pinkdrunkenelephants @ pinkdrunkenelephants @sopuli.xyz

Posts

17

Comments

1,109

Joined

2 yr. ago

And then we add on another 30 days, and this court officially rules in favor of your opponent. Discussion over.

It's really that simple. The rest of us are trying to have a functional nation and doing what I just did right now is the best way to handle such disputes, because they force the offending party to stop concern trolling.

🤔 I should add an actual Good Faith clause to my own hypothetical Constitution, including rules for debates all parties must adhere to in every conversation, just so stuff like that can't happen anymore. Allowing it to go on was one of the root causes of the collapse of the U.S. and stopping people doing that would go a long way toward ensuring it can't happen anymore.

🧑‍⚖️ This court hereby deems you in contempt and in violation of the Good Faith clause of the Constitution of The Motherfucking Galactic Republic, enjoy your 30 days in jail.

See how simple that was? How easy it is to put a stop to arbitrary concern trolling via definition disputes?

I state that every new system we humans set up have clauses just like that one to stop people doing such things, so we can have not only a functional nation, but functional communication, period.

Many ancient kings who'd send people to war were themselves young or middle aged.

And we can see on Lemmy that tons of people explicitly want politicians of a certain age to be forcibly retired, be that age 80 or 75 or 65 or whatever. You're swinging young even by our standards. So we can conclude it is a slippery slope because it is kind of what people want, and will incrementally allow people to make what they want socially acceptable enough to pass bans completely. Which is, of course, what a slippery slope is.

Everybody else did the same with smoking bans. We have eyes that can see and ears that can hear. Come on now.

I don't even necessarily disagree with you. I just want you to think about what you're asking for.

The dictionary. That is the point of a dictionary. Its very nature is to be the authoritative source of what words mean.

You can choose to accept that, or if you choose to dispute it, we'll assume you're debating in bad faith, end the discussion, and this court will rule in your opponent's favor.

I didn't say god's gospel, I said authoritative sources, and they ought to be, because there has to be an arbitrary stopping point for such disputes that both parties have to concede to, otherwise debate in good faith is not possible.

Using definition disputes in such a manner as you propose would prevent the implementation of any law.

Just use a blockchain.

It holds objective value whether humans decide it has value to them or not. It's useful for certain things and would be useful for other intelligent, technological creatures besides humans because those uses are objective -- its malleability, resistance to rusting and conductivity make it valuable outside of the perceived human experience.

Land is probably a better measure of objective, external value though. Let's go with land -- the real rich people are the landowners, as they're the ones who can call the shots by deciding whether you can even exist in certain areas or not.

What about rich people not owning much but having everything in their company, non profit, etc.

Why do we collectively call people like that rich?

Most of the rich, including billionaires, don't have any actual wealth. Even the stocks they take loans out against aren't really a guaranteed source of funds; the stock market could crash over any little old thing, wiping the books.

I believe most rich people are just scammers who tricked everyone else into giving them special privileges, and most of America's wealth is not real. I think the real wealth, i.e. the gold and such, were stolen decades ago.

That's why it's bad to let people dispute terms in debates.

What do you mean by benefit? What does "better off" mean? Who gets to define it?

Well, it will satisfy your facetiousness, and short term, yes, maybe. But in long term, you’ve learned nothing and never wanted to. Us together? Nah, you’re clearly going to turn this into a competitive situation. Society? Nobody cares.

That's the point I'm making. It's why we don't let people dispute terms in debates and why we turn to dictionaries and other authoritative sources if there actually is an issue -- it stops people concern trolling to get around the law.

And the late bloomers who are unable to start their lives until their 50s, what about them? And that happens a lot; domestic abuse victims who are never able to escape and are turned into slaves for their narcissistic parents or spouses until they die is a pretty good example. It's at best an unnecessary hurdle devoid of context.

Quotas are just a slippery slope to bans, honestly. It's how all people are, not the current generation of tyrants we're trapped under.

I'm not judging you for offering your opinion on the matter at hand or anything. I just thought it was worth a quick debate, is all.

Now tell us what the word "though" means without a dictionary. Or "is". Or "entity", or "put". Define every single word you used to my satisfaction, and I will concede my point.

I don't know what you mean by context. Define context please. What do you mean by overlap? How do you define people? What does experience mean? What's a "though"? Isn't that that thing you make bread out of?

People can arbitrarily dispute the meaning of any word in bad faith. That's what bad faith arguing general entails. To have any system, we have to assume everyone involved is working in good faith, and to help foster that we have objective, authoritative standards for what words mean, like dictionaries.

The fact that a lot of our lives is based on context and collectively shared, but not articulated understandings of such things serves the point I'm making far more than defeats it. That context is why we don't allow people to dispute the meaning of words, especially basic words -- we already know what those words mean, otherwise we couldn't talk about anything at all, it's how humans are hard-wired. Any genuine dispute can be solved with a dictionary no matter how flawed or imperfect they may be.

Allowing people, corporations really, to dispute basic terms is one of the means by which they destroyed our legal system from the inside, and why so many people have put so much thought into how they personally would form a new system to begin with -- because we all see the rot and want out.

Oh, really?

How are we having this conversation then?

Most trans people wear heavy makeup to present as their desired gender. The ones that don't are the exception to the rule.

I mean, if we're supposed to debate the meanings of words we can look up in a dictionary, how could we do anything, let alone build a country? That's the kind of sophistry some corporate lawyer would do.

It's all good. I should've said something in the OP about it.

I'm here to hear other people's opinions, not judge them, even if I don't agree with them. A lot of the things I've put in my own fantasy Constitution are ideas a lot of people don't like. A lot of ideas you have are ones other people disagree with or would find authoritarian in their own way.

It just is what it is. It's politics. In a hypothetical situation where Americans are finally free again, people would band together based on political ideology and likemindedness anyway, so talks like this are vitally important so we know who is compatible with us and who is not.

So tl;dr don't sweat it. Have a friendly debate but don't worry about it other than that.

🤔 So like, what about trans people?

If I may ask, why the focus on personal appearance?