- 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.
No, I definitely expect them to be armed in a country where they sell guns in candy stores. That is true whether or not I personally own a firearm and am willing to use lethal force for self defense, because my doing so does not impact the federal firearms policy. I'm not even pro gun, which you'd know by now if you'd been paying any attention. Straddling a high horse built of ad hominem is more your style than attentive reading though, I can see. Go eat some bagels.
I responded by calling them absurd and agreed to entertain them as plausible nonetheless, and now that you've evidenced it I'll accept I was wrong. I simply hadn't heard of it before (I don't read tabloids). As for theft, I not only never rejected that as a possible motive but acknowledged it early on in my own argument.
None of which undermines my broader argument because I still cannot know the person's motives and you still haven't explained to me why I have any obligation to consider their well-being under the circumstances.
I originally claimed that anyone breaking into my home was doing so with the intent of harming me because I couldn't think of another plausible reason they would do that. I don't find your hypotheticals plausible, but I've already said I'll entertain them as though they were. That someone could break in without intent to harm doesn't matter though, precisely because I'm not a telepathic wizard. I have no idea why the person has broken into my home, and you've given me no reason to suppose I'm under any obligation to suppose they did it just to eat my bagels or borrow my phone.
My willingness to use lethal force to defend myself has absolutely no causal relationship with burglars arming themselves or families dying. That's so fallacious it's laughable. I'm not even pro gun. But you know, I've heard specious accusations and petty name calling have done wonders for changing gun policy and saving lives. Give yourself a cookie.
As I said... a very abstract, non-concrete unicorn. I'm aware of the disanalogy; one is obviously a simple construction and the other isn't. The point was that people can have an idea of something without the thing necessarily existing (unless you're an idealist, which I don't think you are).
It exists as a concept, not a material reality.
It is as possible to pick out the black person from the group of 25 people as it is the unicorn. Neither exists. I would generally understand what they meant by asking me to do that, of course, just like I understand what someone means when they talk about God. But the only reason it seems reasonable to talk about picking out a black person but not a unicorn is that an overwhelming majority of people actually believe the former exists.
Generic identity classes like race aren't as useful for identifying individuals as they appear to be, because they are actually quite ambiguous and can call out numerous attributes across a broad spectrum even to the point of contradiction. It's far more useful to call out the specific attributes themselves - exact skin tone, hair color, hair style, clothing, etc. Even if that weren't the case, then it becomes a matter of how we practice the concept in our speech - do we say it's a black woman, or a socially perceived black woman? One is invalidating and descriptively inaccurate, the other is merely descriptively inaccurate because it isn't supposing the person to actually be either black or a woman.
The difference may seem trivial, but the way we speak and reference things reflects and affects our beliefs about things such that saying someone is a black woman reinforces the belief that "black" and "woman" are properly referent to the person. This invalidates individual uniqueness with the effect that we are more readily capable of otherizing, stigmatizing, and discriminating against people whom we believe belong to the non-existent groups we also believe in. Refusing to practice generic identity ascription to individuals goes beyond respect for the individual's uniqueness; it actively undermines the psychological basis for prejudice and bigotry.
Incidentally, I'm not supposing that others care about their uniqueness (I actually suppose most people to find it a burdensome responsibility they'd rather not have). I'm just suggesting that for those who find it important to respect the uniqueness of individuals, validating generic identity concepts as materially extant is inconsistent with that value.
Those are so implausible they border on the absurd, but let's go ahead and entertain your unlikely hypothetical conditions because it doesn't matter - I still have no idea that that's why they've broken into my home. From which the rest of my argument still stands.