Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Handling the objections to my arguments

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 9:01:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
t seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion. The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call "health." Let's swap "morality" for "medicine" and "well-being" for "health" and see how things look:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem)

While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine? No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health—and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self-destructive ideas about how to live. Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine?*
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 9:41:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Do you ever grow tired of being such a tenacious twit?

Anyway: while it may not be unscientific to value health--it is also not scientific.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 9:44:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Izbo is getting more coherent, less trollish, but still as erroneous. I think we wore him out.
"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
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 9:49:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
either of you 2 clowns or anyone else here for this matter care to even attempt a rebuttal?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 12:09:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would really love to see justcallmeretarded or cerebral idiots response to this.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:30:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:01:45 PM, izbo10 wrote:
t seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection? I seem to recall people raising the objection that valuation of this is ARBITRARY. But nobody ever said that there is no reason to value this. I like the first strawman... good work.

Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection?? You also assume here that science and morality have some sort of necessary connection. Which is probably a warranted assumption, but leads to an evolutionary account of morality, which is far more likely to be a convergence theory than an objective one.

Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection? Actually, I'm sympathetic to the view that well-being can be measured scientifically, but since one's BELIEFS about one's well-being is an integral part of one's ACTUAL well-being, this is a subjective area anyway.

I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion.

I believe that you ind of made these up because they are convenient to strawman and "refute."

The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call "health." Let's swap "morality" for "medicine" and "well-being" for "health" and see how things look:

This makes the certainly unwarranted assumption that morality and medicine are interchangeable in this context. You've swapped a prescriptive system for a predicative/declarative one.

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem)

While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine? No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health—and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self-destructive ideas about how to live. Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine?*

Let's have a talk about some REAL objections.

Call this one the temporal objection. If moral good = benefit to society, how do you respond to the contention that morality precedes society? Furthermore, if moral good = societal benefit, and morality did not in fact precede society, how did societies develop without morality?

10 more objections that Bozo never responded to can be found here: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:31:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:01:45 PM, izbo10 wrote:
t seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion. The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call "health." Let's swap "morality" for "medicine" and "well-being" for "health" and see how things look:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem)

While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine? No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health—and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self-destructive ideas about how to live. Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine?*

So, you switch out a normative statement on morality for a positive statement on medicine, then say that your analogy shows the normative statement to be positive, is far from impressive.

Try again, quit equivocating between positive and normative statements.

If you want to talk about objective morality, you need to show Hume's is-ought is wrong.

You have done nothing of the sort.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 5:52:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:01:45 PM, izbo10 wrote:
t seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far:

Why are you pretending that you are a serious member who has arguments and who handles objections to those arguments. The truth is you make wild claims and either handwave or strawman objections away.


There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)

No there is no objective moral reason to presume that well being is the primary value of morality.

Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

No you have pretty ignored and rewritten the entire debate to give yourself greater credibility.


I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion. The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call "health." Let's swap "morality" for "medicine" and "well-being" for "health" and see how things look:

I believe that these challenges are the product of retroactively re-writing the argument and possibly plagarism.


There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem)

While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine? No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health—and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self-destructive ideas about how to live. Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine?*

Anything to avoid the real argument eh?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 5:54:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 12:09:18 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I would really love to see justcallmeretarded or cerebral idiots response to this.

Why do you care whether or not I respond. You are never interested in what I have to say and none of this is what was previously argued.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 6:07:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:01:45 PM, izbo10 wrote:
t seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion. The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call "health." Let's swap "morality" for "medicine" and "well-being" for "health" and see how things look:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem)
:

While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine? No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health—and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self-destructive ideas about how to live. Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine?*

The analogy is pretty good, but firstly it does not actually address the arguments and Tarzan and myself have put forward. That is the most important issue. As a side issue the section in bold has been plagarised, as I assumed it was when I first read it.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...
Go five paragraphs down.

The actual author is
http://jerrycoyne.uchicago.edu...

Yet last night you were whining because I demanded you cite a specific philosopher to support one of your claims... yet here you are stealing other peoples ideas.

Here is a tip for the future, when you make sense we know you are plagarising.

No I am not letting this drop.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 7:09:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 1:30:17 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:01:45 PM, izbo10 wrote:
t seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection? I seem to recall people raising the objection that valuation of this is ARBITRARY. But nobody ever said that there is no reason to value this. I like the first strawman... good work.

Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection?? You also assume here that science and morality have some sort of necessary connection. Which is probably a warranted assumption, but leads to an evolutionary account of morality, which is far more likely to be a convergence theory than an objective one.

Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection? Actually, I'm sympathetic to the view that well-being can be measured scientifically, but since one's BELIEFS about one's well-being is an integral part of one's ACTUAL well-being, this is a subjective area anyway.

I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion.

I believe that you ind of made these up because they are convenient to strawman and "refute."

The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call "health." Let's swap "morality" for "medicine" and "well-being" for "health" and see how things look:

This makes the certainly unwarranted assumption that morality and medicine are interchangeable in this context. You've swapped a prescriptive system for a predicative/declarative one.

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem)

While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine? No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health—and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self-destructive ideas about how to live. Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine?*

Let's have a talk about some REAL objections.

Call this one the temporal objection. If moral good = benefit to society, how do you respond to the contention that morality precedes society? Furthermore, if moral good = societal benefit, and morality did not in fact precede society, how did societies develop without morality?

10 more objections that Bozo never responded to can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

apparently you guys are too stupid to understand your own objections now.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 7:27:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 7:09:37 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 1:30:17 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:01:45 PM, izbo10 wrote:
t seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection? I seem to recall people raising the objection that valuation of this is ARBITRARY. But nobody ever said that there is no reason to value this. I like the first strawman... good work.

Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection?? You also assume here that science and morality have some sort of necessary connection. Which is probably a warranted assumption, but leads to an evolutionary account of morality, which is far more likely to be a convergence theory than an objective one.

Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection? Actually, I'm sympathetic to the view that well-being can be measured scientifically, but since one's BELIEFS about one's well-being is an integral part of one's ACTUAL well-being, this is a subjective area anyway.

I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion.

I believe that you ind of made these up because they are convenient to strawman and "refute."

The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call "health." Let's swap "morality" for "medicine" and "well-being" for "health" and see how things look:

This makes the certainly unwarranted assumption that morality and medicine are interchangeable in this context. You've swapped a prescriptive system for a predicative/declarative one.

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem)

While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine? No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health—and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self-destructive ideas about how to live. Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine?*

Let's have a talk about some REAL objections.

Call this one the temporal objection. If moral good = benefit to society, how do you respond to the contention that morality precedes society? Furthermore, if moral good = societal benefit, and morality did not in fact precede society, how did societies develop without morality?

10 more objections that Bozo never responded to can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

apparently you guys are too stupid to understand your own objections now.

You idiots are claiming that valuation of that is arbitrary as the basis for morality, so yes you are, idiot!

By the way the * at the end represents that this was originally written by Sam Harris as the afterwards to his book the moral landscape.

My test worked except for cerebral who picked up on it although he wasn't intelligent enough to find the actual author. Right at the beginning of this post we had 2 idiot high schoolers thinking they could just write the work the words of a ph.d. in neuroscience and a b.a. in philosophy as erroneous and nonscientific. Lol, f'n morons on this board are f'n morons.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 7:36:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 7:27:33 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:09:37 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 1:30:17 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:01:45 PM, izbo10 wrote:
t seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection? I seem to recall people raising the objection that valuation of this is ARBITRARY. But nobody ever said that there is no reason to value this. I like the first strawman... good work.

Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection?? You also assume here that science and morality have some sort of necessary connection. Which is probably a warranted assumption, but leads to an evolutionary account of morality, which is far more likely to be a convergence theory than an objective one.

Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection? Actually, I'm sympathetic to the view that well-being can be measured scientifically, but since one's BELIEFS about one's well-being is an integral part of one's ACTUAL well-being, this is a subjective area anyway.

I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion.

I believe that you ind of made these up because they are convenient to strawman and "refute."

The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call "health." Let's swap "morality" for "medicine" and "well-being" for "health" and see how things look:

This makes the certainly unwarranted assumption that morality and medicine are interchangeable in this context. You've swapped a prescriptive system for a predicative/declarative one.

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem)

While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine? No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health—and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self-destructive ideas about how to live. Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine?*

Let's have a talk about some REAL objections.

Call this one the temporal objection. If moral good = benefit to society, how do you respond to the contention that morality precedes society? Furthermore, if moral good = societal benefit, and morality did not in fact precede society, how did societies develop without morality?

10 more objections that Bozo never responded to can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

apparently you guys are too stupid to understand your own objections now.

You idiots are claiming that valuation of that is arbitrary as the basis for morality, so yes you are, idiot!

By the way the * at the end represents that this was originally written by Sam Harris as the afterwards to his book the moral landscape.

My test worked except for cerebral who picked up on it although he wasn't intelligent enough to find the actual author. Right at the beginning of this post we had 2 idiot high schoolers thinking they could just write the work the words of a ph.d. in neuroscience and a b.a. in philosophy as erroneous and nonscientific. Lol, f'n morons on this board are f'n morons.

Sure I got the author wrong... but...
a) You plagarised your argument.
b) Your 'test' failed because the arguments you stole did not apply to the discussion you were having.

You are a plagarist, I demand an apology.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 7:49:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 7:36:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:27:33 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:09:37 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 1:30:17 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:01:45 PM, izbo10 wrote:
t seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far:

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection? I seem to recall people raising the objection that valuation of this is ARBITRARY. But nobody ever said that there is no reason to value this. I like the first strawman... good work.

Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection?? You also assume here that science and morality have some sort of necessary connection. Which is probably a warranted assumption, but leads to an evolutionary account of morality, which is far more likely to be a convergence theory than an objective one.

Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

Source? Who raised this objection? Actually, I'm sympathetic to the view that well-being can be measured scientifically, but since one's BELIEFS about one's well-being is an integral part of one's ACTUAL well-being, this is a subjective area anyway.

I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion.

I believe that you ind of made these up because they are convenient to strawman and "refute."

The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call "health." Let's swap "morality" for "medicine" and "well-being" for "health" and see how things look:

This makes the certainly unwarranted assumption that morality and medicine are interchangeable in this context. You've swapped a prescriptive system for a predicative/declarative one.

There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)
Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)
Even if we did agree to grant "health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem)

While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine? No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health—and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self-destructive ideas about how to live. Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine?*

Let's have a talk about some REAL objections.

Call this one the temporal objection. If moral good = benefit to society, how do you respond to the contention that morality precedes society? Furthermore, if moral good = societal benefit, and morality did not in fact precede society, how did societies develop without morality?

10 more objections that Bozo never responded to can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

apparently you guys are too stupid to understand your own objections now.

You idiots are claiming that valuation of that is arbitrary as the basis for morality, so yes you are, idiot!

By the way the * at the end represents that this was originally written by Sam Harris as the afterwards to his book the moral landscape.

My test worked except for cerebral who picked up on it although he wasn't intelligent enough to find the actual author. Right at the beginning of this post we had 2 idiot high schoolers thinking they could just write the work the words of a ph.d. in neuroscience and a b.a. in philosophy as erroneous and nonscientific. Lol, f'n morons on this board are f'n morons.

Sure I got the author wrong... but...
a) You plagarised your argument.
b) Your 'test' failed because the arguments you stole did not apply to the discussion you were having.

You are a plagarist, I demand an apology.

no apology this was done as a test to demonstrate the stupidity of this board, you people fail to recognize your own objections if they are not in your own exact words, not my problem.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 7:53:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 7:49:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:
no apology this was done as a test to demonstrate the stupidity of this board, you people fail to recognize your own objections if they are not in your own exact words, not my problem.

But the text that you plagarised bore no relation to our objections...

Let's try another test... can you in a single sentence summarise MY objections to YOUR moral philosophy?

If you can then we can establish how your fraud was without foundation, if you can not then I have to ask why are you here?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 7:59:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 7:53:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:49:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:
no apology this was done as a test to demonstrate the stupidity of this board, you people fail to recognize your own objections if they are not in your own exact words, not my problem.

But the text that you plagarised bore no relation to our objections...

Let's try another test... can you in a single sentence summarise MY objections to YOUR moral philosophy?

If you can then we can establish how your fraud was without foundation, if you can not then I have to ask why are you here?

Your most basic objection is that i am arbitrarily picking human well-being and benefit to society when there is no reason to select that over anything else. Which has been addressed over and over to stupidity which you fail to grasp.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:02:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 7:59:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:53:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:49:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:
no apology this was done as a test to demonstrate the stupidity of this board, you people fail to recognize your own objections if they are not in your own exact words, not my problem.

But the text that you plagarised bore no relation to our objections...

Let's try another test... can you in a single sentence summarise MY objections to YOUR moral philosophy?

If you can then we can establish how your fraud was without foundation, if you can not then I have to ask why are you here?

Your most basic objection is that i am arbitrarily picking human well-being and benefit to society when there is no reason to select that over anything else. Which has been addressed over and over to stupidity which you fail to grasp.

No. Think really, really hard. I know you can do it. What has been my singular objection to your moral philosophy.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:10:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:02:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:59:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:53:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:49:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:
no apology this was done as a test to demonstrate the stupidity of this board, you people fail to recognize your own objections if they are not in your own exact words, not my problem.

But the text that you plagarised bore no relation to our objections...

Let's try another test... can you in a single sentence summarise MY objections to YOUR moral philosophy?

If you can then we can establish how your fraud was without foundation, if you can not then I have to ask why are you here?

Your most basic objection is that i am arbitrarily picking human well-being and benefit to society when there is no reason to select that over anything else. Which has been addressed over and over to stupidity which you fail to grasp.

No. Think really, really hard. I know you can do it. What has been my singular objection to your moral philosophy.

well you really have none since you are not bright enough to get my moral philosophy, I get yours and justcallmetarzans straw man argumentation mixed up.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:12:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:10:04 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:02:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:59:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:53:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:49:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:
no apology this was done as a test to demonstrate the stupidity of this board, you people fail to recognize your own objections if they are not in your own exact words, not my problem.

But the text that you plagarised bore no relation to our objections...

Let's try another test... can you in a single sentence summarise MY objections to YOUR moral philosophy?

If you can then we can establish how your fraud was without foundation, if you can not then I have to ask why are you here?

Your most basic objection is that i am arbitrarily picking human well-being and benefit to society when there is no reason to select that over anything else. Which has been addressed over and over to stupidity which you fail to grasp.

No. Think really, really hard. I know you can do it. What has been my singular objection to your moral philosophy.

well you really have none since you are not bright enough to get my moral philosophy, I get yours and justcallmetarzans straw man argumentation mixed up.

How did I know you two fuckin morons would start a semantical game of i word my objection this way, while this words it that way, and claim they aren't the same objections when in fact the only difference is word choice.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:23:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:10:04 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:02:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:59:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:53:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:49:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:
no apology this was done as a test to demonstrate the stupidity of this board, you people fail to recognize your own objections if they are not in your own exact words, not my problem.

But the text that you plagarised bore no relation to our objections...

Let's try another test... can you in a single sentence summarise MY objections to YOUR moral philosophy?

If you can then we can establish how your fraud was without foundation, if you can not then I have to ask why are you here?

Your most basic objection is that i am arbitrarily picking human well-being and benefit to society when there is no reason to select that over anything else. Which has been addressed over and over to stupidity which you fail to grasp.

No. Think really, really hard. I know you can do it. What has been my singular objection to your moral philosophy.

well you really have none since you are not bright enough to get my moral philosophy, I get yours and justcallmetarzans straw man argumentation mixed up.

My sole objection to your moral philosophy has been very very simple. It's also been repeated by Tarzan, but he has gone into far greater detail on the matter because he is more intelligent than me, and by extention of course both of us.

However if someone has only one objection, and it's repeated very clearly, it does seem rather strange that it now becomes so esoteric.

Have I objected to the high valuation on human well being, no. Have I objected to the idea that we might attempt to use logic or some form of objectivity to evaluate human well being, no.

So what has been my sole objection?
If you can't remember why should take you seriously? How can you rebute me?

On a side note it is interesting to see how much you have changed, as half way through the debate you started reading Sam Harris and have changed your views to match his.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:33:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:23:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:10:04 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:02:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:59:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:53:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:49:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:
no apology this was done as a test to demonstrate the stupidity of this board, you people fail to recognize your own objections if they are not in your own exact words, not my problem.

But the text that you plagarised bore no relation to our objections...

Let's try another test... can you in a single sentence summarise MY objections to YOUR moral philosophy?

If you can then we can establish how your fraud was without foundation, if you can not then I have to ask why are you here?

Your most basic objection is that i am arbitrarily picking human well-being and benefit to society when there is no reason to select that over anything else. Which has been addressed over and over to stupidity which you fail to grasp.

No. Think really, really hard. I know you can do it. What has been my singular objection to your moral philosophy.

well you really have none since you are not bright enough to get my moral philosophy, I get yours and justcallmetarzans straw man argumentation mixed up.

My sole objection to your moral philosophy has been very very simple. It's also been repeated by Tarzan, but he has gone into far greater detail on the matter because he is more intelligent than me, and by extention of course both of us.

However if someone has only one objection, and it's repeated very clearly, it does seem rather strange that it now becomes so esoteric.

Have I objected to the high valuation on human well being, no. Have I objected to the idea that we might attempt to use logic or some form of objectivity to evaluate human well being, no.

So what has been my sole objection?
If you can't remember why should take you seriously? How can you rebute me?

On a side note it is interesting to see how much you have changed, as half way through the debate you started reading Sam Harris and have changed your views to match his.

No, I have believed this for a wrong, but your main objection has been questioning the standard we judge morality is arbitrary. You must be stupid if you don't know that is your main objection. We can go back thread after thread, post after post of how do you judge this, how do you judge that. I would love to see a post where that has not been your main objection. All I am asking for right now is one post.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:34:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:12:29 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:10:04 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:02:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:59:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:53:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:49:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:
no apology this was done as a test to demonstrate the stupidity of this board, you people fail to recognize your own objections if they are not in your own exact words, not my problem.

But the text that you plagarised bore no relation to our objections...

Let's try another test... can you in a single sentence summarise MY objections to YOUR moral philosophy?

If you can then we can establish how your fraud was without foundation, if you can not then I have to ask why are you here?

Your most basic objection is that i am arbitrarily picking human well-being and benefit to society when there is no reason to select that over anything else. Which has been addressed over and over to stupidity which you fail to grasp.

No. Think really, really hard. I know you can do it. What has been my singular objection to your moral philosophy.

well you really have none since you are not bright enough to get my moral philosophy, I get yours and justcallmetarzans straw man argumentation mixed up.

How did I know you two fuckin morons would start a semantical game of i word my objection this way, while this words it that way, and claim they aren't the same objections when in fact the only difference is word choice.

Sorry can I have a translation please?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:36:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:33:39 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:23:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:10:04 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:02:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:59:31 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:53:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 7:49:55 AM, izbo10 wrote:
no apology this was done as a test to demonstrate the stupidity of this board, you people fail to recognize your own objections if they are not in your own exact words, not my problem.

But the text that you plagarised bore no relation to our objections...

Let's try another test... can you in a single sentence summarise MY objections to YOUR moral philosophy?

If you can then we can establish how your fraud was without foundation, if you can not then I have to ask why are you here?

Your most basic objection is that i am arbitrarily picking human well-being and benefit to society when there is no reason to select that over anything else. Which has been addressed over and over to stupidity which you fail to grasp.

No. Think really, really hard. I know you can do it. What has been my singular objection to your moral philosophy.

well you really have none since you are not bright enough to get my moral philosophy, I get yours and justcallmetarzans straw man argumentation mixed up.

My sole objection to your moral philosophy has been very very simple. It's also been repeated by Tarzan, but he has gone into far greater detail on the matter because he is more intelligent than me, and by extention of course both of us.

However if someone has only one objection, and it's repeated very clearly, it does seem rather strange that it now becomes so esoteric.

Have I objected to the high valuation on human well being, no. Have I objected to the idea that we might attempt to use logic or some form of objectivity to evaluate human well being, no.

So what has been my sole objection?
If you can't remember why should take you seriously? How can you rebute me?

On a side note it is interesting to see how much you have changed, as half way through the debate you started reading Sam Harris and have changed your views to match his.


No, I have believed this for a wrong, but your main objection has been questioning the standard we judge morality is arbitrary. You must be stupid if you don't know that is your main objection. We can go back thread after thread, post after post of how do you judge this, how do you judge that. I would love to see a post where that has not been your main objection. All I am asking for right now is one post.

Since I called you out now you can't understand english thank you very much.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:40:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:33:39 AM, izbo10 wrote:

No, I have believed this for a wrong,

Do you mean that you have believed this for a while? If that were the case your arguments would have been consistent and intelligent.

but your main objection has been questioning the standard we judge morality is arbitrary.

No, you are halfway there. Really try. Do you want a clue?

You must be stupid if you don't know that is your main objection. We can go back thread after thread, post after post of how do you judge this, how do you judge that. I would love to see a post where that has not been your main objection. All I am asking for right now is one post.

Be my guest.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:42:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:36:19 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Since I called you out now you can't understand english thank you very much.

How did I know you two fuckin morons would start a semantical game of i word my objection this way, while this words it that way, and claim they aren't the same objections when in fact the only difference is word choice.

I don't know what this means, it's not English.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:44:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
your main objection has been retardely weak, your main objection is one that you don't grasp that I fully agree with, each society does have different morals that they go by. It does not mean that there are not correct and incorrect morals. Some societies have inheritly wrong opinions on what actually benefits them. Every person has a different level of understanding of math, some do not grasp high level algebra, that does not mean there are not objective answers to math questions it calls into question that persons understanding of the question. Same can be said about morality which is based on benefit and well-being, different societies have different understandings based on some true facts about the nature of reality and some completely incorrect facts about the nature of reality. IF your morality is based on incorrect facts about the nature of reality then there morality is incorrectly based. You have failed to demonstrate anything that is not an expected outcome of my theory. It really is quite sad. My opinion is that there are objectively right and wrong things to do based on well-being and benefit to society. We are all at different levels of understandings of this. Therefore different societies will have different societal codes because they feel it is beneficial. Yet there are actual facts that can be used to determine the actual answer to these dilemmas. You have just been way to stupid to grasp this.

Your entire argument in the debate was based on the very thing I debunked at the beginning, which clearly shows how retarded you are.

Your argument was about:What people believe to be immoral, not what actually is moral. Then again you knew this, you were begging the question right from the beginning.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:53:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:42:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:36:19 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Since I called you out now you can't understand english thank you very much.

How did I know you two fuckin morons would start a semantical game of i word my objection this way, while this words it that way, and claim they aren't the same objections when in fact the only difference is word choice.

I don't know what this means, it's not English.

the old hide behind not understanding because there is a missed comma routine, classy, for a fuckin moron huh?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:58:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:44:38 AM, izbo10 wrote:
your main objection has been retardely weak, your main objection is one that you don't grasp that I fully agree with, each society does have different morals that they go by.

That was never my main objection.

It does not mean that there are not correct and incorrect morals. Some societies have inheritly wrong opinions on what actually benefits them.

This is based on the concept that morality = societal benefit as a system of objective morality blah blah etc etc.

Every person has a different level of understanding of math, some do not grasp high level algebra, that does not mean there are not objective answers to math questions it calls into question that persons understanding of the question. Same can be said about morality which is based on benefit and well-being, different societies have different understandings based on some true facts about the nature of reality and some completely incorrect facts about the nature of reality. IF your morality is based on incorrect facts about the nature of reality then there morality is incorrectly based. You have failed to demonstrate anything that is not an expected outcome of my theory. It really is quite sad. My opinion is that there are objectively right and wrong things to do based on well-being and benefit to society. We are all at different levels of understandings of this. Therefore different societies will have different societal codes because they feel it is beneficial. Yet there are actual facts that can be used to determine the actual answer to these dilemmas. You have just been way to stupid to grasp this.


And again what has been my main objection.

Your entire argument in the debate was based on the very thing I debunked at the beginning, which clearly shows how retarded you are.

No it was not.

Your argument was about:What people believe to be immoral, not what actually is moral. Then again you knew this, you were begging the question right from the beginning.

That is because that is what morality is...

See this is the problem, you will consistently lose debates if you ignore the other sides objections.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:59:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:53:51 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:42:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:36:19 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Since I called you out now you can't understand english thank you very much.

How did I know you two fuckin morons would start a semantical game of i word my objection this way, while this words it that way, and claim they aren't the same objections when in fact the only difference is word choice.

I don't know what this means, it's not English.

the old hide behind not understanding because there is a missed comma routine, classy, for a fuckin moron huh?

It is starting to make sense, why don't you just proof read in future?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 9:21:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 8:59:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:53:51 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:42:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/21/2011 8:36:19 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Since I called you out now you can't understand english thank you very much.

How did I know you two fuckin morons would start a semantical game of i word my objection this way, while this words it that way, and claim they aren't the same objections when in fact the only difference is word choice.

I don't know what this means, it's not English.

the old hide behind not understanding because there is a missed comma routine, classy, for a fuckin moron huh?

It is starting to make sense, why don't you just proof read in future?

Because I am only concerned with the point, not whether I am missing a comma. But you understood it the first time you were just trying to avoid it as you have not made an argument other then this one.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.