Total posts: 3,457
-->
@Tarik
What? No, that could be a reason why someone comes to that conclusion, but that isn't why I specifically came to that conclusion, I have an entire forum discussing why I came to that conclusion as well as two debates, trust me, I don't need some appeal to emotion here. Also, all of this is waaay off point. This forum was supposed to be your best argument for god, yet you immediately conceded it whenever I pushed.
Created:
Posted in:
What if?
Its a popular question in all regards - whether that be historic, fictional, fantastic, or any other category of life. The question of what if things were different, if this was true, if this wasn't true, are often discussed and debated among people.
What if Hilary Clinton won the 2016 election?
Hilary Clinton was the democrat's chosen nominee to go up versus Trump, barely beating out Bernie Sanders in the primaries, but she was expected to actually defeat Trump in the election. However, the electoral college vote was clearly Trump. Thus she lost the vote, what if that wasn't the case though? What if Hilary won both the popular and the electoral college vote against Donald Trump in the 2016 election? Let's explain a little bit more of what I'm talking about for those unfamiliar.
Not only after but during the election there were cries everywhere of "Hilary would have been a worse president!" and "She is actually evil!" People essentially saying that the country would have gone down an even worse path if Hilary was elected in 2016, do people think this is true? Do you think she would have done some of the things that Trump did that were wrong (i.e a lot of border stuff), if you think Trump was great, what do you think Hilary would have failed to do that Trump did?
The specific conditions of this would be as follows: The winner of the 2016 election would have Hilary Clinton as the 45th president of the United States of America, she would have been inaugurated as such on January 20th, 2017, at the West Front of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. The Vice President would have been Hilary Clinton's choice of Senator Tim Kaine. As well as her cabinet being reportedly half filled with women, unfortunately we don't know the specifics, but feel free to guess below.
A couple of basic questions:
How would you have reacted to Hilary Clinton winning?
How do you think general America would react?
Would she be a good or a bad president, why?
How would her presidency affect America?
How would her presidency affect the world?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Yes... that is.. I fail to see how that's relevant to what we're talking about, my emotional response and whether morality is objective or subjective have nothing to do with one another
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Who constructed my worldview? I want to know who you think made it? Hm.. guess?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Yes I did answer that one too, quote:
"You don't necessarily need emotions for something to be subjective, as I have already explained." Post #315
I answered your question in Post #314 which said, and I quote:
"You said your appeal was a subjective one but would you have that subjective appeal if you didn’t have emotions?"
I guess I could be more concise? Yes. You could have a subjective appeal without emotions, I referenced that I already explained it, and I have, whenever I talked about how one definition of subjective is talking about being influenced by emotions and the other is something which is contingent on the mind to be true. I talked about that in post #307
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What? Cite the specific verses that agree with your conclusion, and no, the bible goes back and forth on the point you are trying to make in fact some verses even say "Take your slaves from the nations around you." The bible is radically contradictory on this point, but a lot more goes on to inhibit then to prohibit. You go on this rant about PC culture, yet I don't see you responding to the other criticisms, you pick and choose when you want to go in because you rarely ever actually use logic to come to your conclusions, more often you just continously assert that your position is logical, and that people who disagree are being illogical. The type of "slavery" that is being talked about there is "Slavery to sin".... its hilarious how you cry out "CONTEXT CONTEXT" Yet most of the things you cite you don't even know the context of, let's look at it shall we?
John 8:31-36 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendents and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." He's saying that every living person is a slave to sin, but by believing in him, you will be set free. That's what Jesus is talking about here, and its funny how people misinterpret that. Also, what about the times whenever he clearly states that you can beat your slaves and not be punished as long as they don't die because they are quote, "your money". Funny how you seem to forget those verses exist.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Um.... I would have charity for the position if it was demonstrated, I would have more charity if it wasn't so oppressive, I would have charity if it wasn't harmful. To you your conclusion is reasonable, of course it is, it is also a massive begging the question fallacy and an assertion that you assert is a fact... I need evidence for that claim there.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I did answer the question, I said no, that's not really dodging the question - I literally answered the question. I also explained my answer, no, if someone is logical then that means they came to a logical conclusion at some point, which is using logic, not necessarily their mind, again, unless that conclusion is subjective
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I mean... it's supposed to be 12 hours no? Then it would end at 7am.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
You don't necessarily need emotions for something to be subjective, as I have already explained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If the police discovered the guy was killed before purge, you'd still be arrested....
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Well, their mind is the property that allowed them to come to a conclusion, but no, unless that thing is subjective then no, there was an objective reason they used, as well as the rules of logic, to come to a conclusion.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Well no, technically logic is an abstract way to describe what we see, its kinda of like math in that regard. Math doesn't "exist" in the same ways trees exist, but obviously 2 + 2 always equals 4. The way we describe it is technically man made, but the actual mechanics and rules are just the rules of the universe, we just describe it.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Let's get something straight here - NONE of the definitions of harm suit what you thought they did, there are exactly two definitions of subjective - both of which refer to different things - this is subjective in opposition of objection, look at the wording here - the words are literally opposites of one another and they fit most topically:
Subjective - Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
Objective - Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
As for god? Seriously, I could get into a whole other rant about why he's wrong there, oh wait, I ALREADY DID THAT HERE AND IN ANOTHER FORUM seriously this is the second time Mopac and I have gone back and forth over the same thing.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I mean... that's the definition of subjective - "Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence." that was the definition I cited, and the definition that I have been referring to, that's how subjective things work, now, they can also work when describing something that is influenced by emotions and such, but thats not what I was referring too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
I'm not sure exactly, you can legit just tag "DebateArt.Com" maybe tag one of the mods to get DebateArt.Com to notice, some mods are: MisterChris, Drafterman, Ragnar.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
nuh uh, not an emotional appeal, a subjective appeal the two aren't necessarily linked.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Because I value well being, my reasoning for valuing that it works practically and humans ought to care about it deductively, not just their own, but other peoples. Now, this reasoning is subjective in the nature that humans valuing something or having ought to isn't really an objective in regards to morals, I happen to be a human and think that we ought to, hence the reasoning.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I would actually say that you have no ground to stand on.... your only justification of your claim is semantic nonsense that is another claim into itself. Why don't you ponder why I am disagreeing, and I'll do the same. Also, your continued cry of "Nihilism" isn't even accurate. That is a rather shallow view of morals you have if you think that.
Created:
Posted in:
What if?
Its a popular question in all regards - whether that be historic, fictional, fantastic, or any other category of life. The question of what if things were different, if this was true, if this wasn't true, are often discussed and debated among people.
What if the Purge was real?
First of all, let's just take the movie's logic, that some homicidal party took over the government and started the purge, the first one happening March 21st, 2021 at 7pm. What would you do? What do you think people would do in general? Do you think that the movie have an at all accurate interpretation of what would happen if people had no law to answer to? Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, I should explain what the purge is exactly, maybe someone hasn't heard of it?
The purge is one night where all crime is legal except for killing politicians. The focus of the purge is to let everyone rampage and have a feel of catharsis that way crime is lowered the rest of the year, or at least that's the justification the government tells the people in the movies. A hidden goal of the purge is to kill off poorer people to save the government money in caring for people. Now, I don't even think these would necessarily work, but its more about what if, then if it's true or not.
So the rules officially for this little scenario: Starting at March 21st, 2021 - 7 pm all crimes are legal, except for killing governmental politicians, the movie happens in America, but substitute that for whatever country you live in. The purge ends at 7 am on March 22nd 2021, so 12 hours. A secret rule is that their are roaming bands of the military barging into apartments and mowing people down, usually in the poorer parts of towns first.
A couple of basic questions:
What would you do if you were in this situation?
How do you thin People in general would act here?
How accurate or inaccurate do you think the movies were at judging people's behaviors during the purge?
How do you think this would affect America (substitute America with the country you live in) in general?
How do you think this would affect the world in general?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
What? I mean, yes, everything is biased that comes from the mind, but if something is contingent on the mind specifically it is subjective, the earth being round is true independent of the mind, this is really showcasing you not knowing what you're talking about.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Everything in that rant is a claim
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I am saying that their isn't an objective way to say that at all, and everyone has a subjective reason to value human life.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
What? That wasn't even what I was referring to, it doesn't matter that humans can conceputalize morals or not, the fact is that it isn't by an objective standard that morals are assigned, its by subjective notions of whats valuable. Human lives and such, that being valuable is subjective.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You are claiming to identify god as reality, which is still a claim
Created:
-->
@Tarik
uh huh, which is the subjective part, attributing it to humans. And thats not how it would work, obviously not from their perspective, the point is to showcase how it depends on what is assigned moral worth that determines immorality and morality, and that its assigned. We wouldn't consider a wall and rock with morality because they don't have sentience, but that condition of sentience is subjective.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No, you're attributing the harm to humans, not only that - harm and immoral do not mean the same thing, they have the same connotations for humans, but they do not mean the same thing. Hence why no definition called harm and wickeness the same thing. Because they aren't, from a subjective lens they can be, but they aren't objectively. All of this has been you trying to say, "Gotcha" "Gotcha" without ever actually observing the argument, and each "Gotcha" is as pathetically semantic as the last.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Harm? You know, one of the many that was talking about physical damage?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
So then your base is what feels pain? Why? There are much more definitions of harm that include just physical damage and the structural integrity is affected differently in them and humans. All of the distinctions are biased
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Well here's how I look at it, from the context around those verses the bible is saying that specific a group of people is this applicable to, also, it is saying, "Steal a man and sell him" nothing about keeping the man as a slave. I would say that the verses that say that slavery are bad are outweighed by the verses that say its good. Also the fact that the 10 commandments say nothing about slavery
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Not quite, as again, even if I accepted this argument, the only difference is that I would replace the word reality with god, that is the only difference. Nothing else about my beliefs would change, now, this is something claimed about god for a very long time, but the defintional form is literally a one off thing because they were quoting some theologian, but it is a claim.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
No... its one of the definitions of a word that the dictionary you got it from, POINTED OUT that it was from popular and assertion of a theologian. I thought you studied words or something, sometimes meanings like that are added because of their colloquial uses that aren't quite right. Again, it'd be like calling a car a chair or a chair a car. It doesn't work, and the only reason you don't see the other definitions that don't support that one is because of your confirmation bias.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
So your argument now is, "But your wrong"? Interesting. Also not an argument, have a good day.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If you accept that that definition is describing something meaningful, which it isn't, and no it isn't. Because that definition just doesn't work, because the people there were just quoting some guy who was asserting that god is the ultimate reality, a god which has agency and such, which is a claim.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Except your entire argument comes from the presumption that god exists, lets fast forward and say I accepted the argument, I don' this is just to demonstrate something, NOTHING about my experience would change, the only difference that would occur is that instead of calling reality reality I'd call it god, you are the one making an entirely semantic position - your accepting of definitions seems entirely dumb to me, and they are contradictory! YOUR definitions specifically are, as you can interpret most of the definitions to not at all mean what you say it does, and it doesn't at all translate to what you think it is. The only reason you accept it is because is supports your position, that is literally the only reason to accept that specific definition. Now, what you don't understand, is that that definition is actually descriptive not prescriptive, in order for it to be prescriptive there would have to actually be some sort of distinguish-ment between reality and that, but there isn't. That's what we call a definitinal truism, and it doesn't work in your case.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No, my point is that harming something can be immoral or moral or ammoral depending on the subject of harm, and where we assign the subject of harm is the subjectiveness that is in no way another category, you are just wrong here, and I've explained why so many times.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That's the point, the only reasons you hold one thing or another is subjective. Which was my point, that morals are subjective, just like you arbitarily hold walls like that the entire holding humans as a moral center is subjective, its because we are humans.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No its not, thats the entire point! Its subjective because there is no answer that is objective to why, there is no real justification that humans being harmed is immoral, just subjective ones.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Except I don't accept that definition. "The ultimate reality" Okay and what does that ultimate reality include? Because that would distinguish things, in the ultimate "reality" i acknowledge there is nothing supernatural and the universe has no agency, the reason I object to that definition, is because I have a better term for that, reality.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Maybe I'm explaining this wrong, harm isn't necessarily connected to immoral because is some things were harmed we wouldn't call that immoral, for example, a wall, a rock, etc etc. The actual thing that we are discussing that is being harmed is often what marks it as "wrong" or not. Why is humans being harmed immoral? Why isn't it the same as a wall or a rock being harmed? I actually already asked the first question, I just didn't elaborate enough apparently.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You haven't answered any of my quesitons, on top of that, your entire argument is begging the question, a fallacy. On top on top of this, your claim, that "from your use of language, blah blah blah." Has not been substantiated, you dropped it. I don't care what you think in this regard, I'm going to need proof. To you the ultimate reality includes god, to me, I see no such reality. The universe is the universe and it has no agency. It has no intentions. Nothing that would mark it something with a self aware mind. Which you also ignored. All of your arguments are semantic with NOTHING else to support it.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Ah, the third removed definition of harm has synonyms of immorality. Cool. Still wouldn't matter, since... as humans again, it would only make sense that we establish the connection. Philosophically speaking it isn't there.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
None of that checks out, seems to me like your trying to add in your own words
Created:
-->
@Tarik
VERB
Nope
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I didn't get any of that:
harm[härm]NOUN
Maybe in more?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Created:
-->
@Mopac
No, whenever you ascribe the definitions that you are using you create absurd things that don't exist, such as conflating a universe with god - what you are doing is trying to describe something - but that is not cogent whenever there is already a prescription of that thing. Name an example of something that I am supposedly creating with my specific definitions, which are just the actual definitions of words. Your sole argument for god is semantic, and I am telling you, that does not include my definition of god, whatsoever. The universe has not and will never describe god in my lexicon because there is no reason for that to be the case. There is no distinction between a universe that would make it a god.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Several, none of which fit your definition that I can find:
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No it doesn't you are incorrect there - you believe it means harm because that is what immoral means to you specifically, but immorality does not mean harm definitionally.
ADJECTIVE
Created:
-->
@Mopac
uh huh, except their is a clear difference - this isn't me being "narrow minded" this is me actually talking about minds - and they belong to agents, which the universe is not one that I am referring to. Also, appeal to authority much? Yes a mind could be a result of natural systems, in fact that is my opinion on it, but there is still a distinction between a chemical agent and a system of them that interact in a way of self-awareness. As even determinists still agree that their is will just not free will.
Created: