Why is murder actually wrong.

Author: Checkmate

Posts

Total: 458
#241
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
I said that the importance of the consequences of an action in a moral calculus depends on the severity of the consequence. 
Isn’t significance, importance, and severity all synonymous? (you can accuse me of being semantic all you want fact of the matter is you’re asking for it with all these terms your implementing as if they’re different) with that being asked that statement is pretty much a redundant nothing.

The consequences in my statement are the consequences that occur directly as a result of the action, like a ball moving as a result of it being pushed. That should be enough to show that the statement you extrapolated out of my statement and the actual meaning of my statement are two different things.
...Not even because I can extrapolate those words to suit my narrative get this, just like a ball moving as a result of it being pushed one less murderer is living among us a result of them receiving the death penalty, it’s really not that complicated.
#242
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I am done with this conversation until tomorrow because 1. I have work to do and this has distracted me and 2. this is making me angry.

Have a nice day. 
#243
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
I see that you are back with the old synonymity tactic.

Significance, importance, and severity can have synonymity, but also difference.

A significant change is notable.

An important change needs to be addressed

And the severity of a change is variable, and should be regarded accordingly.


The multiplicity of "innocent" synonyms is amazing......From guiltless to virginal.


We cannot pass the death sentence Your Honour, because the defendant is virginal.......Nope, you can't always mix your synonyms.
#244
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Significance, importance, and severity can have synonymity, but also difference.
...So what? Whatever the difference is is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned because context is of the utmost importance and each term could’ve been mixed in or used interchangeably within the sentence and it would make no difference in terms of meaning, so nice try attempting to get one over on semantics but try again.

From guiltless to virginal.
I wouldn’t call those two terms synonymous, therefore I also wouldn’t mix them so no need to worry about that.
#245
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
But they are listed as synonyms in the magic book.....So who are we to disagree?


As I've stated on previous occasions, words have multiple and various definitions.

And so within the correct context, innocent and virginal are appropriately synonymous.



#246
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
But they are listed as synonyms in the magic book
Do you have any proof? Otherwise leave it alone.

As I've stated on previous occasions, words have multiple and various definitions.
And? I never disputed that.

And so within the correct context, innocent and virginal are appropriately synonymous.
I wouldn’t say so.

#247
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
But the magic book does.

The Dictionary.


#248
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
This will be the last thing I post for now in this thread. 

Isn’t significance, importance, and severity all synonymous?
First, significance and importance might be given that significance kind of means importance and severity depending on how you use it, but severity is definitely not. You can be, idk, severely tired and severely ill but not importantly tired and importantly ill. But that's not even relevant to our discussion. 

Importance means the degree to which we account for something in our moral calculus. That's what it means in my sentence given the context. 

Severity means magnitude i.e. how many people that thing affects and the degree to which it affects people. 

So my sentence means that 

The degree to which we take a consequence into account in our moral calculus depends on the the magnitude of the consequence.  
If you look back in our conversation (which you need to do sometimes given that you say that I didn't say things that I said) you will see that that sentence was relevant to our conversation and not a "nothing".  And it is OBVIOUSLY different from this: 

Yeah like whether or not they should receive the penalty should depend on the severity of the crime such as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

(you can accuse me of being semantic all you want fact of the matter is you’re asking for it with all these terms your implementing as if they’re different) with that being asked that statement is pretty much a redundant nothing.
You can't just extrapolate my words to fit you narrative (which you LITERALLY admit to doing) and change the meaning of my sentence just because you don't understand what my sentence actually means. I am not asking for anything. 

...Not even because I can extrapolate those words to suit my narrative get this
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard someone say on this website. Why are you extrapolating my words beyond what I actually said? Why do you have a narrative? Aren't you supposed to be an enforcer of consistency? If you're just trying to "win" this argument or debate me on this there's no point in arguing with you anymore because that's clearly different than the discussion we were having at the start. 

just like a ball moving as a result of it being pushed one less murderer is living among us a result of them receiving the death penalty, it’s really not that complicated.
This is totally and absolutely irrelevant. I have already proven that my sentence had an entirely different meaning than what you're extrapolating it to mean (using the ball rolling analogy). You're supposed to prove that my positions are inconsistent based on the conflicting meanings of what I actually said, not get my sentence to say something that doesn't mean the same thing as what I initially said and then use that. You are trying and failing to grasp at straws to win an argument. Just because you can draw a parallel between two sentences doesn't mean that they're the same, the parallel actually has to prove that the two sentences mean the same thing or that or that one follows from the other. Because the meanings of the two sentences are WHOLLY SEPARATE you can't do that. 

You also dropped this argument: 

In addition, you changed what the "severity" in my statement referred to. In my actual statement it referred to consequences, and in yours it referred to actions. So that should answer your question 

I have shown that my positions are consistent. You have twisted my words to make them seem otherwise. 
#249
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
I mean is anyone else seeing this????? This is absurd
#250
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
You can say that all you want but unless you can prove it, it means nothing.
#251
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
depending on how you use it
Exactly my point and the context in which you used it in was synonymous making your original statement not make sense, maybe if I substituted severity with significance and vice versa you’ll catch my drift.

and the significance of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their significance.
And the other way

and the severity of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
I mean you said it yourself

In my initial statement, "significance" and "severity" refer to the same thing.

The degree to which we take a consequence into account in our moral calculus depends on the the magnitude of the consequence.
Okay so for clarification purposes how about you use your specific narrative here as something to draw from because that’s what I did when I brought up murderers, rapists, and pedophiles because I’m pretty sure once you do that then you’ll see that their isn’t much difference between the two positions, but before you do so let me take a shot at this again in regards to the narrative I’m defending, my biggest takeaway here from your stance is magnitude and the magnitude of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles living among us are higher than sadolites comfortable with therefore his solution to that is execution, magnitude is very much a common denominator here so I don’t see what your issue is regarding his argument.

You can't just extrapolate my words to fit you narrative (which you LITERALLY admit to doing)
Yes but that was in regards to a different quote.

change the meaning of my sentence just because you don't understand what my sentence actually means.
I’ve asked you at length to clarify your message, and you’ve failed to do that leaving me no choice but to assume what you’re trying to say, it’s not my fault you can’t articulate yourself properly.

Why are you extrapolating my words beyond what I actually said?
It’s called making a comparison dude, it’s done all the times in debates/discussions to prove a point, get with it.

Why do you have a narrative? Aren't you supposed to be an enforcer of consistency?
You literally just answered your own question, because that’s my narrative to enforce consistency.

You're supposed to prove that my positions are inconsistent based on the conflicting meanings of what I actually said
Which I did, the most recent example I can think of is #195

In addition, you changed what the "severity" in my statement referred to. In my actual statement it referred to consequences, and in yours it referred to actions. So that should answer your question
I can’t drop an argument that was never mine to begin with, I’ve lost count of the numerous amount of times you’ve attempted to make your arguments mine over the course of this discussion.

#252
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I mean you said it yourself

In my initial statement, "significance" and "severity" refer to the same thing.
Not what I meant. Significance and severity are both describing consequences in my initial statement. 

my biggest takeaway here from your stance is magnitude and the magnitude of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles living among us are higher than sadolites comfortable with therefore his solution to that is execution, magnitude is very much a common denominator here so I don’t see what your issue is regarding his argument.
Just because you use magnitude of consequence in your argument doesn't mean I agree with it. For example, magnitude is also a factor when you kill a guy and use his organs to save two people. Still, that doesn't make it justified. Me and sadolite have different standards for what magnitude of consequence is necessary to harm people. I think his standards are a bit absolute and ridiculous. 

Yes but that was in regards to a different quote.
The quote you were extrapolating from was a quote explaining the difference between the two sentences in question. The parallel you were drawing between my sentence about consequences and your sentence about punishment was irrelevant. 

it’s not my fault you can’t articulate yourself properly.
This was not necessary. 

It’s called making a comparison dude, it’s done all the times in debates/discussions to prove a point, get with it.
I have plenty of experience in debates and discussions. Your comparison was nonsensical and irrelevant. Judging by the fact that you have not defended the substantive logic of your comparison anywhere else in your last post I'm going to assume you agree. 

Which I did, the most recent example I can think of is #195
The discussion we are having right now has stemmed from post 195, no? 

I can’t drop an argument that was never mine to begin with, I’ve lost count of the numerous amount of times you’ve attempted to make your arguments mine over the course of this discussion.
You dropped my argument, not yours. You can drop your opponents argument in a debate. Do not lecture me on how to have a debate or discussion when you are not aware of this. It still stands that my initial statement about consequences and your statement about punishment are not meaningfully comparable. 


#253
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
Now I am actually done for now and am not going to visit this site until then
#254
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Not what I meant. Significance and severity are both describing consequences in my initial statement. 
...Okay? Well if you substituted consequences with those other words your statement would make even less sense.

Just because you use magnitude of consequence in your argument doesn't mean I agree with it.
I’m not telling you to agree but if you’re gonna use arguments against his you should make sure it doesn’t apply to you as well otherwise you look like a hypocrite.

The quote you were extrapolating from was a quote explaining the difference between the two sentences in question.
No, it was your ball example.

Your comparison was nonsensical and irrelevant.
I could say the same thing regarding your ball example but since you insisted on making it I just went with it.

Just because you can draw a parallel between two sentences doesn't mean that they're the same, the parallel actually has to prove that the two sentences mean the same thing or that or that one follows from the other.
They’re the same in regards to the main idea which is a “direct result” and my death penalty point is an example of that.

The discussion we are having right now has stemmed from post 195, no?
Yes and all the other posts to, I’m not sure we resolved anything although I thought we did before you made the hyperbolic remark.

Do not lecture me on how to have a debate or discussion
I’m not lecturing you, I thought you meant it as my argument my mistake.

when you are not aware of this
What’s the point of saying this if you’re not gonna elaborate?

It still stands that my initial statement about consequences and your statement about punishment are not meaningfully comparable.
When did I say they were?

#255
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,356
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Username
I mean is anyone else seeing this????? This is absurd - armoredcat
You have a choice in who you 'choose to talk to, if you find a conversation absurd, you don't 'need to continue it.
#256
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,173
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Username
Ethics doesn't exist anymore. Any behavior or act can be justified in todays world. The govt is spending the country into oblivion ruining every man woman and childs financial future. That isn't unethical so why would murder be unethical? Ethics is a red herring argument. Ethics is up to the  individual. Ethics is meaningless to a society of people.  This is proved every single day of the year 24/7.
#257
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
...Okay? Well if you substituted consequences with those other words your statement would make even less sense.
Ok, well I already explained what that sentence means to you so there's no point in talking about the specific words I used any more. And no I did not ask you to substitute consequence in for those words. Those words are modifying the word consequence. The importance of the consequence. The severity of the consequence. 

I’m not telling you to agree but if you’re gonna use arguments against his you should make sure it doesn’t apply to you as well otherwise you look like a hypocrite.
Good thing it doesn't.... As I just explained. We have different thresholds for when consequences outweigh procedural violations. You probably do too, unless 1. you think ethics is B.S. or 2. you only consider one of those things in moral calculation. 

No, it was your ball example.
Which explained the difference between the two sentences in question, no?

They’re the same in regards to the main idea which is a “direct result” and my death penalty point is an example of that.
Elaborate. 

Yes and all the other posts to, I’m not sure we resolved anything although I thought we did before you made the hyperbolic remark.
I didn't think at the time that the hyperbolic remark had any bearing on the argument. It was just a remark to settle what I thought was a stalemate. 

What’s the point of saying this if you’re not gonna elaborate?
I already did. I said "You can drop your opponents argument in a debate" immediately before that. 

When did I say they were?
"They’re the same in regards to the main idea which is a “direct result” and my death penalty point is an example of that."

I feel like there's a disconnect in the sentences we're talking about here....

#258
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@sadolite
That's weird considering that you just made an argument involving ethics earlier on in this conversation. Unless you don't support killing rapists, murderers, and pedophiles for deterrence rates. 

The govt is spending the country into oblivion ruining every man woman and childs financial future. That isn't unethical so why would murder be unethical? 
It's ethical or unethical depending on what you think of it. 

Ethics is a red herring argument. Ethics is up to the individual. Ethics is meaningless to a society of people.  This is proved every single day of the year 24/7.
If you say so. 


#259
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Ok, well I already explained what that sentence means to you so there's no point in talking about the specific words I used any more.
To me? Was that a typo?

And no I did not ask you to substitute consequence in for those words.
I didn’t say you asked me.

We have different thresholds for when consequences outweigh procedural violations.
That doesn’t mean you can pick and choose when to use your threshold as an argument against his and expect to be convincing, clearly he doesn’t care about your threshold any less then you care about his (if he even has one, which if you’re right about it being absolute means he doesn’t and it’s consistent).

Which explained the difference between the two sentences in question, no?
Which two sentences? When I extrapolated I was solely drawing from the ball example.

Elaborate.
One less murderer living among us is a “direct result” of the death penalty, it’s pretty straightforward.

I didn't think at the time that the hyperbolic remark had any bearing on the argument.
It doesn’t (not on the one currently at least) I just referenced that because before I saw it for what it was I thought that was the only time something was resolved, I know now that I was wrong.

I already did. I said "You can drop your opponents argument in a debate" immediately before that.
I’m talking about when you accused me of not being aware of knowing how to have a debate or discussion, what evidence do you have of this?

I feel like there's a disconnect in the sentences we're talking about here....
...Yeah, because the sentence you quoted was in the same post I asked the question so it makes no sense for it to be that one unless your psychic and knew what I was going to say before I said it (perhaps even then it still doesn’t make any sense because the sentence you quoted isn’t what you accused me of saying).
#260
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I'm not going to engage with the semantics of my initial statement because we are talking about the actual statement I made here: 

We have different thresholds for when consequences outweigh procedural violations.
That doesn’t mean you can pick and choose when to use your threshold as an argument against his and expect to be convincing, clearly he doesn’t care about your threshold any less then you care about his (if he even has one, which if you’re right about it being absolute means he doesn’t and it’s consistent).
If you actually have a reason to keep talking about semantics please let me know. 
One less murderer living among us is a “direct result” of the death penalty, it’s pretty straightforward.
That's a truism given the context of this argument. What's your point?

That doesn’t mean you can pick and choose when to use your threshold as an argument against his and expect to be convincing, clearly he doesn’t care about your threshold any less then you care about his (if he even has one, which if you’re right about it being absolute means he doesn’t and it’s consistent).
Why can't people argue about thresholds? And how am I picking and choosing? Is there something inconsistent about a threshold? 

And we've already been over how a means of controlling crime is necessary for a functioning society. We have laws that we typically enforce through enforcement mechanisms. We have various fairly predictable processes (i.e. businesses, government owned programs) by which people navigate their lives. Most people generally are under the rule of law. We have a government that has flaws but is a democratic system that elects leaders how it is supposed to do so. This would fall apart without a means of punishing crimes because the laws could not be effectively enforced, so the rule of law would fall apart, as would law and it's enforcement mechanisms. Processes would be unprotected and the government would be powerless. This is why we need prison, or at least something like it. This is not why we need the death penalty. 

I’m talking about when you accused me of not being aware of knowing how to have a debate or discussion, what evidence do you have of this?
I said that? I know I told you not to lecture me on how to have a debate when you said that I can't drop an argument that I didn't make. 

...Yeah, because the sentence you quoted was in the same post I asked the question so it makes no sense for it to be that one unless your psychic and knew what I was going to say before I said it (perhaps even then it still doesn’t make any sense because the sentence you quoted isn’t what you accused me of saying).
I don't know what you're talking about here. 
#261
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
That's a truism given the context of this argument. What's your point?
The same as yours when you brought up the ball argument.

Why can't people argue about thresholds?
You can it just won’t go anywhere, especially if the difference between them come down to a matter of preference and there’s no objective argument you can make in regards to preference claims because thresholds are an arbitrary delineation.

And how am I picking and choosing?
Because of the hypocrisy associated with your attack that I alluded to before, I just forgot to respond to that point so I’ll do so now

We have different thresholds for when consequences outweigh procedural violations.
The whys as to your picking and choosing doesn’t make it any less hypocritical of you calling out sadolite. Everybody has there why’s.

Is there something inconsistent about a threshold?
Yes but it’s an inconsistency I have no issue with because I recognize that thresholds are necessary,  you just should’ve kept your threshold in mind before you criticized sadolites threshold (again and that’s if he even has one).

This is not why we need the death penalty.
I’m sure sadolite has his reasons as to why he believes we need the penalty, you told me yours but like I said the whys is irrelevant the issue at hand is you’re argument against sadolite also applies to you and regardless of the reason it applies to you it’s still hypocritical to do that, like I said before sadolite doesn’t care about your reasons any less than you care about his.

I said that?
Yes you did, you want proof?

I don't know what you're talking about here.
Well in that case you can drop the point of me saying consequences and punishment are comparable, because I don’t remember ever saying that.
#262
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Nope. I have explained to you why my threshold is logical. He does not meet my threshold and therefore an argument I levy against him doesn't apply to me. 
#263
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
I have explained to you why my threshold is logical.
I’m sure he thinks his is as well (if he has one).

He does not meet my threshold
That argument works both ways considering you don’t meet his either (if he has one).

therefore an argument I levy against him doesn't apply to me.
It does considering you didn’t make your threshold clear when you asked him the question.
#264
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
You are, or were once an advocate of bookish authority.

So read the book.
#265
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Just looked it up.

Threshold is synonymous with both doorstep and birth.

Now there's synonymic variety.
#266
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
So read the book.
There’s many books to read, if you’re referring to the dictionary the one I have at home doesn’t have the claim that you’re making so unless you have any other form of proof outside of hearsay it’s nothing more than that.
#267
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
If we can not respect each others ability to reference a dictionary, then we must accept that all unreferenced narrative is hearsay.

So therefore, all that you present in this thread should be taken with a pinch of salt.....Is that what you are saying?
#268
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Your argument is non-unique. When anyone logically explains why they have a moral view that opposes another person's, the other person could always reply  "Well, I believe that my moral view is logical, too." or "You don't meet my threshold either." 

It does considering you didn’t make your threshold clear when you asked him the question.
I don't know what question your referring to. And from what I can tell this argument is absurd. 

"You criticize my moral view? Well, you haven't made yours clear to me yet, so your criticism of mine applies to yours!"

Typically, in a good discussion, one person criticizes another person's position, and if the difference in position is based on two different positions on morality, they can clarify and argue about their moral positions from there. 

In addition, I've already clarified my moral position to you. I criticized someone else's moral position, you thought my criticism applied to my view, and then I explained why I thought it didn't. I did not do anything wrong there; that's a normal discussion (er it would have been minus all of the semantics).  And after all, I've already clarified the multiple aspects of my moral position to you, so what's the problem? 

#269
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
So therefore, all that you present in this thread should be taken with a pinch of salt.....Is that what you are saying?
I don’t present anything I’m not willing to back up.
#270
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Your argument is non-unique.
Good, so you should know better.

I don't know what question your referring to. And from what I can tell this argument is absurd.
If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
And from what I can tell this hypocritical question is absurd.

"You criticize my moral view? Well, you haven't made yours clear to me yet, so your criticism of mine applies to yours!"
Don’t know where your quoting that from but I never criticized your “moral” view and even if I did if you don’t know mine you can’t possibly know what does or doesn’t apply to me.

they can clarify and argue about their moral positions from there.
They can but if they want the arguments to be convincing and/or successful a way to bridge the gap is by arguing where you find the violation of the common ground you both claim to share, not hypocrisy, if neither one of you are willing to budge then the argument is pointless and you might as well tell each other what you believe and why, agree to disagree and move on because it’s apparent that you don’t care about his threshold any less than he cares about yours.

you thought my criticism applied to my view, and then I explained why I thought it didn't.
Like I said you didn’t make that explanation clear when you asked the question, therefore based on the question alone yes it still did.

(er it would have been minus all of the semantics)
What’s irregular about semantics? We wouldn’t get that far without it.