- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Abortions are legal, and sometimes (in China for instance), they are mandatory under certain circumstances, but people will still go on with the pregnancy and have children, even if it means escaping shelter (leaving the country, family, home). Suicide isn't illegal, really, because law can only react to an event (unless you can definitely prove that someone will or is about to do something), so what, handcuff the cadavers?
Assuming medical technology get's better, someone who is "on the plug" in a few thousand years won't be on it for long. And about using the death penalty, Hitler tried this on innocent people... When you're killing off all of the worst people, who will be next in line? It'll get closer and closer to innocent every day.
If current understanding dictates, as it always does, I guess I should just go back to church?
That theory of mine wasn't my theory and it wasn't a theory. It was an loose explanation of a theory (and the simplest one that I know of), but one that's rules exist inside of existence itself. All of this started with existence, I was merely answering a question that I didn't fully understand.
If you have a better explanation do us a favor and answer his question.
Well, I don't really understand what you mean, but I'll go with what I think you mean...
I think you're looking at my argument, as if I'm saying, if we exist in one state now, we do so forever on a linear timeline, and what is true for linear time is also true for infinity... while this may be true in some respects, this is not what I'm saying.
Since you're talking about the universe specifically, I can explain, basically, what I know.
All of the matter in the universe will slow to a halt, and contract into one point. Sure, all of the matter in the universe is expanding at a constant rate of acceleration, but we cannot tell just by looking at it that it won't halt and contract. Dark matter, which can only be identified by it's effects on visible matter, makes up a large majority of the universe, and is probably the cause of the expansion. Something is still being forced away from the center of the universe, something dense. It is also forcing visible matter away, too.
The universe will contract into one place, and condense until all of the matter and energy are uniform, which is to say, when everything reaches the total sum of 0, or it reaches complete equilibrium, in that same instant that it does, the universe will explode again...
It would have to explode in the very same way that it did the time before us. I say this because all matter and energy were uniform at one point in space time. It would always explode into the same structure, always.
Now, the linear time that we see, if it is one point in infinity, would always exist within infinity, but so would every other point on that linear timeline. When the universe reaches it's equilibrium, it would stay that way forever, sure, but not on a linear timeline, only to infinity. Every point in time, where one tiny event takes place, would exist on the plain of infinity forever, as one point, but for things, like us, that read these linear strings of time, it cannot exist forever, only for one instant.
It's difficult to explain.
Imagine a graph where X is a string of time, and Y as a string of events. If you only trace Y, the event would always exist at one time. One single change in the state of the entire universe would happen FOREVER. Time would, in a sense, not exist. If you trace X only, without Y, you have one infinite amount of time with no events. Each of these lines become meaningless.
Trace them both and you have what humans can understand, a time with events in it. It's meaningful. Now, if you imagine that graph as a single point, all of that entire graph as nothing more than a point. One value, and that value is its own existence. It is a point where time and events take place infinitely. The point only validates the existence of space time and events... That point is infinity.
So in a sense, you're right in thinking that when the universe collapses on itself, it will stay that way forever, but only to the Y axis. The X axis is time, that exists forever in the point of existence. It will continue to be, forever.
Before you start telling people that chimps are incapable of reasoning "to the extent" at which humans can, why don't you explain what reason is?
I've said this before, but neither responsibility nor reason is directly responsible for the other. So when you say "with reasoning comes responsibility", you're positing this without explaining how you came up with the idea yourself. In fact, you're doing this all the time, about everything that you say.
This isn't debate class, everything is written, not spoken. If you're going to make an argument, explain your reasoning and we'll help you work it out the right way.
Yeah, and the earth doesn't "rebound". Everyone acts like the earth cares whether life inhabits it or not, as if it has feelings, a beating heart and lungs. It's just a rock. When we do wrong to the earth, the earth doesn't cry. We aren't hurting the earth, we are hurting our environment. The meteor didn't hurt the earth either, it hurt our ecosystem.
Destruction isn't a measure of power, let alone power brought about by reason. Look at were humanity has been, look at where it is now. We have always been able to destroy, whether by throwing stones, by bows and arrows, or nuclear weapons... but how many have been able to bring true peace? NONE.
Don't mention destructive force when justifying your arguments for the power of reason, it does no good.
"Of course humans are preternatural, if we were truly equal to nature we would not have developed the ability to reason."
How do you propose 'we' developed the ability? We didn't do it through reason, or logic, so how could an unreasoning being become reasoning without the guidance of natural laws and mechanics?
"... it is in this ability that we have gained our independence from the norm."
Your argument from here down suggests to the reader, that the ability to reason links us to the "norm"... You say that reason leads to responsibility for nature, so if anything we aren't gaining independence, but becoming closer to nature.
Overall though, this statement makes no sense because nothing can gain independence from nature.
"...and taken our place with the other preternatural things, massive physical phenomena, like meteorites that cause massive dieoffs."
"Phenomena" in general is just a vague word we use to describe something that isn't understood. So much for your reason. Meteors are natural occurrences, like stars and dirt. They aren't above nature because they could kill life... that's like saying a rock, if thrown at someone, was supernatural because it kills things.
"1. if the rest of nature can not reason to the same extent as humans, than that makes us above nature."
Humans reason a certain way, dolphins, chimps, octopi, and even cats are intelligent but they reason differently. This is one reason the I.Q. test isn't taken so seriously, because it's a test to measure human intelligence and reason. It cannot be used to measure the ability of chimps, and a chimps IQ test couldn't be used on humans, we would fail it as bad as a chimp would fail ours.
"2. the fact that we have been able to become such a destrutive force in such a small amount of time, puts us far above nature."
Destruction is simple, stop putting it on a pedestal. It doesn't signify anything, especially because destruction, or the ability to destroy anything comes directly from the laws that govern the universe. It's a mechanical process, not a man made process, and it doesn't take much to do.
"3. the fact that we are able to fix the problems we create makes us preternatural, for we are capable of resoning, and in extension, responsibility."
We cannot fix problems. We can identify what our problems are, or what will be problematic in the future, but that doesn't mean that they are really problems in nature. The globe is warming, but we're causing it, it's bad for our environment and our way of life... but we're not destroying the world. The world is working as well as ever, but we're changing it in ways that threaten our own existence. Every animal knows how to identify problems, and every animal seeks it's own survival before anything.
"4. if one can reason, then one can be responsible."
You need to prove this, you can't just say it and expect people to accept it as truth. As far as I can tell, reason and responsibility aren't directly linked. If anything, morals (which don't need to come about via reason) are at root of responsibility.
"5. the fact that we are preternatural gives us the right, no, the responsibility to right the wrongs we have been creating, global warming, ocean acidification, etc."
This is called self-preservation. It's not above nature to look out for yourself, or even for the well being of others. Animals are known to do this instinctively, not only look our for themselves, but other animals too. Dogs protecting cats, things like that. This isn't a human, unnatural or reasonable thing.
"6. if we were truly responsible we would fix our mistakes, since nothing else can."
We are responsible, but we aren't fixing much... how do you explain this? Even though nothing else will fix it for us and we know we're fucking up, we continue.
"7. in nature their are many exceptions to rules, but the one rule that creates a preternatural being isn't speed, mind power, or destructive proliferation in itself, but the ability to be responsible for what you have done."
I'm not entirely sure of what you mean here. There are other animals that take responsibility for their actions. Maybe not our of ethical duty, but instinctively, some can act responsibly.
All of these arguments need to be reassessed. Not one of your points have a solid, well understood, base. I don't know if anyone else here could really understand what you're trying to get at, and I'm not sure you do either. You need to think about it longer. It's an interesting question but you're not thinking enough outside of (or even inside of) the box. Don't come up with the conclusion that you want to have, let the conclusion reveal itself to you, and keep it until you find a flaw in it on your own.
Also, get familiar with the term "nature" and "natural". It doesn't seem like you understand the meaning all too well and that may be the biggest missing part to your puzzle. Nature doesn't only include the biological world, of plants and animals, even you said meteors are a part of nature, but it's even bigger than meteors and smaller than quarks/gluons etc.
The ability to reason, in particular, is not preternatural. I believe nature is the source of reason, it is what makes reason possible, and even if humans are the only living things to reason (which we aren't, even here on earth), we are part of nature, so the ability to reason belongs to nature directly, just as we as people belong to nature.
If you look at it like a file system, the filing cabinet would be Existence, the first folder would be nature, and inside that would be everything else in the universe including laws... if you trace everything in the universe to the highest directory, or the parent which contains all of the attributes of humanity, and the ability to reason at all, that folder would be nature. Reason is natural, human beings are natural, everything that we know of is natural, except the existence of nature itself... though, it does exist so it very well could be natural as well.
No, my definition of it is basically "unnatural", and because nature is basic and nothing can be unnatural if nature is all that is, unnatural in an order must be supernatural. Which is to say it's an exception in nature.
Supernatural though has a distinct definition and so does preternatural, so what I mean is that they are very similar, but not equivalent.
Why should intelligence be linked to not eating meat?
Well, intelligent beings, I think, would be concerned about the future. We cannot have meat as we do today, forever, and it is much more efficient to grow plants than to grow plants to feed cattle. If you'd think about it a little harder there would be no need to "cut the shit". A huge quantity of grain produced in the world is dedicated to cattle. In fact, if you count calories from grain that it takes to feed cattle, and then count the end result of feeding the cattle and butchering it, etc, you'd find that meat is far far more expensive to produce and store than meat.
Efficiency will be important sometime in the future, when the world is overcrowded with people and labor is handed over to machines. It sounds like science fiction, and it is for now, but that's the most logical solution to many problems. People won't have jobs as they do now, so maintaining a personal garden won't be difficult, but I see community farming becoming popular before personal farming.
Even if you ignore the entire side of the debate that deals with the treatment of animals, or the suffering of animals, there are still very important questions about human nature and morals that need to be worked through... Where do we want to be in 50 years? Still slaughtering animals (more than we do now), in an even more careless fashion for so many more people who just want something to snack on for a minute... or do we want a self sustaining civilization that doesn't feel like it requires meat, that has an overabundance of food that is actually healthy?
It's not a personal problem so much as it is a societal one... but that doesn't mean it's not a moral issue.
The fact that we still eat meat even though we have a higher intelligence shows you that it makes sense to do so, no?
Not all people use their intelligence to do anything truly good... they, like animals, only seek to keep themselves happy... which is why this topic is an issue at all.