Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Username
We accepted different things as necessary casualties for different consequences.
That’s besides the point, here you go bringing the differences up again when I already told you the similarities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Where is the relevant similarity?
...You both accepted a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
They are different sentences that justify different things for different reasons.
Then why did I liken you to him in my answer? Because that’s where you’re similar, you’re so hellbent on talking about the differences when the differences had nothing to do with the answer itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It’s a simple yes or no question zed, I didn’t ask you if thinking was a process or if an assumption is an unsubstantiated opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I don’t even know where to begin anymore, so I guess I’ll just continue the circle you started with the hopes of you turning it into something progressive at some point, so to take this back to the lengthy response that you gave in regards to my answer, how is that responsive? Because nowhere in that answer did I ask for all of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
You keep alluding to an un-established hypocrisy.
Your starting a circle by saying the same tired arguments over and over again is that your only play here?
What similarity?
How many times you have to ask me this same question, instead of being so gung-ho about responding how about you take the time to read what I’m actually telling you.
We're going in circles.
If we’re going in circles it’s your fault, you could’ve easily just accepted my answer at face value instead you added the extra variables and made things complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
If you say so. I've explained multiple times now why it is not a good comparison.
I don’t care nor did I ask for your reason, (and it still wasn’t enough to convince me otherwise just like you aren’t convinced otherwise, another comparison for you) all that matters is it has no bearing on its hypocritical nature, therefore it still stands, also I don’t expect you to think it’s good because admitting that would be shooting your self in the foot (figuratively speaking).
The deterring crimes argument was a justification.
Yes but the context in which I said
I didn’t say you were hypocritical for your justifications
That was in regards to the “justifications” where you claimed difference, I’m claiming hypocrisy from the similarity I referenced in my answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Just because you draw a comparison doesn't mean it's a good comparison.
Well I think it is otherwise I wouldn’t have drew it, apparently you don’t but whether or not you think it’s “good” has no bearing on it’s hypocritical nature.
Also, isn't this you? And isn't deterring crimes a justification?
I’m not getting into what is and isn’t justified in regards to whether or not we should have the death penalty because like I said countless times before I’m solely focused on the hypocritical question you asked sadolite, period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
How is it hypocrisy just because it's in your answer?
...Because I was able to draw a comparison you criticized him for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I did accept the deterring crimes argument.
Well the deterring crimes argument was in my answer, theirs the hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
You need to pay closer attention to the discussion because you just added another variable for no reason and get confused after doing so, leave deterring rates out of it (I don’t care if sadolite said it previously, my answer is solely in response to your question which is why I structured it the way I did which you eloquently pointed out).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
"Deterrence rates" and "deterring crimes" period are too different things.
Even if that is true, I said nothing about deterrence rates in my answer did I? So to quote your words against you Mr. Hypocrisy
Stop blowing up the debate into a million pieces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
What comparison did I criticize him for?
I made the comparison not you, you making the comparison is shooting yourself in the foot (figuratively speaking).
I am literally addressing the answer you gave, no?
Your not by continuously asking me the same questions.
I would accept one but I would not accept the other.
Are you seriously going to argue that you didn’t accept the “deterring crimes” argument? Because I’m sure I can find quotes from you proving otherwise, but before I find them (because I don’t want to waste my time retrieving them for nothing) will you then admit the hypocrisy to your question because I’m sure theirs many quotes verifying this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I didn’t say you were hypocritical for your justifications the answer I gave proves your hypocrisy when I made the comparison you criticized him for.
Do you need another look at my answer, the comparison is fitting no matter how you slice it and dice it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Any logical person would have explained the difference between the two positions
Obviously there’s differences if you’re in dispute, fact of the matter is you questioned a similarity.
the different justifications for doing different things when one person says that your logic is hypocritical.
The different justifications had nothing to do with the answer I gave so no it isn’t logical to respond with that and I didn’t say you were hypocritical for your justifications the answer I gave proves your hypocrisy when I made the comparison you criticized him for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Don't tell me what my motivations are, especially since me, being the only person who knows what my motivations are, can say for certain that what you just said is 100% wrong.
Well that’s the only thing that makes sense because there’s no reason for you to provide an explanation for your views especially since I didn’t ask for it in my answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a crime you didn’t commit as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
You responded to this with your reasons why and I didn’t ask for all that in my answer, you feel the need to explain because you know you’ve been exposed but there’s no explanation that can justify that question because the comparison I made is valid period.
Created:
Posted in:
I explain why I'm not a hypocrite
You saying why you hold your views doesn’t explain why you’re not a hypocrite in regards to a specific question you asked.
What thing that applies to me?
Do you not remember the answer I gave to YOUR QUESTION? I literally liked you to sadolite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I can attack a statement without knowing the reasons for making it.
But you claimed to know his reasons when you said
And I criticize his reasons
But it’s interesting that you say that because I can criticize you for hypocrisy even if I don’t know your reasons for being a hypocrite.
The difference is that his harms to innocents are unnecessary and mine are necessary. As I've explained In addition, he harms innocents more than I do.
Irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the answer I gave.
is consistent with that because it talks about both his insufficient reason for killing people (just deterrence rates, which is my first problem with his position) and it includes his undue and extreme harm to innocents in killing them (which is my second problem with his position).
Well you didn’t just criticize him for that I’m calling you out for the thing that applies to you.
Lastly your trying to force this death penalty debate on me and I’m not trying to have it, when I gave the answer it was just to prove your hypocrisy by liking you to sadolite I didn’t ask for a long explanation as to why you have your views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
And I criticize his reasons because I think he's wrong and my reasons are better than his IMO?
You don’t know his reasons, the only reason I know your reasons is because your so hellbent on telling me, it’s besides the point.
I could apply that same argument: "How dare you criticize this guy's position for his reasons when you accept your position for your reasons?"
Except your leaving out a very important detail and that’s the fact that you didn’t just criticize his position you did it by using an argument that applies to you as well and no your reasons as to why you accept doesn’t explain why it doesn’t apply to you it’s just your view as to why you should get a pass for it but there’s nothing false about that response to the question I answered therefore it does apply to you no matter how hard you try to fight against it period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
We argue about it using, hopefully, logic.
Hypocritical arguments isn’t logic and if you want to know why your arguments are hypocritical go back and read the most recent example post #284.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
So you have a problem with ethics then?
No I have a problem with the way you attack someone else’s view on ethics, this isn’t the first time you’ve asked that question. There’s a clear difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Not gonna lie to you, I didn’t even bother to read all that because like I said before the reasons as to why you accept as you do are irrelevant to the fact that you accepted for your reasons just like he accepted for his reasons, so you have no right to criticize someone for accepting for their reasons because you did the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
When anyone logically explains why they have a moral view that opposes another person's, the other person could always reply "Well, I believe that my moral view is logical, too." or "You don't meet my threshold either."
But you used the “non unique” argument first so it’s fair game.
Why am I a hypocrite?
I told you many times already.
You did, but you asked me to explain a position that I did not have to explain at the time. You did not dispute that in this last post.
Well if that happened (which I’m not sure what you’re referring to) then there’s nothing to dispute.
The point of the semantics thing is that I am showing you that it's easy to find a contradiction in someone's statements if you twist their words.
But I didn’t twist your words, everything I quoted came from you, you didn’t prove a thing.
Let me nip this in the bud right now and backtrack shall we, let’s do a thought experiment, what if sadolite responded to this question
If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
With this response
Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a crime you didn’t commit as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
Then what would you say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
A non-unique retort is not a logical argument.
There’s nothing fundamentally logical or illogical about the nature of uniqueness, so you mentioning that is irrelevant.
It's like saying "If you don't want me to be illogical maybe defend your views better".
No, not at all.
I have defended my views just fine, thank you.
I can care less what your views are, you’re taking this as a personal attack against your views and that’s not the case at all, not in the slightest.
If you're ever in a formal debate and your opponent explains why your argument is non-unique then you better have a good reason why it isn't.
There’s nothing wrong with being non-unique, you have yet to prove otherwise, you have bigger issues so how about you worry about not contradicting yourself before you attack other people’s position.
It just happened again.
Just responding to what your saying, if it’s blowing up then it’s your fault.
I guess you can try to use my arguments against me, but if you did I'd be able to give an actual good reason why they don't apply (unlike sadolite).
How would you know that? Did he discuss his position at length like you did? No he didn’t.
Another non-unique statement. Please clarify.
Well if you heard it before you should know what it means.
Lol, I've explained why it doesn't.
No, all you did was tell me the reason behind your hypocrisy, doesn’t change the fact that your a hypocrite.
If someone thinks that the criticism does apply to me, they'd have to be the ones to levy that claim.
And that’s why I did so genius.
Notice how I could easily start another 2 hour line of conversation here by saying you contradicted yourself.
No you can’t, because those two quotes are in regards to two different subjects, nice try though.
But I won't do that because I don't use frivolous semantics.
But you did just do that, you’re not slick or funny. Just saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Some people assume that they are right all of the time.
Well that makes more sense then assuming your wrong all the time, I mean do you think your wrong all the time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Your argument is non unique in that it applies to every moral view that anyone could hold.
My argument is in response to yours so maybe you should defend your views better if you don’t want a non unique retort.
Stop blowing up the debate into a million pieces.
I’m not.
You haven't explained why my position is hypocritical.
Yes I did.
My position is not arbitrary, it's logical.
I’m sure sadolite thinks the same of his.
You seemingly have this ridiculous view that as soon as someone criticizes the other person's position they have to lay all of their moral views on the table.
No, only if that criticism applies to them as well, which in this case it does.
Even if my position was inconsistent back then when I didn't clarify (and it was consistent), it isn't inconsistent now.
I am not arguing against your position, I’m arguing against the way you choose to attack sadolites, there’s a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Your argument is non-unique.
Good, so you should know better.
I don't know what question your referring to. And from what I can tell this argument is absurd.
If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
And from what I can tell this hypocritical question is absurd.
"You criticize my moral view? Well, you haven't made yours clear to me yet, so your criticism of mine applies to yours!"
Don’t know where your quoting that from but I never criticized your “moral” view and even if I did if you don’t know mine you can’t possibly know what does or doesn’t apply to me.
they can clarify and argue about their moral positions from there.
They can but if they want the arguments to be convincing and/or successful a way to bridge the gap is by arguing where you find the violation of the common ground you both claim to share, not hypocrisy, if neither one of you are willing to budge then the argument is pointless and you might as well tell each other what you believe and why, agree to disagree and move on because it’s apparent that you don’t care about his threshold any less than he cares about yours.
you thought my criticism applied to my view, and then I explained why I thought it didn't.
Like I said you didn’t make that explanation clear when you asked the question, therefore based on the question alone yes it still did.
(er it would have been minus all of the semantics)
What’s irregular about semantics? We wouldn’t get that far without it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So therefore, all that you present in this thread should be taken with a pinch of salt.....Is that what you are saying?
I don’t present anything I’m not willing to back up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So read the book.
There’s many books to read, if you’re referring to the dictionary the one I have at home doesn’t have the claim that you’re making so unless you have any other form of proof outside of hearsay it’s nothing more than that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I have explained to you why my threshold is logical.
I’m sure he thinks his is as well (if he has one).
He does not meet my threshold
That argument works both ways considering you don’t meet his either (if he has one).
therefore an argument I levy against him doesn't apply to me.
It does considering you didn’t make your threshold clear when you asked him the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
That's a truism given the context of this argument. What's your point?
The same as yours when you brought up the ball argument.
Why can't people argue about thresholds?
You can it just won’t go anywhere, especially if the difference between them come down to a matter of preference and there’s no objective argument you can make in regards to preference claims because thresholds are an arbitrary delineation.
And how am I picking and choosing?
Because of the hypocrisy associated with your attack that I alluded to before, I just forgot to respond to that point so I’ll do so now
We have different thresholds for when consequences outweigh procedural violations.
The whys as to your picking and choosing doesn’t make it any less hypocritical of you calling out sadolite. Everybody has there why’s.
Is there something inconsistent about a threshold?
Yes but it’s an inconsistency I have no issue with because I recognize that thresholds are necessary, you just should’ve kept your threshold in mind before you criticized sadolites threshold (again and that’s if he even has one).
This is not why we need the death penalty.
I’m sure sadolite has his reasons as to why he believes we need the penalty, you told me yours but like I said the whys is irrelevant the issue at hand is you’re argument against sadolite also applies to you and regardless of the reason it applies to you it’s still hypocritical to do that, like I said before sadolite doesn’t care about your reasons any less than you care about his.
I said that?
Yes you did, you want proof?
I don't know what you're talking about here.
Well in that case you can drop the point of me saying consequences and punishment are comparable, because I don’t remember ever saying that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Ok, well I already explained what that sentence means to you so there's no point in talking about the specific words I used any more.
To me? Was that a typo?
And no I did not ask you to substitute consequence in for those words.
I didn’t say you asked me.
We have different thresholds for when consequences outweigh procedural violations.
That doesn’t mean you can pick and choose when to use your threshold as an argument against his and expect to be convincing, clearly he doesn’t care about your threshold any less then you care about his (if he even has one, which if you’re right about it being absolute means he doesn’t and it’s consistent).
Which explained the difference between the two sentences in question, no?
Which two sentences? When I extrapolated I was solely drawing from the ball example.
Elaborate.
One less murderer living among us is a “direct result” of the death penalty, it’s pretty straightforward.
I didn't think at the time that the hyperbolic remark had any bearing on the argument.
It doesn’t (not on the one currently at least) I just referenced that because before I saw it for what it was I thought that was the only time something was resolved, I know now that I was wrong.
I already did. I said "You can drop your opponents argument in a debate" immediately before that.
I’m talking about when you accused me of not being aware of knowing how to have a debate or discussion, what evidence do you have of this?
I feel like there's a disconnect in the sentences we're talking about here....
...Yeah, because the sentence you quoted was in the same post I asked the question so it makes no sense for it to be that one unless your psychic and knew what I was going to say before I said it (perhaps even then it still doesn’t make any sense because the sentence you quoted isn’t what you accused me of saying).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Not what I meant. Significance and severity are both describing consequences in my initial statement.
...Okay? Well if you substituted consequences with those other words your statement would make even less sense.
Just because you use magnitude of consequence in your argument doesn't mean I agree with it.
I’m not telling you to agree but if you’re gonna use arguments against his you should make sure it doesn’t apply to you as well otherwise you look like a hypocrite.
The quote you were extrapolating from was a quote explaining the difference between the two sentences in question.
No, it was your ball example.
Your comparison was nonsensical and irrelevant.
I could say the same thing regarding your ball example but since you insisted on making it I just went with it.
Just because you can draw a parallel between two sentences doesn't mean that they're the same, the parallel actually has to prove that the two sentences mean the same thing or that or that one follows from the other.
They’re the same in regards to the main idea which is a “direct result” and my death penalty point is an example of that.
The discussion we are having right now has stemmed from post 195, no?
Yes and all the other posts to, I’m not sure we resolved anything although I thought we did before you made the hyperbolic remark.
Do not lecture me on how to have a debate or discussion
I’m not lecturing you, I thought you meant it as my argument my mistake.
when you are not aware of this
What’s the point of saying this if you’re not gonna elaborate?
It still stands that my initial statement about consequences and your statement about punishment are not meaningfully comparable.
When did I say they were?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
depending on how you use it
Exactly my point and the context in which you used it in was synonymous making your original statement not make sense, maybe if I substituted severity with significance and vice versa you’ll catch my drift.
and the significance of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their significance.
And the other way
and the severity of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
I mean you said it yourself
In my initial statement, "significance" and "severity" refer to the same thing.
The degree to which we take a consequence into account in our moral calculus depends on the the magnitude of the consequence.
Okay so for clarification purposes how about you use your specific narrative here as something to draw from because that’s what I did when I brought up murderers, rapists, and pedophiles because I’m pretty sure once you do that then you’ll see that their isn’t much difference between the two positions, but before you do so let me take a shot at this again in regards to the narrative I’m defending, my biggest takeaway here from your stance is magnitude and the magnitude of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles living among us are higher than sadolites comfortable with therefore his solution to that is execution, magnitude is very much a common denominator here so I don’t see what your issue is regarding his argument.
You can't just extrapolate my words to fit you narrative (which you LITERALLY admit to doing)
Yes but that was in regards to a different quote.
change the meaning of my sentence just because you don't understand what my sentence actually means.
I’ve asked you at length to clarify your message, and you’ve failed to do that leaving me no choice but to assume what you’re trying to say, it’s not my fault you can’t articulate yourself properly.
Why are you extrapolating my words beyond what I actually said?
It’s called making a comparison dude, it’s done all the times in debates/discussions to prove a point, get with it.
Why do you have a narrative? Aren't you supposed to be an enforcer of consistency?
You literally just answered your own question, because that’s my narrative to enforce consistency.
You're supposed to prove that my positions are inconsistent based on the conflicting meanings of what I actually said
Which I did, the most recent example I can think of is #195
In addition, you changed what the "severity" in my statement referred to. In my actual statement it referred to consequences, and in yours it referred to actions. So that should answer your question
I can’t drop an argument that was never mine to begin with, I’ve lost count of the numerous amount of times you’ve attempted to make your arguments mine over the course of this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You can say that all you want but unless you can prove it, it means nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But they are listed as synonyms in the magic book
Do you have any proof? Otherwise leave it alone.
As I've stated on previous occasions, words have multiple and various definitions.
And? I never disputed that.
And so within the correct context, innocent and virginal are appropriately synonymous.
I wouldn’t say so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Significance, importance, and severity can have synonymity, but also difference.
...So what? Whatever the difference is is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned because context is of the utmost importance and each term could’ve been mixed in or used interchangeably within the sentence and it would make no difference in terms of meaning, so nice try attempting to get one over on semantics but try again.
From guiltless to virginal.
I wouldn’t call those two terms synonymous, therefore I also wouldn’t mix them so no need to worry about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I said that the importance of the consequences of an action in a moral calculus depends on the severity of the consequence.
Isn’t significance, importance, and severity all synonymous? (you can accuse me of being semantic all you want fact of the matter is you’re asking for it with all these terms your implementing as if they’re different) with that being asked that statement is pretty much a redundant nothing.
The consequences in my statement are the consequences that occur directly as a result of the action, like a ball moving as a result of it being pushed. That should be enough to show that the statement you extrapolated out of my statement and the actual meaning of my statement are two different things.
...Not even because I can extrapolate those words to suit my narrative get this, just like a ball moving as a result of it being pushed one less murderer is living among us a result of them receiving the death penalty, it’s really not that complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
What’s the difference? I asked for clarification before and all you did was modify your own sentence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
of the punishment
...No of the crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
The death penalty is a consequence, but if you substituted death penalty in that sentence it wouldn't make sense:
No but it would if you substituted it with punishment.
and the significance of punishment in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
By consequences I did not mean punishment, I meant literally the consequences of an action.
Isn’t the death penalty a consequence of the action of murdering someone? Please clarify.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
But maintaining a functional society is a consequential concept, and the significance of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
Yeah like whether or not they should receive the penalty should depend on the severity of the crime such as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
We were but not that specific comment that you quoted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
That quote was not what I was responding to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
since I already clarified why I thought it wasn't inconsistent.
But you didn’t.
Created: