Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though none of this alters how humans process observations and data, and the consequent internal creation of facts and opinions.
An infant is unable to verify and or validate a statement or claim of FACT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
the only way this comparison is somewhat fitting is if it deals with the first fox.
FIRST DOG.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do you, personally believe it is a moral good to stand by a drowning person and watch them drown without assisting them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No, you go by your "interpretation" of the voting standards which is subject to your "inevitable personal discretion."
The weird thing is that they don't even seem to recognize this.
QUANTAFIABLE STANDARDS.
If you're going to pretend to be "objective" then at LEAST make sure your "moderation" could be programmed into a computer.
OR, just admit your rules are QUALITATIVE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I believe BoP is best left up to the debaters to frame and the voters to judge.
Sure, but if that's the case, why bother writing down any rules at all or even mention "win by default"??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
As for the idea of forcing shared BoP: For many resolutions that would leave con being required to do the impossible of proving a negative.
Unless the resolution is framed in the negative.
For example, "MORALITY IS NOT OBJECTIVE".
PRO would be forced to "prove a negative" and CON would be forced to "prove a positive" (MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
The proposal specifically states "in most cases,"
The bold MANDATORY seems to overshadow that somewhat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Space is a function of time; speed is a function of time; and time is a function of time. How would you then "measure" time?
Relatively.
Originally, town clocks were set to "noon" when the sun was at its highest point of each day.
Everyone in the town would set their clocks (if they could afford one) by the town clock.
It was the railways that "standardized" time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Each human has "equal value" to themselves.Jews were not valueable to Hitler.
Each individual has a survival instinct that prompts them to self-value.
Oh, and that person you mention grew up in a religious society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Also isn’t a process a thing? For example intercourse is a process but it’s also a thing life forms engage in.
When you stated, "person or thing" were you intending to imply "person or process"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Our best guess, based on (known) FACTS is that some process "created" (or "produced") what we call "the human mind", NOT a "person or thing".What’s the known facts that made you presume it’s a process?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Only if humans have a soul - or something - can they have equal value.
Each human has "equal value" to themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Hugo Grotius (/ˈɡroʊʃiəs/; 10 April 1583 – 28 August 1645), also known as Huig de Groot (Dutch: [ˈɦœyɣ də ɣroːt]) and in Dutch as Hugo de Groot (Dutch: [ˈɦyɣoː də ɣroːt]), was a Dutch humanist, diplomat, lawyer, theologian, jurist, poet and playwright.
A teenage intellectual prodigy, he was born in Delft and studied at Leiden University. He was imprisoned for his involvement in the intra-Calvinist disputes of the Dutch Republic, but escaped hidden in a chest of books. Grotius wrote most of his major works in exile in France.
- Book I advances his conception of war and of natural justice, arguing that there are some circumstances in which war is justifiable.
- Book II identifies three 'just causes' for war: self-defense, reparation of injury, and punishment; Grotius considers a wide variety of circumstances under which these rights of war attach and when they do not.
- Book III takes up the question of what rules govern the conduct of war once it has begun; influentially, Grotius argued that all parties to war are bound by such rules, whether their cause is just or not. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The human mind is defined as much by what it does NOT know as it is defined by what it DOES know.But you weren’t defining the human mind you were defining noumenon (whatever that is).
The NOUMENON is verifiable by the human mind, by a reliable process of logical deduction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How can anyone make claims that are neither empirically demonstrable nor logically-necessary?That’s what an opinion is.
FINALLY, WE AGREE ON SOMETHING.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The hypothetical "person or thing that created the human mind" is unknown and may be unknowable.How do you know this?
I know that I DO NOT KNOW THE HYPOTHETICAL "person or thing that created the human mind".
And I also know that the very concept of a "person or thing that created the human mind" is logically incoherent.
Our best guess, based on (known) FACTS is that some process "created" (or "produced") what we call "the human mind", NOT a "person or thing".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
NOUMENON is a FACT because it is logically-necessary (undeniable).NOUMENON is defined by HUMAN IGNORANCE (EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS).Since when was ignorance logically necessary?That’s a huge contradiction.
The human mind is defined as much by what it does NOT know as it is defined by what it DOES know.
To be human is to possess human limitations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The hypothetical "person or thing that created the human mind" is unknowable.And how do you know this?
The hypothetical "person or thing that created the human mind" is unknown and may be unknowable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The ignorant chimpanzee then began to follow the knowledgeable chimpanzee, ignoring her attempts at misleading, indicating that he anticipated her attempts at deception. In other experimental procedures, chimpanzees have learned to withhold information – and even provide false information – to competitive human experimenters who do not provide food to the subject in experimental tasks.
Good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Feel free to prove how reason can defend universal human rights
In the same way that apes exhibit moral behavior without religion, humans can exhibit moral behavior without religion.
This proto-morality, pro-social behavior is then combined with rational thought and extended coherently.
Humans (and most mammals) have the following moral instincts,
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF.
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY.
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY.
In order to advance the implicit goals of these moral instincts we naturally wish to create social norms to mitigate violence within our immediate geographical area.
As we become aware of larger areas, we wish to mitigate violence within those larger areas.
The concept of "never kill a human" (human rights) is a logical extension of our individual survival instincts.
No religion needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
based on religious axioms
Are the social norms of animals based on "religious axioms"?
For example, apes exhibit the ability to lie for their own personal gain and are punished by the group if they are caught in a lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
No. Just ask Theweakeredge and he can prove using non-axioms that morality is a thing.
ALL CONCEPTS ARE COMPRISED OF AXIOMS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
As this discussion has proven, universal human rights have no basis in reason.
The concept of MORALITY is comprised of AXIOMS.
The concept of RELIGION is comprised of AXIOMS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
within a framework of morals/rights that are informed by a sufficient level of intelligence
In such a framework, the most intelligent person has the most moral/rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Let me ask you a question the person or thing that created the human mind if it’s existence isn’t factual then what is it because you don’t seem to know the answer in regards to the creator so how can you make claims on something you know nothing about?
The hypothetical "person or thing that created the human mind" is unknowable.
NOUMENON is a FACT because it is logically-necessary (undeniable).
NOUMENON is defined by HUMAN IGNORANCE (EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS).
how can you make claims on something you know nothing about?
How can anyone make claims that are neither empirically demonstrable nor logically-necessary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Correction there’s no dictionary that mentions humans in the definition of fact.
A HUMAN MIND IS IMPLICIT IN THE DEFINTION.
fact
(făkt)
n.
1. Knowledge [requires a human mind] or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated [requires a human mind] to exist or known [requires a human mind] to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed [requires a human mind] to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime [requires a human mind]: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law A conclusion drawn by a judge [requires a human mind] or jury [requires a human mind] from the evidence in a case: a finding of fact. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Would it be justified within a framework of morals/rights that are informed by a sufficient level of intelligence?
It depends on how skilled your legal team is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
In effect, this is somewhat true. Though, I wouldn't necessarily characterize them as "rights" in this context given that, as you pointed out, they can be taken away. "Legal privileges" would be more apropos. With that said, my arguments will always be in service to the "ideals" or rights. If we conform or concede the ideal in order to be, as I often see in response, "more practical," then there is no point to rights. It's simply contracting with mobsters for temporary periods for survival.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you distinguish it? Because I agree with the dictionary.
There is no dictionary that supports your assertion that FACTS "existed" before humans.
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?
"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Can one assume the 40 year old man's fortune for himself regardless of his prior wishes in the event of his being brain-dead?
Of course you could.
Unless someone was there to stop you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So, you'd perhaps consider a "transhumanist" or perhaps a "computer intelligence" to be "human"?Like the concepts explored in "Ghost in the Shell" and "Ex Machina"? If it allows them to either attain or sustain moral agency, then they'd fall within the framework of any moral analysis; thus, afforded rights. But I, myself, wouldn't argue that humans have rights by virtue of being human. Babies don't have rights; and children are subjected to the authority of their parents, who themselves are legal proxies of the State.
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."What’s the point of asking me this, how does this address my argument?
I'm trying to figure out how you distinguish FACT from OPINION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?
"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Therefore it’s objective.
AND UNDETECTABLE AND UNKNOWABLE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
As it concerns the nature of "rights" and moral analysis, yes. That is to say, the "human" in "human rights" encompasses more than just one's genetic constitution--if this is even considered at all.
So, you'd perhaps consider a "transhumanist" or perhaps a "computer intelligence" to be "human"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
“Well whoever or whatever created it, proves that an objective reality is beyond what your human eye can see.”
NOUMENON IS A LOGICAL-NECESSITY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I agree that DNA is not a "good" quantifier of "a human".
Are you suggesting a qualitative definition of "a human" has "superior" utility?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
ArgumentsMandatory! Three points.Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
I'm not sure I agree with this.
The debates I spent excessive amounts of time investigating involved two parties who were BOTH making bad arguments and utterly failing to address the resolution.
In these cases I would NOT award points for arguments (conduct and sources could sway the outcome).
I would hope the BOP would be shared, and neither party would be rewarded for their incompetence with a "win" by default.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I care about moral weight and worth
Are you referring to your own personal "moral intuition"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't care about legal definitions here, I care about moral weight and worth - they are distinct
Ok, but let's say for the sake of argument, that a blastocyst is considered a "legal person".
The only legal advocate for that blastocyst would be the mother.
And (IFF) the mother decides to deport the blastocyst (THEN) no other "legal person" would have "standing" to interfere
Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome. A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. Otherwise, the court will rule that you "lack standing" to bring the suit and dismiss your case. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If "by necessity" and "compels" mean the same thing as "cannot act" then sure.
(IFF) it is against GOD'S nature to "do nothing" (THEN) GOD is compelled to act by necessity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
As legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity (the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations), it is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name. [LINK]
Animal kingdom[edit]
In court cases regarding animals, the animals have the status of "legal person" and humans have the legal duty to act as "loco parentis" towards animals welfare like a parent has towards the minor children. A court while deciding the "Animal Welfare Board of India vs Nagaraja" case in 2014 mandated that animals are also entitled to the fundamental right to freedom[23] enshrined in the Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e. right to life, personal liberty and the right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia). In another case, a court in Uttarakhand state mandated that animals have the same rights as humans. In another case of cow-smuggling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court mandated that "entire animal kingdom including avian and aquatic" species has a "distinct legal persona with corresponding rights, duties, and liabilities of a living person" and humans are "loco parentis" while laying out the norms for animal welfare, veterinary treatment, fodder and shelter, e.g. animal drawn carriages must not have more than four humans, and load carrying animals must not be loaded beyond the specified limits and those limits must be halved when animals have to carry the load up a slope.[22]
See also: Hindu law
In court cases regarding religious entities, the deity (deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred) is also a "legal person" who can engage in legal cases through "trustees" or "managing board in charge of the temple". Supreme Court of India (SC), while deciding Ayodhya case of Ram Janmabhoomi, decided in 2010 that the deity Rama in the specific temple was a "legal entity" entitled to be represented by own lawyer appointed by the trustees acting on behalf of the deity. Similarly, in 2018 SC decided that the deity Ayyappan is a "legal person" with "the right to privacy" in the court case regarding the entry of women to Sabarimala shrine of Lord Ayyapan.[22]
Shebaitship[edit]
Under the Indian law, the "shebaitship" is the property owned by the deity or idol as a "legal person". Humans appointed to act on behalf of deity are called the "shebait". A shebait acts as the guardian or custodian of deity to protect the right of deity and fulfill the legal duties of the deity. Shebait is similar to a trustee in case the deity or temple does have a legally registered trust or entity. Under the Hindu Law property gifted or offered as rituals or donations, etc absolutely belongs to the deity and not to the shebait. Case example are "Profulla Chrone Requitte vs Satya Chorone Requitte, AIR 1979 SC 1682 (1686): (1979) 3 SCC 409: (1979) 3 SCR 431. (ii)" and "Shambhu Charan Shukla vs Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Madan Gopalji Maharaj, AIR 1985 SC 905 (909): (1985) 2 SCC 524: (1985) 3 SCR 372".[24]
Natural entities such as rivers[edit]
In court cases regarding natural entities, the Uttarakhand High Court, mandated that the river Ganges and Yamuna as well as all water bodies are "living entities" i.e. "legal person" and appointed three humans as trustees to protect the rights of rivers against the pollution caused by the humans, e.g. "pilgrims's bathing rituals".[22] [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
In other words, you want human rights not to apply to all humans. You want peoples traits, not their humanity, define their moral worth.
I would love to live in a world where "everybody is warm and safe and fed and clothed and sheltered".
I would love it.
Love it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
First, I view data along the lines of facts,
So, in your ONTOLOGY, data and facts are the same thing?
so no opinions isn’t data.
You could have mentioned this earlier.
Second we don’t make facts they’re above and beyond us (your giving humans way too much credit there).
How do you know which claims are FACTUAL and which are merely SPECULATIVE OPINIONS?
You’re sure that’s the case for everybody’s brain?
What's your hypothesis?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Not true, facts existed before knowledge and opinions have nothing to do with knowledge,
BINGO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
(IFF) you can't verify a claim (THEN) that claim CANNOT be considered a FACT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You have admitted that you consider human rights immoral (as their implications you call immoral)
Citation please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And this is typically in response to arguments which suggest that a zygote/embryo/fetus isn't human
Being "comprised of cells that contain human DNA" does not make something "a human".
Cancerous tumors are "comprised of cells that contain human DNA" and this does not make cancerous tumors "a human".
Created: