Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@ImminentDownfall
What kind of debating style would you say you have?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It doesn't matter if Trump likes or dislikes immigrants (though he is clearly racist) what matters is that the people interacting with them have a much different view then the people who claim that immigrants are all criminals or the like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I am so confused.... what is this precisely?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, this isn't me asking you to do my research for me, this is me asking you to actually provide evidence for your claims, whenever a proposition is made, the burden of proving said claim in on the maker of that proposition. Therefore you have necessarily adopted the burden of proof and must actually demonstrate your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
Overall, I've gotten a vague notion of partisan ship and a homophobe, any other thoughts on the future?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Just the implications of the text.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think that the imperative can be interesting, but the fact that it completely dismisses the consequences of an action is worrying. Take the following as an example: A man sets out with the intention of helping a friend out. The situation is that the friend has furniture and other such appliances that need to be moved into a new flat (upstairs apartment), and he needs some help.
This man, lets call him Steve, and this friend lets call him Bob. Just for simplicities sake.
So Steve arrives at the entrance to Bob's flat and calls out to Bob, Bob tells him, correctly, that Steve has just left the hospital and isn't in the right shape to help him out with the heavy couches and such. Steve insists with the best of intentions and that he can in fact help move the couches. Due to the insistence and the fact that Bob does need the furniture moved inside he abates.
During their trip up the stairs Steve drops his end of the couch and Bob is rammed against the railing, the entire couch falling onto him. Bob is badly hurt. While it is true that Steve was acting in a manner that he would expect other friends to act, and had the best of intentions, the end result was simply not worth the help Steve would have received had he not dropped the couch.
My point here is that there are all kinds of scenarios where the intentions will not justify the means. Also, a person's could simply think of their outcome of the situations, the best and be wrong, essentially that people will have good intentions, yet not align those good intentions towards what would justifiably be moral. Perhaps Marx had the best of intentions whenever he wrote his doctrine, to help the suffering worker class, and yet sparked famines, death, and war in Russia.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You have any evidence for that claim? We don't even know if Abraham actually existed, much less what his influences were besides god.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
And that god's apparently okay with child sacrifice, at least thats what his followers thought
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I believe the general goal of progressives should be to lead a country to positive progress, specifically in regard to the civil rights of people in general. Such as a woman's right to an abortion, such as a homosexual man's right to marriage, such as a transgender person's right to transition. Etc, etc..What are the specific tenets of progressivism you don't support? Why don't you support them?
I'm not sure actually... I'd have to really think about that one. I've already made the point that I think as long as your general goal aligns with the philosophy of the political ideology, you are said ideology. Now, if you disagree, that's fine, that's just what I'm talking about when I say progressivism. How about this, just give me what you think some core tenants are, and then I'll respond ya or nay and why. That sound fair?
Except I think by use of context clues, you can easily tell I am referring to the Christina god, if not, regard this example instead: I can still be a theist and not believe the tenants of typical theism and still believe in a god.The Christian God is the same as the Judaic God and Islamic God (They're all Abrahamic Religions.) And no, there's only one tenet of theism, and that's to believe in at least one god.
Eh, that's more along the lines of Deism, to be a theist, you have to assign attributes to said god, and which attributes are the tenets I'm referring to. As most theists say they should strive to be like god, or that they're made in god's image. This implies that these characteristics are preferable. A couple extrapolations and bada beem bada boom.
That should satisfy your need to nitpick.There's no need to nitpick. Only a need to be accurate.
Using context it was fairly easy to tell what I was referring to, so yes, that was a nitpick.
There is no arbitrary about it, I believe in the central goal of progressivism, but because of the ideology, people can disagree about what that best way there. As well as the fact that yes, I technically could determine how progressive I was, by measuring how towards the goal of progressivism my goals align.You're conflating practice with philosophy. And no, your goals either align or they don't. And if they don't, you're not by description a "progressive." So if the general goal of progressivism is civil rights, then the reasoning which informs that goal must be consistent throughout. If there's a tenet of progressivism which sustains the same reasoning behind civil rights, but you for some reason deem it inconsistent with your goals, then you are being arbitrary. I suppose another consideration would be that progressivism isn't a consistent political position, and more of an itemized list of hypocritical requests.
See, now you're being arbitrary, assigning a dichotomy along which an idea can lay, why? Can things not be nuanced? Do factors of an idea or topic not have some things that may align more than others? While yes, my goals do either align with progressivism or not, I wasn't referring to the person instead to the ideas or "tenents" if you will of progressivism. The line about me being arbitrary is specifically wrong, mostly due to you not understanding or missing what I was saying. What I was saying there is that how I determine how progressivist I am by identifying the center or main goal of progressivism and seeing if my goals align. If yes, I am, if no, then I'm not. People can think there goals align with progressism the center idea and be right or wrong, therefore they may appear and label themselves progressive and not actually be progressive, but no one would be able to tell until they're thoughts and ideas were weighted for valid or consistency. I am not deeming it inconsistent with my goals, but the goals of progressivism essentially. That is what I meant people can disagree.
I would disagree, that is one way you could say that they are made up,No, that is the only way they're made up.
Ideology - "A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."
Here you are simply factually incorrect.
but this is a naive approach that is limiting unneedlessly.Yes it is intended to limit, giving distinction between itself and other philosophies and/or particularizing its ends. There's nothing "naive" about understanding that.
Naive - "showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement."
Here we see a lack of judgement, at least on this subject, it arbitrarily limits what an ideology is, even though the dictionary specifically disagrees with you. Why do you limit like so? Ideology does not mean what you seem to think it does.
As you were so quick to ignore, one could simply identify the goal of one's political ideology and measure yourself based on this.What's the utility in "measuring"? You either adhere to the goal or you don't.
Once again, locking it in a binary, while it is true that you either believe a proposition to be true, or you don't the same can not be said for systems of thought or ideas. Certain ideas can be less or more aligned with an ideology, people may believe it to be a goal, but not the most important, there are lots of ways of measuring this. Again, arbitrary.
This is you assuming that there is only one way to define or measure a political ideology.I don't assume there's only one way to define or measure a political ideology. First, as you can probably tell from above, I reject the utility of "measuring." And the definition is the definition--I don't assume it.
But.... you literally did, I already provided a definition that specifically doesn't back your approach.
I am still a Christian if I believe in god/jesus but I also believe that we shouldn't stone gay people. I am still a Christian if I believe I shouldn't own slaves, etc, etc...First the Bible doesn't state anywhere to "stone gay people," or prescribe "owning slaves." (It recommends stoning for pretty much everything else.) Yes, the Bible states that homosexuality is an abomination whose participants should be put to death, and that slavery ought to be regulated, but those aren't the principles taught by Jesus Christ which informs Christianity. Your analogy falls short. If you don't live by and sustain the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ, then you are not Christian.
That's also wrong... because it doesn't fit the people who would still make it to christian and don't apply those principals. Are these people not "Christians"? Even though they get to make it to heaven and forever are rewarded? Is a person who is sent to hell because they did not believe in christ, yet follow his teachings closely a christian? Is the murderer who only converted in his last moments (truly repented) and never followed christ except for those last moments a chrsitian? No. You're rebuttal falls short. Though if we assume that the bible is informing the government which they governed over, and people are commanded to kill a man who sleepeth with another man, its not far to say stoning. And the bible explicitly says you shouldn't steal, yet it doesn't say the same of slavery? Just tell them to stop slavery, that was never commanded therefore, an endorsment.
Never did I say I disagreed with any of them, I was simply saying I may or may not reflect all of their opinions. Same answer as the last one, and as far as I am aware, yes.With which tenets, principles, precepts, or opinions you may or may not reflect? Why don't you reflect them?
Throw out some principals and I'll tell you if I agree or disagree. Then you decided if I am a progressive or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Oh Undefeatable won't stay that way for long.
In all seriousness they are a skilled debater, though they do rely a little too heavily on their sources. Overall we're having a good time on the free will thing
P.S Its "Theweakeredge" not "Weaker Edge" just saying
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Regardless of any of this conversation here's what we should take from the story:
Never did Abraham think it was out of character for god to do such a thing. This implies that early Christians (Jews) saw sacrifice, specifically child sacrifice, as something that god might command.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Reduce - Become smaller or less in size, amount, or degree.
That implies that there is something beyond the physical, you are essentially assuming that there is more than what is most assuredly true. The burden of proof falls onto the person making the claim and because you aren't you don't have to prove it, but anyone who does make that claim would have to provide evidence of its existence. One could make the experience argument and argue that our experiences are somehow distinct from the actual act of doing it. There is no evidence to positively assert this position, and it purveys fallacious reasoning.
Perhaps they would assert a supernatural other realm, not a mental one, in that case, it is even less likely. Such as a supernatural thing happening would be, by the literal laws of physics, impossible. Not impossible in the sense of what people think of quantum particles like, impossible such as defintionally and necessarily opposite from the literal rules of this universe. Essentially what I'm saying is that the default position is thinking of a material universe as that what we have the evidence for. It is a thing you can easily prove, whereas all of these other realms....
There is no evidence that is valid or sound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hmm, sure, but in this case, they aren't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Definitely don't that, I was in quarantine, and debating helps my mood most times. And specifically? Idk, anything I would want to ask you specifically about law is something I feel would take charges or something. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
You don't understand evolution if you think that, also I have made an entire topic talking about this. If i respond to all this, it will be on that thread, so just keep a look out in your notifs for that thread. Its called Moral Subjectivism AMA or something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You've also been here for like 2 years, my post in forum wasn't even 2 months ago
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Fair enough, I'll chalk it up to different interpretations of which is more important.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
So you're denying the fact that god commanded the destruction of several communities?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
No, that wasn't my claim, what I did was claim that it wasn't out of character for god to command someone to kill someone. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wouldn't say the fight against racism is about how important a skin color, and I honestly don't watch the news, I research. Honestly, I agree that sometimes the news sensationalizes content that doesn't need it, but I couldn't really address anything the news has said about BLM considering I haven't watched the news in like a year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Nope, though to be fair, I'm atrocious at it, I just lack motivation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you saying that right and wrong are universal constants?
If they are, they would have to demonstrate it
Or did we not just make them up?
Essentially, but that is drastically over simplifying the issue. We have a couple of derivatives for morality, and though they could be argued to be circular, there are reasons they ought to be held. 1) Biologically speaking - humans should value groups and communities - they value person hood which is dependent on well being (the physical and mental state of a person), they value sentience. Therefore the massive harm to sentience done to animals is more biologically distressing than say, wanting to eat meat because it tastes good. Its a net benefit/harm analysis essentially.
Killing one thing bothers us less than killing another...Humans included.
If you want to apply humans to a scale of what is bothering you, then you have inherently put a value on human lives. Therefore what I said above applies.
Unless of course, you are a pacifist, fruitarian, hermit.
No, for what I explained above.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
And yet you ignore my caveat because you decided to cut off a quote, you really are being semantic, but to answer your question: If god is saying that they should kill nations - god is commanding someone to kill another person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
As as subjectivist, no.
I define subjective in this term as something which is contingent on the mind to be true, whereas objective is something that is true independent of a mind/agent. Therefore unless someone has some unknowable knowledge of a universal moral standard, all morality is subjective.
Specificially as humans we ought to value humans based on evolution, biological necessity and well as the logical thought: You ought to value yourself or there is no point to morality. From there it is fairly easy to come to the conclusion that we ought to value human welfare/well-being (in other words the physical and psychological state of the person)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Mandatory masks, limiting seats at lunch tables, spreading all desks a minimum of 5 feet apart, keeping cleaning supplies in each class to clean off all supplies used and desks after each class. All that stuff, if a report of Covid is found, anybody near the person without a mask is also quarantined.
Created:
Posted in:
So.... As you may or may have not known I am in high school, so how have I been able to post so rapidly? Quarantine. I am now out of it and back to class this day. That means that my posting rate is gonna go waaay down, as I was previously climbed from 200 or something posts to my know 500 in a couple of days. Wish me luck.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
It means the standard one uses to judge claims on a moral basis, isn't necessarily dependent on whether or not they are connected to morality. The fact is - any morality that comes from/ is based on an agent is subjective - whereas things that aren't contingent on a mind are objective. You can make an objective claim that raping humans hurt humans and that pedophilia does the precise same thing. The only thing there is saying we should value human's well-being (I'm using the word to colloquially mean the physical and psychological state of a person), and considering we are humans, well you know, we ought to value what we are.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
No, I am saying that the god of the bible commanded the fall of nations, and they were the ones who started the war, by, attacking cities that god commanded. That is purely their own blame. So no. Also what original claim? What are you talking about? That why should god asking to kill a single person wouldn't be surprising? I suppose it would be more likely he murders them himself, but not out of the realm of possibility whatsoever that he would command death.
Though.... it would probably be all gay people not a specfic one.
Thats me being semantic.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Also, if anything you are the one being semantical here
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
That is a misunderstanding of what I'm saying - whenever I say objective - I am speaking of something that is true independent from any minds - I don't think anyone has objective morality. No, whenever I say that I mean my objective standard has no objective reason to connect to morality, so no, its just you not understanding the difference. Not to mention, Christians can have the same belief of me, and lots of atheist believe there to be objective morality.
The rest is just repeated from before.
Created:
-->
@Death23
Makes sense, but I still like the principal of being intellectually honest myself, even if my opponents might not be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Am I in the same location, or an approximated not stuck in wall location anways?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Yeah... he does... maybe not word for word, but he demands his followers to tear down cities and stuff. You are being deliberately semantic
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Ohkaaaaay.... I'm sorry I have no idea what you're talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
I think the key thing here is "what if" Personally I think that the scope of the situation is a little too vague for my liking.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Not really, the bible has a lot of cases of god commanding death to cities, and such, is it really out of the realm of possibility that they would command it for something that they consider an "abomination" and I suppose that's correct, but in most cases, it is referring to the individual, and them being gay. Your example is an exception, not the rule
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Oh, of course, I apologize, I must have been in debate mode! Yes I agree with all of that, I wasn't trying to be overly contentious. And I'm glad you have friends and a partner to help you out in your endeavors! That's great.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Of course I agree, pedophilia and rape are always wrong, and by saying I don't hold to objective morality doesn't mean that I'm saying there are exceptions to the rule. All it means is that I don't think there is an objective grounding we can base it off that clearly and philosophically connects to morality. I also don't disagree that people seem to be more and less convinced of untrue things, but I don't think that doesn't mean we can't find the correct thing and fight for it.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I could care less if it was the President's opinion, huh fancy that, the fact is they both made a claim and have to back it up. And I would rebuke all those claims, I really would, but the people before me have done it so much better than I have. Just go read this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I studied a little bit of music theory, like the tiniest, but mostly on interpretation, or yeah psychology, and some stuff on lyrics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
if ive learned anything from my life it'd be to always be the reason for your own happiness
Eh, while agreeing that it should be one of the reasons you are happy, I think there should be other supports holding that up. If your self-esteem happens to crash, then you won't have any support structures to fall back on. I have a nice blend of making myself happy as well as finding happiness in others.
relying on others for your entire happiness will only lead to depression an paranoia
Not necessarily, but I agree most of the time, that if you only rely on others for happiness it can lead to self-esteem issues and maybe problems with depression. Saying any mental illness is a sure-fire thing is faulty because everyone's minds works a little differently.
for so long in my life i spent my time trying to impress others. teachers, my parents, other kids etc.i was unhappy for most of my life because i never did what I wanted to do i was always sacraficing my happiness for other peoplein a way i kind of had to learn to be more assertive an active in pursuing happiness
Well yeah, I meant more as in forming relationships and bonds with friends, family, and partners. You aren't really seeking happiness in other people by trying to impress them you are trying to impress them. If you focus on others you can most definitively find happiness, i just don't think it should be the only source.
i wouldnt say im 100 % a happy go lucky person but i no longer feel depressed anymore an have become a lot more optimistic an happier as ive gotten older
That's great! I'm glad you do, but you should also still get regular mental checkups, your mental health is just as important as your physical health. I also don't want you to completely throw away the notion of gaining happiness from others, as it is a really part of gaining happiness. That's how relationships work, and that's how bonds in general work. You derive happiness from the other person.
Sorry for the ranty type thing, just some notes I had on your reply. Thank you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It went a little past my head I think, but I get the basic concept, this may be useful for my Pre-Ap Physics course! Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I ultimately agree, there might also be a problem with the updating of the laws, as well as a problem with state to state laws. What if the GPS malfunctions and it breaks a law in a state and it hasn't changed states, not to mention the overreliance on it in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Eh, it's a little rigid for my tastes, you might have noticed that my debating style is a little slippery compared to yours.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Um... that isn't relating to Dr, Franklin's assertion. Regardless if the courts try this, Dr. Franklin has made an assertion and therefore necessarily adopts the burden of proof.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
As you probably know, I don't really hold to any standard of objective morality, and I think then it goes there. Generally, that's true in a democracy, that the majority decides what's right and what's wrong. While I could explain my stance on abortion and why I don't se it as unethical, I think that's a little besides the point for here. I do agree that often we should consider and ask what is the ethical thing, and not necessarily what the legal thing.
Essentially what I'm saying is that while definitionally its not murder, in my own head cannon for it, something is murder if it's unjustified validly or ethically. Therefore for me the question of innocence is who has not committed an unjust thing. An unjust thing being an action that is unjust validly and/or ethically. If any of that makes any sense, its how I look at the question anyways.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I actually agree with you here, and have noted as such in my response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not effectively or validly. Also I've already fulfilled my BoP here, now its your turn.
Created: