Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

I mean, they have enacted broad sweeping social policies, they are very tolerant of personal preferences and choices-- their only real downside is their staunch isolationism, because they fear being destroyed by outsiders.  Culturally, they are like the extremely fancy kind of cosmopolitan Rome. Or, don't you like all the many cultural advancements Rome gave modern society? They had human spectacle in the coliseums as well. ACTUAL HUMANS, that think, feel, and contemplate the future. (and not subhuman, but clever animals. The slave class in the mound are like the nonspeaking and animalistic post-humans in the 1970s planet of the apes.)

It looks more to me like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Kagus]

Zombies used to be real people, with dreams, families, friends... now they are just shambling... things.

Just like working here! Ha ha ha, am I right, Patricia? Oh hey, next Thursday is Phil's retirement party, we're doing a collection.

[Imic]

How could you be arguing that it was justified? Stop it. It’s just wrong, regardless of context.

[scourge728]

the downslide from intellectual riggor to "feelings" and "impulses" holding maximal value. (again, see Alt-Left and its rise in the information age.)

At least in America, that sounds like exactly how the alt right argues

[wierd]

the downslide from intellectual riggor to "feelings" and "impulses" holding maximal value. (again, see Alt-Left and its rise in the information age.)

At least in America, that sounds like exactly how the alt right argues

It's what BOTH of them do.  Again, I specifically lamplit the more extreme antifa doxxers, who doxx people who just happen to have been near nazi meetups.  People not even involved, but get their lives ruined anyway by the implication, and the people doing the doxxing are unfazed by this. The impulse, the feeling of vindication-- those are all that mattered.

[Hanslanda]

-snip-

The rhetorical style of you guy's posts read like the equivalent verbal sparring to a duel from The Princess Bride

This. I'd be eating popcorn if I had some.

[Arx]

Okay, so let's just get this straight. You have zero problem with the fact that the equivalent of great apes are continously tortured, that any foreigner entering the society is forced to remain on pain of a fate worse than death, the rapid and visible decline of knowledge and society as a whole, and that crimes are punished by horrific, extended torture followed by your corpse being used as slave labour to set an example.

You are okay with this because there is a universal basic income and no one cares what you do as long as it isn't immediately harmful.

You also kept comparing them to North Korea. Have you given up on that, or do you find North Korea quite the model state, too?

-snip-

The rhetorical style of you guy's posts read like the equivalent verbal sparring to a duel from The Princess Bride

This. I'd be eating popcorn if I had some.

Honestly 40% of the reason I'm still going is that everyone else finds us entertaining

[GiglameshDespair]

as the old saying goes, you can't make an omelette without constant, needless and horrible torture of living beings for your own amusement

[wierd]

See this^

This is why I said you had a conniption fit.  You are having another one.  This is NOT "being the definition of civil."


Rather than be accepting that the human condition is fucking ugly, and includes such things in its background, you would rather deny it. I can clearly see that in your dialog.

The society of the mound dwellers bends over backward to accomodate individual taste.  The one problem most certainly is their paranoid fear of outsiders destroying them.  Do you want to know why?

There is research that only 20% of a population needs to hold a view, for that view to become the new dominant one.  The mound dwellers allowing outsiders to come and go, would change their culture away from all the decadent horrors depicted, at least in time.

The result would be a very progressive culture, already sustaining a functioning public welfare system with fantastic levels of social tolerance.

Again, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water, rather than seeing it for its potential-- then doubling down on emotional responses about how evil a person I must be not to agree with you.

[Imic]

You... Didn’t answer him, as far as I can tell. At this point, from what I can see, there’s some kind of disconnect between what you’re both saying.

[wierd]

His questions are loaded, and intended to beg the question.  That is why I am not answering them.

If YOU however, want an answer, I will give you one.

You have zero problem with the fact that the equivalent of great apes are continously tortured, that any foreigner entering the society is forced to remain on pain of a fate worse than death, the rapid and visible decline of knowledge and society as a whole, and that crimes are punished by horrific, extended torture followed by your corpse being used as slave labour to set an example.

No. I have problems with all of those things. However, those things can be overcome over time, if the culture allowed outsiders, per my answer above.  NEXT QUESTION.

You are okay with this because there is a universal basic income and no one cares what you do as long as it isn't immediately harmful.

No, that is begging the question. I answered why above.  NEXT QUESTION

You also kept comparing them to North Korea.

Yes I did, and do. North Korea keeps its populace from normalizing to western values via the mechanism I informed you about, by strictly controlling the exchange of ideas, and preventing critical mass of those destabilizing ideas.  Without that censorship, Leader Kim could not keep the west out.

Have you given up on that, or do you find North Korea quite the model state, too?

This is more begging the question. I answered above.

[Arx]

See this^

This is why I said you had a conniption fit.  You are having another one.  This is NOT "being the definition of civil."

Really? All I've done is summarise the points I've made and, as best I can tell, your response. What's uncivil about that? And please don't use ALL CAPS, I can read lowercase just fine.

Rather than be accepting that the human condition is fucking ugly, and includes such things in its background, you would rather deny it. I can clearly see that in your dialog.

I think you're reading far too much into very little, in an effort not to be wrong despite having taken a position you realise, consciously or unconsciously, is untenable. I was going to go on a long rant about how I've rubbed shoulders with the dark side of humanity nearly all my life, but that's not really actually relevant.

Instead of making an appeal to emotion to try and discredit my argument, why don't you just give a straight answer?

The society of the mound dwellers bends over backward to accomodate individual taste.  The one problem most certainly is their paranoid fear of outsiders destroying them.  Do you want to know why?

There is research that only 20% of a population needs to hold a view, for that view to become the new dominant one.  The mound dwellers allowing outsiders to come and go, would change their culture away from all the decadent horrors depicted, at least in time.

The result would be a very progressive culture, already sustaining a functioning public welfare system with fantastic levels of social tolerance.

Neat statistics, but the isolationism predates the advent even of immortality by a good distance, so that's a completely irrelevant point. Besides, I don't recall that the discussion was ever about what the k'n-yan could be - your claim was that the society as-is would be "really not that bad".

So since you're conceding the "decadent horrors", would you agree that the k'n-yan are, in fact, regardless of how they could change if it weren't for the fact that they apparently democratically chose not to, absolutely abhorrent?

You... Didn’t answer him, as far as I can tell. At this point, from what I can see, there’s some kind of disconnect between what you’re both saying.

You're quite correct. Every time I present something to which he has no legitimate counterpoint, he shifts the discussion; and if I restate the issue, he accuses me of begging the questions he's posing that have nothing to do with what I originally asked.

[Hanslanda]

This is a Bay12 shitslinging argument. Calm, reasoned debate sprinkled with irritated pointing out of the opponent's argumentative shortcomings.

[wierd]

No, you are still begging the question.  Specifically, you are tailoring rhetorical questions such that the desired answer revolves around the people of k'nyan being absolute monsters.

This is indeed, begging the question.

You are quite correct that what you have been doing is reiterating your loaded questions, which again, have been--- BEGGING THE QUESTION.


Namely, that hte people of Kn'Yan are absolute monsters.

Shall we go around the merri-go-round again?


Again, historically--- we have cultures like Rome.  The Pax Romana is very important to western culture and society.  We would NOT be having this debate if it had not happened.  Dirty things in human history are indeed dirty, but that does NOT condemn the *ENTIRE* society to the grave of absolute depravity.

Again, Rome did the equivalent level of horror for its era.

And, you can thank them for things like elected government.

So no-- the premise of your questions is invalid.  The presence of horror in their society does not make them absolute evil.

[Hanslanda]

Nvm