worrying as the inherent premise that one concludes from his election - Which is that the great majority of people agree with those ideals. If the man ever does it or not doesn't matter. The fact people are okay with him saying that and still put him in power matters. Elections aren't decided by actions. They're decided by words. So regardless if someone does or doesn't act on those words, to disregard them because they are "prolly not gunna do it" is missing the point. ...And while that's also a good sentiment, "intelligence" and "understanding", when it comes to humans, are not exactly similar. To understand someone means to feel empathy, which is an emotional and not rational skill. Fighting and yelling are also emotional expositions - And they're bound to bring greater change than a cold assessment of facts. As Chase has said, it's a necessary step. A necessary step in an ultimately flawed plan, but a necessary step nonetheless.

"People have it worse so you're not entitled to feel bad!" Hi, I'm one of those people who have it worse. And I'm just here to let y'all know, feel free to feel bad. We all live in different circumstances and are affected differently by different things and it's no one's right to tell you what you can and can't be passionately appalled about. Thanks bye.

Weren't those e-mails revelaed to be fake not too long ago by the dude who opened the case? Also isn't this at this point kind-of grasping at straws just to say "see guys she's baaddddd" I mean, Trump already won. If you feel the need to justify your decision still, I feel like that speaks lengths about it to begin with. The election is over, just close the thread and use the new one Chase has created specifically about the results instead of trying to keep this going pointlessly.

I bet everyone thought this was about Donald Trump EDIT: This was my 1000th post. Well spent, I'd say.

Usually I reward myself by talking to my Ame-boo-boo-cake. That and mints. I have an unhealthy obsession with anything mint flavored and will buy a bunch of them to celebrate anything.

I realize there's a cultural issue here. Put simply, Brazil uses a debate system called "parli brasil" which is heavily inspired by the british debate system but instead of referring to the two groups as "Government" and "Opposition", they're called "Proposition" and "Opposition" respectively. Saying you're masturbating the ego of the proposition is basically saying you (royal you) is making your side look better. An example of how it's done is by contrast, for example, such as calling one side "homophobic, xenophobic and sexist" without citing any sources to that extent - I'm not questioning the validity of this claim, merely discussing why I'd personally not consider them valid in a debate. If no one else does, educate them. Even though others don't, I still do, as you're well aware. Even if that means diving through pages of a certain forum to find a certain reply to a certain thread that I know will hit home. And while I get the effort by quoting CNN - "Anyone can say anyone has said anything online" - Albert Einstein My point being, use actual links and display concrete evidence. If you're going to quote someone in a debate, you better be ready to prove they (person or entity) has made that claim. Plus, others might be interested in actually reading up on what you're talking about. That's a much better way of sharing knowledge. Lastly, Is basically saying "they started it!". I get that much, but I'd hope you to be above petty jabs and to be able to maintain composure. Ultimately, my reply was not aimed at Chase - And this reply uses him as an example but is not ultimately targeted at him either. I might love debates more than anyone else in this community, yet it's frustrating to see poor form ruining what effectively is art. As I've always pointed out, if you're not ready to debate properly, then don't. Petty arguments under the facade of purposeful discussion benefit no one.