a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by user-inactivated
user-inactivated  ·  2434 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The problem of hyper-liberalism

One of the very last interactions I had on Reddit was someone talking about "otherkin." This was, 5-6 years ago now. I said that this sounds like a cry for help and mental illness manifesting itself, something along those lines, and that parents should step in and correct this behavior. The comment was not in anyway abusive or attacking an individual, yet SRS linked my post and started trolling me. The stated posting personal dox on me, threatened to talk to my boss (who would have loved to hear I pissed off a bunch of liberals to be honest) and stated to follow me on other forums. I then realized I don't need this shit, began deleting everything I had contributed to Reddit, said fuck the internet and nuked a ton of forum assets, and walked away. I joined Reddit and created an account in the first two-three months that they allowed logins (2007?), from a Fark link I believe. The guys in r/space and r/astronomy had already moved out by the time I was done, so nothing of real value was lost to me.

Want to see the pure toxic fuckery of the Left? Go to ShitRedditSays. Hell, if you feel like hating yourself for an hour or so go browse TumblrInAction. On the Right? TheDonald.

The Gish Gallop, done by a master of the craft, is a work of pure art. I'm talking a form of bullshittery that few can master and none can beat. Sam Harris debated William Lane Craig and won him by ignoring him on his gallops and stuck to the core arguments link to the debate if interested.





faleidel  ·  2430 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I think William Lane won that debate. Not that I think he is right and not that I believe in any god but Sam talked a lot about why he think god does not exist even if that was not what the debate was about. William was good at making clear arguments and following logical steps and trying to answer to Sam. I disagree with William basic arguments and I think he is missing some insights on the subject but he was way better then Sam.

As an aside note, I think that there is no absolute moral objectivity in the world. There only is a moral that is relative to the human condition. So William is right, god is a solution to the "absolute objective" moral of the world but only because starting with something that is false (god) you can come up with something else that is false (an absolute moral ground blablabla...).