Support NeoGAF

[Down With Yoga Pants!]

"People have the fundamental right to deny anything they want. "
No, they don't. There's no such fundamental right. They have the fundamental right to freedom of speech, but as I said above, that does not entail freedom from consequences if that speech leads inexorably to real-world harm.
You have not provided any *logical* reason against imprisoning anyone for promoting conspiracies. All you've said is, "But muh rights." All your rights are synthetic. You only have them for as long as society decides that there's a benefit to individuals having those rights.
All you've done is present a series of Ipse Dixit statements about how you think the world ought to be.
So what?
The world according to how I think it ought to be, happens to coincide for the most part, but your entire argument is simply proof by assertion alone, and an appeal to social constructs.

Yes they do. Denial, just like approval, is a form of speech. And since people have a fundamental right to free speech, then they also have a fundamental right to deny anything of their choosing.

As for rights, they don't come from society, they come from nature. We are born with them. We have them whether society likes it or not. The problem here is, you don't have any understanding of the concept of rights. You've been erroneously taught to see them as something akin to privileges, which can be taken or given at whim, but that's not what they are. Hence the reason the founders of this country referred to them as "inalienable".

But if you believe you have the right to kidnap and imprison people for believing things you don't approve of, then guess what? You've automatically just handed them the right to defend themselves from you using deadly force. That's why the Second Amendment exists. To defend the First. Enjoy!

 

[RustyWalker]

Rights do not come from nature. Does the rabbit have a right to life when the wolf is hungry? Of course it bloody doesn't! All it takes for your rights to disappear is a change of government from democracy to authoritarianism and so forth.
Exactly what you're describing already happens in China. People who criticize the government *at all* are whisked off to prison. Some vanish forever.
So don't give me that crap about rights being natural. They only exist as long as the state protects them. The moment the state changes to some other form, you're screwed. It's just not very likely in the West, at least not any time soon. The state tolerate idiots so long as the illusion of freedom keeps them paying their taxes.
Without social constructs, anyone can override anyone else's with the threat of violence or actual violence. It's happened *all through history.*
If you think "rights come from nature," you're living in a fantasy land.

 

[Down With Yoga Pants!]

Of course rights come from nature. The wolf is incapable of recognizing a rabbit's right to live, but the rabbit still has that right. That's what makes human being different. Unlike wolves, we have the capacity to recognize right from wrong, and therefore the existence of rights. Rights exist regardless of government. Even if every government on the planet disappeared tomorrow, there would still be people recognizing each other's rights and forming communities. Rights can be violated and ignored by authoritarian governments, but they still exist regardless.

That's the source of your confusion and misunderstanding. You think rights disappear just because someone ignores them, but they don't. They always exist, just as morality always exists.

 

[RustyWalker]

You keep appealing to kidnap, yet the scenario you described made the action illegal. The law overrode your perceived rights, yet you keep appealing to the framework you live in now to argue against it. That's an irrational argument.
And in case you hadn't noticed, most of the world is not American nor have the American Constitution. In your scenario, a law has been passed that supersedes the Constitution as you know it.
The Constitution only has value as long as the state values it. In the tyrannical scenario you're describing, the 2nd amendment has gone bye bye. The government have hypothetically added a clause that reads, "unless we don't like it."

 

[RustyWalker]

Nope. The right to life is just as artificial as the right to deny. It's synthetic. It just happens to coincide with enlightened self-interest, so we protect it, so that we have our own right to life preserved.
It's not bestowed by nature. It's a mutual pact between members of a civilized society that we will treat each other a certain way in the expectation of being treated in the same way.

 

[RustyWalker]

Morality doesn't exist in any objective sense. We arbitrarily assigned wellbeing as something that was good, and enshrined that with laws to preserve it and reduce harm. The system works well at maintaining social order and co-operation. You can also note where various groups promote their own interest in those codes at the expense of others.

 

[Ornlu]

​

 

[Halo is Back]

 

[Down With Yoga Pants!]

Just because the government legalizes kidnapping doesn't mean it's not kidnapping. Reality is not determined by government fiat, it is determined by objective facts. If you snatch a person without just cause or permission, it's kidnapping. Period and end of story.

Law never overrides rights. Ever. Law can violate or ignore rights, but rights still exist regardless. In fact, law has to correspond with rights, or it's not valid law at all.

If the Second Amendment were to disappear, the right to keep and bear arms would still exist. Such a right exists with or without government approval. Of course, you can always try to violate that right and take a person's arms away from him, but then that would give him the right to fill you with holes. After all, self-defense is the most fundamental right of all.

 

[Down With Yoga Pants!]

Wrong. Rights come from nature and are very much real. That "mutual pact" you refer to is the recognition of objective morality, and that everyone, because they are here, has a right to exist. If nature wanted us dead, that's what we'd be, dead. But nature clearly wants us to be alive, which is why we are. From that we derive morality and individual rights. You're just misunderstanding the concept.

 

[Down With Yoga Pants!]

The only reason you are alive right now is because objective morality exists. If it didn't exist, an ax murder could walk up to you on the street and say, "give me one good reason I shouldn't hack your head off right now." Since, according to you, objective morality doesn't exist, you wouldn't be able to give him that reason and you'd be dead. But it does exist, which explains why you are alive right now. Because you have a right to exist and live. We all do. It's the reason you try to survive, as opposed to trying to kill yourself. You want to live. Life is an objective good. Life is an objective right (hint, hint).

Check and mate.

 

[Barnabot]

you guys have been all deceived. not only earth is round but also all its continents look like the same.

 

[Kamina]

For a moment i thought Weilthain was unbanned aswell

 

[DESTROYA]

For a moment i thought Weilthain was unbanned aswell ☹

We could only hope, he had some goofy ideas but at least he was still generally was a OK dude.

 

[The Hamburglar]

Honest question. Is there actually people on this website who believe the earth is flat.

 

[Ornlu]

Honest question. Is there actually people on this website who believe the earth is flat.

There's people on this website that believe that driving on a painted road is a hate crime, so probably.

 

[Barnabot]

For a moment i thought Weilthain was unbanned aswell ☹

good point. hold on.

 

[Nymphae]

Good stuff in here, Professor Dave is a tool

 

[zeomax]

Didn't watch the whole video only parts of it. And again they are repeating the same old claims which where debunked many many times. Like the "Antartic Treaty". Like always they are saying the treaty is forbidding to go the South Pole but the treaty saying exactly the opposite. It is allowed to go there for everybody as long it is not for a military purpose.

 

[Nymphae]

lol maybe you should have watched it if you are actually interested in the debate. It has very little to do with the AT. Dave looks like a fucking fool, anyone claiming to be an educator who needs to censor legitimate comments and questions on their talks is a charlatan, to say nothing of his destroyed map arguments.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

When Earth isn't the geometric shape you are biased for.

 

[Nymphae]

zeomax

you're a fucking joke bro. I just finished the remainder of the video, and not once does it even mention the Antarctic Treaty, the entire video is about map evidences and is specifically addressing things Dave is asking for.

If you aren't going to watch the video, don't try to derail with lies and absolute non sequiturs.

 

[zeomax]

zeomax

you're a fucking joke bro. I just finished the remainder of the video, and not once does it even mention the Antarctic Treaty, the entire video is about map evidences and is specifically addressing things Dave is asking for.

If you aren't going to watch the video, don't try to derail with lies and absolute non sequiturs.

Maybe you should watch then the other two parts of this video on their channel?

 

[Nymphae]

Maybe you should watch then the other two parts of this video on their channel?

Obviously going to and I'll do more than skim them, I didn't post those though so not sure why you'd skim other videos to make a flippant comment on the one I did post which has a lot of good info and shows Dave to be the insufferable fraud he is.

 

[zeomax]

the one I did post which has a lot of good info

No it hasn't. Only the same few old claim wich are based on completely misunderstanding of even the simplest basics physics.

 

[Nymphae]

No it hasn't

QED lol. Interesting how people including Dave never directly address the rebuttals. He deletes comments and questions man that tells me all I need to know about him tbh, and he's one of the more popular debunkers.

 

[zeomax]

And you call Dave a fool?

 

[zeomax]

Interesting how people including Dave never directly address the rebuttals.

He showed where the flaterthers were wrong and what was wrong with their "models". Unlike the flaterthers who are most of the time just saying "i don't belive it so it must be wrong" or spreading just simply lies. Like with the Antarctic Treaty where you can very easy check out what this treaty is about. But no they are constantly saying the same thing "You are not allowed to go beyond the 60°S latitude" wich is straight up a fucking lie!

 

[Nymphae]

Give it up lol your weak shit isn't changing my mind, I'm sharing these videos for the people who actually are curious enough to watch them in full and think about what is being presented. If you want to highlight specific arguments made in the videos, I'm all ears. You never do this. Time stamp it, type up the quote, and show me why it's wrong. Smugness and deflection aren't arguments.

 

[zeomax]

If you want to highlight specific arguments made in the videos, I'm all ears. You never do this. Time stamp it, type up the quote, and show me why it's wrong. Smugness and deflection aren't arguments.

Time stamp

To begin with we need to understand that anything below the 60th south parallel is referred to as the Antarctic Treaty Area. What does that mean? That means i am generally not allowed within hundreds of miles of Antartica.

Article 7 of the Antarctic Treaty

2. Each observer designated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall have complete freedom of access at any time to any or all areas of Antarctica.
3. All areas of Antarctica, including all stations, installations and equipment within those areas, and all ships and aircraft at points of discharging or embarking cargoes or personnel in Antarctica, shall be open at all times to inspection by any observers designated in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.

How do you call his statement? I call it a lie.

Antarctic Treaty System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nymphae]

Time stamp



Article 7 of the Antarctic Treaty

2. Each observer designated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall have complete freedom of access at any time to any or all areas of Antarctica.
3. All areas of Antarctica, including all stations, installations and equipment within those areas, and all ships and aircraft at points of discharging or embarking cargoes or personnel in Antarctica, shall be open at all times to inspection by any observers designated in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.

How do you call his statement? I call it a lie.

Antarctic Treaty System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Haven't watched that yet, do the video I posted.

 

[zeomax]

do the video I posted.

Why don't you do it yourself. The main statement of the flaterthers are "do your own research". So do it. Watch the video and check the claims they made against other facts from different sources.

 

[Nymphae]

Why don't you do it yourself. The main statement of the flaterthers are "do your own research". So do it. Watch the video and check the claims they made against other facts from different sources.

Debunk the video I enjoyed? Sure bud. You guys are all the same lol

 

[zeomax]

Debunk the video I enjoyed? Sure bud. You guys are all the same lol

Who is smugly and deflective now?

Btw found a nice little video i want to show

 

[Nymphae]

Who is smugly and deflective now?

Btw found a nice little video i want to show

I wasn't making an argument against your model. Telling me to go and debunk the video I presented because you can't /refuse to makes me laugh. I could say the same to you for anything you present that you want me to look at. Debunk it yourself!

 

[zeomax]

I could say the same to you for anything you present that you want me to look at. Debunk it yourself!

That's the point. I can't! Because the earth is round and you can not debunk it. No matter how many times anybody will try it.

 

[Nymphae]

That's the point. I can't!

Same!

 

[zeomax]

Well you can't debunk a round earth but you can debunk with ease a flat earth. That means someone is wrong. Who is it? The one with a irrefutable proof or the one who is lying and whose arguments are all falling apart if you look a little bit closer?

 

[Grinchy]

At least it's not dangerous to believe something stupid like the Earth being flat. It's not like being an anti-vaxxer and getting your kid killed while endangering everyone else.

The only thing that'll happen if you believe the Earth is flat is just looking like a moron and that doesn't really hurt anyone.

 

[Jack Peterson]

Funnily enough, despite what they claim to believe, most people ACT like they live on a 6000 year old flat earth where God exists and evolution isn't real.

Many people claim to be atheist materialists, but they never really consider the implications of living on a random ball in the middle of infinite space.

They'll say "we're just a cosmic accident" and then start rambling about politics, not realizing that a lack of God equates to a lack of moral absolutes.

I'm not saying the earth is flat, but if we really are just a cosmic accident in the midst of infinite deterministic chaos, people are gonna have to sell their soul and stop pretending moral truths exist.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

I'm not saying the earth is flat, but if we really are just a cosmic accident in the midst of infinite deterministic chaos, people are gonna have to sell their soul and stop pretending moral truths exist.

Do you really want to imply that morality doesn't have value on its own and is only valid if its bestowed upon you by some creator ?

 

[RustyWalker]

Good stuff in here, Professor Dave is a tool

"No Flerther claims to be living on a space pancake," except the ones that bloody well do! There has been a recent shift in Flerther mentality that goes, "The earth isn't a globe. You're all liars, but I'm not making any claims," which is hilariously badly hidden flertherism. Yes, they do claim earth is a flat pancake *OR* the really stupid ones claim it's an infinite plane. And the retort itself *IS* a claim. Stating with absolute certainty (read dogmatism) that earth *ISN'T* a globe *IS* a claim, and a claim that is so laughably badly argued that I have to ask whether these flerthers were lowered into the ruined Chernobyl reactor headfirst to see if the fires had gone out yet.
"We see too far!" Reality - they don't see far enough for the earth to be flat.
"Gravity isn't real." Reality - then you won't mind stepping out that window (A thought experiment, not a literal instruction. Yes, flerthers DO take things that literally).
"Space is fake!" Reality - hold my vacuum. That one is hard to beat in the sheer stupidity stakes, and I have to ask if anybody really believes it, or is just trying to get the last laugh as the poe that went the furthest with the stupidest argument on the net. And it wouldn't stop the earth being a globe even if it was.

That video purports to be a response to Prof Dave, but it's complete tosh from beginning to end, just like all other flerther output. Stale, ridiculous, and only convincing to someone whose cranial capacity is for storing earwax.

 

[RustyWalker]

An accident implies a result other than that intended. The universe was not a cosmic accident, because there was no intent for any other result to be had.
Appealing to a god doesn't get you to moral absolutes. Even if a god tells us what its opinions are as to what is good and what is bad, why should we believe it has any more insight than we do collectively? This smokescreen is simply an excuse to follow the mixed results ethics forwarded traditionally by religions, that have been amended time and time again as we have learned at great cost to become civilised.
It's laughably easy to point to terrible ethics that religions used to follow that have quietly - or less so - been cleared away.
Human sacrifice anyone? Or how about laws to tell you how badly you can beat your slave before you should be punished for it? Or how about how to slaughter all the tribes around you and take all their virgin daughters for your "special requirements."

 

[Rentahamster]

They'll say "we're just a cosmic accident" and then start rambling about politics

Strawman

not realizing that a lack of God equates to a lack of moral absolutes.

The existence of God, a god, or many gods is not requisite for the foundation of a morality framework which to live by. Granted, neither does it give moral "absolutes", but absolute morality is only as good as the tenets it advocates for. If so called absolute morality includes philosophies which modern society deems abhorrent, then I'd tell the creator of that morality to shove it up his ass.

 

[MetalAlien]

Strawman

The existence of God, a god, or many gods is not requisite for the foundation of a morality framework which to live by. Granted, neither does it give moral "absolutes", but absolute morality is only as good as the tenets it advocates for. If so called absolute morality includes philosophies which modern society deems abhorrent, then I'd tell the creator of that morality to shove it up his ass.

There are only two genders get over it.

 

[Rentahamster]

There are only two genders get over it.

A discounted circumcision is a total rip-off.

 

[Halo is Back]

Give it up lol your weak shit isn't changing my mind, I'm sharing these videos for the people who actually are curious enough to watch them in full and think about what is being presented. If you want to highlight specific arguments made in the videos, I'm all ears. You never do this. Time stamp it, type up the quote, and show me why it's wrong. Smugness and deflection aren't arguments.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Give it up lol your weak shit isn't changing my mind, I'm sharing these videos for the people who actually are curious enough to watch them in full and think about what is being presented. If you want to highlight specific arguments made in the videos, I'm all ears. You never do this. Time stamp it, type up the quote, and show me why it's wrong. Smugness and deflection aren't arguments.

"Entire swaths of land are entirely off limits" and shows the list which totals to 1373 square miles. "That's not huge compared to the total alledged area of Antarctica but these swaths of land could be coordinated in such a way to prevent me from going through Antarctica easily"

This is really funny. These 'swaths of land' are a total of 0,0002% of the size of the continent. And I've seen a few personally like this one

Look closely, ASPA-140 is there on the left, carefully placed to block anyone from seeing the earth is flat. Here are two more I've seen:

Note how they are strategically placed to block someone from going...... absoutely nowhere as they are an island and a little peninsula easily avoided.

Then there is the whole 60 degrees south thing which is complete nonsense. The form is for tour operators, anyone who can cough up the cash can visit Antarctica, I've been to 64 south without any need for me to get permits or other stuff. If you want to walk across the continent you do need permission for it but if you really want to you can buy passage on a yacht, land at some remote place and start walking. Just don't expect anyone to come rescue you if you get in trouble if no one know you're there.

 

[Jack Peterson]

Do you really want to imply that morality doesn't have value on its own and is only valid if its bestowed upon you by some creator ?

"Bestowed upon you by some creator" is the wrong way to look at it. It's more like, existing within a framework that transcends human limitation. A force of good and evil almost equivalent to magic.

Without God, and some sort of transcendent moral law, it becomes impossible to derive an ought from an is. David Hume figured this out 300 years ago.

Nietzsche talked about this 150 years ago with Beyond Good and Evil. He predicted that after the death of God we'd have to create our own values, because transcendent absolute morality would no longer exist.

When you take away free will this truth becomes even more obvious. And if you consider the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (e.g. everything physically possible exists), which indicates infinite suffering, the idea of moral realism without God becomes completely untenable.

 

[Rentahamster]

"Bestowed upon you by some creator" is the wrong way to look at it. It's more like, existing within a framework that transcends human limitation.

Humans are perfectly capable of creating a framework of morality without appealing to a supernatural god creator. There are "godless" societies throughout history that fit this bill.