Many people are beginning to address a perceived social phenomenon called "Identity Politics". There is pretty widespread agreement that we should strive to not be lured into participating in it, and that it should discouraged as strongly as possible so long as no one's right to free speech is violated. What I would like is for interested CD users to type up a decription of "The problem of identity politics" then we can see which ones are voted to the top.
Hitlers vicious racial superiority complex is very well known. Therefore saying anything positive about him is totally taboo, and anyone who would had better be ready to be swiftly denounceed and dismissed as a racist.I really hope not to hear anything about his antisemitism and racism because these are obviously massive character flaws. If you must beat the dead furor, bring up other negatives about him besides what everybody already knows.
People will rail against those who think their groups ways are superior in general to those of other groups, while perhaps failing to notice their own cultural superiority complex. Are you one of THEM?
Whenever I start getting hooked on following the news, it always starts seeming like the same old problems playing out in new ways. Everybody seems concerned with being more informed rather than better informed. Always focused on symptoms rather than what causes the disease so to speak.
Should one think they are aware of a truth it is as if they think themselves to posses an unimproveable piece of information. This leads to a blinding sort of pride that eventually retards our ability to learn.
Cultural fingerpointing is in my opinion one of the most effective ways to fuel hate. Unfortunately its proponents have convincingly presented it as a morally courageous defense of free speech. They lack the foresight to realize that it actually seriously jeopardizes this right.
IQocracy is hypothetical system based on the assumption that those with the highest IQ scores are most fit to govern and that only those with a score that puts them in a very elite class can even be candidates for government office. Also the right to vote should be reserved for only those who score above average on an IQ test.
If I stated in a public forum for example: "Go kill someone who really desrves it tonight, then come back and tell the world how I inspired you"and someone actually went out and killed someone, then came back and claimed that I inspired them.
When I daydream about the origins of life I often think that life must have evolved from (types of) fire. It is so much like life. It "eats", self replicates, grows, dies etc. Do you think thats kooky, or fun to ponder? Have you ever heard of any respected scientists who published anything that smacks of my informal suspicion?
This debate is meant as an exercise is socratic dialog. If you are not interested in this kind of engagement kindly refrain from posting. If you have questions about how this is supposed to work feel free to message me. This isnt a place to dispute the opposing view but to ask questions to expose the logic supporting the view. Also you may choose to answer questions posed by those scrutinizing the position you hold. Those who arent asking or answering questions will be banned
Religions are groups of people united by shared sacred values. Sacred values are those values that are deemed by the adherants of a specific religion to be of the utmost importance. No one could amass an army of people willing to risk their lives in the interest of values they don't hold at the deepest level.
I have created a debate community for those who are tired of talking past one another and want to try engaging in dialogs where the aim is to draw out your opponents (actually held) position through polite inquiry. The aim is to expose logical inconsistencies without arguing against your opponent. If you do it right they argue against themselves with your help. If anyone knows what I am talking about and wants to try (in either role) feel free to join this community. The way I envision the group is that it will be oriented around expression of opinions known to be controversial (and preferably actually held by the prospective interlocutors). at that point they will be asked a battery of questions which the interlocutor is to answer as directly as possible. Whether or not logical inconsistencies are revealed will be left up to the readers to decide for themselves.
Dear god, even if you only exist in the minds of believers this makes you powerful enough to really turn things around for the better for us here on earth. I invoke you (if I may) to massively inspire more and more of us to adopt a sincere attitude of good will. Grant us, through good-faith conversations, to identify what shared sacred values are at the center of all our diverse religions. Also if you would, heal us from the sickness of thought that inclines us to think our differences cannot be resolved but by violent conflict.
Whenever 140 characters seems insufficient to convey what I want to convey in response to a provocative tweet, I intend to bring it here in hopes that interesting, more robust conversation can take place. I will create a link below so the interested can see the context and add their perspective if they want to.Link