Yeah I didn't read the debate, just giving my two cents. My argument isn't just against Utilitarianism, but all of consequentialism, which encompasses all forms of Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism reasons incorrectly about morality. So any morally good action done for utilitarian reasons will be amoral at best, since the motivation was one of inclination rather acting from than duty to the moral law.
Eh, not necessarily. If he means the current body of what we know, then the resolve is a falsism. If he means the body of knowledge including what we don't know, then it's a bop issue
It seems like both sides can only conjecture as to how much we don't know. Unless you're claiming that the current body of knowledge is infinite, which is a falsism.
So I guess I'm asking, are you referring to the body of knowledge, or the body of potential knowledge?
Lookup, "stress dwarfism." It's well documented that being emotionally abused or deprived as a child will consistently make you shorter. The amount of calcium deposited into your bones growing up is directly influenced, and in some cases, determined, by how loved you felt growing up.
No, it's a historical fact that France's best units were cut off because they committed them too far north since they falsley believed that no tank could cross the Ardennes.
Germany didn't beat the Soviet Union. Plus, the blitzkrieg wasn't a strategy that was like, formulated and then executed. It was a term that became plastered onto the early success of the rapid German victories over France and Poland. Poland was beaten so fast, not because the Germans were so amazing or whatever, but because they got pincered between the Germans and the soviets.
Also, radio communications were developed in the first world war.
You're trying to overgeneralize. Their military was roughly on par with France's and they defeated France on a gamble. That's a historical fact. It's also a historical fact that they had early success in the invasion of the USSR. Capturing Moscow would not be a guarantee of victory and I never said Germany was weak, just that they had certain key disadvantages that culminated in their ultimate defeat.
The Germans were actually very successful in the initial invasion, getting to within like 100km of Moscow. So it wasn't clear at the time that invasion was ultimately a mistake. We have hindsight 20/20, but at the time, it looks like a solid power move.
Yeah the Soviet Union MAY not have invaded germany, but economic sanctions were a very realistic weapon. Hitler's goals, aside from Soviet capitulation, were the rich oil and metal resources of the Ukraine and the Caucuses. That would make Germany resource independent. If they did get blackmailed by Stalin, they would've had to invade for the resources to fight the war anyways.
Thank you for voting
His whole face got caved in. He still fights though.
Best broken skull moment in MMA.
https://youtu.be/nlLMRerwO4M
Please consider voting
Vote bump
vote bump
Vote bump
Yeah It's definitely for the best if this dies unaccepted.
Yeah I can see how this could be seen as a bad faith Kritik, but drlebronski didn't even try to combat it and conceded in the second round.
Vote bump
Vote bump
The voting period has closed.
Vote bump
I get it. Inherent limitations.
Vote bump
Thank you for your time.
You guys like politics. Please consider voting on this as a two round debate.
You guys like history. Please consider voting
Yeah I didn't read the debate, just giving my two cents. My argument isn't just against Utilitarianism, but all of consequentialism, which encompasses all forms of Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism reasons incorrectly about morality. So any morally good action done for utilitarian reasons will be amoral at best, since the motivation was one of inclination rather acting from than duty to the moral law.
Vote bump
Vote bump
It's just a little vague.
Vote bump
Vote bump
Eh, not necessarily. If he means the current body of what we know, then the resolve is a falsism. If he means the body of knowledge including what we don't know, then it's a bop issue
Vote bump
Vote bump
Sorry, but I'm not sure I totally understand your answer. When you say "body of knowledge," does that include everything we don't know?
He has changed his religion from Christianity to agnosticism.
Vote bump
Vote bump
Okay, well I'm interested in accepting, but to be clear, you mean potential knowledge?
That seems to impose an impossible burden on you to prove that potential knowledge is infinite.
Vote bump
Vote bump
It seems like both sides can only conjecture as to how much we don't know. Unless you're claiming that the current body of knowledge is infinite, which is a falsism.
So I guess I'm asking, are you referring to the body of knowledge, or the body of potential knowledge?
Lookup, "stress dwarfism." It's well documented that being emotionally abused or deprived as a child will consistently make you shorter. The amount of calcium deposited into your bones growing up is directly influenced, and in some cases, determined, by how loved you felt growing up.
Vote bump
Vote bump
vote bump
No, it's a historical fact that France's best units were cut off because they committed them too far north since they falsley believed that no tank could cross the Ardennes.
Germany didn't beat the Soviet Union. Plus, the blitzkrieg wasn't a strategy that was like, formulated and then executed. It was a term that became plastered onto the early success of the rapid German victories over France and Poland. Poland was beaten so fast, not because the Germans were so amazing or whatever, but because they got pincered between the Germans and the soviets.
Also, radio communications were developed in the first world war.
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
You're trying to overgeneralize. Their military was roughly on par with France's and they defeated France on a gamble. That's a historical fact. It's also a historical fact that they had early success in the invasion of the USSR. Capturing Moscow would not be a guarantee of victory and I never said Germany was weak, just that they had certain key disadvantages that culminated in their ultimate defeat.
Vote bump
The Germans were actually very successful in the initial invasion, getting to within like 100km of Moscow. So it wasn't clear at the time that invasion was ultimately a mistake. We have hindsight 20/20, but at the time, it looks like a solid power move.
Yeah the Soviet Union MAY not have invaded germany, but economic sanctions were a very realistic weapon. Hitler's goals, aside from Soviet capitulation, were the rich oil and metal resources of the Ukraine and the Caucuses. That would make Germany resource independent. If they did get blackmailed by Stalin, they would've had to invade for the resources to fight the war anyways.