Total posts: 755
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Do you not remember the answer I gave to YOUR QUESTION? I literally liked you to sadolite.
Can you just refresh my memory? This is complicated and you clearly know what we're referring to here more than me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Oh right. I assumed he gave reasons.
But it’s interesting that you say that because I can criticize you for hypocrisy even if I don’t know your reasons for being a hypocrite.
Yes, and? So maybe you criticize me for some potential hypocrisy you see, I explain why I'm not a hypocrite, and then we go from there. Nothing wrong with that.
Also I'm not a hypocrite.
Well you didn’t just criticize him for that I’m calling you out for the thing that applies to you.
What thing that applies to me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It was just my attempt at humor since you say that seem is not an argument a lot.
I'm dissecting the frog, but.... Whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Where did I use, "seem"?
I'm just reminding you in case you forget.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
For example, one guy captures another guy and makes him work on a coal mine for the rest of his life just so the guy can get coal.
Someone manipulating someone else into being their friend for social status and then cutting off the friendship when the person has the social status they desire.
A small landlord telling their large tenant that they must give the landlord a piggy-back ride to every place they want to go every day for the rest of their lives or else the tenant gets evicted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You don’t know his reasons, the only reason I know your reasons is because your so hellbent on telling me, it’s besides the point.
I can attack a statement without knowing the reasons for making it.
Except your leaving out a very important detail and that’s the fact that you didn’t just criticize his position you did it by using an argument that applies to you as well and no your reasons as to why you accept doesn’t explain why it doesn’t apply to you it’s just your view as to why you should get a pass for it but there’s nothing false about that response to the question I answered therefore it does apply to you no matter how hard you try to fight against it period.
The difference is that his harms to innocents are unnecessary and mine are necessary. As I've explained In addition, he harms innocents more than I do. My statement:
I'm actually curious: If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
is consistent with that because it talks about both his insufficient reason for killing people (just deterrence rates, which is my first problem with his position) and it includes his undue and extreme harm to innocents in killing them (which is my second problem with his position).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean you just edited your post. And I criticize his reasons because I think he's wrong and my reasons are better than his IMO? I still fail to see a difference between this discussion and all discussions where two people have reasons and one person says another person is wrong. I could apply that same argument: "How dare you criticize this guy's position for his reasons when you accept your position for your reasons?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why are they hypocritical when they don't apply to me and I just explained why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I have attacked his views on and literally just explained to you what my attacks on his views don't apply to me. What's wrong with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean that's just how it is. I have an view and sadolite has one. I have reasons and he has reasons. I think his reasons are bad and he things mine are. We argue about it using, hopefully, logic. That's how all discussions go on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Alright then. I mean everyone accepts different views of ethics for their own reason. So you have a problem with ethics then? I'm confused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In addition, the existence of societies is not Draconian. It is natural and human. This is another key difference between my view and Sadolite's. When something happens that is neccesary for states to exist, it is not Draconian and so does not have the effects that Draconian, 1984-esque policies do have. When sadolite killers the murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, he is being Draconian (because a functioning society already exists when he implements the policy) and so his policies have the negative effects that Draconian policies have (i.e. the negative effect on the atmosphere, the pushing of boundaries that gives way for more Draconian policies, etc.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Let me nip this in the bud right now and backtrack shall we, let’s do a thought experiment, what if sadolite responded to this questionIf one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a wrongful conviction as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
I would explain to him that the wrongful convictions are necessary for maintaining a society that can prevent wrongful convictions in the first place, and his are not, so his sacrifice is unjustified. I would explain to him that in order for us to be able to ensure that anything happens ethically or fairly at all, we need a functioning society. After we have a functioning society, we can approach ethics differently now that it can be evaluated period.
I would also explain to him that in my world we actually make a good faith effort to determine whether someone is innocent or guilty. The false conviction of innocents is inevitable in any state of the society, so a government ought to exist to make sure trials happen as fairly as possible. There is nothing wrong with a false conviction as long as the false conviction was come to by people using logical and unbiased thought processes to determine whether the person is innocent or guilty. However, since it is extremely unfortunate that some are convicted wrongly, they must be given the fairest legal process possible. This is why if they are wrongly convicted and we do not kill them, when evidence may come out that vindicates them, we can let them out of prison. Sadolite's view botches the fair process of justice by making any evidence that comes out about the innocence of a convict irrelevant as if the convict is a murderer, rapist, or pedophile, they will already be dead. Though innocents getting convicted is unfortunate, they were not necessarily treated unfairly (there may have just been a circumstantial heap of evidence against them for example) by the state. Sadolite ensures that innocents get treated unfairly by killing them before evidence of their innocence can ever come out.
These are just a couple key differences between my view and his. I'm sure I can probably come up with more as time goes on but I have work to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
This argument was pissing me off, but I'm actually starting to have fun. I want to see how long this goes on for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
There’s nothing fundamentally logical or illogical about the nature of uniqueness,
There is. If you make a statement that applies to all ethical statements rather than the specific statement you're criticizing (or even any statement period), your problem isn't with me, it's with statements.
Well if you heard it before you should know what it means.
The statement is non-unique.
No, all you did was tell me the reason behind your hypocrisy, doesn’t change the fact that your a hypocrite.
Why am I a hypocrite?
And that’s why I did so genius.
You did, but you asked me to explain a position that I did not have to explain at the time. You did not dispute that in this last post.
The point of the semantics thing is that I am showing you that it's easy to find a contradiction in someone's statements if you twist their words.
I'm still waiting for an actual reason why I am a hypocrite or that my position or criticism is inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I am not arguing against your position
maybe you should defend your views better
Notice how I could easily start another 2 hour line of conversation here by saying you contradicted yourself. Then I would equate positions with views. But I won't do that because I don't use frivolous semantics. Just saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
My argument is in response to yours so maybe you should defend your views better if you don’t want a non unique retort.
LOL. A non-unique retort is not a logical argument. It's like saying "If you don't want me to be illogical maybe defend your views better". I have defended my views just fine, thank you.
If you're ever in a formal debate and your opponent explains why your argument is non-unique then you better have a good reason why it isn't.
I’m not.
It just happened again.
Yes I did.
All you've said is that my arguments against him apply to me. I guess you can try to use my arguments against me, but if you did I'd be able to give an actual good reason why they don't apply (unlike sadolite).
I’m sure sadolite thinks the same of his.
Another non-unique statement. Please clarify.
No, only if that criticism applies to them as well, which in this case it does.
Lol, I've explained why it doesn't. And no, I wouldn't have to clarify my position in this case. If someone thinks that the criticism does apply to me, they'd have to be the ones to levy that claim. This is how conversations work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Good, so you should know better.
Your argument is non unique in that it applies to every moral view that anyone could hold.
Stop blowing up the debate into a million pieces. You haven't explained why my position is hypocritical. My position is not arbitrary, it's logical. You seemingly have this ridiculous view that as soon as someone criticizes the other person's position they have to lay all of their moral views on the table. Even if my position was inconsistent back then when I didn't clarify (and it was consistent), it isn't inconsistent now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your argument is non-unique. When anyone logically explains why they have a moral view that opposes another person's, the other person could always reply "Well, I believe that my moral view is logical, too." or "You don't meet my threshold either."
It does considering you didn’t make your threshold clear when you asked him the question.
I don't know what question your referring to. And from what I can tell this argument is absurd.
"You criticize my moral view? Well, you haven't made yours clear to me yet, so your criticism of mine applies to yours!"
Typically, in a good discussion, one person criticizes another person's position, and if the difference in position is based on two different positions on morality, they can clarify and argue about their moral positions from there.
In addition, I've already clarified my moral position to you. I criticized someone else's moral position, you thought my criticism applied to my view, and then I explained why I thought it didn't. I did not do anything wrong there; that's a normal discussion (er it would have been minus all of the semantics). And after all, I've already clarified the multiple aspects of my moral position to you, so what's the problem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Nope. I have explained to you why my threshold is logical. He does not meet my threshold and therefore an argument I levy against him doesn't apply to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I'm not going to engage with the semantics of my initial statement because we are talking about the actual statement I made here:
We have different thresholds for when consequences outweigh procedural violations.That doesn’t mean you can pick and choose when to use your threshold as an argument against his and expect to be convincing, clearly he doesn’t care about your threshold any less then you care about his (if he even has one, which if you’re right about it being absolute means he doesn’t and it’s consistent).
If you actually have a reason to keep talking about semantics please let me know.
One less murderer living among us is a “direct result” of the death penalty, it’s pretty straightforward.
That's a truism given the context of this argument. What's your point?
That doesn’t mean you can pick and choose when to use your threshold as an argument against his and expect to be convincing, clearly he doesn’t care about your threshold any less then you care about his (if he even has one, which if you’re right about it being absolute means he doesn’t and it’s consistent).
Why can't people argue about thresholds? And how am I picking and choosing? Is there something inconsistent about a threshold?
And we've already been over how a means of controlling crime is necessary for a functioning society. We have laws that we typically enforce through enforcement mechanisms. We have various fairly predictable processes (i.e. businesses, government owned programs) by which people navigate their lives. Most people generally are under the rule of law. We have a government that has flaws but is a democratic system that elects leaders how it is supposed to do so. This would fall apart without a means of punishing crimes because the laws could not be effectively enforced, so the rule of law would fall apart, as would law and it's enforcement mechanisms. Processes would be unprotected and the government would be powerless. This is why we need prison, or at least something like it. This is not why we need the death penalty.
I’m talking about when you accused me of not being aware of knowing how to have a debate or discussion, what evidence do you have of this?
I said that? I know I told you not to lecture me on how to have a debate when you said that I can't drop an argument that I didn't make.
...Yeah, because the sentence you quoted was in the same post I asked the question so it makes no sense for it to be that one unless your psychic and knew what I was going to say before I said it (perhaps even then it still doesn’t make any sense because the sentence you quoted isn’t what you accused me of saying).
I don't know what you're talking about here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
That's weird considering that you just made an argument involving ethics earlier on in this conversation. Unless you don't support killing rapists, murderers, and pedophiles for deterrence rates.
The govt is spending the country into oblivion ruining every man woman and childs financial future. That isn't unethical so why would murder be unethical?
It's ethical or unethical depending on what you think of it.
Ethics is a red herring argument. Ethics is up to the individual. Ethics is meaningless to a society of people. This is proved every single day of the year 24/7.
If you say so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
...Okay? Well if you substituted consequences with those other words your statement would make even less sense.
Ok, well I already explained what that sentence means to you so there's no point in talking about the specific words I used any more. And no I did not ask you to substitute consequence in for those words. Those words are modifying the word consequence. The importance of the consequence. The severity of the consequence.
I’m not telling you to agree but if you’re gonna use arguments against his you should make sure it doesn’t apply to you as well otherwise you look like a hypocrite.
Good thing it doesn't.... As I just explained. We have different thresholds for when consequences outweigh procedural violations. You probably do too, unless 1. you think ethics is B.S. or 2. you only consider one of those things in moral calculation.
No, it was your ball example.
Which explained the difference between the two sentences in question, no?
They’re the same in regards to the main idea which is a “direct result” and my death penalty point is an example of that.
Elaborate.
Yes and all the other posts to, I’m not sure we resolved anything although I thought we did before you made the hyperbolic remark.
I didn't think at the time that the hyperbolic remark had any bearing on the argument. It was just a remark to settle what I thought was a stalemate.
What’s the point of saying this if you’re not gonna elaborate?
I already did. I said "You can drop your opponents argument in a debate" immediately before that.
When did I say they were?
"They’re the same in regards to the main idea which is a “direct result” and my death penalty point is an example of that."
I feel like there's a disconnect in the sentences we're talking about here....
Created:
Posted in:
Now I am actually done for now and am not going to visit this site until then
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean you said it yourselfIn my initial statement, "significance" and "severity" refer to the same thing.
Not what I meant. Significance and severity are both describing consequences in my initial statement.
my biggest takeaway here from your stance is magnitude and the magnitude of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles living among us are higher than sadolites comfortable with therefore his solution to that is execution, magnitude is very much a common denominator here so I don’t see what your issue is regarding his argument.
Just because you use magnitude of consequence in your argument doesn't mean I agree with it. For example, magnitude is also a factor when you kill a guy and use his organs to save two people. Still, that doesn't make it justified. Me and sadolite have different standards for what magnitude of consequence is necessary to harm people. I think his standards are a bit absolute and ridiculous.
Yes but that was in regards to a different quote.
The quote you were extrapolating from was a quote explaining the difference between the two sentences in question. The parallel you were drawing between my sentence about consequences and your sentence about punishment was irrelevant.
it’s not my fault you can’t articulate yourself properly.
This was not necessary.
It’s called making a comparison dude, it’s done all the times in debates/discussions to prove a point, get with it.
I have plenty of experience in debates and discussions. Your comparison was nonsensical and irrelevant. Judging by the fact that you have not defended the substantive logic of your comparison anywhere else in your last post I'm going to assume you agree.
Which I did, the most recent example I can think of is #195
The discussion we are having right now has stemmed from post 195, no?
I can’t drop an argument that was never mine to begin with, I’ve lost count of the numerous amount of times you’ve attempted to make your arguments mine over the course of this discussion.
You dropped my argument, not yours. You can drop your opponents argument in a debate. Do not lecture me on how to have a debate or discussion when you are not aware of this. It still stands that my initial statement about consequences and your statement about punishment are not meaningfully comparable.
Created:
Posted in:
I mean is anyone else seeing this????? This is absurd
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This will be the last thing I post for now in this thread.
Isn’t significance, importance, and severity all synonymous?
First, significance and importance might be given that significance kind of means importance and severity depending on how you use it, but severity is definitely not. You can be, idk, severely tired and severely ill but not importantly tired and importantly ill. But that's not even relevant to our discussion.
Importance means the degree to which we account for something in our moral calculus. That's what it means in my sentence given the context.
Severity means magnitude i.e. how many people that thing affects and the degree to which it affects people.
So my sentence means that
The degree to which we take a consequence into account in our moral calculus depends on the the magnitude of the consequence.
If you look back in our conversation (which you need to do sometimes given that you say that I didn't say things that I said) you will see that that sentence was relevant to our conversation and not a "nothing". And it is OBVIOUSLY different from this:
Yeah like whether or not they should receive the penalty should depend on the severity of the crime such as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
(you can accuse me of being semantic all you want fact of the matter is you’re asking for it with all these terms your implementing as if they’re different) with that being asked that statement is pretty much a redundant nothing.
You can't just extrapolate my words to fit you narrative (which you LITERALLY admit to doing) and change the meaning of my sentence just because you don't understand what my sentence actually means. I am not asking for anything.
...Not even because I can extrapolate those words to suit my narrative get this
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard someone say on this website. Why are you extrapolating my words beyond what I actually said? Why do you have a narrative? Aren't you supposed to be an enforcer of consistency? If you're just trying to "win" this argument or debate me on this there's no point in arguing with you anymore because that's clearly different than the discussion we were having at the start.
just like a ball moving as a result of it being pushed one less murderer is living among us a result of them receiving the death penalty, it’s really not that complicated.
This is totally and absolutely irrelevant. I have already proven that my sentence had an entirely different meaning than what you're extrapolating it to mean (using the ball rolling analogy). You're supposed to prove that my positions are inconsistent based on the conflicting meanings of what I actually said, not get my sentence to say something that doesn't mean the same thing as what I initially said and then use that. You are trying and failing to grasp at straws to win an argument. Just because you can draw a parallel between two sentences doesn't mean that they're the same, the parallel actually has to prove that the two sentences mean the same thing or that or that one follows from the other. Because the meanings of the two sentences are WHOLLY SEPARATE you can't do that.
You also dropped this argument:
In addition, you changed what the "severity" in my statement referred to. In my actual statement it referred to consequences, and in yours it referred to actions. So that should answer your question
I have shown that my positions are consistent. You have twisted my words to make them seem otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I am done with this conversation until tomorrow because 1. I have work to do and this has distracted me and 2. this is making me angry.
Have a nice day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In addition, you changed what the "severity" in my statement referred to. In my actual statement it referred to consequences, and in yours it referred to actions. So that should answer your question
What’s the difference?
But it probably won't because you may or may not come up with some other semantical argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I said that the importance of the consequences of an action in a moral calculus depends on the severity of the consequence.
You implied that that's inconsistent with my positions because you thought I said that: What the consequences (of a crime for example) ought to be depends on the action that led to those consequences.
Those statements clearly express different things. What you think I said isn't actually what I meant and so nothing I said there is inconsistent with what I said before.
And don't start with the "I didn't actually say that" because I clearly expressed the meanings of what both of us just said.
The consequences in your statement are consequences that are linked to an action by choice. The consequences in my statement are the consequences that occur directly as a result of the action, like a ball moving as a result of it being pushed. That should be enough to show that the statement you extrapolated out of my statement and the actual meaning of my statement are two different things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
...No of the crime.
You can't just change the meaning of my sentence to something that is fundamentally different than what I initially expressed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In my initial statement, "significance" and "severity" refer to the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
and the significance of punishment in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
The significance of a punishment in a moral calculus depends on the severity of the punishment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
and the significance of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
The death penalty is a consequence, but if you substituted death penalty in that sentence it wouldn't make sense:
and the significance of death penalty depends on its severity.
Which is an obvious truism.
The point is that not all the importance of results of something (like a society being more or less functional) depend on how extreme those results are. if the consequences of a society becoming more or less functional are not very high, then I typically defer to respecting people's liberties, because violate someone's liberties is always a severe issue that outweighs small consequences as it is always procedurally wrong to violate someone's liberties. However, if consequences are extremely large, they can outweigh procedural wrongs. Hence, making society a little more functional is not worth a procedural violation of liberties, but ensuring that society is functional at all is (usually).
Take this for example: Say the government saved five people with the organs of one person that they killed. That would be totally unethical. However, say the government had to kill an innocent person or the entire would would end. It is far less clear that that is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yeah like whether or not they should receive the penalty should depend on the severity of the crime such as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
Is that your opinion or is this another "inconsistency"?
Also, that's not what I meant by "consequences". By consequences I did not mean punishment, I meant literally the consequences of an action. Words have multiple meanings.
And I don't see any reason why they should be killed just because they committed a severe crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Right but that comment addressed the supposed inconsistency you said you had the right to call out. So what's the problem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well I thought we were talking about a supposed inconsistency that you saw in my position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I was explaining the supposed inconsistency that you were responding to, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You realize that any unjust violation of people is procedurally wrong no matter what the consequences are? But maintaining a functional society is a consequential concept, and the significance of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
I've been quoting myself quite a bit recently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Are you changing the meaning of your messages after you write them? If so that might play a part in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What are you talking about? You said you have the right to call me out on an inconsistency. I said sure do whatever you want (obviously hyperbole), since I already clarified why I thought it wasn't inconsistent. It seems that simple to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why? Were you joking when you questioned my genuineness?
Because you equated one hyperbolic comment with trolling. And no I was uncertain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Was it or was it not responsive?
It responded to the thing I previously said, but...
You were joking right? Just to be clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yet you question if I’m a troll, interesting 🤔.
This was the most recent example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Ironically enough after you said that I started questioning again
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Unless you feel like the latter half of this discussion has been productive .
Created: