Sure but most college team owners are billionaires. So is it that reasonable to suggest that the athletics dpt. is the schools most essential commodity?
Explain exactly how a newborn can choose to not die consciously? What is the fundamental difference between instinctual choice and conscious choice in the context that you offer?
There are, of course, many instances of animals that take actions which kills themselves - usually to preserve their kin (their own genes, or their colony, etc.), but also sometimes out of sadness.
Please site these instances that are depicted in such a way in which you have described.
To try to say they have to have the same level of knowing is to try to create an impossible comparison (your own rhetorical strategy).
It's perfectly reasonable to presume that the animals are not too much informed about the laws of physics, at least enough to know the tactic one should take in order to kill itself (sort of like certain birds flinging themselves off of cliffs). Jumping off of a cliff to kill yourself requires that you know fundamental physics, and in an animals head (reasonably presuming) when faced with such obstacles they instinctually think "danger danger!"
So in the event that they just jump intentionally it would be more plausible to postulate something other than [the animal] thinking "I am tired of this life, It's best I just end it".
Now, can you say how any of this relates to what rights animals and humans do or should have??
It was you who falsely asserted that animals destroy themselves knowingly, as in, they have the ability to understand the outcome of a suicidal action- and I would love to see an exemplar cited elaborately.
But college teams makes schools billions of dollars without anything in return (except hopes of being recruited).
Take the NCAA, for example, as an industry they make more money than the NBA. They exploit their players for millions in profit and not even so much as give them a parallel equivalent to .01% in return.
If you want to meet people I would suggest social clubs or events that invokes socialization. Perhaps interpersonal discourse will suit you best.
Which is not a plausible assertion. You cannot tell from a look that it is a real Bigfoot.
I said a creature such as bigfoot... I also said 'assuming' are you ignoring my words intentionally?
Understandable does not mean it is your "best bet"
In certain case, one of which I illustrated on, [forgery] may be your best bet.
This is driven by ego, not the search for the truth and reality. If the forgery is discovered (very likely) you would create the opposite of your intent.
The first part of you statement is irrelevant, the second part ignored my scenario's reasoning. If I say "hey I saw bigfoot in X forest, here's his hair and a blurry pic!" And all of what I said was entirely made up; then someone actually goes out there and finds [bigfoot] in X forest, you will be known as the person who discovered bigfoot. There could be no opposite effect.
My key point was knowingly. You are the only one in conflict with scientist when you say that humans understanding evolution any why it would be disadvantageous t destroy their young, is equivalent to an animals understanding.
Also when you say 'suicide' pretending as if an animal is thinking 'I hate my life' like a human would think. The rhetorical strategies doesn't help your argument. Please be honest when you cannot hold a position instead of backing it up with rhetoric.
You are again invoking someone else as a validator for a point. Develop some intellectuality and back up your assertions with reasoning of your own.
Furthermore, he was just as wrong as you, though he understood my point quite well. He is just pretending there is not a distinction between knowingly destroying yourself, and doing so unknowingly. The animals that commit suicide aren't thinking "gee I hate my life," like humans.
As I requested before, refrain from interposing on my arguments given that half of the time you do not make any sense- which is likely due to you understanding or a lack thereof. And you wait for someone to dispute me, then you add on so you can have a sense of security (or up-votes). Funny thing is, most times your security fails and consequently so do you (as in this case, and more recent cases).
No, you obviously offered a tacit conecession- which I believe is honorable, and I respect you for that.
I understand and I agree with you. My contention was the lack of charity his position received. This isn't my view, I just reillustrated his view to exemplify how his position isn't entirely erroneous.
I bet. But I do give thanks for admitting to your defeat, that is honorable.
Let this be a lesson to never interpose on my arguments with such silly matters that you cannot even back up.
Why is it that you never understand my position and yet, you feel compelled to comment?
What you just said doesn't even correlate with my statement. Please stop interjecting my disputations with absurd fallacies.
I see you don't respond when you are not receiving up-votes huh? You figure that since no one is up-voting, then no one must be following, and since no one is following then therefore you fell disinclined to respond (since no one will see it).
But that's not exactly being charitable to his implication. In his scenario the fetus is dependent upon the woman's body (thus giving her the right to rid of it), whereas in the afterbirth scenario the baby is dependent upon whomever.
And if you mean 'distinct' as in they are both 'persons' then this would just be a (contentious) presupposition.
Personally, I strive for individuality if you exclude wildlife as being 'others'.
Consequently, in order to strive and achieve 'great' things you must do things that helps others (even investing, in a sense, is helping others).
If I am wrong, name one renowned individual who created/did something that only helped him/herself.
It doesn't but it is implied as the point is that the fallacy is due to a shared belief. Not coincdences between societies that have never interacted.
"At a time in history when most people believed the world was flat, one could have claimed the world is flat because most believed it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentumadpopulum
This illustration does not imply non-coincidence. Basically this wasn't just a societal belief.
Nevertheless it is still fallacious to invoke global coincidences as a validation for objective matters. Different nonrelated (coincidental) societies conjured up some sort of religion, does that mean it somehow points to objectivity?
What at that got to do with number? Scroll down or ctrl f on "concept of number". You will find where you said it was subjective. I can't be arsed.
I love how you skipped pass where I said "its like a number, or the letter "s".
No. I checked it before. You post a reply. Within two minutes "color" comes online. Goes to this debate. Is the only one viewing this debate. You receive an upvote. Color goes offline without viewing any other debates. Everything you type is so incredibly dishonest. Why don't you just be sincere. Clearly you do care about upvote.
And this is somehow your proof that it must be me? Them viewing a debate... Okay.
As an aside: There is no need to log off so I can get on another account. I can just log while still on both accounts as I sometimes do with Harvard and this account.
If the entire world for centuries so the letters Jesús is alive in the sky... And believed it says Jesús is alive... But yet there was no other evidence other than these billions of people's personal accounts on what they believe.. I guess you would say that anything concluded from this belief is a fallacy.
And where's this evidence for objective morality? Do you know?
LOL this is the word for you. Thank you so much for bringing to mind. I have seen you type about zoology. Even on your own subject you have no clue whatsoever. "humans are the only self destructive species" LOL
Another illustration as to how you never understand my points. Please elaborate on what I meant by this since you understand it enough to conclude that it is absurd.
You created the account "color" just to upvote yourself. I thought you said upvoting and downvoting didn't interest you hahaha haha. Pathetic little ego maniac.
Wow, Atrag... I would really love to know how you came to this conclusion.
Yes but why is that a fallacy?? Have you stopped to ask why?
What you said was a fallacy... period. Who cares why? You claimed because most people see X as being equal to Y then therefore X is equal to Y.
I have included the whole world both past and present in my statement. It is not a small sample and it is 99.99% of human beings. It doesn't fit the fallacy.
You spoke of the individuals who see unjustified murder as being wrong in the present tense. You must not try and nitpick the description just so you ease your way out of the fallacy.
Furthermore, you stated that it wasn't a fallacy because this fallacy only applies to one society, please highlight where, in that statement, it says the reason for why what you said isn't a fallacy is "because appeal to popularity applies to one society".
They have a justification for it.
According to whom? You? You are not an authority, Atrag. To say all children who commit unjustified killing have justification for so is yet another fallacy.
No shit. That is the subjective element.
...
God you still didn't understand what I said. Wtf can I do? I am saying that only people who are of an unsound mind can find unjustified killing to be moral. This is due to lack of perception the inhibits the appreciation of the objectively wrong nature of the act.
Yeahh I think were done here, you still don't understand. If there are no objective morals (assuming) then there is no aspect to appreciate. And you openly stated that only sound minded people see unjustified murder as being objectively wrong. If you cant see why this is entirely fallacious then, please, just don't respond.
You dishonest prick. Do I really have to go back and quote you? You are saying my point of contentious was that I thought the concept of number was physical and that was the point I was arguing? You live in lala land.
Here I'll do it for you: "Us moral subjectivist oppose objective morality because there's no plausible evidence to suggest that morality can be anything but subjective (unless you're religious of course). It's like trying to find a physical number one, or letter S." - HarvardGrad
Now tell me, where did I say "S" was subjective, Atrag? And even still, the concept of S is subjective depending on the context. Notwithstanding, I used that as an analogy to illustrate why objectivity in regards to moral issues cannot be justly evaluated because it has not 'real' properties, it is entirely dependent upon perception (same as the letter "S").
Woops...
Dunno. My comments tend to get up votes without me having to use other accounts. Yeah yeah yeah upvotes don't matter. You just create multiple accounts, despite the owner of the site telling you not to, and upvote just because you have spare time between wanking off over a mirror.
Again, I don't up-vote myself- and I can rightfully say that your ego induces you to frantically check online users when you see that I have received up-votes. If up-votes don't matter then why keep mentioning it? The only ones up-voting you are Cartman or someone of that sort. They are just like you, pseudointellectuals. This is why I said don't let them fool you.
And yet another implied fallacy. There are thousands following a guy claiming to be Jesus, this doesn't mean "oh, there must be something spiritual about this guy then".
---
You keep repeating this. As you get more and more desperate you do so more frequently. With this post you mentioned this grammar thing three times. Waw. I can't even remember what you were talking about.
No? You don't remember randomly jumping in a debate and pointing out how I used "inquisition/inquiry" wrong? Then I explained I had a problem with (spelling) words and syntactic structuring, basically my grammar- to which you responded with "HAHAHAH SYNTAX AND VOCABULARY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAMAR HAHAHA". Then I posted the definition of grammar and you shut up.
Ill take you irresponsiveness as a tacit concession.
Atrag, I clearly stated that he said this (me not understanding his position); though he was wrong about me arguing that morality isn't a code of conduct, I argued his illustration as to how it is a code of conduct (in an objective sense) was erroneous. He put it in such a way that would entail objectivity, but of course if this were true there would be nothing to dispute now would it?
You have given be a dictionary definition assuming I don't understand. I do understand. I have told you why the fallacy doesn't apply to my example. You are unable or unwilling to argue this point. Fine. But don't think that quoting the dictionary is sufficient.
Your reason as to why your position is not a fallacy: "If a child is raised in any environment in the world it will recognise unjustified murder as immoral. The popular opinion fallacy refers to assertions made about the opinion of one society."
#1: This is completely wrong; argumentum ad populum does not state this applies to one society. It is very simple: "If many believe so, it is so".
#2: Not all children will recognize unjustified murder as 'immoral'- some children will commit unjustified murders themselves.
#3: The justification alone is subjective, children being raised by ISIS, for example, will believe they are justified in killing off innocent people- I am sure you may think acts such as this aren't, to your liking, justified, but it is to them.
#4: Thank you finally for illustrating how you cannot comprehend intellectual positions (and even definitions). This shows your incompetence in regards to morality and even justification. This will be the last argument about the subject matter that I will engage in.
Erm no. He resorted to questioning whether you actually understood what subjective and objective is too. The example with you saying number is subjective kind of proves both our suspicions right.
No, he questioned whether or not I understood his position, he very well knows that I know the distinction of the two, his problem was that I only pointed out the subjective elements and would attain to the objective ones, mainly because I couldn't quite understand his position as the more he substantiated it, the more subjective it seemed.
I never stated a number was subjective, I stated it wasn't physical- and even Daver knew what I meant and tried to explain to you but apparently your ego won't allow you to be wrong.
You haven't understand at all. I said every single human being of sound mind in every single society that ever existed.
You sure? Please point this out. Let's assume you did, what's the criteria for a sound mind? And this is your presupposition, I can easily say that only unsound people think morality is objective- this is akin to saying "all religious people are idiots". And this is still FALSE. You're saying that only unsound minded people are the only ones who think morality is subjective... Please tell me more. As you are finally letting out your incomprehension of the subject matter.
As a result you look like an idiot most of the time.
And just what are you doing right now, Atrag?
You keep repeating this. As you get more and more desperate you do so more frequently. With this post you mentioned this grammar thing three times. Waw. I can't even remember what you were talking about.
No? You don't remember randomly jumping in a debate and pointing out how I used "inquisition/inquiry" wrong? Then I explained I had a problem with (spelling) words and syntactic structuring, basically my grammar- to which you responded with "HAHAHAH SYNTAX AND VOCABULARY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAMAR HAHAHA". Then I posted the definition of grammar and you shut up.
You are unable to explain why it is a fallacy. It is a fallacy because it is a fallacy because I know these things and you are stupid. As usual this is your argument.
Why must you blatantly ignore my arguments just to make your position seem more plausible? I clearly stated in that debate that you fallacy was appeal to popularit; here's an elaboration:
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentumadpopulum
Rather than summarising your points you just wrote this. This is because I am right and all your arguments are based on your usual thing of saying that the opposition is stupid and of course it is subjective because [quote definition of subjective in dictionary and say it a few different ways].
This isn't about morality, this is about you falsely accusing me of not giving an argument that illustrates how it is subjective. Even Ameral will admit to this, though he still wouldn't agree with my points.
You go from acting like ProlifeLib to FromWithin now. Great job on telling me what I think. I have been debating this for years though. Without morality being objective then the concept of law becomes very trivial. It was always important to me that it was objective. You may have also noticed, if you didn't have your head up your arse that is, that my arguments are very different to Ameral's.
I don't even need to name users on this site as you are uniquely your own foolish character. You only dispute personal information that can never be proven false (my money, my school, the initial dispute in this debate currently). You also just attack my condition by invoking more fallacies "because of my dyslexia I cant argue topics involving semantics" "because of my dyslexia you're right about a word and I am wrong" when clearly you don't even know simple English. You have openly illustrated you lack of knowledge of simple grammar- you wont refuse this because you know that it is true you claimed syntax and vocabulary have nothing to do with grammar, then you conceded (tacit as it was) once I defined grammar.
You may have also noticed, if you didn't have your head up your arse that is, that my arguments are very different to Ameral's.
It was until you started using his argument that morality has an objective element to it. Believe me I understand how "morality is objective because most thin that it is" vs. "morality has objective aspects to it that most seem to ignore".
I said you fail you recognise your own flaws and you come back by saying this. Pretty much proved my point there yanky doodle.
So what's my flaws that go unrecognized, Atrag?
You keep repeating this type of thing. I am not insecure about my intelligence at all. I am not a genius but my intelligence is enough for me to do what I want to do in life. If I am intelligent enough to study at university but yet not intelligent enough to understand your points.. You think it is because your points are just too complex for me? Seriously?
Very much so, look at the history of debates that you have been in. None of them required any intellectual effort at all. Furthermore, as I previously stated, you don't even understands other's (such as Ameral) points as well. Most times you engage in intellectual discourse you eventually opt out once it becomes to complicated. You then resort to personal measures- you cannot deny this, really.
---
As a side: I never say that someone is stupid during debates other than you and SitaraMusic- this is because when I say something as simple as my syntax was a little off because I have grammar issues, and you respond with, "HAHAHAHAH SYNTAX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAMMAR HAHAHAH," it's kind of hard for me not think of you otherwise.
Umm... before I address your questionable disputation: If I recall, your argument for objective morality was that it is objectively wrong because everyone believes that it is... When I, regretfully, entertained this statement and responded with "I don't believe that it is wrong", you then responded with a statement implying that I am just irrational- how is this reasonable substantiation in a position for objective morality? "Because everyone believes so"?
This is why I blame your intellect. For even if you have no background in philosophy you should obviously know this is a complete ands utter fallacy.
---
My stance on morality is not "because it is just subjective". I even gave a plausible position to which you responded to. So now you just openly misrepresent my position by claiming that my position on morality is that it is subjective because it "just is"? Another fallacy.
---
Thirdly, you position for objective morality was not that you believe it has an objective element. All you just did was reiterate Ameral's position to make yourself seem more knowledgeable about the subject. Ameral didn't even agree with your position which is why you quickly changed it. And you keep bringing [Ameral's] name up because he is in disagreement with me and is your only intellectual guidance on the matter.
---
Your ego prevents you from recognising your own flaws.
Um, I'm sure that "not debating" wouldn't fit the criteria of a "flaw". Perhaps not debating well would, but that would be the criterion in which would fit you best.
---
I'm just another stupid person that you are better than.
I wouldn't say better, more like intellectually superior. But I guess its easy being so when my adversary's intellectuality is nonexistent.
My point was very simple and reasonable; I was assuming, by the way, that you knew for a fact that you have just saw a creature such as a bigfoot. So if you were to see a bigfoot and couldnt have captured physical evidence, it is very understandable that you may conjure up some of your own untill you find actual evidence- and, again, assuming that you knew the creature you saw was not fake, then it is quite plausible that you will eventually find the real evidence.
Now you might ask: "Why not wait untill you get physical evidence before you infrom the public." Well, one may be paranoid about someone else running into the creature, but if you found it and replicate what would otherwise be physical evidence, then in the event someone actually does find the creature you are still known for the person who found it first. This is a very reasonable scenario.
I agree, though I wouldn't say "far from" 100%; I believe the success rate of implantation is around 80%.
