It probably hurts the right's puny little ego.........................................

If the suspect is to be convicted, a person is in the position of weakness, i.e faces the punishment for a crime which that person may/may not have convicted. But by letting the person walk away, nobody gets punished. Though we might not have punished the criminal, we've stayed away from punishing a possibly innocent person. To risk a possibly innocent person doesn't seem rational just cause we want to punish the right offender.

Robots can make points that are strictly from the logical perspective. There are many cases in debates in which there is a need for emotional priorities to be considered. So until robots can "feel", nope.

Nazism is left wing and socialist and in support of liberty.

Dead. Lmfao

I don't believe either of whether someone would/wouldn't help a drowning man, that's a decision for the person to make. To "help" or not as mentioned in the title, is a question of morality and hence if someone refuses to help with the intention of seeing the person die provided that the person watching could've helped, that person would be responsible.

Slavery in terms of what it has been, is wrong as it denies a person his/her rights. However, consensual slavery shouldn't be an issue.

I'm sure this site was amazing when you were off this site watching porn. Hope you keep it that way.

I've observed that over the past few months, people seem to have deserted this website, (including me but that's a different story) the few that were good on this website no longer seem to be active..

What tells you that it is my prime duty to save the person?

Given the fact that america's a secular country, it shouldn't fall....

Thanks for elaborating my point, and how the person has landed in that state is a question for the person himself, while I don't say that pushing the person is not a reason to hold the person responsible, but The debate title makes it clear that the person is already in the state of drowning and "help" is what is questioned, which a killer wouldn't. So It is obvious that this "killer" put the person in a water body to kill the person and that's obvious for everyone. What isn't obvious is the fact that if you are a person who just randomly happened to see this person drowning, and you refuse to help, will you be responsible for the death? I prefer answering the unobvious, as it is the unobvious that make debates, not what's obvious and agreed by everyone upon.

In my opinion, it is a right when we talk about nations with economy that can support education.. If a country isn't capable of supporting education, it can be seen as a privilege rather than a right.

"Wet" is a state of a material other than the liquid which causes it.. the liquid is the cause and wetness is the effect...

Sounds to me like you are a hurt animal biting the hands that try to help you.

I admire your persistence. The fact is, this animal needs no help.

So you boast of being a beast

I don't. Intimidating, am I?

and apparently want to be one forever

Isn't that obvious?

Keep on your way and you will wake up in Hell.

I woke up in my bedroom this morning..

Since you seem set on embracing your doom, there is no point in wasting time trying to reach out to you like you were worth more than an animal.

Says the person who's triggered enough to dispute with the same argument over 4 times..

It's your future which you should be concerned about. You are opposing your own life, choosing death, and believing or hoping you cannot be stuck in eternal dying in the fire of Hell. You want to be a beast forever? Well, I guess you are succeeding. It is not me who is cursing you. By fighting against God, you are making yourself accursed. You are incurring God's wrath rather than seeking His mercy. That is your choice; you have been persuaded to be opposed to God who is your only hope of life......whoever taught you or set that example for you is not your friend. You I can tell how that you can be saved, them........well, I guess you care about them no more than you care about yourself.

Someone's triggered..

So you know for certain that you are uncertain.....in other words, you are sure that you do not know what you are talking about and you believe it is impossible for you to know what you are talking about.

I can try to explain things but it'd be a waste of time, so I'll just say you're wrong with what you just said.

I know what I am talking about, and I am certain that you can know the same but you don't want to know because you love your sins more than life and do not care if they take you into the fire of Hell...you fly in your sins like a moth to the flame thinking it is good.....basking in your uncertainty thinking the warmth of the fire ahead is pleasant rather than a warning. Laugh all you want.

I've been laughing ever since I've first read your arguments..

So you boast of being a beast, and apparently want to be one forever. Keep on your way and you will wake up in Hell. Since you seem set on embracing your doom, there is no point in wasting time trying to reach out to you like you were worth more than an animal.

You should consider working on narration of curses in horror movie, you have a bright future.

If you are certain that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is correct, then you are showing that things can be determined with certainty...you do sound like you have determined with certainty that the principle is correct.

The one thing I know for certain, is that uncertainty exists.

"Reason has brought science" is a nonsensical statement. Science is the observation of nature, we have the power of reason to investigate nature's reality and communicate our observations.

we have the power of reason to investigate nature's reality

should I laugh?

You want a cup of coffee with God like a wanted criminal wants a cup of coffee with a cop. Your big mouth does not prove that God is not there and you are free in your crimes.

So you fail to address the fact that god can personally be known. hmm..

Do you see where you are going? Genius? You don't want to know that your end, as you stand, is torment in flames forever. You want to believe that you are exonerated in death. Try to use your noggin for your own sake.

I'll take that as a compliment, the first two questions.. and as of everything you said after that, awwww so cute.

Definitions, words, are all made by us. To say that I'm alive would mean there are things I can differentiate myself from, hence assigning it a word that explains my state of being "alive" so the key factor in calling something alive, is that it's properties are different, hence things that which are "not alive" decided the creation of this word. What makes us us, is that which is not us...

I'm alive because there are things around me which can be classified as non living...

I'm 17 tbh....................................................................................

The beast has only one account, he doesn't need more than one, unlike others....

I regret not having the maturity to work for what I wanted and not exposing myself to better competition as a kid..

Yes, come sit on daddy's lap.. and watch your dad getting trolled.

Things can be determined with certainty

tell me heisenberg's uncertainty principle is wrong.

God gave us our senses and power of reason for that purpose.

reason right there, has brought science. Not that the first part of your sentence was stated with reasoning..

You probably won't because of your pride

I'm as humble as kendrick Lamar.

but you can know God personally

I'd love a cup of coffee with god, dark, two sugars please.

Some people just don't want to know where they are going

I can see that, clearer than ever.

Why do you think people don't want to know where they are going, and they prefer to hope in what they feel, think, or believe is probable?

Exactly, why?

Sorry, but the very notion of our unbelievable complex DNA just randomly mutating from a single cell, is ignorance to the max and most probably wrong..

how do you know it's random? what if it isn't random at all? you believe our dna is complex because it's ours, if a rock could think, it'd probably think it's special as well, to it we would be random stuff happening around it.

I say the origin of life is an amazing miracle, whatever you believe.

I say the origin is not an amazing miracle, whatever you believe.

I never called anyone stupid for the beliefs they have, it's how they get to their decisions is what I'm talking about. While I was talking about ignorant people, I was talking about the ones who make decisions without any underlying foundation, it can be someone who is ignorant and takes an atheistic side or someone who is ignorant and takes a theistic side.

Probability for sure exists, and things that cannot be determined with certainty, can be talked about in terms of probability. It's always better to think in it's true sense without having any biases, to any side, which leaves us certainly in a better side, which might not necessarily be right, but most probably is.

It's not so easy when you are sick from lack of nutrients.

nah, a balanced diet is as well possible without meat.

Not living in nature, in my opinion doesn't need to be a reason to lack survival. As it's the surroundings that decide someone's survival, not nature in it's true sense.. Back then, one's surroundings was "nature", today it isn't... and that too only to some degree.. and one can as well survive in the wild, as a species, without being a carnivore... If there was a "predator" approaching you, the only difference it would make is that a vegan would kill it and not eat it, but the person would be safe, thanks to his survival instincts.

Isn't that why the nsfw section is present in the first place?

Many keep judging it mainly because people argue that it isn't a fairy tale. Although I do agree that there are some ignorant people out there who have drawn conclusions from thin air, not on any sound reasoning, but just blatant judgment.

Trying to understand our surroundings and the universe with reasoning as far as possible.

Mine is an argument from logic about the epistemic limitations of logic, namely that we cannot be certain of any conclusion derived from logic because the soundness of logic cannot be proved.

logic, as you and I both know, is set to fundamental rules, or foundations.Irrationality uses no fundamental rules or foundation, and hence does not add up to predictability of any sort, except for that of chance. logic is perfectly functional until you question logic, but right there, you have questioned its foundation, which does not allow logic to be used over.

however, even in that case, logic does provide a very acceptable answer, that is, it asks you to turn to irrationality, as there is no preceding pure logic to its fundamentals. that right there is the soundness of logic. It is our brain which has set these fundamental rules, not logic itself, hence the uncertainity while questioning its fundamentals.

How, exactly, can I be certain that I experience?

how, exactly, can you be certain that you do not experience?

and if you are certain that you don't, what do you do if you don't?i.e,only if you believe in "action" of any sort, of which if you're on the disputing side, according to you, nothing should ever "happen" at all. Which would in turn lead to a contradiction which is because of how we have "defined" what "happen" is. And again, that is only if you choose to work with logic, which is hardwired with statements that are strictly true or false, never possibly in between. So , you have to be irrational to possibly have such a situation, but again, true and false is what is defined when we logically try to look at stuff, not when we are being irrational, so if you actually use logic, to try and prove that irrationality has to be used to have two or more objective truths, you choose to agree upon the "terms and conditions" of rationality, but choose to violate it. So the best approach for you would be to be irrational from the beginning, which would also involve not replying to another's argument which is disputing yours, irrespective of what state your position is. so, by already choosing to reply to another, you choose to choose logic, but not abide by what it fundamentally lies upon. Let's hope you give time to what I've said here, hope you understand what I'm trying to convey.

When we talk about quantum mechanics, we talk about probabilities and not certain events. It's like saying, I don't know what's there, but it maybe this or maybe that, assigned with some probability of it being certain.

I'm Indian, my dad's from the south of India, while my mom's from the north, and the languages are different in the north and south. I was spoken to in both the languages, and I picked up both simultaneously, kids have a better grasping power in my opinion..

What you said is very true... it's lack of enthusiasm to make a change, among Indians, I'd say.. not that It's necessary for them to relate and feel for the symbol, but yeah, they could if they want to..

The meaning hasn't changed throughout the world, as you say.. in India, the swastika is a holy symbol and is used whenever needed, this might not be very apparent in the west, as the symbol has been introduced in the west in a particular way.. It should be redefined in the west.

The swasktika isn't a nazi symbol in the first place. The irony is, swastika stands for peace and harmony.. It certainly should be protected.

Science does a lot, the fact that we are debating on this topic proves it does. Science was never meant to "produce" anything, it was made so that we can manipulate nature around us to fulfill our needs and understand nature better.

He has a very business minded approach to how he deals with stuff. It might be good when in business, not really when leading a superpower, It seems to me that all his decisions are money based, in other words, money is the motive.. While I'm not saying that economical perspectives are not good, when you lead a nation, it's not a business, it's sheer leadership. To excel in economy certainly means citizens would have a better lifestyle, but should it be at the cost of unity and peace? should it be at the cost of peace with other countries which would actually be good for a nation in a long run? to conservatives and people who believe in trump's methods, his methods might seem to be flashy , but it's not doing good in the long run, from where I see it.

I'd say, problem with trump hence problem with USA politics.

There are ways to prevent children from pornography, one of the best ways is to make a kid mentally able and mature enough to understand the consequences of pornography.

Considering the fact that liberals fought for the immigrants to get in, they would most likely let liberals in, as a sign of gratitude, to be practical. But I also think it depends on the number of conservative immigrants. If there are more of em, it's more likely they won't let liberals in, while liberal majority would mean everyone is let in.

Children can know about their existence, for knowing their existence can do no harm to them, it should be made clear that being heterosexual or homosexual is completely their opinion, and it's not wrong to have their own personal views on it. In my opinion, it should be made clear that it is normal to be homosexual, just as normal as being heterosexual. However, I do think that such matters should only be brought up when the child is mature enough to think and understand such issues.

Oh cool, nice to know the history of your name, and I certainly get the last sentence of your argument.

We've got similar names, is that an indication we might have similar ideologies?

In my opinion, self pity leads to destruction of self confidence, one must realize that he/she should be ready to face any set of situations, at any moment of time. The aim should be to make the situation better, not whining about it, because all it does is makes the task apparently more difficult and reduces performance by destroying self confidence.

I think it's fine either way, until the baker admits and acknowledges the fact that his denial is because of the customer being gay.

Why should we worry about the survival of the species though?

I don't support the idea, or advertise it in any sense, to worry about the survival of a species, it's just present in us, we are genetically made to survive, although "why" is an interesting question to ponder upon, which would lead to the reason or purpose of life.., of which I have given my opinion in another debate..

Why not do 'immoral' things that hinder the survival of the species, but help ourselves, and only act 'morally' t the extent that we won't be shunned from society?

I need to clear myself upon this, I was referring to the morality that is objective, which isn't different for all of us, something that is common among us, that we all would call a part of morality. Interesting question, the way you've put it, it seems to me that even that is linked to survival, if you look at the animal kingdom,many animals tend to be in groups for increasing their individual survival, I think humans are similar. It's in our genes to stay in groups, in my view, which makes social acceptance a consequence of survival instincts right from our genes. We have "immoral" acts, which are basically ideas conflicting from that of the group we live, in this case the group is society..

Almost everything we do can be traced to some survival need, in other words, "to survive" has been hardwired in us. I think the objective morals as you said,somehow refer to survival, as in my opinion, that fits well with the idea of what we "should" do..

This is a debate site for all who'd want to voice out their opinion, I see no reason why people would be wanting him to get off this site. Irrespective of his opinions and his debating skills, it is clear that he has an enormous passion for debating, it's stupid that people actually hate him because he's passionate.

Though I agree with your argument, I'd like to put up a few points:

Political candidates know what to say to get themselves elected.

This is very true, but they speak with respect to the majority's ideology, so that they get the most number of votes, which is because the person knows, the only way to get votes of the majority is to speak what they want to hear, in other words, he/she knows that they are going to vote a person with similar ideologies...

Secondly, it is often the other way around: a leader's thought processes and ideologies eventually become the people's because he has the power to influence those people.

Again, a very agreeable point, but I have something to say: We are talking about orators in this case, who function on their own ideologies and possess the capability to convince others to some extent to vote them. But this is not going to work for all the people, I mean, there will be people in large numbers who are very clingy to their ideas (possibly the near - extremists) if I was to speak about my ideologies, let's assume it's neither the right, nor left, and I happen to be a good orator, I will mostly be getting votes from the ones who are leaning towards left or leaning towards right, but not the bigger crowd of people who seem to be hardcore right or hardcore left.. However, past experiences of governance with a particular representative can lead to increase or decrease of votes the next time that person stands for election.

Tell the people what to think and it's surprising how many of them vote for you in a "free" society.

For that, one should be effective in telling what to think and there should be people who are seeking an ideology..

And also, people make decisions mostly from an individual's perspective, not for the country as a whole.. which makes it inefficient to directly consider people's decisions.

Let's jump back to my hypothetical argument about Trump issuing himself a full presidential pardon. Would he be representing the government by doing that, or representing his own desire not to go to jail?

I do agree with the consequence of that, but I'm kind of confident that there is something which will not let him complete the process legally.

Let's look at the hypothesis as you've put up, which is quite interesting.. when we elect a person, we elect someone who has similar thought process and ideologies. It would not be wise to actually take every citizen's opinion on certain issues and consider a poll to make decisions, which they should be doing, so instead people elect this person who has a similar thought process and expect to make decisions on their behalf, more preferably the decision they want.. when "leaders" make decisions people don't like, they get upset, which can be observed..

I don't think that there is a "leader" as such, but a representative of the government..

there have been wars in the past with religious groups trying to impose their ideologies on people, but now we have become much more tolerant I think, thanks to a more organised form of governance..

by organised form of government, I am referring to what was present in the past and what is present today, sure there are wars even today but the "law" stops me from killing another person just because he/she's of a different religion, I was referring to such advances..

I don't believe it is quite that simple. You can't simply expect a person who has been brainwashed to make a choice. It's a vicious circle, because what these people already believe stops them from changing their beliefs. In fairness however, I don't think we can generalise one way or another. Some people can and do overcome indoctrination, while others never do.

A belief is something we believe in, and just because one doesn't want to change their belief, doesn't mean they can't, that is, it is a property of a belief to be optional, which inherently is present.

However, as you said, there will be people who are brainwashed to the extent that it becomes a belief that what they believe in, is perfectly correct under all circumstances, but there are people who change religious beliefs. So can I generalize for decisions made by people? no, can I make a statement that's based on a property of believing? yes.

but that doesn't stop anyone from changing their beliefs.

what I meant there was, people can choose to change provided they want to, if they don't want to, they won't.

It should be a choice, whether one wants to believe in something or not, there have been wars in the past with religious groups trying to impose their ideologies on people, but now we have become much more tolerant I think, thanks to a more organised form of governance..

now to really get to the question, we as we grow up from children to adults, have been exposed to a certain kind of religious belief system/ non- religious belief system, that really narrows down things for the rest of our life. For people, who choose to ignore it, not take it very seriously, would not ponder upon the question and would not mind continuing the belief just because they've been exposed to it previously.

There are other people who are too emotionally attached to the belief to actually question it, which makes them defend their belief system from an emotional bias irrespective of what arguments are made against the system. Finally, who actually question and are able see something without any bias of any sort, are the ones who can see it to be a choice.

It's a choice, at the end of the day, it's people who make it seem that it isn't, but that doesn't stop anyone from changing their beliefs.

Doesn't really matter, what the right thinks, I mean, all opinions are heard and everyone has a right to voice their opinion, but no one really cares about how you land up to that opinion, at least as of this one.. so technically, the right can do whatever they want, and the left would still exist and the same goes for the left, the better opinion at the end of the day will be implemented, so to stop giving a ---- is to stop participating and hence, losing even before you've tried.

Thanks for an example, outlaw, just needed that to complete my previous argument.

As far as outlaw is concerned, his arguments are almost predefined, you can be sure to see some lmfaos and the word left being abused, just like any other addiction. To try to actually take him seriously based on what he's said so far would be stupid to try, but nonetheless, let's hope he makes sense of his arguments someday.

It depends on why you choose to refuse to help, in my opinion.

Because it's better . As it isn't as harmful as the other possible conditions could've been.

And the better side is what we choose to pick, which obviously is practical to do.

If you are doing anything other than reading the definition as it is, then you have stepped outside the definition itself and are bringing external ideas to it that the definition itself doesn't support.

Understanding and applying the definition to the context of debate?

Your opinion about what is practical is a subjective belief, based upon what is subjectively practical to you. Any opinion about anything is subjective, but it isn't logically entailed from there that everything is therefore subjective. Incidentally, subjectivity doesn't scare me; why do you think it's a problem?

Science would be subjective then, wouldn't it?

But we have an aim through which we use the subjectivity, that is to use it for certain purpose, for understanding and making sense of something, this case makes subjectivity not so subjective to a considerable degree, which is in turn called practicality.

To the contrary, I place great personal value on practicality and nothing I've said actually suggests otherwise. Not that speculation about my preferences is a responsive argument to my point here. If you believe that kids change opinions over candles, then they don't get fixed ideas so indoctrination shouldn't even be possible on your own account and this is all a non-issue.

Well said,Of course they change opinions over candies, that's what proves to us that they aren't mature enough to pick sides, (which has it own consequences if indoctrinated), as kids have their own way of responding to issues, and when we know that they don't get indoctrinated, why try in the first place? which again leads me to believe that a school that is secular is better, as they don't waste resources and time on any particular thing(theism and anti-theism, in this case).

No. I don't believe they are meant for anything in particular. Their function has varied across time and place considerably. I'm asking you why you think they are meant to educate and not indoctrinate (presuming that's a real distinction, of course).

The most common purpose and reason to schooling is education, be it in today's world or in the past, that was one thing common in all the other things schools have done. Indoctrination was not the case throughout, and as I have mentioned earlier, the word school as we use it refers to place that is meant to educate.

It does if freedom to expression is considered a right. If you don't believe that people should have equal access to expression in public institutions they have to help fund, then there's no basis for you to be opposed to indoctrination since by your own reasoning now that's not in-egalitarian.

Indoctrination, leads to certain groups believing in something and that causes drift between them and other groups..(not necessarily in all cases, but definitely a difference in opinion), and when certain groups want to impose their ideology onto others,

egalitarianism is threatened.

Why is that what's supposed to be?

Because practically, it isn't doing harm, at least not as much as the contrary would.

Nothing in the definition establishes reasonableness; that's not actually what definitions do. Now you've shown what the absence of egalitarianism might look like, and even ignoring the obvious deployment of an alarmist slippery slope you're still making a number of assumptions that aren't proved

It certainly does, if you actually make sense of what the definition conveys and not just read it the way it is. Assumptions that haven't been proved?

those are what could possibly happen, because neither you nor me, know what is to come in the future.

That math, science, and sports don't harm anyone is entirely your opinion and not a matter of objective fact.

Well done, you choose to stick to calling it subjective rather than sticking to practicality, so in that sense everything is subjective and you have just proved that there cannot be any objective effect, something common for everyone... good luck with the subjective lounge, does it have a buffet?

To say simultaneously that it's their choice and that they're too immature to make choices isn't even the least bit coherent. Either they can make their own choices and this isn't an issue, or they can't so we have to choose something to teach them at which point we're necessarily preferencing some conception of value over others.

Kids change opinions over candies. Let's just say you're not the biggest fan of practicality.

Why is the purpose of schools to learn, as opposed to indoctrinate? Just because you feel that's what they should do that doesn't mean they must be about that.

Wow, so according to you schools are meant to indoctrinate, is it?

They are for educating children, not indoctrinating them.

The word school refers to a place where people get educated.

Oh wait, it must be different for everyone isn't it? since because you believe everything is subjective..

There isn't any objective reason that terrorism shouldn't be taught in schools. In some schools, arguably, it is. The only thing that keeps it from being taught is anti-egalitarianism which treats terrorism unequally be preventing it from being taught. That's really quite obvious I should think. If you're being a consistent little egalitarian, then you should insist that terrorism be given equal opportunity in schools!

this is exactly why I choose to quote definitions

egalitarianism: the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

egalitarianism is based to giving opportunities and equal rights to people

it does not refer to ideologies.

you might say that by not providing opportunities, we restrict people from becoming terrorists, the opportunities are just the same, it's just that whether people are accessible to it, if you look for an electronic gadget in a store that sells clothes, you are definitely not going to find it, however, I would have to clear myself on what I mean by egalitarianism... , I refer to it in the more practical sense, rather than anything completely by the name of it, provided the debate title is raising an issue within practicality.

Then what is it supposed to teach, exactly?

What is supposed to be.

Something that'll help humanity irrespective of an individual's personal opinions, something that actually can give them jobs to earn money, something that you and me have learnt till date, only that it probably might be better in the future.

Defining egalitarianism doesn't prove that it's reasonable, anymore than defining hierarchy proves it's reasonable. You've only established what egalitarianism is, but I'm asking if you can warrant your belief that it's reasonable. So, can you?

I wouldn't have to, if you would have made sense of the definition. If not for egalitarianism, certain kids will not be given opportunities , with some being given opportunities. That means all kids won't get the same kind and quality of education, which in turn leads to untapped potential, which might end up being harmful for the nation, do I need to go on?

Similarly, defining a school as somewhere that people learn things isn't an explanation for why schools cannot teach certain things. So, again, why can't schools teach that either theism or atheism is wrong?

Little bit of logical reflection would be appreciated, I don't have any problems with math, or science or sports being taught in school, they don't cause any damage to people's personal opinions, and clearly, we are talking about kids here, who haven't reached their complete mental maturity to reflect upon what is supposed to be deep and

subjective. It's their choice after all, and talking about schools, you are referring to a place with a specific purpose, to learn. Keep religion and atheism as another subject, and It will come under what a school should cover. Schools trying to impose their ideology on a kid, seems crazy to me, so according to what you've said, why should terrorism not be taught in schools?

Why is the expectation that schools be egalitarian reasonable?

Egalitarian:

believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

I think that should make it clear, it is reasonable.

Why isn't it the school's right?

A school is where people get education, on particular subjects, if religion was a subject, I have no problems with atheism and and religion posters being put up everywhere in the school.

In my opinion, schools should be neutral on this, it is not their right to tell others to pick on religion or atheism, however I wouldn't mind debates, as that'll get the kids thinking, when we talk about schools, we are talking about people getting education and knowledge, what they(students) want to believe in should be none of their business. People from different religious beliefs come to study and we expect a school to be just as secular as egalitarian.

Logically speaking, yes.. I think morality is interlinked to emotions, and while morality may be subjective to all of us in different topics, (which involves our opinion on the issue), but such as that of basic survival issues involve morality that's centered somehow to "survival" in that scenario.. morality doesn't exist on a life threatening scenario, or I'd rather say there's a different sense of morality in such conditions.. which might be wrong to your otherwise non threatened state.. what was wrong becomes right and hence morality fails as a whole, morality is formed with the conditions surrounding you, which means an "act" cannot be "wrong" or "right" intrinsically, but it depends on the conditions you think in.

Sometimes, the logical stand need not be the best side to pick upon..

suppose that there was a debate on how to reduce population(in a hypothetical scenario)

now the most logical thing to do is to reduce the population as the word says, that is, to eliminate some amount of population, whereas some would suggest birth control, in which case their argument is based on emotions, that of compassion to be specific, or maybe even fear.

to be completely logical has it's own shortcomings.., but however, I do support giving logic priority over emotions in general..

True, subjective purposes would lead to everyone having one of their own....nice point there, as of objective purposes, there is no way we can crosscheck as all that we have in our hand is logical scrutiny, and advanced extraterrestrials might be the confirmation of the knowledge argument, if there is a purpose.. until we find them, the knowledge argument is just another guess, a theory, a result of logical scrutiny which cannot be confirmed, which leaves all other theories which are logically correct just as valid.

That is one of the reasons why I'd like to stick to the knowledge idea of purpose...

it explains things in a wider perspective.... nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes up with something that makes the knowledge argument wrong.....

What other purpose could we have?

I'm not very sure... all explanations of purposes of humanity are perspectives in my opinion.., I personally would like to stick with that I have already mentioned, if I were asked to actually give a purpose, (not necessary that there should be) but you will find some equally satisfying answers, one such explanation is that of " we exist to continue to exist", think about it, we want to survive, not that anybody asked us to, to try to exist is inherent to us..., which might not look neat as an explanation, and not help us in explanation of things in a bigger picture, but it sure does answer the question, as we inherently lean towards existing and trying to continue to exist...

Certainly, we should look for them, I believe that humanity has evolved to this extent as it has today, only because of knowledge, i.e, what we observe and try to make sense of.., to see whether an even more advanced being that already exists might just be our very next step in our process of understanding the world better and who knows? we might also find answers to questions that we've not found yet..

there's this dialogue of prof. Norman(Morgan Freeman) from the movie Lucy, which I find quite interesting,

"That way, when they die, they hand down essential information and knowledge to the next cell. Which hands it down to the next cell and so on. Thus knowledge and learning are handed down through time."

all what a being does in a lifetime is hand over information to newer cells..

it also makes me think, is it all that we're here for?, for if, there had to be a reason for existence of humanity, it comes down to discovering and passing on knowledge...

Clues me in to your approximate age...but I will give you credit for being ahead of the curve in terms of the depth and complexity of arguments you can make, digest and respond to with remarkable cogency

Thanks a lot, hoping to learn a lot from everyone......

hardcoremuthafucka

The suggestion was a nice one though...;)

The typical "beast" as we see it, is generally viewed to be not so thoughtful and possess sheer unstopable strength, the former is one of many reasons that gets testosterone in me pumping, and gives me that dopamine burst to extents it feels like a non existent heaven, that's why the name...

lol might sound crazy but it's something I like..

Agreed, But I think even scientifically tested and corroborated assesments of all kinds are subjective by nature. What about thinking of information as "adequate vs inadequate"rather than "entirely correct vs entirely incorrect" ? can you see how the former doesn't pretend escaped subjectivity and avoids dogmatic absolutism?

Yes, what you said is absolutely true, especially with practicality involved with science, and ofcourse, our limitations, but think about it, until you use nothing but logic, truth as an idea is perfectly functional, and doesn't fail anywhere. The "idea of truth" isn't subjective, it is how we use it that makes it subjective, it is fair to call it "dogmatic absolutism" though, if you are ready to call first principles the same...

as of our observations are concerned, to call something adequate or inadequate is certainly a better option, even though the "idea of truth" might not have been useful to us, it is an idea which is completely functional, and doesn't fail itself anywhere..

conclusion: it might not necessarily be the best thing for us, but it's a nice idea..

liberalism is caring about everyone and not just yourself. I'd call conservatism egocentric, since liberalism is "based on low esteem"..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse

Now you're denying what actually exists, I wonder how many brain cells you have.

what if we thought in terms of "convincing vs unconvincing" instead of "true vs false"?

I think "convincing" is subjective...

I would pick equality of opportunity in this case, what you do with the given opportunity is upto you, I also do believe equality of outcome is also essential in some cases, such as those in which people die due to their inability to make the most out of opportunities..

Hmm, looks like someone expects formulae in biology..........

Is the world heating up by the release of all the greenhouse gases constantly polluting the atmosphere

This pretty much tells me why you think it might be a hoax, greenhouse gasses are not necessarily pollutants, and these gasses trap heat, for all those who think It's a hoax, go to a nursery in a place where the temperature is low throughout the year, you might have even noticed, these houses made of glass, in which plants are kept.. these are called greenhouses and contain greenhouse gasses to trap heat and provide essential temperature for those plants to grow.

Thanks,will be looking forward to make productive changes.

They found out that the main difference between a chimps consciousness and our own is that they can't comprehend that other living things are experiencing reality from a different perspective.

good to know that.

consciousness is different for them and us, they have a "chimp" consciousness, while we have consciousness, the way it is..

A question, certainly to be asked.. we as humans love to live in groups and share and exchange ideas with each other. But there are some ideologies that are common for many people, and when many people agree upon the similar ideology they like, they like to term their gathering, using a label, such as "liberals" or "conservatives".. and as of people whining, they try to guess the ideology you possibly belong to, simply because they believe everyone has to come under one... which is not necessarily true...

To be aware of one's existence is itself a criteria for consciousness.

Think about it, would you actually use the word consciousness?

Very true, one's mentality decides what one will possibly achieve.

Just like many people calling themselves conservatives doesn't make them one.

Exactly!!!!

egalitarianism and equality have always been the core of almost every issue liberals have an opinion on , which hasn't been quite supported in history, your so called "tradition" has been a root cause, radical changes you may say, but liberals stand for equality and egalitarianism, so we don't want to snatch away your tradition as such, you can keep it and practice anything you want, the problem to us is when "tradition" gets involved in decision making that may lead to be disadvantageous to other groups of people or tradition, where liberals again, stand for equality.. and of course, many people call themselves liberal, but that doesn't necessarily make them one.

LOL daaaaammmmmnnnnnnn!!!!!!!! I think he won't believe in fossils, until he finds one all by himself.

the next two lines also say they're against change...

If they do choose to change , they'd be failing the assertion that they're against change, as they have accepted to change......