Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You missed my point, race is a social construct.
What do you mean when you state that "race is a social construct"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Today the Equality Act was reintroduced to Congress. The Equality Act would provide consistent and explicit anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people across key areas of life, including employment, housing, credit, education, federally funded programs and jury service. As it stands, LGBT people can be fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, or denied service from businesses in the majority of states simply for being who they are (or who their parents are).The Equality Act is expected to pass easily in the House, but struggle in the Senate. Ten Republicans would be needed to reach the 60 votes to end a filibuster on the legislation, and right now it doesn't look like they have the votes.I don't understand why Republicans have a problem with this bill.
Yes, you do. The Republican party has spent years cultivating a following among Evangelical Christians who are staunch in their opposition to homosexuality.
Isn't firing someone for being gay CANCEL CULTURE?
No. Cancel Culture is silencing opinion by inciting "public backlash"; firing someone for being gay is just firing someone.
I assumed they would be eager to mitigate Cancel Culture and make sure people aren't discriminated against simply because you don't like them or the way they live, but surprise!
That's not "cancel culture."
It turns out conservatives feel very strongly about their right to discriminate and ban or cancel people at their discretion 🤪
You're extending a false equivalence.
The Civil Rights Act bans discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc. and I don't think anyone but libertarians (i.e. very few people) would say they believe you should be allowed to legally discriminate against someone's race -- so why is sexuality different?
You've left out anarchists, individualists, voluntaryists, etc. Not that their being "very few" would at all qualify the justification for either argument.
Sexual orientation is not a choice;
You don't know that. And what if it was? Would it matter?
So unless you believe ALL discrimination should be legal, I don't understand the right-wing argument for excluding sexuality as a protected class.
Fair enough.
At best there is the ridiculously bad argument about "not wanting kids to learn what sexuality is." Why would you have to talk about sex explicitly when acknowledging one's identity? "This is Danielle's wife" is not any more risqué or sexual than saying "this is Danielle's husband." '
Because there are very few things in life which don't imply sex. "Danielle's wife" implies a long term sexual partner; as does "Danielle's Husband."
Drawing pictures of families in kindergarten and one student drawing two moms is not any more risqué or sexual than drawing a kid with a mother and father.
One reflects homosexuality, the other reflects heterosexuality; Republicans and their cultivated base of Evangelical Christians are typically in opposition to homosexuality.
You don't need to talk about sex when it comes to families or relationships.
One doesn't necessarily NOT need to talk about sex when it comes to families or relationships, either.
Since sexuality is an immutable characteristic
You don't know that.
which has been verified by psychologists for decades, why do Republicans cling to the idea that you can discriminate against gay people with impunity?
"Psychologists" aren't in a position to "verify" anything. They practice at best a soft science which isn't based on empiricism, controls, or reproduction of results, but more so their speculation and subjective experiences. If you're going to sustain the "veracity" of claims extended by psychologists by mere fact that they're psychologists, then why not do the same when they render their conclusions about the differences between men and women? Or adults and children? Differences which would inform and justify discrimination?
If they think you should be able to fire someone for being gay, why is it wrong to fire them for being black or being Christian? Religion actually ISN'T inherent to one's identity (unless you're Jewish lol) so why is it wrong to fire someone for being Catholic?
Why wouldn't religion be inherent to one's identity? And why are the "Jewish" excluded?
Why don't Republicans push to get rid of the Civil Rights Act entirely?
Fair enough.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Of course not, what, do you think the police are just like mobsters or something?
In a manner of speaking, yes.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It would necessarily be custom tailored to each individual based on the complicated specifics of the peculiarities of their unique situation.
And would any of these custom-tailored responses include reprisals and violence?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Everyone talks shit about how mediocre he was but he had to pick up from Bush's shit era.
And Bush had to pick up from Clinton's shit era. That's not much of an excuse. Then again, this all depends on the standard one uses to inform "best." By my standards, he's not even close--Obama, that is. I suppose this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that all presidents are shit presidents. But some have shown glimmers of "polish."
P.S. that's polish (as in smooth surface) not Polish as in the Slavic Lechitic ethnic group.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Convince them compliance is in their own personal best interests.
And how would non-compliance render a result that is against their best-interests?
Created:
-->
@ronjs
It seems that most skeptics are unwilling to see the proof (evidence) of Gods existence and mainly ask questions that are not relevant to the subject, because, i think, they really don't want an answer.
It isn't that they're unwilling to see the proof of God's existence; they're just willing to accept anything that is inconsistent with the metric which provides them personal value. I suppose, we're all like that. Their questions are an attempt, at the very least, to define the benchmark by their metrics.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your public reputation is your most valuable asset.So there should be laws that keep people from saying mean things about each other in public.Especially famous people.Nobody should be able to use a photograph of you or talk about you ("use your name or your corporation's name as click-bait") WITHOUT YOUR EXPRESS CONSENT.Celebrities and other public figures are constantly being accused of "not caring" about things like "the environment" and or "justice" and the like.These kinds of claims are LIBELOUS SLANDER AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.Caring about the "right" or "wrong" things is not a crime yet.And since it is an indisputable fact that people don't know the inner thoughts (actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea) of the people they hate, they should not be allowed to speak publicly on the matter without facing steep fines and penalties.
And if they refuse to pay?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You must make one hell of a bad strategist in more situations than just politics
Irrelevant.
if your solution to any situation where imperfection is present is to go 'choose nothing'.
That's what we're calling evil now? "Imperfection?" And I don't choose nothing; I choose me; I choose you (POKéMON!) and anyone else to express their individuality as they see fit so long as it does not infract upon another's capacity to do the same.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The best of imperfect governments will be best at preventing total anarchy; the absence of any government. Government, even an imperfect one, will accomplish more for individual rights to be allowed to flourish, while accepting that a minority of individuals will still be anarchists.
How can a government accomplish more for individual rights to flourish if its very capacity is to undermine it? The most fundamental aspect of individual rights is individual sovereignty. How does a sovereign government, which presumes an authority which it exercises to determine capacity in which one can be an individual, allow that to happen?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't understand your question.
I believe you do. Suggesting a "lesser" of two evils implicates quantity. How else would you presume to relate two incidents, for example, compare them, and call one "less" evil? Case in point: if I have a daughter, and I decide to rape her, would that be "less evil" than murdering her? On one hand, one could argue that if I raped her, she'd still be alive, albeit with a traumatic experience where her father betrays her. On the other hand, if I murder her, I can spare her a life of reliving a traumatic experience of my aforementioned raping. What if I did both? Does the evil increase? If your argument against anarchy reduces to a nebulous quantitative argument, then I'm asking you: how much evil is enough for you? And if you don't understand this, it's because you intuitively grasp that evil has no amount, thereby rendering your conclusion of "lesser of two evils" incoherent. "Lesser of evils" RationalMadman is nothing more than a pretext used to justify the proclivity for evil. You're not "less evil" because you subscribe to a notion that an independent drug dealer who extorts you without veneer is "worse" than being extorted by an agency which purports to protect you.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The argument is fairly sound when sustaining his definitions; I however wouldn't sustain them. I cannot speak for all anarchists, but I can say that we're not all united in uprooting and eliminating "power." The unifying notion of anarachism is that government arbitration in its attempt to regulate how one behaves oneself is illegitimate. And if society is merely a composite of individuals behaving oneself, the government has no legitimacy in regulating the interactions of individuals or groups.
I also took note of the speaker's gerrymandering a description of raising the costs of "life-saving medicine" into his cited definition of violence.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Being the lesser evil to the thugs that would rule in anarchy.
Evil can be quantified? How much evil is enough for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Psychology is the most complex science in terms of the nuances and how to apply it. Everything that is involved with 'soft sciences' like psychology, game theory and other things like CGI in movies is in fact more, not less, demanding on the brain than high level physics, chem etc. The reason behind this is that it demands extreme combination of all elements within the mind as well as multiple types of thinking.A psychologist doesn't simply go 'poof I know', they use reasoning and facts that are concrete and then use them in ways that are creative and intuitive. The fact there is no guarantee when one uses their algorithms that indeed are scientific in how they're reached, is because beyond the concrete algorithms which help estimation, comes experience and wisdom in the field that leads to higher accuracy and precision.You can say 'humbug, it's not real science' but entire wars, criminal syndicates and many more such things have been either won or prevented by effective masters/gurus of these fields.While master and guru are typically 'masculine' they are in fact gender-neutral if you properly understand the terms. So, I am including female experts.
Psychology isn't a science because it cannot substantiate its controls and reproduce its results with a low margin of error. It attempts to pathologize aberrant behavior by creating symptoms that are so broad that it is inconsequential to even categorize them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Ensuring the moderators are both knowledgeable and again knowledgeable about the site policies and enforcement thereof, is such a high priority it has already been preemptively taken care of for you.
You have done nothing "for me." Do it for the site; do it for your position; do it for maintaining a decorum that facilitates proper debate. And by the way, that unwitting, puerile repetition of the term "knowledgeable" further demonstrates your ignorance. Cognizant has a few meanings. If you weren't so set on your attempt to "show me up" on the use of my terms in that last statement, you may have come across its other meanings when you were looking up the term cognizant. I'm always cognizant of the words I use, their meanings, and the manner in which I apply them (see what I did there?)
You're welcome.
I don't remember thanking you.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
In Federalist Papers #51, Madison wrote,“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men… you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The latter is where we fall down because, of course, being fallible men, we do not frame a perfect government. Further, although we legislate to 'control' human behavior, and that is a laudable goal, it is one which is not going to succeed 100% because the 'control' is an illusion. There is always free will. Not everyone's free will is inclined to be lawful, because neither men nor man's government is angelic. Madison was well aware that the practical application of the Constitution would not be perfected, but it is still the best means to govern men yet established this side of heaven.
But if this proposed necessity of government manifests from the imperfection of man, then how does anything less than a perfect government serve as a remedy? To regulate an imperfect people, it's necessary to impose an imperfect government? That's redundant and unnecessary. If we're going to tally up a score between man and government, the government would lose easily as it concerns which of them is closer to "angelic." Governments, for example, have been institutions perpetuation the largest mass murders, and there's not even a close second.
I suppose my question is, what is an imperfect government's value to an imperfect people?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Funny, the U.S. and Israeli governments have similar M.O.'s. It's almost as if functioning as a good ("moral") person is independent of the institution known as government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Do you actually have any refinements to suggest?
Yes: cognizant moderators who are knowledgeable about the subject which they presume to regulate.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, the best of man's political alignment is to no longer need politics nor government to act properly.
Man needs government to act properly? Who regulates the behavior of men in government? What happens when there's a government impropriety?
No. I accept that government must exist because we are not angels, yet. But, I disagree that government is the only answer, and that seems to be what it thinks, right now.
We are not angels. But are the men and women of government angels themselves?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
That's a test of liberty but I don't see how capacity to dissent reflects political alignment. Nelson Mandela is somebody who experienced a wide spectrum of variation in his capacity to dissent, for example, but we don't see corresponding shifts in political alignment. If anything, I'd expect reductions in capacity to dissent to reinforce or entrench alignment. I'd venture that the wealthy consistently enjoy improved capacity to dissent but we don't see a corresponding consistency in the politics of the rich.
Yes, and "liberty" plays a foundational role in one's political alignment. In a totalitarian and dictatorial nation, for example, there's one party--the dictator's/autocrat's party. Dissent means death. Here in the United States, where it's "less" autocratic, the capacity to dissent manifests in a wide scope of political ideologies. You can have for example, "Democrats," "The Naderists" and "the Green Party," despite their differences being inconsequentially nuanced.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Correct, otherwise the people do not get to decide what is a "fair" or "free" process.The concept of "Free elections" is a scam anyway because it implies no responsibility for making decisions that affect others. There are always consequences to elections. Nothing is really "free"
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
My post doesn't discuss my position. That doesn't mean I don't have one.
What is your position?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
There's many flaws with it but I've seen three avid fans of it recently post demands for another user (one was me being asked by 3RU7AL) to take it and reveal the result.I went into depth on the general types of flaws that are consistent in the test but I'm willing to lay out each flawed question as well as to Kritik auth vs lib being a flawed scale itself since one can be auth on one issue and lib on another while in between on another with a consistent outlook despite inconsistent authoritarianism vs libertarianism.Who here likes this test a lot?
Political compass tests are as gimmicky and intuitive as those paper pyramid fortune tellers with which kids play. Nevertheless, I don't oppose them, and I'd go as far as to to state that I like them. I believe that they serve as a good starting point for political introspection. I took one--and only one--several years ago which correctly surmised that I was an individualist.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The best test of one's political alignment is a free and fair election.
Reads well, but that's not the case. The best test of one's political alignment is his/her capacity to dissent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL, Ragnar:
Ragnar: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).
And this is the issue that will continually manifest when those whose grasp of argument construction is at best superficial. Contrary to "internet standards," there's nothing fallacious or erroneous about "proving a negative." As 3RU7AL aptly demonstrated, the affirmation will create an onus even when framed in the negative. The oft repeated mantra "impossible to prove a negative" is actually a misunderstanding of the logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ingornatiam) which delineates that one's affirmation of the "positive" is not given proof by the absence of proving the "negative." Ragnar, one is always responsible for his/her affirmation regardless of whether it's framed in the positive or negative. That is the nature of onus probandi.
@3RU7AL, Ragnar:
Ragnar: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"??
Exactly, 3RU7AL. If the BoP is determined by the whim of the instigator, then there really is no point to the rules. This notion is completely lost on the moderators--correction: a couple of the moderators. Onus Probandi determines the responsibility each participant bears in the resolution of the argument; not the instigators stipulations. You know that, 3RU7AL; I know that; but if the "moderators" don't know that, then we're "violating voting policy" if their ignorance isn't displayed in our RFD's. And what makes matters worse is when one clearly knows--I suppose for lack of a better term--"more" than the moderators do on the subject, and gets penalized for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
Perhaps I'll create a debate, at least for the sake of argument, titled, "DART's Moderators ARE NOT and CAN NOT be 'objective'". I'm not sure if I'd intend on having the focus primarily lie on their moderation of votes (i.e. RFD's, vote deletion, etc.) or the votes they cast themselves. It would be interesting if one of the moderators participated especially given that the subject concerns their discretion, but I doubt either of them would risk their veneers, or "records" in a contest over the consistent application of logic. If time permits, I'll think about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It depends on how skilled your legal team is.
I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Of course you could.Unless someone was there to stop you.
"Can" was perhaps used imprudently. Would it be justified within a framework of morals/rights that are informed by a sufficient level of intelligence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
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" of 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 of survival.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Daniel Dennett and Joseph Fletcher are among many who specify that intelligence is a key component of defining human persons. Although definitions vary, intelligence may include but is not limited to the ability to create memories, attain or retain knowledge, use logic, employ abstract thought, and communicate. In his “Conditions of Personhood” essay, Dennett requires humans to have a certain level of intelligence. Without it or without a “sufficient” level of intelligence, a human being lacks personhood, and he argues thus that a fetus is not a person. Fletcher also argued for the criterion of intelligence in describing “humanhood” among his personhood criteria. In fact, he explicitly states exact, albeit arbitrary, intelligence quotient scores he believes necessary for personhood . And no, I am not going to comment about Trump voters and personhood.
The issue with this is that it's still no less arbitrary than arguing that life begins at conception. Case in point: if a 40 year old man becomes brain dead but prior to his "brain death" created a will where he would leave a fortune to his children, what rights would he have then? Being brain dead would render him incapable of exhibiting a sufficient level of intelligence, and therefore be characterized as not a "person." Do you honor the will? If you argue that at one point in time, the 40 year old man was capable of exhibiting sufficient intelligence, and created his will during this period, how would that temporal provision be much different than arguing that a zygote/embryo/fetus will at some point develop sufficient intelligence?
Can one assume the 40 year old man's fortune for oneself regardless of his prior wishes in the event of his being brain-dead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree that DNA is not a "good" quantifier of "a human".Are you suggesting a qualitative definition of "a human" has "superior" utility?
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
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".
Yes, but zygotes aren't tumors any more than we are chimps; human development begins at fertilization, and my mentioning this has less to do with the presence and the extent to which one comprises particular DNA, and more to do with the divisions we which we arbitrate to create distinctions between "us" and other species of animals and masses of cells. Thus my mention that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human by definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
We do not measure "time", we measure space and time and speed together and then calculating the results.
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Time exists. That is the thing Intelligence does not believe in.
I offer no contention to the statement, "Time exists." I only challenge the arbitrary nature of metrics which presume to "measure" time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Einstein's theory of relativity would say that since you move at the same speed you move equally fast through time. Therefore, any "change" in time would be way to minimal to even notice with the most precise of measurements.
Minimal, but nevertheless there, correct? My point is: how contingent is the concept of Time on the adopted metrics?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree.Linking DNA and "human rights" seems to be a double-edged-sword.
Only if rights are argued as functions of DNA. And this is typically in response to arguments which suggest that a zygote/embryo/fetus isn't human--a statement, by definition, that's not true. When this argument--the one over abortion, that is--reduces to scientific scrutiny, then the discussion naturally becomes subjected to arbitration over certain scientific metrics. So, indeed, it becomes problematic when "rights"--value statements--become linked withed DNA--(scientifically) empirical statements.
I'll ask you this, assuming of course you subscribe to and/or adopted a system of "rights." What would you argue ought to be a/the premise for a "right"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Time exists. Show me it doesn't.
Just as a heads up, if you affirm a proposition, it falls on you to substantiate your affirmation; it's no one's onus to "show you that it doesn't." With that said, I'll spare you since I don't intend to counterargue your statement. But I ask that you consider this: I currently live in the east coast of the United States; I have a friend who lives in the West Coast. Is this friend of mine living three hours in the past? Am I living three hours in his future?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I challenge anyone to give me a moral system capable of support the abortion industry and human rights at the same time.Moral system: A moral standard, a moral authority and a way to measure moral value (who is valuable means who should be treated morally good)Human rights: The idea that all humans are equally valuable regardless of their position, traits and views.Human: A being with its own distinct DNA which is a part of the species homo sapiens
Sure. I invoke the concept of individualist morality. In particular, every individual is his/her own sovereign with an exclusive claim to his/her person. And given that this is all-encompassing, this applies to everyone regardless of their traits, position, and views. So then, how does on respond to the dilemma of abortion while invoking individualist philosophy? First, I wish to suppose a few things:
1. A (pregnant) woman is human.
2. A zygote/embryo/fetus is human.
3. A (pregnant) woman is a moral agent.
4. A zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT a moral agent.
5. Humans have rights to their persons.
Normally, I'd argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a moral agent, and therefore cannot be included in any moral analysis, much less afforded "right"--moral concepts which establish a condition in which we ought to live. But let's also suppose these, which may contradict a couple of my earlier suppositions:
1. A fetus is a moral agent.
2. A fetus is its own sovereign.
The act of abortion where the fetus is merely expelled from its mother's womb is not immoral, much less in violation of human rights. I'll try to illustrate this with a hypothetical scenario: suppose the city in which I dwell is grounds for one of the worst blizzards in human history. My home is one of the few homes with power and heat. A stranger braves the blizzard outside, and I spotting the stranger invite him into my home. I allow the stranger to spend some time inside and warm up, but sometime along the way, I get whimsical and decide to expel this stranger from my home because I don't like the color of his scarf. The stranger returns outside to the blizzard where he would succumb to the harsh cold and die. Did I kill/murder this stranger? No. I was a douchebag; I wasn't a good Samaritan; but that does not constitute my taking a life, much less taking it with "malice aforethought." The stranger died because he succumbed to the blizzard. You can argue that if I didn't expelled him from my home, he would've survived, and that would be credible. But I could also argue that if he had an extra layer of clothing, he might have survived, or if he were located in another city, he could've survived. All conditions aside, succumbing to the blizzard produced his death.
So, let's apply the same logic to a mother and its zygote/embryo/fetus. The mother decides to expel the zygote/embryo/fetus from her body. Because the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't viable, it dies immediately outside of its mother's womb. Did its mother kill/murder it any more than I killed/murdered the stranger in my hypothetical scenario? Or was it the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's lack of physiological development which disallows its capacity to sustain itself outside of its mother's womb? Even if one were to argue that the zygote/embryo/fetus is human, or a living being (which I don't object to by the way) how does this create an entitlement for the fetus to occupy its mother's womb? Even if the fetus "needs" its mother's womb to survive, the womb would still part be of its mother's person. And as her own sovereign especially as it relates to her person, she has a prerogative to determine how she behaves it. To undermine this is to violate her right, which would fall within the domain of human rights. The difference between the premise which informs the mother's right, and the one which informs the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's right is substantially sound.
I can explain the reason, but first I'd like to see your thoughts on that which I've argued thus far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
This just isn't the case.
Unfortunately, it is quite the case.
There's an element of personal discretion inevitable to the concept of moderation, but the voting standards are almost always what we go by.
No, you go by your "interpretation" of the voting standards which is subject to your "inevitable personal discretion."
If you are dissatisfied with decisions, you are welcome to appeal them, and the mods will collectively discuss whether the decision was appropriate relative to the standards.
Oh really? Has this been successful?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ultimately it's still a "popularity contest" with the mods deciding on the fly what they personally consider a passable RFD.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
economics 101prices are set by supply and demand. not labor costs.
Where or when in your ECON class did you learn that prices aren't affected by labor costs?
The best example of your erroneous statement is the Hospital industry. Physician labor costs heavily affect the costs of care. Now I know your statement is in reference to the minimum-wage, but this statement in and of itself is not true. With that said, one of the factors that affect prices is the price-elasticity of the final product. For goods like food, water, medicine, etc. the prices can be raised without affecting demand as much. For nonessential goods like (surfboards, piano lessons, and gender studies courses, etc.) raising prices can have a more substantial impact on demand.
And it's important to note: Supply and Demand are functions of price; not the other way around. That is, Supply and Demand are set by prices (Law of Supply and Demand.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I don't find it difficult to argue against your positions; I just don't find it as engaging as other conversations because typically an emphasis on semantics is not substantive, and because you've acknowledged your positions do not have any real world application.
On the contrary, semantic discussions are quite substantive given that language allows us to communicate value to the best of its capacity. You continue to state that my positions "don't" have any real world application. And my response to you is that it's not the same as "can't." "Don't" is simply a matter of application. The philosophy to which I subscribe is not being applied--I don't deny this; that's not to state that it can't be applied. And by parsing between these two words, my position is better understood; hence, creating more substance.
Do you personally want to live in a society or world without government?
Yes.
To answer your questions, I assume you're 20 to 30 years old
Well, I'm not. I assume that you've gathered that I'm not as old as my profiles suggests, but I'm not all that young either--even by millennial standards.
From my last post: would it be immoral or against what one ought to do or has a right to do if they give an infant medicine or life saving treatment?
No.
What if one parent wanted to drown their baby but the other parent did not - what is the rightful way to settle that disagreement or determine if one has been wronged if the baby is killed?
If one parent wanted to drown the baby, then that denies and deprives the other of the abusus and usufruct of a live infant. It would be like two people who shared possession of a car. They both agreed to make equal payments, but one of them wanted to send the car off a cliff. Their dispute is settled when the offending party remunerates the other for damages. So then question is, what is the cost of a baby? That can be resolved by a mediator or impartial arbiter.
If we acknowledge any rights concerning infants regards the discretion of their parents or the state, we recognize how arbitrary our conditions for the existence of rights are, and that's why I was asking about other species and non humans (arbitrary is not the word I'm looking for, but the right verbiage escapes me at the moment).
"Selective" perhaps? And since rights are moral concepts, moral agency setting the bar is not "arbitrary"--or the verbiage which currently escapes you.
The same evidence we have for thinking that human beings possess reason should also lead us to conclude that animals are rational, or that other entities can be rational. Is there some kind of test you defer to which establishes when a human (or other entity) might have sufficient rationale to qualify for autonomy/rights?
Being rational wasn't my only rubric. I remember stating that Humans were "moral agents and rational actors."
How does inebriation or mental illness factor in?
Inebriation is overrated, and "mental illnesses" aren't really illnesses (given there's not a single biochemical basis for anything listed on the DSM-5.)
you stated that rights are moral concepts which establish a condition in which we ought to live. But if rights are limited to describe only things we have exclusive claims to (like our bodies), how does that translate to a concept which describes how we ought to live?
The end I presume everyone shares is to actualize self-interests, even in cooperation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@FLRW
@zedvictor:
GODS were a manifestation of a lack of information.....Which historically, might be regarded as a low ability to reason.
@FLRW:
Yes
With respect to which metric was their ability to reason "low"? Is this also a subject of time?
do you think Noah lived to be 950 years old?
In other words, do I believe in the events described in the Bible which are aberrant with the metrics adopted by scientific circles to inform and explain phenomena? Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Actually, I think Einstein was talking about the human weakness of low reasoning ability."
In other words, you think God is a manifestation of low reasoning ability?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Who did "YHWH" speak to?
George Walker Bush, or so he claimed.
Why didn't "YHWH" tell us where the WMDs are?
Divine prerogative.
Who did "YHWH" speak to about that?
George Walker Bush, or so he claimed.
Where is it recorded that "YHWH" said, "thou shalt not kill any babies ever"?
Would that not be in the domain of the sixth commandment?
Ok.So, does this "don't kill babies" commandment only apply to Jewish babies?
"Jewish" babies? I don't think so. Israelite babies, maybe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
“The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses"
God is the manifestation of weaknesses? Which weaknesses are those?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, there are no supernatural occurrences in physics.
Is God supernatural?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
In the last 10 years 30 million children in the World have died from starvation. Is God happy that they weren't aborted?
Is God "happy?" How would I know that?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
In modern times, does "YHWH" explicitly command its followers to "go to war"?'
Yes: Iraq.
In modern times, does "YHWH" explicitly command its followers to "kill prisoners"?
Yes: Guantanamo Bay.
These "religious people" don't seem to have any problem with "killing" when they feel like it.
You may not believe what they believe, but they believe what they believe. And that's the point: it is not inconsistent with their beliefs that they believe man has no prerogative to kill babies, and God does for the reasons I've already mentioned.
This is no mystery.They would argue, "killing is always wrong no matter what because my old book says so".
Perhaps. This is in reference to the Amalekites. The Amalekites refused to repent and evoked the ire of God when they attacked the rear of the Israelite caravan. My point is, if Satanism is a perversion of all that is instructed by God, like the practices of the Amalekites, would the death of babes who are born to Satanists warrant the same support? I suppose my argument can be extended here as well in that man, even Satanist, doesn't bear that divine prerogative. All the more reason their position is consistent, your agreement notwithstanding.
Created: