If they raped and murdered your daughter, you'd consider it an easy call.
The arguer claimed that offenders who are repeatedly jailed should be put to death; he offered no specificity as to which crimes, such as rape and murder, justify the death penalty.
By presenting an argument from the opposite you do not, in fact, confute the interpretation from this position.
Well, this is going nowhere. This is a matter of interpretation, and you have subjected the answer to require a subjective analysis of English grammar.
The distinction between considering the target for extermination sub human vs non human is minor. Both the Jews and fetuses are considered less than fully human and thus acceptible to extinguish.
Again, the Jews were considered fully human, just an inferior race (the University of Tennesee (UKT) being inferior to Princeton University, for example, does not make UKT less of a University, just simply an inferior one). Thus, the comparison is still invalid. No matter, just use another one....
The act of killing someone that is a repeat offender and has been to prison many times is moral and should be allowed.
So, if I get arrested, repeatedly, for petty theft, I should be killed?
Those that pose a risk to society if they escape prison should be put to death.
The risk being potentially missing potato chips at a 7-Eleven...
I'm sure you noticed that I qualified this statement as being from the perpctive of the pro life position.
I understand. I am merely confuting your interpretation of their perspective.
Similarly, the Nazis didn't view Jews as people and outside interference would have been considered an infringement on a sovereign nation.
To analogize the political viewing of persons as subhuman--an inferior human being--and the biological view of a fetus as an entity wholly distinct from a Human is, still, a faulty analogy. The obvious fault being that the Nazis viewed the Jews (among others) as being people/Human, just an inferior race within the species, while most of the pro-choice advocates view the fetus as being a bundle of cells with the potential to be Human.
-
From both the Nazi and Pro-choice perspective, respectively:
Subhuman = Human (+) Inferiority
Fetus = Bundle of cells (+) Potentiality (-) Humanness
Pro choice may not mean we should kill people (pro abortion), but the killing of babies is acceptible [sic]. This is not a much better position.
That is a gross misrepresentation of their position: (1) They generally do not view the fetus as being a "person"; and, (2) given the foregoing perspective - that the fetus lacks personhood - those who maintain the pro-choice position would not likely consider the fetus a "baby", either (especially since the term "baby" refers to a born child).
Imagine saying that you don't agree with genocide, but the German people had a right to govern their country as they saw fit.
This is a faulty analogy due to the foresaid misrepresentation.
Well, challenging a child's belief benefits the child. The mere fact that a child sought out a medium - this site - to transcribe his or her opinions with the appreciation that such opinions may be challenged says lots about the child's intellectual curiosity.
To deter a child from a medium that may reshape their perspectives on life, in my opinion, stunts their intellectual development.
Black women collectively killing their offspring can constitute genocide.
The definition of genocide does not specify the manner in which the killing is done; the deliberate killing of a particular ethnic group (in massive numbers) is the only condition that need be present. Therefore, if his (massive) numbers are accurate, he can euphemistically term the label of their aggregate actions, though non-conspiratorial, as genocide.
The actual notion that agreeing with one means you agree with the other is untrue but the fact that allowing one makes a household much more prone to explode into the latter is where the truth lies.
Physical punishment as a mechanism to correct perceived misbehavior is present in both situations, which means that, if you agree with one, you would necessarily agree with other.
Domestic violence often takes the guise of punishment in the eyes of the abuser.
So does corporal punishment, which is why both are reprehensible.
If we outlaw any physical punishment to anyone else then the physicality itself is what makes it wrong and negates any possibility of domestic violence being seen as morally correct.
The physical aspect is what is (subjectively) wrong and objectively harmful with no long-term benefits. Physical punishment is merely painful classical conditioning.
And still I maintain that the protein in those legumes and nuts and whatnot is simply not as efficient at building lean muscle mass as good old lean meat protein.
What makes protein from the numerous herbivorous sources any less effective than meat-based protein?
And cholesterol is NOT the enemy. Do you know what it even is? We NEED cholesterol, It is a sterol created in out bodies. Of ocurse the Low density variety needs to be kept in moderate quantities.
I am not talking about healthy levels of cholesterol, obviously.
Same deal with fat. Including saturated fat. It is NOT the enemy to today's obesity problem. Not even close, amigo. Red meat and dairy and fats were given an unduly harsh rap back in the early 2000s. Nutritionists claimed them to be the enemy.
I never claimed that saturated fat is the enemy to obesity problems; I merely suggested that high levels of it is not healthy.
Did you know saturated fat is brain food? Yep. Look it up, or I can provide some sources. Key word: "Myelin sheaths." LOL
Again, I never stated that saturated fats are unhealthy at moderate quantities.
---
Aside from the obvious strawmans; if you are going to argue effectively, I would suggest that you use sources from reputable websites (instead of citing partial websites like beefmagazine.com).
The answer choices render the question a bifurcation fallacy: The effects of hip-hop--an entire music genre--surely can be both positive and negative (or neither, depending on the context). For instance, there are children shows with hip-hop elements dedicated to education (e.g. Hip-Hop Harry).
There is a problem with getting sufficient protein and fat in the veggie diet. And whey protein supplements are simply not as good as old fashioned lean meat protein.
Of course you aren't referencing the 'veggie diets' incorporating peas, nuts, beans, etc.--all of which are high sources of protein (excluding the high amounts of cholesterol and saturated fats that meat contains).
Oh, and here is a disclaimer that the source you listed offers:
The information is merely our personal opinion and should not be taken as fact.
WE DO NOT CLAIM TO BE DOCTORS, NUTRITIONISTS OR DIETITIANS. THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT REPLACE PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ADVISE.
The transition from prepubescence to pubescence is sort of predicated on sexual maturity; moreover, puberty is defined as: The period during which adolescents reach sexual maturity and become capable of reproduction.
I do not know if you are trying to distinguish between the social definition of maturity or the biological. If the former, I wholly agree that someone who just reached puberty does not render them socially mature enough to make coherent, sexual decisions.
Still the question remains why is the tiger or the ecosystem more valuable than human life.
The debate is about quantitative value, not inherent value.
You say tiger because the ecosystem is more worth saving than human life.
I say tigers--esp. three--because they are objectively--in terms of quantity--more valuable than humans.
The ecosystem is always in flux. An ecosystem imbalance is its natural state .... Any perceived balance is simply an inability to see all variables.
This may be technically true, but a further imbalance as a result of an entity intendedly compounding the imbalance would not maintain the notion that the new natural imbalance--as caused by the said entity--as being 'natural'.
If we mess up the environment, life adapts and goes on. If we mess it up enough, life adapts and goes on without us. We don't mess up things for the earth, but rather for ourselves.
Earth fineness is dependent upon those who experience it; and for a species to wittingly ebb earth's resources necessary for so many lifeforms including itself is unarguably irrational.
Animals go extinct all the time. They always have and always will. Tigers can go extinct and things will ultimately be ok.
But why allow an animal to go extinct when there is absolutely no reason to do so? That one baby's value, in terms on quantity, is mathematically lesser than the three tiger cubs. It seems a little wicked to intentionally facilitate the reduction of a critically endangered species, when one can do elsewise.
What if the choice was between a baby and 3 baby critically endangered stag beetles? Will this change the logic of your argument?
No, actually; I am not a speciesist, and therefore value the presence of all animals equally (with the rational exceptions of offspring, sibling, and/or other close relatives).
If I were a tiger, my worldview would be tigerpocentric.
You seem to imply that any certain species will have an overly interspecific-centric worldview, which my advocacy for saving the three cubs evidences the contrary.
Sorry, but you aren't talking about complex philosophy, you are talking about incorrect philosophy.
There is no such thing as an "incorrect philosophy", rather someone can be incorrect when citing a specific philosophy.
Influence and strongly compel are vastly different.
First, the term I used was 'impel', which was used in the definition of autonomy (which I am positive you did not bother to read). Second, your influenced belief can impel you to do the action which is derived from that belief.
Very clever. Use a fake word, then correct me for using it as well. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Capitulation is a real word, the way in which you used it was improper: you used capitulate as if it were a noun, which it is not, instead of a verb, which it is. I expressly stated this in the sentence in reference, and I am nonplussed as to how you could not comprehend it.
--
I see no point in further disputation as you obviously do not have the intellectual capacity to understand relatively complex positions, or you are not even putting forth any intellectual effort to engage in fruitful philosophical discourse.
