Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Aug '10 20:35 / 1 edit
    Posted by Eladar on the other thread:

    I don't see what we are doing here as debate. In a debate you can pick either side. People here do not do that. They are simply spewing their own beliefs, picking authorities that agree with them to support their beliefs and shout down anyone who disagrees. It is nothing more than saying "hey, this is what I believe and this is why". It isn't debating at all.

    Okay; let's try arguing the opposite sides of those that we normally take.

    I'll start.

    It's plain that the free market does not work to the benefit of the common people. the natural tendency of people is to cooperate with each other. All social Darwinism does it encourage people to abandon this natural tendency and unleash their basest more reprehensible tendencies: greed, cruelty and heartlessness.

    If, as a society, the best we can do ascribe zero value to helping one another, then our intelligence is useless. We would and could be just as greedy and self-centered without it.

    The only way to use our intelligence properly is to ensure that all people are afforded equal opportunity and as close to equal standard of living as possible. This plainly requires whatever measures are necessary to ensure approximately equal distribution of wealth throughout the World.

    On a moral note as well, nobody can be said to "deserve" a better life simple because his or her ancestors ended up with greater wealth by combination of hard work, luck, chance, theft from others, etc. (the impact of these various factors being impossible to translate to the status of one individual in any case). Plainly, the only moral approach is to do what is necessary to re-distribute the World's wealth on a per capita basis as expeditiously as possible.

    I'll expect rejoinders from rwingett and Adam Warlock ASAP.
  2. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    08 Aug '10 23:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    [b]Posted by Eladar on the other thread:

    I don't see what we are doing here as debate. In a debate you can pick either side. People here do not do that. They are simply spewing their own beliefs, picking authorities that agree with them to support their beliefs and shout down anyone who disagrees. It is nothing more than saying "hey, this is what I be ditiously as possible.

    I'll expect rejoinders from rwingett and Adam Warlock ASAP.[/b]
    It sounds like you're satirizing the other side more than arguing for it.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    09 Aug '10 02:06
    Originally posted by rwingett
    It sounds like you're satirizing the other side more than arguing for it.
    Sorry.

    I tried.
  4. 09 Aug '10 02:46
    The degree of response is what makes us individual. The direction is produced by
    lived experience and genes. We are all walking the path in our skins. When the threat emerges from the hazy bushes some will race forward thrusting their stone knives and some will ensure that the rest are safe. We need both!?

    Are we on the road to nowhere? I was just thinking how the last century was a renaissance of meaningful art and humane science that enriched the life of this planet. We also confronted dangerous and self destructive political behavior and answered with justice and self-confident moral courage.

    Now we lack the fortitude for simple self inspection. Journalism is cheer-leading. Politics is propaganda. Business is theft.

    The conditions that fed our great society are not going to be matched in the coming century. The facts on the ground, the one and only ground, have changed. We are about to learn that living has consequences. Can we react responsibly to this knowledge?

    I think back a few years ago to several of my friends who went crazy after 9-11 (in every possible direction!) There are also at least a large boat full of white-eyed patriots who flipped after the last election. This is happening in a society with every advantage. What will happen in your neighborhood - or your head?
  5. 09 Aug '10 11:36 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    [b]Posted by Eladar on the other thread:

    I don't see what we are doing here as debate. In a debate you can pick either side. People here do not do that. They are simply spewing their own beliefs, picking authorities that agree with them to support their beliefs and shout down anyone who disagrees. It is nothing more than saying "hey, this is what I believe and this is why". It isn't debating at all.[/b]
    I'd take issue with Eladar's original assertion in any case. Although a debate where you pick sides arbitrarily is a useful classroom exercise, surely the fact that we are presenting our own ideological convictions and trying to provide evidence to support them is what gives these debates their value and substance. It's hardly just "picking authorities that agree with [us]"; hopefully we are at least trying to present factual evidence that supports and justifies our beliefs. If another poster presents evidence that strongly supports an opposing ideological position, I have been known to change my mind. Surely I can't be alone in this!