Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Um.. cool - care to substantiate that? Furthermore, notice who you dropped the other question? Please just admit your dishonesty - actually - how about this - you concede that you were being dishonest, justify said dishonesty in some regard, or.... keep this up and I just won't respond.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Um - if you're talking about what you intend to say sure, but their are logical conclusions you reach from a claim, independent of the intent of the author - that applies here. And again, please qualify why that's relevant - its nothing more than a red herring right now - highlighting your dishonesty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Um... yes, it does -you specifically stated that god does not need someone to make excuses for him - that presumes necessarily that his moral commands do need justification. Because, and notice here, you said "He doesn't need anyone to make excuses", combined with your position regarding "all-loving" being a quality of that god, and you it is quite obvious that that's what it implies. Regardless, you failed to respond to my earlier question - have you any proof of a morally consistent god? Can you even demonstrate that the character of god presented in the bible is morally consistent?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Irrelevant, you claimed:
"God doesn’t need an excuse, He’s God, if anyone’s making excuses it’s you in regards to people and personal responsibility."
That would presume that god has some level of moral consistency that precludes him from defending moral actions. It's not that difficult of a proposition to wrap your head around. If you wanna shift the goalposts, you do that, but I'm not gonna let you drop that, either concede or demonstrate your claims. A claim that's simultaneously a tu quoque and a red herring isn't convincing in the slightest, it just proves even more that you're a dishonest interlocutor.
Created:
Posted in:
I said basic utilities are free, basic necessarily implies "standard" and in this case, I quite clearly framed it as what you need to live comfortably, there was indeed a limit - you weren't paying attention.This is not a debate. Lying will not score you points. Your original post says:
- Progressivism
- Free-Utilities
Indeed, but if you'd been paying attention, you would know that I elaborated... because, ya know - you can elaborate on a position that is only expressed in two words bud, remember post #15?
I said basic utilities are free- and the amount of one utility, say, water - is free until you use more than what's provided. The basics are still free, extra, just isn't. The semantics here isn't convincing.
Like, you can try to misconstrue - but I know what I mean better than you do bud. What? I said basic in elaboration, you're "poking holes" was your poor attempt at a "gotcha", but it's pretty easy to implement a limit and then pay the extra - we have a similar but inverse concept with rent cost - rent caps and all - its neither not a valid response, nor something that's hard to implement. Stop with the gotcha and actually try to argue. And no - the only difference between formal police instruction is how in-depth they go with military strategy.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
24weeks there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks such thatnoxious stimuli in newborn preterm infants produce cortical responses. Such connections tothe cortex are necessary for pain experience but not sufficient, as experience of external stimulirequires consciousness. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus neverexperiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemicalenvironment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation. This state can suppresshigher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observationhighlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties ofextrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus.
Uhuh, and notice what it says after that, that the connections made in the brain of a 24 week old aren't valid to be considered consciousness, that there is evidence that fetus are never true conscious in the womb, etc, etc - point is - there is quite obviously a distinction between a born fetus, and a in-the-womb fetus. One of those things is consiousness
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope - you've failed to cite the studies you said you had, failed to actually make unique points this round (you've just repeated pretty much every point from before) - and no.... dysphoria isn't developed "a few days after conception", it isn't developed until, typically, the age of 7 years old.
"We found that nearly all TM and TW first experienced GD by age 7 years (gender identity typically becomes constant at ages 5-7 years),1 which is only 1.5 and 2.2 years later than each cohort’s first life memories (which typically occur at ages 3-4 years).2 Our findings are consistent with prior research3 that found that GD generally develops early in life."
Furthermore, the equivocation of depression and dysphoria was only so far as we treat them - that was literally it bud.
Perhaps you could say "expect to be challenged" if you had any level of intellectual honesty.... but you don't - you say "studies suggest" but present no studies, you repeat yourself without engaging, and you time after time completely ignore half of the arguments contained in response - you are literally just hand-waving those away. You see - if Fauxlaw, or Fourtrouble, Sum1hugme, etc, etc came on, then maybe you'd have a point, but it's you, and you don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So... you gonna present evidence for a least a morally consistent being? At all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The purpose of a job and the description of one are different things bud. Lebron is an example, not the rule, on average, people don't donate that much, or any, money to charity. And... my example was of people working minimum wage jobs, HARDER than athletes, that's not "a problem" the fact that people who don't earn the money they make is the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Mm - I'm not intimately familiar with it's findings, what specifically has you twisted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Um... because while entertainment is important, the entire point of jobs is to benefit society, and if the overpaying of an individual is actually hurting society, say by giving a basketball player so much money they can have dozens of cars, instead of giving people who work out in fields to produce goods that you actually need to survive are working on barely above minimum wage? That's how I get to determine how much that work is worth, not how much the individual is, but how much the labour is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What are your thoughts on the field of psychology?
I think its an amazing field, without psychology you don't have marketing, you don't have effective mental health counseling, you don't have so many different fundamental principles. I think its a great way to measure, group, and quantify human behavior and thought - obviously there's still a lot of work to go (as with any scientific field), but I think its contributions to society is nearly without peer.
How about the field of psychiatry?
Much more mixed, while I am extremely grateful for all of the advancements and medications that have been developed thanks to it, it's also a lot more fundamentally profit-oriented, and a lot of times the goals of psychiatry is twisted by trying to sell a product instead of helping others.
Is your avatar Corpse Husband?
lol, nope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Yeah, I like research, but I'm not the best at practical experimentation and things of that nature, plus I legitimately like talking to people and helping them overcome things like that. I think stuff like philosophy was actually the reason I have any interest in it at all, because a lot of psychology is epistemology
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Because Lebron's labour (playing sports) is not actually worth that much money - and people with poorer circumstances need that money more. That's why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
cool - if that's your response to being asked for evidence, that's good to know
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
My point is that you have no "proof" for any particular understanding of god, and that the best kind of "proof" is empirical evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
eh, unless your unproportionately rich it won't affect you, regardless it shouldn't matter.Because it's not for "lazy" people, yes they benefit, but its primarily for people who can't afford to *live*.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Neither the Mexicans nor the indigenous tribes declared sovereignty of any portion of North America above the northern Mexico border
So the infrastructure and monuments didn't make it clear? Suuure...
Created:
Posted in:
Because I'm genuinely curious. Sure. why not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I said basic utilities are free, basic necessarily implies "standard" and in this case, I quite clearly framed it as what you need to live comfortably, there was indeed a limit - you weren't paying attention.
No, we don't, these people are not trained separately, not formally anyways, and the rates of killing innocents are only higher - because they receive no training in deesculation that they use, and they don't know how to handle mental health emergencies. Not to mention the killing and corruption, oh wait, that's the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
to have everything he needs to live for free, yup.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I have yet to see evidence of any god, much less a morally consistent one
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So if you have a fine for overuse, then it sounds like you want to subsidize utilities, not make them “free” as in no fee tied to use.
I said basic utilities are free- and the amount of one utility, say, water - is free until you use more than what's provided. The basics are still free, extra, just isn't. The semantics here isn't convincing.
Then who arrests criminals? Social workers?
A unique department - different departments for different sorts of crime - no not social workers. Though in the case of incidents that are best resolved through deescalation, yes, the responders ought to have training in de-escalation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It can be pushed away sure, but it gets harder and harder to do that the more power you have, so having power over creation? With no other beings to check them? Instant recipe for corruption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That was my answer to gods being morally inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Wow - winner of the most generic questions are you! lol - but here are some answers
1) what was the best day(s) of your life?
Probably the one-year anniversary i had with my ex-boyfriend.
2) how are your friendships and relationships, and how do they reveal what kind of person you are?
Uuh.... good? I'm not sure what you mean? I guess I'm a romantic at heart, I really like snuggling? I don't know what you want here.
3) what are your favorite shows and movies?
The Boys, Invincible, Spider-Man into the Spiderverse, Young Justice, MCU (especially the newer series)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Because I'm not talking about biological perfection, I'm talking about the concept of an ego - the psychological one referring to the drive that all things with consciousness have - if the god we're talking about has a mind, it applies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Do you have any actual substantiation? Because you've offered a counter proposition, but you have no substantiation regarding it - furthermore - I would point you towards my Anti-theism thread - it explains it fairly comprehensively, but to sum it up - absolute power will absolutely corrupt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Uhuh - forgive me if I don't believe that after repeating the same thing after I corrected you multiple times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
No... no you don't - because if there is no evidence of that framework EVEN existing, then there is nothing but speculation. That is what you have given me so far. What evidence do you have of god's understanding as you understand it? Because defacto it has to be yours unless you can demonstrate that their is an understanding of god that you have access to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Wrong - because we can actually OBSERVE the traits that one possesses whenever they are loving towards another individual, and whenever that individual claims ot be all-loving, it is especially noticeable. Um... yes, god is your average joe of making moral decisions, would you like me to list the moral contradictions made by him alphabetically or sequentially? In fact, the god from the bible is below average when it comes to making morally consistent positions, he's terribly inconsistent. You seemed to take my substantiation of god's arbitrary-ness wrong - its however he feels in the situation, based on the chance not actual moral reasoning
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What's the point of asking these questions:
1) Is it morally obligatory to generate the most well-being for the most number of sentient (in this case, self-aware) beings in your model?I'd say good, not necessarily obligated - though you are obligated to not take away well-being2) What is your definition of moral good?Benefiting well-being of sentient beings
If you don't factor in anything I said. I said that you ought to do what is good, not that you are obligated to do so - you are indeed obligated to not do what is bad, but you are not necessarily obligated to do what is good. There is a distinction, and you have not considered it.
You agreed that we ought to act morally, and that the moral action brings about the most good. You define good as well being. Therefore, when forced to choose between the well being of one or the well being of five, it would logically follow from your own admissions, that the well being of the five should take precedence.
Wrong, wrong, wrong - you aren't getting it - not everything is black and white, numbers -that's you being ignorant. The well-being loss by the five could be less than the well-being gained by the one, the well-being of the five could be quantitatively similar and not be more than one instance of well-being - you are completely stripping any analysis that isn't surface level from it, and then claiming that the standard is "arbitrary" because the answer isn't what you want it to be.
However, you are making an arbitrary exception in the case of the organ transplant scenario, on the grounds that the act of harming an individual in order to gain a greater aggregate of well being for the five, is morally prohibited. And herein lies your contradiction. You aren't justifying why the well being of the one shouldn't be infringed to promote the well being of the five, you're just making a random exception to your own logic.
Seriously? That's what you got from this - you have really just been skimming then, huh? There is no exception! It is simply not the case that 5 is always greater than 1 in terms of people. One fucking number will never be enough to comprehensively measure human well-being, for generalizations? Sure, but certainly not for such individualistic cases. It requires an case by case basis, not some general rule for numbers, the only general rule is the measure of well being.
That last question most certifiably highlights your own dishonesty, you have asked, and I have answered MULTIPLE TIMES that you are not necessarily obligated to do what is good, but you are definitely obligated to NOT DO WHAT IS BAD.
You seem to think its possible to not value your own well-being, its not, literally, on an evolutionarily level - it is impossible to not value your own well-being. Literally, the fact that you flinch away from pain is proof of that. If you want to fight the axiom fine, but you'll have to do better than "it's not justified", because it sure as hell as been. As a pragmatic theory of ethics, the only reason why humans do ANYTHING, is because they value it, hence why I said: If you accept the axiom..., and the thing is EVERY HUMAN ACCEPTS THE AXIOM NECCESARILY. As any biologically conscious creatures do
. If you can't pull that stick from your ass then this conversation is over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
There are certainly some passages that would suggest a flat earth. Some verses about how the earth doesn't move to get ya looking for 'em.
- 1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
- Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
- Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
- Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
- Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
Um... American terrorism? If you don't call America bombing civilians a terroristic attack, neither is this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Wrong - because you have an obligation to not harm others, did you forget that? I literally talked about that, as I said, you aren't listening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You can be an arsehole if you like, but I'm not interacting with you if you wanna keep on making claims without backing them up and assuming that I know what you're talking about - because I don't. Go away, if you continue I'm blocking you, we've been over this Ebuc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Again, that situation is extremely nuanced, and the fact that one side has more people does not mean that that side has more good to gain or lose- that was the entire point of my elaborations earlier, if you still don't understand that your questions are fundamentally flawed, then i don't think you're actually listening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Um yes - it is an emotion - having that emotion is a specific claim - you can quite easily observe the qualities that would be present in an all-loving being. And rights being arbitrary if god made them? Pretty easy, because its completely dependent on the situation, for example, the people killed in the flood - god decided they no longer had a right to life. That's entirely arbitrary, and based on their perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
Um... no - not quite how claims work my dude. Regardless you made a new claim
our realization of what's necessary or not is certainly not a match of God's understanding
If you want to make any claim regarding god's understanding you necessarily must demonstrate that is different from your understanding. My claim there wasn't that god doesn't exist, though they don't, it was that the god you are talking about exists only in your mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Um.... yes - yes you can - you can indeed prove that god does not love people, because love is a specific claim that takes certain qualities to actually be there, so the evidence of people starving is actually evidence of god's not loving people. Furthermore, no, no it isn't because if that were the case, rights would be completely arbitrary, just as subjective as my morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
who cares what god thinks, god doesn't exist accept as an idea in your head. So at that point its what you disagree with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity. Which do you prefer.
A baseline equality of outcome, living comfortably, with outliers there, and everyone has the same equality of opportunity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you like to cook?
Not particularly, sometimes I suppose.
Do you like turtles?
Not really
How do you curb overuse of utilities? If I didn't have to pay for water, I'd take 30 minute showers every day. If I didn't pay electric bills, I'd keep my house at a cool 65 in the summer when it is 90+ outside and at a toasty 75 when it is 30 outside in the winter. If you don't put some financial incentive to limit use to only needs and not wants, how do you plan to stop people from overusing limited resources and imposing massive costs on other people?
Because some people overusing utilities doesn't matter as much as people starving, or having no shelter, etc, etc - but if you want to hear my solution, just a fine. Cause ya know, if you don't have to pay that base amount, you have a lot more spare cash. Just pay enough to make up for what you used more of.
What does this even mean? Because it seems like the only people that support actually getting rid of cops are vastly overprivileged lefties. I have seen semi-rational arguments made for "defunding police" (partially, not entirely) and using some of the funds in other ways to fix the same problems. Merriam Webster says abolish means "to completely do away with (something)". Are you actually saying that we shouldn't have men and women patrolling and arresting people that murder and rob people?
To the last question - nope - I don't think the police department should be the ones to do it - I've said over and over again that I don't think that the just having zero enforcement of the law is necessarily a good thing, just that I think that the current institution is much too corrupt and discriminatory in how it works.
Created:
Posted in:
RMM
If it is neither, then what is it? Please inform me on the apparent third option
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Um...
premise 1: Everything in our universe is made of cheese
premise 2: The earth is located in the universe
Conclusion: Therefore the earth is made of cheese
That is a syllogism, but despite the fact that it's valid, it is not sound. Again, syllogisms aren't necessarily sound bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Again - nothing but vague hand waving. Do you have an actual argument? Those studies at all?
Because see -to me it's clear that your the one whose been indoctrinated or can't accept a proposition that doesn't agree with their old one, because even after several times asking - you've failed to actually rebut the points made, provide the studies you allegedly sourced, nada. I've given you every opportunity to do that, but you have refused to take them.
You dropped: More trans people being recorded now is merely a result of how societies treat trans people, using population numbers and relative accepted-ness rate in two countries to prove the assertion - keep in mind that this point was a good 60% of the entire post.
You also dropped largely any talk of how we treat depression exactly the same as we treat gender dysphoria, and that's a pretty important point.
And you've ignored the fact that gender dysphoria is different from gender identity, the two do not necessarily correlate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I've already defined it - but here's an actual source - since you don't seem to actually want to provide one, curiously enough
A term that describes individuals who can experience sexual, romantic, or emotional attraction to any person, regardless of that person’s gender, sex, or sexuality
As I said, literally all it means is to be attracted to people regardless of gender.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No... that's not what pansexual means... at all. You can try for that pansexual erasure - cool - whatever, I don't care about your input anymore. I've moved past taking your seriously on matters of sexuality.
Created: