Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
As the current prime suspect, and as someone who has participated so little in general, you should really get in on this whenever you hop on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What's your take on potential scum at this point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Still, want to give him a chance. Likely to lynch him anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
Unvote
Was interested to see if anyone would bite. I don't want to leave him at L-1 just to get a claim, though this furthers my suspicions of him. Going to need a full claim at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Still not sure about Supa, but I agree with MisterChris - I think the number of Vanillas makes sense now that we know there was a Goon.
I'd say trying to draw attention to you makes me lean town on you, though it's not so absolute that it confirms you.
Also agree that we should pressure Croc. Seems like the likeliest one between him and Supa atm.
VTL Croc
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I hope it is okay that I will withhold this until other claims are made.
Noted. You’re basically town confirmed at this point, so I trust your judgment. I’d also believe that Pie tried to guard you, and wouldn’t be surprised if you’re the target NP3.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Who did you watch during the last NP?
So, Pie could have either been the target of the NK, or used his role to protect the target and lost the coin flip. Impossible to say which without more info.
At this point, I think it’s worth having everyone claim. I’ll start:
I’m Claudette Colvin. I’m Vanilla. Similar to Bringerofrain, it says I can affect the game with my voice and vote. No justification.
Created:
Posted in:
Exhausted, probably won’t participate much over the course of the day due to ridiculous work hours, and while I would like a character claim as well from Oro, I do believe his results.
VTL Bringerofrain
Created:
Posted in:
I’d prefer the UN topic. Other two are largely even for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Always interested in Parli, even BP if we get enough people to do it (unlikely as that is).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Totally down for the UN topic as well, figured that would be on the table.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey, haven't had much to contribute as of yet and been a bit distracted in general. At least I can compile claims so far:
Crocodile - Constance Baker Motley
iLikePie5
Speedrace - Charles Hamilton Houston / Lawyer
whiteflame
MisterChris
SupaDudz
oromagi
Bringerofrain
Generally found that there are limited, if any, justifications to the roles provided. Activity's limited enough that I'm not finding reasons to sus anyone, so I guess I'll push activity where I can. Haven't seen much activity from Supa, so that's where I'm going.
VTL Supa
What do you think about the game so far?
Created:
Posted in:
All about it. Totally /in.
Also, got a couple of topic ideas:
THW nationalize and provide public access to the Metadata being gathered by online multinational companies.
THW break up Disney.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
@Bringerofrain
My role does not include any justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Ah, missed it. Thanks for pointing those out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not sure I agree with some of the placements of those political figures, but guess I'm closest to Nelson Mandela?
As for which one is better, that's tougher to say. I can see reasons to favor either one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Hey, that's good to know. Alright, then it's something we can test without losing out on the lynch.
Separate question: does it have a certain number of uses? Entirely understand if you don't want to divulge this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Agreed on both fronts. However, imperfections in the tests aside, I do think there's some value to taking them, if only to get a vague picture that lacks nuance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I guess that all depends on what you look at as a more conservative opinion. I guess we could go through the list of questions given here as examples. Off the top of my head from this particular quiz, though, I do see a lot of benefit to private enterprise pursuing research that don't happen in the public sector. I think there are some instances where civil liberties should be curtailed to improve our security, though in some cases I believe we've gone too far in that direction. I'm usually quite supportive of pursuing new technology, but I think there should always be discussions regarding how it's used before rolling it out (and sometimes not roll it out, when the situation calls for it). I am actually pretty generally supportive of gun rights, though that's largely for pragmatic reasons regarding how people tend to respond to the issue of having their guns taken away. While I do think the immigration system has moved way too far in this direction, I do feel that it should remain somewhat restrictive, and don't support efforts to open borders substantially.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not really sure how this shows disagreement with my statement. I'm not arguing that one side is more or less valid than the other (and clearly, I do view the liberal side as having the stronger argument on most issues), but rather that each side has limited consideration of the arguments from the other side, and tends to apply similar logic to a broad spate of issues, even when doing so becomes less and less pragmatic.
I do agree with you here:
The problem is that when you keep saying the 'other side' is the issue, without exaggerating and being ready to seem like the bad guy, the other side can win elections, by successfully making you out to be the villain instead.
That's part of the point I'm getting at, though not quite the full measure of it. There's a certain degree of ideological purity we expect from our politicians these days, to the point that there's a lot of infighting about what can and should be the core of each party, and what should be excluded. That leads to a lot of infighting, which is another reason that each party can end up losing elections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
It's an odd claim for a townie, though I'm actually less concerned about that than I am by the fact that he chose to claim so early. I've seen Speed do early claims in both games where he was town and where he was scum, though my recollection is that he does it more commonly as scum. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I think it's worth testing that role at some point, though I'd like to verify, and maybe Speed could ask Danielle this: does the DP end if he prevents a lynch, or does it continue? I suspect the former.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You are more 'conservative' than me (as opposed to more 'right wing' per se). The third criterion is not really to do with conservatism itself, I can imagine why we're nearly identical there, because you and I are both extremely sensible/pragmatic about sacrificing freedom and privacy for greater net-freedom and safety/security.
Didn't notice this response before. I'd say that I've generally shifted a bit towards the conservative side on a select set of issues, which, yeah, has more to do with basic pragmatism. I think part of the problem with so much of politics today is that there are a lot of baked-in assumptions about your positions based on where you generally reside (I would still be characterized as a liberal) that don't acknowledge the reality that many of us can and do hold positions on different sides of the political spectrum on different issues. It's always struck me as odd when anyone on either side (conservative/liberal) is outright dismissive of the other side simply because both make valid points. It's largely about how they're applied to sets of issues rather than whether they're applied at all.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, glad to get one of these started. How's everyone doing?
Created:
Posted in:
Pretty close to what I've gotten before. Sometimes, I trend up a little more or a little more left, but this is decently accurate.
Created:
-->
@Undefeatable
I agree with MisterChris in that I think you get stronger as the debate goes on, though, as he said, it's difficult to use them as part of a portfolio.
As for which ones I think are the best, I can only give those that I've read so far, but I'll give you some indications.
I think your round against me was solid. Pretty standard opening, though you do include a pre-rebuttal, something you've made pretty common practice. Wouldn't do it myself, but that's just me. I do think it was an improvement over the round you did on the other side of this debate, though that one's still pretty good.
The Video Games in Schools debate had a pretty lackluster opening, partially due to how short it was.
I'd rate the Disney debate a little lower than your debate against me. It's a fine round, though it doesn't get to hard-hitting impacts like you did against me.
The Drone Warfare opening round was a little lower quality than that, perhaps due to a lack of time to do research on it. The points are there, but they only have some logical warrants and not a lot of support otherwise.
I actually like your Doping debate opening about as much as the one you gave me. It's short but efficient, and does a great deal in a short space. I don't think it's as impactful as the one you gave against me, but it has a tighter structure.
The Immigration debate is fine, though it's missing those key humanitarian impacts that I thought would be the core of your case. I think it's where you come closest to providing them in the debate, but you don't really quantify anything here, so it's somewhat lacking.
I'd say that your VR debate opening was a standout just for sheer support and warrants, though it's a little long. You do a decent job in the new one (still reading it) of taking out the major pieces and presenting them, so the more streamlined version may be more to your taste for a portfolio piece.
Your Free Will opening is pretty good as well, though what holds that back is that it's largely preemptive. I think as a stand-alone opening, it's not as solid as some of the others on here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Looks like I posted your link instead of mine somehow, was comparing. Here's my actual link, still pretty close:
Created:
Posted in:
Looks like I'm somewhere in between Intelligence and RM. These results are pretty consistent with ones I've received taking this previously.
Created:
Posted in:
I've watched quite a few anime over the years (full list here: https://myanimelist.net/animelist/whiteflame55), but picking out a top 10 is difficult for me. Used to have a clear set, but now, it's impossible to leave it to even that many. So, while I have a top 10 series (I'm giving those in no particular, though I do have some idea of how I'd rank them), I have to pick some favorite movies for a separate list.
Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (2008)
Hard not to love this bombastic, over-the-top series by Gainax. You might know them best by the work of another studio that spun off from them, Trigger (BNA: Brand New Animal and Kill la Kill). The animation is colorful and sharp, as in those series, but what really sets this apart is the emotional stakes baked into it and the incredible characters. It's a story of perseverance against impossible odds that always struck a chord with me.
Fate/Zero (2011-2012)
The series that would probably top this list, it's a Greek tragedy done up in the style of mages summoning some of the greatest heroes from history to do battle over the Holy Grail. No one in this series is free from guilt, and it's incredible to watch the characters bounce off one another and challenge each other physically, emotionally and psychologically. Never had a series before that just worked on every level so well. To top it off, the studio (Ufotable) is known for their superb animations, having recently done the adaptation of Demon Slayer.
Re:Zero - Starting Life in Another World (2016, 2020-2021)
Wouldn't have said this back in 2016, but this series is incredible. It does an amazing job developing its main character, and for a show with one major gimmick (return from death), it gets an amazing out of mileage out of it. The expanding cast only gets more intriguing and the show constantly keeps us guessing as it develops, never letting us or the characters get complacent.
Made in Abyss (2017, 2020)
Another series that gets a lot of mileage out of a single gimmick, the whole series is built on the knowledge that there is a giant abyss and people go in to explore it for riches and fame. The whole series is built on the absolutely dismal realization that our lead character is after something she cannot obtain without condemning herself to death, it's really more about the journey than the destination, with every new level of the abyss being a tour de force in animation and the music being among the best in any series.
Code Geass (2006-2007, 2017-2019)
This series has a similar vibe to Death Note, though with a grander scale and mech battles to boot. The series gets going fast and focuses on a character who is caught up in a world where the British Empire never stopped expanding, and plays a deadly game of chess with people as pawns to exact revenge. Though it has its low points, it's riveting to watch the series play out, and has an incredible ending.
Cowboy Bebop (1998, 2001)
The absolute classic on this list, Cowboy Bebop is a must-watch for any anime fan. Space bounty hunters who absolutely do not get along going on adventures with an intelligent corgi and an eccentric young computer hacker, all with a dramatic and suspenseful through-line story, some great comedic side-stories, and characters whose interactions are actually more interesting than their personal backgrounds. With one of the best endings in anime and one of the greatest OPs of all time, it's worth your time.
Steins;Gate (2011, 2013)
Time travel is rarely done well, but this series bucks the trend. With a main character who is always a joy to watch and a twist in the plot that starts about halfway in, the series goes from fun exploration of a new technology to a suspenseful, high stakes thriller, this series constantly had me on the edge of my seat.
Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (2009-2010, 2011)
Honestly, I can't say anything about this series that isn't commonly known. It's the best all-around series for a reason. Everyone loves it. Watch it.
Keep Your Hands Off Eizouken! (2020)
This is the only series on this list that fits comedy and slice of life, but it absolutely deserves to be here. With some of the most innovative animation of any series, a trio of main characters who play off each other beautifully, and a plot line that never gets stale, this is a series that breaks down the process of making an anime while putting on a master class.
Mob Psycho 100 (2016, 2019)
Almost everyone should have heard of One Punch Man by now, and while that series is great, this one has it beat. Having a nearly all-powerful main character is a big risk, but this series manages to use it in an interesting and relatable way. The animation is incredibly fluid, the characters incredible, and the plot of the series, both in individual arcs and as a whole, riveting. Also, both of the OPs slap.
Onto the movies.
A Silent Voice (2016)
This movie came out at the same time as Your Name and largely got eclipsed by the other movie, despite being (in my opinion), the better of the two. Part of what makes this incredible is just how relatable its leads are, and though it's incredibly hard to watch in places, I don't think I've ever seen such an incredible display of human emotion. The animation is gorgeous, and though this is not an action set-piece, its sakuga is on par with the best shonen has to offer.
Summer Wars (2010)
I didn't expect to love this movie, but it drew me in and kept me riveted. In a story about a young man meeting the family of a friend of his and being introduced as her fiancé, the stakes quickly escalate as this story crosses over with a massive online world where a virtual intelligence basically tries to take over, wreaking worldwide havoc. The family is incredible, the animation brilliant, and the story had me on the edge of my seat throughout.
Howl's Moving Castle (2005)
Another classic and easily my favorite Ghibli film, this film manages its fantastical elements (one of the characters is living fire and another is a sentient scarecrow) while never losing track of the humanity in its leads. It has beautiful animation, and while the story can be confusing in places, it always yields meaningful sentiments that make sense of even the most outlandish of moments.
Created:
Yes on 1, 3 and 4, neutral on 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The reason you selected DNA was because you claim that DNA is what makes us human. I had a huge set of responses, many of which pointed out loopholes in that argument and how it clearly extends beyond what any of us would consider to be worthy of moral value, to which your only response was that you disagreed and then you moved onto my position. You can't now pretend that that set of arguments doesn't exist in order to claim that your position is non-arbitrary and objective. It's neither. I've argued that at length, addressing each piece of your argument to do it. I've even explained why gametes must be considered human based on your argument, and examined how I could even engineer gametes with novel DNA, meeting your definition for what makes a human. If that isn't human, then what traits distinguish it from humanity? And if twins and clones are human, then why do they get that designation when they clearly don't have novel DNA? It sounds to me like you're adding traits to what makes a human, saying that there's something about their biology that separates them. What is that biological trait or set of traits? Should I throw out novel DNA as the reason you're using if you're just going to shift to a different biological trait? Seriously, pick a lane.
I understand your point:
- Personhood is arbitrary
- Politics are not arbitrary
- Therefore, politics can decide what is "best" for society - even if it includes killing humans
...I'm sorry, this was not my point. I didn't argue that personhood is arbitrary, I said that we often apply it arbitrarily and that we haven't found an objective way to apply it that doesn't run into problems. I didn't argue that politics are not arbitrary, I said that the harm that legal systems cause is not an arbitrary choice for implementing policy. And no, I did not say that politics can decide what is "best" for society. You've repeated that straw man several times. It's not at all accurate to my position.
My point is:
- If one wants to kill something, you must prove that thing is not a human. It is not the opposite way around.
And if we're not equipped to make that distinction, then we need to massively expand the pool of beings that get human rights. We need to do that well beyond gestation and recognize that every human cell we grow in a lab setting is worthy of the same rights, and animals that grow human cells are worthy of those rights. Just because your system guarantees rights to all humans doesn't mean that it's necessarily better, especially when those rights come into conflict with other humans.
Even if that was true, which I disagree with, it still doesn't make it as bad. Who would actually care to kill their gametes? They die on their own, no need for intentional killing.
I responded to this ages ago. You dropped that point.
summary:
- I believe all humans are entitled to moral value and human rights
- I think abortion is immoral and should be abandoned since nothing tells me why a fetus is not the same as a human
Yes, I understand your perspective. We're debating what underpins that perspective. You're welcome to hold it, but so far, you haven't convinced me that it is the most appropriate way to view this issue. The goal here should not be to convince one another, but to have a discussion on what holds up under scrutiny. We can walk away from this with the same positions on the topic and still be better informed on how we apply our individual logics to it. At this point, it seems to me we're going around in circles because we keep coming back to the same issues instead of moving forward and addressing the problems with our perspectives. If you want to do that with mine, we need to leave personhood behind and discuss what underpins my view. If you want to keep the focus on personhood, then your perspective, which relies on inherent rights ascribed by personhood (or humanity), is the one that remains under scrutiny.
Not necessarily. I am not arguing that gametes can be justly killed, I am arguing that a fetus cannot be justly killed.If gametes are human beings they should not be killed. But since I have defined moral value on being human, no human will be stripped of moral valueI also want to repeat that the UN universal human rights support my claim that moral value cannot be restricted to any type of humans.
...Seriously, what? You're not arguing that gametes can be justly killed? You're arguing that human rights begin at the zygote! That means gametes don't have them, which, yes, means they can justly be killed! How does your perspective work if that's not true?!
And, again, just because a lot of people agree with you (and I could point to the UN as an example where that's a mixed bag) doesn't mean your perspective is correct. It just means you're on a bandwagon, not that the bandwagon is more morally righteous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
laws should be enacted that do the least possible harm to the population as a whole.Yes, the government has a duty to serve the country, but they have no obligation to put their "best solution" onto morality rather than applying ethics. My view is that society should prioritize justice and ethical treatment of the individual rather than focusing on appeasing the population. That's called human rights:Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. [https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]Since you have not defined "person", I demand that we use the word "human" instead. Or you can provide a sufficient definition of personhood.
I don't see how your response here actually addresses the point I was making, which is the core of the principle that underpins my whole argument. I honestly don't get this line at all: "they have no obligation to put their "best solution" onto morality rather than applying ethics." Seriously, I'm re-reading this for the fifth time, and I don't know what you're saying. Maybe this is a response to me, but I can't figure out how it addresses my point.
And the rest of this is just revisiting the same tired points that you've been making all along. I've argued repeatedly that defining what a person is is replete with problems. I've also argued that defining who should get rights based on how science defines what a human is is replete with problems. I'm not arguing that we should do either. I don't know how I can say that any more clearly.
If you will, this is our problem:
- All "persons" are worthy of moral value
- My definition of "person" includes adults but also includes zygotes and fetuses
- You have not provided another definition
- Thus, abortion is immoral if killing adults is immoral
...We had a very long discussion about all of this. Like, seriously, all of it, which you dropped in favor of focusing hard on my view, which I will note you've barely addressed. I think what we should be doing is deciding whether it makes sense to try to designate whether someone is due rights based on some arbitrary selection of traits that make a person a person. I've pointed out numerous ways in which the trait you've selected is flawed. Your response, so far, is to say that I don't have an alternative... which has literally been my point all along: that there is no alternative that's any better because many of the choices we could make are equally fraught. You can argue at all you want that you need to do this, but whether we use person or human, you have yet to present a moral view of personhood that doesn't run into the same problems you've decried from other systems, including loopholes and just being massively overbroad. I don't see why I have to buy into your worldview that personhood must be discretely applied when all the same problems you ascribe to a system where that doesn't happen apply to your system.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm unclear on how my system and Nazi Germany's are similar in even this regard.
- Saying that society can strip a certain group of humans of moral value since they are the ones granting moral value
- Justifying said action by claiming that the group is not necessarily persons, but just living organisms
- You claimed that you did not put the unborn as just animals, please explain why you can kill something that is not an animal.
- Saying that the government should put the "most beneficial for society" option above the "fairest to each individual" option
- I would like you to dispute this claim by proving why your view doesn't result in such a state
The philosophy is different, but the ethical implications are the same.
So, let's be clear about this first: your case also designates some "humans" as not worthy of moral value. I've been over this several times before, but since your argument necessarily excludes gametes, you leave out some non-zero subset of what could be referred to as humans. Since your argument is that novel DNA is also what makes a human, you also leave out clones and twins. That means that, if these similarities exist between my views and those of Nazi Germany, then they also are similarities with your position. The only difference is where we draw the line, not if we draw it.
I explained elsewhere how I perceive the unborn from a legal perspective, so point 2.1 is addressed elsewhere. I'll see if you respond to that.
Point 3... I'm honestly unsure what you're doing with this one. Most beneficial for society isn't a Nazi ideology. It's not even particularly fascistic, since there's a big difference between the kind of nationalism espoused by Germany and looking to benefit society (which is composed of people and not just industries). But that's not even a fair characterization of my view because legal structures are put in place to be fair to the individual. The reason I consider my case beneficial for society is that it doesn't impose unreasonable burdens on people. Again, if you want to talk about this, we can, but we'll have to step away from personhood to get there. So, no, I'm not particularly interested in responding to 3.1 when it's pretty clear that the claim you're making isn't even an accurate depiction of my argument.
I'm not dismissing the moral implications of any choice, but this is not personal whimIt's a personal whim to let an individual woman kill her offspring if she sees fit. That's like saying: "yes, parents can choose to beat their children if they think it is best".
...I can't make heads or tails of this. It's not addressing the quoted line and it has nothing to do with my argument. A double whammy.
I don't see how that relates the two stances in any way.Summary: Saying that society can override human rights - by creating an extra category of non-person humans - who can justly be killed if one deems it beneficial.
...I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this, but this is not my position. My position is not "as long as someone deems it beneficial, societies can designate humans however they want." I've explained my position several times now. If you want more detail on where that position comes from, we can get there, but this is not my position.
I'm not morally justifying it. I'm legally justifying it.Ok, but it is already legal. You are not making an argument "x is legal because of laws y and z" - but you are making the argument "law x is not morally unjust because y and z"
I'm explaining why a legal system is justified based on the legal consequences of imposing greater restrictions than those currently in existence. So no, I'm not talking about why the law is not morally unjust. I'm talking about why it's the least morally unjust option on the table. All options struggle with moralistic concerns, and trying to argue that any system is entirely devoid of them is just kidding oneself.
I am not denying the fact that any society could choose arbitrarily what laws to pass. But when it comes to ethics, the principles on which morality is deducted, they are clearly not under the power of society. Yes, a society can choose which ethical principles to abide by, but they cannot directly contradict those principles. Or rather, they could, but that would be considered unethical. A Christian nation could not claim to abide by the ten commandments and at the same time persecute Jews - that is objectively unethical by their standard.
Alright, though that seems strange when many Christian nations have justified their actions based on what dictums they perceive in their liturgy. You've made quite a few statements about how religions know better than society, yet there are numerous examples of internal inconsistency and inconsistency between religions. So coming down on a clear "you must do this" is often difficult and, in some cases, completely based on interpretation.
If one wants to condemn nazi Germany, one must believe those objective ethics are superior to societal opinion.
This is starting to get into a tangent, and I'm not interested in going down this path, but saying that there are "objective ethics" is a point of great contention. I don't think you've proven that objective ethics exist, nor that they apply to this particular circumstance. And, as I've said multiple times, my position is not for societal opinion, so you're also providing a false dichotomy.
If we are simply discussing the legal problems with prohibiting abortion then that is fine, but I expected us to talk about ethics.
*sigh* We have, extensively, talked about ethics and the applications of views about when someone is due moral value. I've said it multiple times, but I guess I'll say it again: I don't think moralistic views of this can provide the kind of objective, reality-clarifying view that we need to answer this question. That has been the basis of my argument from the start, yet you seem to brush past it every time you make statements like this. I'm saying that talking about ethics will always lead us down the same rabbit hole of pointing out errors in each others' logic because any choice we make for designating someone who is or is not worthy of moral value is going to come with holes. Whether those holes leave out humans we believe deserve rights or grant rights to beings we would deem unworthy of said rights, that's a problem, and I don't think trying to find ways to fit this square peg into that circular hole make the situation markedly better.
If we do the former then your view is certainly a good one, but if we do the latter I would argue that calling abortion "ethical" while calling the murder of 6-year-olds "unethical" is inconsistent and, in a way, contradictory. That is unless we find an ethical system that allows that. Again, only two ethical systems can allow abortion:
- Personhood grants moral value - and it happens after birth
- Moral value is calculated by analyzing the individual's traits - for example age, genes or development.
My point is that any of these create other problems. Obviously, the problems would not be "legal", but ethical.
That's a false dilemma. There are other ethical systems that attempt to justify abortion. I'm arguing that all of them are arbitrary, but I'm also arguing that all the ethical systems that disallow abortion are similarly arbitrary. I made an extensive series of points about why your system is arbitrary. Hence, I think this should be decided based on legal ramifications.
A basic principle of ethics is that moral laws should be designed with a devil in mind. Our moral laws should not contain any loopholes that can be exploited, neither by an individual or society as a whole. Therefore, when making moral laws, we must assume that people have the worst intentions at heart. We must assume that people want to kill each other - so that we do not make it possible to kill and then say: "I am smart and I found this loophole, so my action was just". This means that we must take as a given that people want to kill Jews, Christians, lesbians, children, old people, fetuses, and every other group. If we grant moral value based on "what's most beneficial for society" then that can be subjective, as there are no ways to predict the future harm/benefits of each action. Stalin might have thought that his actions were beneficial in the long run, so how would you condemn him? Your argument of course was that we MUST grant moral value before birth. First of all, I think that as I am sure you would condemn the killing of a 16-year-old, even if society considered it "least harmful". Secondly, I doubt that one could even claim that killing babies is immoral when one has already deemed the killing of a fetus moral.
...But your moral views have clear loopholes. I pointed them out, extensively. Your system could, therefore, similarly be misused. But you're also not representing my system well, so I'm unclear on where bad intentions could twist my system to become damaging. I'm not sure how it leads to the killing of all these other groups simply by virtue of the fact that it's not based on an ethical framework regarding how to designate what is and is not a person. That doesn't make it a purely subjective system where everyone can just decide their views on the importance of a given group based solely on how they feel on a given day. Would really appreciate if you could engage with the argument I'm making because I'm still seeing a lot of straw man responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
At this point, it's clear that you don't understand my position because all of your responses aren't addressing my stance.
To start, and just to clarify in general, it is undeniable that societies legislate morality. That's a given: regardless of whether that legislation is based on a given religion or philosophical view, societies have the final word in terms of what is implemented. So, while many of your arguments decry that system, it is what exists for everyone.
I accept your complaint that arbitrary has different degrees.
...I've never made this argument, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from.
My stance, to be clear, is that societies should make this decision based entirely on the perspective that laws should be enacted that do the least possible harm to the population as a whole. Even that may not be clear, so I'll be more straightforward: a legal system that recognizes abortions as murder, which is what one would have to do should the unborn be recognized as being due the same right as any human born into the world alive, is going to complicate the legal system in pretty extreme ways. If you want to get into those ways, we can, but I think we have to leave behind personhood as a topic, first. So, in a sense, this is a philosophical argument.
Note that this argument is entirely distinct from saying "societies should decide based on whatever they want," which is apparently how you have viewed my position up to now. Saying:
Therefore, one could just as easily justify the act of abortion as any other "immoral" act - one just needs to be evil enough.
is clearly not taking into account my actual position because this has nothing to do with my position. If you can give me another example of a legal structure that does more harm than good and, via its repeal, could allow great evils to be perpetrated, then please provide them.
There are no loopholes in a clearly defined standard like DNA - because every single thing considered a person has human DNA. This ensures that equally moral rights are justified.
I've already argued the problems with the standard of DNA. Please respond to those because, while they may not be loopholes, they are pretty glaring problems that clearly engender crises if this is the standard you apply.
Why can we then morally justify killing an unborn? If a fetus is not a person it is an animal. Why would you differentiate between animal and human if the difference is solely name, not in their moral value? Abortion is no different from the killing of a dog, it is a decision to kill "your own" property based on a personal whim (or necessity), and it is treated as not moral or immoral - but amoral. The only difference is that an unborn is human. But if being human, as opposed to being human AND a person, grants no moral rights why even include that as a category? If a human can be killed like an animal before becoming a person, why is it not merely an animal?
I'm not morally justifying it. I'm legally justifying it. And that distinction matters because this notion that we are simply killing the unborn because we view them as lesser is problematic. The argument is simple: there are many circumstances where the rights of two or more humans are in conflict, and the law needs to establish whose are paramount. Determining that is always going to be difficult, and I'm not dismissing the moral implications of any choice, but this is not personal whim. Again, if you want to get into why I'm legally supporting abortion on the basis that not having it does more harm than good, then we can get into that, but you still seem stuck on personhood. The subject of personhood is not pertinent to my stance, so you'll either have to wrap it up and move on, or you'll have to tell me why it must be a part of a stance that you don't yet know.
I wouldn't say there's much relation, if any, between that and my argument.No there is none - except the very idea that being human does not automatically grant you human rights.
I don't see how that relates the two stances in any way, especially since I ascribe those rights via a different philosophical perspective. If you want to keep relating my point to other systems, we can cover that, but I'm unclear on how my system and Nazi Germany's are similar in even this regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Yes, I am Jewish. Don't worry too much about it - I'm rather thick-skinned on issues like this. I don't necessarily want people to steer clear of Nazi comparisons just because they're trying to handle me with kid gloves, but if you are going to make a comparison to Nazi Germany, I'd like it to be linked directly with my position. As I see it, recognizing that legal choices have negative consequences and working within the framework that we should minimize those consequences where possible doesn't link very well to the actions of Nazi Germany, which selected groups to dehumanize and kill largely based on: discriminatory views that went back long before them, a desire to place blame for previous failures on someone, the view that they could profit from stealing everything these populations had, and generally viewing anything that wasn't solely nationalistic as secondary to what was good for Germany. I wouldn't say there's much relation, if any, between that and my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You must. Else wise not even adults have moral rights. Remember that you insisted on granting moral value based on personhood.
...I'm sorry, at what point did my personal opinion on the definition of personhood determine whether adults have moral rights? I'm saying that the definition should have its foundations in the ramifications of how we determine who has moral rights, not personhood. As I recall, it's your argument that hinges on personhood to define who is deserving of moral rights, not mine.
So we, representing "the experts", cannot just decide where moral value is granted based on philosophy or science.
I think that doing so without the context of the ramifications of legal choices is problematic, though I'd say "should not" instead of "cannot".
In other words: SOCIETY can choose to grant moral value to anyone and take it from anyone - as they see fit or "least harmful".
...Kind of. Saying "as they see fit" renders this decision entirely arbitrary. Putting "least harmful" in quotes also implies that there's a lack of clarity there. If you want to get into the legal ramifications of specific positions on abortion, we can do that, but that means stepping away from the argument about personhood.
Why should society, (aka public opinion), get to decide which humans are a "person" - based on their own self-interests? The name "personhood" is not reflective of any non-arbitrary definition, as this debate has clearly shown. The public opinion is not less arbitrary than our personal beliefs if nothing else it is even more arbitrary as the general population is easier swayed by emotion rather than logic. Last but not least: a society can remove the moral value of any group they want.What did the Nazi's do?
- They blamed a lot of problems on the Jews - making it seem like killing the Jews would not be "harmful"
- The claimed that the Jews were "just" animals - which is precisely what today is happening to the fetuses.
- They stripped them of moral value and then brutally killed them, legally and morally justified
This argument "that a specific group of humans are not persons - they are animals" was used in every war known to man. It is the slogan of injustice and immoral deeds throughout history, and anyone can justify anything by simply tweaking the definition of "person". How can one not justify war to gain power if one measures morality by what benefits society, and not what is objectively true? After reading this, do you still believe that society can freely choose which humans are persons, regardless of scientific and philosophical evidence?
This is a lot for someone who does not yet really understand my position. Again, this is not based in self-interest (unless you say the entirety of a society is the "self" which is... kind of weird, and would also technically apply to any choice, because they're all perceived as in the best interest of the society at large), but based in how the legal system affects people within a given society. This has nothing to do with personhood. This is not based in some general opinion derived from a majority-rules perspective.
Saying that this is related to what the Nazis did is... well, pretty damn offensive when you're speaking to a Jew, but is also inaccurate because that assumes that we can arbitrarily designate any group we want as persons or non-persons, which a) doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about, and b) is exceedingly arbitrary (saying that one group of adults deserves rights while another does not based on a perception of harm effectively does away with any conception of when someone achieves moral rights and focuses on when rights should be removed instead. If you want to engage with my actual argument instead of arguing against a straw man and somehow make this link work, be my guest, but this is just ridiculous. I haven't argued that there are groups - and yes, I'm including the unborn in this - that should be reduced to the status of animals. I haven't argued that moral value should be based on who is dispensable. Those statements are very obviously twisting my points.
As for the rest of this argument, I have no idea what this has to do with justifying wars or allowing societies to "freely choose which humans are persons, regardless of scientific and philosophical evidence". Those aren't my points. They aren't related to my points. I don't know how you're getting this far off track from a few sentences, but you've managed it quite spectacularly.
Not saying this against personally, but the rise of human rights happened exactly because people started to oppose your view. Christianity, Philosophy and later Human Rights claimed that all humans are persons - not only those close to you or that society deems as such. Abortion as a concept is a violation of basic human rights by definition, and if incorporated into the rule, why stop there? We justify the killing of animals much smarter than a born baby, so why not kill 1-year-olds? In short, I am not attacking you personally, but your idea is not a worthy basis for morality. Thus, it cannot defend abortion.
...You're not even arguing against my view as of yet. You seem dead set on hitting a point somewhere over my right shoulder and saying you got me. My position doesn't allow for the killing of a 1-year-old. I don't know what violation of human rights you feel I'm engaging in, but now you're just asserting what abortion does on the basis that your perception of personhood is right. Great, so now you're assuming you're correct instead of supporting your position.
The fact that many religions and philosophical minds have designated what they believe is a person doesn't make it right any more than your designating what is a person makes you right. Appealing to a majority or even large like-minded groups doesn't make your argument more logical or accurate, it just means that I disagree with a very large amount of people. I could be wrong. So could you. I don't understand how this supports your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Earlier you insisted on "personhood" being what grant's us moral value, but now you do not know what the word means.Please define "personhood". If you cannot, I suggest we take a step back and start using the term "human" instead.
Again, I think you're not understanding me. My point is that we can't use an arbitrary designation of personhood based on our perception of the stage of development and whether it crosses a given line drawn from the stance of "what makes a person." My point is that we should designate personhood from a legal perspective by selecting the stage of development where enforcement of legal policies surrounding the unborn do the least possible harm. So, while I could give you a definition of personhood, I don't think it would be meaningful to my perspective, aside from demonstrating that what makes a person is both biological and perceptual, i.e. society grants that designation and, whether by legal or social norms, enforces that perception. I do not agree that we should step back to using the term "human" because it entirely removes societal perception from the equation, and I think that is a necessary component to our understanding of what makes a person and why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I declare: Conception is not the point at which one is granted moral value.Now, your turn:
- Present a better point
- Accept that there is no point in time where moral value is not present
I feel as though I keep repeating myself on my perspective, and yet I am not being understood. So, allow me to rephrase myself:
My argument is that we cannot know when personhood is acquired, that there is no single point that can be objectively claimed to be "correct" or "better," and that any such selection involves arbitrary bias. So, in answer to your first option, no, I don't believe there is a better point. I also don't believe that conception is the best point. I feel that there are many other points that are equally justified.
As for answering your second point, which is what you're apparently trying to slate me into should I make the argument that uncertainty predominates, that's not an option. If we assume that there is no point in time when moral value is not present, then where does it stop? I've made this argument several times, but you seem to be missing it, so I'll reiterate and restate it here: there is as much risk in extending the moral value of persons too far as there is in not extending it far enough. You can argue that there's no risk in applying it to the zygote stage, and while I do take issue with that, I'd rather not make this a discussion of the realities of implementation. Instead, I'll just note that if I accept that there is no point in time where moral value is not present, then I must extend that as far back as possible, which means that (and I'll say this again), it must apply to gametes as well. In fact, it shouldn't bar us from accepting cancer cells as worthy of moral value, or any other form of life that contains human DNA. If the goal is to cover all our bases, then why aren't you advocating for this? Why, in the face of uncertainty, do you not afford these forms of human life personhood status and the moral value that comes with it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I feel like the best way to understand this is for me to break down your argument to its various pieces.
What you're arguing is that DNA is what imparts humanity. To be more specific, your argument is that the formation of novel DNA is what makes a person. That step somehow imparts personhood, ergo one becomes a person when one's DNA finishes the process of homologous recombination and forms a zygote with this novel genome.
You provide 4 reasons for why this is true.
First, you argue that DNA is immutable. In a sense, you are correct: our DNA is largely maintained from the moment it finishes recombining in the zygote to the ends of our lives. However, it's that "largely" part that I take issue with. Our genomes are built with telomeres on the ends that get eaten away over the course of our lives, meaning that our genomes are getting shorter. DNA viruses will, in many cases, incorporate into the genomes of many cells in our bodies. If you stayed out in the sun too long, you could mutate a variety of genomes on your epidermis. So, your argument would have to morph: it's not that DNA as a whole has to remain the same, but some unknown number of core sequences must be maintained. And this is where we get into arbitrary selection. Why that specific number of sequences, why those sequences in particular, why ignore others, and if a human is born without even one of them, are they human?
Second, you argue that DNA underpins everything we are. This is an outdated view of how DNA works that assumes that DNA alone is responsible for everything we are. Setting aside issues of nature vs. nurture, there's a variety of molecular biological issues that affect how DNA is expressed and, thus, affect what we are. Epigenetics are probably the best known of the bunch, but if you want to get into it, I can tell you all about the various proteins, ligands, carbohydrates and all manner of other molecular signals that play a role in what we are. Why are they not worthy of this designation?
Third, you argue that DNA is the first step for a human. I've already pointed out that DNA doesn't exist in a vacuum, and therefore that arguing that it is the "first step" is a bit like arguing that flint is the first step in starting a fire. Flint is a part of the equation, it's required to get to the end point of making a fire, but it's far from the only thing required to make that fire happen, and if it's all you had, you'd be out of luck. For that matter, if we're concerned about what the first step in a human is, then this is an arbitrary choice. Looking back to my analogy, if we're really concerned about encompassing all that was responsible for the start of that fire, then we should consider how the flint was made. The flint didn't just pop into existence - this rock formed over time. If we truly wish to know the origins of the fire that we are trying to generate, then we should consider further back to the generation of that flint, the origins of the metal you strike it against, the generation of the tinder it lights, all of it. Why should we ever leave it to chance that we're excluding the essential element if our goal is to ensure that we leave no stone unturned, that we don't allow any persons to be denied their human rights? Benefit of the doubt should apply as far back as possible, should it not?
Fourth, you argue that it's uniqueness sets it apart. I'll ignore that there are other elements of us that also set us apart from others and just focus on DNA. Also, let's set aside the existence of twins and clones, both of which demonstrate instances where DNA is absolutely not unique. What, exactly, makes DNA unique? You would argue (quite rightly) that it's not the sperm or the ovum individually. What makes it unique is the process of homologous recombination, where the DNA of the two gametes is split up and shared. So, then, it's not the DNA that actually makes us unique, but rather the process of homologous recombination, right? We are persons because this process occurred. I suppose you could argue that, so long as there is unique DNA in a cell, it doesn't so much matter how it's achieved. In doing so, though, you leave the door open to any number of means by which DNA could be modified in any number of cells. I could irradiate cells and produce a unique DNA sequence. Have I created new life? You might argue that that life needs to have a potential to become an adult, so fine: if I irradiate sperm cells, I should be creating new life as well, since those sequences would now be unique and could go on to fertilize an ovum. Also, if I somehow modify the genomes of any stage post-zygote (this is not science fiction - it has been done), then by that same logic, I must be making new life at a later stage than the zygote. In other words, if I use your logic that it's the uniqueness of the DNA that decides when a life begins, then that is non-unique to the zygote.
I'm really trying to set each of these points apart and examine them individually. Maybe I'm missing something, and if so we can most certainly go back and address it. I do, however, have one last thing to add.
You are almost certainly going to have a problem with my argument that your perspective is a personal whim, so I'll address that. The fact that you have support for your position doesn't make it any less of a personal whim. You're assuming the consequent by defining a specific set of criteria for what you believe makes a person, and then saying that DNA meets that criteria via a, b, and c. Just because you explained how it meets those criteria doesn't mean that the criteria themselves are any less the result of your personal whims. I am certain that you will argue that the criteria you set are objective, but as I've pointed out several times already, those criteria are based in your slanted view of what you want to be a person. You've designed those criteria to exclude all other factors (though I don't think they actually do), and then proclaimed that, by fulfilling them, you've proven your point. I don't see you having justified your criteria in a way that's objective. Each of your justifications is arbitrary. Coming first doesn't make it the appropriate place to insert personhood. Something having the quality of being immutable doesn't mean that it imparts the immutability of personhood. Having a role to play in how we develop doesn't make it the factor that imparts personhood. And its being unique only provides a distinguishing factor from one individual from another, not the obvious label of personhood. All these points do is beg the question: why do they (and nothing else) impart personhood? Why can't they just be a part of what makes a person, and other factors complete said person? Or, if just one of these factors is absent from a human, why should or shouldn't we consider them a person? You can argue that this is all objective, but there are clearly some strong assumptions baked into your argument. Those are the personal whims that I've referred to, and the main reasons why I'm finding it so hard to agree with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Yep... decisive and I got it wrong. Oh well, I'll work on that.
Created:
Posted in:
I really wouldn’t have suspected Luna. Should definitely have lynched Mikal. My bad.
Created:
Posted in:
I think we figured it out. If it's Elm, more power to him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I'm in agreement with you. I don't think there's much chance it's GP, you or Mikal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
One possibility is that he anticipated the Watcher result. It's possible scum could have their own tracking role. It's also possible that they know what roles are in the game, and that Doc appeared to be a relatively safe choice.
Created:
Posted in:
Figured that might help. Was still banking on the possibility that scum hadn't discovered it yet, but yes, I think that's reason enough to at least be sus of Speed.
Created:
Posted in:
*sigh* this is what happens when I type my thoughts into a Doc. Sorry about the spacing, guys, can't modify it now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Greyparrot
@Speedrace
@Reece101
@Elminster
Alright, so, a fewthings to talk about.
First, who would killSupa? I have a hard time believing that anyone who was trying to lynch himduring the last DP would kill him off, so I don’t think it was Luna. It wouldbe an odd choice for Elm as well, since he would have to know that the only otherplausible lynch during this DP would be Supa. So, at least based on motive forthis last NK, I have a hard time buying that either of them are scum.
Second, while I dothink it’s behaviorally odd for Speed to push as he did during the last DP, I’mnot certain yet if I’d call it scummy. Maybe it’s just me having a hard timereading him in general. If I’m buying Elm’s results, which motives wouldsuggest I should, then Speed is the obvious target for the lynch this DP. Motivesare a bit odd, though, as Speed tends to use the NK as a way to get rid of townreads, especially at this stage. Maybe he believed that Supa would somehow townconfirm himself.
Third, I do have informationto add to this equation. I wanted to keep this under wraps and bide out the NK,but I’m bulletproof. It’s entirely possible that I was the target of the NKduring NP2. That means that Speed could have targeted himself with some otherrole during NP2, when Supa reported that. So, Luna, no, I don’t think theywaived the NK. And yes, I do think that he might have visited himself withwhatever ability he has. The only defense I have of Speed at this point is thathe claimed America off the bat, which is a pretty ballsy claim, but perhaps scumdid get 1 or 2 safe fake claims.
First, who would killSupa? I have a hard time believing that anyone who was trying to lynch himduring the last DP would kill him off, so I don’t think it was Luna. It wouldbe an odd choice for Elm as well, since he would have to know that the only otherplausible lynch during this DP would be Supa. So, at least based on motive forthis last NK, I have a hard time buying that either of them are scum.
Second, while I dothink it’s behaviorally odd for Speed to push as he did during the last DP, I’mnot certain yet if I’d call it scummy. Maybe it’s just me having a hard timereading him in general. If I’m buying Elm’s results, which motives wouldsuggest I should, then Speed is the obvious target for the lynch this DP. Motivesare a bit odd, though, as Speed tends to use the NK as a way to get rid of townreads, especially at this stage. Maybe he believed that Supa would somehow townconfirm himself.
Third, I do have informationto add to this equation. I wanted to keep this under wraps and bide out the NK,but I’m bulletproof. It’s entirely possible that I was the target of the NKduring NP2. That means that Speed could have targeted himself with some otherrole during NP2, when Supa reported that. So, Luna, no, I don’t think theywaived the NK. And yes, I do think that he might have visited himself withwhatever ability he has. The only defense I have of Speed at this point is thathe claimed America off the bat, which is a pretty ballsy claim, but perhaps scumdid get 1 or 2 safe fake claims.
As for who his partner could be, I'm still considering that. I have a hard time believing it's GP, so Reece seems the most likely at the moment, but I don't have much to go on to make that conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll provide my thought and give some responses to the people who are asking me in a bit.
Created: