- 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
of course it is meaningless since the compilation of chemical reactions which would individually attempt to ascribe meaning to it is lost in death.
I agree to a point, but even without death, I think the question of meaning is ill formed.
The only problem I have with they google definition of "life" is that it fails to recognize the dying process which overshadows "life" from the moment "life" of any organism is conceived.
I either don't understand your point, or disagree. Death is a completely separate issue, and something that isn't necessary to life. Death is only common because it is evolutionary advantageous.
Both for things to die naturally which benefit their genes, as well as for the genes of things that kill other things for what they are composed of.
If none of it has meaning, there is no reason to live
The reason to live is because some things are enjoyable.
there is no reason to live and no reason to allow others to live if they are hindering your enjoyments of life....and you feel the risk of retaliation is less that the gains you would have by removing or injuring other people.
Sure, seems to show in human history.
Survival of the fittest is all that matters if life has no meaning, right?
The idea of mass murdering human beings appalls me,
And? An action that isn't immoral can be seen as appalling.
even in the conditions you listed. I see no way that this could possibly be humane.
Humane? That isn't what I'm talking about, not sure why you keep bringing it up?
What I am saying is a ban is a clear line in the sand. By only banning factory farming, people will always be tempted to put profit above animal welfare. This is why animal welfare fails and abolishment is better.
By banning factory farming but allowing small, organic, so called "humane", and free-range farms you introduce a conflict of interest. The animal's welfare versus profit. Abolishment has no such disadvantage.
This is a poorly structured argument. Both "abolition" and "animal welfare" would be laws, and some people will put profit above legal retribution, so they both fail for the same reason. You talk about the welfare of animals like it's something most people care about, they don't and legislation won't change that. This is a question of Profit vs. Law.
Stryker I'm certain you are almost entirely alone on the first claim.
That Vegan, is not an argument.
As for the 2nd the profit motive is at work. People who use cheaper and more inhumane methods will have the advantage.
Odd, it seems you are now supporting my original argument for this debate. Not sure how to respond.
So you find life meaningless. ...can you elaborate?
I understand "how life", and can't find anything pointing to the "why life", that may prove to be an incoherent question.
are you saying life means physics act on matter and nothing more
so you believe there really is no such thing as life
These two definitions popped up when I Googled "define:life"
I have no objection to either, and accept the existence of both.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
the existence of an individual human being or animal.
and life means nothing at all?
I have a hard time reconciling this question due to phrasing, the closest to an answer I can give is I see no reason to believe that life has any inherent meaning.
Is there a humane way to execute mass numbers of humans? Nope
I disagree. If you have an isolated group of people, all who only have ties within the group, and executed them in such a way to be both painless and with no knowledge of the demise of their group-mates, I see no objection on the grounds of immorality.
it stands to reason there isn't a humane way to slaughter mass number of cows, chickens, pigs, etc.
There are animal products that don't require the killing of an animal. For example, I could raise chicks with the care I would kittens, and once ready, I could collect and consume their savory menstruations without having caused anything to suffer.
I would like to note that I never used the words "humane" or "execute/slaughter", so your objection doesn't really seem aimed at me.
I think I would have enjoyed hanging out with her as odd as that may sound, I like her sense of humor, and she is nice. Her drawbacks, mainly misunderstanding an argument or taking it personally doesn't really apply to the people I choose to associate with as I filter what I am willing to discuss based on those I am with.
Just to be clear, please re-answer the questions with the following clarification.
When I say belief in an entity, I am referring to holding a belief that "the concept you have is matched by something that manifests in reality."
and to speed things along as I am in the middle of my work week and can't get on as much, Question One is a logical tautology, Question two is the one we can have a logical discussion about. I could be wrong about question one, but if you can demonstrate it I will give you $10.
Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity suggests that the universe [as we know it] had a beginning but the universe [as we know it] wasn't eternal.
There, I fixed it. The universe as we know it consists of three dimensions of space, one dimension of time, some snazzy physical constants, and a bunch of stuff we don't understand yet. We have yet to have an answer, or any demonstrated scientific theory, as to what happened "before" the Big Bang, or if temporal terminology doesn't apply, what "caused" the Big Bang.
It would help if you understood the syntax of our shared language. You see, the work "bill" on it's own could very well have multiple definitions, but luckily for us we out language allows for context, because other words can help us decipher this trickster language of ours. You're silly joke demonstrates this nicely, as well as that you know everything I just wrote, so why would you choose to look so foolish by presenting this?
If I believe in an entity with the necessary quality "X", and you believe in a being that does not have that necessary quality, would you agree that we do not believe in the same entity?
Is it possible for an entity to have quality that is necessary to the concept of that entity?
I'm doing this in the form of questions, there is no need to defend you position until I state a conclusion, all that is required is answering the questions.
I wouldn't say scholar. I do spend a fair amount of time listening to inter-Christian debates, Christian apologetics, having conversations with Christians, as well as attending various churches. I feel as though I am well informed about Christianity as well as with the Bible, although I don't make a habit of reading it on my own, I prefer to understand how Christians interpret it.
I see, I looked into it and it seems to be pretty complected, but non-violence does seem to play a large part.
This leaves one question though, had they had superior violent weapons to use against The British Empire and Muslim League, would it have been more effective than non-violence. This could be measured by comparing the outcome that would have been most favorable for India to the outcome they received.
I would put having a four year liberal arts degree slightly above a four year consecutive work history. You have to take minimal maths, science, history, and English classes to get the degree, other than that they both only show you can stick to something for four years.
This is probably the best I can do for a logical contradiction, demonstrating a logical argument to not be sound is easy, but finding an example of a logical contradiction isn't.
All cows can fly, Bessy is a cow, therefor Bessy can fly. There is no logical contradiction here, but it isn't sound. All the premises have to be true for the argument to be sound, and Bessy is in fact a turtle.
Anyway, is the linked debate acceptable?