Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: February 24, 2025, 10:14 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues
RE: Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues
(January 27, 2025 at 7:15 pm)Sheldon Wrote:
(January 27, 2025 at 6:35 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: I think your definition doesn't work either. 
It's the dictionary's definition, not mine. I don't compile those, they reflect current common usage. 

Quote: I didn't see anything circular reasoning in it or any begging but you said principles, which is unclear.
You assumed your conclusion in your opening premise.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was talking about the dictionary definition. It doesn't have circular reasoning or begging, which is good. The problem is that it is vague.


Quote:Indeed, but what would you hope to achieve, you did this already with morality, when I claimed that the assertion that causing harm is immoral, is a subjective one, and you responded by saying "not "If you define (redefine in fact) morality as = causing harm is immoral." it fails because it isn't the definition,  which one can find in any dictionary, and that reflects common usage, and because it created the circular reasoning I pointed out.
Well, we can always work on the definition. How about this one?
immoral = an action that causes harm to a human.

Quote:Not really, one cannot arbitrarily redefine words, this is just sophistry. I might as easily claim morality means subjective, what would I gain from such a nonsensical claim?

I think the definition of the word morality makes it unclear and it gives the impression that morality is completely subjective. I think that morality is at least partially objective since it derives from reality.

Quote:I agree it is immoral, but this must ultimately rest on a subjective opinion, not an objective one, but please explain why you think this without ultimately resorting to a subjective opinion. I have tried and cannot, perhaps you can. I must say I am dubious.
I already explained it but I will be happy to explain it again in the hopes that it becomes clear:
All humans have pain sensors. It is an objective fact. If you punch a person in the face, a signal is generated and it reaches the brain and the human feels pain. Are we an agreement that so far, all this is objective fact?
Pretty much all humans don’t like that. They will all want to have a rule that says “don’t punch people in the face because it causes pain” <===is this rule subjective?

Quote:I disagree, in this instance it is my subjective opinion that punching someone would not be immoral, as it would stop a greater harm, demonstrating that punching someone is not objectively immoral by the way, but relative to a complex set of consequences.
That’s what I said, it is a case that is subjective since you want to punch someone for X reason. The X reason being that you saw an immoral action taking place and you wanted to somehow stop it.
There is no guidebook, no program that tells you what you must perform specifically to stop a rape in your particular scenario. It was entirely up to your abilities and circumstances. Out of many possibilities, for some reason, you chose punch in the face.

The rape part was objectively immoral. Person X had activated pain sensors in person Y. His goal was not for preventing an immoral action.

Quote:I don't see what your glass analogy is for, but best decision would depend on your subjective moral worldview, and mine involves not causing unnecessary harm, and where possible preventing it, thus I consider punching someone immoral, but not objectively so, as the example explains.
The glass analogy? A person takes an action that causes damage to the piece of glass with the goal of reducing the overall damage to the glass. How he should do that is subjective.
It is similar to your rape case. A damage is occurring to person X. You make a decision to somehow stop it damage from progressing further by doing some damage.

Another example would be, a person is infected at the fingertip by some agent. We can cut off the finger or arm to save him. Where to cut is something that is subjective.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues - by Ferrocyanide - January 28, 2025 at 11:47 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The War of 1812! chimp3 70 10526 May 12, 2018 at 2:12 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  NDE of future war of demons masquerading as aliens scoobysnack 73 29055 June 12, 2017 at 10:10 pm
Last Post: Cecelia
  Is it really a war? BrokenQuill92 15 5525 July 18, 2015 at 11:39 pm
Last Post: Spooky
  Yahweh Volcano Fire God of War: Updated TheJackel 17 12265 February 21, 2015 at 4:19 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  World war 3 lifesagift 94 25458 September 22, 2014 at 8:21 am
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Ken Ham Hits Back Against Neil deGrasse Tyson's Claim Dolorian 21 6552 September 9, 2014 at 10:13 pm
Last Post: Jaysyn
  Rabbi Ben Judah prophesy / Jubilees/ Kondratief wave professor 4 1372 April 18, 2014 at 9:51 am
Last Post: JesusHChrist
  Neil Tysons warning to America Justtristo 17 6530 October 9, 2012 at 7:15 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  Christianity and Islam, religions of peace or war. JohnDG 16 11434 September 16, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Last Post: System of Solace
Thumbs Down Another example of the religious war on science Miami_Marlins_fan 29 8272 April 27, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Last Post: yoda55



Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)