CreateDebate


Coldfire's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Coldfire's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

America's biggest threat is itself.

The government is more concerned with polishing the shoes of big business rather than representing the majority.

The people are too Distracted, Deceived, and Divided to work towards any substantial change.

I do believe there are such things as terrorists, some of which are even Muslim, but I think the reason the US is a target is a result of our meddling in foreign affairs; not our way of life. We should pull back our military, focus on national defense and ridding the country of corruption.

1 point

Why wouldn't the village elders be a better judge of what child to "get rid of?"

Why would they kill both of them?

Why doesn't she consider that an option?

1 point

Our goal is to build CreateDebate into an incredibly useful learning tool that will help groups of people to sort through issues, viewpoints and opinions so that consensus and understanding can be reached and better decisions can be made.

2 points

People assume that evolution explains where consciousness comes from.

I don't think this is a widely held belief Joe. I'm sure there might be some people who speculate that evolution can explain how or why consciousness developed in certain life forms, but its not something that gets posited in mainstream science. Not yet anyway.

How consciousness developed in life forms is certainly an intriguing question worth studying but saying that not having an answer presents a problem for the theory of evolution is fallacious.

3 points

I got 927 ...

1 point

LOL@ "Poor people don't have money to handle improperly, that's a huge reason why they are poor."

1 point

I never said ALL people on welfare are lazy dead beats. I'm talking about the ones who are! Can you grasp that simple fact?

Perhaps. Maybe if you tried referencing some actual data rather than pulling baseless claims out of your ass.

These dead beats are stealing from every disabled truly needy person in our nation. You should care and the Democrat party should care and try to toughen our welfare rules.

There are people who cheat the system in all areas of society. Yes there should be measures in place to reduce the amount of cheating and there already are but you will never catch every criminal or cheater and you’re delusional if you think you can.

When ever the GOP tries to toughen the welfare programs, the Democrats crucify them with attacks against them.

Because treating all welfare recipients like criminals based on the actions of a few lazy cheaters is not the right answer.

What toughening the welfare programs amounts to is making it hard for anyone to apply even if you genuinely need it, as if everyone’s a culprit of trying to cheat the system and as if there aren’t measures in place already to reduce fraud.

The reason Democrats do not go after these dead beats and scam artists is because they are their voting block.

Or perhaps they don’t consider a few thousand cheaters a major threat to the economy like Republicans do. Perhaps they would rather spend their time and resources focusing on actual problems.

You say “This is what people on the Left always do. I never said ALL people on welfare are lazy dead beats.” But when you say that deadbeats and scam artists are the democratic voting block, it implies a lot about how you truly feel about ALL welfare recipients. Maybe if you chose your words more carefully the people on the left wouldn’t be able to see you for how you truly feel.

This new age closet Socialist Democrat party has the compassion of a fence post. It's not their money they give away, it's the tax payer's money but Democrats will make you think they give it to you out of their pockets.

Both parties give away money that’s not theirs to their own benefit, that’s what governments do; they have no money of their own, doesn’t matter if their red or blue.

I live in a Blue state with high taxes & I still was able to raise my family on $40,000 on one income.

Ok, this doesn’t really say anything. Even within the same state living expenses can range drastically. And the decade matters too.

Besides, what you say is just anecdotal, I said that “40k a year is not enough to support a family in most places these days

Just because you could do it wherever you were living at whatever time doesn’t mean that it’s a practical income for the rest of the country during this day and age.

Sell their houses and move in a trailer if they can't afford life. No more dinners out, get rid of the cell phones, drive old cars, no vacations, etc. etc. All these steps and others should be taken before you beg for handouts because many of those tax payers you are asking money from do not run down to welfare when they make no more than you.

And many of those tax payers, like myself, would much RATHER their taxes be spent trying to help people out of poverty instead of going to corrupt politicians, billion dollar corporations or trillion dollar wars.

I’m not so dimwitted as to believe you speak for all taxpayers. I have a vote too and you do a piss poor job at convincing me that I should vote in your favor. I could pose a more convincing argument than you for YOUR position.

2 points

Are you telling me people who have jobs will starve to death if they don't run down to social services to get free handouts from the tax payers?

No. I’m saying that people who collect welfare are not the lazy, jobless, drains on society you were brainwashed into believing.

I know people who make $40,000 per year and STILL have no shame when they run down to social services to get free handouts of anything they can get. GET SOME PRIDE! Quit being a bunch of free loaders taking money from the truly needy and disabled.

40k a year is not enough to support a family in most places these days and just because people seek aid doesn’t mean they don’t feel shame in it.

I probably averaged around $40,000 most of my life with a wife and two children and one income. Don't tell me it can't be done. It requires responsibility to live within your means.

It depends on where you live and what era. I make just under 50k and where I live it’s just enough to pay all my bills and have a few hundred for savings/investments every month. We sacrifice quite a lot already to live in that way; if I made 40k I would most likely have to apply for aid and/or move to a poorer community.

But today we have a Democrat party actually advertising with commercials telling you to go down to get your free food stamps even though you don't think you need it.

I haven’t seen any. Was it really the Democratic Party? Or was it a social service organization? Not that it matters, I’m largely anti-advertising so I take issue with 90 percent of ads anyway.

This new extreme liberal Democrat party is truly destroying our great nation with this welfare mentality PURELY to play class warfare and get the low income vote.

That’s one way to look at it.

Another would be to admit that poverty is a real issue, and the people who suffer from it are not the ones keeping them there.

3 points

Your missing the meaning of the phrase "big government". Governments that tax to highly and unequally, and governments that regulate too heavily, stifle economic growth.

I’m well aware of what ‘big government means.’ Taxing high and regulating are not the only factors that lead to a government that surpasses its boundaries. Tax breaks, bailouts, criminalizing victimless behavior, shady deals/crony capitalism, these are some more examples of why we need smaller government, and the list can go on.

Food stamp use has gone up sharply and is now at all time highs. This is at the same time that Obama's administration claims the economy is improved. Explain this apparent contradiction.

I’m pretty certain I already did but I’ll attempt to simplify it even more. When the fed superficially increases the money supply, that newly created money absorbs value from the money that is already in circulation. This causes the value of dollars to go down which negatively effects many things in the economy, the brunt of which is felt primarily by middle and lower classes whose paychecks primarily go to their fixed expenses. When your fixed expenses increase and the value of the dollars you make decreases you end up struggling to make ends meet.

So yea. People may be employed and that may be celebrated as an improvement by the Obama administration but the other decisions made in Washington mean that having a job isn’t enough if the wages you earn can barely stimulate your own living expenses let alone the economy.

Republicans as a group are not complaining about short term help for people how need it, nor long term help for people who cannot fend for themselves. The valid argument is that tens of thousand of freeloaders are also known to be out there gaming the system. Yet simple accountability has slackened rather that improved.

Yes, well perhaps they should focus their energy on some more productive efforts than targeting the .03 or so percent of people gaming the system.

3 points

The GOP believes in smaller Government.

Actions speak louder than words. The GOP may tout that slogan but they are still in the business of running people’s lives; primarily in the area of civil liberties, monopolizing industry and defense spending (which accounts for the largest portion of US discretionary spending).

Stop the easy food stamps and make able bodied people stand in food bank lines. They would save billions and millions of Americans would all of a sudden not need the free food because they have money for food if it means not having to stand in line.

There’s a fundamental flaw in this assumption that food stamp recipients are just lazy and looking for handouts. It ignores the fact that the majority of welfare recipients already have jobs. So why is it still a problem for people to survive without aid if they are employed?

The largest contributing factor to poverty is not caused by the government giving back the money that taxpayers earned in the form of food vouchers or healthcare, it’s caused by a deliberate theft in the form of inflation. That is, increasing the money supply so that the value of the dollar decreases. Value of the dollar decreases, retailers increase prices to compensate for any loss in profit and the cost of living goes up without any sufficient changes to income. In this way, the Owners of the country effectively funnel money in their direction.

Not one GOP member voted for the lie of Obamacare. THAT ALONE should make you vote for them next time.

It’s when you say things like this that I honestly begin to wonder if you’re just trolling.

You can't keep punishing the workers and rewarding the non workers.

You’re definitions of ‘workers’ and ‘non-workers’ are probably questionable. The working class (Those of us who work and earn less than 70k a year, and yes, many of whom still struggle to make ends meet and so apply for aid) suffer as a direct result of republican policies which only benefit themselves and other wealthy people.

Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

Some areas that may need to be legally specified would be actions that cause noise, light, or environmental pollution that reach beyond ones property.

The latter of these has recently been the topic of some heated disputes where I work. How do you convince a person that pollution exists and should warrant regulation when they vehemently deny any evidence of pollution while it’s staring them in the face? Or they accept the evidence but start whooping and hollering the moment you mention the possibility of regulations being necessary.

6 points

The threat isn't so much in the thing, so much as it is in what it can cause.

This reasoning has daunting implications when used for justification of laws.

Firearms, alcohol, personally owned vehicles, pharmaceuticals with mind altering side effects, even some educational material could fit under the banner of “not so bad in essence, but it can cause bad things.”

Yes these things are regulated to a degree, but they are not completely illegal. Marijuana legalization would understandably come with some forms of regulation.

There can be no legal limit to marijuana because it cannot be quantified like alcohol via a test.

If marijuana affects your motor skills then a field sobriety test should demonstrate this. In most states, a field sobriety test is sufficient to remove a person from behind the wheel of a car and prevent the reckless endangerment of others.

The Breathalyzer test wasn’t introduced until 1967, if we take into account the ratification of the 23 amendment in 1933 that leaves 34 years before a test to indicate an illegal amount of BAC was used in the US. The lack of technology to detect THC in the blood is not the only sufficient means to warrant law enforcement and we could possibly develop the technology to meet public demands given time.

It would be very dangerous, simply because someone could get higher than the empire state building and then decide to go for an evening drive. That would be similar to getting drunk and deciding the same thing.

You’re right. It would be very similar to getting drunk and deciding to go for a drive, which is illegal.

Should alcohol be completely illegal for this reason? If not, why is it a legitimate reason for marijuana to be completely illegal? Do you see the double standard here?

Also, just an interesting fact, Colorado's crime rat is up 7% since it legalized marijuana.

The source you referenced indicated that that increase was in Denver alone and it specifically states in the article that “We do not know whether legalization has anything to do with it.”

Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

Animals are not humans. They should have no rights.

Since when are rights limited to only humans? Have you ever heard of “animal rights?”

They do not need rights, since they have no form of morals or conscience thought.

Besides the broad sweeping generalization, what makes you think animals have no form of morals or conscience thought?

I think you might find, with even a small amount of research, that animals aren’t the biological automatons you’re suggesting.

Animals not being conscious is just plain false.

And as far as morals: many animals exhibit various emotions and desires which more often than not translate into forms of social conduct. Caring for young, familial groupings, pets saving the lives of their owners, looking out over group for possible threats, pecking order, respecting another animals ‘territory,’ an animal caring for another animal of a different species, etc., etc. Albeit not as ‘civilized’ as their baseball cap wearing, semi-automatic toting, hotdog eating contestant, nuclear warhead launching counterparts, but a form of morals nonetheless.

Why would we give animals rights in the first place?

The only reason I can think of to be honest is to protect them from the maltreatment of humans.

2 points

I'm not sure. Perhaps if the redistributed wealth went into the communities rather than the politicians bank accounts we could test it and find out if its a good way to stimulate an economy.

2 points

I don't care what they (and I) say about you... you're alright Atrag.

1 point

If we're using as few words as possible: slippery slope. .

Coldfire(1014) Clarified
3 points

If you discover how people 'ought' to behave, then how would that prove an objective good way of living

Examining the effects that certain behaviors have in a situation and arriving at factual moral statements is not proving an objective good way of living. It’s demonstrating that there are objective standards to base the answers on, which constrains personal opinion and bias.

'ought' (which is a subjective indicator word)

Statements of ‘ought’ might contain subjectivity or objectivity depending on the subject but the word is not, in itself, an indicator of either. “The missile ought to explode twenty meters above the target.”

Even if it was, so what?

"So how come action X isn't wrong to the ones who commit and enjoy it?"

Because it isn’t perceived to be wrong. It could be the way they were raised, a chemical imbalance in their brain, culture, a religious delusion, etc. Our perceptions are prone to being fallible or biased as a result of many possible influences, all the more reason to hold them to an objective standard.

We don’t openly consider what people say contrary to evidence on any other matter perceived subjectively, why then would we excuse people based on their fallible perceptions on the subject of morality? This type of thinking is often mistaken for sincerity but the implications are daunting: “who are we to say that prepubescent rape is ‘wrong?’”… who are we not to?

Furthermore, that discovery seems as fantastical as figuring out how to time travel.

We encounter such discoveries all the time. Questions of behavioral health are more analogous to questions of physical health which are also perceived subjectively. I find it far more fantastical to assert something like John Wayne Gacy is just as morally coherent as Mr. Rogers on account of morals being perceived subjectively.

Lastly, what lead do neurologist have on this dicovery?

This seems like a dishonest criticism. There isn’t just one discovery to be made and just like any field of study, it's a work in progress. It’s not an official field of study as of yet, perhaps it will be in the future but this doesn’t mean we can’t or don’t already make moral judgments based on objective features of the world all the time as well as disregard moral judgments based merely on biased opinions all the time.

As the title asks: which moral belief is inclined to be objective?

The ones that are derived from an objective standard or influenced by objective features of the world. I challenge you to find one that is not.

3 points

I would like to make a case for Objective Morality if you would choose to entertain it.

My premise is that it's not enough to just say something is moral/immoral based on some arbitrary religious belief or fallible subjective opinion; in order for moral statements to be true in principle they need to be based on mind-independent features of the world. Specifically, the verifiable effects that certain actions/behaviors have in conjunction with natural laws to produce various brain states.

By examining these effects we can arrive at factual statements about how people ought to behave which constrain personal feelings and bias on the matter.

Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

"Should I wear corrective lenses to improve my vision?" - Coldfire

You can determine the facts of this matter because there is an objective standard. - Amarel

Agreed.

Isn't it imperative that there be a standard for there to be objectivity in matters of what one ought to do?

Yes. I think so.

If so, what is the standard?

As you pointed out, I think questions of ought (like “should I wear corrective lenses?”) should be based on an objective standard which constrains personal opinions and bias.

If it is demonstrated that wearing corrective lenses is beneficial to my health or safety among other things, then it shouldn’t matter that someone else thinks or says they are detrimental to my health or safety (unless they can verify it).

Likewise, if we can study the effects that treating women as second class citizens has on a population we would have an objective standard for which to base our conclusions. If a different culture fails to show similar objective data to demonstrate the opposite conclusion we should be free to disregard their personal feelings or religious bias on the matter. I would even go as far as to say that we should feel obligation to challenge such behavior rather than excuse it on the basis of personal beliefs or bias.

Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

We are not capable of setting ourselves aside like that, of removing our bias and feelings so far that they do not influence or perception.

"Setting ourselves aside" seems a bit disingenuous, of course we are always bound to view things through our subjective lense, but removing our bias is required for proper scientific study is it not? Objectivity (science))

I also still fail to see why either version of an objective morality, if it actually existed, would be impractical to consider (per your earlier claim).

its impractical to consider the former (morality existing apart from the mind) because it's a subjective term. Things like good/bad, moral/immoral are products of our brain, they do not exist apart from it.

Objective in the latter sense (not influenced by bias) seems like the only practical view worth discussing between the two.

Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

While those perceptions may arguably still have been initiated by external stimuli at some point, they are not accurate reflections of what is objectively real.

I agree, i wasn't saying perceptions are always accurate; my contention was with your assertion that internally derived value judgements are non-reliant upon objective reality. This is simply untrue, I would argue that it's virtually impossible to describe a realty where the products of our brain are non-reliant on objective reality. Even delusions can be studied empirically as having chemical basis.

The notion of subjective human perception is precisely why the scientific method developed, and it is why people can have differing beliefs about what actually constitutes reality.

I was under the impression that the scientific method was developed to empirically deduce objective facts about reality in spite of subjective bias. While I acknowledge that people can perceive reality differently, I don't believe we respect each persons interpretation equally.

The difference with morality is that no one can observe it objectively.

I don't think the claim was made that 'morality is or can be observed objectively,' just that questions of morality (how we should behave) can be arrived at through study of objective facts which constrain personal opinion and bias. You said "even if a moral system is derived consequent to observations of objective reality, that aspect of value being assigned with that observation remains subjective."

I don't see why this presents an issue for the case of objective morality, which is the idea that statements of 'ought' are not just true by opinion but can be demonstrated to be true based on observation of the effects that certain behaviors have.

That your subjective visual perceptions can be objectively verified does not make the perceptions themselves any less subjective; it only means that your subjective perception is an accurate reflection of objective reality

I don't dispute this, neither does the case for objective morality. Having an accurate perception of objective reality is required to observe the effects certain behaviors have.

While we can assess the objective effects of various morals (much as we would assess the objective effects of various eyeglasses), this does not mean we have proved that those morals exist objectively (whereas we can demonstrate the objective reality of the eyeglasses

I wasn't arguing that it proves the morals exist objectively and thst is not what objective morality is, I was arguing that the question of "should I wear corrective lenses" would have observable effects when studied which would constrain subjectivity on the matter.

(with the amoral perspective being ultimately most reflective of reality as it dispenses with reliance upon the subjective intermediary of morality).

I don't understand what you mean here, can you please explain?

The process of "objective morality" is effectively to take a flawed system of subjective perception and widdle it down incrimentally by subjecting every possible iteration to the objective process.

I may not understand what you mean by the objective process or objective pursuit but I will attempt to reply anyway.

I don't believe this system of subjective perception is as flawed as you suggest. We've managed to make great scientific discoveries despite our flawed subjective perception. Much in the same way many civilizations have made great strides in standards of ethics; "by subjecting every possible iteration to the objective process."

It is not objectively wrong at all, and whatever we may feel subjectively about the matter ought to be secondary to whether it is objectively preferable or unpreferable to do so.

So something can't be objectively wrong but it can be objectively preferable? Aren't they both based on subjective perception?

At any rate, objective morality in the non-theological sense posits that questions of how we ought and ought not behave can be arrived at through observing the effects behaviors have within the world and that those effects are objective facts which should constrain personal opinion and bias on the matter.

The same way we can arrive at objective facts about physical health (which is perceived subjectively) we can arrive at objective facts about behavioral/societal health.

Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

All "objective" signifies is that something exists independent of our conceiving of its existence.

This is not all "objective" signifies. Objective can mean 'existing outside of the mind or it can mean 'not influenced by bias or feelings,' as well as others.

You seem to be referring to the former sense of the word.

4 points

You cannot prove to another person that God exists.

‘nuff said

Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

I don't think it’s very practical to consider objective morality where it describes something that exists independent of our conceiving of its existence. I realize that this is seemingly what the theological community asserts about morality but the scientific communities’ use of the word objective would be to describe something which exists independent of personal opinion or bias.

Would you consider the merits of objective morality if you consider the word in this sense?

edited for grammar


1 of 47 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]