I have seen so many Trumpers, including Trump himself, bank heavily on the idea of the election being decided by the SCOTUS. But, why? What is the honest reason? Is it really because the election is so flawed that any case related to be presided over by a top court? Or, is it because you know the court is partial and has a chance in ruling for their own personal party affiliate? I know Trumpers have a tendency to parrot anything he says, so it very well could be that there is no reasoning other than 'because that is what Trump wants.' However, for those who are not going by that reasoning, why do you truly want a court full of justices disproportionately biased toward the defendant--Trump? Why have you not accepted the 40+ lawsuits that failed--even cases presided over by Trump appointees?(I am independent, and I voted for no one because, IMO, all choices were Terrible (best one being Pence for president--who is also terrible). So, I am not a leftist or any other character you would like me to be so you can attack that over rationally responding to the questions.)
One might say 'language', but that is just a mode of communication. One might say 'reason', but nonhuman animals obviously reason.So, if neither of the above two commonly believed factors sufficiently distinguish humans from nonhumans, then what else would?
Note: There are approximately 4,000 tigers and 7,000,000,000 humans.var value = quantityIf we quantify value, tigers would objectively be, by virtue of math, more valuable than humans. Therefore, if one chooses the human baby in lieu of the three tiger cubs, their choice would be a result of irrational, internal partiality toward human species. --- In this context, 'irrational' is used given the choice of the one human baby, despite the forementioned value assignment.
Should someone who is narrowly providing for themselves (and potentially others) be able to force a life into a dilapidated environment in which that life will begin disadvantaged?/Assume the persons in question are cognizant of their socioeconomic circumstance.
Since atoms are comprised of 99.99999999999% empty space; and since most people (particularly, reductionist/materialists) accede to the notion that everything is composed of atoms; would the title, then, follow from the two premises?
"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people
have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for
admiration and a lack of empathy for others."Narcissists are generally perceived as delusional (and hence irrational) individuals; however, would an individual who is universally deemed the greatest in their domain, be delusional for having an ideology consistent with external perceptions. For example, if Isaac Newton crowed about his intelligence, would he be delusional?If Beethoven boasted about his creativity and referred to himself one of Earth's greatest musical talents, would anyone dare refute his belief and think him as irrational? In what way could their ego be considered inflated? In what way could Isaac Newton's self-perceived importance, by virtue of his intelligent, be considered non-respectively grandiose? (Note: Both examples assume that the individuals in question meet the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder and are not necessarily representative of their actual character. Additionally, the intention of this debate is to analyze the attributes of delusion and grandiosity that psychologists maintain accompanies a narcissist.)
Is morality relative to the individual; or does it exist independently from our beliefs?Definitions: Moral relativism: is the view that moral judgement are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own.Moral Realism: (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.
Premise (1)If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy.Premise (2)If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows.Premise (3)If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.Premise (4)If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.(5) God exists.By hypothesis.(6) .: God has had and has not had the feelings of lust and envy.By (1) - (5).(7) God does not exist.By (5) & (6) By Michael Martin
The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.- Dan Barker
Those who wear makeup do so for aesthetically fruitful reasons (the exception being ceremonial or ritualistic). This implies that makeup wearers do not believe that their look conforms with their belief as to how good they should look. Hence, if you wear makeup, you do not believe that your look corresponds with your standards (as well as society's); thus implying lack of confidence; thus implying insecurity.
Circumstance: The majority of the country's constituents who, theoretically, run the country: (1) Have average intelligence (thus are average thinkers);(2) Have little to no liberal education;(3) Have little to no political education;(4) Are not versed in, or knowledgeable about, the science behind the construction of policies;(5) And, have an average reading level of a 7th grader.
Simple: Testosterone.Men have more testosterone than women; Testosterone is responsible for competitivity and dominance; Corporations endorse competition among their workers; Therefore, men have a competitive advantage over women.
For example, most would agree that Mozart was a talented pianist: I would argue that a highly intelligent person could easily learn to become a proficient pianist; then use their intellectual abilities creatively to construct musical artworks such as Mozart, if they had the will, of course. My only problem with my argument is the 'creativity'. However, I believe intelligence and creativity are linked, but not positively correlated- i.e. I don't believe the more creative one is, the more intelligent one is; but, I do believe the more intelligent one is the more creative one is.Think Newton, Einstein, Galileo, Descartes: The discoveries and equations made by these individuals all required highly divergent/creative thinking. Based on the aforementioned revolutionaries, I would argue that being highly intelligent comes with being highly creative, and therefore, a highly intelligent individual can adopt the sort of talent mentioned in the example.
When people say that the 'rightness' of something can be objective, how can they substantiate that objectivity? Most assertions fail: "It's right because we think that it is" "It's right because it has existed in our ancestral past" etc.How, then, can anyone provide an unassailable valid, sound argument for the objectivity of moral 'rightness'?