Total posts: 3,457
-->
@SirAnonymous
God's condemning murder depends on the book and chapter, it's literally a book of inconsistency, and most of Leviticus was laws that were claimed to be from god, but I am saying - if you knew it to be your god commanding you, would you murder me? According to your answer no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
1. Suppose no one knew what I did. In that case, reciprocity fails because no one knows that they have the right to hurt me
It is the principal of the claim - you are essentially saying that due to the fact that you can do it - it is justified that others do it, which then follows into my argument. It is logically unjustified then.
2. Suppose I'm a masochist who actually enjoys it when people hurt me, so I hurt them because I know it will make them hurt me, which I enjoy.
Psychologically perhaps, but that does not negate the physical harms of being anti-social such as increased aggression, restless sleep, etc... Nor does it fully rebuke my earlier idea on the harms.
3. Suppose I have enough power that they can't hurt me, and I can simply enforce my will.
Yes but this is based on what is logically justified - all of these could be simple solved with a better standard which is also subjective - but there is no need. There are so many arguments against this - such as: It is still not logically justified - you would still be encouraging others to do the same which would be overall net negative - since you are supposing, allow me to - suppose their is someone powerful enough to hurt you, then you can't. And it is unlikely for you to be powerful enough where people can't hurt you, its unrealistic, and not likely to happen. As well as being logically unjustified.
The third case is the most interesting. If a person has enough temporal power that they can harm people without fear of retaliation and don't care about what happens after their death (something along the lines of the Kim dynasty), then they don't have to fear either retaliation, because they are powerful enough to prevent it, or long-term failure, because what happens after they die is of no interest to them. While there are obviously limits - starting a war that could bring down their regime, for instance - such a person would nevertheless have considerable leeway to harm others without bringing any significant harm to themselves.
Yes, but they are still encouraging harm to themselves, they would be better off in the long run without harm to their goals or practices, if that is the case, a power like that, then people can harm them in more than just physical ways. Temporal power isn't something anyone can have out of the principal of it being logically impossible, but not only that, it is literally still logically unjustified. Literally, no moral system is perfect, and even if I couldn't refute these, they wouldn't fold much weight.
we might discover that certain forms of eugenics are beneficial to society because they remove people who consume more than they contribute. That could benefit society. Why would that be wrong?
Because that would be assuming a thing that we have proven false to be correct, because then it would encourage the way of thinking that we should breed every single athletic person until there are less and less people, thereby doing more than just harm to you, but to the society that benefits you too, which would be even greater harm.
While people have an incentive to not bring harm upon themselves, that isn't an obligation. It's enough to convince most rational people. But what of irrational people? How do you handle someone who just doesn't care about harm to themselves?
They are still wrong to believe it. Regardless this doesn't prove that my moral system is flawed, but that not everybody will follow it, but this is true of literally everything. Does that mean laws are invalid because people won't follow them? Etc, that is true of everything and not a real weight. As for people who do not care about what happens to them, they are also logically incorrect for believing that, as if they follow that train of logic they will die.
Fundamentally speaking, either you have some measure of worth or you literally die. Which is negative towards you and is logically inconsistent, just as people can be morally wrong, that would be morally wrong. To believe yourself of no moral worth. No necessarily that the person is bad but the idea.
but what's to stop someone from just saying "I don't care" and doing whatever they like? You can't appeal to harm and benefit in that case because that doesn't matter to them.
Again this applies to all moral systems. Not something you can stop. Now can we stop this from happening more often? Yes, but that still doesn't make it valid ciriticism, for example: people literally do that whenever they believe objective morality to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Also not what I'm arguing, if you don't know what I mean, ask, and I'll happily explain it to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
There isn't enough clarification, and it is unquantifiable to how some loves people. I don't know enough about it. Maybe?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
-_- No. Stoning would you stone me if your god told me to.
Second of all, there are just as many harms in heterosexuality - more in some cases (Such as lesbian sex being some of the safest sex) therefore all sexuality is wrong? No. That doesn't follow.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Lmao! Love it
Created:
-->
@Juice
So yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Ah, you cut out an essential part of my response in order to make your rebuttal seem more fluid than it actually was, here is my entire response:
I can be a net progressive and still not support specific tenents of progressivism, such as a Christian can not support everything in the bible and yet still believe in god. Same as them, I can value the overall goal of progressives without actually adopting any positions they bear.
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..
Except the belief in God alone does not make one Christian (e.g. Judaists also believe in God.)
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. That should satisfy your need to nitpick.
And let me remind you that progressivism is a political philosophy, not an emotion. You don't get to arbitrarily determine how much of a progressive you are.
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.
That's the reason political hypocrites can't get away with calling themselves "moderates" or "centrists," or minarchists can't get away with calling themselves "Libertarian." Political philosophies like any philosophy are constituted by the entirety of their tenets and principles, not just "some."
I would disagree, that is one way you could say that they are made up, but this is a naive approach that is limiting unneedlessly. As you were so quick to ignore, one could simply identify the goal of one's political ideology and measure yourself based on this. This is you assuming that there is only one way to define or measure a political ideology.
It is the line of reasoning that informs and substantiates the aforementioned principles. And if you sustain one, and reject the other, then you undermine the line of reasoning; hence, you undermine the principles.
This is untrue on a simple basis, it basically goes back to my Christian example, 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...
So here are my questions: (1) what are the principles, tenets, and/or precepts of progressivism with which you disagree? (2) why do you disagree with them? and, (3) does progressivism in your observation operate on a consistent line of reasoning?
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.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
When I said chance I was referring to something else entirely - this entire notion of chance lacking an agency is nonsense and a misrepresentation of what I was arguing.
I am clear that we do not know what caused the universe, and you would have to present actual evidence to support the fact that one created the universe. On top of that, before you could even do that, you would have to present evidence that god existed. They are two separate claims, and both must be evidenced.
I never said, chance created the universe, my point there was that it is more likely for life to be present because of chance than it is to claim a super natural god created the universe which supports life.
Next onward, how is it an assumption to think agency is not required to create the universe? We have an example of a non-agent (the big bang) creating the universe, there is no evidence at all that there needed to be an agent to start the big bang.
Again, the universe we can observe was literally caused by happenstance, that the big bang expanded the way it did and such, that is literally our only example of a universe, that IS MY PROOF, that the universe is here and the aspects of it now were caused by happenstance. You haven't even demonstrated a god.
This is the one I really want to break down because it is the most abhorent:
Now, as for the evidence of God, everything that has been made "speaks" of the existence of such a Being as reasonable, from the micros to the macros, from the simplicity to the complexity, from the apparent design and information in this, from the anthropic principle to the claimed self-revelation - the Bible. On the Bible, there is much reasonable evidence, and I would defy you to show that prophecy is not more reasonable than denying it.
Micros and macros don't prove anything inherently, logic is a presumed axiom to the point that one cannot point out logic as unreasonable without logic, therefore it is systematically and axiomatically true. You are making a flaw there whenever you suggest that because something is complex is requires a creator, it obviously doesn't if you agree with the big bang. "Apparent" Not actual design, as you know most of the vastness of space would be fatal for us. The bible? Provide evidence of it's veracity, as any historian would have to do with a document. Prophecy is based on the assumption of the divine and supernatural, where anything that breaks the laws of physics are definitionally physically impossible.
Please show me what chance can do, not what you assume of it. First of all, what is it? What kind of ability does it have? How does chance sustain anything, let alone the uniformity of nature (nature's laws)?
This was simply a mistyping on my part, and I have already explained it.
Literally, all of your positions are based on the assumption that god created the universe. I'm sure there are better people to discuss this with, but I'll still address it. As for agency? The default position is there being no agency, because of the lack of evidence towards one, and then one would have to demonstrate an agency, but you kind of repeat yourself a few times. Why is that? Whenever you don't have a faulty understanding of science and copy and paste misattributions or straw men, your words have a lot less merit than you make them seem
Created:
I am Gay - though I am specifically pansexual - I still trend towards being attracted to men - and your god told you to murder me (like the doctrine of the bible does) would you murder me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yup, just trying to use your letter of and quite fascinating trends of satirical positioning to demonstrate a point. Sorry for forcing you to adopt such a grutidious position, thank you for your participation!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you remember my point of the massive unaccounted teenage population? As well as adults who are still in the closet of being homosexual or the like? And my point there was like the lesbian example, they are using that single statistic to support their claim that homosexual marriage is more likely to end in abuse, whenever that doesn't at all look at the issue more in depth.
Such as the fact that people who are abused are more likely to be abusive than your average person, and people who are homosexual are more likely to be abused, the issue then would be helping gay people be less abused, not arbitrarily shifting the blame to the homosexual person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Both of your counters are based on supposition - neither of which I believe are valid to believe will happen at all, you would have to demonstrate that this would even be an occurrence or the thing where one's individual valuing pleasure would bring about more pleasure than valuing the group or mass. Also, because that fundamentally doesn't work. That will never be the case. Why?
Because if you do something which harms another because it net benefits you, you are giving others the same right if that situation occurs, meaning that they can hurt you. Therefore in the long run, the pleasure received by valuing others will also outweigh what may pleasure you and require hurting others, because you actually are with those others.
The second thing is literally a supposition, because of the philosophic principles I have explained during this conversation it will simply be something that we were incorrect and we would have to change our opinion on it, or something like it would not happen. In order for this supposition to ever hold weight, there would need to be some kind of example to justify the worrying of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
First of all this is based on an outdated, biased, and simple factually incorrect article
Second of all it leads to polygamy, not cheating, second of all - it ignores the fact that there are gay men too and not just lesbian women, as well as the fact that a large proportion of the abuse that bisexual people report is most likely due to their relationships with males, who are statistically much more likely to abuse than women. Third of all this is again based on uncomprehensive data, instead of relying on data that only supports their position while wildly extrapolated.
Finally - Cats rape other cats to breed, Wolves kill deer to eat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
To answer this question in general:
I can be a net progressive and still not support specific tenents of progressivism, such as a Christian can not support everything in the bible and yet still believe in god. Same as them, I can value the overall goal of progressives without actually adopting any positions they bear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
To answer your most immediate question: Because fundamentally speaking - they shouldn't be doing something according to only their pleasure, not if that's what they value - because the net benefit one receives from valuing other's pleasures to your own pleasure far outweighs the benefits one receives from only valuing your own pleasure, hence society and law.
To answer your question - we are doing what is most beneficial and logically valid, Sparta might have been existent, but they were not stable nor at their maximum happiness, with regards to my points, they would have lasted far longer if they did value morality as I have postulated, the same goes for all of them, as whenever societies start to do more and more things which violates their principals the closer it gets to collapse.
Take the civil war for example - due to the value people were putting on slavery the union nearly collapsed, and then it survived further because we began the process to value them as people more and more.
Created:
Posted in:
I am a progressive, ask me anything, now bear in mind that my views and opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of the majority of progressives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Okay, and that's your belief, and you can reflect that in your life, but in order to justify a claim to say: in general, homosexuals should not raise children, requires evidence to support or justify that proposition. Whereas I have given you evidence to the contrary.
Further on, an appeal to nature would imply that rape would be perfectly acceptable, that murder would be acceptable so long as you were doing it to consume my flesh because you were hungry. That life saving medical treatments should not be used because they are not natural, etc, etc...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
So you've agreed to my point then? According to your doctrine you would be perfectly justified in murdering me, as long as it fits within the 490 sin range given to you by your calculations and Jesus's word?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That ignores what genocide is, the slaughtering of a mass of people, it would by principle value murder and therefore would give them the justification for murder in general. As I have already explained: Humans are social creatures as objective fact, and murdering for the vast amount of them is inherently psychologically damaging, but for those it isn't it will still cause harm, for example:
-Cause them to spiral further and further into anti-social behavior
-High probability of radically increased violence
-High probability of them hurting each other,
all of these already means that by the other's standards they would be justified in hurting you, which would make valuing the principal negative, but also that the impacts of such behavior would generally create negative effect for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Essentially because we live in societies, and that you as a person, are objectively more pleasured by being in and following the rules of that society. Fundamentally - Humans are creatures which strive to thrive as all biological matter does: Therefore the pleasure one takes from fulfilling themselves as social creatures and by reaping the benefits of that society, where actions which would cause them to gain a short amount of pleasure (say a sadistic individual murdering someone) would be outweighed by the long term negative effects. As we are social creatures we need interaction with others to be fulfilled, you would be shunned by the majority of society, you would fall into further anti-social behavior (which is net harmful), etc, etc, this is even worse whenever such things as jails and other things are introduced. Then there are even worse net harms. Thus one ought to act with compassion and empathy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Which does not equate to nihilism in totality. Which is what you referring to as that which does not make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm genuinely confused about what you mean, could you clarify your question, but also could you ask this in MY AMA, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5104-theweakeredge-ama
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Then that makes your spirituality based on nonsense, not the position that god therefore true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You not only did not address any points, but you also do not address my actual position.
There is an absolute truth, that truth is simply not god, and there is no truth in regards to morality. It is true however that we live on earth, that I am a human, a male, gay, etc, etc These things are all true, you are simply of flawed reasoning.
Again - I ask you to actually ask questions instead of asserting nonsense on an AMA (Ask me anything) ASK not assert, notice how SirAnoyomous formatted their objection in a question? Even that would be fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you are basing your definition of god on this assertion, then you are literally defining a god into existence without evidence thereof. This is a common ontological and philosophical shortcut, those who support theism like to take to try to make a rational justification of god, however, while your premises may be valid they are not sound. They are not true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Essentially because we ourselves our humans we ought to act in such a way that would care of good and bad to us, it is simply the case that it is not objective, and is because we are human
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Because we discover and apply oughts from what is true objectively, because it is true that genocide and harm objectively are negative to humans, we, as humans, ought not to do things which would hurt us.
Moral obligation is not necessarily dependent on Morality being objective, just there being some standard we can apply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Incorrect on both fronts, first of all, nihilism in its standard definition does not care of morality, as I care of morality I, by your definition, can not be a nihilist. Second of all, Moral Subjectism just speaks to the lack of objectivity to morality, therefore we apply subjective as the opposite of objective as an adjective to be applied.
Third of all, this violates the standard of the forum, I said, "Ask me anything" as in a question, this is a statement. Therefore I would ask that you actually ask a question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, the problem is the classical definition of god, and the god which I am referring to not believing exists is not comparable to the reality we live in. It is a testable hypothesis and has been shown false so many times its not even needed to be examples. I will anyway: The impossibility of a global flood as so many religions suggests, the evolution of man, the evolution of the universe, etc, etc.. is not at all how most if not all gods depict it.
My problem is that I see no reason to assign the attribute ultimate reality to the notion of a classically defined god in philosophic standards. This is a blatant redefining of the word that is based on modern assertion and an ontological premise of such god, which has been proven logically fallacious for centuries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It depends, just because something is subjective, that does not mean that an appeal to populum wouldn't be a fallacy. It is still just as much a fallacy. No the point there is simple, while there is no way to connect this standard to an objective standard of truth, it is true that every single human cares for their pleasure. Therefore genocide would be logically fallacious on the basis that it is impacting the people doing it in a negative way.
Essentially its counter productive and is thereby not morally nor logically justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
By middle ground, I meant between my state of not conditioning and not over conditioning, as in overworking myself.
So the conditioning is just dependent on the sport, and the physical improvement is more of a side effect of developing technical skills?
Created:
Posted in:
I am a moral subjectivist, ask me anything, bear in mind that my position isn't necessarily representative of the majority of moral subjectivists or anything of the like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Do you have a recommended middle ground? Also what would you say the difference in conditioning may be between sports? I know in some obvious cases, like endurance and the like would be more emphasized in cross-country and track when compared to football, stuff like that, but what would be like some fundamental differences there? If you don't mind my asking
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
And that's something I don't believe in- having to prove everything empirically where I have clear testimonies to support my claim.
I'm not trying to be rude here, but if you have more than testimonies, then don't just present testimonies, perhaps you thought it was strong enough evidence to witness your claim? But they definitely weren't and even eyewitness testimony was particularly compelling, the sorts of testimony religious or god-fearing people wouldn't be valid in the court of law, as any experienced lawyer would easily be able to tear it to shreds.
-The contradicting narratives often within the experience
-The lack of a physical form of this god which is often expressed
-The related story of alien abudction tales
-etc, etc, etc
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Never have I claimed that, nor even insinuated to be the smartest. If you have a counter-argument against mine, present it, other wise your claims are bunk as I have repeatedly shown.
Also I learned of Logical fallacies primarily when I was 15, not 16, I have sharpened my understanding of them, but I do have just a little experience in regards to point them out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I would have to disagree again: firstly; this is ignoring the fact that many experts on the matter have dismissed the connection: explaining that pedophiles develop their sexuality differently than one of the usual occurrence, as this study reports:
This difference suggests that the development of erotically preferred partner sex and partner age are not independent of each other and that in pedophilia, the development of heterosexuality or homosexuality is brought about by factors different from those operative in the development of androphilia or gynephilia.
This study further indicates this truth:
This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.
You might point out that my own study supports your position but I would like to direct your attention to the word: suggests. Notice how it is the verbiage used to support your claim, and how "Of course" is used to support mine. Because one is saying: Based on the research of how this works (Of course), while the other is saying: As far as we know.. (suggests)
This is due to the fact of a large unaccounted teenage population that is homosexual as well as non-reported abuse and sexual harm cases. This isn't bringing up the adult population which hides their true sexuality. All of these factors combined puts extreme doubt that these numbers are corrolary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
Well no, let's go into your claims:
First of all: Testimonial evidence is not a good standard alone, whenever it supports other evidence it can be, but there are clear studies indicating that testimonial evidence is not reliable:
Second of all: It does not matter if a great many people believe a thing, at least not in regards to the truth of the proposition, what matters is the actual truth of that thing. So no, this appeal to an ad populum does not convince me of much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Once more, instead of addressing my argument from whenever we discussed them, perhaps mentioning something they thought fallacious, they insult me. It should be very clear that Mopac is not being rational here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Wrong, we've already had this discussion, I already discredited that idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
One problem there, you have to justify every single assertion made, regardless of where you assume the BoP to be, there is necessarily one upon one who makes the claims. Now I will respond later with more in-depth analysis, but for now, here's one central claim that needs evidence.
we (do) have a natural instinct that tells us God exists
That is a claim that needs to be backed up, and backing it up by saying its in the bible or that god says it is circular in reasoning.
Btw, nor I am an expert in philosophy or religion, I am literally a 16-year-old who decided to study. That's all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Now you are making a claim and implying one:
1. That school performance is based on poverty/wealth of the family
2. That homosexuals are pedophiles or a pressing amount of them
First off, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the first claim, but I require further evidence to support it as the main indicator of academic success. Second, you only address one study, and third of all, rainn.org notes:
- One in 9 girls and 1 in 53 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault at the hands of an adult.3
- 82% of all victims under 18 are female.4
- Females ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.2
Therefore if I were to use your logic, we shouldn't allow heterosexuals to raise children because the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
And what of the numerous studies that demonstrate that children do just as well if not better in homosexual raised households, and of the fact that most studies that say otherwise are based on an inherent misunderstanding of gender roles throughout society and attributing it to one parent in general?
Edit: Child at the end should be parent, my bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
To clarify, Trumpism, as in the ideology that Donald Trump holds? Do you believe the entire republican party should hold his positions or extrapolations of his positions?
In the nuclear family, there is rough: A father, a mother, 2 children or so, or some small variation of that: what of homosexual individuals? Do you believe we should exclude them from having a family model? Do you believe that the father should hold "rule" over the house and collect income to support the family and that women should stay home and take care of children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
That would be circular reasoning: i.e:
P1: God is the creator
P2: The creator is the ultimate reality
Con: Therefore god
You would be presuming god in the first premise, which is very fallacious.
Although I suppose a more accurate syllogism for your belief would be as such:
P1: My religion says god is the creator
P2: The creator is the ultimate reality
Con: Therefore god
This doesn't change much and if P2 is what I think it to be, then it would only switch the question from why god is the ultimate reality to why this vague notion of a creator (more aligned with a deist's god really) is the ultimate reality?
Of course, I could be misinterpreting what you're saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Ah, yeah, a vast amount of techniques are out there that I do not have the strength nor endurance to really pull off. Once I'm out of quarantine I'm actually looking forward to starting conditioning, I'm fairly out of shape.
As for the other side, yeah that also makes sense, people and techniques are very vast, so combining them would make it hard to try to quantify it beyond percentages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
The problem with only asking questions is that not only does it not wholly rebuke your opponent's claims, but you never demonstrate yours. The vast majority of resolutions have a shared burden of proof, which means both sides support or are figuratively making an assertion against or in favor of the resolution, and that both debaters must demonstrate that assertion or proposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Indeed, it truly is a sad case that there is only so much time as to absorb knowledge in this lifetime and so much knowledge that is to be obtained. I believe myself lucky to have given myself a slight headstart compared to most. Starting relatively young at 14 or so, as that is whenever I became serious about researching and studying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Oooh, I see. So it's more along the lines of how this attack does damage in this circumstance compared to another? Not in particular that this attack will always beat out that one. Okay, I think I understand it a bit better.
Created: