Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Don’t see any problems, though we’ll see where you go with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Good thing you didn't full claim early. Wouldn't have believed that Magneto was the doctor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
@oromagi
Yeah, I'd say Draft is the obvious choice.
Also, I'm a 3X Cop, so I don't have more results to give at this stage. Thought I had another night, but the motivated investigation counted as one.
VTL Draft
Created:
Posted in:
Oro was a 1x motivator. Didn't get motivated this time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You need to target Warren and Coal tonight
That was the plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
You wouldn't be the first person who bussed a scum partner by being the first one on a lynch. Speed did that two games ago.
Also, if you think I'm scum, then you haven't taken much time to consider what everyone else has clearly realized: MC's flip shows that there must be a cop in this game, and I wasn't CC'd. Pie copped innocent, and there's good reason to believe that Oro motivated my second investigation. The fact that we didn't immediately hop on the lynch of MC, but became parties to it later, doesn't mean that we're scum.
Created:
Posted in:
Unvote
Don’t want any accidental hammers. 2 votes are enough pressure for this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I’d be willing to pressure you as well. I’m at work and typing on my phone when I get a free moment. I’m honestly not thinking through every vote as much as I normally would right now.
As for why I’m alive, I’m honestly surprised as well. Can’t explain not being targeted.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I'm surprised I survived the night, but here we go:
To start, I was motivated last night. That means that Oro was almost certainly telling the truth. Strong townread for him.
As for who I investigated, it's good that I got two. I started with Elm, who clearly was innocent. I'm actually glad I investigated him because now we have confirmation that I'm at least not an insane cop, since he investigated innocent for me.
The second one was Pie. He also investigated innocent.
So, that knocks off the remaining scum reads from Elm. It's possible that I'm still flavored in some way or that he managed to screw with the results, but it's more likely that Pie is town, leaving open the question as to who is scum. That means Oro, Pie and myself are all at least town leaning if not town confirmed.
As for the remainder of us, I can't say we've confirmed anything about Draft, though he's scheduled to die during NP3, so at least we know when he should be gone. I have at least a slight town read on Supa and GP. That just leaves Coal, Speed and Warren, and in this case, I'll lean on Coal to get his claim.
VTL Coal
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
A category in our context means that we can put all "persons" in one simple box (category) and have them all be similar in some fundamental way. However, if our division is unclear, vague or arbitrary it cannot be accepted. For example, I could say that "persons" can run faster than crabs - but that category would be stupid and not sufficient to grant moral value. So when trying to create a perfect box (category) on the basis of which we will grant moral value, it needs to fit these criteria:
- Include everything we agree are persons (like adults)
- Not include anything we agree is not persons (like elephants)
Ah, so it's similar to the "type" so often used in evolution debates. Still kinda vague, but I can at least understand the general sentiment. It's not an aim to give it a scientific classification, but rather just trying to afford some kind of boundary in which persons fit and non-persons do not. That's fine.
Moral value is granted at the point when one becomes a person. That point is a change in category, not simply a small change within current category.
I think we've found our point of agreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You see, if the difference is quantitative or qualitative then "being a person" seems to only mean "more of ...something else...". It would be justified to critique the idea that 99% personhood is not sufficient to require 1% or moral value. This brings me back to point 2 arguments.
That's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. I don't see why we can't leave that on the table, but I also just generally think it's nigh impossible to distance yourself from any and all quantitative and qualitative differences.
If different persons get their value from being part of a category rather than having certain traits, then we could justly apply equal value to persons without being inconsistent.
I'm seriously just interested to understand what you mean by "category." How do we establish what is and is not part of a category without establishing that there are quantitative and/or qualitative differences between that category and other categories? What do you use if not them to isolate those that are deserving of human rights from those that are not? Without seeing that, I can't say whether this is something that's even possible to do, let alone whether it's an appropriate boundary to accept to this discussion.
Limiting the debate seems not to be a problem - we are far too good at getting of track XD
Technically, this isn't even the debate, as far as I'm aware. It's just setting the stage for what the debate would be, or maybe narrowing in on said debate. We're definitely going off on a bit of a tangent, but like I said before, I think it's important to land solidly on this before we proceed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The difference between a person and a non-person is category, not simply quality or quantity.
My issue with adding this is that it limits the discussion. You can always argue that utilization of traits is problematic, but at the end of the day, there's going to have to be some discussion of what separates a person from a non-person. If it's a category, I'd like to know what separates a category from a set of traits or even just a qualitative difference. I don't think we'll agree at this point (without extended discussion of the factors that each of us believe contributes to personhood) on what defines personhood, nor do I think that should be our aim here. If the goal is to narrow discussion, I believe we've already done that by establishing that all persons should have human rights. Getting more narrow just excludes large swaths of argumentation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I did not feel personally attacked, so don't worry there.
Moral value is not granted on the basis of personal traits, but because you are a person. It is constant and granted exactly when a non-person-thing become a person.
I mean... the quality of being a person is a bit unclear because you're saying simultaneously that you become a person, but that there aren't personal traits that make you a person. If I might suggest a slimmed-down alternative:
Moral value is granted at the point when one becomes a person.
I'd be open to having a more in-depth discussion of what a person is, and I believe this leaves that door wide open, but my issue was limiting the discussion to human traits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Dude, you used the term "person" earlier, not me. And you're using it again here. Have you decided that you don't have any issue with the usage of "person" in place of "human" and, if so, why are we still discussing this?
I've now clarified several times what I mean by person, and no, that was not what I said. Separately, I said that a human that has been born into the world alive is deserving of the same rights as any other living human born before them. I didn't say that personhood doesn't extend at all into any portion of gestation. In fact, I'm leaving that door wide open so that you can argue that personhood applies before birth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
That latter point is inaccurate. I'm not arguing that value should change depending on accomplishments or relations. I haven't defined specifically how I view personhood, though that's actually besides the point here. My argument is that we shouldn't constrict this debate to solely being about biological humanity and how that affects access to human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
during the entire life of a person, his moral value is constant.If we're sticking with "person," then yes, I would agree to that.It's settled then. Age is not a factor with regards to moral value.
Age beyond exiting the womb is not a factor. On that we agree. Also, note the usage of "person" here in place of "human."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If the goal is to provide my stance on an argument, I will summarize it as best I can. If the goal is to challenge a supposition in your arguments, I can't guarantee that I can do that. Challenging an argument often requires more explication. If you do take issue with what I say, then you can respond in kind. Again, simplicity for its own sake seems problematic to me in this context. That being said, if you want me to distill my issues down to a single sentence, then I'll restate a point I made earlier:
The debate as a whole regards a dichotomy: selecting all the traits that scientists define as uniquely Homo sapien as sufficient to award basic human rights vs. selecting a specific set of traits that go beyond the scientific definition of Homo sapien as sufficient to award those human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
No comment on who I'll be investigating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I am sorry for oversimplifying things. But once we get the facts on the table - first then can we have a meaningful debate.
If these assumptions underpin everything we discuss going forward, then they affect that meaningful debate.
Yet in this discussion, a single sentence can carry enormous weight.
I am verbose and probably could have explained my issues in fewer words, but I don't think the length made my points any less clear or important to cover.
I assume by "access to human rights" you mean moral value? Because they basically have the same definition: "entitlement to moral treatment"
Frame it however you want, it's the same meaning in this context.
Let us say that personA has moral value because he has enough of x - let's say personhood. What if PersonB has more of x, is he not more valuable?
Not making that argument. Like you said, it's a yes/no circumstance. It either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, they are not accorded the same value. If it does exist, in any amount, then it does accord them said value.
I agree. So during the entire life of a person, his moral value is constant.
If we're sticking with "person," then yes, I would agree to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: you're oversimplifying the issue. There's a difference between setting an issue down to the core principles that underpin a disagreement and oversimplifying it to the point that you're excluding large swaths of points that affect those disagreements. If you think me giving you long answers means that you can simplify my points away, then I don't know why you've bothered asking us to provide feedback on each of these points in the first place. A "yes" or "no" answer would neuter any meaningful points that could be made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I am overwhelmed by the sheer amount of text you wrote.
...It's 3 paragraphs, all focused on the same issue and almost all with the same point, just further explicated.
Simple question: is a man and a woman equally valuable? (assuming that the man is smarter, has a more developed personality and is kinder - all other things being equal)In other words: is moral value a yes or no question or is it a variable?
Again, seems overly simplified, not to mention tangential to our discussion. There is nothing inherent to the differences between the male and female sexes that should reduce their value as human beings. Being smarter, more developed, or better to others doesn't increase or decrease your access to human rights.
As for answering the second question, that seems entirely separate. I'd say that all moral value is a yes or no question. It's setting a bar and saying that if you reach said bar, you obtain said moral value. That's true regardless of your position on this topic. There are very few people who would argue that moral value is so completely variable that there isn't a yes/no dichotomy at play in awarding said value.
Created:
Posted in:
Just finished catching up. I'll give Oro the opportunity to prove himself by motivating someone. If we don't get any proof of that, then lynching him during the next DP will be my top priority.
Unvote
As for MisterChris, yeah, I'll put a vote on him for now. The Grinch is an odd claim in general and doesn't really fit beyond just having a potentially reasonable motivation (depending on the movie).
VTL MisterChris
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Simple question: is a 13-year-old boy equally valuable to a 67-year-old lady?In other words: is moral value a yes or no question or is it a variable?
Again, you're oversimplifying, and now you're doing so from yourself. If your argument is that "if you are born into the world alive, you are warranted the same human rights as any human throughout their lives," then the answer is yes. The argument that "all humans have equal value" has far broader application.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Why do you think that I will only talk about biology? I will take on philosophy as well.
Because apparently the entire point of selecting "human" over "person" is to simplify the debate by selecting an entirely scientific definition on which to base everything we discuss. If the whole case hinges on a scientific definition that necessarily excludes any discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of how society views individuals, then yes, that's reducing the debate to biology alone. If you're bringing in philosophy, I'd like to see how that meshes with your choice of terminology here. Maybe I'm wrong and you'll find some way to do it, but I can practically guarantee that I'll be pointing to the discrepancy between this definition and some of your points later.
There are only two alternatives:
- All x have an equal value by simply being humans - a dualistic view [1]
- All x have different values based on individual traits - a relativistic view [2]
I hope you will agree that every one that is x, has equal value. This would mean that a man is not more valuable than a woman, and an adult is not more valuable than a child, and a jew is not less valuable than an "arian". If you read my first post, you see that I only wanted to prove that everyone that falls into the category x has equal value - regardless of their non-x traits. Do you disagree with such a claim? If not, we can proceed to point 3 and talk about the definitions of x.
Now you're starting to move beyond this portion of our discussion. I don't want to get into the specifics of my views yet because they are not pertinent to the discussion at hand. However, I would modify the first of those alternatives to saying "All x have an equal value by simply being persons" or "...by simply being human beings". On another note, I don't like the use of "individual traits" here, largely because the use of the term "humans" implies that biological traits are the basis for that classification as well, though for other reasons as well. You can argue that all human beings share those traits, and therefore that it is not individualized, but you can't argue that the basis for awarding the classification of "human" is entirely derived from a collection of traits that meet the scientific definition of Homo sapien. So, I guess the answer to your question is that, yes, I do disagree with this pair of alternatives. I think you're framing a false dichotomy that... honestly, isn't even really a dichotomy. It's just a comparison of two different sets of traits as a means to classify what is and is not part of x and, therefore, worthy of equal value.
The reason I'm hung up here is that I feel this is at the core of your argument and I don't want to be arguing this later. I'd like to be able to set this aside and focus on the key differences between our views, but I'm seeing a lot of discrepancies between our views in just this set of assumptions. Maybe that's just me parsing your language to a degree that I shouldn't be, but I've often gotten hung up here in past discussions over abortion, and I feel this is one area where we should be able to find common ground: what factors should and should not be considered when it comes to the value of the unborn? If the only factor that is important to that determination is their humanity, then inherently, your argument is that their physical characteristics should decide that they are worthy of rights. If that's the argument you want to go for, then by all means, go ahead, but don't try to frame this as a dichotomy between selecting traits and not selecting traits because that's not what this is. It's a dichotomy between selecting all the traits that scientists define as uniquely Homo sapien and arguing that they are sufficient to award basic human rights, and selecting a more specific set of traits to examine what makes one worthy of basic human rights. If you're fine with that comparison, then we can move on, but in doing so, you accept that this a debate between humanity as assigned by biology and personhood as further narrowed down by other factors. Hence my problem with defining this solely based on the definition of "human."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Every single thing can be accurately defined by science. However, the absolute answer of science depends on how we define a "human". There is still room for discussion.In point 2 I just wanted to assure that we are not applying a relativistic model for value, namely that different adults or even adults and children have a different value.
Science does absolutely answer "how we define a 'human.'" That's not where the room for discussion lies if you choose to use that term here, but I don't want to get into that too deeply here. If this is what you want, have at it, though I think you're only hurting your argument in the process.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, the same problem applies to a person. If x regards y as not being a person he can kill y - But that is not ethics, rather it is just subjective (or statical) opinion. An objective, (aka scientific) way to solve the problem is more accurate in its classifications and thus better. We would never click a button to kill something that had a 50% percent chance of being our children, and a 50% chance of being a mouse - even with a million dollars as a reward. Therefore, a scientific definition is better, we must strive to minimize the chance of judging incorrectly. The law of "innocent until proven guilty" also applies here. If there is any uncertainty around your choice to pull the trigger, then you should not do so. As is an idiom in Norway: "it is better than 10 guilty t freed than for 1 innocent to be punished".
...I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this is in any way responsive to my point. My point was that scientific understanding of what something is doesn't necessarily yield how society should view that thing, yet your entirely argument is built on the premise that society should view the unborn in a specific way. The scientific basis for viewing the unborn is just a warrant on the way to that conclusion. That's where I see the problem in your definition: you're basically saying to take societal perception out of the equation by limiting this to a debate about biology, and then adding it back later without recognizing the clear gap. Maybe you think your Point 1 automatically gets you there, but I assure you that it doesn't, and as I see it, the major problem we're going to encounter in this discussion is that we're going to remain lost in these weeds rather than getting at discrete questions regarding the status of the unborn in society and whether or not it should be altered.
Moreover, just because people can have personal opinions about something doesn't necessarily make those opinions the right ones for a society to impose or allow. Pointing out that there are differences of opinion doesn't mean that there is no perspective that is more valid for a society to utilize. If we are concerned about judging incorrectly, then that concern should absolutely include moralistic arguments. Excluding them in favor of a purely scientific analysis simply because it's more straightforward is just oversimplifying what is a very complex problem. I don't see why I should accept your definition simply because there's less uncertainty to it; if anything, I would say that the word "person" giving us more wiggle room is both beneficial to this debate and more accurate to the realities of this topic.
I understand your concern. But it also applies to the term person. Person: A human being regarded as an individual.[1-same as above]So unless you know what a "human being" is, you cannot decide what a person is. Instead of solving the problem, using the term "person" only deepens the problem. That is because we would have two layers of uncertainty instead of one:a) what is a human beingb) which human beings are persons.I see no difference between the two terms, so a change to the words would be a semantic's problem rather than a real solution.Conclusion: changing the word "human" for "person" cannot solve any of the complications, it just adds a new layer of semantics.
Well, then we have a difference in our understanding of these definitions. If you see no difference between the two terms, then I don't know why you're fighting this, but if you do actually see this as a problem solely built on semantics, then you're clearly not understanding my point. There's value in opening up the discussion to issues of what makes a human being and why that is distinct from just having the qualities of being human. I would argue that this is anything but semantic, though. Knowing when a human starts is one question. Knowing when a human being starts is a separate question because it regards how society should view that human. The term "person" applies a philosophical lens that the term "human" does not. If you want to exclude philosophical discussion just because you don't like the inherent discussion of these terms that comes with that, then you're excluding a large portion of the abortion debate on the grounds that it's too difficult to have. Abortion is a thorny subject, and we shouldn't try to smooth it out to make things simpler when the reality is anything but.
But, again, if you want to use the term human, go ahead. It will focus this debate entirely on biology, and that's my expertise. I'd be happy to engage with questions of what makes a human and how we can delineate. I think it's actually more detrimental to your argument to use the term because a lot of the strength of the pro-life stance resides on the philosophical side of the debate, but if you want to drop that out and try to make the connections to what society should do based solely on biology, then I wish you luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
There are a few things I disagree with in this post, but the fact that you're already talking about definitions showcases just how much the usage of these terms matters. Wasn't it you who said: "We will discuss WHO are humans later, so no need to bring up fetuses yet"? Yet, your argument is that it clearly comes pre-defined, i.e. that what is human is absolutely known. You're essentially trying to cut off debate over what a fetus is now. I agree in the sense that there is a biological basis for understanding what is and is not human, but I guess it depends on the kind of discussion you want to be having. If you want this to be purely biologically-driven, then stick with human. It'll make my stance a lot easier to prove. If you want to include any philosophic arguments, or clearly delineate between an individual human being and an individual human cell, then I'd suggest going with person. I feel like that gives you a much simpler inroad to explaining your position than the one you went with in the previous forum, but I guess you disagree. I'm not sure why you would reduce any human being to not being an individual, but I guess if you want to cover for a point that none of us are going to make, then go with human.
Created:
Posted in:
I think that, if we apply the term “human”, then we are going based on simple taxonomy: we fit a certain set of traits that make up a Homo sapien, ergo we meet what is human. It’s a purely scientific determination. If we want to bring philosophical issues of what makes a human beyond the scope of purely physical traits, then person allows for that widening of scope, since it is not a taxonomic term, but rather also recognition of how we are (or should be) perceived by society as a whole. It also recognizes the difference between an individual and a collective, whereas I believe that the usage of the term “human” could refer to any subset of life from individual skin cells up to individual persons.
Created:
Posted in:
I object to the usage of the term “human” in this context, and would prefer that it be exchanged for “person”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I see some reason to sus MC and Oro. Not so convinced regarding Draft. Still deciding who to push, though for now, I'll put my vote towards the latter.
Unvote
VTL Oro
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The description doesn’t include a year, but it is specific to Police Academy and not to its sequels, so that should refer to the 1984 movie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Appreciate the insight. Do hope there is some good that comes out of this, and perhaps you’re right that my role was flavored, though I somewhat doubt that.
As for the alternate claim, I don’t think saying something that vague would have been enough. Could’ve fake claimed a more specific universe, I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
Dude, considering how many warnings and assurances I gave, and considering that we already had several partial claims, I don’t see the need in pursuing this as hard as you did. You made the call. You own it.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I anticipate being entirely useless now, so I think I’ll just let whatever is going to play out go ahead. If Elm can’t get off the “lynch WF” train after that claim, then nothing would have convinced him, and I think that speaks to my own suspicions of him.
Just note, guys, that he clearly wanted more claims. Pie might have just jumped on the bandwagon, but Elm led it. If Speed gets lynched and he flips town, Elm should be next.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think Whiteflame is a better lynch imo
...the fuck?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Don’t know what scum would fake claim Cop without a fake claim available to them, but that’s way more ballsy than I’ve ever been before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
Neither are the fucking hyenas. Why do you think I was defending Speed?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
And, for the record, I’ve argued several times in previous games that we should absolutely limit claims in DP1 whenever possible. That is not unusual for me, and I’ve refused to claim as town in DP1 before. Circumstances like this is why I’ve done that.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, because this is useful information that you’re not going to get by the end of the NP. No clue why you two care so much about it.
I’m Lt. Harris. He’s a hard ass but cares about training his cadets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
Nah, fuck that. If you can’t figure out my role, you’re blind at this point. You lynch me if you want, it’s a fucking waste and you know it.
Created:
Posted in:
Fine, fuck it, love that you guys are doing this to me the first time I actually get this role, and that the only reason I’m in this position is because of an off-hand comment by Speed in live mafia that sent Mikal on a scum hunt for the same fucking ridiculous reasons as always.
I’m from Police Academy. Fill in the blanks. Thanks for helping scum, guys!
Created:
Posted in:
The only way I make myself absolutely useless is to claim. If I claim, then I am well and truly useless to town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
There’s even less use of me claiming. Simple as that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yeah, I’m likely dead anyway, but as far as I’m concerned, at this stage, it’s up to you guys how I die. Yes, I’m soft claiming a power role. That’s all I’m going to do. If that’s lynch worthy, then so be it.
Created:
Posted in:
*sigh* seriously, guys, while I appreciate the effort from Oro to guess it, I’m neither going to state nor confirm my universe, character or role this DP. If, like Mikal, that makes you so sus of me that you can’t wait to lynch me until DP2 when I will full claim at the start of the phase, unprompted, then lynch me and find out how much of a mistake you’re making. Like I said, after all this discussion, I have little doubt that I’ll be the target of the NK, anyway, so you’ll likely have me off your hands regardless.
Created: