- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
The term conservatism has become commonly understood as a political ideology. The term progressivism is simply a belief that society can improve, which is not to be confused with political progressivism, which is a belief that powerful government is the best solution for managing society's improvement. Those who conflate progressivism with political progressivim, most often do so to make an invalid comparison between progressivism and political conservatism. Which of course are completely compatible. Such arguments are therefore meaningless.
The Libertarian Party is minarchist in nature. It is a myth that all minarchists are opposed to taxation. I am a minarchist and I support the Fair Tax here in America. The Fair Tax is a 23% sales tax that eliminates all other taxes. This is a minarchist policy. Minarchist means minimum government, not no government like anarchism. I am a minarchist so I know what minarchists belief. Click the link for my reference on the Fair Tax.
1. It showed on the CreateDebate community home page so it was shared with that community.
4. How would my posting disrupt your effort? Jace can still post, can he not? As for the elitist prick comment.... I can't make you seem like an elitist prick, only you can do that.
For the record:
I've never thought of you as elitist.
Its only necessary to adopt a constitution protecting human rights and the rights of citizens. Then use it to modify or abolish laws that infringe on those citizen's rights. Importantly there needs to be two sets of rights protected. First human rights and a completely separate set of citizen's rights.
Agree. But with open minded thinkers there is clearly an opportunity to say that religion provides an avenue to deal with tragedy, as well as comfort for people who need to feel as sence of purpose in their lives. I have NO distain for followers of religions, but personally I find all of religious doctrine implausible.
Evolution may jot have made it so we'll leave Earth, but it still might happen.
This in no way refutes my arguments, which were themselves rebuttals to your original argument. If anything, it represents a concession that your argument is little more than a hypothetical conjecture without foundation.
I'm going to find the citation of the biologists though: [...] say that because what negative effects we have on the environment, in turn, affect us.
That is nice. Now find my an actual biologist who is credible, instead of a wiki page expounding the philosophy you so clearly believe in. I could care less if you and others think we owe something to our environment; the point stands that even if that were true we have fallen far short of that (which you appear to admit). The implication of this is that humans are not necessary to Earth, which means that my rebuttal stands and your argument falls.
My work here is done, I believe.
Actually, it is what you said. Of the two of us, you are the only one ascribing to a political ideology in a discussion about partisan attributes; tell me truly, which of us do you think honestly has the bias? I would like it if liberals and conservatives both stopped forcing their beliefs onto my life.
I too would appreciate not being forced to by health insurance, particularly with a health care infrastructure as problematic as the one we have. I too would prefer not to have to pay for other peoples' unwanted pregnancies (though I can recognize some situational abortions that would be in the interest of the collective to bear the financial burden of).
At the same time, I would appreciate it if conservatives stopped legislating their personal beliefs in to my life too. Opposition to same-sex marriage is a prime example (since you asked for one). I could care less what you personally think about homosexual relationships; at the point where you use that belief to legislate what other people can and cannot do with their lives you are forcing them to live according to your beliefs.
I could go on, but frankly I am disinterested in having to continue to reassert my non-partisanship to someone with such flagrant partisan bias that they feel the need to YELL about it.
That is what I thought you meant. As I understand the terms "good" and "bad", however, they are also used in the projection of subjective value. It is possible for them to have an objective meaning, but because they can also (and usually do for most people) bear a subjective value projection it seems nearly as prudent to avoid their usage as it does to avoid using "right" and "wrong".
I never said that social science is not a science or that it had nothing to do with the study of evolution. My point was that you have not demonstrated that social science is a hard science based upon objective reality. Consequentially, it cannot contribute anything by way of demonstrating that morality itself is objective.
I have also never argued that morality is not an evolutionary (by)product. That (most) humans experience a perception of morality does not mean that subjective perception exists in actuality; we can think that hurting the young is wrong but that belief/feeling does not exist outside of our own minds which makes it inherently subjective.
The definition of suffering that you use also does not define "suffering" as being negative; the definition is strictly an observation that suffering is the experience of pain. The perception of negativity is something you are projecting onto that experience; it is dependent upon the mind for its existence.
If the principle that allows for punching the baby is that same principle that forbids it under normal circumstances, then you have an objectively based morality.
Nice assertion; now explain why that is the case. You have not only assumed that it is the same principle at work, but that the principle itself is objectively derived.
Further, this in no way counters my contextual observation that if there is an exception to the moral statement that punching a baby is wrong then that particular moral is not a universal moral (even if it did belong, as you claim, to a universal morality).
The moment you hear noise it becomes subjective.
The objective existence of the noise does not become subjective, though our perception of the noise is itself subjective.
We should remember that subjective doesn't necessarily mean false.
I never claimed that it did.
I think I said this above, but if you created a code of conduct based on these principles you are laying out, it would eventually be considered wrong/right good/bad etc. Subjective reality doesn't exist without the objective one.
I addressed this in my other response to your more thorough presentation of this argument on this debate.
Concerning the definition of value, I am arguing it elsewhere in this debate. See other.
Not with me you are not, and as stated in my other response to you I am not going to waste my time wading through every post on this debate looking for it. You can make it in direct, contextual rebuttal to me or you can expect me not to factor into our debate.
Mammals have nerves. These nerves allow us to feel pain. The is a property of mammals. The avoidance of pain is an objective value even though the experience of pain is subjective. Just as "red" creates a subjective qualia, it objectively exists (as a position on the light spectrum). Pain is different from a unicorn the same way that values are.
The avoidance of pain is not an objective value, but rather an objective reality. While the experience of pain (i.e. our perception of its severity) is subjective, pain itself is not as it can be externally identified and observed through scientific means. "Red" does not exist as an objective idea; it is a subjective descriptor projected onto the objective phenomenon that we describe as "red". The idea of "red" exists only in our minds, whereas the phenomenon it describes exists objectively. Even if you were right about pain and "red", observations specific to those phenomenon cannot be extrapolated from in defense of your stance on values. You need to prove that values themselves exist as more than ideas, which you have not yet done.
Your argument for creating a system based consideration of (dis)advantage wouldn't keep out words like good and bad. If your system worked, it would be internalized and felt. People would have a subjective experience and call it good if it did what it's supposed to. Then they would call it morality. The consideration of advantage, benefit, etc would have to be based on fundamental human values if advantage is to mean anything.
I am not arguing that we actually create this system, in large part because I do not think most people capable of processing and internalizing it. The psychological limits of (other) human beings to grasp the distinction between objective reality and subjective value projection in no way disproves that the distinction actually exists. Most people used to be incapable of thinking that Earth revolved around the sun, but that did not make that fact less true.
You have not actually refuted my analysis, only demonstrated that it may be impracticable which was never a factor I relied on in advancing my rationale.
To be clear, are you ascribing value to meeting the definition of murder?
No. I am identifying what your initial statement actually ascribed value to. You claimed that death is necessary for murder; I point out that this is not what your statement actually observed and that it had an implicit value statement attached to the definition of murder itself.
Yeah, then I referred you to my ongoing debate concerning the definition used. The primary argument seems to be that the definition I presented, though it fits with many other provided definitions, doesn't quite fit with a definition that you like (or the other guy). Other than the definition itself, You'll find a distinction between subjectivity and properties elsewhere as well.
Within the context of this debate you did no such thing. You have not even replied to my other post to you in this debate in which I made the argument I would have made here. If you expect me to look through every single post you have made in this and other debates to other people looking for a definitional debate you have vaguely alluded to, then you are sorely mistaken in your evaluation of how much nonsense I am willing to take from you.
Regarding my use of the term "objective" (to which I assume you refer, since you do not actually say), I actually do use the dictionary definition of term which defines it as being extent to our imagination. Your argument continues to assert that our perceptions equate actuality; that is a misunderstanding of the term.
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement