Sure but most college team owners are billionaires. So is it that reasonable to suggest that the athletics dpt. is the schools most essential commodity?
Explain exactly how a newborn can choose to not die consciously? What is the fundamental difference between instinctual choice and conscious choice in the context that you offer?
There are, of course, many instances of animals that take actions which kills themselves - usually to preserve their kin (their own genes, or their colony, etc.), but also sometimes out of sadness.
Please site these instances that are depicted in such a way in which you have described.
To try to say they have to have the same level of knowing is to try to create an impossible comparison (your own rhetorical strategy).
It's perfectly reasonable to presume that the animals are not too much informed about the laws of physics, at least enough to know the tactic one should take in order to kill itself (sort of like certain birds flinging themselves off of cliffs). Jumping off of a cliff to kill yourself requires that you know fundamental physics, and in an animals head (reasonably presuming) when faced with such obstacles they instinctually think "danger danger!"
So in the event that they just jump intentionally it would be more plausible to postulate something other than [the animal] thinking "I am tired of this life, It's best I just end it".
Now, can you say how any of this relates to what rights animals and humans do or should have??
It was you who falsely asserted that animals destroy themselves knowingly, as in, they have the ability to understand the outcome of a suicidal action- and I would love to see an exemplar cited elaborately.
But college teams makes schools billions of dollars without anything in return (except hopes of being recruited).
Take the NCAA, for example, as an industry they make more money than the NBA. They exploit their players for millions in profit and not even so much as give them a parallel equivalent to .01% in return.
If you want to meet people I would suggest social clubs or events that invokes socialization. Perhaps interpersonal discourse will suit you best.
Which is not a plausible assertion. You cannot tell from a look that it is a real Bigfoot.
I said a creature such as bigfoot... I also said 'assuming' are you ignoring my words intentionally?
Understandable does not mean it is your "best bet"
In certain case, one of which I illustrated on, [forgery] may be your best bet.
This is driven by ego, not the search for the truth and reality. If the forgery is discovered (very likely) you would create the opposite of your intent.
The first part of you statement is irrelevant, the second part ignored my scenario's reasoning. If I say "hey I saw bigfoot in X forest, here's his hair and a blurry pic!" And all of what I said was entirely made up; then someone actually goes out there and finds [bigfoot] in X forest, you will be known as the person who discovered bigfoot. There could be no opposite effect.
My key point was knowingly. You are the only one in conflict with scientist when you say that humans understanding evolution any why it would be disadvantageous t destroy their young, is equivalent to an animals understanding.
Also when you say 'suicide' pretending as if an animal is thinking 'I hate my life' like a human would think. The rhetorical strategies doesn't help your argument. Please be honest when you cannot hold a position instead of backing it up with rhetoric.
You are again invoking someone else as a validator for a point. Develop some intellectuality and back up your assertions with reasoning of your own.
Furthermore, he was just as wrong as you, though he understood my point quite well. He is just pretending there is not a distinction between knowingly destroying yourself, and doing so unknowingly. The animals that commit suicide aren't thinking "gee I hate my life," like humans.
As I requested before, refrain from interposing on my arguments given that half of the time you do not make any sense- which is likely due to you understanding or a lack thereof. And you wait for someone to dispute me, then you add on so you can have a sense of security (or up-votes). Funny thing is, most times your security fails and consequently so do you (as in this case, and more recent cases).
No, you obviously offered a tacit conecession- which I believe is honorable, and I respect you for that.
I understand and I agree with you. My contention was the lack of charity his position received. This isn't my view, I just reillustrated his view to exemplify how his position isn't entirely erroneous.
I bet. But I do give thanks for admitting to your defeat, that is honorable.
Let this be a lesson to never interpose on my arguments with such silly matters that you cannot even back up.
Why is it that you never understand my position and yet, you feel compelled to comment?
What you just said doesn't even correlate with my statement. Please stop interjecting my disputations with absurd fallacies.
I see you don't respond when you are not receiving up-votes huh? You figure that since no one is up-voting, then no one must be following, and since no one is following then therefore you fell disinclined to respond (since no one will see it).
But that's not exactly being charitable to his implication. In his scenario the fetus is dependent upon the woman's body (thus giving her the right to rid of it), whereas in the afterbirth scenario the baby is dependent upon whomever.
And if you mean 'distinct' as in they are both 'persons' then this would just be a (contentious) presupposition.
Personally, I strive for individuality if you exclude wildlife as being 'others'.
Consequently, in order to strive and achieve 'great' things you must do things that helps others (even investing, in a sense, is helping others).
If I am wrong, name one renowned individual who created/did something that only helped him/herself.
It doesn't but it is implied as the point is that the fallacy is due to a shared belief. Not coincdences between societies that have never interacted.
"At a time in history when most people believed the world was flat, one could have claimed the world is flat because most believed it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentumadpopulum
This illustration does not imply non-coincidence. Basically this wasn't just a societal belief.
Nevertheless it is still fallacious to invoke global coincidences as a validation for objective matters. Different nonrelated (coincidental) societies conjured up some sort of religion, does that mean it somehow points to objectivity?
What at that got to do with number? Scroll down or ctrl f on "concept of number". You will find where you said it was subjective. I can't be arsed.
I love how you skipped pass where I said "its like a number, or the letter "s".
No. I checked it before. You post a reply. Within two minutes "color" comes online. Goes to this debate. Is the only one viewing this debate. You receive an upvote. Color goes offline without viewing any other debates. Everything you type is so incredibly dishonest. Why don't you just be sincere. Clearly you do care about upvote.
And this is somehow your proof that it must be me? Them viewing a debate... Okay.
As an aside: There is no need to log off so I can get on another account. I can just log while still on both accounts as I sometimes do with Harvard and this account.
If the entire world for centuries so the letters Jesús is alive in the sky... And believed it says Jesús is alive... But yet there was no other evidence other than these billions of people's personal accounts on what they believe.. I guess you would say that anything concluded from this belief is a fallacy.
And where's this evidence for objective morality? Do you know?
LOL this is the word for you. Thank you so much for bringing to mind. I have seen you type about zoology. Even on your own subject you have no clue whatsoever. "humans are the only self destructive species" LOL
Another illustration as to how you never understand my points. Please elaborate on what I meant by this since you understand it enough to conclude that it is absurd.
You created the account "color" just to upvote yourself. I thought you said upvoting and downvoting didn't interest you hahaha haha. Pathetic little ego maniac.
Wow, Atrag... I would really love to know how you came to this conclusion.
Yes but why is that a fallacy?? Have you stopped to ask why?
What you said was a fallacy... period. Who cares why? You claimed because most people see X as being equal to Y then therefore X is equal to Y.
I have included the whole world both past and present in my statement. It is not a small sample and it is 99.99% of human beings. It doesn't fit the fallacy.
You spoke of the individuals who see unjustified murder as being wrong in the present tense. You must not try and nitpick the description just so you ease your way out of the fallacy.
Furthermore, you stated that it wasn't a fallacy because this fallacy only applies to one society, please highlight where, in that statement, it says the reason for why what you said isn't a fallacy is "because appeal to popularity applies to one society".
They have a justification for it.
According to whom? You? You are not an authority, Atrag. To say all children who commit unjustified killing have justification for so is yet another fallacy.
No shit. That is the subjective element.
...
God you still didn't understand what I said. Wtf can I do? I am saying that only people who are of an unsound mind can find unjustified killing to be moral. This is due to lack of perception the inhibits the appreciation of the objectively wrong nature of the act.
Yeahh I think were done here, you still don't understand. If there are no objective morals (assuming) then there is no aspect to appreciate. And you openly stated that only sound minded people see unjustified murder as being objectively wrong. If you cant see why this is entirely fallacious then, please, just don't respond.
You dishonest prick. Do I really have to go back and quote you? You are saying my point of contentious was that I thought the concept of number was physical and that was the point I was arguing? You live in lala land.
Here I'll do it for you: "Us moral subjectivist oppose objective morality because there's no plausible evidence to suggest that morality can be anything but subjective (unless you're religious of course). It's like trying to find a physical number one, or letter S." - HarvardGrad
Now tell me, where did I say "S" was subjective, Atrag? And even still, the concept of S is subjective depending on the context. Notwithstanding, I used that as an analogy to illustrate why objectivity in regards to moral issues cannot be justly evaluated because it has not 'real' properties, it is entirely dependent upon perception (same as the letter "S").
Woops...
Dunno. My comments tend to get up votes without me having to use other accounts. Yeah yeah yeah upvotes don't matter. You just create multiple accounts, despite the owner of the site telling you not to, and upvote just because you have spare time between wanking off over a mirror.
Again, I don't up-vote myself- and I can rightfully say that your ego induces you to frantically check online users when you see that I have received up-votes. If up-votes don't matter then why keep mentioning it? The only ones up-voting you are Cartman or someone of that sort. They are just like you, pseudointellectuals. This is why I said don't let them fool you.
And yet another implied fallacy. There are thousands following a guy claiming to be Jesus, this doesn't mean "oh, there must be something spiritual about this guy then".
---
You keep repeating this. As you get more and more desperate you do so more frequently. With this post you mentioned this grammar thing three times. Waw. I can't even remember what you were talking about.
No? You don't remember randomly jumping in a debate and pointing out how I used "inquisition/inquiry" wrong? Then I explained I had a problem with (spelling) words and syntactic structuring, basically my grammar- to which you responded with "HAHAHAH SYNTAX AND VOCABULARY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAMAR HAHAHA". Then I posted the definition of grammar and you shut up.
Ill take you irresponsiveness as a tacit concession.
Atrag, I clearly stated that he said this (me not understanding his position); though he was wrong about me arguing that morality isn't a code of conduct, I argued his illustration as to how it is a code of conduct (in an objective sense) was erroneous. He put it in such a way that would entail objectivity, but of course if this were true there would be nothing to dispute now would it?
You have given be a dictionary definition assuming I don't understand. I do understand. I have told you why the fallacy doesn't apply to my example. You are unable or unwilling to argue this point. Fine. But don't think that quoting the dictionary is sufficient.
Your reason as to why your position is not a fallacy: "If a child is raised in any environment in the world it will recognise unjustified murder as immoral. The popular opinion fallacy refers to assertions made about the opinion of one society."
#1: This is completely wrong; argumentum ad populum does not state this applies to one society. It is very simple: "If many believe so, it is so".
#2: Not all children will recognize unjustified murder as 'immoral'- some children will commit unjustified murders themselves.
#3: The justification alone is subjective, children being raised by ISIS, for example, will believe they are justified in killing off innocent people- I am sure you may think acts such as this aren't, to your liking, justified, but it is to them.
#4: Thank you finally for illustrating how you cannot comprehend intellectual positions (and even definitions). This shows your incompetence in regards to morality and even justification. This will be the last argument about the subject matter that I will engage in.
Erm no. He resorted to questioning whether you actually understood what subjective and objective is too. The example with you saying number is subjective kind of proves both our suspicions right.
No, he questioned whether or not I understood his position, he very well knows that I know the distinction of the two, his problem was that I only pointed out the subjective elements and would attain to the objective ones, mainly because I couldn't quite understand his position as the more he substantiated it, the more subjective it seemed.
I never stated a number was subjective, I stated it wasn't physical- and even Daver knew what I meant and tried to explain to you but apparently your ego won't allow you to be wrong.
You haven't understand at all. I said every single human being of sound mind in every single society that ever existed.
You sure? Please point this out. Let's assume you did, what's the criteria for a sound mind? And this is your presupposition, I can easily say that only unsound people think morality is objective- this is akin to saying "all religious people are idiots". And this is still FALSE. You're saying that only unsound minded people are the only ones who think morality is subjective... Please tell me more. As you are finally letting out your incomprehension of the subject matter.
As a result you look like an idiot most of the time.
And just what are you doing right now, Atrag?
You keep repeating this. As you get more and more desperate you do so more frequently. With this post you mentioned this grammar thing three times. Waw. I can't even remember what you were talking about.
No? You don't remember randomly jumping in a debate and pointing out how I used "inquisition/inquiry" wrong? Then I explained I had a problem with (spelling) words and syntactic structuring, basically my grammar- to which you responded with "HAHAHAH SYNTAX AND VOCABULARY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAMAR HAHAHA". Then I posted the definition of grammar and you shut up.
You are unable to explain why it is a fallacy. It is a fallacy because it is a fallacy because I know these things and you are stupid. As usual this is your argument.
Why must you blatantly ignore my arguments just to make your position seem more plausible? I clearly stated in that debate that you fallacy was appeal to popularit; here's an elaboration:
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentumadpopulum
Rather than summarising your points you just wrote this. This is because I am right and all your arguments are based on your usual thing of saying that the opposition is stupid and of course it is subjective because [quote definition of subjective in dictionary and say it a few different ways].
This isn't about morality, this is about you falsely accusing me of not giving an argument that illustrates how it is subjective. Even Ameral will admit to this, though he still wouldn't agree with my points.
You go from acting like ProlifeLib to FromWithin now. Great job on telling me what I think. I have been debating this for years though. Without morality being objective then the concept of law becomes very trivial. It was always important to me that it was objective. You may have also noticed, if you didn't have your head up your arse that is, that my arguments are very different to Ameral's.
I don't even need to name users on this site as you are uniquely your own foolish character. You only dispute personal information that can never be proven false (my money, my school, the initial dispute in this debate currently). You also just attack my condition by invoking more fallacies "because of my dyslexia I cant argue topics involving semantics" "because of my dyslexia you're right about a word and I am wrong" when clearly you don't even know simple English. You have openly illustrated you lack of knowledge of simple grammar- you wont refuse this because you know that it is true you claimed syntax and vocabulary have nothing to do with grammar, then you conceded (tacit as it was) once I defined grammar.
You may have also noticed, if you didn't have your head up your arse that is, that my arguments are very different to Ameral's.
It was until you started using his argument that morality has an objective element to it. Believe me I understand how "morality is objective because most thin that it is" vs. "morality has objective aspects to it that most seem to ignore".
I said you fail you recognise your own flaws and you come back by saying this. Pretty much proved my point there yanky doodle.
So what's my flaws that go unrecognized, Atrag?
You keep repeating this type of thing. I am not insecure about my intelligence at all. I am not a genius but my intelligence is enough for me to do what I want to do in life. If I am intelligent enough to study at university but yet not intelligent enough to understand your points.. You think it is because your points are just too complex for me? Seriously?
Very much so, look at the history of debates that you have been in. None of them required any intellectual effort at all. Furthermore, as I previously stated, you don't even understands other's (such as Ameral) points as well. Most times you engage in intellectual discourse you eventually opt out once it becomes to complicated. You then resort to personal measures- you cannot deny this, really.
---
As a side: I never say that someone is stupid during debates other than you and SitaraMusic- this is because when I say something as simple as my syntax was a little off because I have grammar issues, and you respond with, "HAHAHAHAH SYNTAX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAMMAR HAHAHAH," it's kind of hard for me not think of you otherwise.
Umm... before I address your questionable disputation: If I recall, your argument for objective morality was that it is objectively wrong because everyone believes that it is... When I, regretfully, entertained this statement and responded with "I don't believe that it is wrong", you then responded with a statement implying that I am just irrational- how is this reasonable substantiation in a position for objective morality? "Because everyone believes so"?
This is why I blame your intellect. For even if you have no background in philosophy you should obviously know this is a complete ands utter fallacy.
---
My stance on morality is not "because it is just subjective". I even gave a plausible position to which you responded to. So now you just openly misrepresent my position by claiming that my position on morality is that it is subjective because it "just is"? Another fallacy.
---
Thirdly, you position for objective morality was not that you believe it has an objective element. All you just did was reiterate Ameral's position to make yourself seem more knowledgeable about the subject. Ameral didn't even agree with your position which is why you quickly changed it. And you keep bringing [Ameral's] name up because he is in disagreement with me and is your only intellectual guidance on the matter.
---
Your ego prevents you from recognising your own flaws.
Um, I'm sure that "not debating" wouldn't fit the criteria of a "flaw". Perhaps not debating well would, but that would be the criterion in which would fit you best.
---
I'm just another stupid person that you are better than.
I wouldn't say better, more like intellectually superior. But I guess its easy being so when my adversary's intellectuality is nonexistent.
My point was very simple and reasonable; I was assuming, by the way, that you knew for a fact that you have just saw a creature such as a bigfoot. So if you were to see a bigfoot and couldnt have captured physical evidence, it is very understandable that you may conjure up some of your own untill you find actual evidence- and, again, assuming that you knew the creature you saw was not fake, then it is quite plausible that you will eventually find the real evidence.
Now you might ask: "Why not wait untill you get physical evidence before you infrom the public." Well, one may be paranoid about someone else running into the creature, but if you found it and replicate what would otherwise be physical evidence, then in the event someone actually does find the creature you are still known for the person who found it first. This is a very reasonable scenario.
I agree, though I wouldn't say "far from" 100%; I believe the success rate of implantation is around 80%.
You: Oh and by the way is your obsession with me teaching English. It is something I do in my spare time. My formation is in law and I am a medical student. How about you mention one of those once in a while
Me: Well... I honestly don't care about what you claim your other disciplines are, the fact that you teach English yet:
1 - you didn't (or perhaps still don't) know the definition of Grammar given that you have said that syntax and vocabulary is entirely separate from it;
2- you have openly stated murder is objectively wrong while asserting it as fact given the definition then kind of turned away once you began to realize that it more of a philosophical argument rather than a semantic one- you did this once you realized Amarel wouldn't agree that murder is objectively wrong.
3- you have recently stated objective beauty exists, but in the context it was used in then it would entail subjectivity. No one thing can be objectively beautiful.
Beautiful- pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically.
Objective:
1: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
2: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Now, please do let me know if 1, 2, or 3 is illusory as I will be happy to site these debates.
You: No response....
It's just funny how you ignore my points when they accurately express your false and/or contradictory statements, or unless they are just too complicated for your understanding.
But here you are, once again, trying to dispute parts of a statement that are essential to the debate topic. Funny you talk about my impulsiveness regarding my ego yet... anytime you see me post an argument you respond with intentional nonsense? Your line of reasoning suggests that your ego cannot overlook my ego...
Regardless of your, ironically, self-reflexive statement I just wanted to note that, regardless of what anyone thinks, you know you cannot intellectually persist in an argument with me which is why you resort to "personal" matters in order to deter the argument (e.g. you responding to a personal aspect of my statement with a ":/"). You do this because you can point out all day how "unbelievable" my statement, but that's about it... Not once on this site have you invalidated one of my positions- incidentally you have never even understood my positions.
Basically, so long as you know why you can't respond to my arguments regarding your erroneous positions, then that is all that matters; don't let these users obscure reality. You are just the Fool here to make others laugh--3rd grade English teacher in España.
Just because the common notion of Bigfoot turned out to be a hoax does not mean that it does not exist. I'm sure people faked things that actually existed- if you saw a new creature and couldn't snap a picture or what have you, and you tried to explain to others what you saw and of course they didn't believe you, and you couldn't find it again, your best bet may be to fake it until you could find the real creature.
Hah, yet you cannot respond to my statements regarding your contradictory claims and blatant false statements.....
But you sure can attempt to recieve up-votes by pointing out something that is entirely impossible to you, which therefore makes it impossible for others as well? Lol you're a joke kid; Please stop responding to my arguments since you're clearly soneone who is academically incompetent and wishes to only make others laugh or point out something as being false- even when you know you cannot prove it to be. I'm sure this site has a place for you somewhere but not where intellect is a requisite for substantive debating.
"Anal-lovers are sinners" although I burst out laughing as this is the first time I heard this, I must say that I have engaged in anal sex (as the penetrator) with a few of my female 'beneficial' friends. I suppose God will smite me for fornicating (maybe, remember it was anal penetration not vaginal), but will he smite me for, as I pondered, 'anal' penetration?
But.... Then again I must not even lust. So I guess in order for me to function properly to engage in anal sex (I.e. Maintain a boner) I suppose my natural bioneurological reactions giving rise to [a boner] would entail lust.... But does it? Let's assume I have a sexual dysfunction opposite to that of erectile dysfunction (though arbitrary erections could be considered a dysfunction) and I simply just engage in penetration for reasons unknown (though not lustful), would that then, be sinful? (Note: No lust, or biblical definition of 'sex'.)
Well.... the thing is... tab olingul foraknl LIDAPOLE Fulter KAAAAMEEHHHHHH........... HAAAAAAAAAAMEEEEHHHHHHH............. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
You didn't receive a counter argument, you received information. What you perceived is your problem.
With me asking for an elaboration an receiving what you confirmed was an implicit counterargument, validates my perception- as you said "you posed on the yes side therefore stating that this is what you were arguing for".
It is possible to receive information that doesn't have to come from you arguing for the negative or the positive.
This reception renders as irrelative to my position, for if the form of reception is a 'counterargument' and the position in question was that of inquiry, then how would a counterargument be the proper response?
I stated 2 facts. The real question should be why are you on a debate website and upset that people are here to debate you.
This is a gross ascription as to my user motive. I simply requested for an elaboration on a very ambiguous term, received an uncalled-for counterargument and noted that I was offering an argument.
I didn't say your argument here was false.
This is not an argument...... it is a QUESTION.
I said that you claiming you have seen erroneous arguments is false.
But this wasn't essential to my position. Why must you cause a deterrence? My addition to my question was reasonable because there has been semantic dissonance within arguments that do not have elaborations on terms.
The only thing about my argument that indicated that I thought you made an argument was my statement that I agreed with you. After that I stated 2 things that are true if you are on either side. If you don't believe a negative can be proven than you agree with my first statement that the subject is unprovable because a negative subject is always unprovable. If you think negatives are provable, then cases where they aren't are because the negative is wrong. So, there isn't anything wrong with my statement regardless of your particular position.
I never stated your position was false, I simply stated that your position was in the form of a counterargument, which would be improper to impose in a position that is simply requesting an elaboration. I have not argued for negatives because I wish to avoid the discrepancies we have face in our most recent debates.
Your debating history is enough.
What?
Other debates are being brought up here.
I only noted other debates to give a explanation for my questioning- and for good reason; about 2 or 3 of previous debates that I was involved in ended in a semantic debacle.
Not disprove, I am not sure why you used the word disprove.
I also included "or otherwise".
You tried proving that nature cannot create something unnatural, a negative.
No I tried to illustrate why it is illogical, given the definition I provided, to say that something unnatural can exists within the laws of nature.
If you were to make a hole inside of earths atmosphere by your implicit criteria it wouldn't actually be a hole. For instance, if you made a hole in a sheet of paper that hole will still be filled with air particles and molecules, basically it's not an empty void.
Not to the extent like that of humans
No animal, on record, knowing destroys themselves- by that I mean like a vulture intentionally infecting its prey, like humans intentionally destroy the entities that give life (trees etc.).
What I meant by genocide is the mass deforestation/pollution/etc. that will lead to inhospitable or a disatified environment for not only themselves (hence why I said suicide) but for their family kids (future grandkids and family) and others. They can prevent this (to the extent of human caused phenomena) but knowingly and intentionally choose not to...? That is not intelligent- and this fits the criterion of a multitude of psychological disorders.
You didn't ask me for the elaboration. You asked someone else.
The point is I asked for an elaboration to which I received a counterargument. You really can't see the problem with this?
You also made a false statement about erroneous arguments that you have been dealing with.
If this were true this wouldn't imply that I am giving an argument for negative...
Fine, I don't agree with you. I personally believe that a negative can be proven regardless of what you said. This is what you are arguing. I used the word "agree". So what? Move on.
honestly... Are you a mere troll...? If I haven't given an argument yet how then is one supposed to disagree in the form of a counterargument? It's like me asking "what's 5+5" to which you respond with "that's false".
Furthermore this wasn't even a proper response, I was merely explaining why you saying "because I posted on the left side" was an improper explanation for why you believed I was giving an argument. There's no in between side when you simply have a question- so I'm forced to post on either the "Yes" side or "No" side.
Uh, you did though. You tried and failed.
Yea... Because inquiring something is proving it... I'm proving 5+5=10 by simply asking "What's 5+5?"
This was in your own debate. I can see you not understanding your own debate, though.
Please site the debate where I attempted to disprove or otherwise a negative.
More evolved? Humans believe in things that don't exists, knowingly destroy themselves and are self-administering the criterion for intelligence- problem with this is my point, they don't fit their own criterion.
You eat meat right? I also believe you are religious, tell me how are creatures that practically commit suicide and extreme genocide without wanting to, but still knowingly, intelligent?
I am arguing that you statement is incorrect. Was it really that hard to follow?
This was such a vacuous statement that I wasn't even going to respond. But again, I must be more charitable to those of society with mediocre academic prowess.
You didn't ask me to elaborate, what is your point?
I explicitly requested in my statement for an elaboration on the word negative, to which you respond with an argument- please tell me how this is sensible.
You are on the yes side and you have tried to prove a negative before.
Cartman...... There is no neutral or 'i don't understand' side so in the event one actually needs clarification where then would they post to request it? Furthermore if you weren't so academically disinclined then you would realize that I wouldn't be trying to prove a negative if I don't even KNOW which negative the debate creator is using- that would be like me saying how tall is that 6'8 guy?
Just to play devils advocate why would the system of language be nonexistent without a particular letter? Are you speaking of the nonexistence of language without the vowel 'A', or are you suggesting English just wouldn't work without this specific vowel sound?
Of course you can. If I say "I am not a woman" and then show you my penis this is proving a negative.
No this is just validating. If you assert that you are not a woman, and no one contends with so, then you are proving yourself as being a man. If someone were to say that your assertion is false then you can in a sense, in terms of grammar, verbally (as in using the word in the context of a verb) inject negativity (though it would be clumsy grammar; it would analogous to saying "I will show you why my statement is 'not false', as apposed to just simply saying 'true').
...? I asked for an elaboration not your position; I have not even proffered an argument yet?
(EDIT: I see that perhaps my syntax was a little to complicated for you, to which resulted in your misappreciation. My statement was a simple request for an elucidation on the type of 'negative' that the creator was talking about.)
1: They have iron pills and injections for this.
2: the nutrition you get from meat comes from the plant that animal eats (which is why we typically don't eat carnivorous animals, except sea creatures).
3: peanut products are not essential to ones dies, so if you eat nothing but plain fruits and veggies and no peanuts you will be fine. Simple.
4: the person eating big macks will not be fine. They may burn the fat off more effectively than others but their internal organs will not be so healthy. It's like saying "some people can eat uranium and drink gas and bleach and still be fine," or perhaps a less gross exemplification: it's like saying some people have no negative side effects from smoking. Just because some can smoke till they're 100 doesn't mean the body had 0 side effects from the smoke they inhaled. Some things are just not possible and objectively unhealthy.
So, I wouldn't be so quick to assert "extreme" subjectivity for health.
Why do you necessarily need extra aside from fruits and vegetables?
Also, you openly stated that killing/murder is an improper ascribtion to abortion. Essentially you are implicitly presupposing that the fetus is not a person yet you say "no shit" but you don't even understand yourself as your argument is self-defeating given your presupposition. It's equivalent to saying "no shit I'm wrong" and for obvious reasons such a statement would be unintelligible, which in your case wouldn't surprise me.
You initiated the semantic aspect of this subcategory of a semantic debate (as the title implies) I only interjected to point out your fallacious/erroneous argument.
And perhaps if you believed semantics to be so boring you would not: 1) Engage in semantic discourse (e.g. "What does a word (pro-choice) mean?"; or 2) within that semantic debate bring up even more semantics (I.e. killing/murder).
I'm always winning and you make it so easy. Expressing your inability to respond to a complicated argument in which you see inevitable defeat. But I usually run into that a lot.
P.S. Do not for one second think that I don't notice how you didn't respond to my arguments where I illustrated precisely your erroneous assertions. I guess that's your style huh? Book it when you see defeat and pretend as though it never happened. Or you just ignore my argument entirely and just attack with me with my "dyslexia" as if that will frustrate me and distract me from my argument. But, as a failure would, you fail at doing so. Perhaps you issue such attacks to deter others and make them find your statements rather amusing; though I hardly believe they do, you know you are incapable of attending to my argument which is all that matters.
As a self-proclaimed English teacher/law grad/medical student I would expect a bit more intelligence and maturity- and though you may practice these disciplines it does not entail either or (which would explain your case). You supplement my ego by expressing inferiority. Aside from that, quite frankly, you are pathetic.
Numbnuts... Okay:
Literatim: "Do not become distracted by examples used to make a point. He is clearly saying that morals don't exist in and of themselves. His example was clearly intended to explain the futility of looking for something that does not exist."
So... Uhh... numbnuts, huh?
It is a fair analogy if I am not talking about a woman in an environment that would facilitate such childcare. A predicament in which the only option in ridding of her infant would be to kill it.
No. The child can survive outside the womb at 25 weeks gestation. It is no longer completely dependent on its host.
He's not talking about the time in which the child can survive outside of its host. But let's say he is, you would be presupposing that the woman is in a position in which technology can successfully retrieve the baby and keep it alive at such a stage; let's say it is a primal African tribe in this situation.
No shit. So it calling a fetus a person.
Pointless statement as I have not called the fetus a person. It is you who implied that the fetus was not a person.
Secondly, if it's a "no shit" statement then you wouldn't have asserted such a contentious notion...?
It's hilarious how you are dyslexic and, by your own admission, often use the wrong word but yet the majority of your arguments are about semantics. Suppose it is good for your ego because at the end if you lose an argument you can just say you were using a different definition to the one you first intended.
It's a shame how you resort to ad hominems - albeit false ones - instead of attending to my argument.
Nope it doesn't have to be considered murder even we called them a person. It is not so simplistic.
Can you speak in a manner that an English teacher would to save further clarifications. Anyway, if you consider the fetus a person then it would entail murder in the act of intentionally killing one. To say otherwise suggests that a fetus cannot somehow be innocent.
More semantics. Does it make you hot? I don't give a shit what words you like me using and which you don't. Terminate is the most appropriate word.
Again, you have failed to realize my contention of your use in terms. It's not so much semantics per se, rather the act of sophistry. Also, "kill" is just as appropriate for the situation. You used "terminate" to make the act of killing an unborn child seem less negative, but you then used the term kill applying it to a person to exacerbate the matter (this is signs of a debater expressing his incompetence).
Hmm.... Funny how you have not pointed out such an "error". Moreover how can you assert that I have made an error when you cannot even ascertain half of what I am saying? Just because you essentially "don't get it" does not mean I have somehow erred in my argument.
Daver has just illustrated how he understood my example (albeit a strange one) but nevertheless understood. This shows that it is you who had erred in understanding, not that it is I who had erred in the act of explaining. This supplements my assertion of you having the inability to intellectually argue with me as you are clearly inferior (as you see Daver understood exactly what I meant with my illustration, but somehow you didn't? Oh yes of course the whole 'intellectually inferior' thing).
A fetus not being a person is your presupposition. You obviously are not well informed of philosophical matters. If the fetus is a person then abortion is essentially murder- the killing of an innocent person.
Research a little before you make baseless assertions. And to apply terms such as killing to a person but terminate to a fetus shows your partiality. Abortion is killing a fetus (and must be so as a fetus is a living entity).
(Note: I understand terminate can be used when describing abortion, I just pointed out your sophistic nomenclature to help validate your stance isn't being impartial.)
The relationship between the fetus and the woman is parasitic. As the woman is the host to this parasite she can kick it out of her body if she wants to, as it is her body.
The relationship of an infant to its mother falls along this same criterion; so, it's fair for a woman to throw her baby off the cliff since that baby is dependent on her?
Therefore the fetus is insentient.
So you're presupposing that only sentient entities have the right to life?
I should also add that your statement isn't logically consistent; the fetus is a fetus even after 25 weeks- a number from which you stated makes the fetus sentient. But you then say the fetus itself is insentient as it is a fetus.
Furtherly regular EEG (brainwaves) doesn't occur until 25 weeks of the pregnancy.
The creator didn't offer a timeframe of which an abortion should be executable. Notwithstanding, this addition is meaningless as you previously stated that the mother has every right to rid of the parasite leaching off of her; after 25 weeks that same parasite is doing the same thing just with more brain activity.
You must elaborate on this, as recently users have been drawing out erroneous arguments and justify such by claiming the non-specificity of the debate in question.
There are several philosophical views regarding objective morality. I am not sure what you mean by evidence since morals are a human construct and a philosophical topic. There is no empiricism involved.
Morality in the context the person I was disputing was using entails subjectivity. In order for his version of morality to be anything but subjective would require empirical evidence.
Abstract human constructs can be objective. Infinity is not empirically observable but has an objective definition in mathematics. You do not try to prove the existence of abstraction, that is pointless.
You cannot equate the concept of his version of morality to infinity.
Furthermore, right and wrong has objective definitions in the bible but what does it mean since the bible isn't real and contradicts its objectivity in respects to what's right and wrong? Essentially, the moral debate cannot be settled because of religion- if god is real (in the sense described by certain religions) then his assertions of right and wrong must be objective, but no one can disprove his existence therefore no one can factually say morality is subjective. I cannot disprove the existence of superman (an abstract human concept) therefore I cannot say that I am 100% correct in calling someone a liar who claims they eat dinner with him everyday. You see where I am going? Just because something is up for debate doesn't entail that its substance need be fruitful.
Because upvoting makes me laugh everytime.
This does not explain you obsessive need to comment every singe time. Most times you don't comment with a comical patina.
I think your definition of nature means nothing at all. Nature is everything. Great definition. Very useful.
I cannot really tell you where to go in order to find Webster's contacts but I shall see what one of my schools English professors suggests.
Oh and by the way is your obsession with me teaching English. It is something I do in my spare time. My formation is in law and I am a medical student. How about you mention one of those once in a while
Well... I honestly don't care about what you claim your other disciplines are, the fact that you teach English yet:
1 - you didn't (or perhaps still don't) know the definition of Grammar given that you have said that syntax and vocabulary is entirely separate from it;
2- you have openly stated murder is objectively wrong while asserting it as fact given the definition then kind of turned away once you began to realize that it more of a philosophical argument rather than a semantic one- you did this once you realized Amarel wouldn't agree that murder is objectively wrong.
3- you have recently stated objective beauty exists, but in the context it was used in then it would entail subjectivity. No one thing can be objectively beautiful.
Beautiful- pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically.
Objective:
1: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
2: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Now, please do let me know if 1, 2, or 3 is illusory as I will be happy to site these debates.
--
Oh and the dumbed down illustration you have requested:
Just because a phenomena is seen by only one species then that does not render it unnatural. To say: "religion is only seen in humans therefore it is unnatural" is erroneous at best as certain species have certain characteristics that are unique to them. We don't call platypuses unnatural because they are mammals that lay eggs and has venom. We dint call the Gila monster unnatural because it a lizard that is venomous.
Religion (true ones) is just a system that is used to explain things, the art of explanation was evolved in humans as it was a necessity for survival- just like other animals, such as the platypus, has evolved to do things that was essential for survival. Just because some things may seem weird does not somehow make it unnatural.
It is not aggression. It is just me laughing my arse off at how fragile your ego is. You post something, your accounts sign in one by one, and you have 4 up votes. It's very sad
And to make this sound more true than it is you ignore the fact that I use each account actively. When I switch from one to another I argue a few points on that account, then switch repeat, etc. Secondly how would JavaScript and Harvard cause 5 up-votes given that I cant up-vote myself on this account? Lastly, why are you so concerned about votes? And if it was just funny to you, then why feel the need to keep posting on all of my arguments that has up-votes that I am up-voting myself?
Just in one species? I said in human beings. They are different. A hospital is unnatural / man made because they are a human creation for example. Do you agree?
Did you not understand anything that I just said? Please look over my statement and address it properly. Do you need me to dumb it down a little so you (an English teacher) can understand a little better.
Last year I taught 3rd graders the difference between natural and man made. They didn't seem to have such a problem with it but then again they didn't have your ego so could actually admit their errors and learn.
You taught them one definition. You can teach a child that gold is an color but that doesn't mean that they will later not understand that it is a element also.
I believe that your aggressive focusing on 'votes' obstructs your your intellect resulting in such simplistic arguments being unascertainable.
But I believe that you only disputed this comment just to illuminate my 'apparent' self-up-voting. You're first refutation consists of the amazement of discovering religion in other species as if that was what I was adressing- I was actually addressing how erroneous it is to say that only naturalness can be ascribed to a phenomenon only insomuch as it can be observed in more than one species (you are completely disregarding the fact that each species has certain characteristics that is unique to them.
As a 'dyslexic' person have you considered that maybe it is you that is the simpleton that cant understand the word unnatural? No one has supported you on this debate. A little introspection is needed me thinks
You must get on this site just to troll as I have clearly listed a definition in the description from which I have made an irrefutable sound argument upon.
This also illustrates your simplistic intellect as you have blatantly disregarded what dyslexia is given that you keep ascribing my asserted ignorance to a disability that infringes on my symbolic grammar- a word which you hysterically expressed your ignorance of, hysterical indeed as you are, supposedly, an English teacher (which is like being an astronomer not knowing how far away the sun is).
But again I believe you just commented just to explain to everyone that I up-voted myself (which isn't true but who cares? Well except for you, but your presence is meaningless on this site unless you're disputing some idiot religious individual who is throwing out apparent erroneous assertions; a disputation that simple people, as yourself, can somewhat handle).
Here is what I stated to Cartman: The act of explaining phenomenon is natural amongst humans; to which he replied that such a thing is unnatural as humans are the only species that does so rendering such a trait an unnatural trait. This absurdity led to this debate. An absurdity nonetheless as not only him saying that because humans are the only ones that does something renders that something unnatural; but also an absurdity as he is claiming a natural entity doing something that conforms with the laws of nature doing the unnatural.
P.S. He was basically saying 'religion' is unnatural because humans created the ideology, so basically if we find that chimps also have some sort of religion then religion now becomes natural... This didn't bother me too much as I am glad to know he is not only scientifically illiterate his illiteracy spans to general simplistic sectors of education. Essentially I must be more patient with this simpleton.
What you just said is logically sound, but what you said before was missing the part about exceeding naturalness. Your argument said that something natural cannot create something that is unnatural simply because nature cannot create something that is unnatural without any justification.
It was evident what i was saying, i just had to slightly elaborate more because it takes you so long to get it.
That's because you cheated and added the definition after I posted. You have to demonstrate why your definition of natural is the only definition of natural that can be used.
"Cheated".... Eveyone was confused about which definition of natural i was using so i provided one...
When you say no to the debate question you are saying that under no circumstances can unnatural come from natural, but there are other definitions which say you are wrong.
Under no circumstances unnatural can come from natural GIVEN THE DEFINITION PROVIDED. Why is this so hard to follow?
The burden is on me to show one instance where it is true. I have succeeded in that.
Not given the definition provided.
You can't reject the definition because you don't like it. Sorry, that isn't how it works.
What are you talking about? I never even stated that i did not "like the definition". I only stated that I typically use a definition when i describe nature- and i was using a specific definition when describing nature.
In the context of my definition I am right. Since there is a context where the debate question is answered "yes" you lose.
You honestly cant see how ridiculous you sound.....
-----
BY DEFINITION. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? The definition states that something is natural if not built by humans.
Oh i know what you're saying entirely; you are using the definition: "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
I just wanted to make sure you were consistent. But your definition is still flawed; the definition states "existing" or "caused", not "created" or "built"- in which such terms can be problematic in logical discourse.
Define nature. Is there anything that exists or has ever existed or could ever exist that does not come from it?
There is nothing unnatural that exist that can come from nature.
Nature- The world and its naturally occurring phenomena, together with all of the physical laws that govern them.
Accepting the definition you provide on the other side of the debate renders the word "unnatural" a fiction altogether. In certain contexts this may be an appropriate use of the term, but not generally speaking.
Precisely, I have clarified that I am not using the more conventional use of the term natural. This is what I believe is causing the most confusion. I have tried to clarify in the description of the debate the context in which i am using the term natural.
For the context i am using the word 'natural' in nothing in the universe can be considered unnatural. I appreciate conventional uses of the word nature/natural but in this situation said conventions are not applicable.
It's like someone saying they are psychotic contextualizing the word interchangeably with the term 'crazy/hyper-active'- meaning, they aren't using the proper psychological definition for 'psycho' rather a conventional interchangeable use of the word crazy/hyper-active.
You are saying that something that is natural can't create something unnatural because natural things can't create something unnatural. This is logically flawed at least.
This is logically sound- nature cannot produce something unnatural for something to fit outside the laws of nature/physics would have to exceed naturalness (in other words be supernatural). Your position is that it can which is logically invalid with obviousness.
In order to win this debate all I have to do is show one instance of nature creating the unnatural and I have succeeded.
In order to win a different debate regarding a different definition of natural you must provide what you have done so far. As for this debate you have only succeeded in showing your incompetency.
---
An alternate definition of natural is anything that is not created by humans. In that context it is true that humans create the unnatural. Under that definition humans still came about through nature and would be considered natural. Therefore, the natural can create something unnatural.
I have constantly established that i am not using the alternate definition of natural so i will not entertain this statement; i will however entertain: "it is true that humans create the unnatural. Under that definition humans still came about through nature and would be considered natural. Therefore, the natural can create something unnatural."
Why is it that humans creations render unnaturalness yet other species (creations) do not? Would you consider a birds nest natural?
I never said that it did, I merely stated that the idea of a human doing something outside the laws of nature is rather fictitious (or in the event that it actually happens supernatural).
but it's not the only definition.
I have told Cartman that there is 33 definitions of natural which illuminates the ambiguity of the term; however, he asserts that my use of natural is erroneous which of course is an erroneous assertion itself.
The definition I am using for natural is very simple- anything that exists and is produced by nature (or fits within the laws of nature).
Those definitions also hold that humanity itself is not natural, distinguishing between the realm of nature and the realm of humanity.
These are definitions directed towards religious discourse (the only way humans would be unnatural is if they weren't created in the way the laws of nature would entail (e.g. man being created by a rib)). This absurdity is not what I am arguing.
I never said "all". But by your misinterpretation followed with this statement you have unwittingly implied that you are one of these descriptions.
"I already knew what he meant by subjective morality, we are thoroughly involved in that debate elsewhere[Citation Needed] and there is no need to start from the beginning here..."
“God is the only thing that transcends human subjectivity in the sense of redness and blueness.” Saying it doesn’t make it so.
Saying there is a system in which one must conduct oneself in order to persist doesn't make it so. Saying most intelligent people ignore the objective nature of morality doesn't make it so. Saying "A standard can evolve without it being subjective. That which is required for survival varies with species. The standard evolves and remains objective," does not make it so. I really don't see why you thought this statement was somehow sensible as it can be applied ad infinitum.
You obviously missed what i meant by "special" (as you seem to miss a lot of things, because, well, you may be special).
What? You just begged the question: You logged into multiple accounts to make sure I "knew" you were right.
Did you forget that you were here 4 days ago with this account downvoting me?
I use all three of my accounts interchangeably so.... Secondly your comment was obviously absurd and false, why would i feel the need to down-vote?
With me saying morality is subjective, and then stating god is the only thing that would transcend human subjectivity, would imply that I don't believe in god; but because you need a little work in your logical reasoning you missed that point entirely.
Then you ingeniously replied to me saying objective morality doesn't exist with "there are no objective morals so you haven't helped us at all" as if that somehow illustrates how my statement was erroneous when i clearly expressed that there is no such thing as objective morality...
You guys and this "up-voting, down-voting" thing. First your automatic presumption that if someone down-votes you, it must be your adversary; second, the very fact that you believe a 'down-vote' or an 'up-vote' actually matters in respects to your position is comically absurd. Now I understand if you got so many down-votes one couldn't see your position but if your position is sound then you need not worry about a down-vote. You people pay too much attention to irrelevance.
You have no life... Or pussy... which i can deduce based on this comment.
Jace: "When I say that morality is a subjective perception I mean to observe that morality exists only because the human mind conceives of it as existing, and that it is utterly reliant upon that conception for its existence. When I refer to the projection of morality, I am speaking to the manner in which people apply their moral conceptions to objectively real phenomenon that exist independent of human conception. The act of killing is an objective act, but to call it "wrong" is to project the subjective perception of morality onto the objective act."
Ameral (behind computer): "Bu bu, I, it, objectivity though? wait nuh, my moral co... and I, ehh, aww forget it. You win this time Jace"
Oops, looks like you forgot to respond to his well elaborated response.
This is just a reminder.
I really don't like to be insulting, but for a suicidal-narcissist / college grad-undergrad / wealthy-poor up-and-comer on the top, you are a fucking moron.
Ignoring the fact that these statements are somewhat dishonest ('on the top,' 'poor,' 'suicidal'? Now you've reduced to complete lies? Someone must be angry things cannot be objectively wrong) and don't even correlate with being a moron...
The point is you have yet to establish objective morality (no one cares about objective aspects, you need to prove the whole concept of objective morality as being true), it's somewhat insane that you think you're so great that you can create your own version and definition of both objectivity and morality; it's a good thing that most people up here aren't so easily deterred from facts through complete rhetoric.
Every time you interject on one of my debates (thinking you can outsmart me, which sadly, has not, and will not ever happen) you are completely wrong (though you later on realize it and back off). I just can't see why this particular topic you persist on holding a completely fallible/fallacious argument. You bike example was nonetheless ill-elucidated on and disregards the substance of morality- you see this and now you've just reduced to personal attacks (like 'FromWithin') which is always a welcomed form of a tacit concession :)
(NOTE: I love to note my incompetent adversaries strengths so: you are very persistent with a falsified notion. Very good signs of a formidable lawyer indeed, Ameral.)
What you just described, in regards to conduct, is like the effects of medication. There is no objective medication method. It differs for each individual. Re: COC: everyone can't conduct themselves in an objective fashion that is best siuted for all. So to claim there is a moral standard for so is claiming something that renders impossibility: a perfect societal system in a way which we must conduct ourselves in order to progress.
Wow... I didn't know one could be so... ah never mind you can't help it.
*
Us moral subjectivist oppose objective morality because there's no plausible evidence to suggest that morality can be anything but subjective (unless you're religious of course). It's like trying to find a physical number one, or letter S.
I love how you read all of Jace's response and failed to see that it is mostly in opposition to almost all of your previous arguments about morality. It actually adheres more closely with my position.
Not really, I say evolution cannot be invoked in moral discouse, so does he. I say you elucidate objective morality with subjective substantiations, so does he.
The only thing you saw is that he is calling it subjective and that was enough for you.
Isn't that the point?
You rejected the definition that was provided by Stanford because it suited my argument, and now you are demanding that I pick one the definitions you choose, which doesn't even get at the heard of the matter.
When we talk about objectivity we need to speak in terms of pertinent definitions. And we need to base our assertions on evidence- your assertion is no different from claiming there is a god.
I'm obviously referring to the "what defines a moral" debate.
It seems as though Jace and I both notice your manipulation of the definition of morality. Why don't you just admit that by definition moraliry is completely subjective?
Here maybe you can see this response. It was this rebuttal that Jace responded, wherefrom your response is still pending.
You provided your own definition to manipulate the meaning to fit your context, and yet you're no linguistics authority. Moreover to make things simple all you had to do was quickly choose one of the definitions I provided yet you refuse and invoke the past- and even in the past you admitted to using your own definition and justifying it by claiming the definition of morality was interpretational.
And I'd rather fail to support an obvious claim rather than conjure up my own citations to support a claim that contends with the laws of logic.
It's okay Amarel... His elaborate response is too much to handle as he perfectly illuminated the impossibility of objective morals.
I'm sure you know the exact response I am addressing, but all you had to do was admit your concession.
He understands your position as false, so sure i completely understand why he does.
I will also refuse to continue debating this topic with someone who doesn't even know the fundamental principals of objectivity, subjectivity, and i suppose human psychology.
In regards to me understanding: I completely understand where your position, what i don't understand is why you cant see why your position is completely erroneous. I have asked for you to provide examples that correspond with the definition but you seem to manipulate the definition to fit your context (even when I asked you to pick one of the ones i listed you completely avoided doing so and invoked your incompetency due to the subjective term within the definition: "Right". Unfortunately your argument falls on itself yet your determination persist- I don't know if you just "can't be wrong," or you just truly cant see why your argument fails. I will assume that it's the latter.
Well, given that I have just reminded you yet you still have not responded then i will take that as your tacit concession that objective morality is illusory. Though, it's funny that when i reminded you, you scrolled right past his rebuttal and responded to mine.
It wasn't directed towards you - many users have made implicit and explicit statements in respects to their sexual inclinations - and it would only be insulting if in fact your sexual proclivities are the reason you are on this site.
Essentially I was directing the comments in question towards users who may come here due to social rejection (and I have good reason to make these comments given the implicit 'rejection-like' statements that are constantly being made (e.g. "Will I ever be loved," "Why aren't gays accepted by society," etc.)).
People who join the military and wishes not to fight, protect, and serve typically does so for: financial purposes; educational purposes; or situational purposes- and if you truly are clueless of this may I suggest that you google the term 'military', what its meant for, and why most people want to join. Know Your Stuff daver
I would be the first one to show up and wish to engage in intellectual discourse as I am terrible with typing.
Then their lazy asses should've been attentive in school then they should've chose a career rout that best suited them instead of selling their soul to the government taking the easiest way out from true hard work- and you cannot tell me that they wished to enroll in the military to be significant all while opposing their jobs most essential basis. Lazy fucks wanted quick cash while moving no ass and I hope they go do their job and: protect and serve like the slaves they signed up to be, and then lose a limb- all in combat, of course.
I must inform you that evolution would be very unlikely (refraining from saying 'impossible') if [Adam and Eve] were the origins of man. I must also note that biblical scholars accept [Adam and Eve story] as a metaphorical concept.
You cant keep conflating natural selection with morality.
People believe that one is morally obligated to keep retards alive, moreover same people agree to let certain levels of retardation reproduce- which is detrimental to society (economically, socially, etc.). By you're criterion we should kill off any signs of mental retardation.
And if this example wasn't sophisticated enough please do give one of your own (which, oddly, you haven't seem to not have done...). Let your example show a way in which humans wish to survive better without implicitly invoking natural selection.
You should responds to Jaces' rebuttal to objective morality.
I suppose it's so sound that you may not be able to handle the response- which is fine.
Oh I see now you mean documented crimes including petty theft robbery etc.
When I said Mexico and Brazil I was specifically speaking of murder rates. Though, the petty crimes committed in these regions aren't as well documented as they are in America which would suggest that these statistics are highly fallible.
One must note the hundreds of Mexican and Brazilian cartels wherein sex/drug trafficking are extensively prevalent- yet not so much in the U.S. These cartels also commit horrendous crimes that go undocumented given the sloppy forensics and crime detectives these countries have (and often times officials just don't care).
They sure don't treat themselves as if they do.
They deserve to die off and let the animals flourish this livible planet untill the sun implodes becomes a black hole and sucks the solar system in; or untill we collide with another Galaxy and the earth gets tossed out of orbit and everything freezes to death.
