What's new

Discussing A Bad Faith Debating Rule

IndyFront

Speaks in Calabi–Yau manifolds
#76
Eh, no. More often than not, democracies are too tied to the people which means all you have to do is make a tune and they'll follow you until someone makes a better tune... which isn't good for stability...
If you hate humanity so much, why do you so zealously and religiously worship their power structures? Seems a bit contradictory to me
 
#77
I'm thinking here from what people have suggested that some type of front page or perhaps wiki might be a good idea.

I quite like the idea of having some type of database of arguments and counter-arguments from the debates we have on here to avoid people coming into threads on SB and throwing out stuff that's been debunked...now obviously we'll have to make something like that neutral, which will be a challenge, but I'm up to it.
I don't think it's a good idea for anything controversial. I imagine such a thing on the right/freedom to own guns or why SI stories are great/suck, for example, to either end in an edit war, which is much worse than a never ending and cyclical discussion, or in the end of debate with everyone just linking the wiki if the topic comes up. I don't think either is in any way wanted. I believe a community wiki/database should only contain "defined" content and not be a collection of opinions. I don't think it's the right platform for discussion.

It could be useful as a index to the forum. Linking all SI stories or all threads with gun discussion. ah.com has a wiki like this. I like it, even though it seems a bit inactive?

A database of mod-rulings and most importantly their reasoning as Rufus suggested could be very useful as well. It would make it much easier to reason what is and what isn't too far without people interpreting the rules differently and getting upset over alleged or real arbitrary enforcement. Though it shouldn't end up being a "naming and shaming" tool.
 

Tithed_Verse

What's bugging you?
#78
Eh, no. More often than not, democracies are too tied to the people which means all you have to do is make a tune and they'll follow you until someone makes a better tune... which isn't good for stability...
Yes, but in the long run stability is honestly a bad thing. Too much stability means a lack of social and economical change, which eventual leads right into feudalism.

Also, if the system persists too long, people will learn to take advantage of it, and either cause it to collapse, or the system will adapt because it's designed to be unstable and people will need to find a new way to take advantage of it.

So, yeah, instability is a deliberate part of the system.
 

IndyFront

Speaks in Calabi–Yau manifolds
#79
Yes, but in the long run stability is honestly a bad thing. Too much stability means a lack of social and economical change, which eventual leads right into feudalism.

Also, if the system persists too long, people will learn to take advantage of it, and either cause it to collapse, or the system will adapt because it's designed to be unstable and people will need to find a new way to take advantage of it.

So, yeah, instability is a deliberate part of the system.
Not to mention not everyone's stability is the same. My definition of stability is not your definition of stability. It is an easily manipulable ploy that can be used to take advantage for personal gain.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
#80
@Horton Vyor’s current behavior in the rape culture thread is exactly why I asked for a rule regarding bad faith debating. He’s continuing to insist on his right wing talking points without providing any evidence despite repeated requests for citation, resorting to pretending that he doesn’t know what citations have been requested, despite it being made clear several times.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top