Envisage
Envisage's Forum Posts

I have very sad newsPosted 1 year Ago

Lannan was well meaning, and always pleasant to engage with. A devastating loss particularly for his family and close friends. Not much i can add here that other"s haven"t already done and better.

I am glad I got the chance to know him as many others here had, and I will strive to improve my awareness of mental health in the future.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Abortion debate (Science)Posted 1 year Ago

I concede that the fascism point was a wrong. I meant to refer to nazi Germany in relation to their treatments of the Jews, with dehumization of them. You said that unless the nazi argument is exactly the same as your argument that there is no correlation between the two.

I don't particularly care about the fascist argument because even if what you say is correct, it has no bearing on whether or not my argument is valid or sound. It is basically a version of argument ad hitlerum.

This is wrong, you added extra criteria for humans to obtain rights, I fundamentally disagree with this concept, the connection between your argument and the nazi argument can absolutely be made as there is heavy correlation between the ideologies of the two.

You have applied criteria that something needs to be a human species to obtain rights. What about the other billions of species that exist today? What about poor cyanobacteria? Surely that is just as fascist.

If you argue that adding extra criteria such as being "alive" and being "human" as rights is a fair and justified use of criteria, then you need an actual argument as to why the criteria i presented (being sentient, being a conscious being, having values) is unfair. Having poor criteria is a good way to cause atrocities, true, but so it poor use the chlorine gas, that doesn't mean that any and all use of chlorine gas (including those uses that make medicine) is bad.

I agree with the words of the constitution, that all of humankind is endowed with unalienable rights.

I don't. now what?

Those words extend to the fetus, which is biologically a human. You conceded that it was a living human, you just don"t think it"s worthy of rights.

Correct. I am using the biological definitions of "human" and "alive" after all.

I think it does deserve protection from murder.

I don't. Now what? Why should fetuses deserve protection from murder? Why shouldn't bacteria deserve protection from murder?

The murder of a human life outweighs any of the potential suffering that could be brought upon by having an unwanted child.

I say this is false. How do you intend to justify your assertion?


I"ll challenge you to a debate, parliamentary rules, so your opening statement can"t refute my original opening statement, hopefully your familiar with parliamentary rules if your not, give them a quick google.

I am not, I am going first though so I guess it doesn't matter.
Forums Home > Politics

Abortion debate (Science)Posted 1 year Ago

At 6/19/2018 11:34:20 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
At 6/19/2018 2:05:07 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.
a) Yes it indeed does
b) So what? Bacteria and yeast also fulfil those same criteria, yet I don"t give a crap about killing them by the billions when I bake bread. Why should I care just because it has a human genome inside of it instead of a bacterial one? Being a living human isn"t sufficient for me to extend any rights to something. It needs something more than that - which is partially why we delineate between humans (from a biological perspective) and persons (from an ethical perspective).

Adding some sort of extra criteria for when rights can be bestowed is fascist. Within our constitution, it says

Eh, fascist? Interested to see how you come to this conclusion:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

The US constitution is a claim to unalienable rights.

A claim.

I reject that claim. Self-evidence is evidence of nothing, except perhaps consciousness.

Men is short for mankind, which is short for humankind. By your criteria, since you agree that the zygote is a living human, it is endowed with these rights.

By the US and it's constitution perhaps. Again, why should anyone but the 5% of the world that lives there (if even then) care about that? I certainly don't.

If you choose to disagree with that clause of the constitution, I ask you to set the criteria for a human to obtain rights.

Rights are what we as society arbitrarily choose to endow. My criteria for a human to obtain rights is that it is a person. That is, a conscious entity with values and emotions.

Because that is that humans tend to value, rather than a cluster of cells by mere fact that it is a living thing containing human DNA...

Moreover persons are not human-specific, it would also extend to animals/aliens/AI/whatever if it meets the criteria of persons. The US constitution arbitrarily assigns universal value to one specific species - humans (if even that).

It"s quite the coincidence that the arguement for abortion is exactly the same as the arguement for slavery: "These people are human, but they don"t deserve rights since they don"t fit the criteria we set for someone eligible for rights!"

Show me where one slavery advocate actually stated that the enslaved race are not persons that have values, consciousness, or emotions, or anything to that effect.

Even if you could, that person would simply be factually incorrect, since they do. It's why dehumanisation is an effective tactic for enabling human atrocities.

is almost the same as, "These fetuses are human but they don"t deserve rights because they don"t fit the criteria we set for someone eligible for rights."
We shouldn"t be the ones setting the criteria, it"s either everyone has rights, or no one has rights; otherwise the government gets to decide who has rights and we turn into fascists.

a) The government does decide who gets rights, since they are the ones who enforce them. Sorry I don't share your illusion that there is this nebulous "rights" thing that people naturally have. It's not a thing, it is a social construct, one that is granted and enforced by society.

b) You lack any understanding of what fascism is, it's like accusing water of being a type of song, or the lion king movie being "delicious". It's nonsensical. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children.

They aren"t children, they are foetuses, with very different stages of cognitive development - which is the thing I care about when discussing ethics - be it humans or other species.

What about retarded people? They have low cognitive development, I"d be hard-pressed to find someone killing living retarded people.

Are retarded people persons, conscious with values and emotions? If no then I have no issue with killing them. Other humans might though, so probably wouldn't be something we should do in today's society. If a person has comparable cognitive, emotional and consciousness to an animal, then I see no inherent reason to treat them any differently to that animal.

Let me ask you - why does the US Constitution arbitrarily choose to bestow the human species with all of these rights? The simplest explanation is that it is just in the self-interest of the species to promote its own well-being and survival. There is nothing morally right or wrong about it.
Forums Home > Politics

Abortion debate (Science)Posted 1 year Ago

At 6/16/2018 1:41:59 AM, UseYOURname wrote:
I present my argument on one level, the scientific level.

There are four criteria necessary to establish life.
1) Reaction to stimuli
2) Metabolism
3)Cellular Reproduction
4)Growth

The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception.
a) Yes it indeed does
b) So what? Bacteria and yeast also fulfil those same criteria, yet I don"t give a crap about killing them by the billions when I bake bread. Why should I care just because it has a human genome inside of it instead of a bacterial one? Being a living human isn"t sufficient for me to extend any rights to something. It needs something more than that - which is partially why we delineate between humans (from a biological perspective) and persons (from an ethical perspective).

The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children.

They aren"t children, they are foetuses, with very different stages of cognitive development - which is the thing I care about when discussing ethics - be it humans or other species.

It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.

Depends on how you choose to define evil.

P.S
Sorry for the weird apostrophes, it"s changing then into quotes for some reason.
Forums Home > Politics

"God does not exist" is a weak positionPosted 1 year Ago

At 5/18/2018 1:57:07 PM, drussell4801 wrote:
I am an atheist.

However, I feel that being reasonable is NECESSARY for atheists since they claim to always be more reasonable. Unfortunately this doesn"t always happen.

As has been stated repeatedly, you cannot prove a negative. Saying "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" is a negative claim that will be very difficult to fully prove.

Sure you can, you just use a simple modus tollens:

1. If A then not B
2. B
3. Therefore not A

You just need to prove B to prove A is false. Thereby proving a negative.

In science, this is how theories can be falsified. If Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is correct then both position and momentum of objects cannot be known past a certain level of precision. If general relativity is correct then mas cannot travel in space faster than the speed of light. If atomic theory is correct then electrons cannot violate electron-filling rules of orbitals. If common ancestry is correct then we cannot have large violations in the nested heirachy.

If God exists then... [insert stuff here]

Not hard.
Forums Home > Religion

52 Palestinians killed by Israeli forcesPosted 1 year Ago

At 5/14/2018 9:19:57 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 5/14/2018 6:41:16 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/14/2018 5:58:36 PM, Varrack wrote:
https://mobile.nytimes.com...

Another day, another series of human rights abuses in Israel. I wonder how many of these it would take for the US to stop giving them their undying support...

I don"t see the problem.

Palestinians were mass entroaching on Israeli territory, crossing the border without permission. Several got shot dead for it. The protest which caused this consisted of over 2,000 people, and live gunfire was used in combination with tear gas. Looks like a legitimate protection of borders to me.

I wouldn"t expect much different were it any other country this happened to.

Why does trespassing warrant lethal force? I'm unaware of any country that implements capital punishment for such an offense.

Trespassing into a nation where your home nation maintains hostilities with, in groups of 2000+ people, absolutely justified.

I sure as hell wouldn"t expect people to defend South Koreans being shot dead by North Korea by trespassing into the DMZ. I sure as hell wouldn"t expect people to defend people from Mexico for acting and pressing across the US border in the same manner these Palestinians did.
Forums Home > Politics

52 Palestinians killed by Israeli forcesPosted 1 year Ago

At 5/14/2018 5:58:36 PM, Varrack wrote:
https://mobile.nytimes.com...

Another day, another series of human rights abuses in Israel. I wonder how many of these it would take for the US to stop giving them their undying support...

I don"t see the problem.

Palestinians were mass entroaching on Israeli territory, crossing the border without permission. Several got shot dead for it. The protest which caused this consisted of over 2,000 people, and live gunfire was used in combination with tear gas. Looks like a legitimate protection of borders to me.

I wouldn"t expect much different were it any other country this happened to.
Forums Home > Politics

Questions for atheists and theistsPosted 1 year Ago

At 5/11/2018 2:34:18 AM, TheMorningsStar wrote:
There are some atheists that seem to think that being theistic is somehow bad for you. Can any atheists that hold this view explain, specifically, how theism is bad for you? What aspects are bad for you? What if those aspects are not inherent to all forms of theism?

Theism isn"t really a concern of mine. It"s religion that results from it, and the authority that is frequently brinngs. The biggest modern religions are mind traps that give significant motive and self-authority for control of others. I say mind-traps because they usually have self-consistent incentives against dissent from the religion (hell, heaven, punishment, etc...).
Forums Home > Religion

A Secular WorldPosted 1 year Ago

At 5/3/2018 7:18:50 PM, Mingodalia wrote:
At 5/3/2018 7:12:55 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
Using a compass to line up your worshipping::

So no answer. excellent. Just as I suspected. If theists disappeared, the Atheists have no reason to not destroy each other.

They have no reason to destroy each other either...
Forums Home > Religion

DDO proves atheists R obsessed with religionPosted 1 year Ago

At 5/3/2018 7:17:16 AM, FungusOfHam wrote:
DDO is proof that the atheist hive is obsessed with God and religion.

When you say "proved atheists are obsessed..." do you mean "all of atheists" as an entire category, or do you mean "a group of atheists", or a cohort of atheists?

Clarify please.
Forums Home > Religion

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.