Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
..... do you any evidence that the claims were true? Furthermore consider this:
"Despite the chaos of election night and the days which followed, the media has consistently proclaimed that no widespread voter fraud has been proven. But this observation misses the point. The constitutional issue is not whether voters committed fraud but whether state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity so that fraud becomes undetectable."Misses the point does it? The observation - the state that is suing for voter fraud just admitted that no voter fraud had been proven, they instead object that the voter fraud is being made "undetectable" by loosening voter options?
Mmm...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
incorrect, as usual, you haven't demonstrated that fetuses have any moral weight themselves, as they lack personhood to even have well-being. Furthermore, you are not counting on the continuous suffering of both the potential fetus or the impregnated. Which is worse, much worse, than the (sometimes) termination of fetuses. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the termination of a fetus, sometimes the two line up, but ending pregnancy can occur in other ways; such as c-section.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
That's my full argument, but also you missed the point and didn't address my argument, also you didn't address all of them - over half of fetuses die of miscarriage, so... the same thing that applies to eggs in an ovary applies to the zygote and the fetus. Furthermore, you are presuming that humans have some sort of inherent moral value, I don't accept that. Demonstrate that moral value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The Establishment of the Moral Standard (1)
Before we can actually begin to talk about the moral ramifications of abortion, we must discuss the actual moral component. Such questions as: What is the standard? How can we measure that standard? How valid is that standard? I have a simple answer to these questions. Well-being. As I described above, well being is, The positive state of one's physical and mental state. This is easily measured, by using the physical and mental state of the person, which is the most accurate you can get in regards to morality. Finally, the validity of the standard is proved by the syllogism.
- Clarification of Well-being
P1: Humans value their own well-being
P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs
Con: Therefore you ought to value the well-being
To simplify, this argument is contingent on humans valuing their physical and mental state. It is almost intuitive at this point, whenever you fear retribution, social shaming, have anxiety, are nervous of acceptance, etcetera. The fact that you jump back at pain, humans value their well-being. This isn't a particularly controversial point. Well-being is simply your state of being, how you are, and this is so commonly accepted as a value that a part of standard conversation is asking, "how are you." And people talking about how dry the response are, and that we ought to go deeper there.
As I wrote in the first category here, in order for us to use this as a standard we must establish quite a few things. First, the actual standard. That's been defined the most, reltaviely, within my argument, so I won't go back into that yet. Instead let's move to the next regard, how can we measure well-being? I answered by using your physical and mental being, but what specifically am I speaking of? Specifcally, morality in this instance is with regards to the behavior of an action, and that standard is the tool used to decalre it moral, immoral, or amoral. So, how exactly does your state of being apply here?
Quite simply, if an action were to detract from this well-being overall (as in short term vs long term), then we could call this action necessarily immoral. Now, maybe an example would be helpful. Yelling at children? Some may say, "But that detracts from their emotional well-being so is yelling therefore bad?" Ah ah ah, that's where the anylasis of short vs long term well-being comes into play. Was that specific interaction used to discipline an action that ought to be discouraged? Well then it wouldn't be immoral, was the yelling simply the parent being angry for no valid reason? Then it is immoral.
- Pre-emptive Rebuttal
A common response to my point of well-being is suicide. "If people are suicidal then obviously they don't value their own well-being?" Two questions then: Should they value their well being? and Why don't they value their well being?
The first question is quite obviously, yes. The evidence is quite clear, if you care about your mental and physical state, you will benefit [1] [2]. You will improve physically and mentally, so regardless of if you think that you value well-being individually is of no concern, you will empirically be benefited from thinking so. While that isn't to say we should always do what is most practical, this standard creates clear incentives to adopt it, and is already what the majority of people adopt, loosely, with regards to a moral system. Next, let's get into, why people don't value their own well being.
"Youth who report frequently bullying others and youth who report being frequently bullied are atincreased risk for suicide-related behavior." [3] This is another commonly accepted fact, those who are bullied or abused or at higher risk for suicidal behavior. Therefore, it is quite easy to make the following argument: They did value their own well-being, and through expressions of bullying began to less and less. We acknowledge that suicide is not a good thing, that it needs to be prevented, thereby, suicidal thought isn't the rule, but the exception to the rule of what people value. To provide impact to this argument:
In 2015, 55 million people died (55,000,000) [4] Around 800,000 of those deaths were attributed due to suicide [5] Using some simple calculations (55,000,000 divided by 800,000 and converting to percentages) we get a suicide to be 1.6875% of the annual deaths globally. (Ignoring the lower rate from Who for the sake of giving the benefit of the doubt to Con) In the USA there were 1.4 million attempts at suicide (1,400,000) [6] Taking this to the population of the USA (330,700,000) [7] we can find out the rate of suicide attempters in the USA. Using the two number provided, we find that if every suicide attempted was doing so out of no care for their well-being then that would 0.42% of the population who feels that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If you were to say that simply being human is enough to consider something worth moral rights then sperm, and every cell of skin would be considered a human - there must be some other sort of consideration. Humans have no inherent value without some sort of morality, you have not effectively established that. I don't care to argue it again, I have already done that. You present no new objections, and there are others who are already objecting to your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
He says the value of a person is their well-being.Imagine a person - he is sleeping - not conscious and killing him would not inflict any real pain onto him, and not remove any pleasure he feels. Is it morally justifiable to kill him because it will not make him feel anything? No - most would say. According to the basic morality we constructed in the setup I have an obligation to respect his FUTURE well-being. I would not want to be killed while sleeping, therefore I should not kill anyone - not even those not able to tell me that they want to live. Similarly, since I would not wish to have been killed while being a fetus in the past, I will not kill people who are fetuses. I hope this addressed especially Theweakeredges moral objections to giving a fetus human rights even though it technically has not yet reached the biological threshold of complexity for "well-being" to make any sense. Few, if anyone, would want to travel back in time and kill their fetuses. Therefore one ought to respects fetuses' life because you respect human life. This is entirely logical.I conclude my argument: a fetus is similar to an unconscious person - both have no well-being but have the potential for future well-being.
Well... no, because you would still be harming their well-being their state of being doesn't matter, as long as they have well-being and personhood. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Also wrong, that is the fallacy of possibility, furthermore fetus lack anything else to consider it worth moral weight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I have yet to hear your demonstration that gives fetus which are aborted moral weight. You are making a category error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
And beyond that, do you actually have any evidence for your claims or are your objections purely speculative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Essentially, though on a larger scale, as it would take nothing of a such a powerful being to help, thus, as corny as it might sound - with power comes responsibility, and what isn't said is that the more power you have the more responsibility you have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Something which is entirely certain properties, and those properties are logically contradicting, then those properties can not logically exist, therefore the god that the bible describes does not exist according to the bible itself. I am more interested in a realistic potential god which would be almost definitionally corrupted and evil, not to mention, yes there is countless evil in the world, and saying, "oh but humans caused that" does not mean that a powerful being would not be morally obligated to help. If said being did exist and our current world continued, then that god would be morally wrong, hence my position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Justice is defined as being - "Just behavior or treatment."
The biblical definition of mercy, or at least the merciful that the god of the bible is - is to not punish the sinners who are fundamentally evil - if god is all justice, or he has to always be just then he can definitionally not be merciful. If that wasn't this specific context, it wouldn't necessarily be true, but because of the absolutes that are used to justify the actions of god, they are contradictory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
My essential point is - prove that the fetus has the moral weight to consider it something I have an obligation to not terminate it - and demonstrate that the bodily autonomy of people who are impregnated (over 50% against their will) have the moral obligation to incubate, let develop, and birthe that fetus, furthermore that the inherent suffering of the majority of "would-be aborted" children's lives aren't increased suffering, which they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
In order to have a case heard there are standards of evidence that must be met, if a case does not achieve that bare minimum standard of evidence, then it is thrown out because of conjecture. You present all of your evidence in the lawsuit, this isn't some court drama with a surprise testimony or evidence, that's not how the court works, you present all of your evidence at the gate and the court will evaluate if that case if worth their time. These cases were not due to an explicit lack of evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Wrong - the god that the bible claims to exist does not exist, even if we were to believe the claim that a god exists, because a) It's characteristics are contradicting (one cannot be all-merciful and all justice the two contradict the most two words can), and two because the actions of the god do not align with that. You would have demonstrated that the god had hidden intentions to prove that that god existed, not the other way around. Wrong again, you do not need to be created to be corrupted, you are assuming things about creation, as long as it is an agent with a consciousness then it can be corrupted, that's how corruption works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Center point - realistically speaking - the god's actions in the bible do not align with the supposed characteristics of said god, therefore those gods do not exist - realistically, anything with unlimited power would be corrupted unlimitedly, that is how power works. Especially unchecked power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you read my point that is my main point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
No, that was not my logic, that is your strawman for an easy "critque" which gets annoying, but anyways, I barely have any time to interact with these forum posts recently. I only barely finished my debate round in time for the abortion debate, so I'll respond more in depth later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
No, I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about, or more specifically - that you don't understand quantum mechanics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Are you asking if the utility of an action is worth more than a moral obligation? The moral obligation that you have is based on the moral utility of a thing or action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
-Richard Feynman
I think that quote applies spectacularly here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'll look into that, I figured that if I knew a bit more about the subject material, fight scenes would just feel more real. I don't know everything about boxing, but I know the broad strokes to be sure; pressure fighter, counterpuncher, brawler, "boxer", etc, etc.. though to be fair brawlers, for me at least, are just people with high power punches, but that name is a bit of a misnomer, considering how skilled you have to be to reliably set up a knock out punch. People like Hearns, Foreman, ect, etc.. But yeah that sounds like a fun book to read. I'm not a boxer personally, but I enjoy shadow boxing as light work out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I started watching boxing, and I actually started watching it to make my fight scenes more fluid, you know, but then I started to actually enjoy the analysis and actually watching boxing matches. So here I am. And yeah, I think the parallel between modern fighters and past fighters is very interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well yeah, I think people underestimate Mike Tyson in that regard, he was a great counterpuncher, he could always manipulate stances and angles to set up the best knockout punch, so I am very aware of how (I think boxing, in general, is like chess) complicated counterpunching can be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Wait.. so he's a pressure counter-puncher? That sounds like like a difficult style to maintain, but yeah, lots of baiting would certainly invite people who actually can knock you out. Huh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I do like boxing, haven't been keeping up with Mcgregor though, I heard he was overrated. How does he fight?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think the entire concept of "maximally" is pretty logically incoherent into itself. As you pointed out its very vague in what specifically it implies and means specifically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I got suspicious from the very beginning, but most conspiracy theorist are scared off with the lightest bit of criticism, so I first sought out to see if they would explain themselves, but after their nonanswers I got frustrated, but to be fair, I expected that, just not as immediately. I thought there would be some sort of justification, turns out - there was none. I gave maximum benefit of the doubt, but I received nothing in turn of answers. So after that I thought I would try to mess with their pride, but apparently that didn't work either, so here we are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not specifically, but I could guess from associated fallacies
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
literally every one of your rebuttal is our point. That is the same as a maximally great being, it was an reductio ad absurdum, Your argument is synonymous to ours. That was the entire point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can argue all you like about it being non-distinguishable, but it is still there. It wouldn't matter if humanity was never here, the universe objectively existed. You are incorrect here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, you can, that is light, that is the earth, etc, etc, you totally can. Just because something isn't dependent on the mind for existence does not mean that the mind cannot perceive them. For example, let's say... a ray of light, of photons. You do not need the extrapolation of the brain in order for there to be rays of photons, now, without minds, there would be nothing to acknowledge or perceive them, but it is not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I already explained the assumption, and incorrect, there are things that are not dependent on the mind for existence, they are dependent on the mind for perception. There is a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just to make a distinction, I typically agree with what you're going on about; however, if you are to assume that our senses are reliable then there are things which exist regardless of us as individuals, and things that do not - hence the difference between constructs and objects, but if you were to not have that assumption then your position would be correct. As the previously stated assumption is needed for logical conversation, it is the one I make.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Any chair which was maximally great would not need to rely on matter or space to exist.
Any chair which was maximally great would not be constrained by the materials which you have listed.
It holds the greatest qualities of a chair, therefore any chair which would be greater, say - a chair which exists without matter - must be the chair that we are describing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
P1: Humans value their own well-beingCorrect.1. Can you prove that a baby cannot have well being?2. A baby right before and right after birth are basically the same. Is post-birth abortion acceptable? What about child murder?3. Well being is an ill-defined term. Well-being
Because you clearly don't understand what this implies - this is saying each individual human values their own well-being - baby and fetus aren't synonymous. In order for something like this to have well-being they must have personhood, the majority of fetus's that are aborted do not have personhood. Any abortion that late into the trimester would not be termination, but surgery to remove the fetus. Abortion is not murder, abortion is terminating the pregnancy. In later stages that is equivalent to removing the fetus; however less than 10% of abortions happen after 13 weeks, and less than 0.1% after 21.
Are you asking what well being is? Because a 10 second google search would render the answer - "The state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy", again, in order for something to be any of those things it has to have personhood.
P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs1. Not necessarily. Hitler did not "ought" to respect other peoples well being.2. Animals can also have well-being, but we still do not think that hunting is immoral. We would never put an animal as more valuable than actual humans?3. What does "respect" mean in this case? Its a substitute for moral duty, not an explanation for it.4. This allows for people to be immoral if they do not desire their well being to be respected.
You are missing on something, evolutionarily speaking, everyone values their own well-being, this is why people quickly draw their hand away from flame whenever they touch it, this is why humans feel fear of death, this is why humans innovate, you do not understand that simple principle and it shows. Hitler wasn't being moral, of course he didn't. He was wrong, and we know that - why would he fall into the syllogism? As for respect, it means if you want your well-being to be acknowledged by others you ought to acknowledge theirs. This is intuitive. You just said that well-being was ill defined, and then you try to attribute it to animals? How can you simoutanously ask what a term means and then claim that a category of things have it? Sounds like bullshit to me.
Con: Therefore you ought to value well-beingThis is exactly what you said in P1. - your logic is circular.
This is what I meant whenever you were being illogical, do you not understand nuance? Premise 1 was: "Human-beings value their own well-being" this is saying you ought to value other people's well-being. You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
this system is dependent on human personhoodIt is based on a feeling animals can have but many humans do not have. A rat can have the well-being a human baby cannot have (according to pro-choice arguments).
Wrong, demonstrate that rats are suffciently sentient to have personhood, and babies do have well-being, fetus don't. There is a biological distinction. This is a strawman.
without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for moralityThis is exactly what Hitler thought, he called the Jews insects and rats, and by doing that he removed their personhood - then he killed them in the absence of human rights.
So you don't have an argument to deconstruct what I was saying? You're just saying, "You're being Hitler." If you think that makes a cogent moral argument you are sorely mistaken. Hitler dehumanized Jews, called them not human, fetus's literally don't have personhood - it is not the same comparison. "Personhood" funny how you don't even know what that word means and you're throwing it around, Hitler said literally nothing about personhood. Your short and quippy responses make sense, as your arguments have little substance.
forcing the impregnated to keep their fetus and violate their bodily anatomyI have bodily autonomy, I could kill people. Would you force me to stop and violate my bodily anatomy?
That is not the same thing - bodily autonomy is having the right to your body, you can, for example: masturbate, and nobody could stop you. Also... murdering is violating someone elses bodily autonomy, I see you are trying to compare abortion to murder, demonstrate that please. Further more, if someone was attacking you, or causing you great suffering and depression, you could defend yourself... yes.
is you claiming that terminating a fetus or embryo is inherently more wrongYes. Killing a human being, even if that human being is not as developed as me, is morally wrong.
Demonstrate that claim. You are making a fallacy of possibility currently.
without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for moralityExactly - this moral theory can allow abortion as morally permissible.Under this theory, a society can choose which humans should deserve human rights and who should not - by choosing who is a "person" and whom to call "animal/fetus/etc"Conclusion: this theory does not support human rights. Therefore this theory fails to meet my criteria.
You are very incorrect here - no one chooses what does and doesn't have personhood, things either do or do not have them. Do you think that this is aribtary? It is probably the farthest from arbitrary of any moral system. Also, "this moral theory can allow abortion as morally permissible" is A) you conceding, and B) based on the assumption that abortion is wrong, you have not demonstrated that. You don't understand how basic personhood works, funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
And I said I would correct your understanding later, the entire point of that was to say, "I am in class, I don't feel like and don't have the time to address this rn, so wait till later."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I will answer each "critque" later, it doesn't understand basic logic, and you are quite wrong in your points, but I'll answer it whenever I have more time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
All of those were assertions, claims, I'd like you to demonstrate them; here's my foundation of morality, or at least one version of it.
P1: Humans value their own well-being
P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs
Con: Therefore you ought to value well-being
Furthermore this system is dependent on human personhood, if an organism does not have personhood, then it does morally consider the same, without personhood murder is not wrong, nothing is wrong, because there is no foundation for morality. Even more, this is you claiming that terminating a fetus or embryo is inherently more wrong then the forcing the impregnated to keep their fetus and violate their bodily anatomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Okay, let's let something else sink in. Topicality, whenever the definition of a word is fit to the topic, and second of all - authority, I could care less what you wasted your money on. Psychologist determine these things, would you trust the OED's definition of abortion over a medical center's? Because I wouldn't. You are just logically flawed here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It's literally like two clicks, but if you want to be semantic and ignorant.... nah I still don't feel like giving it to you, mostly out of spite. I'll pm it to Benjamin though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That isn't the OED now is it? Not only that but you have simply repeated yourself.. that isn't an argument, it still doesn't refute that the experts in these fields find them different. Gender experts say they are different.. you are categorically wrong, as my definition has already shown, and you have not read apparently. Not only that but I showed why and that the APA was accredited and even had more authority in this realm then OED does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, it doesn't, you showed an article on the history of the OED, nothing else. Whereas my source is literally the authority, you haven't even linked the definition that say that they are the "same" in fact, Lexico differentiates them as well. You can "trust" the OED all you like, definitionally you're wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Sure. Check out my debate on abortion, the second one, also the first one (but that one's not as good in my opinion.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Clarify the third point, it isn't hard to guess what he's talking about. It seems like you're playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
gender and sex aren't the same thing, as I have already shown. You haven't responded to that currently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You've been unable to demonstrate any of these numbers because you have refused to share where you get your information, as I asked previously and you simply called me stupid and using "mind games", its not using mind games to ask for a source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Definitionally? All of them. But that misses the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So... you gonna ignore the fact that the APA IS accredited. It has the authority to make that distinction, and the expertise, so I am perfectly justified citing it, and am being more topical then you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That's an article describing why its a dictionary, not giving it the credentials to have authority over this, the American Psychological Association's Dictionary is the very accreddited. Every dictionary does what you claim, not only that, but the source was not "a peer reviewed article" you are incorrect.
The APA Commission on Accreditation (APA-CoA) is the primary programmatic accreditor in the United States for professional education and training in psychology. As such, it accredits programs, not institutions or individuals. APA-CoA accredits doctoral graduate programs in clinical psychology, counseling psychology, school psychology and combinations of these areas. The Commission also accredits doctoral internships in the aforementioned areas, as well as postdoctoral residencies in traditional (clinical, counseling, school) or specialty areas of health service psychology.APA accreditation is voluntary, and there are currently more than 396 accredited doctoral programs, approximately 645 accredited internship programs, and more than 174 accredited postdoctoral residency programs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No. Not wiki, the American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology
gender
n.1. the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity).
2. in linguistics, a grammatical category in inflected languages that governs the agreement between nouns and pronouns and adjectives.
Created: