- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
What you have described is not beyond my comprehension, thank you, but you could hardly have expected a different response given how you exemplified it. You contend that a sentence only allows for single usage and therefore equivalence of meaning is implausible, yet the specific comparisons you provided allow for multiple usage on account of the words chosen. It is the verb that categorises the usage of a phrase not the noun, and it is this that is the purpose of communication.
That said, in the context of your examples the word ‘march’ can actually be either so on that footing I have not erred in what I said. One may decide to march i.e. ‘walk steadily and rhythmically forward in step with others’ or they may be in a march i.e. ‘a procession of people organised as a protest or demonstration’. ‘Leading’ merely concerns assuming authority on the grounds of guidance or direction; therefore, used in conjunction with ‘march’ suggests a noun status. Someone leading a march may well be at the fore of a group of people (procession); by the same token they may be leading a team, in which case they would again be fronting said ‘group’. This parallels the similarity between the phrases ‘walking to the end of a city’ and ‘walking to the end of the street’, to return to the original refutation.
You still miss the point.
A sentence is created to communicate a specific point. The fact that words have multiple meanings is separate from the specific usage in a sentence. When someone writes down a sentence, they intend for the sentence to communicate a specific message. While a sentence may be interpreted in multiple ways, that does not mean the original intention was ambiguous. Like you said, God dictated the Bible through inspiration. This means God had a specific message he intended to communicate through every verse. You have been presenting multiple interpretations to suggest validity but that actually weakens the argument for dictation. You should be presenting a single interpretation as intended by God.
Which-as I suggested- will force universe fragments to travel faster than the speed of light, and therefore back in time.
Light travels in the medium of the universe. The universe can expand at any speed. We have not been able to measure anything outside of the universe to make a statement regarding the nature of the medium it travels along.
Rather than a cyclic nature of big bang, big crunch, because of the breach of the fourth dimension of time, the big bang and big crunch occur only once in universal time- yet occur infinitely in linear time as ones reference follows the universe.
You are referencing anti-particles that travel back in time. When a pair of particle and anti-particle is created, the anti-particle does travel back in time and the particle travels forwards or vice-versa. They must go in opposite directions because it is a conservative action. This duality is still from a linear reference frame.
There is nothing to suggest that a duality results in an infinite reference frame.
What would suggest an infinite reference frame is your previous explanation of the universe without regard to duality. As long as the two particles annihilate one another at the initial point of creation, it will be a circular reference frame and therefore infinite. This means that it is cyclic. There is no "rather than a cyclic nature" for your explanation.
The reason that time-travel is necessary in this situation is in order to adhere to the second law of thermodynamics, in that disorder of the universe can only increase. In your theory, where the universe infinitely fluctuates, entropy is constantly being "reset"
Entropy does not have to reset. A universe can move towards heat death as it cycles. There could be some unknown form of entropy reversal for each Big Bang or Big Crunch.
However, in my theory, entropy is always succumbing to gravity, becoming less and less ordered until it is the universe particle- the most stable state in reference to gravity. In a linear model, this is the end of the system, because as soon as the Big Bang occurs, disorder is negative and time is negative, which still adheres to disorder increasing over time.
Gravity does not produce more entropy in the way you describe. It seeks to bring all matter into one place. Entropy is just heat death which is related to the transfer between energy and work in a system. While gravity can do work on a system, "entropy does not succumb to gravity".
1. Fucking does spread your genes, but it may not lead to procreation. The objective purpose of sex is pleasure, especially if it does not lead to procreation.
2. I know what he meant by "spread genes". The literal interpretation of "spread genes" is fucking, not procreation.
3. Yes. Even more purposes!
You: Good thing that Ive been talking about more than just a mistake. You mighte'ev had a good point.
Me: Being stupid leads to mistakes. This is the implied relationship.
This implies that my claim of mistakes being valuable experience relates to your original comment: ""Adults" are just older children who have more confidence with displaying how stupid they really are. So who's gonna control the children?"
I argued that if you want to convince others to act in a given way, you must invoke moral reasoning. This isn’t to say that people engage in moral reasoning before acting. Usually moral reasoning is done in retrospect in defense of ones actions, and usually only if those actions were a breach of conduct.
This is your current claim.
Instead of explaining all the numbers, I will just explain my interpretation of your claim.
The assumption is that all human actions require some sort of reason. That reason could come from instincts, reflexes, rationale, etc.
Other than your current claim, you have claimed that all human actions require a moral rationale/end/whatever. If we combine your current claim with your prior claim, they suggest that actions can be reason-less. They can be completed without any reasoning and only justified post-act. This seems impossible based on my given assumption of actions.
This is the contradiction I was referencing. Of course, there might not be any contradiction at all for various reasons. One reason would be if we cannot agree on my assumption of actions. You just need to provide your logic behind it.
The numbers help to combine your previous statements into one idea. They are ordered chronologically and help to show the evolution of our debate.
1) Reiterate/support previous claim. I was talking about creation of new economic systems. The wording may have led you to another interpretation, but it should have been obvious by context which "development" I was referring to.
2) Reiterate/support previous claim.
3) Reiterate/support previous claim.
3a) It seems like we have different interpretations of normative morality. There are different moral codes for normative morality as well. The variation in codes is not indicative or descriptive or normative.
Stanford: "“Morality”when used in a descriptive sense has an essential feature that “morality” in the normative sense does not have, namely, that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual. If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave. If one accepts a moral theory's account of rational persons and the specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory's normative definition of “morality. ”"
"If one accepts a moral theory's account of rational persons and the specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory's normative definition of “morality. ” Accepting a normative definition of “morality” commits a person to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform."
"In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations. All of those who use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code. Moral theories differ in their accounts of the essential characteristics of rational persons and in their specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code. These differences result in different kinds of moral theories."
Your previous claim is about all human behavior rather than a specific code of conduct accepted only by a group/individual. The specific code of conduct is part of descriptive morality.
You claims have been one of "rational" rather than "acceptance" which is also the difference between normative and descriptive morality. A descriptive morality requires no basis in nature. It is just accepted by a group or individual as the correct one. A natural code of conduct that applies to all humans is a normative one.
That’s right. When talking about morality as a human behavioral phenomenon, one must talk about it descriptively.
4) We seem to have interpreted the Stanford source differently. I am curious which sections of your own source you can cite to support your view that morality concerning all human behavior is descriptive.
Remember when I said “To convince people to go to war, one must make a moral argument”.? I’m not saying that going to war is necessarily normatively morally right.
Normative morality does not mean that an action must be right or wrong regardless of the code. It just means that an action which falls under the code of conduct is moral for all humans, not just some society that has accepted a specific code.
This is based on my interpretation of the Stanford definition.
Nothing about what I have said contradicts the above quote. When I say that one must make a moral argument in order to promote a given social or economic system, I mean you must convince people to conduct themselves in a given way, or at least justify why a particular way of conducting oneself is right. This is not in conflict with saying that most people do not reason morally before they act.
In order for the person to advocate something, they must have a reason. If the reason for an act is only known afterwards, how does the person advocate anything to begin with?
You describe the conduct as right/wrong which suggests morality. What about better/worse? A person has personal tastes for why something is better than something else. Why aren't there amoral ends? Instincts and reflexes justify behavior as well. There are also rational justifications that have nothing to do with morality. One person can buy a piece of clothing because it looks nice to him/her. Another person might think another piece of clothing looks nice and buys that instead. A third person buys a piece of clothing to replace another outfit. All these decisions are amoral. Two are based on subjective tastes, and one is based on the need for replacement.
Rationale can be moral and amoral. It makes no sense to claim that all rationale must be moral.
I’ve been talking about the nature of morality as such. This is inherently descriptive. I’m not saying that people should make moral arguments to justify socialism, I am saying that the nature of morality is such that it is impossible not to. While discussing what the article said about “all rational people” and my views, I did slip into normative references to morality. My bad.
The nature of morality is inherently normative. You are claiming a natural morality. Something "put forward and accepted" is not natural. It is synthesized by a specific group.
Read the Stanford definition again.
Having no moral considerations before or during an act does not remove the act itself from the realm of morality, nor does it eliminate one’s ability to reason about it morally after the fact. (Nobody considers the moral habits they have formed).
So the only acts that are not morally justified beforehand are those that are considered habitual. You should have qualified it as this from the beginning.
This just brings us back to how many types of justifications there are. You claim there is only moral justification while Cartman and I claim that other types exist.
To justify something is to prove that it is right or reasonable. There is no amoral way to prove that an act is right or reasonable.
I agree with this statement. We just have a different interpretation of "reasonable". "Right" concerns are moral concerns. "Reasonable" concerns are amoral concerns.
It is reasonable to eat when one is hungry. Hunger is the signal the body sends to the brain that it requires sustenance. It is reasonable to eat food that you prefer over food that you do not prefer given that both foods are available. It is reasonable to favor the theory of evolution over the theory of creation because the theory of evolution has more empirical value. It is reasonable to favor the theory of general relativity over the classical interpretation of gravity because it has been shown empirically to be more accurate.
These are all reasonable justifications that do not rely on morality.
There are things that I believe are right and others that are wrong. I haven’t discussed those things here. That would be an argument from a normative moral position.
Code of conducts in descriptive and normative morality both claim right/wrong. Descriptive morality limits the right/wrong to people within that society. Normative morality applies the right/wrong to all humans.
Either I have misunderstood the Stanford definition or you have.
Consider written codes of conduct, is there any act that is alegal?
For written codes of conduct, alegal conduct is just any conduct that falls outside of the scope of the code. If it is the dress code of a restaurant, then building regulations would be considered alegal relative to that specific code.
I’m saying that all human behavior is either adheres to a code of conduct or is in breach of a code of conduct, thus making all conduct moral in nature.
Earlier you claimed that there are behavior that fall outside of the scope. Now you claim that all behavior is within scope.
The earlier claim: " Any conduct is going to be either outside or inside the scope of a code of conduct. If it is not a breach of a code of conduct, it is not amoral, it’s moral."
Perhaps it is worded poorly or I have misinterpreted this. Out of scope means that it does not relate at all to the code. This is how I have interpreted it.
“A non-breach is only considered moral if the behavior could have led to a possible breach”..Explain?..The standards upon which moral codes are built make impossible an action that lacks context to the given standard.
Yes. This is your understand of morality. You believe that a code of conduct must address all types of behavior. If you refer to the Stanford source, it indicates that a code of conduct can just address some behavior, not all behavior. There is no definition of morality which claims that a moral code must address all types of behavior.
My example of Hobbes and Kant illustrate this point.
Only going by your examples of Kant and Hobbes given here; Hobbes sought to force moral action holding the natural alternative as immoral, while Kant wanted to prohibit the immoral while disbelieving in the moral. The arguments I have encountered here are rather like Kant’s in that actions are presented as immoral (breach of conduct), or amoral (no breach). But the standard upon which people determine the immoral, also determines the moral.
No. You have misinterpreted both because of confirmation bias. Kant's code of conduct notes the immoral nature of harming the self or others. It also notes that the opposite which is to not harm the self or others is moral (good). Any action that does not relate to the harming or not harming of the self or others is considered amoral.
Similar explanation for Hobbes and his Leviathan. His code of conduct believes that survival of the fittest leads to immorality while suppressing that biological basis leads to morality (goodness). All conduct that does not relate to survival would be considered amoral.
My position holds amorality to be reserved for things unrelated to conduct. This is not an alteration of the definition, it’s an explanation.
This should be "amorality to be reserved for things unrelated to the code of conduct." The purpose of qualifying conduct with a specific code is to differentiate between all conduct and a specific code. That was the definition provided by Stanford. Your personal code of conduct may include all conduct, but that does not mean that all codes of conduct include all conduct.
The problem with your reasoning is that no acting human lacks a code of conduct (because people have means to ends for reasons). Thus, recognizing the subjective nature of morality does not change the fact that an action is within or outside of one’s code. Consider the codified guide to conduct, law. Is there anything that is alegal?
First we need to define legal and illegal which would be moral and immoral for a moral code.
Legal is just an action permitted by law. Illegal is the opposite of that which is an action not permitted by law.
There are plenty of things that are alegal. Any action that is not addressed by law is considered alegal. Those actions are neither legal or illegal. Similarly, any action permitted by a moral code as right/moral is right. Any action that is not permitted is wrong. Any action that is not addressed by the moral code is amoral.
I believe your argument will be that laws are not all encompassing while moral codes of conduct are. My claim is that this view of all encompassing codes of conduct is irrational and unnatural. The examples given by Stanford of Kant and Hobbes are also partial code of conduct that only apply to specific behavior. It is only your own which applies to all behavior.
Let me just give you an example of legal, illegal, and alegal. Before the passing of anti-miscegenation laws in the US, miscegenation was alegal. After the passing of these laws, it became illegal. When SCOTUS ruled that these laws violated constitutional rights, it became legal.
I am too lazy to respond to the rest of your posts regarding this point. I believe our main point of disagreement lies in the explanation above. If you wish for me to address any specific part of your responses, just indicate as such.
Going to address semi-related comments below...
Rationality isn’t subjective. Your statement that we would probably arrive at the same conclusions given the same information implies that you believe this. This is why a person can believe in a normative morality, without believing that people adhere to it.
I already pointed out the part of rationality that is subjective. Rationality depends on personal assumptions. Assumptions depend on perspective which is subjective. If we all share the same assumptions and are given the same information, we will arrive at the same conclusions. Since we do not all share the same assumptions, and it would be impossible to completely replicate another person's perspective, Rationality is subjective.
Where have I altered the definition?
Refer to the above. You have either altered the definition or misinterpreted them. That is my claim. I have supported it with quotes from the Stanford definition as well as dictionary.com in another post.
You asked “How are instincts, biological reactions to stimuli, explained in moral terms?”. I gave an example of moral issues that are also instinctual, this was one way to answer your question. I went on to explain how causal biological phenomenon are moral issues to the extent that they are overcome by volition.
Regarding just the logic. Given the set of A is a subset of B, we cannot conclude that B is a subset of A without more information. Answering the question, "How is A a subset of B?" with "B is a subset of A" is not valid.
Regarding the actual explanation. Your claim of rape and crimes of passion are not instinctual. Like I said, emotions (passion) are separate from instinct.
Rape is also not instinctual, at least not for all organisms. Many organisms exhibit courtship rituals instinctively. This would suggest that consensual mating is instinctual for some organisms. Whether or not it is for humans is debatable.
This is by far your best argument for the notion that behavior can be amoral. I would argue that accidents are not a matter of volition or behavior. Water pressure building within someone until it blasts out of the nearest release point is no more volitional than a tree falling on one’s leg. To say that accidents are amoral is reasonable. To say that accidents constitute conduct or behavior is a stretch. Accidents are only considered conduct when they could be expected to be avoided, such as in instances of negligence, which is considered immoral
A person stubbing his toe is an action.
Q: How did he conduct himself? A: Accidentally. Q: Why should we be socialist. A: Accidentially?
A person performs an action based on some superstition about improving luck (blowing a dice before tossing it). His belief in the modification of luck was the reason for his actions. This would not be accidental. It would also be amoral.
A person advocates for socialism over capitalism because he believes it will lead to more prosperity. His belief in the economic system was the reason for his actions. This would not be accidental. It would also be amoral.
The ultimate goal of the living is life. Hence my personal moral beliefs. Hunger may be instinctual, but eating concerns morality. Same with pain. The pain is amoral, what one does about it and how they do it concerns morality.
Your claim is that it must concern morality. My claim is that eating can concern morality, but it can also be amoral. My example provides one type of eating that is generally amoral: eating food that you have gathered/paid/grown for yourself.
All behavior is moral in nature, that is to say it is moral or immoral.
This is the central issue. Refer to the earlier portion where I addressed this.
In fact, the whole reason we are arguing about economics below is because you said something about advocating for supply and demand models or something, which I took issue with because advocating for something that is actually amoral, like a mathematical model, amounts to proposing that it is factually correct and has nothing to do with human conduct the way Socialism does.
My claim is that economic systems can also be advocated for amorally. There is a mathematical aspect to economic systems because they are based on economic theories and models. There are also numerous economic studies that measure the effectiveness of specific factors based on specific implementations. We can advocate for one system over another based purely on empirical value. I believe we agree that empirical value is amoral.
Just because some people have advocated for economic systems from a moral stance does not mean that all advocacy must come from a moral stance.
By the way, there are many types of socialist systems. A person can advocate for one socialist system over another. If both systems hold the same moral value, how would one advocate for one over another? Perhaps through some amoral means? Most economies are a mix between capitalism and socialism as in a mix of state-control and private-control, which is related to why there are so many economic systems.
I hold normative moral discussions to be those concerning what is actually right or wrong (Which I will engage in, but I don’t think I have here). I hold descriptive moral discussions to be those concerning what/how/why morality is (the nature of morality as such).
Ok. I am pretty sure that you are using a different definition than the Stanford source. We should probably use the Stanford one for consistency.
"The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."
The basic part. You should read the rest of your source. It actually counters quite a bit of your points. Also... why the hell did you not read your own source?
The moral issue is not the pain, it’s the cause of the pain.
The issue does not have to be the cause of the pain. It can also be the action in response to pain. If we behave in a certain way around pain (like avoid it), that is still a form of conduct. The fact that people avoid pain as typical behavior is an amoral one.
I’m saying my earlier comments do. If there is an incorrect earlier usage, it was a typo. Even so, you would need to find and quote my typo to justify your assertion
I did quote the parts. You just claimed my interpretation was different from the intended message. I don't see how "the concept of supply and demand" equates to "the phenomenon of supply and the phenomenon of demand" in your mind. This indicates some confusion on your part.
What makes a bundle of goods “supply” as opposed to a cache or store? The concept. There is a concept of “Table”. And when you take in the phenomenon through perception, and your understand it in thought, you conceptualize it. It is then a concept
It is not the concept that differentiates them but the definition of the words. We create words to describe phenomenon. Once we created a table, we gave it a name. When we wanted to talk about supply in a market, we created the word supply for the phenomenon apparent in the market.
an abstract idea; a general notion."
a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question."
This is clearly a mistake on your part. The cause or explanation of a phenomenon is a concept. The phenomenon itself exists. There is nothing abstract about the existence of an observed phenomenon.
I guess it was a semantics issue.
An painting can be promoted based on how accurately it represents its subject. The degree of accuracy is not a debate over the existence of the subject. A debate about how accurately reality is represented in mathematics and theory is not a debate about the existence of the reality being analyzed
It seems that the semantics issue was the difference between a concept and a phenomenon. Hopefully, you understand the difference now.
When you looked up that definition, what did it give as an example of an economic model? Was it a fucking paragraph?
It provided both. Below is the paragraph. You can find the curve yourself.
"The four basic laws of supply and demand are::37
If demand increases (demand curve shifts to the right) and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
If demand decreases (demand curve shifts to the left) and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply increases (supply curve shifts to the right), a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases (supply curve shifts to the left), a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price."
That is usually how explanations usually go. They explain the same concept in multiple ways.
Read your Stanford source. I have no idea why you posted something that you did not even read. Or, you did read it misunderstood it completely. Or, I misunderstood it completely. I re-read a large portion of it just to be sure of my interpretation. You should do so as well.
I hold normative moral discussions to be those concerning what is actually right or wrong (Which I will engage in, but I don’t think I have here). I hold descriptive moral discussions to be those concerning what/how/why morality is (the nature of morality as such).
I in my above argument I defined my words with a quick google search as I am sure you confirmed. But a simple definitions will not sum up a complex topic.
You have confirmation bias. Both Cartman and I have pointed out that you have been using words incorrectly. Obviously, in your mind, it must be us that is wrong. Maybe you should consider the other option as well.
PS: I asked you to quote the specific parts of the sources that indicates "Justifying behavior must invoke moral reasoning." or "all human behavior must invoke moral ends".
You still have not done it. If you claim justification by the source, then you should be able to produce such justification.
manner of behaving or acting.
Psychology, Animal Behavior.
observable activity in a human or animal.
the aggregate of responses to internal and external stimuli.
a stereotyped, species-specific activity, as a courtship dance or startle reflex.
Often, behaviors. a behavior pattern.
the action or reaction of any material under given circumstances:
the behavior of tin under heat.
the process or state of acting or of being active:
The machine is not in action now.
something done or performed; act; deed.
an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity:
a crisis that demands action instead of debate; hoping for constructive action by the landlord.
actions, habitual or usual acts; conduct:
He is responsible for his actions.
a man of action.
an exertion of power or force:
the action of wind upon a ship's sails.
effect or influence:
Behavior is composed of actions, it doesn't determine it.
Behavior (2) is instinct, probably not what you want. (4) is non-human.
Action (3) or (4) is probably what you want. (3) is a pattern of behaviors which relates to "Behavior is composed of actions". (4) has the word conduct so that seems even better for you, since it is also composed of multiple actions. (5), (6), and (7) seem irrelevant. (1), (2), and (3) can also fit.
My previous explanation was using the (1) of both. The first definition is the most common usage. I guess if you want to go with behavior (1) and action (4), that is fine as well. It does not mean my interpretation earlier was incorrect.
"Behavior determines action. Action can result from behavior or be independent of it. This means that there are other types of actions not determined by behavior."
The manner of action determines the act. The action itself is just an act.
Justifying behavior must invoke moral reasoning.
Assuming you are using behavior (4), we should define conduct.
personal behavior; way of acting; bearing or deportment.
direction or management; execution:
the conduct of a business.
the act of conducting; guidance; escort:
The curator's conduct through the museum was informative.
Obsolete. a guide; an escort.
Conduct (2), (3), and (4) appear irrelevant. I guess we are going with (1).
"personal behavior; way of acting; bearing or deportment."
Bearing and deportment both regard a specific type/manner of acting.
Way of acting suggests manner of acting as well.
Nothing so far has even hinted at the intrinsic morality of action, behavior, or conduct.
Since everything seems to relate to "manner", let us look that up too.
a way of doing, being done, or happening; mode of action, occurrence, etc.:
I don't like the manner in which he complained.
the prevailing customs, ways of living, and habits of a people, class, period, etc.; mores:
The novels of Jane Austen are concerned with the manners of her time.
ways of behaving with reference to polite standards; social comportment:
That child has good manners.
a person's outward bearing; way of speaking to and treating others:
She has a charming manner.
characteristic or customary way of doing, making, saying, etc.:
houses built in the 19th-century manner.
air of distinction:
That old gentleman had quite a manner.
(used with a singular or plural verb) kind; sort:
What manner of man is he? All manner of things were happening.
characteristic style in art, literature, or the like:
verses in the manner of Spenser.
Manner (3) is just conduct (1). (4) through (7) appear irrelevant. (1) is similar to "way of acting" or "manner of acting".
(2) regards politeness or prevailing customs. Politeness obviously does not encompass all types of behavior as certain types of behavior cannot be polite or impolite. Prevailing customs fits well with the definition of descriptive morality presented by the Stanford source. However, as I already pointed out from the Stanford definition, descriptive morality does not always dictate behavior.
"If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave."
Basically, there is nothing in the definitions that support "Justifying behavior must invoke moral reasoning."
You can keep claiming that google and Stanford support your ideas, but you need to back it up by quoting from the sources instead of just making up your own definitions.
Forgot to define justification for you.
a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends:
His insulting you was ample justification for you to leave the party.
an act of justifying :
The painter's justification of his failure to finish on time didn't impress me.
the state of being justified.
Also called justification by faith. Theology. the act of God whereby humankind is made or accounted just, or free from guilt or penalty of sin.
Printing. the spacing of words and letters within a line of type so that all full lines in a column have even margins both on the left and on the right.
(2) through (5) are irrelevant. "a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends" still has nothing to do with morality.
From your link: "In short, behavior defines how an individual will act, whereas an act is anything an individual does and how they do it, independent of their typical behavior"..and all without an explanation of how an act is independent of behavior. Great source.
It was not that clear, but beats me writing out a paragraph only for you to ignore it and keep defending your personal definitions.
I guess I can help you clear it up a bit.
Behavior determines action. Action can result from behavior or be independent of it. This means that there are other types of actions not determined by behavior.
You can keep claiming that act = behavior = conduct, it won't change the dictionary.
I drew my definitions from google and Stanford.
Really? Can you quote the part of google/stanford which claims that all human behavior must invoke moral ends?
His question concerned what direction Christianity would lead. Even if the pope isn't referring to a proper definition of socialism, it is still more in line with socialism than capitalism. Many would argue that the pope isn't a proper christian, but it still fits my position.
How is state-controlled production more in line with Christianity than private ownership? How do either line up with a religion that talks about worshiping an omniscient being and his hippie son?
By the way, most social democracies in Europe are mixed economies that skew heavily towards Capitalism.
Spreading genes is not the same as continuing life. Most (All) human children cannot survive without adult care. A human family unit propagates human life. Random fucking does nothing other than raise abortion and single-mother rates.
1. That was trying to guess at where you might go next.
Based on my experience, social skills (networking ability) is far more advantageous than a solid academic background.
I interpret academic skills as the ability to excel in an academic setting, not the general ability to learn and absorb information. If we are talking about the general ability, then it would definitely be more important. Without it, you would not be able to tie your shoes.
Neither. Many contracts include a clause that destroys the embryos upon divorce.
If there is no such clause then one of the plaintiffs must show some exceptional reason. If the court/arbitrator/whatever deems it exceptional, that plaintiff will receive the embryos.
For example, if the man or woman freezes the embryos in preparation for a medical procedure that will cause infertility, then they will usually gain ownership.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute:
the God of Islam.
(lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception:
the god of mercy.
Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
(lowercase) any deified person or object.
(often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
the upper balcony in a theater.
the spectators in this part of the balcony.
For definitions of God.
2. Depends on attribute
4. Depends on conception
5. Probably not.
Looks like the only version of God to definitely exist is "Gods, Theater.
the upper balcony in a theater.
the spectators in this part of the balcony."