|
On November 16 2012 06:44 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. context is apparently irrelevant if words can be considered vague on their own. lol Oh, but according to you, context is 100% relevant, and only an idiot wouldn't understand things in context. In fact, I think I'm putting it more politely than you did. Also, you're misrepresenting things, because it's ONLY in that context where the terminology is being deliberately obfuscated that it's considered vague.
it is relevant, but people dont agree with me, and i was just adding a lighthearted comment. i dont understand your second point--"baby" is by definition ambiguous if you agree with definitions that allow it to be used for pre- and post-birth.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
so I was thinking about putting my hand in a beartrap and then hurting esports
however there are no beartraps in my lab and esports is already dead so time for the third option--quality postings!
The argument is that no distinction should be made and you are mandating a distinction be made. I don't know how you don't see this.
Can you agree that in a hypothetical land (lets call it TLwebsitefeedback), an unborn 'betus' (neutrality special) is different from a postbirth 'betus', in that one will have different characteristics from another*?
and that, as such, it is possible that some people might think that the moral value of them is different (the fact that you may think that such a view is repellent does not change whether or not this possibility exists**)?
*similarly, you could say that a postbirth American 'betus' is different than a postbirth English 'betus' but no one is arguing that one should receive different protections from the other with respect to murder laws
**there's a godwin's law invocation in here somewhere
|
On November 16 2012 06:52 419 wrote:so I was thinking about putting my hand in a beartrap and then hurting esports however there are no beartraps in my lab and esports is already dead so time for the third option--quality postings! Show nested quote +The argument is that no distinction should be made and you are mandating a distinction be made. I don't know how you don't see this.
Can you agree that in a hypothetical land (lets call it TLwebsitefeedback), an unborn 'betus' (neutrality special) is different from a postbirth 'betus', in that one will have different characteristics from another*? and that, as such, it is possible that some people might think that the moral value of them is different (the fact that you may think that such a view is repellent does not change whether or not this possibility exists**)? *similarly, you could say that a postbirth American 'betus' is different than a postbirth English 'betus' but no one is arguing that one should receive different protections from the other with respect to murder laws **there's a godwin's law invocation in here somewhere
Hitler was a real son of a betus?
|
On November 16 2012 06:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. context is apparently irrelevant if words can be considered vague on their own. lol Oh, but according to you, context is 100% relevant, and only an idiot wouldn't understand things in context. In fact, I think I'm putting it more politely than you did. Also, you're misrepresenting things, because it's ONLY in that context where the terminology is being deliberately obfuscated that it's considered vague. it is relevant, but people dont agree with me, and i was just adding a lighthearted comment. i dont understand your second point--"baby" is by definition ambiguous if you agree with definitions that allow it to be used for pre- and post-birth.
If you say "We're going to have a baby", and you're a guy, it's not vague, you mean your wife/girlfriend/etc is pregnant. If you say "My baby needed changing three times last night", you're talking about one that's been born. If you say "killing babies is immoral", you either mean you're pro-life, or anti-infanticide, which actually means you're trying to associate infanticide with abortion by force, rather than explaining why you think abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide.
I'm guessing you're still going to ignore the difference.
Basically, it becomes less vague due to the language used with it. In abortion debates, it's used to intentionally blur the some distinctions that are otherwise made with the language used.
If I say "Religion is evil" but I'm actually thinking specifically of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, and I'm using it to attack Mormons or Catholics, it's the same thing. I'm using a non-specific argument to attack something specific, without showing how it's applicable.
|
Someone get Dr. Chomsky in here, stat!
|
On November 16 2012 06:47 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography. No, he said that categorization by geography doesn't implicitly affect the value. Which is true. You have to explicitly state why you find geography to be relevant or irrelevant. Pro-choice or pro-life, both can say "that woman is pregnant". That's referring to geography, but not stating whether they think it's ok to terminate the pregnancy.
Value doesn't exist objectively. Only subjective emotional value exists. And the categorizations we choose to use have an affect on such subjective assessments.
|
United States41979 Posts
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used.
|
On November 16 2012 06:56 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 06:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. context is apparently irrelevant if words can be considered vague on their own. lol Oh, but according to you, context is 100% relevant, and only an idiot wouldn't understand things in context. In fact, I think I'm putting it more politely than you did. Also, you're misrepresenting things, because it's ONLY in that context where the terminology is being deliberately obfuscated that it's considered vague. it is relevant, but people dont agree with me, and i was just adding a lighthearted comment. i dont understand your second point--"baby" is by definition ambiguous if you agree with definitions that allow it to be used for pre- and post-birth. If you say "We're going to have a baby", and you're a guy, it's not vague, you mean your wife/girlfriend/etc is pregnant. If you say "My baby needed changing three times last night", you're talking about one that's been born. If you say "killing babies is immoral", you either mean you're pro-life, or anti-infanticide, which actually means you're trying to associate infanticide with abortion by force, rather than explaining why you think abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. I'm guessing you're still going to ignore the difference. Basically, it becomes less vague due to the language used with it. In abortion debates, it's used to intentionally blur the some distinctions that are otherwise made with the language used. If I say "Religion is evil" but I'm actually thinking specifically of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, and I'm using it to attack Mormons or Catholics, it's the same thing. I'm using a non-specific argument to attack something specific, without showing how it's applicable.
i have no idea what you are talking about if you are referring to points i have made in this thread.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On November 16 2012 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:47 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography. No, he said that categorization by geography doesn't implicitly affect the value. Which is true. You have to explicitly state why you find geography to be relevant or irrelevant. Pro-choice or pro-life, both can say "that woman is pregnant". That's referring to geography, but not stating whether they think it's ok to terminate the pregnancy. Value doesn't exist objectively. Only subjective emotional value exists. And the categorizations we choose to use have an affect on such subjective assessments.
m8...
even assuming everything you say is true -- are you saying that should I make any distinction between two people, than I must necessarily have a difference in opinion on their moral 'worth'?
I suppose, yes, it does open the possibility that they can possibly be treated differently. But the possibility itself is not an argument.
|
On November 16 2012 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:47 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography. No, he said that categorization by geography doesn't implicitly affect the value. Which is true. You have to explicitly state why you find geography to be relevant or irrelevant. Pro-choice or pro-life, both can say "that woman is pregnant". That's referring to geography, but not stating whether they think it's ok to terminate the pregnancy. Implicit value doesn't exist objectively. Only subjective emotional value exists. And the categorizations we choose to use have an affect on such subjective assessments.
All moral value is implicit. If you try to make it explicit, forcible eugenics is a moral imperative, because we're protecting the human race.
We agree that morality can be subjective, but our perception of the value can't be explicit because it's not objective. You're slightly backwards here on your semantics. The only things that can be objective and explicit are societal values as a whole, as written in the law. On the personal level, they must be subjective and implicit.
The categorizations we use DO have an effect on subjective determinations, which is EXACTLY why, if you desire a rational debate, you must avoid ambiguous terms, and, as much as possible, emotionally charged ones. Which is why I suggested prenatal. Since one side screams bloody murder about the term "fetus" they can just use a different term instead, which is equally clinical but still allows them to refer to it as a baby.
|
Can't someone just make this a thread in General about abortion?
It's not even about KwarK anymore.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
of course it does. the teamliquid race must eternally have a champion against the ontological argument
|
On November 16 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used.
The argument implicitly being made is "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value. Therefore, I will choose to refer to both as baby." There is a common language and common understanding already here. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this argument between the lines should not be attempting a debate in the first place.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 07:10 Praetorial wrote:
Can't someone just make this a thread in General about abortion?
It's not even about KwarK anymore.
This is in no way about abortion for me.
|
On November 16 2012 07:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used. The argument implicitly being made is "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value. Therefore, I will choose to refer to both as baby." There is a common language and common understanding already here. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this argument between the lines should not be attempting a debate in the first place.
Exactly, and via the rhetorical content of Wegandi's posts, he was guilty of just that.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On November 16 2012 07:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used. The argument implicitly being made is "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value. Therefore, I will choose to refer to both as baby." There is a common language and common understanding already here. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this argument between the lines should not be attempting a debate in the first place.
that's not actually an argument though
what evidence are you using to justify second clause? "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value"? That is precisely what the argument is about.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 07:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used. The argument implicitly being made is "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value. Therefore, I will choose to refer to both as baby." There is a common language and common understanding already here. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this argument between the lines should not be attempting a debate in the first place.
Unfortunately it is not. There is no argument about value being made, simply a statement that, in the eyes of the speaker, the definition of the word baby covers both. He has not addressed why and until he recognises that there is a both he cannot. While the other party does not accept his definition of the word he has simply achieved an ontological conclusion in which his conclusion and starting premise are one and the same. You can use neutral language for pre and post birth if you wish but you cannot refuse to accept the categories any more than you could deny the existence of odd and even.
|
On November 16 2012 07:15 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 07:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used. The argument implicitly being made is "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value. Therefore, I will choose to refer to both as baby." There is a common language and common understanding already here. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this argument between the lines should not be attempting a debate in the first place. that's not actually an argument though what evidence are you using to justify second clause? "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value"? That is precisely what the argument is about.
The mod note restricted the use of the terms whether the poster provided a justification for his beliefs or not. The lack of content or justification is unrelated to whether or not people can use terminology which agrees with their premises.
|
United States41979 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [categories] +jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used.
I'll try again with a different example.
Person A) I think chocolate pudding is better than strawberry jelly (jello for an American audience).
Person B) I think they are both desserts and therefore have the same value.
Person A) Why do you think they have the same value, I think jelly is worse because it's all wobbly.
Person B) I refuse to acknowledge jelly as a concept. They're both desserts, desserts are nice.
Person A) While I accept that desserts are nice and I am in favour of desserts I would like to discuss the merits of chocolate pudding as opposed to jelly.
Person B) They are both desserts.
Person A) While I accept that they are both desserts they can still be categorised differently, for example in terms of the texture.
Person B) They are both desserts.
What I would ideally like to happen here is the following
Person B) The issue of whether or not jelly is wobbly has no bearing upon which is better. Many people like different desserts and all desserts have nutritional value, the texture is irrelevant.
The concession that jelly exists has not hindered Person B from arguing his ideological stance that neither is better. He has attempted to explain the irrelevance of the differences to the question of their comparative value without denying that a distinction can be made.
You cannot simply use the word dessert to make an argument that both have the same value, even if you define dessert as "food after dinner, has the same absolute value" because if you're in a discussion with a guy who is trying to compare chocolate pudding with strawberry jelly then he does not accept that that is what dessert means. By your definition your statement reads "foods which have the same absolute value (or desserts for short) have the same absolute value". This is not an argument, it is a self justifying statement and to him it will read "foods which have different absolute values (or desserts for short) have the same absolute value" which is obviously meaningless. While you have defined the word to mean your conclusion and then stated it as your conclusion the reasoning behind your conclusion fails to translate because the definition of the word is not agreed upon.
You must accept the categorisations of the different types of desserts being compared, in this case chocolate pudding and strawberry jelly, before you begin to create an argument about why they have the same absolute value. At this point you can bring up the reasons why you feel that they are the same and then can challenge the arguments of the other person while making your own.
|
United States41979 Posts
I am desperately hoping that by explaining this in non abortion terms (because for me this is very much not an abortion argument anymore) the reason why mutually acceptable definitions are needed and why you cannot use the ontological argument will become apparent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
