You can ask people to vote on your debate,
There still needs to be a sufficient Reason written by them for why they voted this or that way.
Ideally, even if one asks other people to vote on a debate, they vote honestly, even against person who asked them to vote.
Can't say I've researched Dysphoria any, or what statistical proof of danger they might tend to be towards others.
Americans who identify as transgender do not attack and kill people at a disproportionate rate. And, according to several experts on extremism and mass shootings interviewed by USA TODAY, there's no evidence gender identity had any influence on Robin Westman's decision to shoot children at a Catholic school. Rather, the evidence the attacker left behind indicates a deep interest in mass shooters and mass shootings, suggesting involvement in an internet subculture that obsesses over these attacks and that has become known as "nihilistic violent extremism."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/08/29/shooting-minnesota-school-transgender-online-untruths/85876291007
But I've not heard evidence yet, that people with Dysphoria are dangerous to others.
I'm fond of Rights for Americans,
Someone being a bit confused about their Sex, doesn't seem a good reason to me, to ban them from owning firearms.
@FLRW
Can't say I'd want America to adopt a lot of China political structure and laws,
But hey, might be useful for my debate on guns.
Depends who you ask.
Also, I don't think all mental illness is the same.
I'm thinking some mental illness is categorized as potentially more dangerous to society, than other mental illness.
Would such laws have stopped this shooting?
"O'Hara said that the weapons used in the shooting were legally purchased recently and that there was no previous indication that Robin Westman, who was a transgender woman, suffered from mental illness. Westman had no police record, besides a traffic ticket."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/minneapolis-church-shooting-search-warrants-reveal-new-details-evidenc-rcna228034
Maybe, I don't actually know enough about the case.
But I've not heard evidence yet, that it would have.
. . . Well, depends what you mean by Gun Control laws, I suppose.
Imperials, I'm not against Skyrim for the Nords, but I think Skyrim is stronger by being part of the Imperial Empire.
During the first part of the game, I don't think I even realized there were two choices, I was that quick to run inside away from the dragon.
So Imperials by accident too.
I've played some games in Skyrim where I join the Stormcloaks, but I've never gotten very far progressing those games.
. . . Hm, I'm not sure I've even played the whole Civil War questline to completion more than once.
Which was on the Imperial side.
It's too bad, I 'do like Ulfric.
I would call radical nonviolence peaceful.
But it's gray.
. . .
I'm imagining two karate masters,
One takes offense to petty actions, and violently retaliates,
The other takes offense only to the most extreme actions, and only retaliates then.
. . . Even common weak people 'could poke someone's eyes out, beat another to death with a rock.
Unless they've physically had their limbs removed, or are wearing some sort of shackles.
If radical nonviolence is a 'choice to be peaceful, and not a 'physical incapability, then I'd call such a person peaceful.
. . .
Hm, but then let me suppose a person who regardless of if they take offense or not, does not ever violently retaliate.
Emotionally incapable? Or is it a choice?
(Shrug)
'Situation is still peaceful.
. . .
Hm, an individual in solitary confinement is harmless/peaceful, by force,
Were they not imprisoned, they'd not be peaceful.
There is peace in the situation, though the individual is not peaceful.
. . .
What constitutes harm?
There are ways of working against others that doesn't require blood to be shed,
Destruction of culture, manipulation.
. . .
Angry person can still be peaceful, in their choices.
. . .
Angry prisoner in chains peaceful,
Angry prisoner without chains, violent.
Rituals, Classical Conditioning, Association, Atmosphere, Mantras, Catechisms, Litanies, Memories,
'Do have effects I think,
During some stressful times in my life, I'd repeat a poem about how much I valued myself and my views over other people, helped me worry less about how others viewed me.
Haven't used it in years though.
Thinking, talking about food, helps relive said memories, I'd think.
And I think food is pretty fun to eat.
Happy memories to re-experiance.
Macro,
"a single computer instruction that stands for a sequence of operations"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macro
By the activation of a macro by speaking the word macro, Skipper's memory activated past memories of macaroni and cheese upon his tongue.
In fiction with ghosts or self separated from the body, how?
Mind Body Dualism doesn't satisfy me,
It just feels a step back without solving the problem.
If X created the world, but then who created X?
If the Mind is a Ghost controlling the Brain, how?
Wouldn't the Mind/Ghost be just another body?
I don't see how something can interact with Material unless it exists,
Even concepts 'exist physically until they don't,
Then they are only theoretical 'potential, 'possible forms.
The mood in a room does not exist,
It is an illusion a metaphor for each individual,
X doesn't exist, X is shorthand for a long explanation of various Material.
Blasted cave wall shadows.
I'm not sure existence and laws 'need any reason.
Nor has any need 'not to be random, to a degree.
I 'could stop worrying about it, but I doubt I will.
Well, I will from time to time, then I'll worry about it again from time to time.
Various concepts 'really bother me,
And I find it difficult to create a fictional world with fantasy elements or appearances, 'without worrying about it.
My mind demands 'some sort of explanation, rules, logic.
And my poetic soul longs for something 'more,
My Ego screams for justification, whether there be any or not.
How do I explain ghosts, mind swaps, possession?
I'm fond yet adverse to sayings such as you can chain my body, but my soul is free.
. . . I 'want such,
But I don't 'see such when I look at existence.
I take the material view, the soul is the body, thus the soul can be tortured, forcibly changed by outside sources,
Yet that screams a sense of wrong to me.
. . . I just can't accept such, even if it seems a simple fact of existence.
And that I can't sufficiently 'explain consciousness, is an additional bur of hope.
. . . I've not heard anyone else's explanation either that satisfied me.
. . .
I don't necessarily want to explain the afterlife in a work of fiction,
But Immortality and Self Sovereignty interest me as concepts.
I really 'don't want to explain any afterlife,
It's not a concept I can really conceive of any more, I also doubt any explanation would ever satisfy me.
Course then there's the problem if I sufficiently 'explain souls and ghosts as mechanical or biological constructs,
Then they 'truly die.
. . . Eh, I want to leave it open ended, but I need 'some sort of explanation that satisfies me for souls in a fantasy setting.
. . .
Could shift to Sci Fi I guess, but Copy Paste Clones bother me.
I sometimes worry we're all just a bunch of sock puppets that an all encompassing Consciousness is playing with by themself, and the Consciousness is either too confused to notice that it's not real, or is too engrossed in the experience to notice.
Some people 'do debate such,
I remember a recent one I read on DART whether Dorian Gray was irredeemable.
DART and DebateCraft have you type in the Topic.
I don't remember quite, but DDO might have had a list of categories you could select for what Topic the debate fit into.
Art's enjoyable.
. . . I wonder if people get something 'more out of what they already love by it.
As art focuses one's time and attention on one's subject, often on what they love.
Be it landscapes, birds, or people.
"yellow volkswagen bug with black convertible to"
Sounds classic.
It seems odd to me sometimes we don't design cars for eternal repair.
He is.
Staying clean, working at a golf course.
A, You like the book and the cover is not worthy of it.
B, You disliked the book and were misled by the cover.
C, OCD.
D, Other.
I'm glad college, friends, and life are active/interesting for you.
Yeah, the AI boom is real.
. . . I feel as though my views in philosophy are still growing,
Though 'more than that, I've begun to feel a need for me to 'exercise philosophy and beliefs,
I've read a lot, but it's all a bit shallow and vague, if I don't retread certain thoughts, I think I'll forget them.
. . . Not that I 'am exercising and retreading my beliefs much, but I think I ought.
I've found them fun.
Sometimes ends up a bit forgotten of a mechanic at times maybe.
Early game, struggle to acquire food, late game you acquire food production source.
Same way stamina in some games matters at start, but after enough levels you never run out of stamina.
Still, some games with said mechanic, you go on expeditions.
Kenshi for example, or Minecraft traveling far distances.
Fallout New Vegas, had a bit interesting mechanic,
Of some food and water being radiated, creating a 'want for 'quality food.
Lot of games, do you really care if you drink fine wine with flavor text or dirty water?
Third element of radiation, allowed a bit of variation.
. .
Money's also a problem sometimes, lot of games you end up with basically infinite money at a certain point.
. . .
Be kind of cool if one needed to defend cities from certain events maybe, or lose the city and resource of farmlands and merchants.
Minecraft has done that in the past with Illager Raids, zombie attacks I suppose, though I've not played with that too much.
Intelligence and/or Wisdom,
Contrasted with Morality, Ethics and/or Actions.
Criminals, I'd imagine there exist 'some intelligent criminals.
But would 'most intelligent people choose crime?
Moneywise, there are often less risky ways to make money.
The most intelligent of people would make their money legally I'd figure.
Passion in crime, serial killers, mass shooters, rage.
If they were truly intelligent they could shift their self damaging passion, or see their situation with perspective.
It's strange, weapon vs armor theory applied to society.
Better forensics and surveillance, chances of being caught are higher.
Yet too technology has brought about,
Drones, remote controlled bombs, the internet ability to track targets.
Even before this there existed,
Fire, poison, latex masks and wigs, transportation to other cities.
It's not as though people lack the 'intelligence to get away with crime.
Most people just lack such 'desire to so harm people (Theory).
What criminals have is ruthlessness,
Or put another way, a pathetic or atrophies sense of Empathy and Rightness. (Theory)
Nothing to be 'proud of,
. . . But then one argues morality subjective.
. . .
But ought not certain conclusions result from Intelligence and Wisdom?
A valuation of like?
Game Theory sense of self protection, leading to valuing others out of habit of following said Game Theory?
No honor among thieves, little happiness in crime and worry of the law catching up.
An intelligent person ought see the value of legality and morality. (Theory)
I often wonder how humans would develop from feral group starts.
Just read Helck last night.
I'd recommend it to myself, but not sure about recommending it to others.
I feel as though it is a bit lacking 'something, but I found it deep.
Themes of despair and hope, determination, comedy.
I found a lot of the story touching, sad.
Fantasy world, bulked up hero.
More viewpoint from fantasy races than human races.
@NobodyInParticular
If a plan for something exists,
Does it already exist in a sense?
Suppose you design a house yet built,
You have a son,
Then build the house,
You tell the son, this house existed even before you were born.
From a certain point of view, I suppose, it 'did exist before one's son.
I can never tell what writers and translated text mean/meant though.
I Am.
'Does have a certain power to it I'd think.
By it's simplicity, yet largeness.
Bit like koans Zen Buddhism.
But without clear detailed explanation, can be a bit frustrating at times I think.
Sometimes I like to imagine alternate games, just based on the covers of games, rather than what the games actually are.
Right now I'm imagining a 2d sidescroller where you control a small party,
You can switch units positions, based on whether you need a Tank or DPS, activate various unit's abilities such as healing,
Enemy will even attack from behind sometimes.
It's a maze like game of dungeon crawling, there exist levels where projectiles drop from the ceiling and must be dodged,
Perhaps in such a time you move the thief to the front, and it gives you higher mobility.
I do know what the Ultima series looks like 'really as a game.
Looks a fun one, interesting lore.
I vaguely remember hero pursuing ideals and virtues.
I find Lincoln a fun president to read about.
A leader who a great struggle seems to start and end with, get's tied 'to that struggle I'd imagine.
And the Civil War was and 'is huge in people's minds.
It's almost poetry and myth, a piece of heroic fiction, to accomplish a great task and then die.
'Lot of anecdotes about Lincoln.
With the war over, people had the time.
With his death, they had 'such 'reason 'to.
"Now he belongs to the ages"
-Secretary of War Edwin Stanton
Still, might be even without dying 'right then and there, I think he'd still be a wildly popular President in history.
Without the War and without Emancipation, maybe not as much.
Maybe he'd have a better or worse history with Native America, I'd like to hope better.
Maybe his team of rivals would not worked out as well without the external enemy of the South,
Maybe without the war, he'd not have given as much of an open mind to Fredrick Douglass and other African Americans. And his work towards freedom and what after would be limited, disappointing.
Ah theoreticals.
Despite McClellan denying wanting to be Dictator, I don't think he would have been so displeased.
"I almost think that were I to win some small success now I could become Dictator or anything else that might please me — but nothing of that kind would please me — therefore I won’t be Dictator. Admirable self denial!”
-George B. McClellan
https://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/new-yorkers/george-b-mcclellan-1826-1885/index.html
Chose, managed and worked with a team of rivals. Many of them men with high ambitions of their own who did not think highly of Lincoln.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_of_Rivals
"Lincoln had become widely known for his anti-slavery stance and seemed to fit solidly into a political party that abhorred slavery and wanted to see it eradicated. Democrats, especially Southerners, depicted the Republicans as an abolition party and issued dire warnings that Lincoln would take action to free the slaves if elected president. Lincoln, on the other hand, claimed to have no power as president to free the slaves, although he asserted presidential authority to block the spread of slavery into the territories."
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/republican-party-platform-of-1860
I think that Lincoln was a realist with good intentions.
And that the Emancipation Proclamation was about practicality, more than never or not wanting to.
. . . Though without the Civil War, maybe he would have taken the longer view of abolishing slavery, first by preventing it's spread into new states if he could.
Sure he could have run for president on the Emancipation Proclamation or done it at any time during his presidency, but if the result is failure and misery, how can one say one is trying to do good?
So he choose a better time for it.
I think Fredrick Douglass 'was an influence on Lincolns views, which earlier seemed to take the tack of emigrating African Americans away from America.
. . But, I also think not every president would have been as open as Lincoln was to having his mind changed. As willing to talk and listen.
Course, one could argue there were pure Abolitionists who wouldn't have 'needed their minds changed, but a strong tree without any flex can break. Maybe various theoretical Abolitionist Presidents wouldn't have been able to do what Lincoln did. Leaning too strong into their right cause, perhaps it would have failed to unite and maneuver as politics demands.
https://www.whitehousehistory.org/frederick-douglass-and-abraham-lincoln
"the Dakota, who were facing starvation and displacement, attacked the Lower Sioux Agency and white settlements along the Minnesota River valley in southwest Minnesota.[7] The war lasted for five weeks and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of settlers and the displacement of thousands more.[8] In the aftermath, the Dakota people were exiled from their homelands, forcibly sent to reservations in the Dakotas and Nebraska, and the State of Minnesota confiscated and sold all their remaining land in the state.[8] Thirty-eight Dakota men were subsequently hanged for crimes committed during the conflict in the largest mass execution in US history.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_1862
"The surrendered Dakota men and their families were held while military trials took place from September to November 1862. Of the 498 trials, 303 men were convicted and sentenced to death.[8]: 72 President Lincoln commuted the sentences of all but 38.[84] A few weeks prior to the execution, the convicted men were sent to Mankato, while 1,658 Natives and "mixed bloods", including their families and the "friendly" Dakota, were sent to a compound south of Fort Snelling.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_1862
Not 'ideal, but I don't think Lincoln looks 'so bad in this 'specific incident.
What a mess, American expansion West.
I'd argue not 'purely one sided.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From what I've read of him, I think Lincoln was overall a magnificent person and leader, though not without flaws.
Read and mostly taught himself the law.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/lincoln/practicing-law.html
Served in war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_in_the_Black_Hawk_War
A great debater.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Douglas_debates
Grew up in a log cabin, to me it's 'astounding how high he reached, how much he developed himself from his start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Log_Cabin_State_Historic_Site
I forget the exact wording,
But from what I recall reading, Lincoln wasn't too hands on the military and it's actions,
He was able to recognize when others had ability he lacked, and delegate.
He was not to be vengeful or too soft in peace I think following the Civil War,
But alas perhaps, he got assassinated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson
Self control, and able to let go of petty slights.
In Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years & the War Years, Carl Sandburg wrote that when things got too much for Lincoln,“He could write an angry letter, with hard names and hot epithets—and then throw it in the stove. He advised it was a help sometimes to write a hot letter and then burn it.”
https://pcg.church/articles/6219/not-signed-not-sent#:~:text=In%20Abraham%20Lincoln%3A%20The%20Prairie,letter%20and%20then%20burn%20it.”
I'd say art, but I'm also thinking 'any written word is art.
"how is it that the felt experience of wanting the ice cream affect my behavior by virtue of the first person subjective experience of it?"
Because you became aware of it.
A robot programmed to eat ice cream when X internal and external parameters are met,
Ice cream is in the freezer external,
Let's say every hour the robot rolls an internal dice, 1-6, 6 it will get ice cream.
6 It will get ice cream, it now wants ice cream.
Maybe if it messed up at work, it rolls a die 1-6, on a 3,4,5,6 it will get ice cream,
It rolls a 1.
It doesn't get ice cream.
Maybe it has more advanced programming, where it keeps rolling every minute, but with a 1-1000 die, on 1000 it will get ice cream,
In a sense it wants ice cream here too, it keeps thinking and trying for it.
"Do you know what I mean?"
I think so,
I'm not fully satisfied with my explanation myself, and I still don't think I 'know what consciousness is.
I worry what I 'think it is,
Then I try to act and ignore that conclusion for other conclusions I like more.
"The ones and zeros in a computer behave independently of what those ones and zeros are about or what they represent. If our brains are analogous to computers in this way, then doesn't the problem of epiphenomenalism (at least in the semantic sense) remain? The chemicals in our brains fizz and react according to the laws of nature, independently of what they represent, what they are about, or what mental states are associated with them."
epiphenomenalism
"a philosophical view that mental events (like thoughts and feelings) are caused by physical events in the brain but do not themselves cause anything." - Darn Google AI
There is not only material, there is shape.
There is not only material, there is weight.
There is not only material, there is attraction.
I'd argue 'concepts are analogous to shape/weight/attraction.
Arrowheads and their shapes, some shapes piercing armor easier, some piercing flesh easier.
X amount of weight breaking X object.
It's just another law of nature, same as with magnetism, magnets and metal.
Placebo effect, morale in an army.
Concepts 'still effect the world,
. . . But I still don't think concepts are immaterial once present.
Ah, this lucky stone will help me run faster, is materially etched in the brain, or electrons like 1s and 0s.
It is an 'idea 'doing something, but that idea is 'still material.
I think representation is 'part of nature.
Just one that one see's more with humans than other parts of nature that we have yet met.
"Besides that, computers don't experience mental states, so the analogy seems to break down. We have this intuition that our thoughts, beliefs, desires, and intentions have some bearing on our behavior by virtue of what they are about. Computers don't have thoughts, beliefs, desires, etc., so there's something missing in the analogy."
Just because we haven't built a computer that can experience a mental state, doesn't mean we couldn't in the future.
Design a computer program to value X, it will behave as though it values X.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMkADpvO4w
Simulating the Evolution of Aggression
Write a book on the concept of justice, the concept is written down, it is there,
But it won't effect, unless it is written into a brain, and connects to various other physical human body parts,
We all have various ideas of justice written into our brain by life experiences and learning of the concept from others, that just seeing the book and the title, cause us to read the words 'already written into our brain.
It seems reasonable that thoughts are written onto the brain, because one can rip pages out of a book, one can rip pieces out of a brain.
One can shake an Etch A Sketch, once can shake a brain (Takes a bit longer) but look at boxers in their old age.
Looking at debates, I see one,
"Resolved: This house would legalize prostitution in the United States"
I suppose some debates are about specific truths of statements,
Others about whether enough people value 'various Outcomes and/or Deltiological values.
One could have a debate as
X is a liar,
or We should elect X for president 2028
Though, I could see X is a liar becoming semantics, lot's of people have lied at least once, but I'd suppose there's a subjective criteria for when in common use we call someone a liar.
X 'can be a liar,
X is 'likely to be a liar in X circumstances,
X has lied in over XX% of verbal statements.
We should elect X for president 2028 if we want to increase X in country.
epiphenomenalism
"a philosophical view that mental events (like thoughts and feelings) are caused by physical events in the brain but do not themselves cause anything." - Darn Google AI
I think concept doesn't 'exist again until it exists.
Potential existence is always there, but until it 'exists written on some paper or a brain, it 'can't do anything.
When my brain thinks this is X Concept, I think the concept is 'written somewhere.
Maybe it's just a problem of classifications, language, and concept awareness.
I vaguely recall some philosophers have wanted to create 'perfect language in the past, I don't think they succeeded.
Maybe it'd take a 'really long time to say anything 'correctly. 'If there 'is any correct way to look and say of existence.
I think there is no problem, we are our body, and our mind is our body.
Mental State is just a way of describing particular Body State.
I think,
1s and 0s in a computer are still physical,
Maybe we talk of Software and Hardware, for ease of communication, I suppose we 'could just say Hardware.
@Rambling
I had a dream last night where I split in two, and fully regenerated.
We found it very upsetting to our. . Value of Ego, Self.
. . .
I don't understand where Mind could come from or 'Be.
I 'think I understand that Material Existence 'Is.
. . I read disturbing fiction now and then where people are changed mentally by physical means.
Arguably emotional, spiritual as well.
. . . I know that in 'Real 'Life, not fiction, people change as well. In reaction to physical experiences.
I don't think there is any 'problem, just a Truth that I find unpleasant.
And I can't really imagine any Theoretical that satisfies me.
Due to my fondness of Ego and Me at the moment, though I'm not who I was, and are not who I'll be. . .
Additionally, I'd argue that broad topics can allow a larger variation.
First debate I had on Guns in America, lot of it focused on the American Revolutionary War,
2nd focused a lot on deaths caused by their easy access in America,
3rd? I don't know yet.
A broad debate, allows more points of view, more possible opponents, who might be more knowledgeable of specific ideas in the general argument.
Specific debate, might limit number of opponents to only those knowledgeable about that specific point.
