Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Debate Topics and AMA

Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 8:11:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've decided I'm going to start debating again. So here's a short -- but not limited -- list. Also AMA just for fun.

Abortion (pro)
Gay Marriage (pro)
Drug Legalization (pro)
[American] Libertarianism (con)
Corn Subsidies (con) - because fuk corn.
Veganism (con)
Legalized Prostitution (pro)
Right to Die/Suicide (pro)

I'm open for any other topic if it interests me! The ones I see open right now seem lame or one sided.
carriead20
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 5:56:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Fav Food?

Fav Color?

Fav Place?

Fav Person on DDO?

Fav Debate?
To all the people fighting a hard battle out there - life's giving you a pretty hard beating. There's no sugarcoating that, but there's no shadow that's free of light. When life sneers at you and asks, "Ready to go again?" - Raise your hand. Reach out to victory. Don't give in.

---Help Bsh and YYW see each other---
http://www.gofundme.com...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 6:10:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 8:11:06 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I've decided I'm going to start debating again. So here's a short -- but not limited -- list. Also AMA just for fun.

Abortion (pro)
Gay Marriage (pro)
Drug Legalization (pro)
[American] Libertarianism (con)
Corn Subsidies (con) - because fuk corn.
Veganism (con)
Legalized Prostitution (pro)
Right to Die/Suicide (pro)

It looks like you are well on your path to nihilism. I look forward to another recruit.

I'm open for any other topic if it interests me! The ones I see open right now seem lame or one sided.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:31:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 5:56:37 PM, carriead20 wrote:
Fav Food?

Chipotle Burritos

Fav Color?

Don't have one.

Fav Place?

I haven't really traveled enough to have a fav place. I went to New York for a few days and that was fun. But I guess as for now, home is my fav place.

Fav Person on DDO?

Hmmm this is tricky. I like the better debaters, but no one really stands out. Maybe Envisage because I think he's Hitler.

Fav Debate?

I enjoyed my "eating meat can be morally permissible" debate with Ajabi. Followed by the Founding fathers debate. The gay marriage ones where too easy.
carriead20
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:34:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 7:31:14 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 5:56:37 PM, carriead20 wrote:
Fav Food?

Chipotle Burritos
Pretty good
Fav Color?

Don't have one.
Not one?
Fav Place?

I haven't really traveled enough to have a fav place. I went to New York for a few days and that was fun. But I guess as for now, home is my fav place.
Home is where the heart is.
Fav Person on DDO?

Hmmm this is tricky. I like the better debaters, but no one really stands out. Maybe Envisage because I think he's Hitler.
Lol.
Fav Debate?

I enjoyed my "eating meat can be morally permissible" debate with Ajabi. Followed by the Founding fathers debate. The gay marriage ones were too easy.
I'll have to check it out.
To all the people fighting a hard battle out there - life's giving you a pretty hard beating. There's no sugarcoating that, but there's no shadow that's free of light. When life sneers at you and asks, "Ready to go again?" - Raise your hand. Reach out to victory. Don't give in.

---Help Bsh and YYW see each other---
http://www.gofundme.com...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:34:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 6:10:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 8:11:06 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I've decided I'm going to start debating again. So here's a short -- but not limited -- list. Also AMA just for fun.

Abortion (pro)
Gay Marriage (pro)
Drug Legalization (pro)
[American] Libertarianism (con)
Corn Subsidies (con) - because fuk corn.
Veganism (con)
Legalized Prostitution (pro)
Right to Die/Suicide (pro)

It looks like you are well on your path to nihilism. I look forward to another recruit.

How so? Wouldn't a nihilist be pro libertarianism? Also I scoff at your nihilism! I have a general moral compass, and I already told you why nihilism is silly. If everything is meaningless then that just makes every choice meaningful. As a philosophy it doesn't really give us much to go on.
carriead20
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:37:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 12:04:49 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
shameless self bump

Was this self bump really shameless?
To all the people fighting a hard battle out there - life's giving you a pretty hard beating. There's no sugarcoating that, but there's no shadow that's free of light. When life sneers at you and asks, "Ready to go again?" - Raise your hand. Reach out to victory. Don't give in.

---Help Bsh and YYW see each other---
http://www.gofundme.com...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:46:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 7:34:27 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 6:10:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 8:11:06 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I've decided I'm going to start debating again. So here's a short -- but not limited -- list. Also AMA just for fun.

Abortion (pro)
Gay Marriage (pro)
Drug Legalization (pro)
[American] Libertarianism (con)
Corn Subsidies (con) - because fuk corn.
Veganism (con)
Legalized Prostitution (pro)
Right to Die/Suicide (pro)

It looks like you are well on your path to nihilism. I look forward to another recruit.

How so? Wouldn't a nihilist be pro libertarianism?

Not necessarily. Although I guess I would regard myself as Pro on the matter, since I share a lot of it's values (which have nothing really to do with nihilism).

Also I scoff at your nihilism! I have a general moral compass, and I already told you why nihilism is silly.

I have a "moral compass" too! I just don't delude myself into thinking it says something about reality, or anything about some overarching concept of morality, but instead is just an expression of my preferences of how I want society to be.

If everything is meaningless then that just makes every choice meaningful.

Not if meaningful is an incoherent and incomplete concept, lol. We disagree that meaning can even be sensibly be talked about. To me "everything being meaningful" is like saying "Football is a oijniuniun" it's incoherent.

As a philosophy it doesn't really give us much to go on.

Exactly. It let's you build subjective systems from the ground-up, without the additional baggage of realism which causes self-delusion of having an objectively right preference of ice cream flavours.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:53:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 7:37:25 PM, carriead20 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 12:04:49 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
shameless self bump

Was this self bump really shameless?

Maybe a little shame. No one was asking me things! ; _ ;
carriead20
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:56:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 7:53:22 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:37:25 PM, carriead20 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 12:04:49 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
shameless self bump

Was this self bump really shameless?

Maybe a little shame. No one was asking me things! ; _ ;

http://www.google.com...

T^T http://www.debate.org...
To all the people fighting a hard battle out there - life's giving you a pretty hard beating. There's no sugarcoating that, but there's no shadow that's free of light. When life sneers at you and asks, "Ready to go again?" - Raise your hand. Reach out to victory. Don't give in.

---Help Bsh and YYW see each other---
http://www.gofundme.com...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 9:47:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 7:46:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:34:27 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Not necessarily. Although I guess I would regard myself as Pro on the matter, since I share a lot of it's values (which have nothing really to do with nihilism).

Also I scoff at your nihilism! I have a general moral compass, and I already told you why nihilism is silly.

I have a "moral compass" too! I just don't delude myself into thinking it says something about reality, or anything about some overarching concept of morality, but instead is just an expression of my preferences of how I want society to be.

If everything is meaningless then that just makes every choice meaningful.

Not if meaningful is an incoherent and incomplete concept, lol. We disagree that meaning can even be sensibly be talked about. To me "everything being meaningful" is like saying "Football is a oijniuniun" it's incoherent.

If meaningful is incoherent so is meaningless.

As a philosophy it doesn't really give us much to go on.

Exactly. It let's you build subjective systems from the ground-up, without the additional baggage of realism which causes self-delusion of having an objectively right preference of ice cream flavours.

Yea but some flavors can be shown to be very wrong in all contexts. Like baby rape.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 9:52:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 9:47:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:46:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:34:27 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Not necessarily. Although I guess I would regard myself as Pro on the matter, since I share a lot of it's values (which have nothing really to do with nihilism).

Also I scoff at your nihilism! I have a general moral compass, and I already told you why nihilism is silly.

I have a "moral compass" too! I just don't delude myself into thinking it says something about reality, or anything about some overarching concept of morality, but instead is just an expression of my preferences of how I want society to be.

If everything is meaningless then that just makes every choice meaningful.

Not if meaningful is an incoherent and incomplete concept, lol. We disagree that meaning can even be sensibly be talked about. To me "everything being meaningful" is like saying "Football is a oijniuniun" it's incoherent.

If meaningful is incoherent so is meaningless.

I was applying the concept to the entity. The application is meaningless.

Much like a square is a meaningful concept, and a circle is a meaningful concept. To apply the concepts together leads to a meaningless concept (square circle).

The same applies to "life is meaningful" being meaningless etc.

As a philosophy it doesn't really give us much to go on.

Exactly. It let's you build subjective systems from the ground-up, without the additional baggage of realism which causes self-delusion of having an objectively right preference of ice cream flavours.

Yea but some flavors can be shown to be very wrong in all contexts. Like baby rape.

You seem to be obsessed with baby rape, is there something you are not telling me :-)

Under unenlightened egoism, baby rape would be good for the rapist, since he satisfies his sexual desires. There's one context its good.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:03:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 9:52:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 9:47:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:46:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:34:27 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Not necessarily. Although I guess I would regard myself as Pro on the matter, since I share a lot of it's values (which have nothing really to do with nihilism).

Also I scoff at your nihilism! I have a general moral compass, and I already told you why nihilism is silly.

I have a "moral compass" too! I just don't delude myself into thinking it says something about reality, or anything about some overarching concept of morality, but instead is just an expression of my preferences of how I want society to be.

If everything is meaningless then that just makes every choice meaningful.

Not if meaningful is an incoherent and incomplete concept, lol. We disagree that meaning can even be sensibly be talked about. To me "everything being meaningful" is like saying "Football is a oijniuniun" it's incoherent.

If meaningful is incoherent so is meaningless.

I was applying the concept to the entity. The application is meaningless.

What is the entity? And if the application is meaningless then how is the application coherent?

Much like a square is a meaningful concept, and a circle is a meaningful concept. To apply the concepts together leads to a meaningless concept (square circle).

The same applies to "life is meaningful" being meaningless etc.

Wait so what/which concepts have meaning but are being misapplied?

As a philosophy it doesn't really give us much to go on.

Exactly. It let's you build subjective systems from the ground-up, without the additional baggage of realism which causes self-delusion of having an objectively right preference of ice cream flavours.

Yea but some flavors can be shown to be very wrong in all contexts. Like baby rape.

You seem to be obsessed with baby rape, is there something you are not telling me :-)

Under unenlightened egoism, baby rape would be good for the rapist, since he satisfies his sexual desires. There's one context its good.

Unenlightened egoism sounds like the justification of a psychopath. It seems to have no greater thought of morality even in a subjective sense. If you look at the greater context and consequences baby rape is wrong. Just because morals can be broken, ignored, or even twisted to the point where they justify immorality it doesn't mean that the values behind the morals were meaningless or even entirely subjective. Well unless you completely don't give a sh!t about anyone else, but that would make you a socio or psychopath. But being ignorant or apathetic does not counter the moral underpinnings of the stance.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:09:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 11:03:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 9:52:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 9:47:08 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:46:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:34:27 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Not necessarily. Although I guess I would regard myself as Pro on the matter, since I share a lot of it's values (which have nothing really to do with nihilism).

Also I scoff at your nihilism! I have a general moral compass, and I already told you why nihilism is silly.

I have a "moral compass" too! I just don't delude myself into thinking it says something about reality, or anything about some overarching concept of morality, but instead is just an expression of my preferences of how I want society to be.

If everything is meaningless then that just makes every choice meaningful.

Not if meaningful is an incoherent and incomplete concept, lol. We disagree that meaning can even be sensibly be talked about. To me "everything being meaningful" is like saying "Football is a oijniuniun" it's incoherent.

If meaningful is incoherent so is meaningless.

I was applying the concept to the entity. The application is meaningless.

What is the entity? And if the application is meaningless then how is the application coherent?

Much like a square is a meaningful concept, and a circle is a meaningful concept. To apply the concepts together leads to a meaningless concept (square circle).

The same applies to "life is meaningful" being meaningless etc.

Wait so what/which concepts have meaning but are being misapplied?

As a philosophy it doesn't really give us much to go on.

Exactly. It let's you build subjective systems from the ground-up, without the additional baggage of realism which causes self-delusion of having an objectively right preference of ice cream flavours.

Yea but some flavors can be shown to be very wrong in all contexts. Like baby rape.

You seem to be obsessed with baby rape, is there something you are not telling me :-)

Under unenlightened egoism, baby rape would be good for the rapist, since he satisfies his sexual desires. There's one context its good.

Unenlightened egoism sounds like the justification of a psychopath. It seems to have no greater thought of morality even in a subjective sense.

Your objection so far has not been very objective, and is entirely prima facie.

If you look at the greater context and consequences baby rape is wrong.

Irrelevant. It's still good *for* the rapist.

Just because morals can be broken, ignored, or even twisted to the point where they justify immorality it doesn't mean that the values behind the morals were meaningless or even entirely subjective.

That's your burden to prove. Unenlightened egoism rules all of this irrelevant.

Well unless you completely don't give a sh!t about anyone else, but that would make you a socio or psychopath.

And that's wrong because.....? Because you don't like psychopaths? Because you say-so? Because they aren't like most of the rest of human population?

I freaking quadrillionth dare you to come up with an objective, valid and sound as to why a psychopathic mindset is morally "wrong".

But being ignorant or apathetic does not counter the moral underpinnings of the stance.

Just because you believe morals *should* be one way and everyone agrees with you doesn't make it so.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:23:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 11:09:27 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:03:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Unenlightened egoism sounds like the justification of a psychopath. It seems to have no greater thought of morality even in a subjective sense.

Your objection so far has not been very objective, and is entirely prima facie.

If you look at the greater context and consequences baby rape is wrong.

Irrelevant. It's still good *for* the rapist.

It's not irrelevant. And the fact you think it's irrelevant goes to my point. Being short sighted and looking from one perspective is not a counter argument. The rapist may enjoy it, but the trauma caused to the baby outweighs the temporary pleasure.

Just because morals can be broken, ignored, or even twisted to the point where they justify immorality it doesn't mean that the values behind the morals were meaningless or even entirely subjective.

That's your burden to prove. Unenlightened egoism rules all of this irrelevant.

And what is enlightened egoism?

Well unless you completely don't give a sh!t about anyone else, but that would make you a socio or psychopath.

And that's wrong because.....? Because you don't like psychopaths? Because you say-so? Because they aren't like most of the rest of human population?

Because psychopaths are dangerous and they have no regard for human life. They have no qualms about killing, no care for rules, order, or justice. Such extreme egoism among a species marked by socialization is detrimental to society.

I freaking quadrillionth dare you to come up with an objective, valid and sound as to why a psychopathic mindset is morally "wrong".

The mindset,so long as it stays as thought is fine I suppose. But probability is that psychopaths will act on their impulses and hurt or kill someone. See above.

But being ignorant or apathetic does not counter the moral underpinnings of the stance.

Just because you believe morals *should* be one way and everyone agrees with you doesn't make it so.

And you being a lone dissenter does not add to the validity of your argument.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:33:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 11:23:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:09:27 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:03:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Unenlightened egoism sounds like the justification of a psychopath. It seems to have no greater thought of morality even in a subjective sense.

Your objection so far has not been very objective, and is entirely prima facie.

If you look at the greater context and consequences baby rape is wrong.

Irrelevant. It's still good *for* the rapist.

It's not irrelevant. And the fact you think it's irrelevant goes to my point. Being short sighted and looking from one perspective is not a counter argument. The rapist may enjoy it, but the trauma caused to the baby outweighs the temporary pleasure.

So what if it causes trauma to the baby. It's still good *for* the rapist, lol. You keep asserting otherwise but bring nothing to justify it.

Just because morals can be broken, ignored, or even twisted to the point where they justify immorality it doesn't mean that the values behind the morals were meaningless or even entirely subjective.

That's your burden to prove. Unenlightened egoism rules all of this irrelevant.

And what is enlightened egoism?

"Whatever maximises short-term self-interest for the individual is good for them." pretty much. Short term because it's unenlightened, and self interest is egoism. Notice that I am arguing it's good for the rapist. The statement is subject dependant.

Well unless you completely don't give a sh!t about anyone else, but that would make you a socio or psychopath.

And that's wrong because.....? Because you don't like psychopaths? Because you say-so? Because they aren't like most of the rest of human population?

Because psychopaths are dangerous and they have no regard for human life.

So what?

They have no qualms about killing, no care for rules, order, or justice. Such extreme egoism among a species marked by socialization is detrimental to society.

Again, so what?

I freaking quadrillionth dare you to come up with an objective, valid and sound as to why a psychopathic mindset is morally "wrong".

The mindset,so long as it stays as thought is fine I suppose. But probability is that psychopaths will act on their impulses and hurt or kill someone. See above.

This is not an argument.

But being ignorant or apathetic does not counter the moral underpinnings of the stance.

Just because you believe morals *should* be one way and everyone agrees with you doesn't make it so.

And you being a lone dissenter does not add to the validity of your argument.

1. Tu quoque fallacy.
2. Concedes my point
3. I defined what is good for the rapist, and affirmed it via. fulfilment of his self interest.

Remember your original statement was that were is "no context that baby rape is good", and I just gave one. You have yet to even justify your original statement, so my refutations aren't even necessary so far, since you have yet to fulfil the bop on your assertion.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:46:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 11:33:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:23:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:09:27 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:03:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Unenlightened egoism sounds like the justification of a psychopath. It seems to have no greater thought of morality even in a subjective sense.

Your objection so far has not been very objective, and is entirely prima facie.

If you look at the greater context and consequences baby rape is wrong.

Irrelevant. It's still good *for* the rapist.

It's not irrelevant. And the fact you think it's irrelevant goes to my point. Being short sighted and looking from one perspective is not a counter argument. The rapist may enjoy it, but the trauma caused to the baby outweighs the temporary pleasure.

So what if it causes trauma to the baby. It's still good *for* the rapist, lol. You keep asserting otherwise but bring nothing to justify it.

Just because morals can be broken, ignored, or even twisted to the point where they justify immorality it doesn't mean that the values behind the morals were meaningless or even entirely subjective.

That's your burden to prove. Unenlightened egoism rules all of this irrelevant.

And what is enlightened egoism?

"Whatever maximises short-term self-interest for the individual is good for them." pretty much. Short term because it's unenlightened, and self interest is egoism. Notice that I am arguing it's good for the rapist. The statement is subject dependant.

Well unless you completely don't give a sh!t about anyone else, but that would make you a socio or psychopath.

And that's wrong because.....? Because you don't like psychopaths? Because you say-so? Because they aren't like most of the rest of human population?

Because psychopaths are dangerous and they have no regard for human life.

So what?

They have no qualms about killing, no care for rules, order, or justice. Such extreme egoism among a species marked by socialization is detrimental to society.

Again, so what?

I freaking quadrillionth dare you to come up with an objective, valid and sound as to why a psychopathic mindset is morally "wrong".

The mindset,so long as it stays as thought is fine I suppose. But probability is that psychopaths will act on their impulses and hurt or kill someone. See above.

This is not an argument.

But being ignorant or apathetic does not counter the moral underpinnings of the stance.

Just because you believe morals *should* be one way and everyone agrees with you doesn't make it so.

And you being a lone dissenter does not add to the validity of your argument.

1. Tu quoque fallacy.
2. Concedes my point
3. I defined what is good for the rapist, and affirmed it via. fulfilment of his self interest.

Remember your original statement was that were is "no context that baby rape is good", and I just gave one. You have yet to even justify your original statement, so my refutations aren't even necessary so far, since you have yet to fulfil the bop on your assertion.

Bah, I grow weary of your amorality. Your augment is predicated on apathy and short sighted gains with no regard for anything else. Of course I won't be able to convince you.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:50:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 11:46:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:33:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:23:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:09:27 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:03:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Unenlightened egoism sounds like the justification of a psychopath. It seems to have no greater thought of morality even in a subjective sense.

Your objection so far has not been very objective, and is entirely prima facie.

If you look at the greater context and consequences baby rape is wrong.

Irrelevant. It's still good *for* the rapist.

It's not irrelevant. And the fact you think it's irrelevant goes to my point. Being short sighted and looking from one perspective is not a counter argument. The rapist may enjoy it, but the trauma caused to the baby outweighs the temporary pleasure.

So what if it causes trauma to the baby. It's still good *for* the rapist, lol. You keep asserting otherwise but bring nothing to justify it.

Just because morals can be broken, ignored, or even twisted to the point where they justify immorality it doesn't mean that the values behind the morals were meaningless or even entirely subjective.

That's your burden to prove. Unenlightened egoism rules all of this irrelevant.

And what is enlightened egoism?

"Whatever maximises short-term self-interest for the individual is good for them." pretty much. Short term because it's unenlightened, and self interest is egoism. Notice that I am arguing it's good for the rapist. The statement is subject dependant.

Well unless you completely don't give a sh!t about anyone else, but that would make you a socio or psychopath.

And that's wrong because.....? Because you don't like psychopaths? Because you say-so? Because they aren't like most of the rest of human population?

Because psychopaths are dangerous and they have no regard for human life.

So what?

They have no qualms about killing, no care for rules, order, or justice. Such extreme egoism among a species marked by socialization is detrimental to society.

Again, so what?

I freaking quadrillionth dare you to come up with an objective, valid and sound as to why a psychopathic mindset is morally "wrong".

The mindset,so long as it stays as thought is fine I suppose. But probability is that psychopaths will act on their impulses and hurt or kill someone. See above.

This is not an argument.

But being ignorant or apathetic does not counter the moral underpinnings of the stance.

Just because you believe morals *should* be one way and everyone agrees with you doesn't make it so.

And you being a lone dissenter does not add to the validity of your argument.

1. Tu quoque fallacy.
2. Concedes my point
3. I defined what is good for the rapist, and affirmed it via. fulfilment of his self interest.

Remember your original statement was that were is "no context that baby rape is good", and I just gave one. You have yet to even justify your original statement, so my refutations aren't even necessary so far, since you have yet to fulfil the bop on your assertion.

Bah, I grow weary of your amorality. Your augment is predicated on apathy and short sighted gains with no regard for anything else. Of course I won't be able to convince you.

This is called a. Appeal to emotion fallacy.

If your argument requires an emotional vestment to believe, then that's a black and white indicator that the belief itself is not objective.

You literally mirror the Christians who say "you need to read the bible with an open heart". The point being is that if you need an open heart to believe something true, then it's not objective.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 12:07:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 11:50:56 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:46:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:33:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:23:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:09:27 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:03:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Unenlightened egoism sounds like the justification of a psychopath. It seems to have no greater thought of morality even in a subjective sense.

Your objection so far has not been very objective, and is entirely prima facie.

If you look at the greater context and consequences baby rape is wrong.

Irrelevant. It's still good *for* the rapist.

It's not irrelevant. And the fact you think it's irrelevant goes to my point. Being short sighted and looking from one perspective is not a counter argument. The rapist may enjoy it, but the trauma caused to the baby outweighs the temporary pleasure.

So what if it causes trauma to the baby. It's still good *for* the rapist, lol. You keep asserting otherwise but bring nothing to justify it.

Just because morals can be broken, ignored, or even twisted to the point where they justify immorality it doesn't mean that the values behind the morals were meaningless or even entirely subjective.

That's your burden to prove. Unenlightened egoism rules all of this irrelevant.

And what is enlightened egoism?

"Whatever maximises short-term self-interest for the individual is good for them." pretty much. Short term because it's unenlightened, and self interest is egoism. Notice that I am arguing it's good for the rapist. The statement is subject dependant.

Well unless you completely don't give a sh!t about anyone else, but that would make you a socio or psychopath.

And that's wrong because.....? Because you don't like psychopaths? Because you say-so? Because they aren't like most of the rest of human population?

Because psychopaths are dangerous and they have no regard for human life.

So what?

They have no qualms about killing, no care for rules, order, or justice. Such extreme egoism among a species marked by socialization is detrimental to society.

Again, so what?

I freaking quadrillionth dare you to come up with an objective, valid and sound as to why a psychopathic mindset is morally "wrong".

The mindset,so long as it stays as thought is fine I suppose. But probability is that psychopaths will act on their impulses and hurt or kill someone. See above.

This is not an argument.

But being ignorant or apathetic does not counter the moral underpinnings of the stance.

Just because you believe morals *should* be one way and everyone agrees with you doesn't make it so.

And you being a lone dissenter does not add to the validity of your argument.

1. Tu quoque fallacy.
2. Concedes my point
3. I defined what is good for the rapist, and affirmed it via. fulfilment of his self interest.

Remember your original statement was that were is "no context that baby rape is good", and I just gave one. You have yet to even justify your original statement, so my refutations aren't even necessary so far, since you have yet to fulfil the bop on your assertion.

Bah, I grow weary of your amorality. Your augment is predicated on apathy and short sighted gains with no regard for anything else. Of course I won't be able to convince you.

This is called a. Appeal to emotion fallacy.

Given that humans are not robots, and we have logical reason to feel emotion this is not a problem.

If your argument requires an emotional vestment to believe, then that's a black and white indicator that the belief itself is not objective.

You literally mirror the Christians who say "you need to read the bible with an open heart". The point being is that if you need an open heart to believe something true, then it's not objective.

Not really. If you decide to be close minded then regardless of the opposing philosophy, be it Christianity or science, you're not going to be convinced. So being open minded or "open hearted" is necessary for any conversation to be a genuine exchange. You say rape is good because it's good for the rapist, but this is extremely short sighted and gives no care to the greater consequences. "So what" is not a counter argument. Not giving a sh!t is not a counter argument.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 7:58:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 12:07:02 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:50:56 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:46:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:33:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:23:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:09:27 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:03:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Unenlightened egoism sounds like the justification of a psychopath. It seems to have no greater thought of morality even in a subjective sense.

Your objection so far has not been very objective, and is entirely prima facie.

If you look at the greater context and consequences baby rape is wrong.

Irrelevant. It's still good *for* the rapist.

It's not irrelevant. And the fact you think it's irrelevant goes to my point. Being short sighted and looking from one perspective is not a counter argument. The rapist may enjoy it, but the trauma caused to the baby outweighs the temporary pleasure.

So what if it causes trauma to the baby. It's still good *for* the rapist, lol. You keep asserting otherwise but bring nothing to justify it.

Just because morals can be broken, ignored, or even twisted to the point where they justify immorality it doesn't mean that the values behind the morals were meaningless or even entirely subjective.

That's your burden to prove. Unenlightened egoism rules all of this irrelevant.

And what is enlightened egoism?

"Whatever maximises short-term self-interest for the individual is good for them." pretty much. Short term because it's unenlightened, and self interest is egoism. Notice that I am arguing it's good for the rapist. The statement is subject dependant.

Well unless you completely don't give a sh!t about anyone else, but that would make you a socio or psychopath.

And that's wrong because.....? Because you don't like psychopaths? Because you say-so? Because they aren't like most of the rest of human population?

Because psychopaths are dangerous and they have no regard for human life.

So what?

They have no qualms about killing, no care for rules, order, or justice. Such extreme egoism among a species marked by socialization is detrimental to society.

Again, so what?

I freaking quadrillionth dare you to come up with an objective, valid and sound as to why a psychopathic mindset is morally "wrong".

The mindset,so long as it stays as thought is fine I suppose. But probability is that psychopaths will act on their impulses and hurt or kill someone. See above.

This is not an argument.

But being ignorant or apathetic does not counter the moral underpinnings of the stance.

Just because you believe morals *should* be one way and everyone agrees with you doesn't make it so.

And you being a lone dissenter does not add to the validity of your argument.

1. Tu quoque fallacy.
2. Concedes my point
3. I defined what is good for the rapist, and affirmed it via. fulfilment of his self interest.

Remember your original statement was that were is "no context that baby rape is good", and I just gave one. You have yet to even justify your original statement, so my refutations aren't even necessary so far, since you have yet to fulfil the bop on your assertion.

Bah, I grow weary of your amorality. Your augment is predicated on apathy and short sighted gains with no regard for anything else. Of course I won't be able to convince you.

This is called a. Appeal to emotion fallacy.

Given that humans are not robots, and we have logical reason to feel emotion this is not a problem.

You have just committed yet another fallacy:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

If your argument requires an emotional vestment to believe, then that's a black and white indicator that the belief itself is not objective.

You literally mirror the Christians who say "you need to read the bible with an open heart". The point being is that if you need an open heart to believe something true, then it's not objective.

Not really. If you decide to be close minded then regardless of the opposing philosophy, be it Christianity or science, you're not going to be convinced. So being open minded or "open hearted" is necessary for any conversation to be a genuine exchange. You say rape is good because it's good for the rapist, but this is extremely short sighted and gives no care to the greater consequences. "So what" is not a counter argument. Not giving a sh!t is not a counter argument.

Because it's irrelevant to the context and moral philosophy I was using. Another red herring. Every single response you have given on collateral consequences just begs the question of making the singular context of the rapist 'wrong'.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 8:26:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 7:58:56 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:07:02 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:50:56 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:46:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:33:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:23:32 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:09:27 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:03:34 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Unenlightened egoism sounds like the justification of a psychopath. It seems to have no greater thought of morality even in a subjective sense.

Your objection so far has not been very objective, and is entirely prima facie.

If you look at the greater context and consequences baby rape is wrong.

Irrelevant. It's still good *for* the rapist.

It's not irrelevant. And the fact you think it's irrelevant goes to my point. Being short sighted and looking from one perspective is not a counter argument. The rapist may enjoy it, but the trauma caused to the baby outweighs the temporary pleasure.

So what if it causes trauma to the baby. It's still good *for* the rapist, lol. You keep asserting otherwise but bring nothing to justify it.

Just because morals can be broken, ignored, or even twisted to the point where they justify immorality it doesn't mean that the values behind the morals were meaningless or even entirely subjective.

That's your burden to prove. Unenlightened egoism rules all of this irrelevant.

And what is enlightened egoism?

"Whatever maximises short-term self-interest for the individual is good for them." pretty much. Short term because it's unenlightened, and self interest is egoism. Notice that I am arguing it's good for the rapist. The statement is subject dependant.

Well unless you completely don't give a sh!t about anyone else, but that would make you a socio or psychopath.

And that's wrong because.....? Because you don't like psychopaths? Because you say-so? Because they aren't like most of the rest of human population?

Because psychopaths are dangerous and they have no regard for human life.

So what?

They have no qualms about killing, no care for rules, order, or justice. Such extreme egoism among a species marked by socialization is detrimental to society.

Again, so what?

I freaking quadrillionth dare you to come up with an objective, valid and sound as to why a psychopathic mindset is morally "wrong".

The mindset,so long as it stays as thought is fine I suppose. But probability is that psychopaths will act on their impulses and hurt or kill someone. See above.

This is not an argument.

But being ignorant or apathetic does not counter the moral underpinnings of the stance.

Just because you believe morals *should* be one way and everyone agrees with you doesn't make it so.

And you being a lone dissenter does not add to the validity of your argument.

1. Tu quoque fallacy.
2. Concedes my point
3. I defined what is good for the rapist, and affirmed it via. fulfilment of his self interest.

Remember your original statement was that were is "no context that baby rape is good", and I just gave one. You have yet to even justify your original statement, so my refutations aren't even necessary so far, since you have yet to fulfil the bop on your assertion.

Bah, I grow weary of your amorality. Your augment is predicated on apathy and short sighted gains with no regard for anything else. Of course I won't be able to convince you.

This is called a. Appeal to emotion fallacy.

Given that humans are not robots, and we have logical reason to feel emotion this is not a problem.

You have just committed yet another fallacy:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

If your argument requires an emotional vestment to believe, then that's a black and white indicator that the belief itself is not objective.

You literally mirror the Christians who say "you need to read the bible with an open heart". The point being is that if you need an open heart to believe something true, then it's not objective.

Not really. If you decide to be close minded then regardless of the opposing philosophy, be it Christianity or science, you're not going to be convinced. So being open minded or "open hearted" is necessary for any conversation to be a genuine exchange. You say rape is good because it's good for the rapist, but this is extremely short sighted and gives no care to the greater consequences. "So what" is not a counter argument. Not giving a sh!t is not a counter argument.

Because it's irrelevant to the context and moral philosophy I was using. Another red herring. Every single response you have given on collateral consequences just begs the question of making the singular context of the rapist 'wrong'.

Neither of my comments are red herrings. You're not a using a moral philosophy. And every single response you have given on beneficial consequences just begs the question of making the singular context of the rapist 'right'.