- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
What kind of democracy are we in where this many people are hoping for a case to go to SCOTUS because the justices were both chosen by, and politically aligned with, the POTUS? It keeps me up at night thinking why anyone would think it is okay to root for a biased SCOTUS decision; then when they have the unmitigated, unadulterated gall to remain unbiased, Trump supporters are not only upset, they say that the SCOTUS is now fraudulent.
(BTW: To clarify, since I know how Trumpers are: any Trump opposers are left-wing Biden lovers, I am independent and I think both choices were equally terrible so I did not vote. If I could vote for anyone, I would have voted for Mike Pence--who I also think is terrible, but he would have been the best option, IMO.)
The similarity of this game--the knowledge of which I possess solely based on your description--is not without the boundary of what is expected in any healthily functioning society, barring a couple protocols (one of which being a leader extending their post unless otherwise outlined as being permissible in their country's constitution/national laws). So, to say "dishonored is non-fiction" would, naturally, suggest to me that our reality is so absurd/unreal that it resembles a game intended to be based on fiction. I am not saying that my suggestion is the entailment of what you are saying, rather it is how I process it (especially due to your use of the word "uncomfortable" when asking if the game is close to reality).
So, a clarification is needed to prevent my overthinking everything: In your opinion, should saying the game resembles our reality be a compliment to the production team for appreciating modern and historic laws/protocols on how to function in a pandemic, or is it an insult to the governments resembling Dishonored that their responses to the pandemic could've been constructed by a mere child who is a fanatic of the game?
(SN: Glad to be back and see you're still here!)
Assuming the blind man understands that he is blind, and what that entails, I would assume that he understands that there are things that exist that he could never know due to his condition. I would also assume that the blind man understands that there are others who will have the ability to see what he cannot. Given those two assumptions, I would suggest that the blind man not contend with that which he understands he is incapable of disproving.
"By your definition, every deliberate killing would be genocide (even mercy killings, etc.) - it isn't."
By my definition, every collectively deliberate killing of a specific racial group may be considered a non-standard form of genocide.
"A) You have separated deliberate from its use - it is not that the killing is deliberate, it is that the systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is deliberate."
There are several differently phrased definitions of the word genocide.
"B) one killing is not a systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"
If 1,000 Nazis killed 1,000 Jews, obviously with each Nazi killing 1 Jew, would that be considered genocide? You see, it is not one lady killing one baby, it is hundreds of thousands of women killing hundreds of thousands of babies. The collective action done to a particular racial group, though done by the same racial group, is what I am suggesting may be considered a form of genocide.
I suppose I would not be able to prove such a concept to a person who is afflicted with a condition that occludes them from seeing the evidence for the existence of that concept. The Judeo-Christian god (who I am assuming is the analog), however, presumably created humans to have the ability to recognize his existence, or the evidence thereof.