Seeing as Sidewalker doesn't think women should literally choose the bear, I'm not sure there's anything for me to convince him of.
Seeing as Sidewalker doesn't think women should literally choose the bear, I'm not sure there's anything for me to convince him of.
In other words, let's see if you can give me a reason to take him seriously.
You're under no obligation to take him seriously, but I'm not trying to convince you of that. I'm asking if you actually believe women should choose the bear or if you're just being hyperbolic to annoy Remy.
It's not like we have the option of having a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with him
Perhaps, but I think I can have a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with you.
Remy has challenged me to convince you that women should choose encountering a man they don't know over encountering a bear in the forest. If you actually believe women should choose the bear and aren't just trolling Remy, then I'm open to giving it my best shot.
I've convinced Debby on a lot of things (or my trial did). She saw all of my posts and was trying to find what was offensive.
That was her own opinion, that wasn't her being convinced by you. If you wear a t-shirt and I don't think it's offensive, that doesn't mean you successfully convinced me of anything. Also, Debby kinda just says random stuff.
-> I've seen people change their mind here but it's only ever because the other person makes a logical argument.
Examples?
I have, and I've seen SkepticalOne, SatanLucy, and wylted change their minds on minor points based on arguments I made. I could go more in depth but I'm not making this up.
They work on people who are relative fresh slates to an issue. No logical argument will get a planned parenthood worker to become anti abortion (but maybe if they got pregnant and given birth, then they might change their mind off of that, but it could go reverse as well).
Most people here don't work at planned parenthood. And even if they did, the fact that they're on a debate site means they're more open to changing their opinion than most.
Generally, capitas are stupid. Stupid capitas will trust their own beliefs solely off of emotion.
I don't understand what the word "capita" means in this context.
People in general have an emotional attachment to various things that I find bad. Logic doesn't work on them. Only emotional responses have a chance of working on them. This means I have no choice but to Rage Bait.
Your emotional arguments have convinced zero people to my knowledge. I've seen people change their mind here but it's only ever because the other person makes a logical argument. I think people here are more inclined to listen to logic given that it's a debate site, and even if they weren't, logical arguments must succeed at convincing people to some extent, or we would just reach an information heat death where beliefs are the result of random emotions and we can't trust any of our own beliefs. And then you couldn't even trust the beliefs on which your argument depends.
But I sort of know how those discussions would go in a way that's extremely predictable, and rather than do the same repetitive stuff like a script, I'd rather just cut to the chase.
So you clearly know what we mean by rage bait and you are doing it anyway. Hence, intent...
You don't speed up the conversation though; in fact, you make it take longer. People don't understand what you mean because you skip a few steps. A better strategy would be: (1) say the line in a non-ragebait way, (2) anticipate common objections they might make, if you know how the convo would go, and (3) respond to those common objections. Maybe you are trying to do (2) when you write out scripted convos, but try to take the strongest arguments the other side might make rather than the weakest ones. Or list a few responses depending on the different responses they might have. It'll make the post longer, but you end up spending more time as it is just getting people to understand what you actually mean.
Could be true, but I think the tariffs don't help either.
Wait so first you wanted them to negotiate, now you don't want them to? I'm not sure I understand your position.
I agree, but I also think that description is a bit harsh. They are negotiating and showing some legitimate leverage even if they sometimes make threats they don't carry out to the letter.
That's a fair point. I don't think Ford should say he's going to do x, y, and z unless he actually intends to do x, y, and z when negotiations fail. But I still hold to my original point that Canada shouldn't just do whatever the US demands even if the US has made credible threats. I think that kind of strategy just leads to more and more increasing threats because other countries know know they will give in.
That's why you negotiate instead of making idle threats against a superpower.
Maybe I'm missing context. What specific threats are you referring to? Canada did retaliatory tariffs, but that's not an idle threat if they actually did it.
If Canada gives in now because they have more to lose, then everyone knows they can just take advantage of Canada. That's why it's not a good long term strategy to give in to threats, even if the threat is significant.
It's not rage bait if it's motivated by genuine discussion rather than a desire to enrage people. You specifically phrase things in a way for the purpose of making people mad. If you want, I can rephrase your titles/posts for you so they mean the same thing but aren't rage bait.
Is it possible for an opinion to be socially right wing (defined as the values of the American republican party) and NOT have it to be Rage Bait?
If so, then give examples.
Not saying I agree with all of those, but they are socially conservative and not rage bait if defended sincerely.
I am more worried about AI reaching point of singularity.
"Technological Singularity: A hypothetical future event where artificial intelligence surpasses human cognitive capability, enters a loop of self-improvement, and accelerates technological growth beyond human control or comprehension."
Yes, that's the point I've been trying to make when I talk about ASI being an existential threat to humanity. Basically AGI (AI that can do anything a human can do, including program) could become superintelligent within a matter of hours.
This specific scenario seems like more of a case of "the AI was dumb" than a case of "the AI was working toward a specific goal and wanted to kill humanity." If anything though, I think it is further evidence that there are plenty of avenues for ASI to harm humanity, if harming humanity ever helps it achieve some particular goal.
I especially like the new "Opinions" section. Whoever came up with that is a genius.
That was Kohai. It's based on a similar thing on ddo. We were a bit conflicted about adding it earlier seeing as it might attract the lowest common denominator, but the user base here seems a bit more mature.
RemyBrown wrote:
The difference between Lindsay Clancy and Jeffery Epstein is that Jeffery Epstein would never be sadistic enough to rape his own kids.
Clancy didn't rape her own kids either.
Something could be honorable and moral, but I think it's circumstance-dependent. Honor itself can be a contradiction, because what if the leader tells you to attack an unarmed opponent?
What did you change? Don't want to spend a ton of time poring over it.
If your justification for banning sex isn't that it's not consensual, why wouldn't you also want to ban anyone who's under 21 from having sex at all?
I didn't see what you changed, maybe it was one or two lines?
I mean, given that we're not preventing 18 year olds from having sex with each other, does your plan really solve the defects problem?
Couldn't the same be said for any age? What makes 21 special?
SatanLucy wrote:
As far as I remember, at age 18 I was extremely stupid. The fact that other 18 year olds were impressed by my intelligence at the time, tells me that they were even dumber than me.
I mean this is likely true, but I'd really love to see an age of consent discussion that uses emperical studies instead of rely on anecdotes and stereotypes. I guess I'm part of the problem for not providing any studies right now, but maybe another time.
Christian Nationalism is un-Americann
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [...]"
Depending on the implications of "preserving and promoting Christianity," I think Christian nationalism may or may not be unconstitutional. Politicians can and have justified a lot of political policies ex post facto by saying they "uphold Christian values" (anything from helping the poor to banning abortions). That doesn't automatically make the policy unconstitutional though. Additionally, amending the constitution is itself constitutional, which makes designating things as unamerican this way a bit fraught. And even if we could, I'm not sure American-ness is a great proxy for policies being good or bad. Slavery was at one point American and constitutionally protected.
And all that being said, I probably agree that separation of church and state is necessary to avoid a lot of problems. But not due to it being American; I think that's dangerously close to trying to get an ought from an is.
I was wrong. It's this one primarily.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/debatecraft/posts/z8/what-questions-would-you-like-to-see-on-next-coc-survey
I believe community surveys are linked in one of the pinned threads under DebateCraft.com category.
Sure, I'm fine with some govt intervention
That's not how the community voted to treat offensive speech.