Well, i never claimed the independent police officers were racist. Just that their results were. I'm unsure where you get the information from that "if you ask 5 different sociologists you will get 5 conflicting answers."
I feel like that is an appeal to vagueness. At what point in time are dictionaries most reliable? If so, why are they more reliable then and not now? Generally speaking, my definition should be the more fitting one, due to the continuous corrections made to dictionaries over time. Despite my definition existing, interpersonal racism still exists as its own category (which actually creates systemic racism). Although your problem isn't actually with the dictionary being outdated, you just think it's a retarded worldview, so your problem is not actually with the dictionary but with the philosophy itself.
This is interesting. Semperfortis looks like my kind of debater. Its a shame he's no longer active. I would of loved to debate this with someone who has such a good grasp of philosophy.
CON wins in my eyes due fleshing out his moral philosophy much more. He also sufficiently argued against the pluses of a kidney selling market to at least make it appear questionable or debateable.
CON argues kidney selling is an impeachment on people's bodily integrity and autonomy if they are incapable of informed consent. PRO initially tries to argue against this although it seems he eventually gave up and more so made arguments to the creation of certain establishments. I believe CON effectively touted these as unrealistic. CON also pointed out the frivolousness of doctors, and how through a kidney seller system, it will increase the already apparent corruption within the medical industry. This had little push back from PRO except through an appeal to more organizations to solve the problem.
CON also argues that rich people and wealthy nations will effectively possess a monopoly on the organ industry harming the poorest people in the world. PRO never really offered a good argument outside of this except "it will level out at some point". Such a position is not a good enough refute to the argument whiteflame presented, in fact it's not an argument against at all but more so damage control (which may not even work effectively).
PRO pointed out some issues with CONS Pakistan analogy and did show kidney transplant rates do go up in nations with kidney selling. Yet CON points out there still appears to be an under demand even with kidney selling. PRO argues this is mostly logistics issues as opposed to their not having enough kidneys. I don't think there was a proper resolution on this point, although I may be incorrect (it's a very long debate ok).
When I first began reading the debate, I found it to be very even, for about the first two rounds. Once I got to the third round however, I got the sense PRO (as con pointed out) was simply constantly on the defensive using whataboutisms. Pro disagrees his "analogies' ' (as he calls them) were actually whataboutisms, but as CON says, they were whataboutisms, as there was no actual moral goodness expounded upon or upheld through said analogies. Instead they were simply arguments to consistency regardless if the analogy (or law) was right or wrong. Based on this fact, his "analogies" did little to support his actual case as they did not prove his current argument any more moral. All they did was serve as an argument to consistency. I believe whiteflame himself pointed this out in the last round.
Although i think whiteflame could of definitely pointed out more why these whataboutisms and consistency arguments held little substance (such as simply "saying, yes rich people can cut in lines and get better access to food and shelter, this is WRONG but i don't see a realistic way of solving this issue, while i think your philosophy makes this problem worse in the medical industry" Although he kind of did say that, i do believe he could of went much deeper on it. I believe CON did just enough on this point to merit him having a more fleshed out moral philosophy which doesn't depend on just consistency but on actually promoting what he believes to be a healthier system.
I had no way of knowing or not if pro is in support of rich people having extra privilege (i would assume he's at least ok with it based on his constant comparison to his kidney position) but this once more is irrelevant if he doesn't point out WHY these analogies are relevant, WHY it adds goodness both in its own system and to the system it wishes to penetrate into (the kidney market) he didn't do this. Therefore whiteflames philosophy was far more morally robust.
PRO argues around the fact that humans can consent to many things which may be inconsistent with whiteflames other views (such as firefighters). Yet there was so much work here which pro needed to do, just because we can do things doesn't make them right. It may be true a rich person can cut in line at hospitals and at a marketplace. Yet there was zero explanation why this is RIGHT or acceptable from pro, therefore just because it happens in one industry doesn't mean it ought to in another, CON never implied this was right or acceptable either. This argument felt like it was an argument to pointing out inconstency in CONS position, yet since we don't know cons position on these matters, we don't know if its inconsistent with his kidney selling position. Therefore it held little value. PRO used an analogy to jobs like being a firefighter or being in the army. When one signs up for an organ transplant, you're going to lose your kidney, there is no "what ifs" or percentages involved. I considered this a big enough symmetry breaker which CON pointed out for me to lessen some of the weight to pros analogies to firefighters to an organ transplant unless he can point out at what percentage of death matters matters without appealing to vagueness. There is no vagueness in cons position as it is 100% guaranteed all the time.
I finally finished reading the debate, it was a very worthwhile read. I stayed engaged with it, there was certainly a few things i learnt from this debate.
I noticed that myself after i made the comment, there actually is a bug, you're right. I'm unsure why it even let him vote. That being said, his vote was definitely acceptable and if his vote were to be taken down FLRW's ought to be too.
What new argument did he make in round 3? he had already argued that in the same sense there is structural violence against women in his system, there is structural violence against fetus's in whiteflames within round 2. Although this isnt the first time that rule has shot him in the foot, ive seen it happen more than once which is why i advocate for him to get rid of it.
Is this vote really going to slide? im skeptical if its not an outright malicious vote to make bones lose, considering its within the last hour. Look at ittttt. How can we let a vote like that ruin such a good debate?
What kind of vote is that? you didnt even go over anything they said and simply made it look like the only thing bones said was an appeal to authority. Better conduct as well?
Its probably honestly best if con actually doesn't come back to see this argument. I don't want to make people upset through my debates. Lets pray they dont come back, as my argument is likely simply insurmountable.
Is basing most of my arguments off a professor of gender professional enough for you? i hope that's authority enough, although i myself am more well read on philosophy than most philosophers themselves.
My argument against the biological view may be of interest to you! i used a biological view based argument against you vs. nyx, i was curious to see if you had an appropriate response. I think the best way to respond against it is the idea that some men must necessarily be "less of a man" than other men, and the same for women. Not only that, but it does necessarily have many assumptions (like the brain argument i used). Many men are going to have brains more like women but not feel like a woman.
Would you be interested in debating in this same topic, Novice? i would prefer to put it as "reincarnation is not illogical" or "reincarnation has good evidence". Would you be interested? I will of course take mall's position on the matter.
pfff, you just gave up Michael! we should of had 3 rounds, my bad. It would of been interesting to see how you would of argued against dualism being more simplistic than physicalism. That was your only chance really, although its impossible for you to win (i think) after all, when we assume nothing the only thing we can be assured of is our own minds existence (therefore dualism).
That's why I forfeited. I lose interest in a discussion fast if I don't think anything of value will be produced from it (such as my ideas being questioned) mall would just ask me questions instead.
If you admit you know you exist, Michael. You automatically fall into a dualist position (since it cant be shown through physicalism as more likely through Occam's razor, or proven through science to exist). This then means I automatically win, if you say you know you exist.
I will become the greatest sophist on the site. If i debate a sophist, ill show them what sophist magic really is. Michael himself is a sophist (as is common of atheist leftists).
How high would you rate my sophistry? currently id give it about a 5. I plan to turn the magic up 3 notches in the last round. Ultimate sceptic is coming.
If you truly think the pain from an amputation is the cause of suffering itself (at best all that can be said is the pain from an amputation necessarily always leads to suffering). Then that's honestly why humanity is lost. No wonder everyone has mental health issues and possess a lack of empathy etc. Philosophers came to the conclusion I did thousands of years ago. There was no moving of any goalposts. When did i claim (anywhere in the description or title) that we can always avoid false beliefs? strawman. If its true what causes suffering is subjective (if its caused by the mind and a sense of lack, and expectation) no suffering would occur even in "facts of the matter".
Merriam webster is not a better source than philosophers. Merrian webster simply follows popular usage (most people dont dissect their language as much as philosophers). Scientism.
If you want me to claim some sort of objective morality, this isn't the debate for that. Within the current framework and based on how humans form societies (in the modern day) it is completely impossible for me to be less consistent in my position than my opposition, unless someone wants to argue against human rights. Its not arbitrary once we presume the axiom that humans ought to have certain privileges and expectations within a society. Once we assume this axiom (human rights) my position will always win. Unless you want to argue we should get rid of human rights, unless you argue we should disband everything we have build, and go back to living in caves, it is not arbitrary.
Everyone agrees abortion is immoral (anyone with sense).
Personhood laws are not arbitrary in the least if they're either:
1. personhood is decided at the point of conception
2. personhood is decided when bodily autonomy rights should be given (which means independent viability). It must be rememebered, our bodily autonomy rights are the reason murder is illegal, same with rape and so on. Therefore attaining bodily autonomy rights is akin to attaining personhood, you cannot have one without the other.
There's nothing vague about that, there's nothing subjective here. if i can show which one lacks consistent, and which one doesn't, we have a very clear answer to when personhood should be given. Giving personhood at the point of conception is not consistent with the current way the world is run (economically, based on private property and labour rights). The only way to defeat this argument is to literally go back to tribal times, where people didnt have human rights. The pro life position also has the increased burden of proof of showing people (outside of the womb) couldn't be organ harvested, or abused in ways which based on their abortion position would be appear to be permissible if we're to be consistent. Unless we roll back the right to private property (therefore people not having a right to their own body as their own) my argument is never going to lose. You would have to argue against basic human rights, constitutional rights to be able to defeat my argument.
There is no fallacy here, my friend. I'm not saying abortion (based on current laws) should be legal (although it should) im saying it OUGHT to be legal. I don't care about the current laws. I would concede abortion is immoral. That doesn't mean i think everything immoral should be illegal.
"I won't get into specifics about it (at least not here) because those points that I would make at least partially relate to this debate and the arguments I made, but I think both sides make arbitrary arguments with problematic implications when it comes to what is considered the beginnings of personhood. We can discuss it elsewhere if you're interested."
Do you think there was any realistic flaws you seen in the argument i used against bones in his forum post? As FLRW said, it seems the lockean view is easily the most consistent position legally speaking. FLRW is actually wrong that Locke was ok with abortion (this is why i know he got the idea from me). Locke actually contradicts his own philosophy by being against it (based on his theory of private property and theory of labour). Locke's religious views clouded his judgements on abortion, to the point where he contradicts his entire philosophy in 2 lines.
"yeah, but the "personhood" debate is silly because people come to the table with different ideas of what personhood means."
Its actually really not that silly if we all axiomatically agree we should be given "personhood" rights when we would consider one to be legally protected against things such as murder, etc. Personhood simply means the point at which one should gain the status, According to law, of being a legal person. A legal person has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. The real argument is at which point in time is this.
Potentially, we will see i suppose. It should also be noted that not all transgender people seem to suffer from gender dysphoria, so technically, not all transgender people have a mental condition. Most men on steroids have this exact same mental disorder (bodily dysmorphia).
5,000 character word limit?
that's....interesting.
Good luck, oromagi! Thank you for the opportunity to finally debate you (on ridiculous grounds but, fun nonetheless).
Hello sir, welcome to the site! it seems you're an atheist, it would be cool to see you argue against my form of theism someday (pantheism).
Well, i never claimed the independent police officers were racist. Just that their results were. I'm unsure where you get the information from that "if you ask 5 different sociologists you will get 5 conflicting answers."
I feel like that is an appeal to vagueness. At what point in time are dictionaries most reliable? If so, why are they more reliable then and not now? Generally speaking, my definition should be the more fitting one, due to the continuous corrections made to dictionaries over time. Despite my definition existing, interpersonal racism still exists as its own category (which actually creates systemic racism). Although your problem isn't actually with the dictionary being outdated, you just think it's a retarded worldview, so your problem is not actually with the dictionary but with the philosophy itself.
Either of you interested, by any chance?
This is interesting. Semperfortis looks like my kind of debater. Its a shame he's no longer active. I would of loved to debate this with someone who has such a good grasp of philosophy.
Wylted the madlad
CON wins in my eyes due fleshing out his moral philosophy much more. He also sufficiently argued against the pluses of a kidney selling market to at least make it appear questionable or debateable.
CON argues kidney selling is an impeachment on people's bodily integrity and autonomy if they are incapable of informed consent. PRO initially tries to argue against this although it seems he eventually gave up and more so made arguments to the creation of certain establishments. I believe CON effectively touted these as unrealistic. CON also pointed out the frivolousness of doctors, and how through a kidney seller system, it will increase the already apparent corruption within the medical industry. This had little push back from PRO except through an appeal to more organizations to solve the problem.
CON also argues that rich people and wealthy nations will effectively possess a monopoly on the organ industry harming the poorest people in the world. PRO never really offered a good argument outside of this except "it will level out at some point". Such a position is not a good enough refute to the argument whiteflame presented, in fact it's not an argument against at all but more so damage control (which may not even work effectively).
PRO pointed out some issues with CONS Pakistan analogy and did show kidney transplant rates do go up in nations with kidney selling. Yet CON points out there still appears to be an under demand even with kidney selling. PRO argues this is mostly logistics issues as opposed to their not having enough kidneys. I don't think there was a proper resolution on this point, although I may be incorrect (it's a very long debate ok).
When I first began reading the debate, I found it to be very even, for about the first two rounds. Once I got to the third round however, I got the sense PRO (as con pointed out) was simply constantly on the defensive using whataboutisms. Pro disagrees his "analogies' ' (as he calls them) were actually whataboutisms, but as CON says, they were whataboutisms, as there was no actual moral goodness expounded upon or upheld through said analogies. Instead they were simply arguments to consistency regardless if the analogy (or law) was right or wrong. Based on this fact, his "analogies" did little to support his actual case as they did not prove his current argument any more moral. All they did was serve as an argument to consistency. I believe whiteflame himself pointed this out in the last round.
Although i think whiteflame could of definitely pointed out more why these whataboutisms and consistency arguments held little substance (such as simply "saying, yes rich people can cut in lines and get better access to food and shelter, this is WRONG but i don't see a realistic way of solving this issue, while i think your philosophy makes this problem worse in the medical industry" Although he kind of did say that, i do believe he could of went much deeper on it. I believe CON did just enough on this point to merit him having a more fleshed out moral philosophy which doesn't depend on just consistency but on actually promoting what he believes to be a healthier system.
I had no way of knowing or not if pro is in support of rich people having extra privilege (i would assume he's at least ok with it based on his constant comparison to his kidney position) but this once more is irrelevant if he doesn't point out WHY these analogies are relevant, WHY it adds goodness both in its own system and to the system it wishes to penetrate into (the kidney market) he didn't do this. Therefore whiteflames philosophy was far more morally robust.
PRO argues around the fact that humans can consent to many things which may be inconsistent with whiteflames other views (such as firefighters). Yet there was so much work here which pro needed to do, just because we can do things doesn't make them right. It may be true a rich person can cut in line at hospitals and at a marketplace. Yet there was zero explanation why this is RIGHT or acceptable from pro, therefore just because it happens in one industry doesn't mean it ought to in another, CON never implied this was right or acceptable either. This argument felt like it was an argument to pointing out inconstency in CONS position, yet since we don't know cons position on these matters, we don't know if its inconsistent with his kidney selling position. Therefore it held little value. PRO used an analogy to jobs like being a firefighter or being in the army. When one signs up for an organ transplant, you're going to lose your kidney, there is no "what ifs" or percentages involved. I considered this a big enough symmetry breaker which CON pointed out for me to lessen some of the weight to pros analogies to firefighters to an organ transplant unless he can point out at what percentage of death matters matters without appealing to vagueness. There is no vagueness in cons position as it is 100% guaranteed all the time.
I finally finished reading the debate, it was a very worthwhile read. I stayed engaged with it, there was certainly a few things i learnt from this debate.
I noticed that myself after i made the comment, there actually is a bug, you're right. I'm unsure why it even let him vote. That being said, his vote was definitely acceptable and if his vote were to be taken down FLRW's ought to be too.
Its bugged. He has actually completed two debates.
Novice coming in clutch.
What new argument did he make in round 3? he had already argued that in the same sense there is structural violence against women in his system, there is structural violence against fetus's in whiteflames within round 2. Although this isnt the first time that rule has shot him in the foot, ive seen it happen more than once which is why i advocate for him to get rid of it.
Is this vote really going to slide? im skeptical if its not an outright malicious vote to make bones lose, considering its within the last hour. Look at ittttt. How can we let a vote like that ruin such a good debate?
What kind of vote is that? you didnt even go over anything they said and simply made it look like the only thing bones said was an appeal to authority. Better conduct as well?
We need your vote, good sir!
This seems like your cup of tea. Are you interested?
Thank you for accepting the debate, christian. I respect you as a debater, so im really looking forward to our discussion.
ill vote on this sometime in the future too (when i get the motivation).
Its probably honestly best if con actually doesn't come back to see this argument. I don't want to make people upset through my debates. Lets pray they dont come back, as my argument is likely simply insurmountable.
I'm actually such a freak. This has to be one of my HARDEST arguments yet. I will be the greatest philosopher of the 21st century by the time im dead.
Poor bones is going to wake up in tears when he sees how the scales have tipped.
never mind, i just noticed you just did.
Will you be voting?
Would you be interested in having a debate with me on if the idea of reincarnation has any logic too it? I will obviously take the pro side.
lmfao, michael_K does that on all my debates too.
Is basing most of my arguments off a professor of gender professional enough for you? i hope that's authority enough, although i myself am more well read on philosophy than most philosophers themselves.
My argument against the biological view may be of interest to you! i used a biological view based argument against you vs. nyx, i was curious to see if you had an appropriate response. I think the best way to respond against it is the idea that some men must necessarily be "less of a man" than other men, and the same for women. Not only that, but it does necessarily have many assumptions (like the brain argument i used). Many men are going to have brains more like women but not feel like a woman.
Would you be interested in debating in this same topic, Novice? i would prefer to put it as "reincarnation is not illogical" or "reincarnation has good evidence". Would you be interested? I will of course take mall's position on the matter.
pfff, you just gave up Michael! we should of had 3 rounds, my bad. It would of been interesting to see how you would of argued against dualism being more simplistic than physicalism. That was your only chance really, although its impossible for you to win (i think) after all, when we assume nothing the only thing we can be assured of is our own minds existence (therefore dualism).
That's why I forfeited. I lose interest in a discussion fast if I don't think anything of value will be produced from it (such as my ideas being questioned) mall would just ask me questions instead.
What do you want to debate about?
Thank you for this debate Michael. My last round argument literally gave me an epiphany, the biggest epiphany of my life.
I must say, I think my sophistry is some of the best I've seen on the site within this round.
If you admit you know you exist, Michael. You automatically fall into a dualist position (since it cant be shown through physicalism as more likely through Occam's razor, or proven through science to exist). This then means I automatically win, if you say you know you exist.
Yeah, definitely.
I will become the greatest sophist on the site. If i debate a sophist, ill show them what sophist magic really is. Michael himself is a sophist (as is common of atheist leftists).
How high would you rate my sophistry? currently id give it about a 5. I plan to turn the magic up 3 notches in the last round. Ultimate sceptic is coming.
Enjoy my sophist magic, michael.
If you truly think the pain from an amputation is the cause of suffering itself (at best all that can be said is the pain from an amputation necessarily always leads to suffering). Then that's honestly why humanity is lost. No wonder everyone has mental health issues and possess a lack of empathy etc. Philosophers came to the conclusion I did thousands of years ago. There was no moving of any goalposts. When did i claim (anywhere in the description or title) that we can always avoid false beliefs? strawman. If its true what causes suffering is subjective (if its caused by the mind and a sense of lack, and expectation) no suffering would occur even in "facts of the matter".
Merriam webster is not a better source than philosophers. Merrian webster simply follows popular usage (most people dont dissect their language as much as philosophers). Scientism.
If you want me to claim some sort of objective morality, this isn't the debate for that. Within the current framework and based on how humans form societies (in the modern day) it is completely impossible for me to be less consistent in my position than my opposition, unless someone wants to argue against human rights. Its not arbitrary once we presume the axiom that humans ought to have certain privileges and expectations within a society. Once we assume this axiom (human rights) my position will always win. Unless you want to argue we should get rid of human rights, unless you argue we should disband everything we have build, and go back to living in caves, it is not arbitrary.
Everyone agrees abortion is immoral (anyone with sense).
I agree.
Personhood laws are not arbitrary in the least if they're either:
1. personhood is decided at the point of conception
2. personhood is decided when bodily autonomy rights should be given (which means independent viability). It must be rememebered, our bodily autonomy rights are the reason murder is illegal, same with rape and so on. Therefore attaining bodily autonomy rights is akin to attaining personhood, you cannot have one without the other.
There's nothing vague about that, there's nothing subjective here. if i can show which one lacks consistent, and which one doesn't, we have a very clear answer to when personhood should be given. Giving personhood at the point of conception is not consistent with the current way the world is run (economically, based on private property and labour rights). The only way to defeat this argument is to literally go back to tribal times, where people didnt have human rights. The pro life position also has the increased burden of proof of showing people (outside of the womb) couldn't be organ harvested, or abused in ways which based on their abortion position would be appear to be permissible if we're to be consistent. Unless we roll back the right to private property (therefore people not having a right to their own body as their own) my argument is never going to lose. You would have to argue against basic human rights, constitutional rights to be able to defeat my argument.
There is no fallacy here, my friend. I'm not saying abortion (based on current laws) should be legal (although it should) im saying it OUGHT to be legal. I don't care about the current laws. I would concede abortion is immoral. That doesn't mean i think everything immoral should be illegal.
"I won't get into specifics about it (at least not here) because those points that I would make at least partially relate to this debate and the arguments I made, but I think both sides make arbitrary arguments with problematic implications when it comes to what is considered the beginnings of personhood. We can discuss it elsewhere if you're interested."
Do you think there was any realistic flaws you seen in the argument i used against bones in his forum post? As FLRW said, it seems the lockean view is easily the most consistent position legally speaking. FLRW is actually wrong that Locke was ok with abortion (this is why i know he got the idea from me). Locke actually contradicts his own philosophy by being against it (based on his theory of private property and theory of labour). Locke's religious views clouded his judgements on abortion, to the point where he contradicts his entire philosophy in 2 lines.
"yeah, but the "personhood" debate is silly because people come to the table with different ideas of what personhood means."
Its actually really not that silly if we all axiomatically agree we should be given "personhood" rights when we would consider one to be legally protected against things such as murder, etc. Personhood simply means the point at which one should gain the status, According to law, of being a legal person. A legal person has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. The real argument is at which point in time is this.
Potentially, we will see i suppose. It should also be noted that not all transgender people seem to suffer from gender dysphoria, so technically, not all transgender people have a mental condition. Most men on steroids have this exact same mental disorder (bodily dysmorphia).