[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

That makes more sense. However, what general rules are you referring to that is common in western debates? Are you alluding to manners or something much more deeper? Regardless, I am interested in this debate and I'd like to see how it would turn out.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Are you alluding to manners or something much more deeper? Regardless, I am interested in this debate and I'd like to see how it would turn out.

Manners might be a bit simplistic, common-convention perhaps would be a better term, which is somewhere between manners and formatting. Most Americans who are evenly vaguely familiar with actual debates in the west would have a sense of what was appropriate and what was not, so it can be hard to explain.

As an example, in the case of a text-format as we are doing, posting out-of-turn would be a violation of "general rules" that are commonly accepted without having to be specifically outlined. Likewise, using excessive derogatory language or low-brow language would be considered inappropriate in serious debate, as would the sort of tactics and formatting that we commonly see from posters on here like POD and TTP, but also it would preclude the use of memes and gifs, etc, etc.

A serious and civil debate ought to have the appearance of both civility and seriousness.

Now, granted, what we have agreed to in our debate is anything but formal in the typical academic sense, this is more-or-less going to be a low-stakes sparring session as there is no serious structure other than we each have eight-post-limits.

Structurally, I am going to try to establish the existence of an ontological category that is not physically reducible and likewise is subsumable under a commonly accepted definition of "mental."

A tall task indeed, but a low pressure one given the structure of the debate and the limited opportunity I have allowed myself to accomplish the task.

In all honestly, this debate is more of an opportunity to explain my ideas more fully for @Saeko, and to act as a prelude to letting her see my actual proof for God's existence and my bold claim that God must, necessarily, be Trinitarian in nature.

To be honest, as far as she is concerned, I think she sees the main debate as merely foreplay before getting to what she really wants.

I have set a criteria for my own checkmate in the debate only because I believe in stating such clear-cut goals for decisive victory ahead of time (following the medieval approach to public disputation) and as a personal challenge for myself as an academic. I want to see if I can accomplish that goal in only 8 posts, its going to be fun either way because I enjoy debating with intelligent, serious, open-minded, and civil debaters. I believe @Saeko is such a person which is why I agreed to debate.

I do hope you enjoy it and that I have answered your questions.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

To be honest, as far as she is concerned, I think she sees the main debate as merely foreplay before getting to what she really wants.

A new perspective and understanding on/of the world outside the concepts that are currently understood?

I have set a criteria for my own checkmate in the debate only because I believe in stating such clear-cut goals for decisive victory ahead of time (following the medieval approach to public disputation) and as a personal challenge for myself as an academic. I want to see if I can accomplish that goal in only 8 posts, its going to be fun either way because I enjoy debating with intelligent, serious, open-minded, and civil debaters. I believe @Saeko is such a person which is why I agreed to debate.

Oh, it's in 8 posts. That's fascinating. I would ask you to join in on the debate, but I feel that my philosophical stances may warrant an entirely different discussion unto itself. Although to be frank, I don't consider either you nor Saeko to be open-minded in any conventional sense of the word. Both your ideologies have close-mindedness as a virtue given it's nature to create closely-knitted communities which share a common vision. If either of you were to practice this ideology within your own lives (which you two have undoubtedly done), I don't see how the result would be very tolerant of other ideas especially those which are dangerous to the status quo.

Regardless, I think you two will be receptive to each others ideas. Your a far-right conservative and Saeko's a fascist in a romanticized, 1984-style fashion. There is a common ground between you two, and that is cold, hard conservatism. The only difference is the values which you guys hold conservatively.

[Victoribus Spolia]

A new perspective and understanding on/of the world outside the concepts that are currently understood?

Perhaps.

I would ask you to join in on the debate, but I feel that my philosophical stances may warrant an entirely different discussion unto itself.

Agreed.

Although to be frank, I don't consider either you nor Saeko to be open-minded in any conventional sense of the word. Both your ideologies have close-mindedness as a virtue given it's nature to create closely-knitted communities which share a common vision.

I suppose a distinction between "intellectually open to debate and differing viewpoints" and "tolerant of divergent practices within idealized communities" ought to be made.

I will debate anyone over a glass of wine, fine food, and good tobacco and with the utmost civility; however, I will not tolerate heresy and evil in my own home.

If my views are shown to be wrong, I will change my position and the position of my community and home will also be changed inasmuch as is possible by my own efforts.

Its that simple.

I am a Patriarchal Christian, so my home is governed accordingly and is not tolerant to grievous deviation, but the honest, open, and intelligent encounter with those we disagree I consider to be fundamental and I will teach that pattern to my children after me.

Regardless, I think you two will be receptive to each others ideas. Your a far-right conservative and Saeko's a fascist in a romanticized, 1984-style fashion. There is a common ground between you two, and that is cold, hard conservatism. The only difference is the values which you guys hold conservatively.

That is another reason why I was open to Saeko's request for a debate, I know there would be less inherent hostility between us because we had a few items of belief in common.

Someone who cannot allow themselves to be civil with their opponent because of the depths of their disagreement is no longer a co-traveler in the realm of ideas with whom debate is possible with any sense of honor or civility, rather such persons are truly enemies with whom no compromise is possible.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

I suppose a distinction between "intellectually open to debate and differing viewpoints" and "tolerant of divergent practices within idealized communities" ought to be made.

I will debate anyone over a glass of wine, fine food, and good tobacco and with the utmost civility; however, I will not tolerate heresy and evil in my own home.

If my views are shown to be wrong, I will change my position and the position of my community and home will also be changed inasmuch as is possible by my own efforts.

Its that simple.

I am a Patriarchal Christian, so my home is governed accordingly and is not tolerant to grievous deviation, but the honest, open, and intelligent encounter with those we disagree I consider to be fundamental and I will teach that pattern to my children after me.

I ask you this, and I hope you draw no offense as to what I am suggesting, but let's say one of your sons becomes a liberal. He develops an affinity towards conventional American liberalism, adopts American liberal culture, and is open about this towards you and the rest of his family. What would be your reaction?

That is another reason why I was open to Saeko's request for a debate, I know there would be less inherent hostility between us because we had a few items of belief in common.

Someone who cannot allow themselves to be civil with their opponent because of the depths of their disagreement is no longer a co-traveler in the realm of ideas with whom debate is possible with any sense of honor or civility, rather such persons are truly enemies with whom no compromise is possible.

Agreed.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I ask you this, and I hope you draw no offense as to what I am suggesting, but let's say one of your sons becomes a liberal. He develops an affinity towards conventional American liberalism, adopts American liberal culture, and is open about this towards you and the rest of his family. What would be your reaction?

I am not offended, of course.

If my OLDEST son deviated from the family's official positions he would forfeit his right to rule as the family patriarch and would not get a double-portion of inheritance, if he went so far as being an atheist he would get absolutely nothing and shunned altogether. My oldest son is held to highest standard and I expect him to take up my cause and to govern the family after me and after it teachings and principles.

So it depends on the degree of deviations, atheism, heresy, etc., are all differing matters. The belief in a state and a democratic one at that is erroneous in my opinion, but not so heinous that I would break communion so long as he remains within the orthodox Christian tradition. In fact, I would be quite lenient in that regards.

Christianity is the limiting factor for ALL of my children, but I am strictest in this regards regarding my sons and especially regarding the eldest son. Regarding the daughters, I find it to be far more important for me to vet the men who wish to marry them or with whom I have made prior arrangements through family networks.

Morality is another issue, I believe contraception is so immoral that I will not tolerate or commune with my kids if they grow up to embrace it in their own families since they would then be openly embracing a position after being actually raised and educated otherwise (I am very tolerant to people who do evil merely out of ignorance, this wouldn't be the case with my kids) and would ALSO be openly embracing a lifestyle that our family regards as being murderous by definition (this includes all the corollary practices like homosexuality, etc.).

Because they were all baptized, I am obligated to this position, which is different than the position I have with my brother (who is a godless homosexual and commie), for he was not baptized and was not raised to be patriarchal (neither of us were), so it is my hope that by my love and conduct that he may convert and change his ways (thus I am permitted to interact with him), but I am not permitted to associate with apostates (which my baptized children would be if they deviated from the True Faith).

Hope that answers your question.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

Thank you, now I will be able to respond to your post proper.

Isn't the household simply a very localized and slightly more close community? Furthermore, based on your present post, I assume that your stance on deviations within your community (i.e. family) is relatively harsh and the vision you have for your family is strict with no leniency towards those who tread away from the wider ideology your household maintains. Also, your open-mindness towards other ideas is based on the foreignity of the person expressing them and how much of an effect they have upon your daily life. This is why you may be fine debating with me or Saeko on this forum because our ideas or actions don't effect you and your community in any way. This isn't true open-mindedness, because open-mindedness is something you practice, it's a way you deal with differing values and ideals that intrude upon your life and this is done by integrating them into your life in a way that would effect you rather than merely observing them. Based on this, there is a clear separation between what you believe and how you react. You may tolerate certain ideas that are outside of your own but insofar they don't influence your community.

Of course, you have stated that you are willing to change your ways and I have no doubt that you would. However, what I call into question is exactly to what extent do you shift your ideology. I personally don't think that you would radically change your ways and I don't think, when you wrote that line, that you would expect to radically change your ways. I highly doubt, for example, that you would become more receptive of communism or socialism regardless of how effective the argument is. This is because you are a man of conviction, and so there would be nothing that could change your mind on the basic foundations of your thought. You could be influenced to change certain aspects of your thought. For example, I could convince you that a government should nationalize it's natural resources and I could be successful in that attempt but if I tried to convince you that homosexuality is perfectly fine that would be impossible. This is because one is compatible with the underlying values that you believe while the other is not.

With all of these points taken to account, I give you an open-mindedness score of 3.5/10 which quite frankly isn't that open-minded. If you were to have stake or vested interest in a larger community containing more than just your family, I'm willing to bet that your stance on foreign influence would be drastically different.

Once again, I apologize if I had trespassed upon your personal life through my criticism. I have no right to criticize what a man does to his castle.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Thank you, now I will be able to respond to your post proper.

Isn't the household simply a very localized and slightly more close community? Furthermore, based on your present post, I assume that your stance on deviations within your community (i.e. family) is relatively harsh and the vision you have for your family is strict with no leniency towards those who tread away from the wider ideology your household maintains. Also, your open-mindness towards other ideas is based on the foreignity of the person expressing them and how much of an effect they have upon your daily life. This is why you may be fine debating with me or Saeko on this forum because our ideas or actions don't effect you and your community in any way. This isn't true open-mindedness, because open-mindedness is something you practice, it's a way you deal with differing values and ideals that intrude upon your life and this is done by integrating them into your life in a way that would effect you rather than merely observing them. Based on this, there is a clear separation between what you believe and how you react. You may tolerate certain ideas that are outside of your own but insofar they don't influence your community.

Of course, you have stated that you are willing to change your ways and I have no doubt that you would. However, what I call into question is exactly to what extent do you shift your ideology. I personally don't think that you would radically change your ways and I don't think, when you wrote that line, that you would expect to radically change your ways. I highly doubt, for example, that you would become more receptive of communism or socialism regardless of how effective the argument is. This is because you are a man of conviction, and so there would be nothing that could change your mind on the basic foundations of your thought. You could be influenced to change certain aspects of your thought. For example, I could convince you that a government should nationalize it's natural resources and I could be successful in that attempt but if I tried to convince you that homosexuality is perfectly fine that would be impossible. This is because one is compatible with the underlying values that you believe while the other is not.

With all of these points taken to account, I give you an open-mindedness score of 3.5/10 which quite frankly isn't that open-minded. If you were to have stake or vested interest in a larger community containing more than just your family, I'm willing to bet that your stance on foreign influence would be drastically different.

Once again, I apologize if I had trespassed upon your personal life through my criticism. I have no right to criticize what a man does to his castle.

This is all true. Very good analysis.

Well Done.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

This is all true. Very good analysis.

Thank you.

Well Done.

I personally tend to prefer my analyses lightly done.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I personally tend to prefer my analyses lightly done.

You dropped the ball here. The better steak-analogy-joke would be to say that "I personally tend to prefer my analyses medium-rare" or something to that effect.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

I was going to go for "raw" but I was unsure as to whether or not that was the proper English term for "rare". Oh well, you win some you lose some.

[Saeko]

@Victoribus Spolia If either of you were to practice this ideology within your own lives (which you two have undoubtedly done), I don't see how the result would be very tolerant of other ideas especially those which are dangerous to the status quo.

Regardless, I think you two will be receptive to each others ideas. Your a far-right conservative and Saeko's a fascist in a romanticized, 1984-style fashion. There is a common ground between you two, and that is cold, hard conservatism. The only difference is the values which you guys hold conservatively.

The only dangerous ideology for a fascist is fascism.

[Oxymandias]

@Saeko

The only dangerous ideology for a fascist is fascism.

Depends on the brand. Personally, I like using Squadrismo as it keeps my local community peaceful, free, and strong.

[Decky]

It's obviously laurel. Yanny people are counter revolutionary traitors who belong in Siberia.

[Victoribus Spolia]

And these probability waves are very obviously mental concepts with no existence or meaning outside a perceiving mind.

we should get together and discuss things with scotch and pipe tobacco. You are my favorite foe of pofo

(see my mad rhymes there)

[Saeko]

@Victoribus Spolia

When's that thread coming?

[Victoribus Spolia]

When's that thread coming?

Probably Monday or Tuesday. Something like that.

You that excited huh?

[Missus V. Spolia.]

I heard Yanny because I am still young and have good hearing.