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.
If you've ever studied any particular subject you would know that the more you learn about it, the more there is to learn about it and everything else. It would seem like anyone who's studying anything is just creating more questions... and for most people, questions are flags that indicate that something isn't known.
Liberal people are way too emotional. The ice caps melting, polar bears are dying, blame the humans and call them names. Liberals need to stop listening to Obama's propaganda, quite frankly I don't know how he became President of the USA. He is trying to take away our rights... like taking our guns! Ok taking guns away from responsible people, who want to protect our families is ridiculous! Those people who are irresponsible, don't get their guns legally, so when Obama takes them away, they will get them anyway! So the responsible people will be the ones who are getting hurt. Obama is hurting the good people, he should be impeached and removed in my opinion.
Of course it's a mental disorder. Few non-liberals would dispute that.
And, you know what they say about the insane: If you know your insane, you aren't insane. They insist that they are superior - there must be something wrong there.
I would beg to differ, most people who are not up to a concrete level of thought (most people in the world) will have trouble seeing opposing views as positive in one way or another.
So I have a question to ask you, can you prove to me how conservatism is not just as much of a mental disorder as liberalism?
These words such as 'liberal', 'reactionary', 'progressive', 'fascist' are just words to describe a general group of people with different ideals. The world is in shades of gray, many people don't know this for some reason.
You (directed not at terminator but to the reader) will have to learn that the words used are just to group people together.
This is why I say it is not a mental disorder (which is better than disease which can be cured and changed, you can't change someone's views) it is just words, fancy words, to help generate the horrible, horrible 'us vs. them' mentality (which is step 2 of genocide by the way). People are people, the mental disorder of political views does not exist. You (directed at terminator) are not seeing things from other people's point of views. Please prove me wrong by making an argument for the 'no' side of this debate that gets at least 3 points, o.k?
You are new to this site, you've yet to learn that when Joe and I correspond, we are usually writing humour. Our humour is one which many liberals will take offense to.
These words such as 'liberal', 'reactionary', 'progressive', 'fascist' are just words to describe a general group of people with different ideals.
I am normalcy. Any deviation of this normalcy is abnormal and thus, in the mind of an egoist, a 'mental illness' of sorts.
which is better than disease which can be cured and changed, you can't change someone's views
Many, even liberals, disagree with that last phrase.
which is step 2 of genocide by the way
Only step two? Is that not the only step. "We don't like you, so we'll give you to the count of three to get your lazy good-for-nothing carcass out my door..."
You (directed at terminator) are not seeing things from other people's point of views.
Oh I do see their point of view, but I simply disagree with it.
Please prove me wrong by making an argument for the 'no' side of this debate that gets at least 3 points, o.k?
People are not so hasty at upvoting as they used to. Besides, they know that I am not a liberal and thus wouldn't bother to up-vote me.
Liberalism is an socio-political and economic ideology.
I hear this all the time "Liberalism is a mental disorder, Hurr durr" and the likes. What they're really saying is "I can't understand this idea, so instead of attacking the idea I'll just attempt a petty attack on the people that hold the idea by making them feel like they are inherently defective."
I don't know where he's getting his NAS numbers from (I suspect he may be confusing them with a study of how many NAS members are atheist/agnostic, which is a seperate case of reality biasing)... but scientists in general are significantly statistically biased towards being Liberal over Conservative relative to the general population.
I specifically said I thought his 94% number come from him confusing a study on liberal composition of the NAS with religious affiliation in the NAS.
What the numbers DO show is a MASSIVE bias in favor of Liberalism among the general scientific community relative to the general population. And for all I know that's exagerated in the NAS, but I don;t have a study that says either way.
Does your erroneous belief that scientists are infallible make you think that, therefore, conservatism is an incorrect political ideology - seeing as how scientists are rarely conservative?
Does your silly attempt to put words in my mouth so you can do battle with strawmen instead of dealing with what I posted boost your self-esteem or something?
I have never, in my life, taken the position that scientists are infallible.
You can trust their tendency to arrive at the right answer more often than other groups, based on superior investigative methodology with a well established track record of producing solid results.
If we didn't trust the conclusions of people or organizations based on requiring a standard of infallibility before we accepted their findings as credible we'd never trust any findings about anything... ever.
A belief in science (or, at least, the science which would get you into the national academy of science) encourages a belief in atheism. Atheists, through personal observation, have a much higher tendency to be liberals.
When are you going to learn? Precious science can't possibly be wrong, right?
First and foremost I am a fallibilst. Surely your obsession with faulty science has kept you away from the study of philosophy, thus I shall tell you what fallibilism is.
Fallibilism is the philosophical belief that nothing - not even science - can be proven 100% true.
Secondly, I consider myself a Fortean - or rather, a Fortean-in-the-making. Charles Fort, in his epic treatise against science, documented hundreds of cases where science was wrong!
I shall explain to you a brief error:
Between the years of 1883 and 1890 there were intermittent periods where the sun was green and the moon blue. Each period lasted several years.
The scientific consensus was that the eruption of Krakatoa at the end of August 1883 was to blame, despite the fact that the green sun was clearly visible in February of 1883 - six months before the eruption !
While surely science has advanced since the 1800s, that does not eliminate the potential for error.
My favorite of his quotes:
Chemistry, though it represents a higher approximation to realness than does alchemy, for instance, and so drove out alchemy, is still somewhere between myth and positiveness.
sigh Liberalism WAS originally Libertarianism, it wasn't until the left hijacked the word did it become a word used to describe those who want the government to control everything.
I was going to say "How do you define liberal?" We have the classical liberalism, social liberalism, neoliberalism, democratic liberalism all meaning a different number of things that could cover an array of the political, economic, and social ideologies.. The author needs to define "liberalism" first.
I hope you're being sarcastic here. All you have to do is look at the warming trend over the past century, or past thousand years, or the fact that this has been the wrarmest decade on record.
But I'm sure all this is just part of some global scientific conspiricy. That makes a lot more sense. I already showed you why your precious Michael Chrichton was wrong, and yet you stubbornly refuse to accept that climate change is real.
When are you going to learn? Precious science can't possibly be wrong, right?
First and foremost I am a fallibilst. Surely your obsession with faulty science has kept you away from the study of philosophy, thus I shall tell you what fallibilism is.
Fallibilism is the philosophical belief that nothing - not even science - can be proven 100% true.
Secondly, I consider myself a Fortean - or rather, a Fortean-in-the-making. Charles Fort, in his epic treatise against science, documented hundreds of cases where science was wrong!
I shall explain to you a brief error:
Between the years of 1883 and 1890 there were intermittent periods where the sun was green and the moon blue. Each period lasted several years.
The scientific consensus was that the eruption of Krakatoa at the end of August 1883 was to blame, despite the fact that the green sun was clearly visible in February of 1883 - six months before the eruption !
While surely science has advanced since the 1800s, that does not eliminate the potential for error.
My favorite of his quotes:
Chemistry, though it represents a higher approximation to realness than does alchemy, for instance, and so drove out alchemy, is still somewhere between myth and positiveness.
true, science has a lot of room for error, it is the best logical option at the moment, most other options of finding something out is practically throwing a dart while blind folded and hoping you hit something.
It appears that the mode of fallibism you have fallen into is totally barren and completely useless.
If you claim that nothing can be held to be certain, you must also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we converse online than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degree's of certainty, and it is wise to align yourself with beliefs that are quite certain than to be utterly skeptical about everything... which is in fact completely useless.
By the way, scientifc methods of reasoning are much more valid than methods of prejudice... since science provides a means of realizing existing purposes.
Thought experiment:
Beliefs are fallible
Fallibilism is a belief
Therefore, Fallibilism is fallible. If you are an utter skeptic, why trust in fallibilism as a belief?
See: you cannot win! I've an answer to everything you can come up with.
Now, enough with that.
Yes, I believe that there are various degrees; however, nothing is entirely certain. I distrust science: I could make (another) long debate about that, but it would be utterly useless. If you wish to comprehend the cause of this distrust, I'd recommend that you read The Book of the Damned ("By the damned, I mean that which science has excluded...") and the other writings of Charles Fort.
If you are an utter skeptic, why trust in fallibilism as a belief?
I do not trust fallibilism, I adhere to fallibilism.
I don't give a fuck. That statement has nothing to do with this debate.
"See: you cannot win! I've an answer to everything you can come up with."
I fail to detect any counter argument thus far.
"I believe there are various degrees;... I distrust science"
Then please tell me, how do you reason what is quite true and what is not so true? You obviously don't know shit about fallibilism. Read this for a basic outline of the inherent relationship between fallibilism and science: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
"I could make (another) long debate about that, but it would be utterly useless."
If you fancy yourself such an Aquinas, pray tell.
"I do not trust fallibilism, I adhere to fallibilism."
Unfortunately for you, that does not change the condition of my question. Stop creating subterfuges and answer the damn question... if you are capable of doing so.
Note: I have an advanced degree in mathmatical logic... so either stop fucking around or give up.
That statement has nothing to do with this debate.
But it has quite a bit to do with the rest of your previous argument.
I fail to detect any counter argument thus far.
Be patient - I'll be getting to that.
Then please tell me, how do you reason what is quite true and what is not so true?
That which makes perfect sense, such as 1+1=2. I only believe what my mind can easily deduce.
You obviously don't know shit about fallibilism.
Has profanity ever helped an argument?
Here is what wikipedia says about fallibilism, and I agree with it nearly 100%:
Unlike scepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge - we needn't have logically conclusive justifications for what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true (such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of error when working with these systems.
I shall need further information. My studies have rarely reached hagiography.
Unfortunately for you, that does not change the condition of my question. Stop creating subterfuges and answer the damn question... if you are capable of doing so.
I trust my mind, mostly. I am not entirely sure how to answer your statement.
I have an inherent distrust of people.
Note: I have an advanced degree in mathmatical logic.
Good for you. Do I believe you? Not entirely - you can't even spell 'mathematical'.
so either stop fucking around or give up.
Again, can profanity help your position?
NOTE: If you wish to further comprehend my distrust of science, think of me as a Fortean.
Liberalism is not a disease, but rather a mindset. It may seem odd to the conservatives just as liberals may think that conservatism is a disease.
I recall a quote by Mark Twain:
"An Englishman is a person who does things because they have been done before. An American is a person who does things because they haven't been done before."
For the purpose of this debate, the quote would better read:
"A conservative is a person who does things because they have been done before. A liberal is a person who does things because they haven't been done before."
Thus, according to Mark Twain, Americans are by there very nature liberal, or at least more liberal than Englishmen.
That was one hundred years ago. Things have now changed.
For instance, British cinema is (believe it or not) more vulgar than American. All the way back in the 60s when Lord of the Flies was adapted to film they had male nudity.
Posts like this are useless and inflammatory. A useful post would be something like "is liberalism bad" or something similar. This is just meant to make people mad.
