The Tavern

[EquALLity]

Ok, I guess I win, since you pussied out.

Really? You 'win'?

Sorry, but given that you've already troll-argued with me, and now you're saying pretty bizarre stuff here (plus you still won't go back and read), I just can't tell if you're being serious or not.

[EquALLity]

^

Summary:
Red's points
1) humanity can only advance if we let the 'unproductive' die, based off Nietzsche or something
2) The 'unproductive' are people on welfare (he says only people who are 'living off' welfare, though he used statistics of ALL people on welfare
3) we should base our society off survival of the fittest to an extent

counterpoints
1) it's immoral to let people die, unless the advancements help more people than were hurt (he apparently doesn't care about it being immoral, because 'truth over morality' in this case (we also talked about 'truth over morality, still don't understand what he's saying)
2) most families who receive welfare have at least one worker in the house, & those that don't usually have people looking for work because it's very hard to live of only welfare and support a family
3) just because evolution is a natural process that lead to humans doesn't mean we should adopt it as a partial basis for society

[Red]

2) The 'unproductive' are people on welfare (he says only people who are 'living off' welfare, though he used statistics of ALL people on welfare

I thought I made it clear they're not the only ones in that category.

3) we should base our society off survival of the fittest to an extent

Base off? I said should be considered, or at least be a factor. Again, you're not paying attention.

1) it's immoral to let people die, unless the advancements help more people than were hurt (he apparently doesn't care about it being immoral, because 'truth over morality' in this case (we also talked about 'truth over morality, still don't understand what he's saying)

I've already addressed this, but I'll do it again for good measure.

It may be immoral, and may hurt your feelings, but when morality and truth don't both go hand in hand, you have to consider what's right in the situation. The truth is right in this situation. Morality may have undesirable consequences, and in this situation, it's not allowing humanity to evolve.

2) most families who receive welfare have at least one worker in the house, & those that don't usually have people looking for work because it's very hard to live of only welfare and support a family

I swear to God, you're not even reading the background for the arguments. If you go back, you'll find my counter for this, because I am not repeating myself.

3) just because evolution is a natural process that lead to humans doesn't mean we should adopt it as a partial basis for society

So you just want us to stay in this stage until we go extinct?

[Red]

Summarize in 100 words each.

My argument:
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche is a book that, from my understanding, claims that if we rid of all the weak and unproductive members of society, it will allow us to advance in the evolutionary cycle, towards the "Superman" stage. I'm saying that if we keep these guys alive, we'll just be stuck in this stage forever until we go extinct, and we should at least put some effort towards evolving. EquALLity is claiming that this is immoral, with which I agree 100%, but doesn't take value over the truth. I hope this is about 100 words. Or less.

[EquALLity]

I know I said I wasn't going to respond to your arguments anymore, but I just want to clarify some things:

Base off? I said should be considered, or at least be a factor. Again, you're not paying attention.

No, you're just not reading.

I said: "3) we should base our society off survival of the fittest to an extent"

I've already addressed this, but I'll do it again for good measure.

You addressed it in a completely incoherent way.

when morality and truth don't both go hand in hand, you have to consider what's right in the situation

That statement makes absolutely zero sense.

Truth, or reality, is not the enemy of morality. It is a tool we use to guide our moral decisions. Like I wrote here:

???

What do you mean, you are more concerned with 'the truth'? I just don't know what this means.

By truth, do you mean reality? As in you value the reality that it'd be better for 'the weak' to die for humanity to advance? That doesn't make any sense.
The truth and morality are not enemies. The truth has no value on its own; the only good thing about knowing reality is that it helps us determine what is most moral.

If you think that 'the weak' dying would lead to more advancements, and that the advancements would help more people than were hurt from the people who died, then that's a discussion.
But what you're saying here isn't that, it's that (I think) this reality of 'the weak' dying causing advancement somehow overpowers what is moral, and you've somehow rationalized that what's moral is an independent value from the truth and that for whatever reason 'the truth' is more important in this situation. It's not coherent.

Morality may have undesirable consequences, and in this situation, it's not allowing humanity to evolve.

Moral consequences are desirable by definition, because they are the most good.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding evolution. Like I said, those with the best ability to adapt survive. Intelligence and strength don't necessarily mean you'll survive.
You replied dismissively, failing to acknowledge that sometimes intelligence/strength may, for whatever reason, not be beneficial in survival. It seems counter-intuitive, but take this example:

Organism one is very smart, so she realizes that that sound in the forest is probably the wind blowing, and she doesn't bother to hide.
Organism two takes everything at surface value, and assumes the sound is a predator, and runs away and hides.

Assuming organism two runs away and hides successfully, that organism will always live. The other organism will sometimes die, because sometimes that sound will be a predator.

It's not necessarily about intelligence/strength; it's just about what makes you most able to survive and reproduce in your surrounding environment.

So you just want us to stay in this stage until we go extinct?

We're not in any immediate danger of going extinct, and there's no reason to believe that getting rid of 'the weak' will fix that.

But like I said:
If you think that 'the weak' dying would lead to more advancements, and that the advancements would help more people than were hurt from the people who died, then that's a discussion.

That's not what you seemed to be suggesting, though.

[Red]

I said: "3) we should base our society off survival of the fittest to an extent"

I don't recall putting "based on" in my answer.

You addressed it in a completely incoherent way.

I love how you just say that and move on, without providing any evidence or reason for your answer.

That statement makes absolutely zero sense.

Truth, or reality, is not the enemy of morality. It is a tool we use to guide our moral decisions.

You're starting to give me a headache.
I've never claimed they were enemies. I've claimed they can go hand in hand. I've also claimed that in some situations, you have to find which is more important.

What do you mean, you are more concerned with 'the truth'? I just don't know what this means.

By truth, do you mean reality? As in you value the reality that it'd be better for 'the weak' to die for humanity to advance? That doesn't make any sense.
The truth and morality are not enemies. The truth has no value on its own; the only good thing about knowing reality is that it helps us determine what is most moral.

If you think that 'the weak' dying would lead to more advancements, and that the advancements would help more people than were hurt from the people who died, then that's a discussion.
But what you're saying here isn't that, it's that (I think) this reality of 'the weak' dying causing advancement somehow overpowers what is moral, and you've somehow rationalized that what's moral is an independent value from the truth and that for whatever reason 'the truth' is more important in this situation. It's not coherent.

I've already addressed this.

Moral consequences are desirable by definition, because they are the most good.

All of them? What if I were to find the good in everyone, as I do? That can be a bad thing, because then they can take advantage of you. There are other examples.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding evolution. Like I said, those with the best ability to adapt survive. Intelligence and strength don't necessarily mean you'll survive.

You're genuinely starting to piss me off. Strength and intelligence aren't the only things you'll need, but they play major roles. I should also mention that you'll need other attributes to help you accomplish things (like a giraffe with a long neck), so it can help you adapt to your environment.

You replied dismissively, failing to acknowledge that sometimes intelligence/strength may, for whatever reason, not be beneficial in survival. It seems counter-intuitive,

Ok, you're not fucking reading. I've already addressed this in an earlier post.

Organism one is very smart, so she realizes that that sound in the forest is probably the wind blowing, and she doesn't bother to hide.
Organism two takes everything at surface value, and assumes the sound is a predator, and runs away and hides. Assuming organism two runs away and hides successfully, that organism will always live. The other organism will sometimes die, because sometimes that sound will be a predator.

Then obviously the former one wasn't smart. Instincts should say that you should always be cautious of your surroundings. So I guess being paranoid of sounds in the forest means you're an idiot?

By the way, when I refer to intelligence and strength, it's mostly within a species.

Assuming organism two runs away and hides successfully, that organism will always live. The other organism will sometimes die, because sometimes that sound will be a predator.

Refer to answer given earlier.

It's not necessarily about intelligence/strength; it's just about what makes you most able to survive and reproduce in your surrounding environment.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

We're not in any immediate danger of going extinct, and there's no reason to believe that getting rid of 'the weak' will fix that.

You're misunderstanding; You don't want to evolve beyond our current evolutionary stage?

If you think that 'the weak' dying would lead to more advancements, and that the advancements would help more people than were hurt from the people who died, then that's a discussion.

That's not what you seemed to be suggesting, though.

I have little idea as to what that means.

[EquALLity]

I don't recall putting "based on" in my answer.

...Saying we should do certain things as a society IS saying we should base society off those things to an extent.

I love how you just say that and move on, without providing any evidence or reason for your answer.

...

I answered it right below that. You just didn't bother to try to understand.

You wrote:

I've already addressed this, but I'll do it again for good measure.

It may be immoral, and may hurt your feelings, but when morality and truth don't both go hand in hand, you have to consider what's right in the situation. The truth is right in this situation. Morality may have undesirable consequences, and in this situation, it's not allowing humanity to evolve.

I responded to the first sentence by calling it incoherent, and then quoted some of the bottom part and explained why.

Again, if you're going to say we should let lazy people die, you shouldn't be lazy as you do it.

You're starting to give me a headache.
I've never claimed they were enemies. I've claimed they can go hand in hand. I've also claimed that in some situations, you have to find which is more important.

It's the same thing. You're saying they're different from each other, and that in this case truth and morality are enemies, because we should value truth over morality.

I've already addressed this.

You literally only just said that my points were moot (with no evidence), and that by truth you mean "Not really, more like what needs to be done."
Which also doesn't make sense, because "what needs to be done" is what's the most moral. Again, it's the same thing; you're making a differentiation where there is none. What is "what needs to be done" if not what is most moral? Why else would something need to be done?

All of them? What if I were to find the good in everyone, as I do? That can be a bad thing, because then they can take advantage of you. There are other examples.

Not sure what this means.

You're genuinely starting to piss me off. Strength and intelligence aren't the only things you'll need, but they play major roles. I should also mention that you'll need other attributes to help you accomplish things (like a giraffe with a long neck), so it can help you adapt to your environment.

Sometimes they don't play a role, because they're not always beneficial in your environment.

Ok, you're not fucking reading. I've already addressed this in an earlier post.

Projection much...

I didn't read all of your last post in the discussion because I wasn't sure if you were trolling. I'm still not sure. But all you responded there was with the dismissive statement that I was referring to.

Then obviously the former one wasn't smart. Instincts should say that you should always be cautious of your surroundings. So I guess being paranoid of sounds in the forest means you're an idiot?

By the way, when I refer to intelligence and strength, it's mostly within a species.

Instinct is different from intelligence.

I think that intelligence would lead you to believe the sound was wind blowing on the leaves, but that's just one example. The point is that different traits are beneficial in different environments.

You're misunderstanding; You don't want to evolve beyond our current evolutionary stage?

Not necessarily, since evolving itself isn't necessarily helpful.

Again, if you think that 'the weak' dying would lead to more advancements, and that the advancements would help more people than were hurt from the people who died, then that's a discussion.

I don't know how else to explain this.^
...If you think 'the weak dying' -> human advancement -> an outcome that is so good that it's more good than 'the weak' dying is bad, then that's a legitimate discussion. But that's not what you seemed to be talking about.

[brimstoneSalad]

Red: Sometimes the most moral thing is to do the lesser of two evils. That doesn't mean we're choosing something else OVER morality, but that morality is based on consequences, so sometimes doing something harmful in the short term saves more harm in the future or leads to much greater gains in the future.

EquALLity: You're misunderstanding intelligence. A smart deer can optimize behavior to run away when needed. If there were no cost to running, it would always run. But there's a metabolic cost:
"Assuming organism two runs away and hides successfully, that organism will always live."
No, sometimes it will die of starvation from: A. Always having feeding interrupted and B. Burning an extra few thousand calories a day from running every time it hears a noise.
You're describing more "fearlessness" rather than intelligence. Intelligence is only harmful when it is in excess of optimal usefulness in the environment (because the brain burns calories, and takes time to form thus slowing reproduction and extending gestation and infancy).

[EquALLity]

EquALLity: You're misunderstanding intelligence. A smart deer can optimize behavior to run away when needed. If there were no cost to running, it would always run. But there's a metabolic cost:
"Assuming organism two runs away and hides successfully, that organism will always live."
No, sometimes it will die of starvation from: A. Always having feeding interrupted and B. Burning an extra few thousand calories a day from running every time it hears a noise.
You're describing more "fearlessness" rather than intelligence. Intelligence is only harmful when it is in excess of optimal usefulness in the environment (because the brain burns calories, and takes time to form thus slowing reproduction and extending gestation and infancy).

Fair enough, there were some problems with that example.

But intelligence could be harmful for other reasons too. Maybe the more intelligent animals over-analyze the situation, leading them to harmful conclusions, while the less intelligent animals use 'common sense', and that common sense works best in their environment.

But anyway, this doesn't really have much to do with the argument. It's not about how evolution works; I was just trying to clarify that evolution is about being best adapted to your environment.
The argument was really about the points I listed.

[miniboes]

Any ideas for vegan party snacks for omni guests?