Forums are dying its all Facebook, Reddit, Discord these days. Only forums that are special are keeping there head above water.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
The Politics of Life
- Thread starter Mythtaken
- Start date
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
That's too bad. FB, Reddit and Discord all suck.
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
Process of elimination. Atheists automatically disqualify themselves. There is an incontrovertible flaw in atheism that prevents an atheist from knowing what life is and how it began. A fatal flaw in their programming, so to speak. Because if atheism was correct, then their could be nothing that knows what life is.
Yawn. You've been gone for, what, a year ish? And when you return you spew the same inane drivel as before. Your post is less than two lines of text, and contains SIX assertions. Naturally without a single shred of evidence or argument to back any of them up.
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
Yawn. The atheists are equating babies with parasites again. How noble of them. 
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
He has the time, trust me. That's the kinda life atheism brings. I'm sure his sofa has taken over the bodily autonomy of his ass by now.
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
How many of your atheists brothers have euthanized themselves?
Yawn. The atheists are equating babies with parasites again. How noble of them.
Do continue to ensure you never post anything substantive, it would be a tragedy to break the tradition of a lifetime. You're quite welcome to continue to believe that you are fooling anyone, you aren't.
I don't have any brothers. And even if I did, what would it matter? Please make sure you don't answer that question, keep the tradition going, don't break the streak!
If you continue to troll this thread, it only takes me a moment to prevent you from doing so further. Keep it up, watch what happens. You can ask your imaginary friend to stop me if you like, but we both know that won't work.
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
What would it matter if your atheist brothers euthanize themselves? It would matter because our lives have value, SD. The reason you think that's "insane drivel" is because if atheism were true, we would not even have the capability to know what life is.
So of course, people like you have no choice but to value your atheist ideology over human life! That's your whole point, right? Is there some other point you or HWIN has that I am missing here?
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
Is a baby a parasite, SD? Yes or no?
So as mentioned, you can go on the naughty step for trolling, once again. See you in 24 hours.
That is true. It is also true of plants, cells, and viruses. Shouldn't everything "alive" be offered the same protection?
Just curious. What makes a fetus more "clean" or "innocent" than any other living person? Are they even the same thing? How do you define innocence and at what point does a human cease to be innocent?
Forums aren't dying because people aren't interested in them anymore. It's because Google stopped being a search engine in favour of being an advertising entity. Queries no longer show forum results, instead pushing everything to reddit, since that's the platform Google uses to train it's AI.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
It would behoove you to address all these mistakes and lies.
Smuggling in your religious beliefs, I see. You realize that people are all innocent and having sex is not a crime. You might think it is based on your spiritual beliefs, but no one cares about those here.
More feelings based on your religious beliefs. I could just as quickly say, "Robbing the bodily autonomy of a person seems incredibly evil." We both have given just as many facts.
Thus, it is fair to call you anti-choice and not pro-life. Noted.
You realize that "safe, legal, and rare" has to do with teaching complete sex education to children. Keeping it rare means that people still have the choice to do it if all other forms of contraception they used failed. It would also apply to saving the mother's life, but not only for that purpose.
Yup, and it does not matter.
Yes, we noted that you are anti-choice for religious reasons.
No, it does not.
Yup, and it does not matter.
The fertilized egg wanders around before it attaches to the uterus. But all jokes aside. It does not matter anyway.
I am glad you can understand the analogy. If someone was on your property, unconscious or not, would you be responsible for them? Would you also be able to send them packing? I mean, again, it does not matter how they got there; it is the fact that they are on your property.
Yeah. I keep pointing that out, and you respond with nothing but your feelings.
I love that you say you are not making the naturalistic fallacy right before making it again.
Again, it does not matter if you claim you are not making the naturalistic fallacy when you keep returning to it.
That would be true if it were rape. Again, sex is not a crime. Please leave your religious beliefs at the door.
Wow. Now, you are comparing humans to chickens. Yes, we violate chicken's bodily autonomy. However, you realize that chickens are not humans and thus not afforded the same rights, right?
Again, we already know you are anti-choice. You are not saying anything new here. Beyond that, you said you could see "safe, legal, and rare," but you keep stating things against that slogan. Safe, legal, and rare is a pro-choice way of looking at abortion, not one that limits it based on your narrow religious beliefs.
How evil is it to unsympathetically take away someone's bodily autonomy?
See how easy it is to make an emotional argument. Again, you go against what "safe, legal, and rare" stand for. I was right to point out that you have not thought much about this topic, only have emotional/religious reasons, and do not understand basic phrases.
Again, sex is not a crime. When it comes to abortion, both parties are innocent. You failed to show anything else.
Smuggling in your religious beliefs, I see. You realize that people are all innocent and having sex is not a crime. You might think it is based on your spiritual beliefs, but no one cares about those here.
More feelings based on your religious beliefs. I could just as quickly say, "Robbing the bodily autonomy of a person seems incredibly evil." We both have given just as many facts.
Thus, it is fair to call you anti-choice and not pro-life. Noted.
You realize that "safe, legal, and rare" has to do with teaching complete sex education to children. Keeping it rare means that people still have the choice to do it if all other forms of contraception they used failed. It would also apply to saving the mother's life, but not only for that purpose.
Yup, and it does not matter.
Yes, we noted that you are anti-choice for religious reasons.
No, it does not.
Yup, and it does not matter.
The fertilized egg wanders around before it attaches to the uterus. But all jokes aside. It does not matter anyway.
I am glad you can understand the analogy. If someone was on your property, unconscious or not, would you be responsible for them? Would you also be able to send them packing? I mean, again, it does not matter how they got there; it is the fact that they are on your property.
Yeah. I keep pointing that out, and you respond with nothing but your feelings.
I love that you say you are not making the naturalistic fallacy right before making it again.
Again, it does not matter if you claim you are not making the naturalistic fallacy when you keep returning to it.
That would be true if it were rape. Again, sex is not a crime. Please leave your religious beliefs at the door.
Wow. Now, you are comparing humans to chickens. Yes, we violate chicken's bodily autonomy. However, you realize that chickens are not humans and thus not afforded the same rights, right?
Again, we already know you are anti-choice. You are not saying anything new here. Beyond that, you said you could see "safe, legal, and rare," but you keep stating things against that slogan. Safe, legal, and rare is a pro-choice way of looking at abortion, not one that limits it based on your narrow religious beliefs.
How evil is it to unsympathetically take away someone's bodily autonomy?
See how easy it is to make an emotional argument. Again, you go against what "safe, legal, and rare" stand for. I was right to point out that you have not thought much about this topic, only have emotional/religious reasons, and do not understand basic phrases.
Again, sex is not a crime. When it comes to abortion, both parties are innocent. You failed to show anything else.
That's an interesting argument.
From this it seems you would be in favour of a scenario where sexual intercourse could only occur when a couple (because I'm pretty sure you aren't a fan of single mothers) has decided jointly to have and raise a child. Perhaps there could be a government form or a legal contract to sign before hand.
Or, perhaps you agree with the idea of all males undergoing a reversible vasectomy until, again, such time as a couple agrees to have and raise a child.
Either of these would eliminate what you call "convenient" abortions and ensure all children are cared for by both parents.
Forgot to reply to this. Not saying that your claim is untrue, it may well have some truth to it, but Borg is also correct in his sentiment. Forums (or, Fora, for the posh) just aren't what they once were in general. There are doubtless some forums out there that are still bristling with activity, but by and in large they have been superseded by other platforms. As for Facebook, forget that for serious discussion. But Discord, Clubhouse (to some degree) and probably some others have taken over. It isn't 2009 any more I'm afraid.
Plus, since faster internet has been largely available, VOIP has seen a massive boost in popularity, that's where Discord shines. There's also the consideration that since VOIP, free recording software and the ability to store and upload such recordings create an everlasting (to the extent that it can be) account of debates, discussions, exchanges etc that keyboard warriors are largely not taken seriously any more. I can expand on that if necessary, and I'm not calling you a keyboard warrior, but forums just aren't really where debates happen very much any more. The endless, tedious typing to people who are totally anonymous and not accountable to anyone at all just isn't where it's at now. Again, this post isn't personal, it's not directed at you, more of a general observation reflecting the reality of debate.
No worries. Even if you were directing that at me personally, it's fine. I'm not easy to offend.
I agree with what you're saying about forums and about platforms like discord. The true keyboard warriors have all moved to social media (especially the platform formerly known as Twitter) making them largely unusable and irrelevant.
I should have said the change in Google is only part of what has brought forums down by making it increasingly difficult to find them for anyone looking for content on a particular topic. Those of us running forums watched the steady decline in traffic (particularly new traffic) that coincided with the change in Google's direction. At this point it's often only word of mouth or the few that use other search engines that lead people to discover forums.
Far more devastating to the forum market has been the use of mobile devices for browsing internet. They are portable, always on conveniences that can be really good for finding and reading some content wherever we are. But they are also horrendously bad at creating content, especially the sort of long-form content that powers forums. All the mobile friendly design in the world won't make it easier to type a three paragraph response on a phone. The majority of users just won't do it.
I don't agree with those who claim forums have had their day and should be shelved. There is still a need for the type of slow, thoughtful, long term discussion this format provides. Admittedly, the number of people interested in that level of participation has shrunk considerably, but that need will continue for some time.
The problem I see with platforms like Discord is, because of that voip capability, it most often becomes a place for argument and shouting matches rather than discussion or debate. There is a sense of competition there, where the loudest, harshest voice wins, rather than a rational exchange of thoughts and ideas.
I don't know if forums will ever gain more traction again. Some people have high hopes for the fediverse, but time will tell on that front. I still think the need for forumesque discussion still exists and until something better comes along that fills that need, forums will still continue in their little corner of the internet.
I agree with what you're saying about forums and about platforms like discord. The true keyboard warriors have all moved to social media (especially the platform formerly known as Twitter) making them largely unusable and irrelevant.
I should have said the change in Google is only part of what has brought forums down by making it increasingly difficult to find them for anyone looking for content on a particular topic. Those of us running forums watched the steady decline in traffic (particularly new traffic) that coincided with the change in Google's direction. At this point it's often only word of mouth or the few that use other search engines that lead people to discover forums.
Far more devastating to the forum market has been the use of mobile devices for browsing internet. They are portable, always on conveniences that can be really good for finding and reading some content wherever we are. But they are also horrendously bad at creating content, especially the sort of long-form content that powers forums. All the mobile friendly design in the world won't make it easier to type a three paragraph response on a phone. The majority of users just won't do it.
I don't agree with those who claim forums have had their day and should be shelved. There is still a need for the type of slow, thoughtful, long term discussion this format provides. Admittedly, the number of people interested in that level of participation has shrunk considerably, but that need will continue for some time.
The problem I see with platforms like Discord is, because of that voip capability, it most often becomes a place for argument and shouting matches rather than discussion or debate. There is a sense of competition there, where the loudest, harshest voice wins, rather than a rational exchange of thoughts and ideas.
I don't know if forums will ever gain more traction again. Some people have high hopes for the fediverse, but time will tell on that front. I still think the need for forumesque discussion still exists and until something better comes along that fills that need, forums will still continue in their little corner of the internet.
In the past Forums where high in the results of Google now these days Facebook groups, reddit, discord are more on the first page. Also people are not sharing information like 20 years back. Most consume and do not give back.