- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Successful people are not, by virtue of their success, oppressors.
I just explained to you that there is a difference between being "successful" and being in a higher class. Class is a fucking social construct which inherently implies that there are lesser individuals and privileged individuals. You are a fucking asinine sack of shit who deserves to get an anthrax infection.
You are earnestly trying to convince me in non-aggressive, non-insulting terms. When you really believe what you’re saying, you simply call your opponent stupid and ignore their rebuttals.
I am not actually rude and aggressive by default, it's just that you're extremely dumb and it gets on my nerves.
That was a good transcript from whatever medium you copied it.
I am flattered that my on-the-fly half assed speed typing is good enough to be mistaken for a "good transcript" that you assume I must have copied.
Predictably though, and in keeping with all such publications which are critical of the status quo it does not set out in detail a feasible alternative to the existing private, free market economy.
Would you like to extensively and openly discuss my feasible alternative, or are you looking for more of a thesis?
I created this debate to illustrate that individuals oppress, not classes.
Class is the socially constructed conditioning of having a society with oppressed people and oppressors. If that was not the case, then rich people would not be a class, they would just be successful people. Instead there are people who are born into wealth, because it is a class and not a personal achievement. The only way to get into the upper class if you are not born into it is to be really evil, really gay, really lucky, or be one of the lucky few who are actually rewarded for doing good things by a system designed to reward mass appeal and/or privilege above all else.
Vegetarian is a class of people, for example.
If you want to call that a class then whatever but it's not the kind we are talking about here. You created this debate with the specific intention of blaming oppressed people for their own oppression and claiming that it just can't possibly be due to an upper class oppressing them because that just doesn't happen for some reason. The reason isn't really important, just please believe me so I can keep being a fascist.
Economic classes often form, in part, around competence and ability
Great, so Justin Bieber, Kim Kardashian and the Queen of England are all just better than you. It isn't due to inheritance or arbitrary stupidity, it's because those people are more competent than all of us right?
blah blah blah blah
Okay, I get it. The very fact that people do things proves that free will exists in your idiotic worldview, because if free will didn't exist you wouldn't be able to hold people accountable according to your subjective morality. I also understand that you are completely uninterested in scientific proofs and only want to use words to make yourself SOUND reasonable to idiots who don't know any better. It's also very clear that anyone who grows tired of beating a dead horse when you insist free will exists "because choices" is an intellectual coward. Oh yeah, and I am of course avoiding addressing your arguments because they're totally not baseless non-arguments and rhetorical appeals to "personal accountability" and whatnot.
The "bad attitude" is your un-American bigotry.
lol fuck America. You have a bad attitude (and a total lack of understanding) about communism because of American propaganda.
I also have a right to MY opinion and I don't give a rat's ass if it's "TECHNICALLY CORRECT".
This is a major problem with how you think. REALITY doesn't give a rats ass about ANYONE'S opinion. I am concerned with reality, opinions are meaningless to me.
I was looking through old debates and OMG you are so stupid Amarel. I saw this debate and I had to say it. The very existence of class is oppression you dipshit, if there weren't oppressors and oppressed there wouldn't be class to begin with. You are literally so stupid like omfg. People in the lower class are pretty much oppressed by the powerful class by definition, that's literally what class is.
In your debate against me you spelled behavior like a European. Oops.
Yeah I like to use UK spelling but I don't always do it. If I was trying to hide something why would I openly do it? If I am Nom I am obviously capable of faking it consistently so what would be the point of me not doing so? The truth is you are retarded, you just typed an entire wall of text containing no proof of free will then accused me of ignoring the proof you provided and now you are over-analysing how I spell words like a deranged internet stalker.
You make some good points, albeit with a bad attitude. So, what would you suggest?
A bad attitude is what you call recognizing the problems inherent in a system?
What I suggest is scientific socialism.
You seem to be saying, as I do, that, if capitalism is not somewhat controlled, we , the rest of us, may as well resign ourselves to slavery??
"Controlled" is not good enough, it needs to be phased out, but social democracy is better than plain capitalism for sure.
Putin's oligarchs, and, if Trump wins the next election … HIS oligarchs …. worry me much more than Jewish capitalists!
You called Trump a commie, which is insane. Putin is not a commie, he is a kleptocrat, russia hasn't been communist for years, and Trump being a commie is literally just the most ridiculous thing a person could say.
I see, so Einstein wasn't good at music therefor his political opinions are invalid. That's brilliant Excon, really. In my personal fact-based thinking process, I think anything Einstein says is automatically more valid than the musings of a talentless know-nothing such as yourself.
Proponents of the free will position mean that a person with free will makes choices.
So if a person doesn't decide what those choices are they still have free will? Your position is that people doing stuff means free will exists? That's stupid, if people have free will it means they actually control what they do which is impossible because of the mechanistic nature of human existence.
It is the case that people cannot act independent of causation. But then, even if they could, you would not have a person expressing what anyone might consider free will as their actions would be truly and completely random.
Yes and this is exactly what I am referring to in the debate description when I talk about you trying to bypass my arguments rather than create your own. This doesn't in any way provide evidence for free will, it is just a deflection of determinism.
From the free will opponents perspective, free will should never have become a topic of conversation since it does not and cannot exist in any given circumstance, with or without causation. It is a non-subject.
How then did free will become a subject?
How did purple dragons that poop cotton candy become a subject?
Proponents of the free will perspective recognize that people are agents that make independent choices. Independent here does not mean in a vacuum or unconstrained. It means that the agent itself is that which makes the choice. How one chooses is determined by the kind of person they are and the outside circumstances they are in. But they still engage in the act of choosing. And it is still the agent engaging in the act. That is free will from the proponents perspective, and that very clearly exists.
What clearly exists is "will" not FREE will. No one makes independent choices because the human brain is a mechanism and it's behaviour is determined by biology and environmental sensory input. To deny free will is to accept humans for what they are, a part of a physical and mechanistic world. To believe in free will is to believe that humans have some magical property which allows them to make "independent choices" when they are just part of a series of causal dominoes falling according to the laws of nature.
Opponents then argue that the agent was the kind of person who chooses to change what kind of person they are, which is a quality that is fundamental to the agent and thus could not be chosen. While that is true, it does not negate the fact that the agent is making choices, so it does not disprove the proponents perspective.
So humans don't have free will but they have will so they have free will, got it. This is absolutely bizarrely stupid. You are literally accepting everything I said but still clinging to the notion of free will out of pure desperation. You are literally arguing that the mere act of doing something proves you have free will, regardless of whether you actually CHOOSE your choices. If you make a "choice" but you don't choose what choices you make then "choice" is just a primitive, retarded type zero word.
Indeed such constraints are necessary to the free will proponent who will argue for responsibility of an agent for their actions. Without the fundamental constraint of character, we would not be able to judge by their actions what kind of person an agent is.
This is why I can't help but think of you as a lower being, it feels like I am talking to some type of primitive monkey rather than a member of my own species. Now you are making the non-argument that we NEED free will so that we can blame people for shit. If we don't have free will, then our socially constructed legal system and moral values wouldn't work LOL. You are such a laughably stupid, superstitious creature.
But since an agent makes choices based on the kind of person they are in context of their circumstances , we can categorize people by character trait tendency (honest, violent, manipulative, etc).
No, people do not need free will in order to have personality traits XD
Indeed the person who cannot name their causes is less of a free will agent than the person who can name all of them.
Proponents of free will assume every action is a choice, and thus they ignore the causes behind behaviour. In reality there are measures that can be taken to prevent the conditions which lead to destructive behaviour but in a free will predicated society you simply expect people to go along with social constructs and punish them for their "choices" when they steal your shit due to living a life of poverty. You have done nothing to PROVE free will, all you have done is play word games to try and get around the facts of causality and determinism. This is because your belief in free will is not rational or empirical, it is an excuse for the social constructs you prefer to reason to be valid. You need free will to exist otherwise your notions of how society should work would be arbitrary and stupid, which they are.
Bernie Sanders is not a proper socialist (maybe he is at heart, but his platform is not). What he is technically classified as is a social democrat, which is a half-assed socialist who would allow capitalism to still exist in a more regulated and redistributive form.