- 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
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.
The actual scientific claim is that we are more closely related to pigs than monkeys...
The claim that you misrepresented is that we share a common ancestor. Our relatedness to pigs is a different matter which does not support your initial claim of scientists claiming chimp ancestry.
[A]nimals are incapable of communicating complex ideas to one another [...].
That is a human function necessary for intraspecific progression and sustenance as it pertains to survival and reproduction. Separate mechanics does not sufficiently illume a vivid distinction between humans and nonhumans since the overarching goals are the same.
[A]n animal is considered particularly intelligent if it's capable of figuring out how to open a jar.
The sorts of animals that can open a jar are considered 'intelligent' as defined by humans in the same fashion 'Jaywalking' and 'Murder' are considered crimes as defined by the human convention of law. It is fallacious to construct a criterion (intelligence) specific to a certain group (Humans), extend it to an entirely different group (Nonhumans), and then claim that the group for whom the criterion was constructed fits that criterion better than the group used for distinction.
Animals reason as a provable fact?
What is a chimpanzee doing when stacking boxes to climb to reach a fruit?
Atheists claim chimps are our forefathers and closest intermediary relative.
No, those like you claim that scientist make that claim when in fact their position is that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
They literally throw poop around like it's a toy.
And humans clap as if it's sensible...
"It's the only race that never focuses on its own self interests."
Is mass colonialism a variant of altruism?
"It's the only race that tries to lift every other race [...]"
Was 'racial uplift' apart of Portugal's goals when settling in Brazil and attempting to enslave the Native American race, only to realize that importing different race (African blacks) would better serve their altruistic endeavor?
"[The white race] helps its own people and lifts them up in no way, all while losing ground to everyone else."
Right, as European efforts to colonize undeveloped, economically fruitful and militarily advantageous lands were vastly unsuccessful.
"Native American fund? Yep. United Negro fund? Yep. White man fund? Nope. Native casinos? Yep. White man casinos? Only in a few spots like Vegas."
I suppose governmental subventions to those economically powerless is a very intolerable act, especially since your claim is that they are not self-interested... The governmental provision of a Native American fund is analogous to an intruder seizing your home, but allowing you to sleep in your, I mean their garage.
"For whites in minority zones where whites are almost nonexistant, the NBA, the NFL, or the MLB? Nope."
Wall Street is just rife with Native Americans.
"Native free healthcare? Yep. White free healthcare? Nope."
I guess this ridiculously unreasonable given that the natives were almost wholly exterminated due to European diseases and shared the profits that the English wrested from their land.
"What other race actually throws ITSELF under the bus?"
I can tell you a race throws another to the back of the bus...