Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My philosophy on morality

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 3:38:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The fine line between objectivity and subjectivity

There are people who don't like The Godfather.

The Godfather isn't exactly objectively a good movie, to say "The Godfather was a great film" would be considered a subjective claim. However, there are still biological aspects at play that hold true to us, that deal with stimulation of the mind and emotional responses which leads to the general consensus that The Godfather was a good movie.

There are people who do not like steak.

Steak cannot be objectively tasty, to say "steak tastes great" would be considered a subjective claim. However, there are still biological aspects at play that hold true to us that deal with taste buds which leads to a general consensus that steak tastes good.

There are people who think there is nothing morally wrong with tearing a dog open with a blade for fun.

Not killing a dog for fun cannot be objectively wrong, to say "to kill this dog would be wrong" is a subjective claim. However, there are still biological aspects at play that hold true to us that deal with empathy and emotions of that nature which lead to a general consensus that killing a dog for fun with a blade is morally wrong.

My question, is can a subjective opinion based on truth (the truth of common biological responses) really be looked at as 100% subjective just because there are people who disagree due to veering off a common biological path? I believe the line is blurred between subjectivity and objectivity.

Every human being is unique, we all have different genes and experience different things in life which lead us to certain conclusions. The problem is there are certain biological truths which can be considered responsible for these subjective conclusions we come up with.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 4:28:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 4:02:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
So rape is not objectively wrong?

Correct.

You and I believe it to be wrong... but there are people who don't.
(In some societies lesbian women are raped by men because its believed this action can remove the 'lesbian-ness' from them.) Making any conclusion about its wrongness dependent on the subject. Hence subjective, and not objective.

I'm sure some of the intellectual heavy weights on this site can provide a better, and more thoughtful response. Perhaps even clarify why I'm wrong.

But for the moment that's what I believe....
Debate.org Moderator
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 8:39:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 4:02:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
So rape is not objectively wrong?

Pretty sure that's not what he said at all.

In our current global social system, yes, rape is objectively wrong, even based on what the OP stated.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 8:45:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 3:38:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The fine line between objectivity and subjectivity

There are people who don't like The Godfather.

The Godfather isn't exactly objectively a good movie, to say "The Godfather was a great film" would be considered a subjective claim. However, there are still biological aspects at play that hold true to us, that deal with stimulation of the mind and emotional responses which leads to the general consensus that The Godfather was a good movie.

There are people who do not like steak.

Steak cannot be objectively tasty, to say "steak tastes great" would be considered a subjective claim. However, there are still biological aspects at play that hold true to us that deal with taste buds which leads to a general consensus that steak tastes good.

There are people who think there is nothing morally wrong with tearing a dog open with a blade for fun.

Not killing a dog for fun cannot be objectively wrong, to say "to kill this dog would be wrong" is a subjective claim. However, there are still biological aspects at play that hold true to us that deal with empathy and emotions of that nature which lead to a general consensus that killing a dog for fun with a blade is morally wrong.

My question, is can a subjective opinion based on truth (the truth of common biological responses) really be looked at as 100% subjective just because there are people who disagree due to veering off a common biological path? I believe the line is blurred between subjectivity and objectivity.

Every human being is unique, we all have different genes and experience different things in life which lead us to certain conclusions. The problem is there are certain biological truths which can be considered responsible for these subjective conclusions we come up with.

I've been saying this for about 3 months now and no one has understood.

Now, progressively more people are making these "enlightened" posts "suddenly realizing" exactly the same premise I've been repeating in every one of these threads.

You people and your existentialism. You're not that interesting and unique; the thoughts you have are not so astounding or unheard of. The very reason why we come to a debate site in the first place, is because there is a given morality -- a given truth -- to which we all subscribe and grasp for in every single debate.

This isn't to say that anyone does identify truth. Rather, its to say that the purpose is to convince others that you're closer to it. Does that mean that your conclusions are subjective? No, but the truth they're supposed based upon are.

In this way, we can maneuver reality the way we maneuver science, and likely make a lot more progress. Of course, we'd rather squabble over minute characteristics of morality in an attempt to filibuster base morality out of existence, so its easier to get away with what you want.

If everyone's stealing from the cookie jar, there's no one to stop them.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 8:46:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 8:45:11 AM, Ren wrote:

This isn't to say that anyone does identify truth. Rather, its to say that the purpose is to convince others that you're closer to it. Does that mean that your conclusions are objective? No, but the truth they're supposed based upon are.

Fixed.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 9:01:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 4:02:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
So rape is not objectively wrong?

I said the line is blurred between subjectivity and objectivity. Is steak tasting good strictly based on opinion and subjective? Or is there some objective biological facts about cows and taste buds that make it taste good to most people? Would that then make steak tasting good, objective?

The same concept can be applied to your question.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 9:10:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 9:01:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/25/2012 4:02:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
So rape is not objectively wrong?

I said the line is blurred between subjectivity and objectivity. Is steak tasting good strictly based on opinion and subjective? Or is there some objective biological facts about cows and taste buds that make it taste good to most people? Would that then make steak tasting good, objective?

The same concept can be applied to your question.

Both of you are equivocating truth, morality, and opinion.

I agree that truth is basically what morality has everything to do with, so you're really not wrong there.

But, in terms of opinion, here's the difference:

Your question was whether cows "taste good." I hate to break it to you, but taste buds don't have proclivities or predilections. They're simply receptors, much like nerves or eyes. It's how you interpret the information they receive that determines your opinion of it. In this regard, a cow can taste "good" to some and "bad" to others, and in each case, it would be some intellectually amorphous opinion.

But, morality has nothing to do with opinion. Instead, its an exploration of the correctness of each action or premise. Something that would better fulfill that description could be "is eating cows right?"

Now, we have a better, morality-based question. Here, you can bring up biological proclivities, the fact that cows were prey within their natural ecosystem to begin with, their nutrition, etc. in this way, you can logically and scientifically extrapolate the objective truth: it is not wrong to eat cows. Therefore, eating cows is right, although not eating cows is also right.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 9:15:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 4:02:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
So rape is not objectively wrong?

yes. Questions like this just piss me off because you're not attacking the logical truth of the matter, but instead trying to incite an emotional reaction to the situation posed that presupposes absurd ethical codes that may not exist.

Asking "so rape is not objectively wrong" will not deter anyone from giving you the straightforward answer, which is no.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 9:24:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This isn't to say that anyone does identify truth. Rather, its to say that the purpose is to convince others that you're closer to it. Does that mean that your conclusions are objective? No, but the truth they're supposed based upon are.

In this way, we can maneuver reality the way we maneuver science, and likely make a lot more progress.

The Fool: I am sorry this sentence is not intellegently acceptable. You can't maneuver reality. You could descripe it correctly or or not. You maybe closer or further. But you can manveuver it. You are making a Semantic fallacy. Here by instead of using language to describe reality. you are confusing it with defining realiy into existence. aka e.g. I am on a computer, and I could define it as a bird. But no matter how I define it, what I had previously call a computer is still a computer. Language is organized set of phyical symbols we use to communicate reality. But it's a semantic fallacy to think they actuall change reality with definitions. All we are doing is asserting another set of words, in which reference of a The particular word we are defining . But they may or may not represent a realiy. That is we could be wrong in describing it but the reality itself could never be wrong.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 9:30:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 9:15:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/25/2012 4:02:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
So rape is not objectively wrong?

yes. Questions like this just piss me off because you're not attacking the logical truth of the matter, but instead trying to incite an emotional reaction to the situation posed that presupposes absurd ethical codes that may not exist.


The fact that the idea of rape being objectively acceptable is inherently repugnant and offensive in itself serves as an argument against any ethical system that would support this claim. It is in our nature to reject logically and emotionally absurd claims because there is underlying, objective truths that cause us to believe that they are absurd in the first place. On that note, it would be wise of you not to use absurd in a philosophical context until you learn how it relates to philosophy. Ignorance will not get you very far.

Asking "so rape is not objectively wrong" will not deter anyone from giving you the straightforward answer, which is no.

Then why is it that the progression of time has positively correlated with the acceptance of rape as being objectively wrong? Because begging the question brings to our attention the flaws in our past beliefs.

By the way ike, your response is extremely offensive to anybody who has been a victim of, or knows a victim of rape.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 9:35:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
yes. Questions like this just piss me off because you're not attacking the logical truth of the matter, but instead trying to incite an emotional reaction to the situation posed that presupposes absurd ethical codes that may not exist.

Asking "so rape is not objectively wrong" will not deter anyone from giving you the straightforward answer, which is no.

The Fool: yes it is in the way you giys are thinking of subjetive reallity. Remember I am not justying Rape here. Okay so don't confuse that with what I am saying. its a very sensitive subject. To prove its subjective all I need is to show an exampel where it could not be wrong to do so.

DONT CONFUSE MY POSITION> I can't say that more then enough.

But here it goes. If a man and woman are the last human left as far as you know in the world, and thier or other option. Then this would be a jusfified rape. For we would all think it intuitivly wrong but the entire future population (if successful) might let that one slip by. and probably me much happier to be alive and existing.

Therefore if there is a possibiity its not 100% objective.

THis is philosophical question I am answering as a philosopher ONLY!

but it is brought you straight from the hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 9:37:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 9:15:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/25/2012 4:02:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
So rape is not objectively wrong?

yes. Questions like this just piss me off because you're not attacking the logical truth of the matter, but instead trying to incite an emotional reaction to the situation posed that presupposes absurd ethical codes that may not exist.

Asking "so rape is not objectively wrong" will not deter anyone from giving you the straightforward answer, which is no.

Subjective Rape 1.1 edit oops

The Fool: yes it is in the way you giys are thinking of subjetive reallity. Remember I am not justying Rape here. Okay so don't confuse that with what I am saying. its a very sensitive subject. To prove its subjective all I need is to show an exampel where it could not be wrong to do so.

DONT CONFUSE MY POSITION> I can't say that more then enough.

But here it goes. If a man and woman are the last human left as far as you know in the world, and there or NO other options. Then this would be a jusfified rape. For we would all think it intuitivly wrong but the entire future population (if successful) might let that one slip by. and probably me much happier to be alive and existing.

Therefore if there is a possibiity its not 100% objective.

THis is philosophical question I am answering as a philosopher ONLY!

but it is brought you straight from the hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 9:45:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 9:30:42 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/25/2012 9:15:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/25/2012 4:02:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
So rape is not objectively wrong?

yes. Questions like this just piss me off because you're not attacking the logical truth of the matter, but instead trying to incite an emotional reaction to the situation posed that presupposes absurd ethical codes that may not exist.


The fact that the idea of rape being objectively acceptable is inherently repugnant and offensive in itself serves as an argument against any ethical system that would support this claim. It is in our nature to reject logically and emotionally absurd claims because there is underlying, objective truths that cause us to believe that they are absurd in the first place. On that note, it would be wise of you not to use absurd in a philosophical context until you learn how it relates to philosophy. Ignorance will not get you very far.

Thank you, but if you don't mind, I'll continue to be ignorant until you've actually shown me the error of my argument with your immense knowledge. :)

So, your argument is that something is objectively wrong because we somehow intuitively know it's wrong? Any kind of "intuitive" morality is nothing more than a product of natural selection....contingent on the premise that we desire a prosperous and fit human society. Where there is an individual that does not value such a thing, or does not feel this "intuition" you speak of, there is no reason for him the follow the ethical rule.

Asking "so rape is not objectively wrong" will not deter anyone from giving you the straightforward answer, which is no.

Then why is it that the progression of time has positively correlated with the acceptance of rape as being objectively wrong? Because begging the question brings to our attention the flaws in our past beliefs.

You're using "objective" improperly. How does the consistent and pervasive belief that one ought not rape somehow suggest that it is "objective"? It doesn't.

By the way ike, your response is extremely offensive to anybody who has been a victim of, or knows a victim of rape.

I don't believe people should rape other people, obviously. But, my belief is not an objective one. It is dependent on a hypothetical premise that may or may not apply to everyone. So, please don't throw that emotive sh!t at me. Thanks.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 9:57:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 9:35:10 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
yes. Questions like this just piss me off because you're not attacking the logical truth of the matter, but instead trying to incite an emotional reaction to the situation posed that presupposes absurd ethical codes that may not exist.

Asking "so rape is not objectively wrong" will not deter anyone from giving you the straightforward answer, which is no.

The Fool: yes it is in the way you giys are thinking of subjetive reallity. Remember I am not justying Rape here. Okay so don't confuse that with what I am saying. its a very sensitive subject. To prove its subjective all I need is to show an exampel where it could not be wrong to do so.

DONT CONFUSE MY POSITION> I can't say that more then enough.

But here it goes. If a man and woman are the last human left as far as you know in the world, and thier or other option. Then this would be a jusfified rape. For we would all think it intuitivly wrong but the entire future population (if successful) might let that one slip by. and probably me much happier to be alive and existing.

Therefore if there is a possibiity its not 100% objective.

THis is philosophical question I am answering as a philosopher ONLY!

but it is brought you straight from the hill!

Really? If there were one man and one woman left on Earth, then rape would be justified?

Rape is never justified. It is never, ever justified. Rape is objectively wrong.

I can argue this biologically, morally, philosophically, spiritually, and socially. Do you know why?

Because it's objectively wrong. It's one of the few things that exist that is objectively wrong no matter how you look at it (another would be, perhaps, the torture of something weaker), so I'm glad we've deferred to this of all things.

I invite you to please present to me a situation in which rape would be right, with no better option that does not involve rape.

For the one that the Fool has already presented:

The Fool: But, if there were two people left on earth, then rape would be justified for the better of the presumed human race that might result!

Ren: There are several circumstances under which that premise would be defeated in the case of rape. It is a violent, abusive, violating thing. It's a relief to see you express such a lack of understanding of the subject, as I understand that you're a female, and the vast majority of females have been violated in one way or another. But, it is quite damaging, and the woman can end up infertile or unable to care for the child after the incident. The man might even kill her.

Moreover, this is not to mention what it would do to her state of mind. And all this -- for what? To bring more people that will do that to one another into this world?

Consider this. I just contributed to a thread about populating the human race yesterday or something. The question regarded incest. Well, get this -- the very first male and female on this Earth, if genetically disimilar, would be entirely capable of producing offspring, and if they had enough children, some of them would be genetically compatible, as well.

However, this same scenario does not apply to the last people on Earth. They have genes that have been processed hundreds of thousands of years of generations intermingling. If they attempt to repopulate the world in the same way, they'd end up with a say of retards that would eventually reproduce their way into extinction.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 10:23:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I see a ret*rd all right!

The Fool: Are you an id!ot. I said clearly I was answering as to try and support the subjectivity by an argument. I said DON"T CONFUSE THIS WITH MY POSITION. Because I am expecting a JACK AZZ to not get that. It is and attempt to philosophically argument that its subjective. And look what turned up right on time!

The Fool: Firstly you Strawman my argument,:

Really? If there were one man and one woman left on Earth, then rape would be justified?'

The Fool: did I say that the reason was because of the fact that there are only two people left.

‘Rape is never justified. It is never, ever justified. Rape is objectively wrong.'
Bold assertion fallacy

‘I can argue this biologically, morally, philosophically, spiritually, and socially. Do you know why?

The Fool: Please Go ahead, Demonstrated, that is the point of presenting the argument. IS to debate it. I am glad you are finally getting into the swing of things.

‘I invite you to please present to me a situation in which rape would be right, with no better option that does not involve rape.' Strawman Fallacy

The Fool: WITH NO OPTION OF SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE IDIOT. DON"T STRAWMAN MY ARGUMENT.

For the one that the Fool has already presented:

The Fool: But, if there were two people left on earth, then rape would be justified for the better of the presumed human race that might result!

There are several circumstances under which that premise would be defeated in the case of rape. It is a violent, abusive, violating thing.

The Fool: It is also violent, abusive, voilating to kill, but its justified to fight back the NAZIES. What is your argument?

It's a relief to see you express such a lack of understanding of the subject,Bold assertion fallacy as I understand that you're a female, and the vast majority of females have been violated in one way or another. Special Pleading

The Fool: it's not my position but its good argument for it. I said that IN bold. ID!OT! Notice how I also said in the way you guys are thinking of subjective. Go back to the children section if you can't handle controversial hypothetical argumentation.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 10:24:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 9:57:05 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/25/2012 9:35:10 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
yes. Questions like this just piss me off because you're not attacking the logical truth of the matter, but instead trying to incite an emotional reaction to the situation posed that presupposes absurd ethical codes that may not exist.

Asking "so rape is not objectively wrong" will not deter anyone from giving you the straightforward answer, which is no.

The Fool: yes it is in the way you giys are thinking of subjetive reallity. Remember I am not justying Rape here. Okay so don't confuse that with what I am saying. its a very sensitive subject. To prove its subjective all I need is to show an exampel where it could not be wrong to do so.

DONT CONFUSE MY POSITION> I can't say that more then enough.

But here it goes. If a man and woman are the last human left as far as you know in the world, and thier or other option. Then this would be a jusfified rape. For we would all think it intuitivly wrong but the entire future population (if successful) might let that one slip by. and probably me much happier to be alive and existing.

Therefore if there is a possibiity its not 100% objective.

THis is philosophical question I am answering as a philosopher ONLY!

but it is brought you straight from the hill!

Really? If there were one man and one woman left on Earth, then rape would be justified?

Rape is never justified. It is never, ever justified. Rape is objectively wrong.

I can argue this biologically, morally, philosophically, spiritually, and socially. Do you know why?

Because it's objectively wrong. It's one of the few things that exist that is objectively wrong no matter how you look at it (another would be, perhaps, the torture of something weaker), so I'm glad we've deferred to this of all things.

I invite you to please present to me a situation in which rape would be right, with no better option that does not involve rape.

For the one that the Fool has already presented:

The Fool: But, if there were two people left on earth, then rape would be justified for the better of the presumed human race that might result!

Ren: There are several circumstances under which that premise would be defeated in the case of rape. It is a violent, abusive, violating thing. It's a relief to see you express such a lack of understanding of the subject, as I understand that you're a female, and the vast majority of females have been violated in one way or another. But, it is quite damaging, and the woman can end up infertile or unable to care for the child after the incident. The man might even kill her.

Moreover, this is not to mention what it would do to her state of mind. And all this -- for what? To bring more people that will do that to one another into this world?

Consider this. I just contributed to a thread about populating the human race yesterday or something. The question regarded incest. Well, get this -- the very first male and female on this Earth, if genetically disimilar, would be entirely capable of producing offspring, and if they had enough children, some of them would be genetically compatible, as well.

However, this same scenario does not apply to the last people on Earth. They have genes that have been processed hundreds of thousands of years of generations intermingling. If they attempt to repopulate the world in the same way, they'd end up with a say of retards that would eventually reproduce their way into extinction.

"Really? If there were one man and one woman left on Earth, then rape would be justified?

Rape is never justified. It is never, ever justified. Rape is objectively wrong."

If there was only one woman left on earth to breed to keep the human species going, I would think the only sensible thing to do would be to make sure she had a child any means necessary.

Also, if there was a man who raped a woman just for fun, there would be justice to hire a huge gay dude to rape that man for revenge for the woman. This is another way rape would be justified in my eyes.

Basically, there are millions of ways rape could be justified.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 10:25:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 9:59:13 AM, Ren wrote:
That was supposed to be sea of retards. Sea of retards.

A woman ending the human species existence due to her not wanted to have sex is more immoral and selfish than a man forcing sex on her to keep the species going.

Therefore, if there was only one woman left on earth and she didn't want to have sex with anybody. Rape would be justified.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 10:38:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 8:39:51 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/25/2012 4:02:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
So rape is not objectively wrong?

Pretty sure that's not what he said at all.

In our current global social system, yes, rape is objectively wrong, even based on what the OP stated.

Based on our 'current global system', rape is wrong by consensus. If morality evolves based on consensus, how could it be objective? If any particular facet of morality was objective, wouldn't we see a universal consensus? (Accepted by 100% of people, 100% of the time)

Is there even one example of morality that everyone agrees on 100% of the time?
Debate.org Moderator
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 10:39:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 10:23:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I see a ret*rd all right!

The Fool: Are you an id!ot.

I literally busted out laughing. My dog jumped. Do you feel attacked? Is why, with a neolithic roar, you attacked your keyboard back with:

I said clearly I was answering as to try and support the subjectivity by an argument. I said DON"T CONFUSE THIS WITH MY POSITION. Because I am expecting a JACK AZZ to not get that. It is and attempt to philosophically argument that its subjective. And look what turned up right on time!

Perhaps you've misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that you support rape in any way. I understand that your stance was purely philosophical. However, I also aver that it is sophistry. You're considering only a loosely generalized conception rape, rather than acknowledging what it really is. It's not simply sex after a disagreement as to what they were going to do that night. The sexual aspect of rape is, incidentally, probably it's most minor aspect. I was pointing out that you really need to take this into account before you consider whether we can repopulate a planet through those means.

The Fool: Firstly you Strawman my argument,:

Really? If there were one man and one woman left on Earth, then rape would be justified?'

The Fool: did I say that the reason was because of the fact that there are only two people left.

...? Well, unfortunately, if that interpretation were wrong, you've failed to correct me. How should I have interpreted your statement?

‘Rape is never justified. It is never, ever justified. Rape is objectively wrong.'
Bold assertion fallacy

Well, actually, no, given I spent the remainder of the post justifying it. :\

‘I can argue this biologically, morally, philosophically, spiritually, and socially. Do you know why?

The Fool: Please Go ahead, Demonstrated, that is the point of presenting the argument. IS to debate it. I am glad you are finally getting into the swing of things.

Well, I did, and I chose to do so biologically. I really hope, at the bottom of this mire of misinterpretation and emotional conveyance, I'll find some comprehension of and response to that. I'll bet I won't, though.

‘I invite you to please present to me a situation in which rape would be right, with no better option that does not involve rape.' Strawman Fallacy

The Fool: WITH NO OPTION OF SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE IDIOT. DON"T STRAWMAN MY ARGUMENT.

Welllll... basically, what you're saying here, then, is that a man can rape a woman if he can verify that she is the only one that exists? Lol, wow.

For the one that the Fool has already presented:

The Fool: But, if there were two people left on earth, then rape would be justified for the better of the presumed human race that might result!

There are several circumstances under which that premise would be defeated in the case of rape. It is a violent, abusive, violating thing.

The Fool: It is also violent, abusive, voilating to kill, but its justified to fight back the NAZIES. What is your argument?

What? Nazis?

I refuse to discuss Nazis. They are wholly irrelevant.

It's a relief to see you express such a lack of understanding of the subject,Bold assertion fallacy as I understand that you're a female, and the vast majority of females have been violated in one way or another. Special Pleading

The Fool: it's not my position but its good argument for it. I said that IN bold. ID!OT! Notice how I also said in the way you guys are thinking of subjective. Go back to the children section if you can't handle controversial hypothetical argumentation.

Lol, I knew it. I fucking knew it, you didn't even approach it.

Ugh, so not worth my time.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 10:41:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 10:38:35 AM, airmax1227 wrote:

Based on our 'current global system', rape is wrong by consensus.

Everything that humanity "knows" is based on consensus. In fact, without consensus, we reject it as verifiably true. Empiricism is literally the ability for more than one person to reliably experience the same thing.

So, if you contend that science is subjective as well, then you might as well contend that you are an owl and I am an airplane and we are all singing the Russian National Anthem in Chinese.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 10:43:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 10:24:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"Really? If there were one man and one woman left on Earth, then rape would be justified?

Rape is never justified. It is never, ever justified. Rape is objectively wrong."

If there was only one woman left on earth to breed to keep the human species going, I would think the only sensible thing to do would be to make sure she had a child any means necessary.

Also, if there was a man who raped a woman just for fun, there would be justice to hire a huge gay dude to rape that man for revenge for the woman. This is another way rape would be justified in my eyes.

Naturally, you avoided my argument from biology, as well. That's not a surprise, because I really don't see how you could argue with biology. xD

Basically, there are millions of ways rape could be justified.

Lol, yeah, whatever, psycho.

Talk about a scary blind assertion.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 11:02:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 10:23:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

'You're considering only a loosely generalized conception rape, rather than acknowledging what it really is.'

The Fool: Thats right, only you know the True definition of rape. I should have asked you first about the Special meaning of Rape. My bad, If I am not refering to the special definition then what are you responding about. I guess we are all not talking about what we are talking about. But if I have don't have the definition right what are you complaining about in the first place.. ;)

The Fool: WITH NO OPTION OF SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE IDIOT. DON"T STRAWMAN MY ARGUMENT.

Welllll... basically, what you're saying here, then, is that a man can rape a woman if he can verify that she is the only one that exists? Lol, wow.

The Fool: yeah sounds exactly like it. ;)

There are several circumstances under which that premise would be defeated in the case of rape. It is a violent, abusive, violating thing.


The Fool: It is also violent, abusive, voilating to kill, but its justified to fight back the NAZIES. What is your argument?
Its called a counter example which proves your argument wrong.

Ugh, so not worth my time.

The Fool: yes. lol. I am sure that is the reason. And all the other times too.. ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 11:07:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 10:43:28 AM, Ren wrote:

Naturally, you avoided my argument from biology, as well. That's not a surprise, because I really don't see how you could argue with biology. xD

The Fool: dude we don't even have to look to know that survival of the species is a inherent biolgical motivation.

The Fool: Its you claim you bring it here. For this is the forum where the discussion takes place. you could have just copied and past.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 11:14:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 11:07:23 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:43:28 AM, Ren wrote:

Naturally, you avoided my argument from biology, as well. That's not a surprise, because I really don't see how you could argue with biology. xD

The Fool: dude we don't even have to look to know that survival of the species is a inherent biolgical motivation.

The Fool: Its you claim you bring it here. For this is the forum where the discussion takes place. you could have just copied and past.

Naw, you're just going to have to reread my post and figure it out.

Especially if you're going to be so obnoxious. xD
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 11:17:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 10:43:28 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:24:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"Really? If there were one man and one woman left on Earth, then rape would be justified?

Rape is never justified. It is never, ever justified. Rape is objectively wrong."

If there was only one woman left on earth to breed to keep the human species going, I would think the only sensible thing to do would be to make sure she had a child any means necessary.

Also, if there was a man who raped a woman just for fun, there would be justice to hire a huge gay dude to rape that man for revenge for the woman. This is another way rape would be justified in my eyes.

Naturally, you avoided my argument from biology, as well. That's not a surprise, because I really don't see how you could argue with biology. xD

Basically, there are millions of ways rape could be justified.

Lol, yeah, whatever, psycho.

Talk about a scary blind assertion.

Actually if you wouldn't keep the human civilization going because a woman didn't want to have sex, you would be the psycho...Do you hate humans or something?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 11:20:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 10:43:28 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:24:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"Really? If there were one man and one woman left on Earth, then rape would be justified?

Rape is never justified. It is never, ever justified. Rape is objectively wrong."

If there was only one woman left on earth to breed to keep the human species going, I would think the only sensible thing to do would be to make sure she had a child any means necessary.

Also, if there was a man who raped a woman just for fun, there would be justice to hire a huge gay dude to rape that man for revenge for the woman. This is another way rape would be justified in my eyes.

Naturally, you avoided my argument from biology, as well. That's not a surprise, because I really don't see how you could argue with biology. xD

Basically, there are millions of ways rape could be justified.

Lol, yeah, whatever, psycho.

Talk about a scary blind assertion.

If you were a men in a group of a few remaining men, and there was only one woman left on earth and she refused to have sex. Are you saying the best thing to do , would be to let the human population die out? No more existence being experienced, no more societies, no more art, no more math, no more anything, simply because one female didn't want to have sex?

I think you need to get your priorities straight if you think rape wouldn't be the best thing to do in that situation.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 11:32:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 11:20:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:43:28 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:24:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"Really? If there were one man and one woman left on Earth, then rape would be justified?

Rape is never justified. It is never, ever justified. Rape is objectively wrong."

If there was only one woman left on earth to breed to keep the human species going, I would think the only sensible thing to do would be to make sure she had a child any means necessary.

Also, if there was a man who raped a woman just for fun, there would be justice to hire a huge gay dude to rape that man for revenge for the woman. This is another way rape would be justified in my eyes.

Naturally, you avoided my argument from biology, as well. That's not a surprise, because I really don't see how you could argue with biology. xD

Basically, there are millions of ways rape could be justified.

Lol, yeah, whatever, psycho.

Talk about a scary blind assertion.

If you were a men in a group of a few remaining men, and there was only one woman left on earth and she refused to have sex. Are you saying the best thing to do , would be to let the human population die out? No more existence being experienced, no more societies, no more art, no more math, no more anything, simply because one female didn't want to have sex?

I think you need to get your priorities straight if you think rape wouldn't be the best thing to do in that situation.

O.O

No, I wouldn't.

if a woman refused to have sex with any of us, then yes, the best thing to do is to leave her alone. Try to convince her otherwise, if we really wanted to recreate the human race. It's all depends on their specific situation at that given moment, whether "recreating the human race" would even be appropriate. This is particularly considering the fact that, they're under no moral obligation to any human race, as it doesn't exist. Their only obligation is to them, as they are the only that exist, and thus, are the human race. It would thus be their decision (not simply some man's, or even only the men's decision) to determine whether they'd like to expand. If the woman decides that she does not want to proliferate for any reason, and carry the burden of bearing and rearing children, then obviously, the answer is no.

Apparently, you're presuming that it's objectively moral to expand and proliferate, and that is not necessarily true. That is a blind assertion, and a matter of opinion.

Alternately, that is entirely contingent on the circumstances. In 28 Day later? Sure, they sealed it up tight; she was some black girl from here, he was a white guy from there, and they were both decent people that liked each other. So, they were presumably genetically dissimilar enough to reproduce and expand to recreate some humanity.

However, if we're talking between two homicidal maniacs that don't even want to rear children, (or, even if one party does not want to do so), then I don't see how you can even repopulate in the first place.

Why don't you go reread my first post about genetics?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 11:33:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thinker, your post is shockingly evidentiary of an underlying misogyny that has characterized our social interaction with women over the last few hundred years.