Debate me

[wadlez]

Anything you want, I'll take the opposing view

 

[Cognisant]

I'm wrong.

 

[wadlez]

Giving up already? damn im good

 

[Cognisant]

Okay seriously now, take your pick:
Tranhumanism
or
Nihilism

Awfully predictable I know, but you want a challenge correct?
So either explain why Transhumanism is a bad idea or try to undermine Nihilism.

 

[Anthile]

Okay seriously now, take your pick:
Tranhumanism
or
Nihilism

Awfully predictable I know, but you want a challenge correct?
So either explain why Transhumanism is a bad idea or try to undermine Nihilism.

I sense some Author Tract here.


Let's debate time travel instead. Is it possible? How would a society look like where time travel is available like hot dogs?

 

[Cognisant]

Oookay time travel it is.

Assuming we're talking about multidimensional time travel (thus grandfather paradoxes and such aren’t an issue) then with everyone jumping from time 'A' to 'B' by their own time reference it wouldn't really matter how many time travellers there were/are/whatever since they'll never (well it's unbelievably unlikely) come in contact with other post-time-jump travellers.

So in effect it's like living in the comic-books universe, the shit just happens, deal with it.

 

[wadlez]

So in effect it's like living in the comic-books universe, the shit just happens, deal with it.

So to clarify, your saying that when you travel in time if you change something which could eventually change you being born in the first place, you will still travel back in time?

And I'll take the opposite view to that? which is that it would stop you from going back in time in the first place and create some paradox

Or instead Let's debate time travel instead. Is it possible? How would a society look like where time travel is available like hot dogs?

Which aspect of this would you like to debate and which side are you for?

 

[Cognisant]

In a multiverse you can go back in time and kill yourself, because it wouldn't actually be you, just an alternate version of you in a time-space where you get killed by the future you.

The killers history is set, unchangeable, to put it metaphorically this kind of time travel isn't actually backwards/forwards time travel, it's lateral travel through alternate universes at different stages of their own time-space progression.

 

[wadlez]

I dont think you need mulitple universes for this to be the case. As we are just experiencing the 4th dimension from the perspective of the 3rd dimension, so viewing the 4th dimension in 3d slices. Basically what im saying is that if you go back in time and kill yourself, you wont just instantly die as the events that led to you going back in time still happened but from this point things will just happen differently.

 

[Cognisant]

But what happens when the progression of the new timeline catches up with the point when I went back in time to kill myself?

Would I become an existential anomaly with no history?

 

[TheHmmmm]

I sense some Author Tract here.


Let's debate time travel instead. Is it possible? How would a society look like where time travel is available like hot dogs?

It's probably just my extremely mundane knowledge of time, but is it actually a separate entity? To me, it always just seemed to exist as much as the meter exists, as a unit of measure for the process of aging. We centralize it in astronomy, basing it off of the rotation and revolution of the planet Earth in its orbit. It is for this reason that I do not believe in time travel.

Of course, these are insubstantial arguments based on my random, intuitive conjectures.

 

[wadlez]

But what happens when the progression of the new timeline catches up with the point when I went back in time to kill myself?

Would I become an existential anomaly with no history?

Basically if you went back in time again you would only see the new modified timeline, you were created from a different sequence of events

 

[Shatokan]

Basically if you went back in time again you would only see the new modified timeline, you were created from a different sequence of events

From the way i hear it, and understand it.

You have your life line, such as when/if you go back in time, it splits it, making it to where you can NEVER effect your current self, anything done in the past will create a split path where the timeline changes. So in essence, no matter how many times you screw the past up the future will remain unchanged.

If you go along with this principle, you also have to go along with the principle that for every decision made in the galaxy, the timeline is split. If one person see's a coin, for every decision available to them there is a split, creating a universe, one for when they pick it up, one for is they don't, one for if they kick it, and one for if they don't see it in the first place, along with the millions of time lines where they don't even exist. This is how i consider time travel.

 

[ashitaria]

Traveling back in time is impossible because travel back in time, you have to travel through space, and then there will be no place there. In any case, how will we send a person like that anyway? We have neither the knowledge of any material or science that can allow time to stop, though we have the technology to slow metabolism. The only way for time to stop is to hold the Earth in place, so good luck doing that.

And the time paradox that we oh so often spend time thinking about, probably will never come in a million years. Time (imo) isn't an extra dimension or power, is just a way to measure passing time.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Time travel already happens in quantum electrodynamics.

(Source)

An electron can go forward in time, emit a photon, sending it backwards in time as a positron, to where it absorbs a photon and continues on a forward path. Of course, when we see the backwards moving electron (with it's polarity reversed making it a positron) we see it backwards from the direction it's actually moving in time - so, to us, it would look like light splitting into a positron and an electron, the positron colliding with a different electron and annihilating into a photon.

 

[Shatokan]

Traveling back in time is impossible because travel back in time, you have to travel through space, and then there will be no place there. In any case, how will we send a person like that anyway? We have neither the knowledge of any material or science that can allow time to stop, though we have the technology to slow metabolism. The only way for time to stop is to hold the Earth in place, so good luck doing that.

And the time paradox that we oh so often spend time thinking about, probably will never come in a million years. Time (imo) isn't an extra dimension or power, is just a way to measure passing time.

And so you also assume that it will never BE possible? saying we don't have it now means nothing if we have it tomorrow.

Time is not a measurement but the fourth dimension. (IMHO) Because we on;y realize life in three dimensions we can not fathom a way to travel in time and yet we know it is possible. As stated by AI. Even if it happens in a million years, it is still going to happen. Assuming something isn't possible because we know next to nothing about it is presuming yourself knowledgeable enough to say otherwise.

Edit:just saw this

It's just another way to measure passing time.

Why do you measure something that's just passing, if not to examine and change it.

 

[ashitaria]

And so you also assume that it will never BE possible? saying we don't have it now means nothing if we have it tomorrow.

Time is not a measurement but the fourth dimension. (IMHO) Because we on;y realize life in three dimensions we can not fathom a way to travel in time and yet we know it is possible. As stated by AI. Even if it happens in a million years, it is still going to happen. Assuming something isn't possible because we know next to nothing about it is presuming yourself knowledgeable enough to say otherwise.

Edit:just saw this


Why do you measure something that's just passing, if not to examine and change it.

Yet, the moon will still move around the Earth, and time itself is not causing the Moon to move around the Earth, does it? It is possible, and yet it can't. If you were wounded, it isn't time that heals you, but your body cells.
Time is really just a way of measuring passing time. Neither did I say that time travel is impossible, I am simply stating that time travel will never be within our reach.

And to answer your other question. Time was created to in other words examine the seasons, days, nights, etc. And by passing time, I mean the seasons, days, nights, etc. Yet these would still have happened without time right? Time is measuring approximately how long days last....

 

[Shatokan]

Yet, the moon will still move around the Earth, and time itself is not causing the Moon to move around the Earth, does it? It is possible, and yet it can't. If you were wounded, it isn't time that heals you, but your body cells.
Time is really just a way of measuring passing time. Neither did I say that time travel is impossible, I am simply stating that time travel will never be within our reach.

I like this explanation quite more than your other one. And just to clarify, i also think it will forever be beyond our grasp. If we humans as a race DO find a way to "time travel" It will be by some outside force and not something we can create.

 

[ashitaria]

I like this explanation quite more than your other one. And just to clarify, i also think it will forever be beyond our grasp. If we humans as a race DO find a way to "time travel" It will be by some outside force and not something we can create.

My explanations are usually extremely vague, so don't be afraid to ask.

In any case, I'm still learning chemistry, so my knowledge of photons and atoms are very limited. I'm considering taking physics next year.

 

[wadlez]

Really good explanation of the ten dimensions http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

 

[Hawkeye]

we already have to account for time distortions for GPS to work.

 

[wadlez]

Alright I think this time travel thing is winding down to an end. Anyone want to debate me on any other subject. Anything at all, I'll take the side which your sure is wrong.

 

[ashitaria]

Guns should be banned.

 

[Shatokan]

Guns should be banned.

And why do you say this? So the honest, hardworking citizen can get shot by the criminal and have no way to defend themselves?

 

[bananaphallus]

- Minorities are not second class citizens

- Maisy's alligator pal 'Charlie' in the hit kids' (lolz) television program...Maisy, is not a clear and present danger to those around him/society.

Evidence (pretty damning, imo):

Spoiler

YouTube- Maisy's bugs

 

[wadlez]

Guns should be banned.

Guns are means for citizens to defend themselves against criminals. They prevnt crime and keep your home safe.
Criminals dont care for laws so if you ban guns your only stopping innocent citizens from having them.

 

[echoplex]

Life is good.

 

[ashitaria]

Guns are means for citizens to defend themselves against criminals. They prevnt crime and keep your home safe.
Criminals dont care for laws so if you ban guns your only stopping innocent citizens from having them.

However, guns increase suicidal and homicidal rates in the house from three to five fold, and citizens are not the only one who can use guns. Also, there are other forms of weapons that can be used for protection, it is said that pepper gas is more effective than a gun.
By stopping the circulation of guns, criminals will eventually lose guns and no one gets hurt. In fact, guns were the major cause of murders in 2005.

 

[Cognisant]

The problem with a gun is that the only people who are prepared to use them are the ones willing to do harm to another human being (it's actually surprisingly hard) and those are exactly the kinds of people guns should be kept away from.

Also contrary to popular belief guns are dangerously inaccurate in but the most experienced hands, this is why police don't even try to shoot criminals with hostages, sure on the firing range hitting a 9x9 target at 20ft is within the ability of your average marksman, but irl if the gun is squeezed in ever so slightly the wrong way, the hostage gets shot in the head.

The only situation where having a gun would increase the average (moderately trained) person's chances of survival would be in a full urban-combat gun battle. But if things ever get that bad you can be assured police would be arriving en mass and requesting gunship close air support, in which case the last thing you would want to be is someone holding a gun, you’ll just get shot.

 

[ashitaria]

The problem with a gun is that the only people who are prepared to use them are the ones willing to do harm to another human being (it's actually surprisingly hard) and those are exactly the kinds of people guns should be kept away from.

Also contrary to popular belief guns are dangerously inaccurate in but the most experienced hands, this is why police don't even try to shoot criminals with hostages, sure on the firing range hitting a 9x9 target at 20ft is within the ability of your average marksman, but irl if the gun is squeezed in ever so slightly the wrong way, the hostage gets shot in the head.

The only situation where having a gun would increase the average (moderately trained) person's chances of survival would be in a full urban-combat gun battle. But if things ever get that bad you can be assured police would be arriving en mass and requesting gunship close air support, in which case the last thing you would want to be is someone holding a gun, you’ll just get shot.

Also considering the fact that suicide attempt by guns are 90% successful as compared to jumping off tall ledges which is 34% successful.

 

[wadlez]

However, guns increase suicidal and homicidal rates in the house from three to five fold

Dude if that was fact then there couldnt possibly be an argument. Thank god you just made that up

it is said that pepper gas is more effective than a gun.
By stopping the circulation of guns, criminals will eventually lose guns and no one gets hurt. In fact, guns were the major cause of murders in 2005.

Pepper spray is not going to dissuade a criminal from entering your home, a gun definatly will.
The idea of stopping the circulation of guns doesnt and hasnt worked. In australia where I live you cant have any guns except for maybe a rifle if your a farmer with a special liscense. This should stop guns circulating but it hasnt at all, its only stopped us civilians who respect the law from having them, criminals can get them and have no respect for the law. They have handguns which are better than our police.

The only situation where having a gun would increase the average (moderately trained) person's chances of survival would be in a full urban-combat gun battle

Thats ridiculous, if I had a gun i could shoot anyone who entered my home easily, i could shoot anyone on the street easily. It happens all the time.

The best thing about guns is that they deter crime, in countrys without legal guns for civilians, criminals can just enter any house they want and occupants are defenseless.
The crime rate in america would be much higher if people were not allowed guns.

 

[Cognisant]

Dude if that was fact then there couldnt possibly be an argument. Thank god you just made that up

Lol

Thats ridiculous, if I had a gun i could shoot anyone who entered my home easily, i could shoot anyone on the street easily. It happens all the time.

So am I to assume you would have a gun handy 24/7 ?
Actually come to think of it, if everyone wore a holstered piece everyday of their lives I suppose violent crime would become almost impossible, unless of course people started forming gangs, holding fortified positions and started investing in support equipment like artillery, APCs, tanks, etc to counter each others fortifications... have I made my point?

When a civilian populace enforces law through power of arms, the people with greatest destructive means become the most influential figures of authority, in effect it becomes a cold-war arms race on a neighbourhood level.
At this point violent crime becomes irrelevant, I'd be more worried about war crimes.

They have handguns which are better than our police.

Then clearly police need better guns, or perhaps armoured exosuits and drone close air support; lets not get all sentimental, a system of government stays in power because it enforces a suppressive authority over the populace, which is tolerated by the populace because they know civilisation thrives in the stability of the status quo.

Also police are trained to enforce an agreed upon set of laws, this means they can work together without conflict and rightly assume anyone breaking this set of laws is cognisant of the possible repercussion; in a world of civilian enforced martial law, who's to say what the law is and how zealously it should be enforced, this lack of unity creates interpersonal conflicts all by itself, escalating what may only be a minor dispute into a major armed conflict.

 

[ashitaria]

Ore-sama...
You beat me to it. -_-

@Wadlez, the reason why I provide a fact instead of an argument is because the fact is self-explanatory. It is common sense that a suicide attempted by a gun is more successful than jumping off buildings. I merely provided a statistic that explained it for me.

Also, in other countries with strict gun control, there are very little (32 deaths a year) deaths by firearms. America is America. Gun control does stop gun regulation, and it is a ridiculous statement to say that it doesn't and only lets criminals have guns. Not only that, it doesn't mean that in states with strict gun laws mean that you can't get guns. You can get guns from other states. America is America.

As I said, by stopping gun circulation, criminals will eventually run out. Getting guns shipped from other countries is unlikely, because there is no other country with quite as much gun deaths as America. America has eight times more deaths by guns than its economic counter-parts.

Pepper gas also deters criminals. It blinds them. That's better than a gun. If you shoot a criminal, he's still alive, and he can very well move, unless you shoot both his legs.

And you want the sites and websites, PM me.

 

[BigApplePi]

1. Males should treat females as sex objects.

2. INTP avatars should be as appealing as possible.

3. The two party system in the United States is a great thing.

4. The United States belongs in Afghanistan.

5. Muslims are not good people.

5b. INTPs are not good people.

6. All people should be treated equally.

Any of those .....

 

[BigApplePi]

Basically if you went back in time again you would only see the new modified timeline, you were created from a different sequence of events

Traveling back in time is easy. Just hit "edit, undo."

 

[ashitaria]

1. Males should treat females as sex objects.

2. INTP avatars should be as appealing as possible.

3. The two party system in the United States is a great thing.

4. The United States belongs in Afghanistan.

5. Muslims are not good people.

5b. INTPs are not good people.

6. All people should be treated equally.

Any of those .....

I know this sounds mean, but it's like as if you didn't put any thought into some of these topics. Of course, some of these topics are decent, though there wouldn't really be a debate over some of these because topics like number 7 has little or no controversy.

What about the topic:
What should be more highly valued? Mercy or Justice?

 

[Cognisant]

1. Males should treat females as sex objects.

Generally no.
Then again primitive men didn't hunt mammoths because they had to, they risked their lives hunting these greatest of beasts because there were women to impress. It's a sad but true fact that we're more-or-less hardwired to strive that much more when women are involved, so to the extent that this could increase workplace prodictivity/compitition I would agree, beyond that I would not.

2. INTP avatars should be as appealing as possible.

In what way?

3. The two party system in the United States is a great thing.

Heh, the "lesser of two evils" voting system.

4. The United States belongs in Afghanistan.

...why are they there again?

5. Muslims are not good people.

From personal experaince, they're likeable enough.

5b. INTPs are not good people.

We're not bad, but if the world came to an end it would likely be an INTP's fault.

6. All people should be treated equally.

In theory, yes.
In practice, no.

 

[BigApplePi]

I know this sounds mean, but it's like as if you didn't put any thought into some of these topics. Of course, some of these topics are decent, though there wouldn't really be a debate over some of these because topics like number 7 has little or no controversy.

What about the topic:
What should be more highly valued? Mercy or Justice?

ashitaria. Questions:

1. Choosing the topics or thought on the topics?
2. Some? Which?
3. #7 is fine. RU a J?

 

[BigApplePi]

wadlez in his OP said, "Anything you want, I'll take the opposing view"

I directed those 6 issues toward wadlez. At the time I was in linear mode and thought no one had replied to him. My error. I'm a little confused over which modes I have to display. Do I try all three? What do you recommend as I'm new this January.

 

[Hawkeye]

why when you type "Islam is " on google it blocks the predictive sentence table that always appears...

 

[wadlez]

Actually come to think of it, if everyone wore a holstered piece everyday of their lives I suppose violent crime would become almost impossible, unless of course people started forming gangs, holding fortified positions and started investing in support equipment like artillery, APCs, tanks, etc to counter each others fortifications... have I made my point?

Are you serious?

When a civilian populace enforces law through power of arms, the people with greatest destructive means become the most influential figures of authority, in effect it becomes a cold-war arms race on a neighbourhood level.
At this point violent crime becomes irrelevant, I'd be more worried about war crimes.

Definatlely, happens all the time.... Well its never happened before but Im sure it would if you allowed people in a country to have guns... Oh. This is the goverment mentality, they think that everyone and everything needs to be controlled or these ridiculous situations will occur (based on no observable facts).

Then clearly police need better guns, or perhaps armoured exosuits and drone close air support; lets not get all sentimental, a system of government stays in power because it enforces a suppressive authority over the populace, which is tolerated by the populace because they know civilisation thrives in the stability of the status quo.

Because it enforces a suppressive authority over the populace!!!!!! OMG. You would love north korea or china. Have you ever thought what if the people in charge are working in there best interests instead of the peoples?

Also police are trained to enforce an agreed upon set of laws, this means they can work together without conflict and rightly assume anyone breaking this set of laws is cognisant of the possible repercussion; in a world of civilian enforced martial law, who's to say what the law is and how zealously it should be enforced, this lack of unity creates interpersonal conflicts all by itself, escalating what may only be a minor dispute into a major armed conflict.

You should look into game theory and free markets, Negative liberty always beats positive liberty.

Wadlez, the reason why I provide a fact instead of an argument is because the fact is self-explanatory. It is common sense that a suicide attempted by a gun is more successful than jumping off buildings. I merely provided a statistic that explained it for me.

You ommited this commen sense fact this time around:

However, guns increase suicidal and homicidal rates in the house from three to five fold

That is definitely not fact or common sense. The suicide attempt thing is just stupid, there are many ways people can kill themselves, just because an object can be used for suicide doesnt mean it should be banned.

Also, in other countries with strict gun control, there are very little (32 deaths a year) deaths by firearms. America is America

Which country are you referencing, and why does this country prove the fact for all other countrys. I think the homicides in america are due to there massive drug and crime problem than guns. If you look at canada which has similiar gun laws there is barely any homicides (eliminating guns as the dependent variable).

 

[wadlez]

5b. INTPs are not good people.

For a challenge I would like to choose this one, and I would like to argue that INTPs are not good people. Agreed?

 

[Cognisant]

OMG. You would love north korea or china.

Mmm, yeah, I would.

Japan too, because they understand the importance of robots.
By the great automata I love the Japanese.

(dyk that Shinto already has machine-cult elements?)

 

[ashitaria]

Are you serious?



Definatlely, happens all the time.... Well its never happened before but Im sure it would if you allowed people in a country to have guns... Oh. This is the goverment mentality, they think that everyone and everything needs to be controlled or these ridiculous situations will occur (based on no observable facts).

People do have to be controlled, that is what government is for. Without order, there will be chaos. Even the Native Indians had a government, because without a government, we will be in ridiculous situations. Same thing with guns. We don't have any gun laws, so now look. 10,677 deaths in America in 2006, 47 in Germany, 32 in Canada....

Go look up the statistics yourself.



Because it enforces a suppressive authority over the populace!!!!!! OMG. You would love north korea or china. Have you ever thought what if the people in charge are working in there best interests instead of the peoples?

What about Canada, what about the U.K, what about Germany, what about Singapore? These countries offer about as much freedom as America does, and they have strict gun control, and also there are very little gun deaths.

You should look into game theory and free markets, Negative liberty always beats positive liberty.

So you are saying that banning guns is positive liberty? I say more like not banning guns is positive liberty.


You ommited this commen sense fact this time around:

That is definitely not fact or common sense. The suicide attempt thing is just stupid, there are many ways people can kill themselves, just because an object can be used for suicide doesnt mean it should be banned.

Yes, but guns increase the risk and rate of suicides. Which takes more courage to do? Put your gun to your head and pull the trigger or jump of a cliff? Which is likely to be more successful? Which is likely to be more painful? Common sense prevails.

Which country are you referencing, and why does this country prove the fact for all other countrys. I think the homicides in america are due to there massive drug and crime problem than guns. If you look at canada which has similiar gun laws there is barely any homicides (eliminating guns as the dependent variable).
Yes, but guns, though not the cause of most homicides, do most homicides. It is easier for a person to kill with a gun than a knife, no? And Canada does not have the same gun laws as ours. In 1995, the Canadian government passed Bill C-68, also known as the Firearms Act, a strict gun-control law which came into effect in stages, is the reason for the low homicidal rates in Canada.

As I said. If you need websites or sites, PM me.

 

[ashitaria]

ashitaria. Questions:

1. Choosing the topics or thought on the topics?
Thought on the topics

2. Some? Which?

7,4,3
3. #7 is fine. RU a J?
The link on my sig explains it.

In any case, sorry if I sounded harsh or callous. I'm usually very business-like and serious when it comes to debates.

I love debates :P

 

[BigApplePi]

If I understand it then, wadlez is going to take the side of "INTPs are not good people"

Everyone else would stand up for INTPs being good people. Is this right? Is this how you meant it to go wadlez?Personally I think INTPs are good people because they have the ability to see the world as it really is. I.e. they aren't phonies.

 

[wadlez]

Yep thats right.

I think INTPS overall are terrible people for the following reasons:
They are very unsocial compared to other types.
They tend to have a bleak depressing view of reality (favour sad things).
There cold intellectual judgement strangles feeling out of situations, objects and life in general.
There preference to perceive rather that to judge and act makes them live overly in there subjective worlds and never actually act or make any impact, rendering them useless.

Generally there not taken by the same feelings other types are making them boring and over intellectual. Take live music events with crowds for example, most types love this, but an INTP will feel alienated, think everyone there is stupid and cant see why everyones so hyped up.

 

[ashitaria]

Hey hey hey, is the gun control debate over already? I already replied to Wadlez's post. C'mon?

 

[Jesin]

Yep thats right.

I think INTPS overall are terrible people for the following reasons:
They are very unsocial compared to other types.
They tend to have a bleak depressing view of reality (favour sad things).
There cold intellectual judgement strangles feeling out of situations, objects and life in general.
There preference to perceive rather that to judge and act makes them live overly in there subjective worlds and never actually act or make any impact, rendering them useless.

Generally there not taken by the same feelings other types are making them boring and over intellectual. Take live music events with crowds for example, most types love this, but an INTP will feel alienated, think everyone there is stupid and cant see why everyones so hyped up.

Mu.

 

[BigApplePi]

Yep thats right.

I think INTPS overall are terrible people for the following reasons:
1. They are very unsocial compared to other types.
2. They tend to have a bleak depressing view of reality (favour sad things).
3. Their cold intellectual judgement strangles feeling out of situations, objects and life in general.
4. Their preference to perceive rather that to judge and act makes them live overly in their subjective worlds and never actually act or make any impact, rendering them useless.

Generally there not taken by the same feelings other types are making them boring and over intellectual. Take live music events with crowds for example, most types love this, but an INTP will feel alienated, think everyone there is stupid and cant see why everyones so hyped up.

INTPs are not so terrible because --
1. INPTs are just introverted. Look at how sociable they are on this forum.
2. Need evidence they would favor sad things over happy things. No part of I, N, T, or P points to that.
3. Feelings can be too forceful and crude. If INTPs look at things dispassionately, better a cool head to get at the truth.
4. INTPs can't do everything. If INTPs lay it out there, then some J has to come along and get picky.

wadlez I took the liberty to fix your spelling of the possessive, "their."