Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What specifically are you arguing here? That there is no such thing as rational? Perhaps I am misunderstanding.Aside from a blanket assertion that I've equivocated on the word "rational' I have not seen a refutation of my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You tell me. You are the one who claimed debate is "unchristian" not I.If debate was wrong in all cases, why would the church have ever held ecumenical councils to begin with?
Created:
-->
@Alec
So the "abortionists" are primarily doctors.There synonyms.
If doctor and abortionist are synonymous then there are far more abortionists that do not perform abortions than abortionists that do perform them. I think your definition needs a little work.
Well making abortion illegal would certainly cause the death rate of one of these groups to skyrocket whatever the actual legal repercussions are.In the short term yes. However in the long term, it purges abortion from American society, saving more babies in the long term. It encourages women to use an IUD and to force their males to use condoms if they want to have sex. It reduces abortion and it encourages birth control, which I want to be free.
I could point out that what you have said does nothing to address my actual point (which for the record was that prohibiting illegal abortion does not prevent women from seeking abortion but for a make the procedure far more dangerous and expensive for them) but instead I will just ask who is going to pay for this birth control? I mean it's not really free right? Thought republicans advocate for self responsibility?
It's based off of the assumption that a fetus is a person. Science has confirmed this assumption
Personhood is a legal distinction not a scientific one. Science has not and cannot confirm any such thing.
Being pro choice means you support a woman's right to force a fetus to take responsibility for her actions
The fetus is not being asked to take on any responsibility. In fact just the opposite. That fetus will never have any responsibility what so ever. I thought that was one of your objections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This does not mean that there is nothing that can be known with 100% certainty.
I don't disagree with you often but I would need at least one example or this time that may be the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
In order to apply the scientific method we must make certain assumptions, for example that observable reality reflects actual reality. We can never be truly certain if this basic axiom and so all knowledge has some degree of uncertainty.
If we accept reality at face value we can apply the scientific method and learn some things about reality. For example we can observe gravity.
However even accepting reality at face value does not give us any reason to believe in a being that cannot be demonstrated to be a part of that observed reality.
There is a fundamental difference between "believing" in gravity and "believing" in some god(s).
Created:
-->
@Alec
An abortionist is someone who performs abortions.
So the "abortionists" are primarily doctors.
I think both the woman who had the abortion and the provider need to be put to death for the murder of an innocent fetus.
Well making abortion illegal would certainly cause the death rate of one of these groups to skyrocket whatever the actual legal repercussions are.
I'm sorry but are we discussing a fetus or a person?If you tell someone to kill another person, your both responsible for their death and you both must pay for what you did.
One who advocates for personal responsibility and someone who believes you should pay for your mistakes instead of others.
Is someone unable to be pro choice and believe in taking personal responsibility? If so in what way specifically are these two ideas mutually exclusive?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Are you trying to debate? I thought you were just proclaiming again.
Have you decided reversed your position that debate is unchristian or your position that behaving in an unchristian manner disqualifies you from being identified as a christian?
Created:
-->
@Alec
Please rigorously define republican.Are you a libertarian? How is possible to be pro choice and a republican?
Created:
-->
@Alec
I am unaware of any "abortionists" there are women who have the procedure and doctors thst perform it but no one is just an abortion enthusiast to the best of my knowledge.It's called ideological consistency. If we have the DP for murder, and abortion is murder, then those who commit it(abortionists) should get killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I mean sure while we are wishing but surely you recognize that this is an unlikely scenario particularly in the near future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Flat earthers, climate change deniers and ID apologists don't appear to have much ground to stand on. Doesn't seem to dampen their enthusiasm. Quite the reverse actually. In my experience the more you point out the logical flaws in their arguments the more rabidly they argue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
So defects like ugly and stupid?"If a child is born with a genetic defect that would cause his or her quality of life, and especially his or her childhood, to be markedly lower than that of his or her peers, and it is within the means of scientists and doctors to correct the cause of this, then they ought to do so."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Mopac I feel I have you every reasonable chance to have a reasonable discussion but you seem uninterested. Take your last sentence for example.
Debate might actually occur if your idea of what debate means wasn't perverse to begin with.
My idea of a debate. Indeed. You specifically said debate is unchristian. Either you were in error about that or you find all forms of debate perverse.
If all debate is perverse then your sentence was meaningless. You could as easily just said Debate might actually occur if debate wasn't perverse. Do you not see the logical breakdown in that sentence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Human is a biological distinction so you are most likely using it inaccurately but that aside perhaps Alec will answer your allegations (though really the thread were he actually made this statement wpuld be a better place to discuss it).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I guess I'm not sure either. I know what epistemology and philosophy are though so I've just been operating under the assumption that the word framework is just needless window dressing. If that is not the case maybe someone will come along and let us know exactly what the difference is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Did he say that in this thread? Also insults are completely unnecessary they add nothing to your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There will always be those who appeal to the unknown and there will always be the unknown.
There will always be a god of the gaps argument and there will always be a freewill from the gaps argument. They are not rational arguments now so clearly looking irrational is not a sufficient deterrent to believing in things which cannot be demonstrated or even things that are logically incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You believe the woman should be executed for being raped, what a hero you are.
Any other wrong headed things Alec has said aside I do not recall him making any statement of this sort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I am also unable to maintain such a belief in the absence of sufficient evidence but the discussion will continue in all likelihood because of faith. Faith does not require proof, which ironically is exactly what makes it a poor pathway to truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
My thinking is that either we will find out that we have freewill or we will never know. This is because if you have no freewill it just be ones freewill of the gaps. Even if we map the physics brain and how it functions there will always be those who claim there is another layer undetectable with our current knowledge (whatever that constitutes at the time) which magically allows for freewill.
I personally think it will be the latter rather than the former.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
We can know nothing with certainty but an epistemology comes from the observation of the scientific method not the other way around so it really doesn't matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You are using two definitions of rational here. You are trying to equizocate things behaving in a way that is predictable through reason to that process of recognition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Unless you can demonstrate some reasoning agency unassociated with these processes I'm not sure what you are talking about.Reason does not appear to be an emergent quality of physics and chemistry at all. The opposite is true.
You could argue thay reason simply does not exist and I suppose that is possible but in thay case there is simply no reason and your arguments do not matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I have not claimed you cannot change your beliefs (though I am somewhat convinced that saying they were changed for you might be more acurrate) I am claiming that you do not choose to change them. You cannot simply choose to place more importance in any given evidence you simply are or are not compelled to belief by the evidence.
If I am incorrect please demonstrate by briefly converting to a few different religions for us and then perhaps choose to be an atheist before finally choosing to return to your current beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Science is a method. A baby is using the scientific method when it discovers it's own toes, then through experimentation discovers it can make them wiggle. It continues to use this method until it has done the experiment until the baby can be reasonably certain that their toes will move every time. Babies do not operate under philosophical frameworks ergo none is necessary for the application of the scientific method.Science operates entirely within a philosophical framework.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What evidences your assertion that beliefs cannot be chosen and couldn't be chosen even if free will existed?
Only that I cannot simply choose to change my beliefs. Even if I can choose to have coffee instead of tea (which I am not convinced of) I cannot choose to be a theist. Can you choose to be an atheist? In the same way you can choose between shoes or sandals?
It makes no difference if you want to describe beliefs as "developed" rather than "installed" when you concede that beliefs are the sole product of mindless processes like physics and chemistry.
Reason appears to be an emergent quality of (some) processes of physics and chemistry. Until some reasoning agency can be demonstrated which is not associated with such processes the burden of proof for any claim which proposes such an agency has not been met.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you suggesting we not award this money to anyone who acts out self destructively?When did I say this?
"The only ones that I can think of aren't that expensive and if rape made the victim want to do something, they probably already would have done it." Is what you actually said.
I'm wondering what that has to do with handing out cash to rape victims unless we are paying attention to which are self destructive. You are not actually a dressing the point.
What metric are they using to measure self destructiveness?If they are trying to harm themselves.
What metric are we using to measure that then and what do we do if we find that they are being self destructive?
I think castration can be dropped as a punishment and the punishment is merely only the fine.
How enlightened of you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
The process of adaptation through out generations has been observed in laboratory conditions. That process is all that evolution is. Evolution exists and is taking place. Do you want me to send you some links to relevant studies? I'm pretty sure I have before but if you would like me to send them again...
Created:
Posted in:
The only ones that I can think of aren't that expensive and if rape made the victim want to do something, they probably already would have done it.
Are you suggesting we not award this money to anyone who acts out self destructively? Who will be in charge of ensuring this is the case? What metric are they using to measure self destructiveness? 6
A $2.5 million fine would prevent repeat offense. If not, the people being prosecuted would get paid a good amount of money for their pain in enduring a false prosecution.
If the fine is sufficient then what is the point of castration? Or have you reconsidered the act of castration as it is not in keeping with stated goals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Any such reference us and only can be a place holder for a collection of experiences real or imagined whatever that collection of experiences actually turns out to be.What, in your opinion, does the term 'self' refer to? Is it the same thing you refer to as 'you' when you say 'You cannot choose your beliefs'?
In other words I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
This does not logically follow. There are many self destructive behaviors short of suicide.The victim probably won't. Otherwise, they would have bought a $250 gun and committed suicide already. I don't think they will use the money for suicide.
I want the rapist to pay the federal government and the federal government would give half of the $2.5 million to the rape victim to help them out.
I worry in that case that this may incentivise lawmakers to persecute for economic reasons. That is not an environment that foments justice.
They would pay the fine and would get their tubes tied or castration, depending on the sex/gender of the offender.
Tying tubes would in no way prevent repeat offense. Your suggested punishment is no longer in keeping with your stated goals. Please take a moment to consider this and see if you can think of a punishment that is in keeping with these goals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You mean castration?If the accusation is confirmed to be false, the rape victim would endure the punishment the "rapist" would have endured.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Well statedFalse accusations are already prevalent enough without a one million dollar prize
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Firstly you keep saying she as thpug h only women can be raped. This is not true. The main issue for me however is that there is a use you have not mentioned. The victim could use the money to enable self destructive behavior. Just handing the person a check, or worse just cash, is likely a recipe for disaster. In that case it only makes sense that the rapist pay the state. Is that what you are advocating for?The rape victim can use that money to better her life. For example, she can pay off her student loans or can get free college that she earned. This way, even if she gets pregnant from the rape, she spends 9 months with a baby and doesn't have 9 years of student loans. She can also spend it on the mental help she would need. I don't know how else to help them recover from the event that can be sped up. Anything I can think of, mental help, time to heal for example, can be paid for with the money she would get or can't be sped up with anything we can do.
Rapists rape at least partially for sex. I imagine power is in there too. It's probably a combination of the desire for sex and power. Otherwise, strangers wouldn't rape random people, as what often happens. Rape rates are also higher in the summer, when people tend to wear more revealing clothes, so the sex desire does at least have something to do with why people rape. If they are castrated, then they lose the desire to have sex largely since their testosterone levels would plummet.
There are many kinds of rape and many motivations. I see no reason to believe that mandatory castration would prevent repeat offences as you are suggesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of monetary recompense for the victim. It's like puting a dollar value on their body (or at least access to it) and that could do more psychological harm than good. As for castration, well if you think a castrated person cannot also be a rapist then you do not actually understand the act you are discussing. It may act as a deterrent to other rapists but it would not necesarily prevent the castrated individuals from committing future rapes.
It seems that a less extreme punishment may serve the same purpose and also once that has happened what can you possibly threaten them with in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Without infringing on the rights of the taxpayer. What exactly does that mean? Surely an efficacious legal systems is one of the things that we are paying for as taxpayers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You say that our main focus should be helping victims. You have also said that some punishment is necessary. Therefore either you intend the punishment to directly benefit the victim or you have other goals in mind.
Before moving forward do we have tangential goals and if so what are they?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You are getting ahead of me again. I have not asked what the punishment should be. We have not gotten that far yet.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you referencing this
After a little private time with the inmates, sentence them to Mexico :)
When you say
My joke is obviously extreme, but if they know the rape victim, it makes some sense that they should have to learn their lesson before being allowed in the same jurisdiction.
If so then in addition to being "obviously extreme" it is also needlessly (and arguably unfairly) critical of Mexico.
I have a feeling however that you meant to address this to @Alec
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I'm quite willing to admit that phylosophy is mostly useless crap. While endlessly fascinating it rarely provides actionable data (which is generally provided by science).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The main goal should be helping the rape victim.
Then clearly punishment should not be our main focus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You have not answered my question at all.
Allow me to simplify it
What is our goal?
What is the punishment supposed to do?
I am not asking what the punishment should be. We have not gotten that far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The idea of defining rape in such a way that a spouse would be able to force themselves on their partners with no prosecution for rape is monstrous in my opinion. Your law does not protect an entire group of people that deserve to be able to say no.
You have also not rigorously defined marriage but if you did I feel you would probably be a religious rather than a legal distinction. Am I incorrect about this?
Also also I cannot condone the punishment of concenting adults doing whatever they like so long as they are not hurting anyone else (particularly not in the barbaric fashion you have suggested).
You have essentially just called for the forcible neutering or execution of almost every adult member of the human race.
Do you not find that idea horrifying?
There is a logical breakdown here that I feel beholden to point out Mopac.
Anything that simply is love would not want your plan to be carried out. Ergo if God is love then God wants you to not tear off people's naughty bits just for having a little roll in the hay.
Since you dislike debate that isn't what this is. This is just a few observations about your proclamation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Rape. We all hate it. What should the punishment be?
This depends greatly on our goal here. Do we intend to prevent rape? Do we intend to dispense justice? Do we intend to make rapists suffer? To comfort and treat the mental and physical wounds of the victims? Some combination of the above?
Our stated goal would perforce help determine our course of action
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Blame is not useful in dealing with natural disasters. It's use is questionable when dealing with sentient beings.
In either case your last post is completely besides the point. Lucky for you this is not an indication of your debating prowess since you are not really debating here.
Again I urge you to go find that proclaiming web site you were looking for when you accidentally stumbled onto us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
If there any god(s) exist and if any god(s) planned on there being white polar bears specifically them clearly this plan was carried out by the process of evolution.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory. There is no debate. It is also completely unconnected with the question "is there a god?" Either some god(s) exist and there is evolution among organic species or no god(s) exist and there is evolution among organic species.
Created:
Posted in:
I do not believe in any god concept, anthropomorphic or otherwise.
I absolutely do not have an anthropomorphic conception of reality. I do not ascribe it human properties such as agency or emotion.
Do you know anyone who ascribes human properties to the ultimate reality that have not been demonstrated Mopac? Can you think of anyone who does that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I do not blame any god(s) for anything.
As for blaming reality... that is nonsensical reality does not appear to have a mind.
Created: