Two braindead morons debate the best methods of debate

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
Post Reply
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master in Training
Posts: 945
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Two braindead morons debate the best methods of debate

Post by NonZeroSum » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:21 am

@Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You have been replaced with a superior version, it was non negotiable 8-)

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Also, secondly, in the real world, debates aren't about the truth.

Red
Yes, they are.
If it's just about one party winning, it isn't a debate worth having.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
No, they aren't. People don't care about the truth in this day and age of alternative facts and fake news. People care about who has the greatest charisma and can use rhetoric to swing people towards their viewpoint. Those are the people who win debates, not those with the facts and logic.

Red
Doesn't change the purpose of a debate.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
The purpose of a debate is irrelevant if it can't be fulfilled.

Red
At which point it isn't really a debate
If a debate is about winning, again, it isn't a debate worth having

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well sure, in the same way that the USSR and Maoist China weren't really communistic, however, every debate nowadays is about winning just like every example of communism has ended with death and misery.

Red
Social norms are irrelevant
So wait
Are you saying you're more concerned with winning than the truth?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes. How can you spread the truth without winning? What is the point of having the facts on your side if nobody will believe them?

Red
This is true, but you're wrong in this case, and you're more spreading falsehoods than truth.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Doesn't matter. If I'm using rhetoric that will rile people up and get them excited and marching in the streets, it is irrelevant whether the truth is on my side.

Red
So you're not concerned with doing the most good? That's how the Holocaust happened.
btw I made a new forum post

Zzzzzzzzzzz
The Holocaust happened because those who opposed the Nazis didn't have a charismatic enough figure to oppose Hitler. They were too concerned with facts and morals to realize that the average German John Doe doesn't care about the truth or morality. He cares about rhetoric. You need a figure with rhetoric if you want to win. Evil people such as Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler and Bin Laden understood this. They were defeated by people who also understood this. If we want to actually get people to believe the facts, we must not waste time putting forward the evidence. We need to appeal to people's feelings and emotions. Then we can get shit done.

Red
It still happened though.
You focus on rhetoric against the facts and evidence, rhetoric wins

Zzzzzzzzzzz
And it could have been prevented from happening if the opposing side had better rhetoric.

Red
It can be used for good, depending on the situation, but I'm not focused on rhetoric. Who exactly are you trying to rally when you're arguing that social sciences are hard sciences?
And for what useful cause?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
If you're trying to figure out what your own viewpoint should be, then absolutely, do not focus on rhetoric then listening to other people. However, if you're tying to rally people to your viewpoint, then not focusing on rhetoric is a massive mistake as most people don't care about the facts and only care about rhetoric and appeals to emotion. Who exactly am I trying to rally? Everybody. For what useful cause? The useful cause of believing that the distinction between hard and soft science is arbitrary.

Red
So you're not concerned with facts and evidence to promote something, just rhetoric?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Absolutely. Because other people aren't concerned. Do you want to win other people over, or not?

Red
Yes.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
If you want to win other people over, then when debating, the facts do not matter.

Red
Do you focus on rhetoric when it comes to your politics?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
When determining my own political views, no. When trying to win other people over to my political views, yes.

Red
Of course facts matter, and we should be applying scientific standards to politics and other social sciences

Zzzzzzzzzzz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8NydsXl32s
YouTube
truTV
Adam Ruins Everything - Why Proving Someone Wrong Often Backfires ...

Relevant video

Red
I know what the backfire effect is
It makes someone more fervent in their beliefs

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yep. So you see how far facts and evidence will get you when trying to change other people's minds lol.

Red
True, true, but psychology (a soft science) has actually figured out a way to change people's minds with facts (also, not to mention, how can you be so sure that the same thing won't happen when you apply rhetoric?).

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well, when I watched the episode of Adam Ruins Everything, it explained at the end of this segment how rhetoric is effective. And I thought you said soft sciences were unreliable because they were prone to biases? Now you support them when they support your viewpoint? Anyway, what is the way to change people's minds according to psychology which switches between being reliable and unreliable depending on your mood?

Red
Well, first of all, I'm using a psychology study since you're also using psychology. So, if you want to be fair, you have to apply the same standard.
brb]\

Zzzzzzzzzzz
I've already explained how I agree with you that soft sciences are prone to bias. Where we differ is on my belief that hard sciences are equally prone to bias. Anyway, I haven't rejected this psychological study because I don't even know what it is yet.
Brb also.

Red
I was mostly referring to you saying since I thought psychology is biased (which is sometimes) I'm only relying on it when it fits my viewpoint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA783XpBx1A
YouTube
Bite Size Psych
Who do we discriminate against the most?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Ok, so 1 minute and 5 seconds in and one of the studies cited is already flawed. It supposedly shows that people are biased against those who don't share their political ideology. All it really shows is that people are more biased against those who don't share their political ideology than they are to people who don't share their gender, race or religion.
Ok 1 minute and 18 seconds in and he's sort of acknowledged this.

Red
He was addressing how political bias is more prevalent than something like racism or homophobia.
But what I was referring to is near the end of the video

Zzzzzzzzzzz
That's my point. It's common sense that it is more prevalent than racism or homophobia. I don't need a study to show me that. That still doesn't prove political bias is prevalent. Just that it's more prevalent than racism.

Red
I wouldn't say it's common sense.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Anyway, you can give me a timestamp if you want. And yes it is common sense. How socially acceptable do you think it would be to say "I hate liberals" or "I hate conservatives" or "I hate socialists" compared to "I hate blacks" or "I hate gays" or "I hate Jews"?

Red
Common sense =/= right sense

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well it's both.

Red
wait so wouldn't you say this is an argument in my favour?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Why?

Red
Social sciences are biased (which you agree with) but harder sciences, such as physics and chemistry, are not

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Harder sciences haven't even been mentioned, so I'm not sure how this could be an argument in your favour.

Red
In terms of what we were arguing about before
You know, when you said even the harder sciences can be biased

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes, and again, they haven't been mentioned in the video or in our discussion since I started watching the video, so I don't see how this could be an argument in your favour.

Red
This isn't relating to the whole rhetoric debacle

Zzzzzzzzzzz
I haven't mentioned rhetoric. Are you trolling?

Red
Then why do you think I showed you the video? Have you forgotten so quickly?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
I mean I haven't mentioned rhetoric since you started talking about the harder sciences just now. You appear to think that I have misunderstood you. I haven't. What is it in the video that you think proves that the harder sciences aren't biased?

Red
How could you have forgotten?
That fast?
I'll get a timestamp

Zzzzzzzzzzz
I didn't forget. Did you even read the first sentence of what I wrote just then?

Red
skip to 6:00

Zzzzzzzzzzz
"I mean I haven't mentioned rhetoric since you started talking about the harder sciences just now. "

Red
yes, you have
scroll up

Zzzzzzzzzzz
You mean when I wrote "I haven't mentioned rhetoric. Are you trolling?"?
You're counting that?!

Red
Am I?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Are you?!
Because there's nowhere else where I mentioned rhetoric!!!
Before the video, I mean.
Since I know I have to spell this out to you.

Red
btw where in the adam ruins everything video does it mention rhetoric

Zzzzzzzzzzz
It's in the full episode I think. An expert is brought in.

Red
An expert social scientist?
:sagan:

Zzzzzzzzzzz
He says sort of similar things to what the guy in the video is saying, which really only proves my point. The guy in the video is saying you must use rhetoric that relates to their political alignments if you want to change their minds. Not to use facts or evidence. And I can't remember what he was an expert in.
:sagan:

Red
So what if they don't listen to rhetoric that doesn't fall in line with their political ideals?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Keep relying on rhetoric and emotion for your argument, and only if that fails should you resort to facts and evidence.

Red
But I thought facts and evidence don't work?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
They work for some people, but not for the majority.
The vast majority.

Red
Well, we'd need a parameter or some kind of statistic for this. We'd need find out if this is more prevalent among liberals, conservatives, or both. And did you watch the video I sent you?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Like I've literally been commentating on it. I have to ask again, are you trolling?

Red
I think you are

Zzzzzzzzzzz
"I know you are, but what am I?"

Red
I think you're actually Jebus

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Can you please explain to me why you had to ask me if I watched the video I was literally commentating on?

Red
i was referring to the part of the video told you about
the 6 minute mark?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Which I was also literally commentating on?
At 18:54 - "He says sort of similar things to what the guy in the video is saying, which really only proves my point. The guy in the video is saying you must use rhetoric that relates to their political alignments if you want to change their minds. Not to use facts or evidence. And I can't remember what he was an expert in."

Red
He didn't say anything about rhetoric

Zzzzzzzzzzz
He never said the word "rhetoric".
Very different to not saying anything about rhetoric.

Red
He didn't even imply it
watch it again

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Rhetoric logically follows from appealing to a person's political ideology. Are you going to appeal to conservatives while talking about eating the rich?

Red
What are you talking about? That's not what he said in the video.
The studies showed the participants views that go against their own

Zzzzzzzzzzz
You're talking about a completely different part of the video now.

Red
I don't think you watched the whole thing

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Of course I didn't! You told me to skip to 6 minutes!!

Red
Yes, and what you're talking about isn't implied in those last few moments
or discussed, rather, not implied
I don't think you watched it to the end, I just think you watched about 45 seconds
not even

Zzzzzzzzzzz
It's not discussed outright, but that's because the video isn't made for people who can't pick up on subtleties and need everything shoved in their faces. The man in the video talks about people trying to change people's minds through appealing to their political ideologies. For instance, trying to change people's minds on abortion by calling themselves "Pro-life feminists". Now, are you saying that these "Pro-life feminists" aren't going to try to change feminists' minds on abortion by using feminist rhetoric? Because that is frankly absurd. And no, I didn't watch to the end. At what point does he start to talk about how facts and evidence can change people's minds? Because it sure ain't at the 6 minute mark!!

Red
I started at the 6 minute mark for context
So, go watch to the end

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Okie dokie, but the "context" so far appears to be in my favour.
Well literally the only bit I missed was his conclusion, which wasn't really placing any arguments forward.

Red
Have you forgotten what we were discussing?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
No, I have not. And that question shows that you seem to be valuing rhetoric over substance already, proving me correct.

Red
So you have? You said only rhetoric will be effective at changing minds in most cases, while I said that, when in the right context, facts and evidence will work just as well.
the same guy also has a related video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5pv4khM-Y
YouTube
Bite Size Psych
Why internet arguments are useless and how to start winning arguments

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Once again, proving me correct. I literally just said that I haven't and talked about rhetoric vs evidence. Then, you, rather than addressing what I actually wrote, acted as if I hadn't wrote it and explained what I already wrote. And in the right context?! In the right context?! The context of appealing to emotion and rhetoric!
Boy, am I watching a lot of videos today.

Red
So then what were we discussing?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
I literally just wrote a detailed three lines explaining what we were discussing! You're already attempting to appeal to rhetoric that is meant to be snarky, but is failing on every level. But nevertheless, you're proving me correct by appealing to rhetoric and to emotion rather than addressing what I actually said.

Red
Well, perhaps I have forgotten. Perhaps refresh my memory?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
You want me to copy and paste what I literally just wrote to you a few minutes ago?

Red
Sure

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Once again, proving me correct. I literally just said that I haven't and talked about rhetoric vs evidence. Then, you, rather than addressing what I actually wrote, acted as if I hadn't wrote it and explained what I already wrote. And in the right context?! In the right context?! The context of appealing to emotion and rhetoric!
Also, come on now.
"Well, perhaps I have forgotten. Perhaps refresh my memory?"
Is that evidence or rhetoric?

Red
It's neither (false dichotomy), and weren't we discussing the effectiveness of rhetoric in terms of convincing people? Why do you think I sent you that video?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
I literally just said we were discussing that. And it was very clearly rhetoric.

Red
Are you trolling?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Are you asking me that because I asked you that?
This is playground debate.
Like a toddler yelling "I know you are but what am I!" over and over again

Red
No, because I think you've completely missed the point. Or, at least, one of us have.
Are you trying to reaffirm the backfire effect?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
That question has no substance. It is meant to be rhetoric in order to insult.

Red
Alright, well then nevermind then.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
More rhetoric yet again.
Why rely on something you claim doesn't work?

Red
Do you even know what rhetoric is? I'm not using rhetoric to convince you.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
It's not convincing to me, but you are stylising yourself as if you are talking to somebody who knows nothing and this can work at convincing outsiders. For instance "Do you even know what rhetoric is?".
And I already know what your response you are typing is: "I'm only stylising myself as if I'm talking to somebody who knows nothing because I am talking to somebody who knows nothing!" Again, more rhetoric, emotion, language tricks and appeals to humour. No substance.

Red
How is this rhetoric?
How is, what I was saying, rhetoric?
I wasn't using it to try to convince you.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
No, but you're using it to convince somebody.

Red
No, I am not.
You're accusing me of things

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Anyway, rhetoric is (from Google) the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques. It says nothing about necessarily being used to convince somebody. But nevertheless that is what you are doing because nobody would use language that is meant to sound convincing if they weren't attempting to convince somebody. And no, I am not accusing you of things. I am accusing you of one thing. Singular!

Red
What specifically is something I said was rhetoric, and how is it so?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
There's a name for all the type of questions you asked me such as "Do you even know what rhetoric is?" and "Are you trying to reaffirm the backfire effect?". Do you want to know what the name of that type of question is?
Hint: I'm using the same type of question right now.

Red
Ok, how is it rhetoric? And do you have proof I was using it as rhetoric?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Secretary Red
It's called a rhetorical question.

Red
I didn't ask them rhetorically.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
You mean you intended me to answer every one of them?

Red
Yes. Why the hell else would I ask them?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
To make a point?

Red
How would those be making points?

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well let's start by using the rhetorical question you used just then. This is not a question I am meant to answer. It is rather a statement rephrased. The statement being "Those questions are not making points". However, this does not work as well rhetorically as a question especially one that is written in italics. If you really want to demonstrate that you eschew rhetoric, then perhaps stop asking questions for what could easily be said in statements.

Red
I didn't ask that rhetorically either.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
You sure did. Hence why you are making a point here which I am going to respond to, rather than a question which would be "How did I ask that rhetorically?" which you wouldn't made if I hadn't called you out for making statements and phrasing them as questions. Nevertheless, your claims that you aren't saying these things rhetorically don't work so well when you're literally putting what you say in italics in order to place emphasis on what you are saying.

Red
I am not asking these questions to be rhetorical, I am asking them because I want an answer.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
And of course it is impossible to get an answer from me without asking a question. Hence why I am not responding to your statement that you have made just now. :rolling_eyes:

Red
I'm pretty sure you just don't want to answer my questions.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Is that substance? Is that evidence? Or is it rhetoric? (And also an accusation - the very thing you chided me for making about you).

Red
Or, if you actually do think it's rhetoric, instead of dismissing it because you feel as though it's rhetoric, you can address it in an organized matter.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
I have addressed it. Your opinion is that rhetoric does not work in an argument and that we should rely upon logic and reason, but you've already debunked yourself by relying so much on rhetoric in this argument.
And as for this: "I'm pretty sure you just don't want to answer my questions."

Red
No, you did not.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
If that's how I felt, I wouldn't have answered the damn things.
But they weren't questions, they were statements.

Red
No, they were questions.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes, which is why they all could have easily been reworked into statements and why you kept putting them into italics in order to make them look as if they had substance.

Red
I put statements in italics to show that I'm getting increasingly frustrated, and it wouldn't make any sense to put questions into statements.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
It wouldn't have made any sense to write "How would those be making points?" as "Those questions are not making points."? And your putting statements into italics to show that you're getting increasingly frustrated is not necessary. It does not add to the argument. It only works as rhetoric as if to say to those outside of the debate 'Gee whiz, fellas, can you believe the stupidity I have to deal with?'. This is not evidence. This is its own form of an appeal to emotion!!

Red
If I were to write 'Those questions are not making points' I wouldn't understand why you think that, which I why I asked it.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes you would understand why I would think that, because the only response to that statement is an explanation of why I thought the questions were making points. Hence why you didn't need to phrase your statement as "If I were to write 'Those questions are not making points' would I understand why you think that? Can't you that that is why I asked it?". I was already able to answer it despite it being a statement. Also, nice job responding to my point about the italics.

Red
I don't really give a shit about your rhetoric about italics. Why does it matter whether or not to put it in a question? I felt as though it was easier. If you didn't know if it was asked rhetorically or not, then you should've asked me, or just answer it as if it were a normal question to be safe.

Zzzzzzzzzzz
How is it easier to add it two *s to your questions? It's more time and energy consuming to do that. And I didn't know that the questions were being asked rhetorically, in the same way that I don't know that the person sending me emails about wanting to transfer money into my bank account really is a scammer. However, in both cases, it's plain enough to see what the true intentions of the person in question are. There is enough evidence to believe that you were asking these questions rhetorically.

Red
If you were to ask me if I asked them rhetorically, what would the risk be?
And no, time consumption is subjective.
can we just agree to disagree? this is wasting a lot of time and we seem to be angry with each other

Zzzzzzzzzzz
Firstly, there's no risk. It's just pointless. You aren't going to answer "yes" to me asking you whether they are rhetorical, otherwise you would admit that you are using something which you claim to be above. You would obviously answer "no". And why should I take your word for that? Secondly, time consumption is subjective? It's pretty objectively provable that writing a statement with two asterisks in it consumes more time than the same person writing the same statement in the same way but without the two asterisks. Thirdly, if time consumption is subjective, why would you care about this "wasting a lot of time"? Fourthly, I'm not angry with you. I'm just disappointed. Finally, we can agree to disagree, but I want to get some of the thoughts of the people on the forum because I reckon they'll have interesting takes on it. I'm going to post a transcript of what we've written in order to get their thoughts on it.

Red
sure
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movements, video and writing culture.

PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Activist Journeys YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/y9vwdcj3

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:18 am

NonZeroSum wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:21 am
@Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You have been replaced with a superior version, it was non negotiable 8-)
:lol: pissing myself w/ laughter
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:05 pm

@NonZeroSum Can you vote me for President of the Server?
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master in Training
Posts: 945
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Post by NonZeroSum » Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:10 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:05 pm
@NonZeroSum Can you vote me for President of the Server?
Aha I did this because Red said don't do it, and explained what I shouldn't do before seeing this :P
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movements, video and writing culture.

PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Activist Journeys YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/y9vwdcj3

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:39 am

NonZeroSum wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:10 am
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:05 pm
@NonZeroSum Can you vote me for President of the Server?
Aha I did this because Red said don't do it, and explained what I shouldn't do before seeing this :P
Still winning
If the circumstances make it such that you can't fuck a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than to let him get the keys to the car.
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:51 pm

Matthew PerryToday at 17:48
@Chief Justice Agent Blue whats it like to be the only non white here
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 17:48
Fucking amazing
President RedToday at 17:48
Dude you're not white Matthew Perry
duh
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 17:48
Also, Cory Booker isn't white.
Matthew PerryToday at 17:48
neither is @Father Radu
hes jewish
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 17:48
:booker:
Is he? That's awesome!
Matthew PerryToday at 17:49
ikr
Father RaduToday at 17:49
Im not a jew
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 17:49
That's a shame.
President RedToday at 17:49
hey blue
what do you think of the national endowment for the arts
Father RaduToday at 17:49
Why is that a shame im not a jew
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 17:50
@President Red I think it's pretty cool. @Father Radu Because the Jews are Dukakis's chosen people.
:dukakis:
President RedToday at 17:51
dont you think the NEA is a waste of tax money that could be used for more productive things, like other social programs or infrastructure
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 17:51
Yes, but there are better areas to cut funding from.
Matthew PerryToday at 17:51
like the national pollock association
Father RaduToday at 17:51
Im not a jew
President RedToday at 17:52
yeah but that's over 150m wasted tbh
Matthew PerryToday at 17:52
we get it
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 17:53
@Father Radu I know and I said it's a shame because the Jews are Dukakis's chosen people @President Red Art is very important to promote an ideologically healthy character in the people's minds. There are much better areas to cut funding from, such as wars and bailouts.
President RedToday at 17:53
How do you know?
Why must it be a government program?
Matthew PerryToday at 17:54
*how would you know
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 17:55
I don't know, but I also don't know for certain that unicorns don't exist. I never said it had to be a government program. I just said there are other things I'm more concerned about taxpayers' money being wasted on.
President RedToday at 17:55
Cutting the NEA and NEH are good starts. And unicorns do in fact exist. Here's a picture of one.
let the picture load
lol stop

there we go
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 17:57
I don't know how most yanks feel, but I would rather have my money spent on the NEA and NEH than on wars and bailouts. And that is a rhinoceros.
President RedToday at 17:58
Rhinoceroses are considered unicorns technically speaking. And again, wars (not too concerned about bailouts) are definitely wasteful, but again, the NEA and NEH are good starts
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:00
Wars are a much better start. I am much more concerned about money going to fund the senseless deaths of innocents than for it going to fund things which promote the general livelihood of all peoples of the nation.
President RedToday at 18:00
I agree, but the NEH and NEA are things that can easily be cut. Wars... not so much.
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:00
What do you think about the Moon landing?
President RedToday at 18:01
It was cool, but a waste of tax money
ANd time
ANd resources
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:03
It was not a waste of tax money and time and resources! It was worth all the sweat and money to fill a barrel! The morale of Americans and all the world's people in general was uplifted to such a degree that it was so! And it is just the same with art. A country can not stand without good art. It will collapse without it. I doubt America would even exist today if it weren't for Norman Rockwell.
President RedToday at 18:04
Don't get me wrong, the technology and scientific advancements made during the time were excellent, but the trips themselves... not so much. Also, it would've been better to do it as a world, not as a nation (which just boosts nationalist morale, mainly)
And art is definitely important, but the government programs are wasteful
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:05
Well your point about doing it as a world and not a nation I agree with, but I think you would still consider the NEA and NEH wasteful if they were conducted by the UN.
President RedToday at 18:05
Yes
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:06
Well they aren't. If you take them away, mark my words, America will implode. This won't bother me though because I don't like America very much.
President RedToday at 18:06
Evidence?
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:06
Take them away and see what happens.
President RedToday at 18:06
I'm not sure how many people even know about them
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:07
Not many people know about Irena Sendler. Doesn't mean she wasn't important.
Father RaduToday at 18:07
I dont want to live here
President RedToday at 18:07
What kind of strawman is that? No one knows about it, so no one will care if it goes away. What benefit dos it have for people in day to day life?
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:10
@Father Radu I wouldn't want to live in America if I lived there either. @President Red "What kind of strawman is that?" is another rhetorical question from a person who supposedly eschews rhetoric. It is irrelevant whether anyone would care if it went away. You could justify taking doing anything ridiculous if your excuse is "no one will care". The benefit it has for people in day to day life is that it promotes ideologically healthy material for the masses to consume and enjoy in single-hearted unity which is necessary for the very existence of a nation.
President RedToday at 18:11
What benefit does it have?
Father RaduToday at 18:11
The only place id live in anerica is like north dakota
President RedToday at 18:11
Again, not a lot of Americans know that it exists
Matthew PerryToday at 18:11
north polasky
President RedToday at 18:11
Why because the capital is Bismarck?
Father RaduToday at 18:12
Not a lot of ppl and good amount of Afrikaans and dutch speakers
President RedToday at 18:12
ewww
Father RaduToday at 18:13
Why ew?
President RedToday at 18:13
njews
Father RaduToday at 18:13
Ek praat goed afrikaans
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:14
@President Red The benefit it has is that is that it promotes ideologically healthy material for the masses to consume and enjoy in single-hearted unity which is necessary for the very existence of a nation. As I literally just said. The fact that not a lot of Americans know that it exists is irrelevant. I don't think the intelligence of your average yank is high enough to be aware of most of the workings of their government. @Matthew Perry You're behaving like a four year old. And a severely imbecile four year old at that.
President RedToday at 18:14
Evidence?
AGAIN, I'm not for getting rid of art altogether
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:14
Go look at a four year old and they'd be doing exactly what he does.
President RedToday at 18:14
Just getting rid of the government funded programs
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:14
I never said you were.
Matthew PerryToday at 18:14
theyd make rhino memes of krakowski, of course
President RedToday at 18:15
okay, so if we have this art, what do we need that for?
Matthew PerryToday at 18:15
OH WAIT
WHY ARE YOU AGAINST MY ART HUH @Chief Justice Agent Blue
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:15
Getting rid of government funded programs is a bad idea because there will be less art.
President RedToday at 18:15
So?
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:15
@Matthew Perry Because your art is crap.
Matthew PerryToday at 18:15
tax dollars go into my stuff if u want the govt to keep funding art
@Chief Justice Agent Blue
President RedToday at 18:15
That means more money for SS, medicare (and unfortunately wars)
Matthew PerryToday at 18:15
if in case i put it in museums
President RedToday at 18:15
education, housing
Matthew PerryToday at 18:15
and tbh
President RedToday at 18:15
infrastructure
300 million is nothing to scoff at
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:18
@President Red Art is important. Yes, it is true social security (which it isn't a good idea to abbreviate as SS, as the SS I usually think of is not something I want to fund) and medicare are more important. However, you think nuclear power is even more important than these things. If so, then wouldn't you see social security and medicare as a waste of money also? The government could be using this money to invest in nuclear after all. @Matthew Perry I want the govt to fund good art. Not your modernist filth.
Matthew PerryToday at 18:20
thats subjective
President RedToday at 18:20
If I said that, that'd be committing a fallacy of relative privation. No, I am not saying that. There are things that are the most important, then things that are less important. If there was a candidate with an excellent energy policy, but wants to cut SS and Medicare, and is running against someone who wants to keep Medicare and SS but has a shit energy policy, I'd vote for the former. To be honest, while political issues are important, they aren't the only issues (other than climate change), and are mostly first world problems.
Matthew PerryToday at 18:20
govt art programs fund everything
President RedToday at 18:21
Not really
Who's George?
Matthew PerryToday at 18:21
unless u wanna see krakowskis face on the big portrait
President RedToday at 18:21
oh i misunderstood what you said
pm me it
Matthew PerryToday at 18:21
so i agree with red
defund it
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:22
@President Red I think that defunding war would be a much better idea, even if it is more difficult. @Matthew Perry I would severely reform it so that it promotes good art pertaining to the socialist realist tradition.
President RedToday at 18:22
Well, you have to start somewhere, right?
Matthew PerryToday at 18:22
like my art right
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:22
@President Red Yes, and I say we start with war. @Matthew Perry No. Your art is filth.
Matthew PerryToday at 18:24
my art is NOT filth.
President RedToday at 18:24
Why not start with what's easier?
Matthew PerryToday at 18:24
maybe the stuff featured in it is
President RedToday at 18:24
rekt
Matthew PerryToday at 18:24
like krakowskis pollock face
President RedToday at 18:24
the llama civic tho
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:25
@President Red Because the sooner we cut war, the sooner we stop sending people to die and kill in senseless battles for imperialism. @Matthew Perry Your art is garbage, and Father Radu looks very handsome.
Matthew PerryToday at 18:25
@Father Radu he called u sexy
President RedToday at 18:25
Why not start with what's easier?
You didn't really answer my question
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:26
@President Red Because the sooner we cut war, the sooner we stop sending people to die and kill in senseless battles for imperialism. As I just said. And yes I did.
President RedToday at 18:26
Why not start with what's easier?
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:26
Repeated a question I've already answered is another form of rhetoric.
President RedToday at 18:26
Because you're not answering it
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:26
Yes I am.
And lying is also another form of rhetoric.
President RedToday at 18:27
Why not start defunding the program easier to defund?
It's very unlikely to defund wars
It's more likely to defund the NEA and NEH
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:28
That's the same question rephrased so I'll give you the same answer. Because the sooner we cut war, the sooner we stop sending people to die and kill in senseless battles for imperialism. It's also very unlikely to stop catastrophic climate change, but that hasn't stopped you from ranting on about nuclear as if it's going to change anything.
President RedToday at 18:28
Back to your misanthropic ways, I see
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:28
I never left them so I don't know what you're talking about.
President RedToday at 18:29
In debates, that is
Pretty lame cop out
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:32
I don't just start liking humans whenever I'm debating. I've never done that. Saying "Pretty lame cop out" instead of responding to my points is the actual cop out here, and another form of rhetoric. Isn't it just as misanthropic to say "It's unlikely to defund wars because there are not enough humans who will make the effort"? And before you go blabbering on about "Strawmanning", what other possible reason could there be for it being unlikely to defund wars than the fact that there are not enough humans who will make the effort? I think you're just as much of a misanthrope as I am. Just a very selective one and one who sees the best in humans whenever it's in a particular issue you're interested in, but turns into Agent Smith whenever it's an issue you don't think worth your time.
President RedToday at 18:33
Wars are terrible, but will they wipe out the entire human race? Unlikely, even with the current administrations.
And to be honest, I don't see what you're going on about how climate change will screw us over. The current US and UK administrations are good on nuclear, and a lot of European countries are embracing clean sources of energy.
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:38
Your point about wars wiping out the entire human race being "unlikely" is entirely subjective, so I will proceed to discard it. This wasn't originally about how catastrophic wars/climate change could be. It was about how easy it would be to stop it. The fact that US and UK administrations are good on nuclear and a lot of European countries are embracing clean energy and yet as reported by CNN, a "report issued Monday by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people" only proves my point that unless we increase our dependence on nuclear power by an extreme level, nothing we can do will stem the oncoming tide of catastrophic climate change, least of all the activism performed by the pair of us.
President RedToday at 18:40
Right, but this will not happen if we vote for people that are for nuclear. Some will definitely die unfortunately, but there is still time to save our species. I ask you, why not make a forum thread on this? I'm pretty sure that the members would be glad to discuss, since, if you're interested in the actual truth, you'd do it. I'll cya later.
Chief Justice Agent BlueToday at 18:44
It will still happen if you vote for people that are for nuclear, as evidence by the fact that "The current US and UK administrations are good on nuclear". There is still time to save our species, but I'd rather not waste it vainly attempting to save our species, however, I will do it just so that when we die because of climate change, I can rub it in your face that our activism did nothing. You make the thread about it and tag me in it if you want me to add my two cents. I'm not going to go out of my way to do it because it's not a subject that interests me that much. Nor am I that interested in the actual truth as a matter of fact. It won't affect me either way because I'm already campaigning in favour of nuclear power.
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests