- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Assuming the blind man understands that he is blind, and what that entails, I would assume that he understands that there are things that exist that he could never know due to his condition. I would also assume that the blind man understands that there are others who will have the ability to see what he cannot. Given those two assumptions, I would suggest that the blind man not contend with that which he understands he is incapable of disproving.
"By your definition, every deliberate killing would be genocide (even mercy killings, etc.) - it isn't."
By my definition, every collectively deliberate killing of a specific racial group may be considered a non-standard form of genocide.
"A) You have separated deliberate from its use - it is not that the killing is deliberate, it is that the systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is deliberate."
There are several differently phrased definitions of the word genocide.
"B) one killing is not a systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"
If 1,000 Nazis killed 1,000 Jews, obviously with each Nazi killing 1 Jew, would that be considered genocide? You see, it is not one lady killing one baby, it is hundreds of thousands of women killing hundreds of thousands of babies. The collective action done to a particular racial group, though done by the same racial group, is what I am suggesting may be considered a form of genocide.
I suppose I would not be able to prove such a concept to a person who is afflicted with a condition that occludes them from seeing the evidence for the existence of that concept. The Judeo-Christian god (who I am assuming is the analog), however, presumably created humans to have the ability to recognize his existence, or the evidence thereof.
Firstly, not all zoos do not only house endangered species. Secondly, most zoos do not have any program for minimizing the impact of whatever is causing the endangerment--they're simply exploiting animals for monetary gain. Inbreeding white tigers (a rare mutation) to sell to other zoos does not aid in the advancement of the species.
I do believe that a high IQ standard for government officials is necessary for an optimally functioning society; however, in practice, there are too many factors that would make the system flawed such as, without limit:
(1) Social Skills - A substantial amount of highly intelligent people are poor communicators--not that they cannot get their point across, rather, they may have difficulty delivering information in a way that is comprehensible to commoners (i.e., the general public). Currently, most politicians either think of (or are introduced) ideas of some critical, societal change, and they have researchers and scientists to run the numbers/data for them while they deliver the results to the public.
(2) IQ test validity - While an IQ test does a very good job at measuring pattern recognizing/deductive abilities, both of which are essential for intellectually rigorous tasks, it does not measure things such as decision making, discipline, impulsivity, empathy, dedication, sanity, irritability, diligence, etc., all of which are necessary for functional leaders.
There are more, but I would just be expounding on things that I have already mentioned. Further, all of the contentions can be (and are) a part of the contemporary government system, I am simply just pointing out how such a paradigm shift would not change much of how things are run. Intellectual capital should be allocated, however magically possible, to the general public. Insomuch as the people make poor decisions, be they health, finance, etc., the inevitability of a suboptimal nation--which I am sure is what the purpose of an "iqocracy" would be to fix--will remain.
First of all, what basis do you have for claiming the sole purpose of a particular human function?
An intraspecific function is anything which is specific to the species and its advancement in terms of its continuation (surviving).
Second, our ability to express complex concepts goes far above and beyond simple survival and reproduction [...]
Not if the expression of complex concepts can be deemed necessary for survival.
humans are the only organism to have deliberately and significantly altered their circumstances, and complex language is a crucial element of doing so.
I wouldn't term it deliberate given the primary factors that preceded the alteration were uncontrollable. Human evolutionary traits, such as our mode of communication, were not contrived, they were naturally selected for.
Third, scale, regardless of "overarching goals", is still a distinction. Whether it's "vivid" or not is irrelevant.
I suppose I should have included an adjective in the title. "Red" is distinct from "Blue" yet they are both colors. A "whale" and a "goat" are two different species yet they are both animals. There are many a feature that distinguishes the two significantly, but the differences, as you and lots of others claim, are not comparable to the differences between humans and dolphins--to which I disagree.
'Scale' is irrelevant in the context--which, admittedly, I should have established--of this debate. Again, there are vast differences between birds and snakes, but we don't say there are 'birds' and 'nonbirds'.
Intelligence is a fundamental prerequisite to reasoning in any meaningfully complex context; acknowledging it as a specifically human characteristic contradicts both your specific point (that animals are also capable of reason) and your claim (that no distinction between humans and nonhumans exists) as a whole.
I never claimed that intelligence is a characteristic specific to humans; I suggested that humans constructed the concept of intelligence based on their premise of what makes them uniquely intelligent, and extended that concept to encompass other species, which is fallacious.