Which having a belief shouldnt count.

If it's some public thing anyone can join and having personal beliefs isn't against the rules then I don't think they should be disallowed

But if it's a private business type thing it's more of a grey area

Supporting someone doesnt mean you adopt their beliefs wholesale, liking a celebrity doesnt mean you parrot everything they say and voting for someone doesnt mean you agree with everything they do

its utter nonsense to say seggust that "i like this person becuase they good at this sport" somehow translates to "i adopt their views as my own"

This is a standard political tactic on both sides of the aisle and its polluting the dialogue

So in the case you presented yes the white supremacist team should be allowed to play and their fans shouldnt feel bad for supporting them

Yeah, but it's pretty normal to have bad feelings towards someone when they have such extreme beliefs that can spoil your enjoyment of what they produce

Like feminism and SW

IM sure it left a bitter taste

THing is, people responded by simply not consuming the product.

Like I listen to a lot of anarcho-communist music, but some of it despite sounding good goes too far and just ruins my ability to enjoy it

I guess that's a bad example

since it's more about the art than the artist

yea thats a lot more interwoven then the presented situation

I understand your point though

but i do see what you're driving at

just cause you like something doesn't mean you support every aspect of it

I remember randomly looking up some of Hitler's quotes, I loved some of that shit

but I'm not about to like give a rant about how admirable a person he was or whatever, I don't fucking know, all I know is his kill count

I wouldn't personally hold it against anyone who said "I just like watching their technique"

Sum of his parts

Sometimes its better to stick to the parts.

and imo...

as long as that team is undefeated, I see that as a strong point of why they should play

I mean, as long as it fosters some rivalry.

if they played and were losing games left and right then fuck them, nobody cares about them or what they have to say, but if they were fucking hardcore winning vs some really good teams

Conflict is the seed of innovation

yeah, and you'd get to see sports taken to the next level because this isn't just football or whatever anymore

this is... we gotta fucking beat that team no matter what

if you drop the ball you're benched

Still, ultimely it will be up to the company.

If they are losing money, or the players are being dicks, then maybe it would be better. But its silly to disregard an action because of its intent, or punish someone for a crime that did not happen,

agreed

hello

I don't have to like it, and I don't have to support it, but that doesn't mean they should be stripped of their ability to play a sports

Its kinda bad sport to refuse a challenger.

especially a strong one, when you're also strong

If I cause a pregnant woman to miscarriage, should I be charged with manslaughter or destruction of property? This bleed into the pro-life debate

Do people who abort babies see them as property?

That's pretty fucked.

It would be manslaughter though because unlike abortions the women doesn't give consent.

depends on intent, and itd be manslaughter of course.... thats how its always been for hundreds of years

could also be murder too obviously

Well that would be causing bodily harm

Definitely not destruction of property, but something else like grievous bodily harm makes sense

historically, the "quickening" stage of pregnancy/fetal development is when they used to begin the threshold of manslaughter charges i think

yeah could be extra charges, for sure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening "In pregnancy terms, quickening is the moment in pregnancy when the pregnant woman starts to feel or perceive fetal movements in the uterus.[1]"

I thought quickening was supposed to double your move speed and grant one more attack at your highest base attack bonus on full attacks

obviously thinks are different now... just giving some historical perspective

LOL yeah, and battling other rival immortals to the death by decapItation ..... thus receiving MORE COSMIC LIGHTNING ENERGY DEMI-GODHOOD STRENGTH

Potential to recieve cosmic lightning energy demi-godhood lured me here,!

Whats going on?

LOL i couldnt help that

Yes i think its manslaughter to intentionally cause a woman to miscarry against her consent

thing is these days..... we have technology that can even sustain the life of a fetus before the quickening

so potentially survivable outside the womb still ..... and will be easier and easier as technology and markets evolve to becomes cheaper and more accessible

good, soon i can clone myself!

without the need of a wamen!

for real, but you'll still die one day LOL .... so iono how that would be rationally self-interested 😉

well hopefully by taht time i can use something like gene modification to be able to rebuild my genetic sequence to younger, so i can just be spawned anew 😄

Dr.Wol REBORN

HEH for real! im wif u

with a second penis ofc

jsut cuz

always funny to think about how the elites think immortality will come from simply "copying" their brain more or less into an AI system or another clone or something .... cuz all the clones or even possibly a cognitive AI one day will only THINK they are reincarnated in their new shells

well, that horror game explored that theory

But it's still increasing the length of influence 'you' have on the world

SOMA was it?

fact is.... they die. and the clones live

assuming that there cannot change their volitions or intent into their new lives

what if they end up becoming the very anti-thesis of everything you believed in?

that would be hilarious for a movie

a billionaire capitalist clones himself to escape death

so yeah... influence yes, but not the kind one would have wanted necessarily

and his clone becomes a communist 😄

One of the interesting parts of the manga 'Gantz' was when a teleporter malfunctioned and didn't delete the person's body but still recreated it elsewhere, so now they have two of the same person, and only one of them actually gets to keep their normal life

heh, exactly.... the tragic irony!

Star Trek did that story too

probably got it from them then

Commander Riker was teleported during some storm on an abandoned base

his teleportation was succesful, and backfired

so a duplicate was left on the station for years

another random debate. would it be unethical to force a clone into slavery?

yes

a clone is stil its own person

mhmmmmm 😉 of course.... would he not be human too?

he/she LOL

If it were genetically modified to have no emotions I think it would change quite a bit, but it might be hard to motivate someone like that to work

i would even argue that an GMO clone born of asexual gender type (born steril w/ no reproductive cellular presence) would still be human w/ natural rights

I think there's a fair argument for it not being human, but that if they think and feel like a human does then they deserve all the same rights

so maybe even kind of humanoids would still have human rights most likey.... natural rights that is

sociopaths arent human to you?

and really in that case I'd still want to call them human when not discussing biology

emotion is a small thing for being human

Sociopaths have emotions

psychopath then, whichever is the heartless kind

They do too

not all of them

But really what is 'human' is more about definition than anything else. There's no clear line where one animal becomes another

i'd say genetics

chromosome count

state of sentience

But how different do the genetics have to be?

Humans have variability in all of those cases

its not how different

its how similar

That's the same thing worded differently

no its not

how so?

it has more to do with intellectual capacity for complex reasoning and rationality, ability to communicate linguistically and accept moral agency, etc

if things are similar, you check for overlapping similarities

If you look at the difference, you pick a different category

It is why a whale is a mammal, and not a fish

But then vegetables aren't human(or aren't deserving of rights if that's what you mean)

that AND some common sense.... like AIs and stuff.... purely cybernetics, etc.. clearly not human (common sense)

Yeah, but similarity is just a measurement of difference where you look for smaller amounts of difference

Humans are quite similar to many animals

yes, but it narrows it down considerably

you start from the opposite end basically

true

like i said, its more about a highly evolved state of sentience (spiritual, philosophical, etc)

but either way you put it there's no clear line in how similar you have to be to still be considered a human

less about genetics per se

i'd say to the point that any sample of you can be recognised as human

say you're given a cell, and they check its chromosome count/genome etc

I mean, a dead person, is still the corpse of a human

His state of life (thus lack of sentience) doesn't discount his humanity

but evolution is often a very slow change, and what's seen as anatomically modern human today may vary from those 300 years from now

thats a way of measuring/quantifying one way out of many potential ways outside of biology

well you don't compare with humans of old, you compare to the current average human

its like uhm

We used to be the same primates as modern monkeys

But they aren't human, even though the same generation 100,000 years ago for example would be the same being

We didn't evolve from monkeys

we share a genetic ancestor with them

thats what i said

we used to be the same primates

the elite have a fantasy of splitting us down different evolutionary paths gradually with all the "soft" eugenics going on indirectly and directly

and modern monkeys used to be that same one

the elite aren't smart enough for that

like straight up Eloi/Morlocks from the Time Machine status .... more or less LOL

I wish, then atleast they'd have a plan

That's part of why I think it's not a good idea to create concrete definitions of what is human and what is not. Dehumanization is a very dangerous thing.

Also I think it's just not really possible to do with the way biology works

can an AI be human?

Depends on whether you're defining humanity by body/mind/spirit

"not a good idea to create concrete definitions" you dont think that ABSOLUTELY though right?

cuz i mean.... i love eating avocados

Personally I'd say no, but if they are of human intelligence then I'd say they deserve to be treated as humans

yes you treat them as equals, but you don't consider them human, so you do have a definition of what defines a human

Well yeah I'd be willing to say something isn't a human, but to make an exact definition of 'this is a human anything that differs is not human' is where I think it gets fuzzy and dangerous

i would say no to AI .... just like why corporations arent people ....... they would be "super" humans of a literall different physical class of humans/people

humans arent immortal

a dog isnt human, an ant isnt human

Human is a type of species

@Schedrevka yeah, i agree with all that too

and since we don't have a good concept of an "equal" species, we level everything to human

Hence "acting humane" etc

"humanists"

@Dr.Wol also true too tho

So i think what we 3 have here, is a different concept cuz I believe we have a mixture of "being human" and "having humanity"

why the NAP cannot be applied to animals in the same way it will be (and should be) applied to humans universally by the force of common law, natural law (such as in the case of replacing the social contract with the NAP)

I think there's a difference in what is biologically human, and something 'having humanity'

exactly, so do i

and because animals dont follow the NAP either amongst themselves .... so we are not exactly going to make a rapey dolphin prison for all those rapey dolphins and other animals

but I wouldn't want to give exact definitions on either since people will use those labels to say 'this person lacks it' to justify doing awful things to them

"being human" is just the state of biological to me, hence i place it under identified by genetics

but YOU can personally apply the NAP to animals in yoru own life, just the point is that you cannot impose it on someone else like the NAP can be potentially

I would agree with you Schedrevka, but the world shows us that people don't need a reason to hate another "This person is black colored, so he's lesser"

like me, im vegetarian for the most part... but NOT going to impose it on others .... especially not go full militant vegan to liberate all the farm animals

no go full vegan anyways LOL .... maybe for a few weeks here and there to experiment, i might try

butter is good for you tho

in moderation 😋

everything is

LOL no dude. dont even start trolling

drink a "moderate" amount of chlorine and come back to us to say how you feel

well, a moderate amount is hardly anything 😛

anything above that and it becomes "lethal"

now a moderate amount is hardly anything .... oh yeah, and an excessive amount is now hardly a moderate amount too

well, moderate is an indication

not a set value

I drank chlorine before. I think everyone who has been to a public pool has.

its a set value depending on what it is and what its being used for and how, etc ... all sorts of factors

ya, not pure chlorine though

highly diluted, of course

Sure.

yeah, how about a moderate amount of rat poison like fluoride either is good for you too, riiiight

it is actually

LOL dude, you are just trolling in this <#463068752725016579> thread

Moderate amount of radiation too you know?

A moderate amount of poisons CAN be good for you. Medicines are essentially poisons. A poison is just something that interacts with the body to throw it out of balance so to speak. But when the body is already out of balance that poison can swing things back towards the middle

NOBODY says the fluoride in "moderate" amounts is good for you ... not even the dental associations, etc

But yeah I'm skeptical of fluoride being a good thing to add to the water just for the purpose of dental hygiene

they all say a SMALL amount is "safe" or at least is less unsafe than more amounts of it of course

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/moderate

a SMALL amount being "safe enough" (apparently) does not mean "moderate is good for you!"

and?

"kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits"

if small is the reasonable amount

small is the moderate amount

I did not troll

You saying i am doesn't make it so either

i was talking "safe" ... but you were saying "good" ... theres a huge difference between the two... being "within safe amount" is less than the threshold of danger and damage... does not necessarily mean more of it is good for you like you know how like some things are GOOD things are good for you to eat more of ... its a directional issue ... more of/ less of ... compared to base amount .... good/bad .... safety/risk

i noticed that you like to slip from playing devil's advocate to borderline trolling

I said everything in moderate amounts, don't put words in my mouth now, thats rude 😦

you said that everything in moderate amounts is GOOD

yes

me: butter is good for you tho
in moderation 😋
Dr.Wol - Today at 2:25 PM
everything is

because i follow the dictionary definition of moderate, which means "reasonable or proper limits"

And if a small amount is reasonable

Small is moderate

did you not follow what i was talking about "good" vs "safe" ??

last i checked, safe is a good

If you go beyond safe levels, it tends to be bad

youre just playing word games

am i wrong though?

safe is BETTER relatively to less safe... not necessarily good if there is still an unecessary or irrational risk takign place

then we just vary on our definitions of what constitutes safe in terms of substance

"Fluoride toxicity is a condition in which there are elevated levels of the fluoride ion in the body. Although fluoride is safe for dental health at low concentrations, sustained consumption of large amounts of soluble fluoride salts is dangerous." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity

and i would argue that isn't a moderate amount anymore, when you exeed safety levels

looooooooooow concentrations .... not "good for you in moderate concentrations"

but the moderate theshold is low in this case

dude, you can do something that is BAD for you in "moderation"

alcohol for example, "safe in moderation" still BAD for your health

anyways

i gtg

alrighty then, and we'll have to disagree on that one i guess 😛

**Hi, Welcome to WatchMojo, today we'll be counting down our favorite Top 10 Top 10 Countdowns. Number 10: WatchMojo's Top 10 Top 10 Countdowns. In this top 10 countdown, WatchMojo counts down their favorite top 10 top 10 countdowns, starting with WatchMojo's Top 10 Top 10 countdowns.**

dafuq is watchmojo?

okay maybe alcohol is a bad example bcuz 1 glass of red wine or even only 1 beer per day might be good for your health.... but smoking and other drugs though... yeah maybe "safe" in moderation, but still bad for your health such as some hard drugs

I only smoke crack recreationally.

And to help me get started with my day

And to help me get to sleep

And for social purposes

okay.... so in moderation, right? but it also comes with its side effects that could be hurting you more in the long run

depends, on stuff like crack, the moderate amount is the kind that wont get you addicted i guess? 😛

And for forgetting the side effects that are hurting me more in the long term

i mean... just rolling with your devils advocate for a min 😉 obv you dont really do that

but we'll have to shelf this discussion for another day, i don't wanna keep you here

see, thats exactly what im saying ... moderation not neccesarily good bcuz of the net risks and other externalities

Nah i do devils advocate, constantly, and yes my online personality is annoying to troll levels,
But i don't do it to just piss you off, i do take part in the debate

well thats a difference in how we percieve moderation, because to me moderate is non-negative amounts

you gotta be more honest in a true debate though

I am honest

But its a tactic, it throws people off

hope so! so you really wouldnt force vaccinate anyone against their will ACTUALLY irl, then

no 😄 i'm not a monster

see, thats whats im talking about. that was trolling. funny, but not an argument in a debate

If i'd force such things, i'd be no better than any authoritarian that says "I'm doing X against your will because its for your own good"

well, the debate was long over at that point

ya but this is a debate thread ..... why the distract tactic to "throw people off" from real arguments. that is pure sophistry

Don't expect anyone you debate to play fairly,
The influential people of the world won't

Learn to notice it so you can call such people out on it

like you did after

then why treat this as a debate thread?

to practice debating with people ofc 😄

sets a bad precedent to delve into counter-productive trolling in a "debate"thread

its not really debating though .....