- 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.
asinine argument from a blatant disanalogy. two obvious differences between auto accidents and covid: first, the incidence rates are stable for driving accidents and unstable for pandemic infections which puts different stress on existing infrastructure. second, not driving and wearing a mask are not equally intensive or costly so the comparison ain't analogous (equivalent would be asking why people don't signal their interstate merges).
that's helpful context. i don't agree with your definition of value. you seem instead to be discussing mere preference. to me, value entails preference plus some sort of normative evaluative judgement (i.e. typically some kind of normative belief that represents the preference as being more than the subjective disposition of an individual by allusion to some 'higher' authority, like god or humanity). so when i say i practice value nihilism, that means i reject these kinds of normative appeals and explanations. i'm not denying that preferences exist. and i would approach this issue of pacifism and violence in light of that.
far from neglecting value, i think pacifism is the most value laden (unless we suppose that someone can be equally committed to violence, i.e. to never acting peaceably). it's a normative commitment, against which other inclinations are held. i think it's rarely, if ever, strictly in line with preference (although i can at least theoretically imagine a non-principled pacifist, it's a tall order to imagine them actually existing).
for myself, i allow my preferences towards being violent or non-violent to be as they are in a given moment. im not governed by some general attitude towards violence or non-violence, and especially not by a normative attitude.
not implausible, although id say im more likely to go for the jugular by denying the self altogether. that's the reason the pubs dont ban me - i generate depressive alcoholics. really, im their cash cow... supposing that cash and cows and pubs exist, of course.
i dont think that i did, actually. regardless, im sure ive found them lacking on occasion and may well have said as much at those times. but thats not inconsistent with my observations that i find them to be predominantly reasoned and that i generally respect them.
my view of amarel is consistent, despite your baseless speculation that ive adjusted my attitude in response to them patting me on the back (which didn't happen). what has changed in this thread is ur attitude towards me once it became clear that i wasn't going to join ur amarel bashing band wagon.
and no, i mean intellectual relationship. i don't know them well outside of our intellectual discussions, so that's why i delimited the relationship that way. fortunately for amarel and me, ur disdain for vocabularies which exceed ur own really is nothing to do with us.
perhaps u should try chatting with burrito who shares ur aversion to words as well as ur bizarre need to ineffectually dissect a relationship that's nothing to do with u. in any event, im done entertaining ur silly bit of nonsense.