CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS LokiLoks

Reward Points:25
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
85%
Arguments:32
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Shame that so many don't support freedom like nummi above.

1 point

"It is theft through lying, not the general theft where things are just taken."

Agreed

"I do know what is best for humanity, actually not exactly "best" but better than what is currently."

There are a lot of Muslims that "know" what's best or better than what is currently. I'm sure you won't mind them passing laws forbidding women from wearing clothing other than a Hajib. You're just like them.

"You ignored my question. Like a "nice" little politician would."

Which question?

"In those sentences, can you see the word only? I sure can't."

As I said, "[The fact] that you would use force to achieve your ends...is an act of an aggressor, a willful person who will force their opinion on others and is, in fact an acknowledgement that you believe that ONLY you are right.

Anyone that disagrees with YOU is forced to have their opinion subjugated to YOUR opinion and that makes it apparent that YOU think that ONLY YOU are right.

"So, first you tell them and hope for correction. If that does not work you threaten them with exclusion or banishment? How is that not aggression? And if they decline it, resist it?"

If I, and others ostracize someone and they initiate force, they have shown that they do not accept the use of force against them, so yes, I would use force. Again, the response to force with force is not the same thing as initiating it.

"If what I explained is dictatorship then how are our current governments not with their laws against drugs?"

It IS dictatorship, albeit not the government form, an extension of the term dictating. They dictate that we cannot use drugs.

"Before claiming you know what dictatorship is, perhaps you should do some more research on it."

I'm using the term as a concept of the word dictate, not as the form of government.

"They are not stupid."

If they aren't then neither are mine. You have no proof of harm, whereas I do.

"I am very certain"

Great, we should force other people to do what you want because you're certain. How nice for everyone else that is certain that you're wrong.

"the people here where I live are, on average, much smarter than elsewhere"

Ah, far be it for a zealot to suggest that someone else might be more enlightened.

"You think jogging has not caused any injuries?"

Not on par with football, rugby, hockey, MMA etc. You're not seriously equating the two are you? Obviously you are because you suggested that someone might walk "off a cliff...breathe deadly gases...yawn [and] choke... to death [on a bug]"

How ridiculous can you get?

"As I stated the first time, very stupid example."

You show it's ridiculous by referencing absolutely negligable risks when there are known risks and guaranteed damage from what examples I provided. Pathetic.

"Drugs may reduce stress but they also cause other damage, and addiction very easily."

Escapism is addictive. Physical addiction to marijuana has been disproven. Damage from marijuana has been shown only in smoking of it.

communal chanting... is stupid."

Glad to see you're just as self righteous in other things.

"Do you also think reading books and stories is stupid? Or listening to music?"

It doesn't matter if I do. I won't force others to not do them, unlike you.

"So we should ban people from choosing acting as a career? And script writers should also be restricted from writing?"

Obviously I was stating those positions to show how abusive your position was. I don't believe we should ban either, nor should we ban mothers from feeding their children at some arbitrary age that offends you.

So, you offer as proof that the net result of the entertainment industry and sports is not bad for humanity the following quote, "[it's bad,] but not as the net result."

"So, you are saying there should be no entertainment "industry" and sports? How would you go about changing all that? Aggression?"

"Okay, let's ban them! And if they resist you use force?"

I wouldn't ban them. It was an exercise showing the abuse of your position.

"Me a brute? Clearly not."

You propose to forcibly seize children from mothers that wish to breastfeed past an age that you deem appropriate. Yes, sir, that clearly is a brute.

"I am a dictator? I did not know that, thanks for letting me know!"

Glad to help.

"Do you even know what 'abusive' and 'dictator' mean? Considering you used them hints that you don't."

Abuse: to hurt or injure by maltreatment.

Dictator: person who makes pronouncements, as on conduct, fashion, etc., which are regarded as authoritative.

You satisfy both definitions. You wish to hurt, injure, and maltreat those that defy your pronouncements which you regard as authoritative.

"As to eugenics, there are undesirable traits among humanity, traits which have a negative effect (genetic diseases for one). Do you disagree? Would express your stupidity if you did."

You mean traits like motor neurone disease from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? I assume you'd suggest we should've prevented Stephen Hawking from ever coming into this world.

"You clearly know nothing of my logic."

I have shown exactly how your logic follows the same as all oppressors. You dictate what is right and is wrong for others, you deny their humanity by calling them weak, you are willing to use force to achieve your ends.

"You should better stop calling me things" or what? You'll prohibit it? Use force to make me stop?

My copy paste showed clearly how abusive you are. Deny it all you want, the facts speak for themselves.

1 point

The Bible supports evolution.

The verb used in the creation story specify instant creation for light, yet a the verb for the creation of plants, animals, and man is indicates a creative, constructive, time consuming process.

Even in the translation it's apparent that evolution is credible according to the bible:

"let there be" = instant

"created" = creative and not instant

1 point

You wrote, "It could simply have been a natural occurrence, an accident. Like a rock colliding with Earth. Something that just happened."

1 point

"So you are saying that lying is aggression?"

No, making a contract to sell a product and having the product be something other than what was stipulated is theft. For example, if I sell you a wallet for $45 and say that there's $40 in it and you agree, then later you find that the wallet has $20 in it, I have in essence stolen $20.

"I've given some examples. You think that would not be healthy for humanity?"

Anyone that claims it can know what is best for humanity is a zealot, like you. I claim that I have no right to force upon someone else what I believe is right or wrong unless that person has indicated that they do not accept the non-initiation of force by initiating force on someone else.

"Have I said that I think only I am right? Nope, I have not."

Yes you have. You wrote, "You've been showing the truth behind my position alright - the truth that I am right," and "I'm not wrong." It's a small leap in semantics, but the fact is that I indicated that I disagree, you indicated that you would use force to achieve your ends. I indicated that I would use force to prevent you from forcing your ends. The former is an act of an aggressor, a willful person who will force their opinion on others and is, in fact an acknowledgement that you believe that ONLY you are right.

"And how would you try to correct others from making those wrongs? First you tell them, if that does not work, other methods are needed."

Ostracism is the only moral position i can accept. I will not threaten them to get my way.

"I'd say you are stupid to be a smoker in the first place." So be it, as long as you won't force your opinion upon me, I could care less.

"If nothing else works, only one option remains - the use of force. And that final option can be used for different outcomes."

Yes, imposing your OPINION on other people. Welcome to dictatorship.

My examples weren't any more "Stupid" than yours. You have arbitrarily determined some STUPID reason why breastfeeding should be banned. Your STUPID opinion on memories which I HAVE and enjoy as being harmful is STUPID and lacks any consideration of ME.

I have cited FACTS that certain sports produce injuries and death that could be avoided. It is STUPID to support them continuing simply because physical exercise is good. People can jog, run, do yoga, and so on.

Entertainment may be healthy in reducing stress, but so does smoking marijuana, which AFAIK you want to forbid. Even so, reducing stress can be accomplished by meditation and communal chanting. It is a FACT that movies and TV are wastes of resources when an alternative stress remover exists. This is bad for humanity. So I decree we should ban it.

Prove me wrong, prove that the net result of the entertainment industry and sports aren't bad for humanity.

If you can't, I propose we ban both immediately.

"You know, truth tends to hurt, I know it from experience. But you seem incapable of accepting it, bad for you."

You are apparently incapable of accepting it now. The TRUTH is that you're nothing more than a brute, an abusive dictator who is willing to hurt people to get your way, even hinting that you advocate eugenics.

In your own words: "...3 years old... is the UTMOST age when breastfeeding may still be allowed but after that it will be VERY VERY WRONG, and should be forbidden. A person must NOT have memories of him/herself clinging to a breast and feeding!"

"You know what happens if someone is caught... and resists? Yeah, that's right. Violence."

"Some people are too stupid to know better on their own"

"...get rid of... weak links"

"A lot of people are not capable of recognizing right and wrong... If they can't, [hope for correction] or the weak link thing."

"If nothing else works, only one option remains - the use of force. And that final option can be used for different outcomes"

Your logic follows all tyrants, all abusers, all self righteous zealots that abuse people under a banner of helping.

1 point

To me, it's evidence of creation, to you it's not, as I said before. You believe that it is rational to suggest that a system which has zero methods for explaining its coming into being just simply "did" whilst I believe that we have several examples of systems being created by a being outside that system that correspond to the concept of God (think VR).

1 point

Fraud is obtaining someone's property without their consent, and therefore theft. Theft is an act of aggression. For example, if person A buys a car from person B with 80k miles on it but the odometer was rolled back to 10k miles on it then person A has had 70k miles of usage that have been stolen from him.

Your views are toward what you THINK is a healthy humanity and your vanity makes you think that only you are right.

I am not saying that the only things that are "wrong" are those that are the initiation of force. I'm saying that I believe that the use of force against another person is wrong unless that person has consented to the use of that force. That those that use force upon others have indicated that they do not ascribe to the non-use of force and have invited it upon themselves.

So, when you come to take away my cigarettes and try to force them from me I will feel no remorse whatsoever in using lethal force upon you because you have indicated that you have no regard for not using force.

Let me ask you, do you enjoy sports? Those should be forbidden, they cause unnecessary injuries and even deaths and for what? Entertainment?

Do you like TV or Movies? They both waste a TON of resources, while we have children starving in Ethiopia. They are a blight on humanity and we should forbid them.

I'm telling you, you're wrong to eat meat, and I'm going to forcibly take your cows and fish and chickens from you.

I am not wrong.

See how abusive that was? You're equivalent to that.

1 point

You can claim whatever you want, it does not make it true.

I would say the same to you.

What fucking "angels" are you talking about?

The expectation that government will be run by people that aren't just as fallible as you claim the majority of people are is an expectation that some special exceptional people (Angels) will become politicians.

[a lack of respect for others' freedom] cannot be inferred from what I have said. is directly shown when you state, it should be forbidden. equally it shows that you truly believe that you believe it since you wrote it.

everyone should be completely free and be able to do whatever they want, no restrictions at all? Even if that means raping, murdering, stealing, scamming, using drugs, smoking, beating up others because they are different, brainwashing children into religious crap, and so forth?

No, I clearly indicated that the initiation of force is wrong and it is right to use force to intervene when someone initiates force. It's called the Non-Aggression Principle. So on that list, the acts that are initiation of force are: raping, murdering, stealing, scamming, and beating up others.

It does include the same method but if that fails and they do not see the error, stronger methods should be applied.

What if you're wrong? You have chosen to authorize others to initiate force against someone that was NOT initiating force against you or anyone else in order to impose your OPINION.

1 point

You state, "a large number of humans are not capable of coming up with good and right solutions themselves, or simply do not care about anything but their own well-being, it is necessary to have a leading factor."

I claim that you are one such human. That your self-righteousness and belief of some "angels" that will lead mankind from its own destruction is your lack of respect for other people's freedom to satisfy nothing other than your own well-being. You truly believe that by oppressing others, by forcing your will upon them that you have their best interests at heart, but it's a false claim very much like religious zealots that are out to "save" the rest of us.

Considering that you might be wrong just as much as the person who wishes to do x y or z might be wrong, you have no right to force your will upon them.

You write, "it would still be right to treat others as equals when conducting with them" yet you do not propose actions that do this. Your proposal treats mothers that wish to breastfeed to the age of 4 or so as lesser people, that need to be taken care of. I suppose that's what you mean when you followed, "And still everyone should also be considered at their individual level."

It's nothing more than self righteous aggrandizement. You have no right to act in a way to initiate violence or coercion or threats or fines against others. The word INITIATE is crucial to this statement.

You wrote, "Their opinion is forcing their opinion. If you prevent them doing it you are forcing your opinion on them." Preventing someone from forcing their opinion on others is significantly different than initiation of force. Self defense and defense of others is readily justified, aggression is not.

You wrote, "Showing people the right way so they would consider it, see it, see the error in themselves, and perhaps correct themselves. How can that be wrong?" It is NOT wrong, and that's exactly my point. You've chosen to debate, to use a non-violent, non-aggressive method to interact with me on this. Why not do the same with women that wish to breastfeed past your preferred age? Isn't that better than "forbidding" it?

You wrote, "You do realize that forcing my way upon you would be getting physical in a bloody way? Would you resist me? I think so." yet you do not acknowledge the violence that would inevitably occur with a ban on breastfeeding past the age you prefer.

Your recommendation that children never remember suckling to me seems contrived. I am sure that the majority, if not all adults that can recall suckling look back at it with fond memories, with great appreciation for the love they received as children.

Calling those that don't see things your way "weak" is one of the first of the dehumanizing tactics that was used to justify many abuses of people throughout history. Please don't repeat the mistake.

1 point

The evidence I provide are the laws of thermodynamics and the big bang theory.

They show that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred from one state to the other. They show that the universe had a beginning.

People hoping for action from something that will never provide it (most probably since it does not exist) hints at lunacy.

I didn't say I hoped for any action whatsoever. Ad hominems are hints of weak minds.

Nonexistence is nonexistence.

True

If something doesn't exist, it does not exist, there are no different levels to it.

Also true

Let me clarify what I meant. The perception of inaction is a subset of the proof towards non-existence, and cannot be used in and of itself as proof of non-existence because there are counterexamples.

Since there is no action by it and since there is no proof to its existence then it is far more logical and reasonable to consider it not existing.

No, since there is no action by it it is reasonable to consider it does not act. There is, however, evidence of its existence and a single original act, the creation.

"They all came from something." Science has provided zero theories about how or what that have withstood any scrutiny whatsoever. You want to make the "something" be more "stuff" and I want to make the "something" be "an intelligent being."

Also, according to probability theory the fact is that we are far more likely to be constructs within a virtual reality system than actually be living in reality, so that means we have a creator (a programmer) that wrote the program and started us on our VR world.

Do any amount of study about the big bang and the consensus is that there was nothing before it.

The evidence is that there is no rules for creation within the system, and evidence that the system was created. The complexity of the system and its apparent purpose suggests intelligence in that creation. Does it prove that there is a God? I leave that to you, for me, it does.

LokiLoks has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here