CreateDebate


Nick91983's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Nick91983's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

-I have a BA in philosophy, you seem like you need some more philosophy education even from the simple fact that you feel it is correct to use the word faith with regard to all kinds of belief. Belief is not the equivalent of faith - faith is belief without sufficient reason.

-There is no way that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a christian - One could define "faith" as the complete confidence in something. However, "faith" is also confidence without emperically sufficient reasons for confidence since the word faith implies that evidence is not required. Science has the essential element - evidence, which is the sole inspiration for confidence in it's validity - this is why it is correct to say that even if all scientific knowledge were lost, in time the same exact knowledge would be rediscovered - Science unveils the objective characteristics of our universe using evidence. People believe in science do not have faith (non-evidence based confidence) because evidence is the fundamental motivator for their confidence.

I am not being dishonest (by not recognizing the multiple kinds of faith) in my original argument insofar as I am making the claim that faith is not an applicable term when evidence motivates one's confidence. Insofar as I qualify the need for evidence, and that faith is confidence without evidence, I am making the necessary distinction between what you call the "sorts" of "faith" or what I would call types of confidence.

The reason why it is wrong to use the word faith instead of confidence is that faith implies the lack of evidence (this is why it is incorrect to use faith in reference to belief in science). My point is that you should stop using the word faith since this is only one kind of belief, a belief that exists independent of evidence.

The regularity of the world is not something independent of evidence (as you implied). It, in and of itself, is an evidence based assertion about the world. The belief that there exists an external world is evidence based - it is not something you have faith in since its continuity (objective characteristics) and the fact that it is immediate independent of our will is sufficient evidence. I found it interesting that you are denying the brain in vat's scenario - I do, but you seem like you are more of a cartesian insofar as you seem to not recognize that there is a distinction between objectively based confidence and subjectively based confidence - faith.

--Part of me wondered if you were confused about which side of this issue I was on - since part of what you were saying is what I am saying - are you confused? The reason why i am confused about which side you are arguing for is that you seem to recognize that belief in science does not require faith but then seem to say that atheism takes faith even though atheism is generally based on the perspective of the universe that science (evidence based understanding) provides for.

1 point

thanks for the suggestion, sometimes i just automatically use they, a bad habbit.

I meant that they were both addressing the theistic positions.

1 point

natural xenophobia doesnt mean racism is natural, racism is deeper rooted than innate xenophobia insofar as it is a claim to knowledge of and categorical devaluation of the "race," which is in fact a non-actual thing, a social construct rather than an actual phenomenon.

1 point

Although I am all for capitalism, I dont think that "the best" always "prevails" in a capitalist environment insofar as what is "best" tends to be based on the ability to make money - a reductive notion. Also, in capitalist environments companies that are in competition with one another can often work together in a fully saturated market to keep things as they are, and in so doing become a kind of monopoly, a monopoly based on mutual cooperation. If one falls the other becomes a pure monopoly and thus in either scenario the need to be the best insofar as merit is concerned is no longer required because they are the only viable provider of the demanded product or service. Thus you need to have something more than a purely capitalistic system to prevent monopolies on multiple levels, without the regulative system that exists outside the capitalist system you get a similar outcome to the communistic model - perhaps not to the same degree as with communism but you get what my point is - the need to be the best is ultimately reduced.

I consider myself a capitalist and advocate this economic system, however, I also recognize the need for and benefit of socialistic elements within the system. Our military is essentially a socialistic service, all of the government agencies and schools and highways etc are socialistic and are all fundamental to a functioning society because they subsidize and allow for capitalist activities to flourish. Many people bring up the Laissez faire as the fundamental principle of free markets, however, most people who advocate this principle dont realize that it was all based on governmentally subsidized support for free markets. Even the origin of the term and principle are not valid - the truth is that both systems need one another to survive. You brought up police as a monopoly and that there is no push for a high rate of success. However if you were to place police forces in competition they might succeed too much, i.e. punish too much for minor infractions and thus they could be opressive, enforcing laws that are out-dated or planting evidence to get a higher conviction rate. Or, like has been the case in Japan, the police will not seek out a murderer unless they are pretty sure they can convict to have a high conviction rate via not pursuing difficult cases. I think the current system works pretty well given the alternatives. I view the current system an amalgam of socialist and capitalist ideologies and I think that this is a greater approximation of the ideal than either system can be as pure systems. Most of the world, including the US are mixed systems and for good reasons, some of which i illustrated.

1 point

I suppose it depends on what you mean by competative environment.

A few years ago I heard an interesting anthropological and evolutionary theory:

In northern africa ~2.5 million years ago a climate change event caused the deserts in northern africa to expand causing the forests to receed. This caused a distinct change between two chimp populations

In the north where there was insufficient food for gorillas, the chimps realized a greater abundance of food and ultimately evolved to become what is known today as the Bonobo a peaceful sex-based matriarchal society where sharing is common and the only agression is of a sexual nature.

In the south the chimp and the gorilla existed in competition for food. The gorilla consumed much of the available foods and thus the chimp was subjected to greater scarcity - in time they evolved to be the modern chimp a more violent patriarchal species that frequently rapes the smaller females, murders others of their tribe, form war parties and hunting parties, and practice infantacide.

These two groups suggest that when competition is too great because of scarcity, that violence and aggression dominate. Insofar as humanity is concerned, I have often wondered if the contemporary wars, which have often been considered wars of scarcity are fought because of a similar kind of competition. I also wonder if, since capitalism creates scarcity via a stratification model and maximizing the utilization of any given resource for the sake of profit that scarcity and competition in our world is artificially increased either by artificially creating competition. However, I also see the possibility that capitialism, although not an inevitable economic system, is a probable system given the nature of biological dynamics and that as our population grew as a species that competition became greater and greater causing the scarcity we face today.

No matter how one views it, we do live in an age of greater and greater scarcity since population is growing and resources are finite. I wonder what the future has in store for us, if we might become more like the patriarchal and violent chimp or if we might realize the path we are headed down is dangerous and adjust the way we live and how we operate our world. I think capitalism is a good thing but that we need to control ourselves a little more when it comes to certain things like population.

1 point

Generally yes, I think a few old ones could be kept, but only insofar as they are still highly functional and not an eyesore. Also, what is up with cobble or brick roads making parts of cities "quaint"? I hate that whole mentality - at the very least make the roads modern.

It would be nice if historical societies were limited to say 10 buildings per city, it would make things so much easier.

Also, what is up with certain zoning laws - such as you can only have houses of a particular type in this area etc...? I am not even that much of a libertarian - but i still think that if you buy the property that you should be able to build at least any kind of a type of house, i.e. in a residential area you cant build a factory etc... that makes sense

Maintaining an understanding of the towns culture and history is fine but i dont think it should stagnate the growth and development of an area and definitely shouldnt limit a person's ability to change or knock down their own building.

1 point

Life isnt fair but sometimes fairness can be a part of life. The idea of fairness is a human concept that is based on our evolutionary predisposition toward seeking balance in the world socially but also generally. This predisposition relates to our social nature and is a reflection of social dynamics and how they influence the evolution of a species. Fairness in not inherent to the world, it is imposed upon human interactions via law and institution so as to ameliorate some of the inequities that we face in our lives.

Fairness is a maximal condition which we seek and only in some specific circumstances do we realize it.

2 points

Life is not a right, it is a condition - The right to life as it is found in the US constitution is a political right, i.e. it is the right to not fear that one's life can be taken away by the government and that if one's life is to be taken by another person that the justice system will seek to punish the person who violated the right and prevent them from further violations.

I agree with Apollo that rights should not limit a person

Also, Apollo was right to say WTF to the statement that you are also taking the life of whatever person you might become because you are currently not that person, that person doesnt matter, that person is a potentiality and potentiality arguments have little relevance to termination debates insofar as they do not exist and will not exist if termination occurs their value never becomes meaningful beyond the hypothetical and we dont govern our world based on hypotheticals when more immediate meaning is apparent.

Another argument for suicide, is that if you really want to do it, you will since laws dont matter insofar as you will not be there for the consequences of violating it.

1 point

It is selfish to a degree, but I still think it should be a right of people to do. I think that the basis of morality stems from sovereignty, the ability to determine what happens to one's self and one's property. Insofar as this is true, I think that it is wrong to prevent a person from acting with their own self and property however they wish as long as this does not directly harm another or impose a fear of harm to another.

I do think that suicide should be state preformed - that one should need to consult with a psychologist and discuss the desire and then schedule a follow up and establish that the desire is relatively constant - a standard period of time should be established before the euthanasia would be preformed so as to prevent episodic and short lived bouts of depression. Then (as i understand to be one of the least painful ways to go) a morphine OD could be administered. This seems reasonable and gives people the right to self determination - it would also allow the people who have decided to kill themselves the oportunity to say goodbye to their loved ones.

1 point

You mean they live in fear of the Giant that presides over them rather than behaving appropriately because of the Giant's logic and reason and ability to enforce sanctions and consequences that they find undesireable?

Positive Discipline is the ability to use their own humanity, their self interest, to the effect of desired bahavior - physical force is not necessary

1 point

Positive Discipline doesnt mean that only words are used as consequences for improper behavior - positive just means that we dont use physical force to correct improper behavior. The fact that you said that "I was becoming unsettled inside, and found I was quick to anger and showing minor violent outbursts" demonstrates that you had a propensity for physical violence - as a child of "positive discipline" I can say that I have had no such violent outbursts. Although your situation is only one and thus generalizations cannot be made, It would be interesting to know if your violent outbursts were remnant inclinations from having been spanked or worse. Also, there are many factors relating to a person's having appropriate behavior and attained a generally productive and civil life, one being the ability to learn vicariously and another living in an otherwise positive environment as a child. The point I am making is that the spanking is unnecessary for proper adjustment. Most of the intelligent people who advocate positive discipline believe that consequences and sanctions are necessary, however sanction is very different than physical violence and it would be interesting if those violent outbursts would have been absent if your childhood had been the same except absent the spanking - my bet is that you would have turned out the same as you have. I dont think you make the case that spanking is either necessary or optimal - I would argue that it is unnecessary not optimal and that is creates less positive than it does negative. A stern voice was all i needed to curb inappropriate bahavior

Nick91983(269) Clarified
1 point

where is the line? and can you assent to the opinion that spanking is ok without being able to preside over the physical discipline of all parties who are administering this practice?

Nick91983(269) Clarified
1 point

no need to say you are sorry, spanking is a bad thing, taking things away from a child or limiting their freedom modifies behavior so much better than abuse does

1 point

Spanking is demonstrating that physical actions are the appropriate way to react to any kind of issue, even non-physical ones. This is horrible because it causes an escalation in any conflict, makes people think that the most extreme option is a normal and logical first option to excercise. It also suggest the unreasonable notion that might makes right - "I am right about the issue not for reasonable and logical points, but rather because I can beat you up." This doesnt make any sense insofar as the rightness or wrongness of any given position depends on things that are relevant to the subject matter not the physical abilities of one of the arguing parties.

Physical altercations are never good things, they rarely if ever result in a positive outcome - the rare case of a positive outcome is where there is only a marginal gain.

Positive discipline also suggests that the use of reason and logic are preferable and that sanction is the most fruitful means to attaining appropriate behavior (and I am not talking geopolitically here). Appealing to the reasoning faculties of a child not only makes them feel respected, but it also makes them able to think more critically generally because they are being forced to excecise this part of their mind.

Spanking is also a parent essentially saying that they are neither smart enough or mature enough mentally to out-smart their children or attain proper behavior without the use of force.

Spanking is unproductive and unreasonable

Nick91983(269) Clarified
1 point

and what does the statement that Jar Jar belongs in the group with the other 5, what other 5? It is only Vader and the Emperor right?

Nick91983(269) Clarified
1 point

All Hitler would have to do is kill Napolean and Genghis Khan - They are as useless against tanks and machine guns as Jar Jar is against the Emperor and Vader.

I had a question though, is earth tech mean any fictional earth tech? because one could throw the Marine ship from aliens, any of the Federation ships, a lot of things from Babylon 5, The Ship from lost in Space and the fighters, nuclear weapons (not part of the Star Wars universe as far as I know).

However, The emperor and Vader have Death Stars and Force Fields - also, this debate said nothing about the limits of numbers 1,000,000 Enterprises vs 1 Death star would be hard to hypothetically match up. Also do their lasers, phasers photon torpedoes etc effect the other's deflector and shield - and which generation of star Trek are we talking about? because we could theoretically take it all the way to the time traveling future that is shown in the Voyager series - in many ways I think this comparison is too difficult to make, too many factors.

Nick91983(269) Clarified
1 point

-I dont think that the cosmological argument holds any weight insofar as the objectivity question is concerned and that is all I was saying. For the same reason that the cosmological argument is disputable, the cosmological argument cannot be used as an argument for assent to the objective subsistence of god - insofar as it cannot do this, anyone who assents to objective knowledge as to the existence of god is being dumb, like i said, getting into an arguement in which proof is required without any proof is dumb - like showing up to a gun fight without a gun. The cosmological argument is one that tries to force the plausibility of god with logic, however, it makes too many assumptions and since it relies on no evidence it cannot be used insofar as the assent to objective knowledge of god is concerned, especially insofar as the belief of god relates to social and political discourse.

-On the second point you made, I wasnt arguing that religious beliefs are not personal, I was arguing that insofar as the social and political world are concerned, religious beliefs ought to be categorically invalid - specifically because they are personal and not social and political in nature - i.e. they are not justifiably universalizable.

-On the third point, my argument is not that much of a straw man, one cannot deny the real world effects of religious belief insofar as religious beliefs effect the real world - one does not need to prove that god does not exist in order to deny the right someone has to impose their religious beliefs on another person via social and political imposition - The founding fathers of the United States recognized this as fundamental and this is why the first amendment was written. All belifs are not personal matters, only personal beliefs are personal matters. The fact that france exists or that nuclear fusion is the process behind solar energy output has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about these matters - thus insofar as geopolitics and astronomy is concerned, what i think or feel is of little justifiable relevance. Another example of this is the fact of evolution - it is a process that has been observed in nature and it exists independent of our recognizing that it is happening, once we recognized that it was a fact of our reality we then tried to make generalizations about it and made testable theories about it modern evolutionary theory is the product of these testable generalizations of the observed fact that is evolution. Anyone's personal feelings about the fact of evolution existing or not is inconsequential to its existence - This is why evolution is, by definition, an objectively subsistent phenomenon of nature. Generally speaking, objective subsistence is that which exists independent of our perception of it - No one can say that god is such a phenomenon and this is what is central to the point I am making - we cannot operate our world under assumptions that have no objective basis.

-I wasnt sure what your point was on the 4th part - My point was to emphasize the need for the compartmentalization of a person's personal private sentiments that might order their private life in contrast with their public social and political sentiments which are the opinions one assents to in these public forums. The fact that understanding and beliefs come from the human social and intellectual discourse is irrelevant to how those beliefs are applied to the world insofar as the proper place they hold in the two human spheres - private and personal life and public poltical forum.

-To your last point, I think that people should vote for people who represent them socio-politically, that the religious component is a categorically invalid insofar as the social and political forum are concerned - Thus it is wrong to vote based on religious views - it crosses the line of private/public, subjective/objective, and justifiable/unjustifiable.

2 points

I speak from experience on this debate, my mother took me to a church to expose me to religion but then let me decide if i wanted to keep going or not, thus i was free to choose if i wanted to believe in magic or reality - I chose reality

Nick91983(269) Clarified
1 point

I personally think Basenjis are cool, and Schnousers (sp?), hot dog dogs (Dachshounds [sp?]), there are lots of cool dogs, (I need to learn me some knowledge on how to spell some of their names though)

1 point

German Sheperds are the shit - smart, cool looking, soft, friendly (depending). Pits are not as good looking, I kind of think they come across as the ugliest dog - the one that hit most of the branches on the ugly tree on the way down. As far as pit like dogs go, I like the american bulldog better, similar build but smoother and less bulky, more like a boxer than a pit.

2 points

The lucky charms leprechaun, snap crackle and pop, or the fruit loops toucan

2 points

I think it has to do with many levels of maturity, not just emotional and also the degree to which we, as a society, ought to impose general rules since laws need to exist to generally regulate and it takes too much effort to properly address each and every case that comes across the table. It may very well be the case that some rare children are emotionally mature enough to reasonably choose what is right for him or her, but it is not typical - most children who engage in sexual activity with adults as children tend to have a reduced sense of their humanity - i.e. that sex becomes the basis of their existence and the role they embody as an individual in society. If you want to understand more about this dynamic do some research on it, but also look at strippers, porn stars, and prostitutes - they have typically been molested (high 90 percentile) by someone (usually an uncle, friend of their parents, or older brother) at a young age and because they were not mentally prepared, their self identity becomes overly sexually oriented - they objectify themselves because this is how their experience has been colored via their sexual abuse.

Generally most children do not become emotionally mature enough to reasonably decide what is best for them until even into their 20s. However, because of the 18 year old "age of majority" which is an old standard by which we legally permit many actions, 18 or near 18 is the age at which consensual sex is justifiably permissible.

Children will ultimately seek sexual activity because it is in our nature to be curious, our genitals are of high curiosity to us because their specific kind of sensitivity is pleasing to us, and sexual orientation is typed to us via gestational stages of fetal development. However I feel that to impose adult - post sexual discovery - into the pre-discovery and discovery phase of a child’s life is abuse because it is prior to their full maturity for sex.

Thus legally I tend to agree with laws that do not permit sex between people below the age of majority because this age ~18 is a safe place to make a cut off insofar as mutual sexual discovery is likely to have occurred between both parties.

Between curious children, sexual discovery is mutual and innocent However, between adults and children I am skeptical about nature of the engagement since adults can much more easily take advantage of the impressionability of young children and adolescents. Any deviance in adult sexuality can be corruptive to the natural exploratory process of adolescent sexuality.

An analogy could be - We dont pick fruits until they are ripe for the picking - Some fruits might ripen faster than others but generally it is better to wait until a little later in the season. Based on neurological and physiological understanding of children and adolescents they are generally not 'ripe.'

Physiologically children and adolescent girls are also not sufficiently suited for child birth. It is possible for successful pregnancy and birth but there are high incidences of complications. This is sufficient reason to believe that refraining from sexual activity until they females are older.

Personally I think that kids should be kids and do as kids do with only reasonable restrictions for safety - throw an adult in the mix sexually and it is corruptive at least to some degree but often to an extreme degree. One of the girls i went to college with was having sex with her step father at ~12 years old because he would take advantage of her naive state of mind, tell her not to say anything to her mother about it, and have sex with her secretly. This went on for a couple years and she was definitely not ready for sex at that age. She is not well adjusted even today ~30 years old, and had nightmares about that situation at least into her mid 20’s. Also my cousin was molested by her uncle, and is poorly adjusted as well. Another friend from college was not properly supervised as a young ~13 year old and was raped by three college students in their dorm. She was so traumatized by this experience that she didn’t remember that it happened until it was revealed in a therapy session many years later.

Simply put, sex too young and in the wrong way can be extremely detrimental to children and who they will become as an adult. No matter the mental maturity of my children, if I ever have them, I will be ardent in my prevention of any possible corruption to their sexual innocence to the degree that is reasonably possible within my power. I have seen the effects of sexual abuse first hand and it is probably one of the worst things I have had to find out about

Thus the legal mandate is highly reasonable.

Nick91983(269) Clarified
1 point

notice the lack of response lol. I will respond for the person, even though I am an agnostic atheist and also do think that theists tend to misuse the term theory. I might say it is a fact that mammals have hair - although true as a generalization, it is also not true when you look at people or other mammals with specific genetic mutuations that caused them to never have hair. insofar as i used the word fact i was misusing it and should have instead used - it is a tendency for mammals to have hair, nearly all species have hair except in certain rare cases.

although i am misusing the word fact in the first example, I feel that it is more rare for atheists to misuse the word fact than it is for theists if only to the degree that they deny the fact of evolution saying that it is not a fact when clearly it is an objectively subsisting phenomenon in nature that exists indepenent of our perception of it.

1 point

insofar as i am part of society and i place value on equality, yes, this seems the sufficient condition for yes to be the conclusion to the question.

Also, insofar as equality is similar to balance, that equality could be described as a kind of balance, the universe tends to favor balance, most of existence tends to find balance over time, balance seems to be the rule to which imbalance is the exception. I believe that balance is good and thus i believe equality is good, even for its own sake (intrinsically) - when i think about balance vs imbalance as two possible states, balance seems favorable if only for its own sake - I think this is a tendency of most humans (we are balance and order seeking), in part, because we evolved in a balance tending universe.


1 of 11 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]