Total posts: 3,457
-->
@ronjs
Instead of pretending you can read minds, how about you just ask, hm? This is why I don't like FLRW's whole "theists are mentally damaged" because no they aren't they're people with different assumptions and justifications than you and I, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to pretend to have the moral high ground fine, but don't assume and generalize an entire group that's only similarity is an agreement that there are no gods, nothing else.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I did.... you have to INTEND to bring down his reputation in order to be charged for Libel or Slander... do you not know how it works?
And more, privacy... isn't the most important thing... what would be more important is to warn people who are supporting that person that it is plausible that that person has done a bad thing... because you usually shouldn't support people who do bad things. I suppose you could make pragmatic arguments against it, but they wouldn't be consistent.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
False. IN every regard. In the court of law, the responsibility of the burden of proof falls onto the person bringing it to court. The entire point of the example would be to point out that there is evidence of such a claim - it would be unreasonable to say that this person has to prove that this is true being brought to the court of law, what makes more sense and is the case, is that the person claiming the thing to be untrue has to demonstrate that it is untrue before the case even be tried. This is the standard all cases have to reach before they are brought into court. Furthermore, there has to be a demonstration of INTENT to harm their reputation, not merely saying a false thing. Even FURTHER MORE, it has to be a factual matter not an opinion. Therefore if were to say, "Factually speaking, Dwayne Johnson robbed a store" would be different from saying, "Dwayne is a thief" Because I could be referring to different things.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yay satire, anyway, the entire point was to poke a hole there - that is a reasonable accusation to make - that isn't libel. Let's get the dictionary definition shall we?
Libel - "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."
Slander - "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."
Both of these suppose that the crime has not been committed; therefore you are assuming that to be the case - but the preponderance of evidence would point to the other side. Also, illegal actions such as libel or slander, require INTENT, if you are trying to argue against Donald Trump being criticized, don't because again - a preponderance of the evidence.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Question: IF somebody like; let's use Dwayne Johnson, just as an example; allegedly stole from a store. The video was leaked to the internet somehow and we know pretty reliably that Dwayne stole, would it be illegal to say: "Dwayne Johnson is a thief,"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
So we should.... decrease their funding?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Have you read the thread.... at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not you, but Tarik's, sorry I should have been more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
well yes, but it could also be the case that I force you to show me your phone, as I said, they can be linked, but they aren't necessarily. Also... no that isn't really a bodily autonomy violation. If I just see you naked, a breach of your privacy not your autonomy, you would have to insert things as you have for it to be so, and that wasn't the original analogy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Um... not necessarily true - I could see you naked and that would not entail any forfeit of your anatomical rights. I am not saying that the right to privacy isn't important, I'm saying it isn't necessarily linked to bodily autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well thanks for the praise, and I definitely plan to continue on with education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Somebody already did:Might be, but they have not changed the declaration of human rights to use the word "person".
Why does that matter? Seriously though, why does the pedantic perspective matter here?
P1. IF a fetus is a human it has moral value just like the motherP2. The right to life is more important than the right to privacy.C. IF a fetus is a human then we must choose the lesser evil - banning abortion (exceptions being when the danger is too high)
No.. I don't accept that premise. That humans have inherent moral value. I've already explained why fetuses don't share the same value that borne or adult humans do. Please object to that instead of repeating yourself. Furthermore, a right to bodily autonomy is very different from the right to privacy. That's like saying the right to keep your organs is the "right of privacy. Blatantally false equivalence there.
I am saying that if abortion is immoral then it doesn't matter that women's rights are broken, as the right to life is more basic and fundamental. Also, we are prohibiting an industry, we will not in any way directly apply force on the mother. If abortion (exceptions excluded) are banned that is not "forcing" the mother to carry to term - nature forces her, we simply don't allow society and science to defy nature in an immoral way.
Appealing to nature - that's a fallacy called the naturalistic fallacy bud, I'm sure you knew that though. Furthermore, the mother had a choice, to abort the fetus, and you want to stop that by law, that essentially forcing the impregnated to carry the fetus. Please don't play pedantic games with me here, this is trying to strip people of rights to their body. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not is your buisness.
I do not think humans have intrinsic valueStill, society must ACT like humans have intrinsic value. If not, we get slavery, holocaust, oppression of women and children and lastly persecution based on religion.
A pragmatic argument? I don't see how that applies philosophically. You can't justify anything like that, it becomes an infinite regress, again, the sperm, the skin cells.
a speciest lens that made us only care for humans and not every species equallyInteresting question. But it is survival of the fittest, isn't it? Since animals can't really agree to a moral contract, AS A SPECIES, they cannot have the same moral considerations by your own definition, as they cannot respect the well being of others. Also, they are not part of society but live in the wild.
I don't think you understand how that works, we have a moral value for animals that is either none or much beneath humans, my point is that IF we were to use this framework without personhood or suffering, every species would be on equal moral ground as humans. Not a neccessarily bad take, but its the one you would be accepting if you disregard my arguments.
Are people not allowed to change their mind regarding such a huge decision and future impact on their own well-being?Yes, they can change their mind. But action is not the same as though. I cannot be arrested for "wanting" someone to be dead, but I can from killing.
You have failed to demonstrate that fetuses have value or that it is murdering to abort them. You have gone on as if I've accepted the premise that they have value and that are being "murdered" yet I've made it clear I do not.
it is not moral to force a woman to donate, their body, mental state, and possibly their life if they do not agree to have a child.Agreed. No force should be applied to her in addition to the burden she already has. And when she gives birth she is free to leave the child to be adopted or taken care of, as such, we can compensate her and also help the innocent child. This is, at the very least, the only moral choice in the 10% of cases after your 13 weeks brain-idea.
That isn't how society works, neither is how it works philosophically - you have already taken a large amount from the woman. Imagine this- "You will be tortured, you will be forced to have a camera shoved down your throat, and then you will be forced to feed it nutrients for 9 months, don't worry though, afterwards you'll get money and you can get rid of it." Please have basic decency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I try to vote as often as possible but school really holds me back, I do have 51 votes having only been here for 4 months, I don't think thats terrible but I would like to vote more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Again, your own increduality does not inform an actual argument, please provide a specific objection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Um.... deduction... that's how detectives solve murder, how we know that your brother took a sip of tea whenever there's a teacup partially drained beside your brother. As for proof.
https://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/animal-sentience/criteria-for-recognizing-sentience/
An appeal to ignorance is a fallacy, if you want evidence, ask for it. Do not appeal to your own ignorance. That is not being skeptical, that is being incredulous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, but brain activity is, we are able to evaluate intelligence through more than communication - this applies to sentience as well- for example, the social hierarchies of bears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Yes there is... a kidney transplant. Its analogous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, what appears to be the case and what is the case are two different things, dogs do have not comparable levels of self awareness to humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is exactly what I am most interested in although there is a discussion to be had about "partial sentience" and "the moral value" of things with the "capacity to suffer". How do you know you have reached the point of certainty and if it is a gray area do you err on the side of person or potato?
IF that being is aware that they exist, THEN they have sentience. Having partial sentience might be something like having a notion that you exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And does the mother suffer more in childbirth than the blastocyst suffers in deportation?
Absolutely, a blastocyst is incapable of suffering biologically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Bacon is not a majority of pork imports, but that's just not representative of my argument, this is in regards to most meat not specific bits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Furthermore, to completely stop would be to take away a large human well-being and derive them of protein and food, so we have to be careful how we do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Preferably yes. Especially in a manner as inhumane as we do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Having more or less sentience is essentially more or less self-awareness. However; I would say that an ability to suffer is more important than sentience while determining moral value. People with syndromes are still self-aware and it would be a bit arbitrary to take or add moral value based on minute differences in this, after the organism crosses the line of "self-awareness without doubt" Furthermore, intelligence isn't necessarily sentience, they are different aspects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And I wasn't suggesting that at all, is that what you thought I was doing? Even if the fetus was a person it would not supersede the women's rights, please read my posts in their entirety before making assumptions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The amount of suffering an animal can suffer should equate to their moral being, furthermore their ability to comprehend it, aka personhood also determines it. So yes, pigs should have moral value, not as much as people, because they are not as sentient as humans, but they should be granted some.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why does it need humans to worship it?
Great question, why does a supposedly perfect being need constant attention? Is it a toddler or a cat? Because the god of the bible reminds me of my cat, throwing a tantrum when she doesn't get head pats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Also. if you value your own self, then you have to necessarily value others - because if you want to be valued, then you have to value others - it's a pretty simple concept I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I elaborated, and the elaboration makes the definition work, I do not mean "person" as in "personhood" I mean "person" as in the quality of thinking in a human manner, such is not a circle definition - you are conflating person and personhood. They are not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I would say that the most reasonable claim for the development of personhood would be between 20 weeks and several months borne, but by then they can suffer, therefore I would argue that a fetus might have moral weight starting at around 25 weeks. Probably later though, more research is needed into when they can suffer, and they can't suffer mentally so there is more doubt here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The quality or condition of being an individual person.
Thats the definition that Lexico provides and the one I'm going with, in order otbe an "individual person" a person must be able to have thought, fetuses are not able to think until at a minimum of 20 weeks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
This is not even considering the fact that it is not moral to force a woman to donate, their body, mental state, and possibly their life if they do not agree to have a child. Why is it that people find the initial "contract" so binding? Because people don't want to let the impregnated, primarily women, change their mind? Are people not allowed to change their mind regarding such a huge decision and future impact on their own well-being? Did you know that the depression and suicide rate of pregnant women are actually significantly higher than average? That fetuses do not develop a significant percentage of the time in the womb? Did you know that 1/16 women report that their first sexual intercourse is rape, and that 56% report being coerced into having sex [LINK] [LINK]?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I would agree in some respects - not doing something can be negligent and harmful; however, the problem here is that I do not think humans have intrinsic value, IF you support the claim that people matter, THEN they have value. I am not convinced that being "people" is enough to matter, however, else it would only be a speciest lens that made us only care for humans and not every species equally. Well then, what is the difference between humans and other species, such as flies or slugs, I think that is pretty obvious; our ability to suffer or to have well-being, personhood, all of these make us different. IF we value these things, THEN humans matter. Therefore things without these things have no value, IN CONCLUSION, Fetuses do not have any of these things, if they had even one of the three then we could value them, as they have none, I see no reason to value them as people. Whenever fetuses develop these things, abortion is simply c-section, a perfectly fine operation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Tell that to the UN human rights counsil
Somebody already did:
In the HMR 2017 Resolution, there was an adopted text under the general title of 35/18 Elimination of discrimination against woman and girls, under document E is this statement:
“Reaffirming that the human rights of women include a woman’s right to have control over and to decide freely and responsibly on matters related to her sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, and that equal relationships between women and men in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, including full respect for the dignity, integrity and autonomy of the person, require mutual respect, consent and shared responsibility for sexual behaviour and its consequences,”
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
A little advice? Instead of expecting people to look into a youtube video, just directly provide the statistics, you've done it before I don't see why you seem to not want to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
To be honest I wouldn't bother, Tarik likes to talk in circles and repeat things back at you as if he knows what they mean, for example: an appeal to emotion, proof, morality, etc, if it doesn't align with his conclusion it is "not demonstrated" after he ignores your explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
That's the point, he doesn't believe in objective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
Subjective morality does exist - Do not murder because it is bad to humans, that can be subjective, not believing in subjective morality is not believing in opinions
Created:
Posted in:
I'm saying that it a tautology to say that principles subjective, and I already explained this, furthermore, this was NOT my only point. ANd you have not addressed it, nor have you addressed my actual explanation. The proof.
Created:
Posted in:
I am relating the direct nature of principles.
Created:
Posted in:
Because they are descriptions of qualities you want to have or should be, they are descriptively oughts. Furthermore that was not my only point.
Created:
Posted in:
Principles cannot be objective, they are subjective, furthermore which principle to prefer is the subjective part: You cannot derive an is from an ought.
Created:
Posted in:
Morals are just a list of principles which inform what is good and what is bad, whether you prefer one principle over another is the intrinsically subjective bit, again I don't think you quite understand what morality is.
Created:
Posted in:
Incorrect, you have not comprehended the text above - the action to take based on a fact is the part that is subjective. I made that very clear.
Created: