Lurker > CSCA33

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0199245a.jpg

katanablade will you send me a link to your youtube channel, i'll watch that video with the rainbow hair, or at least try to watch it as long as I can. I remember watching part of your video about the politics board 261 when someone linked it here

EPR-radar posted...

The issue with procon.org, as already mentioned several times, is that some of the issues it gives pro and con on are simply not up for debate among civilized people.

Two examples (of many) are teaching creationism in school science classes, and gay marriage.

To add to this, many schools host political debates in social studies or history class and use resources like this one to foster debate, assigning students essays to write on the subject. As of 2009, schools in all 50 states were regularly using material from that specific site to have classroom debates and as teaching material. The site itself also presents itself as material for teachers to use.

Some of the content may be fine, but some of it should absolutely not be used as debate material for students. This is an ongoing problem that we hear about from members of marginalized communities when they have to sit in class and listen to their peers debate things about their own humanity or basic human rights.

Scardude posted...

My point is that the use of the site is up to the person. Right now, you are using it as defamation piece where you can use it better for your own argument. To point out that there are no legitimate statements or science for markers for the side that is weak. This would better enhance your argument while taking into account the other side.

In reality, facts don't always convince people but at least you can shoot down while acknowledging their points.

Thats not how the site itself presents that information, though. You could say the same thing about forums that host discussions from white supremacists or tweets from trump. The source is not reputable or trustworthy in those discussions, and it is harmful content.

And they do have mention of scientific consensus on certain debate issues. Its outdated and problematic in the least, and a bad example to hold up as it was in this thread originally. Students should not be debating the humanity of vulnerable and marginalized minority groups under the guise of critical thinking.

It's not a strawman, it's an example of how there are topics that should not be put up for debate as if there is equal merit to both sides.

Katanablade posted...

i wouldent call it a site promoting hate ... Its just allowing both sides to have a mouth piece

Providing a platform for hate

I would again refer you back to the holocaust example and why that is not appropriate to present "both sides" as if they are equal, and the same can be said about this side presenting hateful bigotry as a debate with a valid side. There is no merit to it. They might as well have a pro/con debate about owning slaves in the US civil war era. But again this is about what is socially acceptable and culturally relevant, and that is a problem which needs to be addressed.

Teachers should absolutely not be using this resource to present classroom debates, as it's harmful to vulnerable and marginalized minorities to have our basic human rights and humanity put up for debate. It's egregiously outdated and out of step with fostering critical thinking.

More debates from that site:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/02316adb.jpg
-
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/8/8e7d3d94.jpg
-
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/173ede8d.jpg
-
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/5/5404ead7.jpg

Im digging into this pro/con website more and they also have pro/con debate of changing someones sexuality to heterosexual with conversion therapy

And the takeaway there is anti-LGBT+ sentiment is more socially acceptable than debating the holocaust.

Katanablade posted...

The holocaust is not up for discussion or debate on that site (ive had a look) so stop mentioning it, as thats strawmanning. Well, your entitled to your view on abortion, im not gonna debate with you

It's not a strawman, it's to encourage you to think critically.

Katanablade posted...

If Procon.org is not even addressing the holocaust, and is not allowing any stances on the subject that defend it, why do we even have to address it?.

And Antiyonder, i am not interested in having any debates with you on what subjects Procon.org is addressing and saying, thats not the reason i mentioned it. Im not being a spokes person for what other people have said

The point is to demonstrate that website is presenting bigotry and harmful content as if it should be allowed a seat at the table as a valid viewpoint. It implicitly affords legitimacy to hate while claiming to be neutral and nonpartisan.

On the topic of gay marriage, another facet is that there was no forcing anyone to engage in gay marriage. When people have religious objections to it, they are free to abstain from gay marriage. That doesn't mean they get to impose their religious belief on the rest of the country. The context of how those debate points are presented does not take any of that into account. It's not promoting critical thinking.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

This is categorically not true. Fetuses are alive, they're just not a life worth caring about more than a woman's reproductive rights. The fact that you've done the very thing you accuse pro-choice people of doing is comical

Looks like he tripped and fell on his katana with that one, metaphorically speaking

Katanablade posted...

I love the way people think that a website that is intended to be as middle ground as possible expects it to contain nothing but ethical stances they wholeheartedly agree with.

It does things like addresses the pro's and cons of legalising sex work/prostitution ect and lets both sides speak on it.

And those that are saying "there is no middle ground on abortion", they are doing exactly what militant vegans do, just come back with rhetorics that just appeals to their own sensibilities. Vegans see killing animals for food as an abomination, meat eaters dont, so they are never going to see eye to eye on the issue. Militant vegans say things like "i love the way people say i am a nasty horrible person for attacking people for choosing to eat meat. Who would you really say is the evilest person?, people that keep funding an industry that tortures exploits and murders innocent animals because of their taste pleasures, or someone like me who abstains from doing that, but sometimes when i address this atrocity to them, i say some horrible nasty things sometimes?"

People with pro choice views of course totally dismiss the idea that an unborn baby is valid life at all, so therefore no violation of human rights is being committed, so because of that they will never recognise any merit in the pro life stance and will make arguments to the pro life stances according to their own sensibilities.

Katanablade, do you think it is appropriate to debate the pros and cons of The Holocaust? If not, why would that be?

(My stance being that it is not appropriate)

Katanablade posted...

There is a website called https://www.procon.org/ that choose to see the ethical stances on abortion by trying to hold a middle ground. The site is secular, so its not a case of that everybody who speaks in the "con" arguments are just pastors and ministers. They hold the middle ground with abortion by saying "it pits off one persons rights verses another persons rights"

From your website that purports to be nonpartisan and presents "pros" and "cons" ostensibly to foster critical thinking -

on gay marriage:

Con 3
Gay marriage has accelerated the assimilation of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture to the detriment of the homosexual community.

Con 5
Gay marriage is contrary to the word of God and is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups.
The Bible, in Leviticus 18:22, states: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination, thus condemning homosexual relationships. [120]
The Catholic Church, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage.
Con 6
Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and, therefore, same sex marriage is immoral and unnatural.

This is hate speech dude, dressed up as legitimate debate points

What a game!!

Out of focus Wolverine silhouette

Smallville posted...

Looks bad right? Do you have a solution though, think there is one?

The time for that was back in the 70s and 80s when people were sounding the alarm about climate change, limits to growth, etc into the 90s.

We can still potentially mitigate some damage, protect biodiversity to some degree, but were currently at just about 1.5C warming with 2.0+C already in the pipeline. Our window to secure a livable future for humanity is closing and the powers that be are largely disinterested or otherwise unable to enact such widespread reform across the globe to mitigate the effects of rapid climate change and mass extinction. Major swaths of the planet will be uninhabitable by the end of the century.

Building and maintaining community is important at an individual level, for the populace. And living in the present.

Smallville posted...

Interesting had never heard of it. Sounds like it could be valid

It demonstrates one folly of the transition to green energy - we arent using less fossil fuels, were just using more energy as it becomes cheaper and more accessible, or otherwise sustaining BAU (business as usual)

Other problems involve time and resource consumption to overhaul infrastructure, further degradation of the environment, etc. Its not practical or sustainable, requiring more fossil fuels to build and maintain under our current systems. Its maintaining the status quo that got us into this mess in the first place.

We are already in overshoot - a population crash in the relative near future is unavoidable and this is demonstrated with physics.

emblem-man posted...

We don't really need a drgrowth mindset to combat climate change, and honestly, it's a losing argument to most people. You need a society that fully utilizes technology to build and create what we need for energy over-abundance

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9d56a208.jpg

MorganTJ posted...

I don't think overpopulation is a problem right now, but we definitely won't be doing anything about it when it does become a problem in the near future. Our quality of life as it is now isn't sustainable, and we're not going to slow down on resource use as much as we should.

We're supposed to stop eating fish for like one year so they can replenish themselves, and we're not even doing that.

Fish will be gone from the oceans by 2048

remember, trump supporters imagine him like those bad photoshops with action hero muscles so of course they will vote for him to be in better shape

SayHeyyShohei posted...

Why is everyone ignoring this nonsense?

If you think shes wrong, what do you disagree with her about? Perhaps youd like to restate your position on gender affirming care for children, since that went so well last time.

Scardude posted...

Explain what you mean further.

You've essentially suggested we entertain "view points" that would deny basic human rights for marginalized and vulnerable minorities, including children, as if those view points are valid and deserve a seat at the table.

People don't generally get moderated here merely for having a "different view point," they involve promoting misinformation / disinformation, misogyny or sexism, advocating bigoted ideology, and other harmful content. So, it's blatantly disingenuous to float these baseless assertions, painting yourself as a victim who decries this forum for not allowing people to voice their "differing view points."

And when pressed about what these view points are, you refuse to elucidate beyond a blanket "any" differing viewpoint, which we can infer to include bigoted ideology and disinformation from bad faith actors.

Scardude posted...

Any. I am critical to any opinions in real life or online. I'm not sure why this begs the question. People are quick to go for ad homeim attacks on the person for looking at the same issue differently. I'm not the emotional reader and many people don't understand that news is read to appeal to your emotions. It's how they sell. Taking a neutral tone with the subject is more than enough to ruffle any feathers on this board.

We see you dancing around answering the question about elucidating which viewpoints, and its very telling.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Speaking for myself, I personally appreciate cisgender allies who speak up for my basic human rights and fight against the spread of disinformation regardless of the forum, and voting blue is all they have to do to make a difference.

emblem-man posted...

We have means of having energy abundance, we just don't fucking build it.

Nuclear power plants?

Even if we manage to end our use of fossil fuels without allowing billions to starve to death (not currently possible), and create some magical technology to remove all of the excess CO2 we have put in the atmosphere which doesn't exist, the oceans have already absorbed incredible amounts of energy that we cannot wish away. This is triggering positive feedback loops with irreversible melting of the ice on the planet, reducing albedo, melting permafrost and releasing methane (more than 80x more powerful than CO2 for near-term warming), as well as increasing water vapor in the atmosphere (another potent greenhouse gas.)

The earth will continue to warm for decades even without emitting more greenhouse gases, and aerosol particulates from our pollution have helped artificially cool the planet by about 1C. The arctic will be ice free beginning during the summer within about a decade, until it is completely gone year round. This is known as a blue ocean event (BOE) and it cannot be stopped at this point.

Smallville posted...

yeah it has increased by a huge amount in the past century or so right? Isn't most of this due to preventing major disease, vaccinations and stuff? Or is it something else mostly , idk

This is due to the Haber-Bosch process, which is the primary method of producing ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen, which in turn allowed mass agriculture to flourish.

Without fossil fuels, the earth can only sustain about 1 billion people, maybe less. Even if climate change was not the crisis that it is, the population will still crash this century due to overshoot. Our entire modern civilization is built entirely on unsustainable practices and propped up by extracting fossil fuels that don't cost more than they return on energy. The amount of energy it takes to extract fossil fuels vs. how much we get out of it (ERoEI) has continued to increase over the years.

The oceans have been absorbing most of the excess heat that has been trapped by greenhouse gases, however, that is starting to change as the energy in the system continues to rise. We are experiencing amplification and exponential warming. While the past ~150 years have seen an increase of about 1.5C, we will reach 2.0C before 2050, and 4C+ warming by 2100 by conservative estimates.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151743/the-ocean-has-a-fever

https://twitter.com/SamCarana/status/1756444454087790608

https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1756333738521420040

LordMarshal posted...

Everyone strongly believes whatever and a random conversation wont change their mind. In fact theyre trying to change yours.

So thats moot. Just go vote for the politician thats apparently for whatever you think and thats the extent of what you can actually do.

And which politician would that be for yourself?

ellis123 posted...

How exactly is the reason + the dogwhistle a "good concise summation"? It's just the first one, the latter is just the same old garbage that falls apart upon any scrutiny. No one ever whines about "hamfisted" when it's something they like, no one ever decides that bad writing is something else whenever it involves non-women/minorities. It's only when it's garbage Republican BS that suddenly it goes from "bad X" to "too political", and the actual quality of the work/its overtness/etc. never comes into play. At no point is it anything more than skinhead nonsense.

For instance, in that crappy Cats movie they overtly did a real heavy amount of gay erasure. Like, they removed all non-hetero romances and even turned one of the lesbians into a villain of sorts. It was "political" from top to bottom in the same way that including a non-straight character is magically political: it isn't, but a bunch of people really hate it when marginalized people aren't being repressed. Now try and find a single person ever calling that crappy movie political. It's crappily written, it's hamfisted: show me that one person doing exactly what the dogwhistle promises and starts complaining about its political messaging.

Yup. Precisely.

This is functionally no different from conservatives who try to distance themselves from trump, as if they arent still cut from the same cloth at the end of the day.

You wont see any of those people complaining about something being too political when its packed to the gills with ideology and propaganda they agree with, reinforcing their patriarchal cishet normative worldview and culture, misogyny, erasure of minority struggles, etc.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/3c4ef783.jpg

Kradek posted...

Wasn't that like videomaster1 or something?

I remember that thread and being disappointed with the poster you're talking about because they were normally decent, but damn did they want to die on that hill.

PM sent

Yeah, this guy sent me some kind of manifesto basically defending marriage as one man and one woman, and we were the true bigots for legalizing gay marriage and infringing on his religious belief/rights, sanctity of marriage, etc.

this after he had a massive meltdown on 261 about how gay marriage shouldnt have been legalized, but he swears up and down he is not homophobic

Apparently he sent the same manifesto out to a bunch of users in private messages

Geiki_Ganger posted...

Except abortion relates to health issues, which is clearly in the province of the states.

Bodily autonomy would like a word with you.

s0nicfan posted...

You're correct that Section 3 doesn't say anything about charges, it just says that someone who engaged in insurrection can be barred. The problem is, from a legal perspective how do you prove that someone has engaged in insurrection without doing so through the courts? Section 1 of that same amendment also explicitly states that a person cannot be denied due process, so the very same amendment that people would use to remove him also requires that he'd be given due process. The fact that he's also been indicted on charges explicitly related to the election but hasn't yet gone to trial also shows that there are legal mechanisms to formally determine whether he is guilty of those things or not, so it will be that much harder to argue that he should be punished prior to those trials reaching their conclusion, because theoretically it would open the doors to pre-punishing anyone for crimes they've been charged with prior to their guilty verdict.

It doesn't deny due process though, and the trial isn't meant to determine if he is innocent, only guilty.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

It's the right call.

Narrator: It wasn't.

Yay

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/4cf1347c.jpg

This is what hate looks like.

We are not misunderstanding conservatives.

Disgusting.

She should be shamed for this, an act so clearly evocative of the Nazi book burnings.

Whats poppin in here

pinky0926 posted...

Is he a bad person or just the sort of smug asshole you hope to never get trapped talking to at a party?

More to do with his earlier years touring, having staff handpick very young women for him at all the shows over the years (regular thing in the music industry as you're probably aware) which eventually led to some sexual assault allegations.

I've never met him in person so there's just what you read about from other people meeting him, and he settled down with a family now.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I mean if you don't believe me, go post some questions online and see what they say...? I'm active in the trans community and this is my experience with discussions surrounding moving or visiting places, it depends on the laws and political climate, bills under consideration or what types of policies are being pursued, etc. We don't just make blanket statements "stay away from this state no matter what" for any place that has anti trans sentiment like Texas for example. In the US, Florida is basically at the top of the list of do not visit or move to live there.

We have trans people all over the US who chime in on these discussions with their lived experiences in said areas as well.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It depends on the context. Texas has recently made gender affirming care illegal for minors, so you wouldn't want to move there with a kid, but if you want to visit a friend or family, it's typically okay especially cities like Dallas or Austin.

Florida is more dangerous or risky to visit, but some still do it anyway.

Visiting Jamaica as a trans person has a distinct probability to end up getting murdered, and the police won't do anything to help or investigate.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

In the trans community at least, we don't advise people to avoid visiting Texas like we do with Florida (or Jamaica as another example.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4L20t8Dvlg

Mrbakerman25 posted...

Maaan im poor & disabled and lost my access to healthcare. It can happen to anyone. Wasnt personal. just the .gov being cheap af. What are these cases of being imprisoned w/o cause though? id like to find out about that.

Im like really sorry. maybe im not jaded or prejudiced enough against the system yet to see this as anything but a misunderstanding. And I try not to paint all republicans with the same brush.

The least you can do is have an informed opinion if you want to enter the discussion, rather than downplay and dismiss our concerns as illegitimate or irrational. Educate yourself.

Mrbakerman25 posted...

I really feel bad if its something that happened to you in the past that makes you think that is even remotely possible here. Nobody deserves to be so afraid. I couldnt even imagine the kind of riots that would take place. Like next level stuff. Scary stuff, man.

Believe it or not, there are other ways for conservatives to enact genocide that don't involve literally mowing us down in the streets en masse.

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has issued a red flag warning for the US concerning trans people. Please stop downplaying this danger as an irrational fear and educate yourself on the issues if you want to throw your hat in the ring.

Conservatives in the US are actively attempting genocide against trans people, to essentially make it a crime for us to exist, take away our access to healthcare, imprison us, etc. These are laws they advocate for and attempt to pass, and have already made progress in some areas of the country. Hundreds of bills have been filed across the US in 2024 alone so far, attacking basic human rights for trans people with codifying law, in addition to issuing guidelines and rules on the state level.

The front runner for the republican party has actively campaigned to make it illegal for all trans people in the US to exist when back in office.

This is really not debatable.