Total posts: 1,014
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
You're not addressing the fact that desiring the ends does not necessarily entail desiring the means. So the act, the means, is not desirable. Only the result
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
But I don't desire the "bad." So you shouldn't say I desire the end, therefore I desire the means of attaining that end. My desire rests in the attainment of the goal, not necessarily the means of attaining it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
You're conflating my desire for the ends with my non-desire for the means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I'm motivated to do something I hate by my desire for something greater. That's neither desire to do the thing I hate, or force.
I don't desire the thing I hate, I desire something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I would also say that moral actions or do not qualify under your humean assertion of desire and force being the only things that motivate one to act. One can both not want to do the moral thing and not be forced to do the moral thing and still be intrinsically motivated to by x action being the right thing to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The desire to be disciplined motivates me to will over my loathing of getting up early. I'm still doing something I don't want to do and not forced to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yes, I did mean dark energy.
There is no such thing as non-occupied space in reality. Even if you take all the matter and radiation out of a piece of space, It will still weigh something. That's because "empty space" is actually a churning mess of random energy spikes because of the inherent vibration of quantum fields.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Name me an instance in which you did something which you both didn't want to and weren't forced to.
Every day at 4:30 am
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But how do you know that that decision isn't determined by physical cause and effect? How do you know that your decisions aren't merely the illusion of choice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
How many people/debates/threads can I nominate? And will there be a nomination/voting thread(s), or do I pm you or another admin?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
None of that means anything. You're just stringing random words together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not sure where I lost you.
Either we are choosing freely, or our choices are determined by an unbroken chain of events going back to the beginning of time. Either our actions are the product of some function that is making decisions, the will, or our actions are the inevitable product of cause and effect.
So how do you know that you're choosing freely, and not determined by cause and effect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
We haven't observationally confirmed the existence of dark matter, but the fact that the expansion is uniform and proportional to the distance from the observer, indicates that the space itself is expanding.
Simply saying that the distance between them is increasing is actually less correct, because it doesn't explain the fact that the distance is increasing uniformly and is directly proportional to the velocity of the red shifting bodies. Any two objects in space can move away from each other, But the uniformity indicates space itself is expanding and not just objects moving away from each other in space.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
We know the Universe is expanding because we can measure the redshift of distant objects as they move away from us. The fact that their velocity is uniformly proportional to their distance from us indicates that the space between them is expanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How do you know that? It sure appears that way, but where does cause and effect end and the "will" begin?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well we certainly aren't indecipherable, since much has been learned about human behavioral biology. And we aren't necessarily programmable in the sense that we are some blank slate. Many things are innate and/or environmentally influenced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Congrats, maybe now you'll remove that crap in your bio about "someday being a good debater."
Created:
ARE HUMANS UNDECIPHERABLE ENIGMAS OR PROGRAMMABLE BLACK BOXES?
Neither.
do you believe that people tend to adopt general strategies to deal with challenges they encounter ??
Sure.
do you believe these strategies are identifiable ??
Sure, called concepts.
(1) do you think a person should get their sense of self-worth from within themselves or from what other people think of them?
Within, but also how they they make the people they love feel.
(2) do you prefer to be spontaneous and go out and travel and do things "IRL" or do you prefer to think about doing things and lose yourself in movies and television shows and books ?
Both
(3) do you think people should generally trust their gut or do you think people should generally think things through ??
Both
(4) do you think people should follow a strict core code of laws or principles no matter what, or do you think that people should follow different rules in different situations ??
Both, unless it's morality, then they should follow principles.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Flying spaghetti monster exists as a concept. Doesn't mean the thing actually exists, only the concept exists.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That was just the funniest reply I could think of off the top of my head
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Divorce papers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Pretty much every law has some rationale behind it. The point is I think, that the result is more government control into formerly independent aspects of our lives.
In the USSR, article 58 was created for the purpose of rooting out counter revolutionaries: there's the rationale. The result however, was crowding untold numbers of non-criminals, political dissidents, into gulags. Sounds like a pretty controlling government.
In the USSR, article 58 was created for the purpose of rooting out counter revolutionaries: there's the rationale. The result however, was crowding untold numbers of non-criminals, political dissidents, into gulags. Sounds like a pretty controlling government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Happiness doesn't equal morality. People can enjoy doing the wrong thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Aryanman
Yeah, sometimes it's necessary. If the law was to turn in Jews to the Gestapo, it would be morally obligatory to break that law
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Well, it certainly appears to have been a smear campaign, since media outlets with left leaning audiences reported overwhelmingly negative of the trump administration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That's your opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Ive been playing Deep Rock Galactic and I'm a beast
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Burpees are great for building muscle, while also making cardio gains. And it's not about the muscle, it's about the mindset. Are you letting your negative mindset run a train on you? Or are you going to do something about it and get into that pain cave where you can get a grateful perspective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
"Superior," in the way you're using it here, is limited to analysis of one advantage in one environment. That's hardly tantamount to overall racial superiority. If someone was to believe that black people are overall superior to Koreans because of their advantage in hot environments, that would be racism, and flawed reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Stop being weak? Just smash some burpees when you feel angry and get into a positive mindset. Nobody needs that negativity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
It's a good debate if I can say so myself. I feel like I could have elaborated more in the last round about Big bang predictions, But like always, I was finishing up that argument at the last second
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
It was a good book. It has really good descriptive details for the alien-futuristic theme it is trying to paint.
Created:
Posted in:
I hypothesize that the huge voter turnout was influenced primarily by the four year mass media smear campaign against Trump.
Thoughts on how to confirm or disconfirm?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
"Hyperion" by Dan Simmons was GREAT. The goat? Idk, but a great read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
The ones I studied the most for: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3014-this-house-prefers-kantian-ethics-over-utilitarianism
My dumbest loss:
My most formidable contender:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Thanks, you should read "Blood Red Snow." That one is one of my favorites.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Utilitarianism is the claim that the moral action is the one that brings about the most good.
Not really applicable to the utility of art.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
You're good man, thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Mainly firsthand accounts, like "In Deadly Combat" or "The Red Road from Stalingrad"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Thanks for the list. I've read the LOTR books, those were good. I'll have to look for an audiobook versions of the Gallic wars, that sounds like a good one. I've been mainly reading memoirs of the eastern front in WW2, but I'm currently listening to "82 days in Okinawa"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
The prince was good, but I was mostly referring to firsthand accounts and such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Dude we are not arguing a definition. This isn't a linguistic debate. We are arguing a CLAIM.
The claim and the definition are the same.
Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism
This part doesn't belong in the claim of evolution. This is a separate claim entirely. Evolution is a theory of biodiversity, not the origin of life itself.
No abiogenesis means no evolutionary theory.
Wrong. Like I said, a god could have started life, and evolution would still be true, because it doesn't make a claim as to how life got here, only how it diversified.
Are you sure that's the claim of theory of evolution? No single cell organism? No common descent? No speciation? No natural selection? No random mutation?... If you're confident about what you wish to defend, you need to at least be able to formulate it in something that could be checked scientifically. After all, the resolution is: {The Evolutionary Theory Is (Pro) Not (Con) Scientific}. You're really shooting yourself in the foot with such a vague claim. Or are you purposely being ambiguous to give yourself field to play?
That is the claim and it isn't vague. It encompasses everything the theory claims and all the mechanisms that compose the nuts and bolts of the theory. I'm prepared to defend the mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, but I'm not going to defend your straw man conflation of two separate claims.
If the change in traits over generations in populations of organisms explains Biodiversity, then evolution is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassin
...you define murder as "good killing" to defend that murder is good. It must be obvious how circular that is.
This is literally what YOU are doing. You're projecting the faults of your reasoning onto me.
Created: