[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.


1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1680198571594.jpg (68.12 KB, 912x513, 16:9, 2021-01-16T000943Z_1905210….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Jacob Chansley has been released from prison, effectively exonerated, due to the exculpatory nature of the newly revealed January 6th footage.  This was footage that the federal government kept under wraps for over 2 years, footage that individuals in government fought tooth and nail to keep from being released, which could have not only been used in his defense but also proven his innocence.  In effect, an innocent man was kept in prison, which included an extended period in solitary confinement, due to a calculated and intentional miscarriage of justice, which was perpetrated and perpetuated by both the media as well as government officials.

Is preserving the narrative surrounding January 6th more important than the rights of an individual?
Do you consider it justice to jail individuals for crimes they haven't committed, simply because you disagree with their politics?
If so, then what is your argument against false imprisonment of people whose politics you do agree with, by those to whom they are opposed, for the exact same reason?
31 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Considering that he and his lawyer are specifically calling that narrative incorrect I feel that it requires more evidence than a minute worth of cable news outrage fodder.


File: 1680375276356.jpg (245.7 KB, 1024x940, 256:235, 70d86724b58b5b2abccadc0eb0….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

From https://time.com/6267335/jan-6-qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-released-early-prison/ :
>Albert Watkins, the attorney who handled Chansley’s plea and sentencing, tells TIME that the new footage did not play any role in his former client’s release. “Absolutely no,” he says. “I have seen no indication of any filings related to the new footage. There are no docket entries indicating the same.”


Irrespective of their statements, direct video evidence is objective.
People lie.
Evidence doesn't.


File: 1679374817151.jpg (92.19 KB, 954x1106, 477:553, 056bb41b5c19efb64b661428db….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Are you worried?
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I suppose one can look at how kitchen knives clearly and explicitly designed to cut breads, meats, vegetables, and the like are like clockwork used by human beings to stab each other.

Alas, it is human nature in large part to use manufactured tools whether complex or simple for malicious purposes (or, at least, unjustifiable purposes) regardless of earlier context, and so it may be for strong AI.

I'm intrigued by how Elon Musk explicitly says of strong AI "we are summoning a demon" and is thus quite vocal but have many uncertainties myself.


Knives and guns can't think for themselves, but AI can.  


A question I'd like to see raises is the one from the 'Terminator' films in that if an AI is created that achieves sentience... is it morally justified for that AI to hurt or kill those trying to eliminate it in self-defense?


File: 1680232735989.jpg (67.43 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 230304181103-02-donald-tru….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


The former POTUS has been formally accused of legal wrongdoing and will be processed as a criminal defendant in the State of New York.

My personal point of view is that this is a great attempt at supporting civic morality, promoting the objective rule of law, and resisting attempts to turn the U.S. into a right-wing police state. However, I think it will mean little in the long-run because Trump is completely impervious to all forms of negativity against him: he has been the subject of countless ethical and legal complaints for decades without any form of accountability whatsoever before (always regarded as not guilty of anything). This likely won't change. I halfway believe that Trump literally cannot die and will last until the heat death of the universe because even the Grim Reaper is afraid of him. I have voted against Trump twice and consider his status as a singular personification of America nightmarish (such status has also helped me in leaving Christianity and the Republican Party as well as to stop supporting capitalism, given how he represents all three), so I recognize my viewpoints are unusually hardened and significantly unlike most U.S. voters.

Alternately, of course, one can view this indictment as flatly unjustified. The legal process is coming out of an institution that can be criticized for multiple reasons here. Many arguments are possible. It must be factually noted that Trump labels himself "completely innocent". An American in his status is to be considered not guilty of anything as a default: accusations are not convictions. As well, one can have no opinion on all this. What do you guys think?
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


There's some context at: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64920037.amp

Trump says that he gave money to this one dude, and said dude clearly got it. The dude asserts that this was a fixer type situation with him to use the money for bribery. Trump counter-asserts that the dude is lying and just was normally paid as an employee doing whatever generic stuff would.

The bribed lady got the money. And apparently was physically threatened or at least says that she was. She reports being told Trump wanted to bribe and threaten her, but that's hearsay.

That's my understanding of the matter at heart.

Now, well, all three of them are sleazy, obnoxious, and untrustworthy people, and the two who aren't Trump are convicted criminals if I remember right. It's a hard case to make if you want to find Trump guilty. No question. Even if you loathe Trump, there's no witness who hasn't flip-flopped to go against him here, I believe.


edit: After reading over the article a couple of times, I'm even less convinced that anything illegal happened.


As stated before, in technical legal terms I'd resonably predict that the prosecution doesn't get a conviction.


File: 1680324608650.jpg (64.5 KB, 1041x1024, 1041:1024, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I guess I'll do this with a controversial topic.  I could easily be something mundane, as the question is philosophical.

Quote from a news story:


'After the service, Bennett, who has a trans son, said one of her congregants had been confronted and "told they were the cause, that this was God's repudiation of gay people, and that 'you and your people are going to hell for eternity,'" she said. "The trans community is going to pay dearly for this."'
My perception is that there are identities that we consider, by definition, to be from banal to positive.  Never negative.

So we decide a priori that nothing can be blamed on these identities.

This quote is relevant to both sides of politics, as I understand, because it is begging connections between religious identities or transgender identities and blame, depending on your view of transgenderism.  And in both cases, this is wrong, whether you are saying religious folks are transphobic or transgender identities are evil.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Well, in the broad sense, it is a question to how far you can place the blame on these things.

Like, for Christians and LGBTQ it is far too wide in my opinion to place blame.

However, maybe a certain pastor has its flock of people who are extremely hateful towards a certain community and they do deserve blame.

Then you get to that discussion around Nazis or Pedophiles.
Can you say it is wrong to hate pedophiles? Well, the argument comes up that people should support pedophiles who don't rape kids.
Can you be a nazi and not be super bigoted against minorities / Jews?

And then, if you think it's okay to put rapists in jail, does that make you a hateful and dangerous person who needs to be condemned?


>However, maybe a certain pastor has its flock of people who are extremely hateful towards a certain community and they do deserve blame.
To a degree, we already have a distinction between religion and extremism.  We say people who veer outside proper religion are engaging in extremism, but don't blame it on religion itself.  If the pastor connects religion and hate he is misinformed or delusional.  Eg. ISIS has no legitimate connection to Islam.

>Can you say it is wrong to hate pedophiles?

I don't know how people become pedophiles, but if it is similar to how people become gay, you would want the same protection against hate since they are "born that way."  Conventionally, this is not the way things are viewed, so perhaps people become pedophiles -- in a clinical sense -- through some personal failing that does not apply to every other adult-focused sexuality.

>Can you be a nazi and not be super bigoted against minorities / Jews?

If Nazi is a political identity, and we respect the freedom of people to hold political identities, that would follow.  But both suppositions are debatable.  You could also classify Nazi as extremism, which goes back to -- who makes these choices?


If a society operates based on 'an eye for an eye' as a collectivist principle, where say the death of two white victims at the hands of a black criminal justifies murdering two black innocent bystanders as penance and so on, then ultimately that culture will be a horrible place to live full of pain, hatred, and misery.

A society that inherently rejects collectivism and instead holds up universal morality such that individuals are judged as such will be a far better place to live, given that you have the freedom to be yourself instead of a faceless drone who's a cog in a larger machine of mass populaces.

It's honestly that simple. Individualism is better than collectivism. Higher ethics are better than tribalism. That's that.


File: 1671335950407.png (392.88 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google

Something I've been thinking about lately:

We all have a list of things we consider essential to our survival and basic dignity.  For me, it's shelter, food, a correct name, a correct gender, and a capacity to do or attempt to do the work I consider important.  Oh, and not being assaulted or tortured is a plus, etc.

But whoever you are and whatever your list, there are probably people you will become acquainted with who will have an opinion that you should not have these 'necessities.'  I suppose this is an opportunity to ask if you can, in fact, tolerate fewer freedoms.  Perhaps these people have something to add about not being entitled or greedy.

But in most cases you will not want to amend your list of needs, and so you will have to accept that many people do not care for you to exist in a way you find appropriate.  I struggle to feel...good about this, I guess.  To be open-minded and tolerant, since we must give ponies/people the freedom to share opinions.  Maybe some tips would be nice.

This picture is not relevant, I just thought it was nice (https://derpibooru.org/images/2225879).
51 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1680257743901.png (55.17 KB, 420x420, 1:1, 1d536e719c31ee5776668c918f….png) ImgOps Google

Me?  I'm not even sure what "trans rights" entails according to you, so I cannot be either for it or against it as I don't know what it is.  I am merely pointing out the flaws in the argument that affirmation is a human right, which it most certainly is not.  That was the initial point as relates to the OP.

>There's nothing special about trans rights compared to human rights in general.
Sure there is, because people opposing various legislation regarding things like banning child sex changes do so, in the name of trans rights.  People pushing to hide children's gender identities from parents are doing so, in the name of trans rights.  A couple of obvious examples that don't, for example, apply to black people or Jews.

And like I said, if your special interest group gets extra-special rights that are unique and unlike those of other protected groups, then it calls into question the legitimacy of those supposed rights.


Human rights are controversial to the point of being useless as a list of particular objective freedoms.  I gather in practice you get whatever rights you consider to be appropriate to your class of being (eg. human), by setting personal boundaries.  If you feel a male gender is appropriate, you may remove people from your life who will not use that gender to refer to you.

The outlier is the state, which you generally aren't to disobediently put outside your personal boundary.  But if the state owes us nothing, we may consider it amoral and having no bearing on rights.


You're not making any sense at all. Denying people health care in order to harm them because you personally hate them is a violation of human rights for all identities. If you were an ER nurse who refused to help somebody after a car accident because they're a rabbi, it would be the same ethical principle involved. Or the historical cases of how the American Medical Association supported Jim Crow laws.

If a hospital, hotel, diner, grocery store, pharmacy, or whatever else refuses to let a transgender person through the door and has the de facto policy of putting up a segregation sign saying "No Trans Allowed" based on using a sharpie pen to update a "No Blacks Allowed" sign, then what their doing is morally wrong. To most people. And to me.

Trans rights are the exact same as any other form of human rights applied to any identity. It's about equality under the law. If you hate transgender people and want then harmed, denying their human rights, then be honest about that. And stop bringing up a false straw man that trans rights are special rights. Facts don't care about your feelings.


File: 1677542725013.jpg (224.73 KB, 724x1024, 181:256, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Assertion: Politics makes little sense logically.  We should all seek to be as apolitical as possible to feel better.
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


The common application, yes, but that's the result of most people not really thinking very deeply and defaulting to tribalism.

Still, your core result is probably apt.
Caring about politics won't change anything, as ultimately, we have very little power.
Better to focus on your own life, and improve that.


>most people not really thinking very deeply and defaulting to tribalism.

It is their right, I suppose.

>Better to focus on your own life, and improve that.

I think so.  We might allow response to imminent threats to ourselves and we might allow boundaries when it comes to how we are treated.  But going beyond that will be seen as activism.


I would actually agree with this except in that politics is often a function of how multiple groups and individual people within a country wish to enact violence against other groups and people.

Thus, politics is a self-defense burden that many carry. You're political because you don't have a choice. Otherwise, other people will use politics against you. It's frankly not that much different than owning an AR-15 and training with that even if you dislike firearms given the neighborhood you live in. Your weapon is there because others have weapons that could harm you otherwise.

That's life.

As a general rule as much as you can, yes, don't be political.


File: 1676273686822.png (1.3 MB, 975x1024, 975:1024, large.png) ImgOps Google

Assertion: Society has the wrong idea about prison and jail generally.  These facilitates train people to be good citizens and generally with more training comes better performance.  Former inmates, especially those with good behavior, should be considered to be better trained to obey law than average citizens.

(Or a softer claim, if you like: there is no reason things couldn't usually work that way, if the state really wanted to help people generally.)
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


I'm guessing you mean things like participating in a protest illegally or expressing a disrespectful attitude toward law enforcement.  (States can't yet read thoughts, I don't think).  That system sounds better, at least as a goal to recondition those who have broken the law.



Counter-assertion: prisons are ostensibly about rehabilitation but the reality about how thet are actually used is primarily as a source of slave labour,  a show of state power to use violence, and to fulfill a base desire for retribution in the public at large regardless of justice.


>a source of slave labour,
Are discharged slaves not trained in respect for masters and bosses to a greater degree than those who do not have experience with slavery?

>a show of state power to use violence
Again, something to cause respect for authority.

>a base desire for retribution in the public at large regardless of justice

Well, conditioning proper behavior through negative feedback and retribution can coincide.  To the point where the retribution fails to be proportional -- somewhere around that point further punishment is probably damaging.

I'm not sure anything you said is particularity counter, or anything that would establish that those discharged from prison or jail should be considered untrustworthy.


File: 1675242114885.jpeg (14.77 KB, 400x292, 100:73, 51007d2d1fd8b.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Suppose there is a charity, say, a charity dedicated to helping poor families covering medical bills when their kids need urgent care.
This charity, however, is run by a few people who also on the side oppose LGBTQ rights.

Suppose in a naive way that all the money given to this charity is also fully allocated to the charity's goals, nothing is siphoned away for some more nefarious goals.

If you donate to this charity, are you donating money to an LGBTQ hate group?
Is it morally reprehensible to donate money to this charity?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


I don't donate to charity to begin with because the bulk of the funding goes to paying salaries and funding advertising, not to mention whatever else is marked as a 'business expense'.
Look at the lifestyles of the people running these 'charities' and nine times out of ten, they're living a thoroughly luxurious life.

But either way, I'm not going to say it's morally reprehensible to donate to a charity, full stop.
I do not consider it immoral to donate to the DNC, NRA, ADL, and so on and so forth, irrespective of my beliefs of the organizations and what they do.

Ultimately we all have different beliefs and different reasons to donate.
I'm not going to presume someone's a bad person purely because they throw money to a cause they personally believe in, irrespective of what my own presumptions of what they actually do may be.


I think it's immoral to support a charity or otherwise laudable nonprofit organization if it's either a> actively causing intentional harm to people or b> passively causing quasi-intentional harm by passively refusing to help people.

Best example that comes to mind is how the American Medical Assiciation actively supported racial segregation in health care services and consciously made Jim Crow society much worse in the middle and early part of the last century, violating core medical ethics flagrantly.

If people in the service group are doing activities that are sus but are unrelated to their jobs, I think it doesn't quite matter. It's similar to wondering what political party your doctor votes for in the AMA example. Doesn't necessarily matter. However, if your doctor is actively being malicious on the job... no. That's totally wrong.

So, I'd give, if you think that's a good idea.


I disagree with the premise that opposing LGBT necessitates a "hate" designation, even if the money is being siphoned away for anti-LGBT purposes.  You can oppose something without hating it.  The "hate" designation in this case is clearly an attempt to discredit and not a technical designation.

to quote the first line from Wikipedia, the always-reliable source...
>A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other designated sector of society.

I'm personally not too concerned with the disparaging remarks from the "words are violence" crowd.  Therefore, to answer the OP:

>If you donate to this charity, are you donating money to an LGBTQ hate group?
not unless the charity "advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence" - a situation that is incredibly unlikely, hence "no" in almost all cases
>Is it morally reprehensible to donate money to this charity?
If the above is "no", then also "no".


File: 1674860101863.png (251.85 KB, 1080x718, 540:359, Screenshot_20230127-084910.png) ImgOps Google

Is *Madoka Magica* a good anime?


What does it mean to be "good"?  How are we defining the criteria?


It's open-ended.  Use whatever criteria are most important to you.


I think so. I feel like i would have gotten more out of it had i been more familiar with magical girl shows, but even without that context it had some interesting writing, good subversion, and intense moments! Gen does good stuff, what can i say?


File: 1672199965222.jpg (281.18 KB, 1280x905, 256:181, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The cat is playing with a brown marmorated stink bug.  It's the first year these insects have been in my area and they are plentiful.  Fluttershy is not a cat and the image shows a ladybug, and none of this is relevant except that I needed an image.

Let me present a debate assertion that is simple, defensible, something I believe myself, and has no direct connection to politics:

Socrates is mortal.

Supporting discourse:

All men are mortal -- an inference and part of common sense.

Socrates is a man -- an assertion of connection between an element and a category.  As the category has not been defined and physical evidence to prove Socrates fits the category will be hard to come by, this is probably the weak point of the argument.

I suppose the use of “the historical present” or “the eternal present” for referring to Socrates will be debated.

Reference: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26495/26495-pdf.pdf (But I didn't read very much of it.)
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


OK.  Do you think stinkbugs are mortal or immortal?  That might pass as on topic.  I can make a new thread about stinkbugs but I need a strong assertion to debate.  Stinkbugs are new since fall of last year.


Unfortunately for the stinkbugs, they tend to not live long when most people find them, so individually, mortal.

I do hope that the stinkbugs as a whole will outlive humanity in the long run.


>Unfortunately for the stinkbugs, they tend to not live long when most people find them, so individually, mortal.

Mumu ate a few.

>I do hope that the stinkbugs as a whole will outlive humanity in the long run.

An unexpected hope.  I feel like the next few centuries for humans is a great filter.  I feel like the odds are 50/50, and if humans go some bugs will probably remain.


File: 1673401189674.jpg (299.3 KB, 1280x905, 256:181, full.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Debate assertion: Debating politics with strangers on the internet is largely pointless.

Political and moral questions in general are 90% sentiment and only perhaps 10% rational.  People form alliances based on how they perceive organizations, political parties, and state powers are friend or foe to themselves or those they love.  These feelings lie close to feelings about self and self-worth, and therefore political debate supporting a foe or opposing a friend are likely to trigger strong emotions.  Influenced by strong feelings people mostly create rhetorical nonsense.  Debate is only possible when the 90% sentiment part in two people align, which can not be relied on in a group of strangers.

Enlightenment thinkers posted that politics could be made a branch of mathematics.  Maybe it's still possible, but in observing political debate on the internet, I don't see it.
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1673571032413.png (195.5 KB, 1000x1089, 1000:1089, f19.png) ImgOps Google

I think you can have a debate about political issues if you separate them from the larger umbrella of politics under which they fall.  For example, you can imagine a fairly straightforward debate about the question: "Should city waste management add an additional garbage truck to the northwest district?"  It's pretty straightforward, and anyone can look at the pros and cons.  But if you now add a political layer to it, that Party A is fully in favor of it as part of their platform, and Party B is fully opposed as part of their platform, then the simple question of whether the city should purchase an extra garbage truck gets saddled with all of the other unrelated political issues as pertains to the party whose platform your position indirectly supports.  Suddenly people are calling out your moral failings and wishing for your death, because you have a position on whether the city should purchase an extra garbage truck or not.  The garbage truck question itself is not political, but it has been politicized, and this is the real problem.  And to extrapolate from there, things in the modern day have been politicized to an absurd degree, intentionally, to weaponize the resulting tribe mentality against the opposition and/or to shut down debate entirely.  Now we can't even talk about the garbage truck question, because doing so is "political", and on a site like Ponyville, politics is generally not allowed to be discussed.

So debating politics?  Yes, it's pointless, because if you treat something as political, then it can't be disentangled from the issues associated with it.  But if you can debate the issue isolated from the politics surrounding it, then you can have a decent conversation.


Personally, I feel that a lot of "political" issues aren't all about facts and logic. A lot of ways to deal with issues are validated mostly based on the presiding moral.
I don't think there's a perfect solution to deal with immigration, environment, budget cuts, social wellfare,...
Everyone has their own opinion to deal with such issues and acording to their moral compass, one solution will be favourable, but in most cases, you can't set an objective true solution.

If you get what I mean.

On the flip side, is debating politics useful?
I think there's ways in which it can be very useful and ways in which it's not.
I do think as an outlet, it's so popular because people can say what's on their mind and get their opinion heard. Somewhere  that's useful.
I am sure that listening to someone's well thought out post brings that satisfaction you get from an echo chamber, but surely there are arguments that make me review or rethink my stance on it.

In greater scales, in times of unrest, regimes can shut down the internet, because voicing those opinions brings people together.
There's a good reason this would be feared.
If you find that people all across the words are suffering the same injustices as you are it can be a call to action.


Ive heard it said that debates are more to convince the audience one way or another rather than to convince the other side to change their minds.

Which, if that is the case, makes arguing online with strangers, where there is little to no audience, a complete and utter waste of time.

Nobody likes Debate Bros. Pretty much the only people that find the experience worthwhile are the people doing the arguing, while people either look on with distaste or just ignore it entirely.

There may be something to be said about the matter of debating and how it relates to how the people involve learn reasoning and how to get their point across and other such things, but for the most part I think it is just a waste of time, an inflated sense of self importance, and something for those bored to do when they have nothing else.


File: 1673273912856.png (300.27 KB, 435x523, 435:523, 3017267.png) ImgOps Google

I have a moral perspective that violence is bad, and especially that those who escalate violence are not doing good deeds.  Violence in this case are actions that [purposefully] cause, are open to the likelihood of causing, or are intended to cause physical harm.  I don't know if I call causing psychological trauma violence, but I'll say in this paragraph I have similar feelings about that.

I believe morals to have a degree of subjectivity, so likely my personal moral beliefs are not debatable.  If you would like to debate something, let me also claim that this is not conventional view.  Violence is often seen as an important tool for maintaining order, encouraging desirable behavior, asserting control or rule, responding to fear, and maintaining systems of respect.  I likely am seen as naive for my view, and perhaps I have not been subject to enough violence to wish it applied to others liberally, but I wish only to debate how much my view differs from conventional ethics.  Thank you for your time.
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


The problem with self defense somewhere is the question to how far can it be allowed?

Like, letting others attack yourself without reacting will result in others abusing you. Letting others violently assault someone else without you coming to the victim's aid, hence sacrificing the victim's well being over a principle can be morally wrong itself.

But if someone slaps me one and I react by throwing them on the ground and kicking them so they need to be hospitalized, that also doesn't seem acceptable morally.


>is the question to how far can it be allowed?
A rough answer is self defense is acceptable when it is the minimum force needed to neutralize a threat.  Generally self-defense should not escalate violence unless there is no other option for survival.

>sacrificing the victim's well being over a principle can be morally wrong itself.
I think I'd agree with that.  My sense, though, is violence used with the purported goal of protecting others and especially hypothetical others (society) is often really oppression.


Comes down to perspective some, but as I see it, the ideal ought be to essentially ratchet to the next level as necessary, only when you cannot match the force given.

The baseline for justice, after all, at its bearest, is an eye for an eye.
So if someone slaps you, slap back. If you're not going to be able to retort the same for whatever reason, a punch may well be appropriate escalation.


File: 1672036235584.png (877.79 KB, 593x790, 593:790, Screenshot from 2022-12-26….png) ImgOps Google

Debate: Safe scientific work is important work.

Here kitty and OP are measuring properties of air in a space that OP is able to safely and legally occupy.  The previous sentence is not part of the debate, you'll have to take OP's word for it or not -- the debate can go on either way.

The reason scientific work can be important is scientific understanding can be combined with technology to help processes become more efficient.  I suppose you have to believe processes humans apply technology to *should* become more efficient, but I think the contrary belief is nihilistic and useless.

You may pose a more efficient way of understanding the world, but my argument for science is that in science's domain, I don't know of a more efficient way of developing models.

Happy debating!
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


One of the measures is volatile organic compounds.  There's potential for some experimentation in that direction.

Thanks.  He's my room-mate's cat.  The cat of 1000 hungers, he'll eat about anything.


It's important. The issue is funding. As it stands, it's become entirely too inscrutable and inaccessible to be useful to all but the most devoted specialists. only way to really fix this is to tax the ultra-wealthy a lot more and use that money to fund a more open-book policy of research that isn't paywalled behind 3 subscriptions and a fee. I'd be down for that, but the powers that be won't see it happen.

The other issue is readability. To be blunt, scientific papers can be a headache to parse. This is for good reason, they're written the way they are for a reason, but idk, some form of more readable synopsis to go along with it would be reasonable i think, like how they have the Shakespeare books with the translation on the other page.


Thank you for entering this tread.  The paywalling is a function of private publication firms, I believe, but no scientist is forced to publish through them.  Well, those working for universities may be.  But the state could make free access a stipulation for a grant -- that would do a lot.

Some scientists don't work for universities or the state.  They may be free to self-publish or publish documents that are not paywalled.  They may be free to write non-specialist abstracts.  I hope this becomes a growing group.


File: 1669604376674.jpeg (184.53 KB, 1080x1052, 270:263, FiZuEeBWYAE9CJe.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Is it true that woke propaganda is being pushed in public education? And if so, what should be done about it?  I would say that the morals taught in public school should be those that are widely supported by ordinary Americans.  Public schools shouldn't really endorse one side of a politically contentious issue.

I remember a decade or two ago, it was far-right Christian fundamentalists who were trying to prevent the teaching of science of human evolution in public schools.  Nowadays, i guess it's the woke far left.
19 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I do really wish that people who oppose ending discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and the like and who thus oppose equality of opportunity stopped using the expression 'anti-woke' as a blanket term for their positions.

If you want school administrators to crack down on, say, transgender children by making decisions such as ending care for those students who have talked about committing suicide, just say 'I want this because those students are bad/evil' and not 'I oppose the woke and support this anti-woke measure'.

Arguments should not be based on jargon.

I understand that a teacher making the statement "nobody should be subject to prejudice based on what they were born as" is generally understood in the political context to be preaching "left-wing" and "woke propaganda" ideology, yes, but I strongly agree with Scott Alexander and others that in debates you should try to taboo symbol statements and replace them with substance statements.


Teachers have power over students. I think adults have a tough time remembering just how beholden they had to be to the adults in their life when they were kids, just how much those adults could fuck up their standard of living. It's weird to me. I didn't forget that stuff.  

Eh, I'm not sure how much police enforcement really motivates someone to drunk drive or not. If the high physical risk isn't enough to motivate someone to not drunk drive, i don't see how a ticket will be.


The risk of getting into a crash or getting arrested might not be fully grasped until it happens.  Someone who gets arrested for drunk driving is less likely to drive drunk again in the future, both because of better appreciation of the risk and because of being physically removed from society for a time.

Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]