- 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.
It's not that they can't come up with an ID, it's what counts as a valid ID to vote. These laws aren't targeting fraudulent voters. A 2014 GAO study showed that these laws are reducing turnout by 3% targeting poor and minority voters. As turns out they struggle to acquire the types of IDs every other American has no problem getting, and that's by design because the people making the law don't want them to vote.
Voter ID laws limit legitimate voters. You should only have to prove your voting status when you register to vote, which already bars illegal immigrants (and others) from voting because they don't have the proper documentation or status.
And yes, it absolutely affects elections and in a way you apparently don't like.
saying something is colder than something else is objectively true or false
It's not an objective true or false, that's a relative claim. You are confusing logical statements with objective statements. Saying for example, the sun is colder than neutron star. While true, we would be dealing with temperatures so high it's absurd. But astronomers know this because they have a very precise way to measure this concept. Which again, it's not true of morality, even when it comes to making relative statements.
temperature was objective long before we could measure it, despite the fact that we once only knew it subjectively.
Just because temperature is an objective fact doesn't mean morality exists in the same form. Simply because temperature used to be subjective doesn't imply morality will stop being subjective in the future.
I haven’t presented my version of morality.
If I understand correctly, you are arguing that morality stems from evolution. If so, that implies a version of morality that differs from others.
I cannot illustrate that absolute health exists. Nonetheless we can show that some things are healthier than others
In science, bad health means a disruption in expected functioning, which is something you can measure. Two people living with AIDS can be tested to see which one is in worse health by measuring their T-cell count. Something you can't do with morality, or any moral dilemma.
One must only know that its existence is independent of experience
If you want to KNOW it's objective you need to model it and test it. Without that it doesn't matter if it's independent of experience. How would you even know that the reason something is hot is because it contains the element fire, and cold because it contains the element water. You have to model and test that model in verify it's validity.
It is the fact that it is an evolved trait
That doesn't make morality objective. Creativity is an evolved trait but that doesn't make it objective. For it to be objective it must exist outside the human experience. The second issue is that if evolution is our guide for morality you end up the issue that nature is full of things we find objectionable, like cannibalism, incest, rape, violence, etc. So even with that interpretation of morality it is still incredibly inconsistent.
Some languages are better than others for communication. Some morality is better than others for human well-being.
Languages are products of the culture they form in, they fit the needs of the people speaking it. That's also true of morality. There's no way to determine which is the "best" language as much as determining the "best" morality.
Morality is always a system of propriety of conduct. It cannot, by definition be otherwise. Though the specifics of that system will vary.
The specifics vary so much there's no way to determine what humans agree on. Like I said in my original post, incest being objectionable is about the few we all agree on.
As I said science has discovered the objective nature of morality, scientists simply do not discuss it in these terms
What scientists have studied doesn't tell you why - let's say - abortion is right or wrong. They are studying group dynamics and behavior, and what morality means inside a group.
Science has shown that morality plays a necessary role for humans and it exists because of evolution. These two facts are sufficient to know that morality is objective.
That doesn't make morality objective. Art has been very important to human tribal dynamics, that doesn't make art objective.
The “very specific” form you are referring to is merely the descriptive definition of morality. Morality, in any form, is never not a code of conduct.
I think you misunderstand what I'm arguing. Morality is a code of conduct, I'm not going to argue against that (maybe I caused some confusing earlier). What that code of conduct is - is something that is not objective, especially where that code of conduct comes from.
You have an idea of where that code of conduct comes from, and you are using that to say that is is possible to find the "best and most morally valid law", what I'm arguing is that there's not.
I have established the objective nature of morality. Your response so far seem to be that you still believe it is subjective.
You have not established objective morality, far from it. You simply have used your own interpretation and using that to argue that your view of morality is objective when it's not. Like I've said before, in order to establish objective morality you would need to use a specific language to even approach the topic, relative statements don't suffice.
I want to know exactly what specifically you believe is subjective about what I have presented.
That you can establish a "best, most functional, or most morally valid law". The essence of such statement put you in the realm of pure subjectivity. There's no means to establish such law, even with relative statements. Even if we both agree that evolution is the source of all morality.
Immigrant foreigners have little to no political power and aren't trying to affect elections to further their own political agenda. While Russia affecting elections sets a precedent of what is possible now to undermine democracy by a non-democratic government.
No I didn't, you just failed to see the connection. It's due to how white folks see themselves, it's their own thoughts and feelings about belonging to the white race. In some instances it's shame, in other it's pride.
Saying the last person caught in white robes was a democrat fails to really capture where in the political spectrum the KKK is at. Hint, it's on the right voting for conservatives. When David Duke runs for political office as a Democrat, maybe then you'll have a case.
Oh, hi outlaw. How's your day going?
Are you trying to sound intelligent ??????
No, even if I tried, I will never sound as intelligent as you.
Dummy is Rape and Murder questionable in your mind ????????????
The question being asked is about finding the "most morally valid law", not why we find certain things objectionable. So let me ask you this. What makes murder wrong?
That depends on whether you believe human rights should be awarded to certain people or be universal.
Inheritance of mental disorders is not a straight forward subject. For example, during the holocaust 75%-100% of people with schizophrenia were either killed or sterilized. Studies postwar showed that the prevalence of schizophrenia was actually higher than expected. To say the least, it didn't work - which is counter-intuitive since schizophrenia is one of the most hereditary mental illness.
The same would apply for autism. What would preventing them from having children accomplish?