A Theory re: Why SJWs Don't Like to Debate Anymore and Where that is Headed.

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by Ming the Merciless, Feb 14, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Ming the Merciless

    Ming the Merciless Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2017
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    (1) SJWs have developed a reputation for refusing to debate. This is strange because there are so many subjects that could be debated; why would an entire group of people develop a reputation for refusing to debate anything at all? I believe this phenomenon merits further consideration.

    (2) The SJW's favorite subject of discussion is government control over people's behaviors. As such, their tendency to refuse debate is almost certainly rooted in that area. What is it about behavioral policy that makes them afraid to debate?

    (3) After many questionably-spent years as a keyboard warrior, I came to the conclusion that when someone is debating a policy for managing the behaviors of human beings, any debate that goes on for long enough will eventually ask a certain question: just what is a human being? This is to say that one needs to have a definition of what a human being is before they can debate policies for effectively managing human beings. Exempli gratia (sorry), if one has a policy for managing cars it would be necessary to have an agreed upon definition of what a car is. If one has a policy for managing the behavior of birds specifically, it would be necessary to have a definition of what a bird is. This is a fairly simple proposition that I believe any person who can understand it would agree with. I will give you one more example anyway: can you have a policy for managing men without agreeing upon what a man is? Etc.

    (4) Now we are getting back to the subject of SJWs and specifically, the LGBT+ community which is a core part of that movement. Why do they refuse to debate with anyone? It's because of what we discussed in section (3), they want to debate policies for managing human beings and yet they are afraid to define what a human being is. Let's consider the following common definitions of what a human being is, noting that the far left rejects all of these definitions as binding:

    (a) A physical body inhabited by some sort of soul, or if you're into Buddhism, some kind of physical manifestation of a ball of karma. It exists for a metaphysical/cosmological reason which is to be resolved. The left definitely does not broadly accept this kind of definition regarding what a human being is. This is significant if we consider that the origin of practically all law has arguably been rooted in such presumptions at some point in time.

    (b) A human being is a thoroughly evolved mass of cells that behaves in certain ways due to the laws of evolution. By its nature, it can have its behaviors at least partly predicted through an analysis of the phenomenon of evolution. It can also be presumed capable of evolving further across successive generations. Sounds like an invitation to racism and eugenics to me; the left does not broadly accept this definition of a human being either. Certainly they hate creationism but consider that they are not really "Darwinists" either. They are willing to use concepts like evolution up to the point where they feel that things like creationism have been successfully attacked, however if any policy conclusions are expected to be drawn in light of the theory of evolution they immediately abandon the debate because again, it raises questions verging upon eugenics and racism.

    (c) A human being is a largely undefined thing that can still be sufficiently managed from a legal standpoint because it falls into various stable categories, such as age, gender... I could go on but I don't think it's necessary here.

    (5) I believe the reason why SJWs don't want to debate with anyone anymore is because they know that the subject will be about policies for managing human beings; they know that if said debate goes on for long enough someone will ask them what a human being is; that question is too dangerous for them. It appears to me that literally any broad definition of a human being will offend someone within the LGBT+ spectrum and their goal is to accept literally everyone, even if that person thinks they are a unicorn etc. As such, they cannot define what a human being is. Therefore, they will not debate their own policy ideas with anyone who would ask difficult questions.

    (6) Finally we can ask ourselves where this situation is going. I see only two possibilities:

    (a) The far left never agrees upon a definition for a human being, never debates the policies they want to promote with anyone who will ask a difficult question and inevitably they die a rhetorical death from a million tiny cuts.

    (b) The far left agrees upon a definition of a human being as "a thing that can be whatever it wants". It appears that they are all thinking this and yet they don't want to say it out loud. Probably, they know that it is ultimately an indefensible position, too broad to base any coherent policy goals or rules off of. It either means nothing or, if one follows the logical chain for long enough, it goes full circle back towards attempting to define what a human being is, at which point it must either unmake itself or admit to being a case of circular logic.

    In conclusion, perhaps I have overlooked something and there is a third possibility here but for the life of me I can't see what it is. If you're into Traditionalism at all, you've probably heard the theory that the left is really nothing more than a foil against the right, something that cannot actually exist unless its enemy is coherent enough for them to define themselves in opposition to it. This is why they are "NPCs" instead of "Player Characters", when your identity is rooted in opposition to another thing you cannot exist without what you are against. Let's try not to make their mistake :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
  2. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,700
    Likes Received:
    2,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Evidence?
     
  3. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,850
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Demanding that speakers that they disagree with not be allowed to speak.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  4. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    14,152
    Likes Received:
    9,586
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The preponderance of video evidence of them responding to ideological challenges by chanting slogans and hurling insults instead of rebutting.
     
  5. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,374
    Likes Received:
    36,860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    source? proof??





    source? proof??






    source? proof??








    I will allow you to answer those queries before I ask for more.
     
    RiaRaeb likes this.
  6. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,700
    Likes Received:
    2,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Create a strawman of imagined traits, then expect the left to argue against the right's fantasies and feelings. No wonder no one bothers!
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019

Share This Page