Savant

Human beings aren't angels; they're selfish and they have egos.

I agree, but "how do humans typically behave?" and "how ought we to behave?" are different standards. Virtue, I think by definition, is something people ought to strive for, even if few will actually achieve it. I wouldn't see "most people fail at being virtuous" as a good reason to avoid virtue, any more than "most people globally are poor" as a reason to not try to make money. But it might be a good reason to try to help others be more virtuous.

Alexandra Brodsky, David M. Ring, John C. Manly, Herman Law, Gluckstein Lawyers, and plenty of people who run specialized resources for male survivors. There's a lot more than that but I don't want to just list a hundred names/groups.

The mods are very biased, they would remove a vote if it doesn't please them, but they will keep a radical person on this site, if he pleases them enough

The voting rubric is pretty clear and I think the mods generally do a good job of abiding by it consistently. Radicals are allowed on the site because we polled the community and that was the majority response. I don't see how this is the mods behaving in a tyrannical way, it would be more tyrannical if we didn't abide by the community results.

You're free to argue the voting rubric is too harsh, but as one of the people who helped write it, I think it's the only way of setting consistent expectations for debaters, and the mods are applying it pretty consistently.

you're not willing to care for men that get raped to the extent of being willing to sacrifice 1 year of your life to sue the rapist of the man.

I am if the man or woman is someone I know, but regardless, let's discuss a hypothetical: Someone comes to you who has spent their life fighting in court for men who were victims of rape, and they can prove it. They say to you, "regardless of what anyone else does, helping victims of rape is the right thing to do." Since you can't accuse that person of hypocrisy, how would you rebut their argument?

Even if people are hypocrites my point is that that's not a good reason to stop caring about women who have been raped. Your argument boils down to saying some people are mean to men so let's also be mean to women.

you go out of your way to dedicate months to years of your life suing the man who raped him

Yes. And putting them in jail.

Your conclusion seems akin to saying the solution to slavery is to also enslave white people.

Except that if a black person was a slave today, then I know the master would be prosecuted as would the enslaver of a white.

I think you understand my hypothetical dude. I'm saying if slavery was still legal in the US and someone used that argument.

Anytime a woman experiences something bad, don't immediately feel bad for her.

Instead, ask, "If this bad thing happened to a man, then what would my reaction be?", and use that as a precedent for how to treat then woman.

This seems backwards. Wouldn't it make more sense to be nice to both men and women rather than being mean to both of them? Just because a proposal is consistent doesn't mean it is correct. Your conclusion seems akin to saying the solution to slavery is to also enslave white people.

Insanity pleas fail all the time. Lindsay is one case. If your whole point is "a murderer getting free = free pass for other murderers" then you should want Lindsay to get released as other murderers have gone free in the past.

Well you have to actually convince a jury.

we can't watch Stephen Colbert.

We can't?

The precedent doesn't apply unless the rapists themselves do an insanity plea.

What is the broader point?

I'm pretty sure he's saying abortion should be illegal in the majority of cases. Talking about ectopic pregnancies seems like it's getting caught up on semantics when the vast majority of people advocating against abortion would want exceptions for them. Fine to clarify whether SatanLucy is an absolutist, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they support zero exceptions.

Regardless, it was carelessly worded as abortion is only illegal where a particular ideology holds sway.

Agree with this and made a similar point to Remy above. "If this thing is allowed we should make all sorts of bad things allowed" seems like a bad idea.

A man that rapes a woman deserves the same penalty that Lindsay Clancy will get for murdering her kids (I don't know the penalty she got yet).

So if one criminal gets released without a punishment, we should release a bunch of other criminals without a punishment? I think this makes about as much sense as saying that if an innocent person gets unfairly executed, we should execute all innocent people to make it fair.

There should be a punishment for aborting an ectopic pregnancy, you say?

Eh, that's kind of jumping to a rare exception to avoid addressing the broader point. If someone says "rapists should get life in prison" and I respond "so you're saying an 18 yr old should get life in prison for sleeping with a 17 yr old bc they're a statutory rapist?" that's not really addressing their actual point.

I think I've stated by view on this before, but I think my biggest skepticism of the "magic hat" as it were is that I don't see the concept being traced back to the early church. Nothing is really said about Roman Catholic authorities that implies more significant magic hat-ness than other authorities in the Bible or by the early church, so if the RCC can claim to have a magic hat, it seems that the Orthos or even the Sanhedrin could have the magic hat as well. Grand language being ascribed to an authority isn't unique to the bishop of Rome. Devil is in the details though, and Catholics can and have pushed back on this.

Does "x is unlikely to be material" not mean the same thing as "x is likely nonmaterial"? I think the fallacy would be "I don't know, therefore" rather than "this seems more likely"

But why would we say that other than ignorance?

"Something that isn't material is nonmaterial" seems like a truism, not ignorance. It's true that some theists argue beyond this, which requires speculation, but philosophy requires some amount of justified speculation, which isn't quite the same as ignorance even if it's below a proof. I think that that speculation is a bit out of scope if we're just discussing dualism though.

Ignorance doesn't justify creating new categories out of whole cloth. I mean, this is literally an argument from ignorance.

The category I'm referring to is "nonmaterial." If we say "this seems unlikely to have a material cause, thus the cause is probably nonmaterial," that's not ignorance. It's ignorance if we say it must be God without elaboration, but typically additional arguments would be used to get to that point.

Something that 'could be anything' is really just philosophical playdough. It might be fun to play with, but at the end of the day nothing structural has been built. It doesn't explain anything...it's just a placeholder for 'I don't know.'

It's "could be anything except matter, which this doesn't appear to have the properties of." I think dualism is modest in this regard in that "nonmaterial stuff" could be literally anything except material things.

Did I misunderstand your point? Mary's room is a substance dualist argument, right?

Yeah, substance dualism is the ideology we're discussing, right? I'm saying Mary's room supports it.

One of the biggest questions about this is how something non-material can affect material.

I believe there are some who agree with this and say that the entire material world is an illusion, but let's stick with the dualist view for now. I think the typical argument is that we know the limitations of material substances better than the limitations of non material substances. We can do experiments on matter and have scenarios like Mary's room that make it seem unintuitive matter could be the sole starting point of consciousness.

Meanwhile non material stuff isn't super strictly defined, it can literally be anything that's not material, like God or the Force. We might have empirical reasons to believe material substances typically just affect other material stuff, and we can usually account for causes and effects, so consciousness seems like an unexplained exception. But if there could be non material stuff we haven't encountered, then it might be able to affect anything. Telekinesis for example is non material but would hypothetically affect material stuff. We haven't studied anyone who has it so we don't have anything similar to Mary's room in that regard.

I do think attributing consciousness to God requires a bit more work than just saying "Mary's room." But if what we call physical stuff almost always only causes x, and we see something that isn't x, it makes sense to attribute it to some other category of thing. I think that's pretty standard hypothesis generation.

a hero would sacrifice you for the world but a villain would sacrifice the world for you

So Thanos was the hero?

Okay thank you. Plz vote to get badges whenever you get the chance.

Either way, we're gonna start soon, and you'll need to earn voting badges. To do that, go to your profile > badges, take the quiz to earn vote badges. Then once you passed under profile > badges it will let you click to be assigned a debate to vote on. Once that happens, you will have a 3 day deadline to vote and votes need to be well reasoned. So I would wait until you can commit a good chunk of time to voting in the following 3 days before clicking that button.

You in?

Right... "They"... As in one idiot on TikTok.

To be fair to Remy, there's more than one idiot on TikTok

One tiktok where a leftist makes a bad argument proves that no one on the left has any points?

Edit: I originally read the post title as "Why the left has no points." Remy's post is actually making a more modest claim than I thought.

I did but my point is I think someone could be wrong about minor points of the Trinity or not agree with how it's presented but still believe in some of the core points. Like orthos not agreeing with how Catholics present the Trinity. So it's not clear to me where the line is for rejecting details of the Trinity before that becomes rejecting it.

must worship the Trinity to be saved

To my knowledge the apostles didn't believe in the Trinity as such, but they probably believed in much of what the Trinity says about God. I could see certain beliefs that contradict the Trinity being heretical, but I think this point depends on what counts as "believing in the Trinity." For example, orthos and Catholics disagree on a minor point about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the son. Yet they still see each other as believing in the Trinity.

Well that's one thing you learned

You could learn skills. Which most billionaires have to do anyway.

You could get an adblocker to avoid YouTube ads. Also any job is at will, you can quit whenever. Particularly freelance like fiverr, where you control on your own schedule.