ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Discuss and vote on debates.
Forum rules
Debate participants, please wait until your debate is over before engaging in discussion about your debate.

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby MagsJ » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:04 am

thezeus18 wrote:Anybody want to translate Gamer for me?

Funnily enough, I understand every word of his post - I'm not sure if that's a good thing though. #-o
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16961
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Xunzian » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:27 am

Gamer's post was an anarchist's version of a debate. Both he and Smears managed to channel that free-wheeling spirit that is anarchy. Very meta.


Oh, and when is debate the second?
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10437
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:33 am

Xunzian wrote:Gamer's post was an anarchist's version of a debate. Both he and Smears managed to channel that free-wheeling spirit that is anarchy. Very meta.


Oh, and when is debate the second?


After the judging of debate the first, probably start sometime next week.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Wobbly » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:42 pm

Fuck ILO and Fuck ILP, Gamer wins in grand style.
Let preachers have their heaven, give the employers hell, and take the world for the workers
User avatar
Wobbly
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2695
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 6:16 am

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:44 am

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT:

As you all may be aware I will adopt an avatar in commemoration of the first ILP v. ILO Debate. In the event that ILP wins, I will make my avatar the scales of justice, or something along those lines, and if ILO wins, I will adopt an anarchy emblem as my avatar (Namely Gamer's) This will remain my avatar until the conclusion of all debates.

I would also like to announce that next year for ILO v. ILP Debate Competition 2010 that I will not be judging the debate, nor will I have anything to do with the organization thereof. I will be volunteering to represent the side that wins the second debate in this competition.

Thank you for your kind attention.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Carleas » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:26 pm

When will the second debate start?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:34 am

After the first debate has been decided. We're waiting on Phaedrus but KrisWest has told me she is prepared to judge and I will also be prepared after one more read-through. So, what I think I will do is post up in the morning hours (followed by KW) and then Phaedrus will post his decision last if it is not up by midnight tonight.

We will then change the judges' posting order for a later debate.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Xunzian » Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:05 am

So those writing the opening post ought have their statement prepared is what you are saying?
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10437
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:48 am

Xunzian wrote:So those writing the opening post ought have their statement prepared is what you are saying?


Should that person so choose. To the best of my knowledge, ILO is to post first in this debate, and they will still have the forty-eight hours from when I announce the second topic (officially) to do so.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Tab » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:30 am

Round 1 Judgements:

Damn my arrogance. :shifty: Wow - that one really came down to a photo finish. Ahead by 0.25.

Thank God we weren't rounding down. =D>

[Sits on edge of seat and chews nails.]
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:20 am

After giving the matter what I feel to be fair and due consideration, the penalty on Gamer (individually) has now been attributed to ILO. (As a team)

My judgment as well as Gamer's (individual) score has been modified.

I was blatantly wrong to penalize Gamer as an individual for what is (in my opinion and estimation) a team infraction and I sincerely apologize.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Tab » Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:17 am

Good job everyone and well, Yay for us.!!! =D>
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Ichthus » Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:22 pm

Finally read your post in Debate 1. I didn't want to read it 'in passing' or skim it due to lack of time. I thought you did very well. Definitely kept my attention once I sat down to read it.

I would like to respond to this part:

"The function of a law, a rule or a moral is not to erradicate totally the behaviour against which it proscribes but rather to reduce the probability that the majority of that society faces of ever becoming a victim of that particular behaviour to such a low degree that it becomes more reasonable, from a cost/benefit basis, on the part of any given individual member of that society to forgo taking prohibitive precautions against such an occurence in their day to day lives."
--Tab

You ended up saying it becomes more reasonable for an individual to let people get away with stuff. I'm just saying it could've been worded better. But I got what you meant. It means 1) they face the behavior less, and 2) they don't usually have to correct it if they do... they just call 9-11 or whatever. I didn't see why you felt it necessary to say the point was to reduce such behavior, not erradicate it (are you saying "the pipe dream is not there"? good point!). I was hoping for something like "law is good, does not merely proscribe or prohibit, but describes what is conducive to social cohesion... describes the 'mechanics' of social cohesion"... [and I would add] and so law is "lived out" in archic anarchies [but that sort of goes against the stance of both teams].

Congratulations! on the win. Unfortunately I'll be missing the final two debates.

Cool avatar (at the time of this reply, lol).

<><
Ichthus
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Tab » Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:38 pm

You ended up saying it becomes more reasonable for an individual to let people get away with stuff.


Ah, no. Sorry that was a horrible convoluted sentence. :D

Let me illustrate. Say you live somewhere very rainy. Everybody travels around in heavy waxed-cotton slickers and carries umbrellas which they hold down over their faces, so they can't see much beyond their toes.

They'd be stupid not to. They'll catch colds. Achooo!

Then the government employs anti-rainmakers. They sit on street-corners and chant away the rain. At first they are a bit so-so, and it rains off and on, unpredictably all over the place. So everyone continues to wear their restrcitive clothing.

But then the anti-rainmakers get better. They reduce the chance of rain down to the point where a few people start leaving their stuff at home and walk heads up and unencumbered aloong the streets. They get to their destinations quicker, and bump into each other less.

Some times it rains though, and they get colds. Achooo. Then the slickers laugh and say "ha, I told you so."

But then the anti-rainmakers get so good they nearly nearly stop the rain entirely. It rains a bit in certain places still, but as long as you detour around those places, you're okay.

Now everyone walks around in their shorts, getting tan and smiling. And they look at the slow old hardcore slickers and shake their heads as they rush by, out-competing them.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Ichthus » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:52 am

You skipped this part:

I got what you meant. It means 1) they face the behavior less, and 2) they don't usually have to correct it if they do... they just call 9-11 or whatever. I didn't see why you felt it necessary to say the point was to reduce such behavior, not erradicate it (are you saying "the pipe dream is not there"? good point!). I was hoping for something like "law is good, does not merely proscribe or prohibit, but describes what is conducive to social cohesion... describes the 'mechanics' of social cohesion"... [and I would add] and so law is "lived out" in archic anarchies [but that sort of goes against the stance of both teams].

[To reply to your reply: You're saying the anti-rainmakers (law-makers, law-enforcement) are employed by the archies, and all the archies are walking around with tans ('cause it's usually sunny), whereas the anarchists within the archies are all wearing restrictive slickers to protect themselves from crime (since they don't believe in law-making or enforcement, even though they benefit from it) and saying "See? Those law-makers and enforcers can't fix this!" whenever crime does happen. I like it--alot.... except the rain and the sun both have their ups and downs--but that which conflicts with love is never 'up' -- always 'down'. What would be preferrable, from where I observe, is that an "archy" besides God is not necessary, it is not necessary to have any "do nots", because everyone loves as they should (against such things there is no law). The kingdom of heaven, iow. Woohoo! Excuse me. Just makes me want to shout with approval.]
Ichthus
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Tab » Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:42 pm

Hey Ichthus,

Ichthus wrote:You skipped this part:

I got what you meant. It means 1) they face the behavior less,


No, they don't face it at all. That's the point. I mean, when I go to work, I don't expect, in any shape or form, to be stopped by bandits on the way. When I go to the local shops for some milk and a paper, I don't expect, in any shape or form, to be Shanghied by pirates.

These, in a sufficiently policed society, are things of the past. A can of mace in your pocket at the very most is enough for most folks. And for 99.99% of those folks, that will indeed, be enough.

and 2) they don't usually have to correct it if they do... they just call 9-11 or whatever.


No, that 0.01% get their asses killed. They are the unspoken statistical sacrifice of society - those that through no real fault of their own cross into the hinterland between an 'imperfect' level of policing that maintains a socially acceptable degree of privacy, and a fully invasive 'perfect' police state.

We allow people to die because we don't want the police collecting our faeces every morning, and taking blood-samples every night.

Which explains why:

I ... felt it necessary to say the point was to reduce such behavior, not erradicate it


"law is good, does not merely proscribe or prohibit, but describes what is conducive to social cohesion... describes the 'mechanics' of social cohesion"...


Law is neither good or bad. Except in terms of social [material] productivity, and the relative happiness of its members, on whatever arbitrary scale you would wish.

[and I would add] and so law is "lived out" in archic anarchies


Law is lived against perhaps. Forming the foundation for a more stable kind of social topography.

I like it--alot.... except the rain and the sun both have their ups and downs


So does the judiciary system. Why do you think I haven't gone back to England..? Nanny State, and a peacetime capitalist sponsorship of psychic neoteny.

--but that which conflicts with love is never 'up' -- always 'down'. What would be preferrable, from where I observe, is that an "archy" besides God is not necessary, it is not necessary to have any "do nots", because everyone loves as they should (against such things there is no law). The kingdom of heaven, iow. Woohoo! Excuse me. Just makes me want to shout with approval.]


I'm not religious.

jon.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Ichthus » Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:54 pm

Tab,

Maybe you don't expect stuff (reword what I said, "they expect rain less"), but it still happens (maybe not to you), otherwise, it would be "eradicated"... no? Those who face it don't all die... Ah, fuggetit, you're toying with me, as is evident in what you've said so far, and the rest of what you said. I don't even know what neoteny means... much less 'psychic neoteny'. And, no, I won't look it up--I'll prob'ly never hear it again the rest of my life.

I'm not religious.


Iow, you don't hold the same implicitly religious, unprovable faith assumptions as I do:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=166191

The end.

hopes Tab will let me get away with having the last word, heh
Ichthus
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 1 Conversation

Postby Tab » Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:44 am

I don't even know what neoteny means... much less 'psychic neoteny'. And, no, I won't look it up--I'll prob'ly never hear it again the rest of my life.


Psychic - of the mind, neoteny - extended juvenile state.

An 'artificially' preserved fearful childishness in society conducive to supporting a peacetime economy - a "one of every new toy, this is mine, I'm not sharing, isolationist" mentality.

I'm not 'last-wording' I think it's an important point, that's all.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Previous

Return to Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users