Total posts: 2,033
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Speedrace
It’s interesting you guys aren’t accusing each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Thats called OMGUS. Stands for "oh my god u suck". Its a term used when people vote someone only because they got voted by that person. Its considered weak justification for lynching someone. FOS means "finger of suspicion"
That’s why you don’t vote for people without good reason because people will start voting you.
Why are you defending his behaviour so fervently?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Why I think that you are wagoning? I'll be honest, because you joined the elminster wagon after he FOS'd you
Was it a wagon when I joined? I think there was only one other person who voted him before me. I voted him because he VTL me. I don’t know what FOS means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Btw parrot, I asked you a question before and you didn’t answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
If I ask you why you think that, will you be honest?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Lunatic, to me it just looks like you’re throwing shit at the wall just to see what sticks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
We’re going through the stages of grief. This is the bargaining stage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
Now the mafia has narrowed their targets down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
Yet I did say I was Canada. You would be helping the mafia mostly by sharing my ability or lack there of.
But what do I know. I’m a noob.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
Hmm you hard accused me at the start of this DP because I didn’t share if I had a power or not.
Created:
Posted in:
So can summon sum up the situation to see who agrees and who doesn’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Your PM should have had misterchris, siranonymous, and one other person in it. Can you tell us the third person?
The PM was just to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Haven’t played Mafia at all. I’m Canada btw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"That hurts I'll stay away from it", is an internal response to a external stimulus, and thus becomes an acquired strategy....Nothing to do with formulating abstract principles of right or wrong
Firstly, all thought is abstract.
Secondly, learning from a past mistake and preventing it from happening again in the future, is quintessential to ethics.
Such as killing to eat is right and killing to eat is wrong so I will become a vegetarian Lion because I believe that is moral.
Lions have been known to spare calves. Anyway, killing is a necessity for them to survive just as our ancestors.
When do you think humans developed morality in general?
And hierarchical social structure is an inherent social principle, as apparent in human society as it is in animal societies....Once again, nothing to do with right or wrong or morality.
How?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@Theweakeredge
Btw do you guys wanna play Mafia? It’ll be my first time playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree with your evolutionary principle.And therefore animals have thus, acquired coping strategies.But this doesn't necessarily mean that animals can readily formulate abstract concepts, such as right and wrong.
Right and wrong are very simple concepts. Animals don’t need their inner dialogue translated into human language to understand “that hurts, I’ll stay away from it.” Would you consider that subjective morality?
You can then broaden out to include animal hierarchies and various ways animals know where they stand with one another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Mmmmmm....I would suggest that most if not all other animals function purely instinctively.....Though I'm sure that you will suggest possible exceptions to that rule.
That “rule” would mostly involve insects. The “exceptions” are a large frickin group involving many birds, mammals, etc.
would further suggest that human knowledge of right and wrong is also an acquired trait rather than an inherited one.
To an extent. I say it’s also reflective of how we evolved to deal with environments we’re raised in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A. Because right and wrong and morals are human concepts, designed by and for the purposes of human societies. It would seem logical to suggest that concepts did not float around the universe waiting to be absorbed by an intelligent lifeform.
So you don’t believe other animals abide by right and wrong behaviour? Jest because animals don’t have language doesn’t mean they don’t understand the concepts of right and wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"Of course"...Right and Wrong are only intrinsic to human social situations...
How so?
...Though right and wrong are always variably and selectively interpreted.....So their of-courseness is always debateable and therefore can never be established as a universal standard.
This is why we have laws which are often informed by common held moral (inter-subjective) beliefs.
Yet laws are amoral in and of themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
3RU7AL probably considers lying immoral (bad/wrong) even if it would save a persons life.
The thing is morality is the distinction between right and wrong, not what is right or wrong (It’s situational).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I’ll play. First time playing though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
CONSEQUENTIALISM IS INCOHERENT.
Incoherent relative to what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
In this hypothetical vacuum I would logically choose to save the super scientist (assuming he discovers/invents life saving treatments and doesn’t develop crippling survivors guilt).
This makes stronger sense than the original.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
States exist because we assign value to them.
Language is far more complex than most take for granted in how we perceive the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
All ideas are conceptual and descriptively convenient of how we view the world in which we experience.
They’re not universal in a cosmological nor human sense. They’re not pre-programmed in us nor reside within the ether.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
P2. If universals are true across all possible worlds, they are not dependent on human cognition.
For a concept to exist, it has to be apprehended first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Benjamin:
We just need to prohibit abortion - women cannot perform them themselves.
3RU7AL:
There is no shortage of methods a woman can use to end a pregnancy without the assistance of a doctor
No no no, you’re strawmanning him!
He’s saying that pregnant women will be surveilled too incase they try anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
How would you enforce anti-abortionism without infringing on human-rights?
Human rights are the opposite of freedoms. We have the freedom to murder - but we value our own survival more than we value the freedom to kill. That's the right to life.
Rights to education/work and away from slavery/torture applies more so to a woman that’s forced to carry and give birth, than to fetuses or embryos that aren’t developed/conscious.
By the way I’ll remind you again, murder is a legal term and has legal connotations. That’s why you like using the word “murder” because everyone associates murder with wrong/illegal. Legal abortion is not illegal. It is not murder. Do you understand?
By locking up another human you infringe human rights. Does that mean that police infringe human rights if fighting crime? No.
I’m glad you agree with my take on prisoners.
Infringing human rights means to use your freedom regardless of the rights of others. Killing another person infringes human rights.
It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. I’m surprised you didn’t say murder. Well you did bring up cops fighting crime in the last question you proposed.
However, preventing people from infringing human rights does not infringe human rights - and if it did that would just be to reject all laws instantly as "infringements".
But you said “By locking up another human you infringe human rights.”
So does that mean only some prisoners?
Laws make sure human rights are not infringed. Therefore, if humans have a right to life then abortions can be illegal without infringing human rights as you claim.
Rights to education/work and away from slavery/torture applies more so to a woman that’s forced to carry and give birth, than to fetuses or embryos that aren’t developed/conscious. If you don’t agree, can you fundamentally tell me why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Yet you used God as a final conclusion to be against abortion.
LIE. I use human rights to prove that abortion is immoral. If you do not agree with human rights, only then can you justify abortion
You said it’s a lie and then you pivoted.
(Comment #119 if anyone’s interested.)
You’re such a bad faith actor.
The rest of your comment makes no sense. How does being pro-life create problems not related to the topic of abortion? Unless you think that "abortion" is why slavery is illegal then your statement makes no sense.
Human rights are upheld by laws, correct? How would you enforce anti-abortionism without infringing on human-rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.[https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]
You don’t think your anti-abortionist beliefs would create far more problems, both morally and legally which includes the above?
How do you think these rights are upheld?
I do not use "God" and "human rights" interchangeably. Atheists have believed in human rights while theists have refused to believe in them. As I said, my moral system has God as one of many reasons - God is not the moral principle. Reducing God to be interchangeable with "human rights" would be ignorance.
Yet you used God as a final conclusion to be against abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm not your tutor. Read.
That was a waste of time.
The general knowledge I already knew.
It said no where that 50% of DNA we can’t read.
It stated: “Using the six approaches, the project was able to identify biochemical activity for 80% of the bases in the genome []. Although this does not necessarily mean that all of those predicted functional regions actually do serve a purpose, it strongly suggests that there is a biological role for much more than the 1% of our DNA that forms genes.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Reece, your accusations are groundless and almost ridiculous. Your position is internally contradictory as I have proved.
In legal terms, no you have not. In moral terms you’ve barely scratched the surface of my beliefs.
I am against abortion not because I believe in God but because I believe in human rights. I clearly stated that ANY reason would suffice.God is simply ONE reason to believe in human rights - but since you are in this debate you have the same belief in human rights.
You accepted God is your final conclusion to be against abortion. Don’t be a weasel. You believe in your own subjective version of human rights rather than the official. You’re coming from a “moral” standpoint, not an omnimoral one (the consideration of all moral factors).
Not believing in God does not mean that one must be pro-choice, that assertion is false, dishonest, ridiculous and misleading.But being pro-choice clearly invalidates one from also supporting human rights - assuming intellectual honesty is a thing you value.Therefore, one can either support human rights or be pro-choice. Doing both simultaneously is contradictory and intellectually dishonest. This point I have clearly proven.The only reason for being against abortion is if you believe in human rights - religion or such has no weight whatsoever besides influencing your acceptance/denial of them.I hate to break your bubble, but your entire world view is probably incoherent unless you reject either abortion or human rights.
Again, you’re using your own version of human rights, not the official.
Since there is virtually no one that has moral objections to human rights, and virtually nobody can defend abortion logically consistently -- it is clear which of them is garbage.
If you want to discuss abortion purely in terms of morality, I’m all for it. But don’t bring up “human rights” half way through when you have nothing else to argue.
In conclusion: Reject abortion, reject human rights or admit intellectual dishonesty.
Again, you believe in your own human rights. You use “human rights” that same as “God”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What was this for? Did it substantiate your claim 50% of DNA we can not read?
Your final conclusion is God?
I note that Benjamin preceded his argument, and did not conclude with God. Have reading comprehension issues?
Did you read everything in context? Please do.
You don't comprehend DNA well, either. As I said, I have conversed face-to-face with one of its premier advocates; James Watson. You?
Appealing to authority in terms of “I meet the guy”, is not really convincing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You’re pivoting. The existence of God and soul aren’t being brought into question.
We’re talking about the validity of God being your final conclusion to be against abortion.
You’ve shown that you believe biblical scripture is not infallible.
So what reason do you have other than “because God”?
Created: