CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I really don't care what he "believes". His hate-filled, anti-democratic government and racist posts give a picture that defies "belief". (of any sane person, that is).
LMMFAO and GRANDPAW wants to act as if he is sane !! Now DUMMY you have again exposed yourself as the hate filled DEMORAT you are ! Racism is owned by the DEMORATS there AL get you a history book and get yourself educated for what you do not know !
Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted by white Democrat-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period, in the late 19th century, the laws were enforced until 1965.
When the 19th Amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states that ratified it had Republican legislatures. Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were Democratic. Twelve states, all Republican, had given women full suffrage before the federal amendment was ratified.
We see you missing commas all of the time Nom. You are the grammar Nazi who actually is completely ignorant concerning punctuation. Spelling is a small percentage of grammar.
I really don't care what he "believes". His hate-filled, anti-democratic government and racist posts give a picture that defies "belief". (of any sane person, that is).
2)Has a handicap, yet tells people to man up and doesn't claim to be a victim.
3)Started a business.
4)Doesn't come off very snowflaky.
5)Links to several of his own pages, so he must be smart enough to start a business and create websites, and has the wit to make them entertaining and worth looking at.
Does Bronto Actually Believe He's An Alpha Male, Or Is He Just Trolling?
First, it is important to understand that there are more than just "alphas" and "betas", although those have gotten most popular attention. Here is a short list of personality types and corresponding attributes:
Alpha: you are confident and your own man. you do your own thing and have complete confidence in everything you do. you have your self doubts, but you don't let it cloud your judgment and logic. you are well liked by almost everyone, and you just have an easy charm and swagger about your presence. women are drawn to your charisma and presence. you enjoy being social and having lots of people around. you are a natural leader
Beta: you are kind of shy and introverted and not very confident in yourself. you are constantly plagued by insecurities and self-doubts and you can never commit to anything in the fear that you will fail in it. you are somewhat liked by people but they tend to look at you rather condescendingly and woman tend to friendzone you. you are nervous around other people and social situations because you're always afraid that people are judging you. you are a born follower
Omega: you are the polar opposite of the alpha male, but in a good way. like the alpha male you are confident, intelligent and have a sense of charisma about you, but unlike the alpha male, you are completely your own person. you do not need anyone, and you can even be emotionally distant due to your complete self-possession. you trust few people and foster even fewer intimate relationships. omegas do not care for leadership by others as they are perfectly capable of leading themselves
Gamma: you are sort of the "invisible" guy. there is nothing really spectacular about you. you are not a beta, but neither are you an alpha. your personality and presence usually blends in with the rest of the room and you're just sort of...there. people like you just fine and you usually don't have too much trouble with girls, but all the same, there is nothing particularly memorable or remarkable about you. you are not a born leader nor a inherent follower, although you can take on those tasks depending on the situation
Sigma: you are a manipulative mastermind. you are a spider waiting to lay your trap. you possess a cunning, intuitive mind and can sway people to your will. you don't have the casual swagger of the alpha or the omega but you do have a clever presence about you and people tend to be both wary and respect you for that. you can often be even more powerful than the alpha or the omega male in social situations due to your ability to persuade and manipulate them. you are neither a follower or a leader but rather a wild card
In my opinion, Omega is highly underrated, and thus under-discussed. For instance, "the Punisher" is an Omega. "Four", from the Divergent series, is an Omega.
Both alpha and omega men are assertive, and hence state their positions firmly, while holding to it resolutely. Then, based on his post history, it would be more fittingly "alpha" or "omega" rather than other personality types--certainly over the supplicating types.
hmm, by your definitions I am an omega and Mingiwuwu is more of a sigma. Bronto is a gamma I would say. As for you, probably an omega as well. I don't know if your definitions are right or at least the "accepted" definitions. Where did you get this from?
I think you are correct that you and I are both Omegas. Though, we may be a different breed, of the same species--that is, Omegas may or may not be socially popular, as it is indifferent to how they live their lives, by leading themselves--also, it can change with time with different circumstances. Many "anti-heroes", as opposed to "super-heroes" or "super-villains" fall into the category of Omega.
For instance, another example of an Omega is the traditional "Wolverine" character. The scene below does a great job highlighting what is unique about the Omega personality type:
It is quite interesting, actually--if I recall accurately, we are both INTJ, as well (although, mine is either INTJ or ENTJ, as I am essentially 50/50 introvert v extrovert (aka. ambivert))--which would also seem to accord with the different manifestation of Omega.
Alright, everyone knows it anyway. I originally intended to impersonate Nom on this account but yes I am FM. It is indeed interesting that we are the same type in many ways, I think Nom is actually the same type as well. On another note we are each "Ravenclaw" archetypes as well. The way I think we differ is that I am a "hyper non-conformist" and mostly introverted but also paradoxically belligerent and "in your face" when I want to be, Nom shares the latter trait with me and he is probably a more polished and older yet less eclectic version of me whereas you are the most "clean cut" and the least likely to "go against the grain" in many ways.
What I also find funny is that I am the most right brain dominant and you are the most left brain dominant and Nom is in the middle, yet politically you are the most right leaning and I am actually further left than Nom.
I think you are definitely correct about "clean cut", and more "pro-social", comparatively, however I would disagree with your submission regarding, "going against the grain"--as there is, in fact, very little overlap between me and my peers. Although, I more superficially "blend in" due to the nature of being "clean cut", whereas your non-conformity has manifested itself in more overt ways, as well as below the surface/deeper (from what I gather)--in which case, it would certainly stand out more.
The biggest difference between the Alpha and the Omega is whether they are beholden to the group, or if sovereignty lies within themselves. Alphas always need to be wary of how the group perceives them, in order to maintain power as the leader--whether good or bad. Then, their reputation is of the utmost importance. Conversely, the Omega is lone wolf. He/She possess strength & leadership skills, and can voluntarily choose to join or lead a pack, however, only insofar as there are overlapping interests with the group--and will separate themselves as those interests diverge.
Again, recall the character "Wolverine" from X-Men, as such an example.
I would disagree with your submission regarding, "going against the grain"
Yeah I see where you are coming from. I was thinking more that you are the least likely to be confrontational or attack someone for what they say whereas me and Nom can be downright vicious in that regard. In certain ways you definitely go against the grain but not usually in a way that "grinds the gears" of others. It's hard to explain these things with perfect clarity because there is very little in the ways of objective terminology that can be used to describe human behaviour.
I think people tend to be very tribal, and the nature of being "clean cut" tends to provide more of a 'foot in the door'--and hence a less adversarial relationship.
In real life, I look like a stereo-typical "jock", generally speaking--I am nearly 6'3" 230lbs. People tend to assume I have a lot in common with them, it is not until we start talking at any more/real depth that they realize we have next to nothing in common, in many ways--but they still feel like I do, because most people tend to be governed by surface-level feelings.
Yes, I agree. When people see me I think they can "sense" that I'm not normal. I am very easy to judge (but very difficult to judge correctly) for the common people because IRL I am very to myself and withdrawn unless prompted not to mention my appearance doesn't fit with any group or stereotype. I am mostly seen as either "generic white dude" or "kind of weird, enigmatic guy". In reality though, very few would understand where I'm at internally or even take the time to try and pierce the veil.
See, in real life, that is why I tend to get along with most people quite well--whether that is on a very shallow level or deeper. That is, I have people I'm cool with that are considered "exotic", "geeky", "...whatever", to others (although that is not what I see), since they can have varying degrees of depth to a conversation (although, frankly, a lot of people simply are not that "deep", perhaps we will share Math, reading, drawing, or some other interest), or get along with "jock" types well, because I like athletic/physical activities too.
Generally speaking, I like people a lot in small doses, sometimes moderate depending upon the person. In large doses, I would prefer to have alone time--or else I begin to get frustrated by/dislike people.
Yes, I am much the same in regards to that last part except much more likely to dislike and be disliked. I don't like to act although I am capable of doing what I call "wearing the masks" and at times I have tried to introduce very normal people to things they can't process or have no interest in. A few times I have found rare individuals and those are the only ones I can get along with (there are a lot of interesting characters I have met in both good ways and bad). When I was younger I was much more outgoing but over time I have developed a sense of futility when it comes to socializing and only interact with people when I need to or I find them interesting. When I was a teenager for example, my father brought over a friend from work who was completely and totally average in most ways when it comes to his mentality. He was only a few years older than me and he was a "sheltered" type from a wealthy family, so I tried to "wake him up" despite him being older and having a superiority complex. At first he only cared for small talk and after him and my father bored me half to death I finally found my opportunity to "strike" when he asked to put on some youtube videos on the PS4. I showed him Jacque Fresco videos and a documentary about the Rothschild family which he had a very hard time getting engaged with. I did however manage to finally start conversation about things that weren't boring as fuck, including human nature and the problems with capitalism. Long story short all of his opinions were an exact repetition of things I had heard a thousand times already, and he was dismissive of literally every point I made, most of the time not even arguing against it but simply defaulting to "common knowledge".
Yes, it is like trying to put a PS3 game into a PS1 system, and it just will not work.
Further, with people that are slightly more intelligent, though fully indoctrinated still, I have found they are terrified of thinking. At first, they do not even know what is going on, and get anxious. Then, they realize their mind is coming up with ideas, which is brainstorming--the first time they have really felt it, as usually there is a perpetual blank. Finally, their mind ultimately, rather quickly, comes across an idea (or multiple) that challenges their current 'snow-globe'--a look of horror & self-realization can be seen across their face, and then they retreat into the "blue pill" world.
Both of those scenarios have happened so many times in conversations I have attempted to have, and I still do not know how to overcome it, for their sake. It is something I think about quite often, as it is ultimately 100% to learn and acquire that exact skill (i.e. "bridging the gap"), or else the capability to influence the world (for better or worse) is going to be very small indeed.
I don't know what to do about the way things are in this world. A friend and I had a plan before but it got destroyed, I thought we were the ones who would start a new movement but now I am alone in this endeavor. The one person who I thought I was aligned with completely has forsaken our goals and our plans. In his mind he probably thinks he has grown up and accepted the way of the world. Everyday I think to myself "there is no point trying to change things, I may as well accept that entropy always wins in the end and live only for the materialistic pleasures and entertainment while it lasts". But I can't just accept that, no matter how deeply I fall into the dark pit of nihilism/pessimism there is always a light at the end of the tunnel that grows brighter and fainter again in a never ending cycle, reminding me of my ideals. I don't care about wealth or power or just having fun, I can't let my true desires go no matter how much this world tells me it's pointless to try. I want to see a new age of reason and prosperity, I want to help bring humanity to the next level. But it seems as if the whole world is against me and no one shares my goals, and those who may have similar goals are drowned out by a sea of stupidity and shortsighted self interest. Sometimes I truly feel like I want to be "evil" and embody the values of capitalism, because humanity is on a course for extinction anyway and my own species sees me as the dysfunctional one for pointing out their dysfunction. But then I see the pale blue dot in my minds eye, and see the futuristic cities with humans living in balance with nature and with each other, I see them evolving into entirely new beings and creating dyson spheres, creating entirely new ecosystems, defying their own mortality and the mortality of the universe itself.
Have you watched Star Trek? It is honestly a phenomenal series--I would particularly recommend Star Trek: Enterprise. The show focuses on the initial transitionary period for humanity, as it first makes contact with the Vulcans and beyond.
I think the internet helps shows that people are not alone in their thoughts, even if their closest neighbor is on a separate island, very far away.
Also, as for Capitalism, larger discussion aside, the biggest issue with any talk of "transitioning away" currently is that the current system provides the means for people to voluntarily achieve other systems, such as localized socialism, and people have chosen not to--in every case I can see. That is, there is nothing stopping small communities or even cities from allotting their own additional tax brackets, putting it in a third body organization, that then distribute funds in such a way as to provide for everyone what was agreed upon. Have you considered ideas such as this, and why people do not utilize the means already available if that is truly what they want, with no ulterior motive(s)?
I haven't watched it in order, I have only seen a few episodes here and there. Watching the whole thing, or at least enterprise is a good idea though. I will have to do that when I can.
I think the internet helps shows that people are not alone in their thoughts, even if their closest neighbor is on a separate island, very far away.
Yes. It may sound weird but you and Nom, and even Mingiwuwu are the closest thing I have to friends. That person I mentioned earlier is the only true friend I've ever had other than people I've just hung out with. Even him I met on the internet, 9 years ago. Later we met in person and he even moved into my house but that's a long story.
Have you considered ideas such as this, and why people do not utilize the means already available if that is truly what they want, with no ulterior motive(s)?
Yes, a big part of it is that most people don't know what system to adopt or even that a change is necessary or possible at all. If people knew what could potentially be done or how to do it there would be no hesitation. In order to do what you are suggesting would require a localised mass shift in consciousness. There are several ways it could go down when it comes to the transition. Mainly, an abrupt revolution, a community by community domino effect or a slow crawling shift of the current establishment from capitalism to social democracy, then to democratic socialism and eventually RBE. There are problems and advantages to each option.
Revolution
Messy but perhaps the only way to deal with the establishment. It would provide the best counter/preemptive offence against the current establishment using force to quell the other options. But to do this would require a militarized regime to be formed, and thus it is not a viable option. It does not allow for the mutual understanding to be formed within the community, it is not compatible with the intellectual evolution of mankind or with the goal of ending war, and will most likely result only in more conflict and tyranny with the result being similar to would-be communist revolutions throughout history.
Community by community domino effect
This is the method Jacque Fresco proposed, and is the best in terms of reaching out to people with reason rather than trying to overthrow the system and force a new one on people. In principle, a better system would be adopted on a local level, a city or town or enclave would form it's own community and other communities would do the same after seeing that the system is better. The problem with this however is that the small communities could easily be crushed or dismantled by a larger establishment.
changing the system from within
This option is difficult, it requires a large scale organized effort of a similar scale to a nation wide revolution, only it is even more strategic in nature. It would take by far the longest to pull off and is almost impossible because to get enough influence within the system you have to be accepted by and compromise with the current establishment, and gradually shift it in the right direction. This would have to become an international effort as well.
"Community by Community Domino Effect" I support, and actually advocate. I think small communities, where people basically all know each other, should adopt their own rules and live together as they see fit, whether that is Socialist, Commune, Anarcho-Cap, or whatever, I am in favor of voluntary, consent based experimental societies on a small scale. In fact, this is the essence of a scientific experiment, and in many ways, it is startling this hasn't already been happening. That is due to the nature of Nation-States who like to seize as much land as possible, and bind it to their rule.
"Community by Community Domino Effect" I support, and actually advocate.
I actually want to mix the domino method with the "inside job" method. Violent revolution is totally out of the question and would not lead to an ideal scenario at all. But if we can shift the larger systems while having smaller communities as examples of people living in new and better ways Then we can defend the communities and allow them to experiment with new ideas and systems, which will allow for a smoother transition and stop the current establishment from fucking up the communities that form. This is what I see as the best way of having a new and better culture arise. The smaller communities will serve not only as catalysts for the domino effect but they will also serve as experiments to work out what works and what doesn't in a microcosm of a civilization before implementing it on a larger scale. Meanwhile the current establishment will be peacefully re-shaped from within as more people join "the agenda" and eventually everything will merge into one superior culture.
Anarcho-Cap
This system is problematic because the government essentially becomes whoever has the most money.
it is startling this hasn't already been happening. That is due to the nature of Nation-States who like to seize as much land as possible, and bind it to their rule.
Yes, exactly. That's why we need to use the peaceful "inside job" method in conjunction with having smaller communities break off and start operating under their own system.
This system is problematic because the government essentially becomes whoever has the most money.
On a small local level, say 100, 1000 or a couple thousand people (or less), they can implement any system they agree on, as I see it. If a small community of a few thousand decides they don't want to pay taxes, and have a voluntary community fund for budgeting, private security forces, etc. etc. etc. (essentially, no gov. involvement), that is cool with me. Their success or failure is 100% on them.
Likewise, I would feel the same for any other (humane) system that were proposed, and agreed to by all residents.
Small community experiments are a great idea because it gives onlookers real insight into societies that they would (or would not) desire to live in. Then, for successful experiments, the numbers can increase or be adopted elsewhere.
On a small local level, say 100, 1000 or a couple thousand people (or less), they can implement any system they agree on, as I see it. If a small community of a few thousand decides they don't want to pay taxes, and have a voluntary community fund for budgeting, private security forces, etc. etc. etc. (essentially, no gov. involvement), that is cool with me. Their success or failure is 100% on them.
In principle I agree with you but when it comes to anarcho-capitalism specifically the problem is that the "private security forces" will become the armed thugs of those who have the most capital. a true "free market" would allow the most wealthy to control the land and resources, bully those with less capital and eventually form a hierarchical structure that would lead us back to croney capitalism and centralized control.
I haven't watched it in order, I have only seen a few episodes here and there.
The best episode is one from Next Generation where Q uses his mind to propel the Enterprise outside the boundaries of the universe. Once you've seen that one all the others are kind of an anti-climax.
Picard goes full serious and starts screaming, "WHERE IS THIS PLACE!!??"
That is a good episode but I disagree that all of the others are kind of an anti-climax. There are so many fantastic and emotionally moving episodes in TNG, and some are very thought provoking. :D
The current system provides the means for people to voluntarily achieve other systems
Does it fuck. Your premise is contradicted by the very fact that we are still using a system which is counterproductive for 95 percent of us. The current system is a hierarchy, which means there are people at the top with considerably more power and wealth who will stop at nothing to keep things exactly as they are. You are talking about people with so much power and influence that they can dispute science itself and get away with it.
Now, yes, social democracy is based around taxes collected and redistributed, which communities can already do, if they wish. Nothing is stopping them aside from themselves. I, and many others, are going to have to see some small scale evidence of this system before transitioning to a country-wide model--I think that is pretty reasonable to ask.
Also, every system will be built into one form or another hierarchy, ours currently is extremely hierarchical for a similar reason as a NBA team is. I think you are under the impression there is a set number "x" dollars in America that is static, with a specific value compared to the rest of the world--rather than viewing "x" as a dynamic variable, that can go up or down and value can shift relative to other "dollars" in the world.
Then, it is possible to appreciate why you view a serious inequality and redistribution problem.
every system will be built into one form or another hierarchy
In an ideal and fully civilized society, the hierarchy does not exist as an institutionalized body of individuals or a class structure. The hierarchy (if it can be called that at all) is simply based on who has the intelligence, knowledge and proficiency to know what should be done and how it should be done. This would not be based on authority or some dominant ideology but a system of methodologies. The methodology itself would have the "authority" because decisions would be arrived at through the methodology rather than made by the intellectual "elites" themselves.
One (substantial) issue is that there is so much disagreement in the sciences, then, whichever group prevails (for whatever reason), will have an enormous amount of power that others do not wield. For instance, name a modern issue where there would be an expert consensus concerning how to most efficiently handle it?
One (substantial) issue is that there is so much disagreement in the sciences, then, whichever group prevails (for whatever reason), will have an enormous amount of power that others do not wield.
Indeed, much of what is called science is not objective, but within scientific methodology there is the potential for objectivity. The key is for people to become "scientists" in a general sense rather than merely "users of science". Most scientists today are not scientific people, if they were scientific thinkers in general they wouldn't have opinions or beliefs at all, they would instead have things which they know to be proven thoroughly, things they suspect to be more likely and things which are left purely to speculation, observation and experimentation. Scientists are trained to use specific methodologies within specific fields, not to be scientific people in a complete sense. There needs to be a cultural shift from opinion and belief based thinking to fact and speculation based thinking before man kind can be ruled by reason and methodology rather than by other men.
name a modern issue where there would be an expert consensus concerning how to most efficiently handle it?
Even issues which relate specifically to the human condition have a basis in objective reality. When it comes to something like climate change, it's easy to see there is an objective truth to it and a most practical way of dealing with it. Thus a consensus could be formed. But even things like racism boil down to technical issues at the core. People are conditioned to be racist because that is part of their culture or experience. If they were instead conditioned to know the technical differences between races, and think about those differences on that basis, they would not have a subjective attitude about it or form prejudice.
I will have to look into the "Ravenclaw"-archetype.
Essentially it means we are intellectuals and think more with the head than with the heart. A gryffindor is more of a heroic type, a hufflepuff is a loyal, hard working type and a slytherin is a sociopathic type.
Alright, everyone knows it anyway. I originally intended to impersonate Nom on this account but yes I am FM. It is indeed interesting that we are the same type in many ways, I think Nom is actually the same type as well. On another note we are each "Ravenclaw" archetypes as well. The way I think we differ is that I am a "hyper non-conformist" and mostly introverted but also paradoxically belligerent and "in your face" when I want to be, Nom shares the latter trait with me and he is probably a more polished and older yet less eclectic version of me whereas you are the most "clean cut" and the least likely to "go against the grain" in many ways.
Because I gave you three chances to be my friend, treated you with nothing but respect and every time you spat in my face at the end of it I'm not gonna fall for your compliments or bullshit admiration ever again. I know what a scumbag you are and will never ever let you get close to me, not anymore.
Because I gave you three chances to be my friend, treated you with nothing but respect and every time you spat in my face at the end of it
The first time you disrespected me just as much as I disrespected you, the second time I could see how arrogant you were and that you thought you were better than me, and the third time you over-reacted and took it like a bitch when I made a joke about you that I didn't even mean anything by.
I'm not gonna fall for your compliments or bullshit admiration ever again.
Did I even exhibit any of that form of bullshit? I don't recall paying you many compliments or admiring you. Of course, even now there are some things I like about you, but the positive things are vastly outweighed by the negative.
I know what a scumbag you are
You really don't. You don't know how good I can be, or even the extent to which I can be a scumbag. For such a so called manipulative master mind you didn't do a very good job of figuring me out.
Wasn't one joke, wasn't one reaction. You've called me mentally ill and also a joke where your "friend" is the brunt especially to make another friend laugh with you at the other "friend" means you don't have a fucking clue what friendship is.
You will die alone man and it isn't because humanity's corrupt. You're a crybaby who blames the world because you're too lazy and too much of an asshole to do a single form of money earning in your life. You aren't even good at all, you and nom, who is worse than you, just think you are
Sigma: you are a manipulative mastermind. you are a spider waiting to lay your trap. you possess a cunning, intuitive mind and can sway people to your will. you don't have the casual swagger of the alpha or the omega but you do have a clever presence about you and people tend to be both wary and respect you for that. you can often be even more powerful than the alpha or the omega male in social situations due to your ability to persuade and manipulate them. you are neither a follower or a leader but rather a wild card
I could be wrong because I can't get a real life feel for him, but he might be this one.
NOM do you have much of a brain ? You are here to entertain us as the brain dead fool you are and you do a fine job of that ! Keep up the good work LMMFAO !
Bronto believes that between he and a pack of rabid libs, he would get the highest IQ score.
That's because Bronto is insane. Being alpha isn't about being intelligent. Those are the people you regularly refer to as betas. Since you clearly don't even understand what an alpha is, one must question your premise that you are likely to score well on an IQ test. And when I say question, I mean laugh heartily.
