Human Life vs Tree Life

FutureIncoming · May 23, 2006

Jerry said:
You have not established your premise that Capitol Punishment will detour your targeted action, so I have nothing to disprove.

FALSE. I did not ask you to disprove something; I asked you to prove your claim (in essence

that the existence of Capital Punishment has never detered any crime for which C.P. was the penalty. For my part, I am simply going along with the generally-accepted premise that it does deter a certain number of crimes. Therefore I suggested applying it as a Final Solution to prevent overpopulation, thereby saving 90%+ of humanity from a Malthusean Catastrophe. Note that only by implementing it can we really obtain evidence of its degree-of-effectiveness.

Jerry said:
You can not succeed in prosecuting me for having a child I can not afford because 1) It is virtually impossible to prove the very specific intent of the act that you seek, 2) not being a woman, I can not abort my child, and 3) I have no legal authority and excuse to force a woman to abort.

Those are still feeble excuses. The woman could be under a death sentence for carrying the pregnancy to term, and she could name you as the father, and DNA tests could validate that claim. Since the suggested Law specifies executing both parents, it behooves both of you, if unable to afford a born child, to make sure that abortion occurs instead. Failure to abort, when there would exist months of opportunity (and there would be no crime associated with seeking assistance for abortion), can be interpreted as deliberately thinking that the pregnancy should be carried to term.

Jerry said:
Your cuckold analogy does not apply because we are not speaking of one newborn killing another newborn.

FALSE, because your point is irrelevant. It matters not how adults get their offspring to be cared-for by others against their free choice. Cuckoldry is defined by the fact of the situation, in which adults have get offspring cared-for by others against their free choice. Certainly the dictionary definition doesn't mention any efforts of human newborns; the word's Natural description was obviously adapted to fit the human situation, when it became applied to the human situation.

Jerry said:
You inadvertently admitted that your Final Solution would not work when you described said forbidden actions going underground.

FALSE. I was showing how it could work even if violators tried to go underground.

Jerry said:
You can not assume that your Final Solution is viable when it is based on pure supposition that some “last straw” scenario would come about, because that scenario is pure conjecture at best. You have not established it’s inevitability nor it’s nature.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! It is not a conjecture that human population is rising faster than resource-production. Net result: If nothing forcibly brakes the population explosion, a Malthusean Catastrophe will occur. Next, it is not a conjecture that if people break a Law and get away with it, they will often continue to break that Law. Net result, in a Scenario where people go Underground to get assistance for kids they can't afford, they will eventually strain that assistance to its limit, and more. Then there will either be Underground braking of the population explosion, of one sort or another (up to and including a mini-Malthusean-Catastrophe, as 90%+ of the Underground starves in hiding), or the Law will be called into play, as some new birth becomes the "last straw". And, what was that Russian saying about, "If three men are conspiring, two are fools and the third is a police spy."? You are expecting a lot of people -- and growing! -- to keep a pretty big secret, that may not need any police spies (or even newspaper spies, "investigative reporters") to become exposed.

Jerry said:
Quantum theory is supporting God’s existence more and more as it struggles to describe our universe.

Not so! Quantum Theory allows for an infinity of Universes, each with different properties. Since infinity allows for all possible combinations of properties, it is inevitable, no God required, that a Universe like this one should exist. Try again? And remember this conundrum! To chop away that infinitude of Universes and show that this one is the Only One, thereby implying God (something Outside that Universe) had something to do with the properties it has that allows Life to exist, is to ignore the larger-scale Universe which has properties that allow God to exist. (So right there we are dealing with two Universes, not just one.) Of course I expect you to dispute that, but first try answering this Question: What properties does God possess that distinguishes God's existence from utter Nothingness? And second: How can those properties exist outside of any Universe-type context? That is, aren't "properties" specified in relation to other things, such that the totality of those things constitute a Universe? So if God exists, and has properties different from Nothingness, then what is the Environment that allows those properties to be distinguised from Nothingness, if that Environment is not a Universe?

Jerry said:
If you will recall, I did not post the DoI as law. The DoI supports my claim: “Yes there most certainly is such a right [to reproduce]. It comes from the same place where our founding fathers say the rest our rights came from.”

All that means is that you are mistaking a Claim (in the DoI) for Reality. Just because you say something is so does not make it so. Just because you say that somebody else says something is so, that does not make it so. Only evidence makes it so. And the evidence is that there is no Objective right at all, to reproduce, and there is a limited Subjective right to reproduce. And my evidence for that stems partly from your own failure to respond to this:

FutureIncoming said:
we already have plenty of laws to the effect that you cannot use your Liberty as an excuse to violate the Liberty of others. I suspect that cuckolding others would qualify as something frowned-upon, like theft.

Well?

Jerry said:
Whether or not you are in America, are an American, or are subject in any way to American law, you have fundamental rights conferred upon you, by God, upon your creation.

Sorry, that's just another unproved claim. It's a claim that has many adherents looking for ways they can benefit from it, but it is still just a claim. Where are those "rights" when a tornado rips your house apart and stabs you to death with the pieces? This is why I can say that those rights are purely Subjective, and not at all Objective. And anything Subjective is subject to change....

FutureIncoming said:
In an all-lives-are-valued-equally-but-somebody-must-die scenario, it is traditional to draw lots.

Jerry said:
No tradition of “drawing lots” exists within the timeless natural order.

??? Your reply seems disconnected from what I was saying. Drawing lots (or the "short straw") is a way to attempt to let the Objective Universe decide who should die, in a Scenario where Subjective Valuations of human life are maintained, even though somebody must die. And in-effect it also a situation in which humans recognize that as far as the Objective Universe is concerned, human life is value-less. (blastula take note!)

Jerry said:
God did not devalue human life in the flood, which is why He grieved.

Where does it say that? In Genesis 8:20 Noah builds and altar and burns some offerings, and then:
(Catholic Bible)8:21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour, and said: I will no more curse the earth for the sake of man: for the imagination and thought of man's heart are prone to evil from his youth: therefore I will no more destroy every living soul as I have done.
(KJV)8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
(New American Bible)8:21 When the LORD smelled the sweet odor, he said to himself: "Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the desires of man's heart are evil from the start; nor will I ever again strike down all living beings, as I have done.
(Hebrew->English Bible)8:21 And the LORD smelled the sweet savour; and the LORD said in His heart: 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Sorry, I don't see any grieving there. Just a recognition that human idiocy is probably incurable.

{{continued in my next message}}

FutureIncoming · May 23, 2006

Jerry said:
Leadership is the art of making someone do something because they want to.

That may be true, but try arguing with a mosquito about whether or not she should suck your blood to get the iron she needs to make her eggs. Natural Mindless Biology exists because the Laws of the Universe allowed it, but Natural Mindless Biology persists in spite of the Laws of the Universe (which also allows extinction). Evolution has had billions of years to encourage reproduction against all odds (because those life-forms that succeeded, passed on the genes that helped them succeed). So, in trying to control human reproduction you are not facing only human intelligence; you are also facing Ticking Biological Clocks, an irrational part of human nature. ONE way to encourage a low birth rate, known to work, is to allow women easy access to birth control, including abortion, and then make their lives miserable. The nest-building instinct tends to be put on "hold" when women face hardships and can choose to not-reproduce. Well, as you might expect, this would not be a popular thing. It does work, though; the Soviet Union collapsed in bankruptcy partly because lots of women didn't want to bring children into that regimented world, and they were allowed to enforce that choice (per one of the few things the Communists did better than many Democracies, granting lots of equality-of-sexes), which thereby eventually deprived that Iron-Fisted State of sufficient workers and their productivity to make ends meet. If the so-called "workers' paradise" had actually been that, then we might be dealing with the Soviets yet.
=============

Jerry said:
I feel that blastula is doing a fine job of debating you into the corner

I've barely begun to reply to blastula's nonsense, much of which I haven't even bothered to read. I do plan on getting to it, sometime not long after I see the admission that there is no such thing as Inherent/Objective Worth, for anything, including-God-if-exists. All valuations are Subjective...period (and that fact is a workable thing!). Prior to such an admission, thorough replies on my part would be just a waste of time/effort.

Jerry · May 23, 2006

FutureIncoming,

Until either you believe in God, in any way, by any tradition or abstraction, or I do not, you are wasting your time and effort.

Simple truths must be resolved before we can argue complex questions.

FutureIncoming · May 24, 2006

Jerry said:
Until either you believe in God, in any way, by any tradition or abstraction, or I do not, you are wasting your time and effort.

Heh, I do not disbelieve in God. However, regardless of the degree to which I accept the notion that God exists, I most thoroughly do not accept all the various claims that have been made about God. Some of them just don't make logical sense, such as the notion that every fertilized human ovum is given a soul. And one thing I am utterly convinced of, is this: The Truth Always Makes Logical Sense. So, try this:
1. Let's assume God exists.
2. Let's assume humans are persons because they have souls. (After all, is there any reason for #1 if souls do not exist?)
3. When is it logical for souls to become associated with human bodies?
4. If the answer to #3 is, "birth", then no abortion can possibly involve killing a person. If the answer to #3 is "sometime during pregnancy" (let's say, for example, the start of the third trimester, when the brain connects to the rest of the body's nervous/sensory system), then abortion before the chosen "sometime" (in the first two trimesters here) cannot possibly involve killing a person.

(In #4 above I'm merely exploring a couple of if/then possibilities, not stating an opinion that I need to support.)

Can you agree with the logic (not the particulars) of #4? If not, then I need to see the rationale for your disagreement. If you can agree with the logic of #4, then what is your answer to #3, and why-is-it-logical/what-supporting-evidence-have-you-got?

Jerry said:
Simple truths must be resolved before we can argue complex questions.

Agreed. Which is why I wrote the above, and also why the focus of my messages to blastula is on Objective/Subjective Valuations.

blastula · May 24, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
refer to your above post.

You stated that, "the Objective Universe includes Valuations, then it also has to include Events that are in accordance with those Valuations".

You are making things up that do not follow.

How does "Random Destruction" proved lack of "Objective Valuations"? Random car accidents or plane crash happened all the time, does that translate to mean there is no value in life, no value in cars, or no value in airplanes?

When I talked about there are things we don't know about, I am not referring to the degree of knowing. I am talking about things that exist that we have no knowledge whatsoever. Yet, they exist nevertheless despite our absence of knowledge about their existence. With existence, there is the inherent value whether you know it or not.

For instance, I never knew you existed before until I joined this forum and debated with you. Prior to my knowledge of your existence, you existed nevertheless despite my lack of conscious awareness of your existence.

Your very existence is the objective reality. That reality is independent of my awareness of your existence. With objective reality you had inherent value of a human being that is significant to your loved ones and all who interacted with you.

My lack of knowledge of your existence had in no way influenced your objective reality nor affected or diminished your inherent value. My not knowing you did not cause you to have no objective reality nor cause you to lose your inherent value as a human being. You still existed and live your life as you were whether I knew you existed or not.

Natural disasters and pandemics are not evidence "that the Objective Universe places Zero Value on the existence of humans". You're just prone to talking nonsense. Why don't you define what you meant by "Objective Universe"? Is it a cosmic being or alien from outer space that it can place calamities upon mankind?

Nothing comes from nothing. Objective value necessitates the existence of objective reality. Without objective reality, there is no objective value.

You want prove of objective value? The proof is in yourself. Do you want to guarantee that your existence is not real? Do you think your existence is real only subjective to the minds of the subjective beholders like yourself? Do you want to guarantee your existence has no value? Do you want to guarantee that your human life is not worth living? Or is your human value as good as another human's subjective whims? If you can show that your existence is not real, than you have proven your case.

cannibals who ate to honor the dead were eating the corpse of already dead humans.

Perhaps you have the same mindset as Mohammed and his teenage sniper, the murderous snipers. To them, human life is of no inherent value except their very own. Their "Subjective Valuation" of the value of other human life is as good as their arbitrary emotional whims. If they feel like target practice, they go random shootings. Such is the belief and behavior of the followers of "Subjective Valuations" philosophy.

Your so-called "perfect sense" about Cusp Scenario is nothing but your "arbitrary sense". It's like a mophead swaying every which ways whither the winds go. You reason like a three year old. Illogical thinking is your norm. When are you going to mature? A mind is a precious thing to go to waste.

FutureIncoming · May 24, 2006

blastula said:
You are making things up that do not follow. How does "Random Destruction" proved lack of "Objective Valuations"? Random car accidents or plane crash happened all the time, does that translate to mean there is no value in life, no value in cars, or no value in airplanes?

Your phrasing continues to reveal either your lack of comprehension or your deliberate attempt to twist what I'm talking about. Random destructions mean that there is no Ojbective value in life, no Objective value in cars, and no Objective value in airplanes. The Objective Universe does not care. Can you think of any case, just one single case, where a human values something and also does not care about it? The two concepts are inextricably linked. And since only minds can care, all valuations specified by minds are purely Subjective -- especially evidenced when different minds can choose to care about different things to different degree. Someone walking on a sidewalk, and a farmer, can have completely different valuations of plain ordinary dog poo, just for example.

blastula said:
With existence, there is the inherent value whether you know it or not.

BAD LOGIC. Because your claimed association of existence with Objective Value/Worth has yet to be proven --and is in fact dis-proved by the uncaring-ness of the Objective Universe.

blastula said:
With objective reality you had inherent value of a human being that is significant to your loved ones and all who interacted with you.

FALSE. Their valuations of me are purely Subjective to each of them. Some might hate my guts. Some might dismiss me as being of no-account. Some might like me only because of one or more of my possessions. And so on. A truly Objective valuation of Item A is something that would be equally recognized in type and magnitude by every mind that encounters Item A --and it is quite simply a fact that there isn't anything that exists that meets that criterion, because minds are different and Item A will always be experienced by different minds in different ways. Have you ever heard about a suggested dilemma, regarding a donkey and two identical bales of hay? In this Scenario the two bales of hay are defined as being Objectively Identical in all physical aspects. They are placed within easy/equal reach of a donkey; which one will the donkey choose, for a first bite? The dilemma is that there is no rational basis for making that choice, so a perfectly rational donkey would starve to death while trying to decide. Well, as you know, minds of even animal-level are able to make random/irrational choices, and this consequently means that the donkey will at least momentarily perceive one of the two bales as being a better choice -- having the greater value -- and begin munching. And I know that you know that that is a Truth:

blastula said:
But "Subjective valuation" is just that, subjective. This means that values are whatever we desire ("door left wide-open")and are in the eyes of the beholders. There is no absolute standard to determine which values should be accepted and therefore the determination is left to personal opinion, feeling and emotion.

CORRECT. And auctions exist to take maximum advantage of that fact. And wars exist because of other kinds of disagreements in valuations. And peace exists when many valuations are agreed-upon, perfectly Subjective though they remain. We do not need Objective Valuations when we are perfectly capable of (1) accepting the fact that all Valuations are Subjective, and (2) compromise.

blastula said:
Why don't you define what you meant by "Objective Universe"?

I didn't think I needed to; the notion is easily comprehended by most people. It is simply the purely Physical Universe that Science seeks to understand the workings thereof. If I was of the Classical Physics Era, I would say that that "mechansim" is utterly independent of humans, and if we get caught in the gears, "tough luck". The Universe isn't going to halt its clockwork for our benefit.

blastula said:
Natural disasters and pandemics are not evidence "that the Objective Universe places Zero Value on the existence of humans".

Au contraire! They are most excellent evidence that the Objective Universe doesn't care a whit about the existence of human life. And since it is caring, not mere existence, that is correctly associated with valuations, it logically follows that human life has Zero Objective Value. And, just to help you comprehend that caring is the key to valuations, reconsider this:

blastula said:
Objective value encompasses {{...}} moral values.

Morals are abstract things; they have no physical existence. If you insist that mere existence is associated with valuations as you did in other quotes above (and in the part snipped from that last quote), then why did you think it necessary to include "moral values"? Not to mention that things like "liberty" and "freedom" are other abstractions, independent of morals, that also are valued. Answer: you don't really comprehend the issue! Here's the proof:

blastula said:
Without objective reality, there is no objective value.

Then morals have no objective value, right? Your own contradiction with #73 proves you don't know what you are talking about! But replace the association between Valuation-and-physical-existence with Valuation-and-caring, and "morals" and all other abstractions are automatically included among the things that can have value.
=================================================

FutureIncoming said:
I challenge you to do it right! Pick just one thing and explain how it has Objective/Inherent Worth, and I will show you at least one error of fact or logic in that explanation, guaranteed.

blastula said:
You want prove of objective value? The proof is in yourself.

FALSE. I Subjectively Value myself greater-than-zero, just like you Subjectively Value yourself greater-than-zero. And suicides are those who have Subjectively assigned themselves Zero Value. It is perfectly logical for human choices to be a consequence of human valuations.

blastula said:
Do you want to guarantee that your existence is not real?

That question could be ridiculous, depending on what you mean by "existence". Have you ever heard of the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy? That aspect of my existence is practically guaranteed to stay real forever, unless Physics discovers some currently hypothetical phenomenon like "nullification" (look it up). Of course, my existence as a human being, a particular self-powered and animated assemblage of mass/energy, is only as real as my life-span. Barring accidents and other unlikely things (like a meteor strike), I don't see any short-term reason for it to become not-real.

blastula said:
Do you think your existence is real only subjective to the minds of the subjective beholders like yourself?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. I consider my physical existence to be quite Objective. And therefore I can ignore anything you write that might assume such a thing.

blastula said:
Do you want to guarantee your existence has no value?

It is neither obvious that if something does not exist, it has no value, nor if something exists, it has value. See the above regarding morals and dog poo. Therefore there is no way to guarantee any such thing (that if I didn't exist, I wouldn't have value)! Do we no longer value Archimedes, da Vinci, Newton, Einstein, and many other dead humans?

blastula said:
Do you want to guarantee that your human life is not worth living?

STUPID QUESTION. I have Free Will. I can decide at any given moment, purely Subjectively, that my human life either is or is not worth living.

blastula said:
Or is your human value as good as another human's subjective whims?

Heh, it might be better, depending on the whim. What you are now failing to take into account is the Golden Rule. All who choose to Subjectively Value me differently that I value myself are those who I have equal right to Subjectively Value differently than they value themselves. Comprehension of that situation tends to keep the peace. Most people comprehend it (or an equivalent of it), so most people are at peace.

blastula said:
If you can show that your existence is not real, than you have proven your case.

FALSE, as indicated above.
YOU HAVE FAILED THE CHALLENGE. WILL YOU NOW ADMIT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE WORTH? Or will you try again, and fail even more abysmally?

Jerry · May 24, 2006

Future,
If you would just finally declare “I have no Objective Value/Worth” we could at least see consistency in your argument and reach an understanding.

FutureIncoming · May 24, 2006

Jerry said:
If you would just finally declare “I have no Objective Value/Worth” we could at least see consistency in your argument ...

My argument has been very consistent. Would you care to show someplace where I have so much as implied that I have Objective Value/Worth?

Jerry said:
... and reach an understanding.

FALSE. We will not be on the same page unless you can say it about yourself, also. Ditto with blastula. Shall I challenge you, also? If you wish to claim you have Objective Value/Worth, let's see the evidence! And, please note that a Valuation by God is still a Subjective Valuation (God's opinion), not an Objective Valuation (the opinion of the Universe that encompasses God's properties).

Jerry · May 24, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
My argument has been very consistent.

I'm not necessarily contesting that. At this point I just need validation of my understanding of your argument with your declaring "I have no objective value or worth". Perhaps it's all me, but from my perspective you and I seem to frequently misunderstand each other. That is why I'm requesting this declaration, so that what you are saying will be perfectly clear to me.

FutureIncoming said:
Would you care to show someplace where I have so much as implied that I have Objective Value/Worth?

I'm not trying to argue that you did imply such a thing, though. I'm seeking clarity.

FutureIncoming said:
FALSE. We will not be on the same page unless you can say it about yourself, also. Ditto with blastula. Shall I challenge you, also? If you wish to claim you have Objective Value/Worth, let's see the evidence! And, please note that a Valuation by God is still a Subjective Valuation (God's opinion), not an Objective Valuation (the opinion of the Universe that encompasses God's properties).

One simple truth at a time, please.

If you would be so kind as to declare "I have no objective value or worth", I can move on.

FutureIncoming · May 24, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
1. Let's assume God exists.
2. Let's assume humans are persons because they have souls.
3. When is it logical for souls to become associated with human bodies?
4. If the answer to #3 is, "birth", then no abortion can possibly involve killing a person. If the answer to #3 is "sometime during pregnancy", then abortion before the chosen "sometime" cannot possibly involve killing a person.

Can you agree with the logic of #4? If not, then I need to see the rationale for your disagreement. If you can agree with the logic of #4, then what is your answer to #3, and why-is-it-logical/what-supporting-evidence-have-you-got?

Jerry said:
If you would just finally declare “I have no Objective Value/Worth” we could at least see consistency in your argument and reach an understanding.

What does this have to do with what I asked in #79?

Furthermore, I repeat:

FutureIncoming said:
We will not be on the same page unless you can say it about yourself, also.

That is, we will not reach an understanding unless we approach each other from an equal basis of perception. So, if you agree to follow my lead (or, if you choose, go there first), then I will be happy to step onto that page. Otherwise, we could either continue from #79, or we could discuss why you would not be willing to accept Zero Objective Value for yourself. Take your pick. One more thing:

FutureIncoming said:
Would you care to show someplace where I have so much as implied that I have Objective Value/Worth?

Jerry said:
I'm not trying to argue that you did imply such a thing, though. I'm seeking clarity.

Tsk, tsk. Why are not facts and logic clear enough? If I have repeatedly stated that there isn't anything that has Objective Value/Worth, and if I also never hinted that I (or you!)(or blastula!) might be an exception to that claim, then what is the logical conclusion, and why do you need additional verification/clarification? You may be sure that I won't take offense if you state your conclusion outright -- nor should you take offense if I state variants of that conclusion outright. Heh, in a Debate Forum, the offended party might be required to explain the rationale for choosing to be offended! With supporting evidence for that rationale! (With Free Will, Person A could say "Hi" to Person B, and B could choose to be offended. Why shouldn't such a choice require defending?)

Jerry · May 24, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
If I have repeatedly stated that there isn't anything that has Objective Value/Worth, and if I also never hinted that I (or you!)(or blastula!) might be an exception to that claim, then what is the logical conclusion, and why do you need additional verification/clarification?

As an Evil Conservative I am legally required to be as dense as possible.

Now if you would be so kind, the declaration please? “I have no objective value or worth.”

FutureIncoming · May 24, 2006

Jerry said:
Now if you would be so kind, the declaration please?

I already said I would be so kind after you agreed to say the exact same thing. If you do not choose to do so, then why not answer some of the questions I have asked, which yet await answers from you? For example, why did you change the subject from that of Msg #78 and #79?

blastula · May 25, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
refer to your above post.

You don't have to shout and get yourself so agitated. Screaming loudly will not help you win your argument.

You are wrong. "Random destructions" does not mean "that there is no Ojbective value". It simply means the state of being destroyed in an haphazard manner. It says nothing regarding value. Does random destructions such as earthquakes translate to mean houses have no subjective value? If not, why would it translate to mean there is no objective value?

The Objective Universe does not care because it is not a conscious being. Objective reality and objective value do not require someone or something to care. Objective reality and objective value are independent of awareness. Whether you are aware of the existence of a distant star or a deep sea creature, it nevertheless exists and has inherent value. You are obviously confusing human desire and inherent value. Some people don't care for fish, but yet they won't deny the inherent value of fish on this planet.

Someone walking on a sidewalk and a farmer of course can have completely different valuations of plain ordinary dog poo. But the plain ordinary dog poo is still there on the sidewalk existing as a plain ordinary dog poo and does what a poo does. It gave nutrients to insect larvae and bacteria, and the biodegraded substances then allowed the decomposition to return to the ground as fertilizer for the plants. Just because dog poo is of no value to you.does not mean that it has no ecological value to the environment.

Your donkey example is simply a donkey example. Whether which bale of hay the donkey chose has no effect on the objective reality and value of the other bale of hay. The bale that was not chosen is still a bale of hay sitting there. It's inherent value as a bale of hay is still there waiting to be used or be naturally decomposed ecologically to the ground. Just because a hay has become of no value to you, does not mean that it has no inherent value as ecological return to the ground.

Cont.

blastula · May 25, 2006

People might like you or hate you based purely on their individual subjective emotion. But, nevertheless despite all that external emotions from others, nevertheless you still have the inherent value as a human being. Just because somebody hate you, does not mean that your inherent value as human being is thereby diminished or gone. Otherwise, would you allow those that dislike you to treat you as a piece of valueless garbage?

Would you let the overworked nursing aides in the nursing home throw your helpless elderly loved ones around from bed to chair just because they subjectively regard your loved ones as of no inherent value? No, you know you have inherent value as human being and will assert your right to be respected as a human being. You would not silently take the bad treatment from people who dislike you and subjectively treated you or your loved ones as worthless. If you truly believe that every value is subjective, then you must allow Hitler to do to you and your loved ones what he did to the Jews and others whom he deemed valueless and worthless weeds of mankind.

Therefore, your philosophy of "Subjective Valuations" is nothing but pure oxymoron. For subjective philosophy to be true and that there is no objective value, you have to accept the subjective value of others that differ from you and those that differ from each and every others. If you don't accept that, then you are not true believer of "Subjective Valuation" philosophy. But, if a differing "Subjective Valuations" of others on you is forcing a lethal "Subjective Value" of zero to your survival, it doesn't matter how much you "Subjectively Value" yourself greater-than-zero, your life is worthless if the other party holds the power.

And because you are a strongfast proclaiming believer of "Subjective Valuation" philosophy, to respect and uphold that lethal "Subjective Valuations" is to be self-destruct. To defend yourself against a lethal "Subjective Valuations" on your survival, you're in effect defeating your concept of "Subjective Valuations". To assert your right to survive, you are therefore asserting your inherent value of your life as a human being.

Cont.

blastula · May 25, 2006

You said, "peace exists when many valuations are agreed-upon". But, what if there are no agreed-upon, which happen most often in the real world The middle-east crises have been brewing for many millenia, and yet to date an agreed-upon situation is still not likely.

Criminals such as robbers, rapists, mass murderers, and terrorists don't obey your subjective Golden Rule. Now, whose subjective values are you going to use? The criminals? If not, why not?

Didn't you said: "All who choose to Subjectively Value me differently that I value myself are those who I have equal right to Subjectively Value differently than they value themselves"?

If you and them have equal right to Subjectively Value each other, how can you set a law that uphold two conflicting values that reflects both values at the same time? There's absolutely no "Comprehension of that situation" that tends to be self-contradicting and self-destruct then to keep the peace.

You dance around on a simple question of "Do you want to guarantee that your existence is not real?"

How can that question be ridiculous if you questioned the existence of objective reality and inherent value? C'mon, if there is no objective reality, then you should be able to guarantee that your existence is not real.

To claim "Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy" is ridiculous. Are you no more than simple matters and molecules floating around without conscious awareness? If your existence "as a human being, particularly self-powered and animated assemblage of mass/enery, is only as real as your life-span", then do you not consider your existence as real? Or are you claiming your existence is unreal. Which is it? Simple question requires only simple answer. Don't try to dance around the question for escape.

If you consider your physical existence to be quite Objective, then you are contradicitng yourself in your own argument. Your whole argument is grounded on your assertions as follows:

1. "that there isn't anything that has Objective Value/Worth"
2. "there is no such thing as Objective Value/Worth"
3. "There Is No Thing That Has Any Value Whatsoever"
4. "Humans and trees and everything else have exactly the same Zero Objective Value"
5. "Objective Value does not exist"

And of course it is very obvious that if something does not exist, it has no value. Something that does not exist simply means there is nothing. And if there is nothing there is of course no value. Or in another words, the value of nothing is equal to nothing. And if something exists, it must have inherent value.

Archimedes, da Vinci, Newton, and Einstein are dead, but their works and their ideas remain in our knowledge. Objective reality is not restricted to physical things. Intangible ideas, moral laws and the unseen forces and physical laws of nature such as gravity and magnetism are also part of the real world. In Msg 73, I stated that "Objective value encompasses inherent value of things and moral values". Morals are abstract things just like mathematics is an abstract thing. The abstract mathematical idea of 1 + 1 = 2 is an objective reality. It is not subjective to your arbitrary whims or concoctions. So, just because something is absract such as morality or mathematics, or intangible such as gravity and magnetism, does not mean that they are not objectively real. Of course, they are objectively real and universally true.

Jerry · May 25, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
I already said I would be so kind after you agreed to say the exact same thing. If you do not choose to do so, then why not answer some of the questions I have asked, which yet await answers from you? For example, why did you change the subject from that of Msg #78 and #79?

I'm not quite sure why you require me to pre-agree to agree with your argument so that you can make your argument clear.

It's like a cell phone company requiring me to sign an agreement to sign a service contract before they make that contract known, or a travel website which requires a credit card number and an obligation to buy before they will show their various prices. It's bad business.

You will have to make your contract known before I choose to or not to sign. You will have to show your prices before I choose to or not to buy.

Now please: "I have no objective value or worth."

FutureIncoming · May 25, 2006

blastula said:
You don't have to shout and get yourself so agitated.

Whenever you deserve to be on the receiving end of a shout, you should expect it. Deliberately twisting what other people say is an excellent reason to get shouted at.

blastula said:
You are wrong. "Random destructions" does not mean "that there is no Ojbective value". It simply means the state of being destroyed in an haphazard manner. It says nothing regarding value.

You are wrong. Randomness is a fundamental part of the physical/Objective Universe, and simply because it cannot recognize any value-of-worth, that is why, to that Objective Universe, there is no value-of-worth. All things are destroyed equally mercilessly, so to the Objective Universe, all things are equal in value -- and I say that that value is Zero simply because all things are destroyed; no thing lasts forever.

blastula said:
Does random destructions such as earthquakes translate to mean houses have no subjective value?

Why are you asking such a ridiculous question? Objective and Subjective Valuations are two different things, and I have only been saying that Objective Valuations can't exist, because there is no behavior exhibted by the Objective Universe that supports the notion. The Objective Universe cannot Subjectively Value anything, because Subjective Valuation requires a mind, and the Objective Universe is mindless. But the house can have Subjective Value to any/every mind that does happen to encounter it (and probably different values, too). Furthermore, there is a conundrum in that even if the Universe Objectively valued one thing more than another, why should human or other minds agree with that valuation? For example, you wrote:

blastula said:
Without objective reality, there is no objective value.

Suppose we assumed that if Item A was destroyed by the Objective Universe more easily than Item B, then that means that the Objective Universe values B more than A. Well, let's apply that to some chemical elements: Most of them are fairly permanent, but some are radioactive and thus comparatively temporary. So, because uranium doesn't persist like hydrogen, do we conclude that the Universe values uranium oxide less than hydrogen oxide (water), and therefore humans should sell "yellowcake" cheaper than water? Thus the conundrum is: If you claim that the Universe includes Objective Valuations, you had better be able to explain exactly how they are assigned, and what those valuations are -- and why human or other minds should accept those valuations! Otherwise, if you cannot do those simple things, then why should anyone believe your claim that Objective Valuations exist?

blastula said:
If not, why would it translate to mean there is no objective value?

Since your premise was a ridiculous question, this related question is ignorable.

blastula said:
Whether you are aware of the existence of a distant star or a deep sea creature, it nevertheless exists and has inherent value.

Then please specify the nature and magnitude of those valuations -- and why anyone should believe the rationale for them that you Subjectively chose! Otherwise, no matter how many times you assert I am wrong on this issue, your are actually spouting nonsense, such as this feeble attempt:

blastula said:
what a poo does. It gave nutrients to insect larvae and bacteria, and the biodegraded substances then allowed the decomposition to return to the ground as fertilizer for the plants.

You are specifying Subjective Valuations in relation to those insects, bacteria, and plants, mindless though they may be. That is, you are saying that the poo has value only to other things that exist --if they didn't exist, then what? And you ignored the multitude of other organisms which would be poisoned to death by the poo.

FutureIncoming · May 25, 2006

Jerry said:
'm not quite sure why you require me to pre-agree to agree with your argument so that you can make your argument clear.

Ah, but that's not the only reason you originally gave!

Jerry said:
...we could {{...}} reach an understanding.

And I replied to that:

FutureIncoming said:
We will not be on the same page unless you can say it about yourself, also.

and I expanded upon that:

FutureIncoming said:
That is, we will not reach an understanding unless we approach each other from an equal basis of perception. So, if you agree to follow my lead (or, if you choose, go there first), then I will be happy to step onto that page.

The "contract" you mentioned in #91 (not quoted here) is that of Equality. We would choose to accept equal Subjective Valuations, regardless of the arbitrary magnitude chosen. And should others join us, we would expect them to accept Equality also -- and if an adjustment to the arbitrary magnitude is desired, how much does that matter, really? All other Subjective Valuations by the group are going to be both Relative and also Arbitrary!

Well? If you cannot accept such an Equality, then what prejudice or other flawed rationale have you got that is in the way of acceptance?

By the way, haven't you noticed how many humans already note the Subjective Valuations of others? Usually in a disparaging way, like, "Who do you think you are? {{famous person}}?" when the accused Subjectively-appears-to-the-accuser to have too-high a Subjective self-Valuation. Consider also the case of the aristocrats and the peasants; in some times and places both groups Subjectively Valued the aristocrats more than the peasants. How could that have been acceptable if all humans actually have an equal nonzero Objective Valuation? Answer: humans don't have any Objective Valuation greater than Zero, and so Subjective Valuations are all humans ever work with. And so sometimes peasants accepted different Valuations (if aristocrats were nice), and sometimes they didn't (usually when aristocrats weren't very nice at all).

Jerry · May 25, 2006

You missed the point with my contract analogy. Until I know and understand your argument, I can not sign onto it.

Agreement does not = understanding. Disagreement does not = misunderstanding.

Your declaration is required in order for me to come one step closer to understanding your argument, even if in the end I disagree with it.

Korimere the rat and I understand and disagree with each other on abortion, for example. Yet despite our disagreements, because we understand each other we reached mutual ground with a compromise (*Tangent*: that being allowing abortion-on-demand within the first trimester, but banning abortion-on-demand after the first trimester; and the total abolishment of Judicial Bypass, only allowing a minor child to receive an abortion without parental knowledge and consent if the courts severed her parent's legal parental rights permanently).

You do not need me nor anyone ells to agree with you in order to be right, so I don't understand your hesitancy with declaring "I have no objective value or worth".

FutureIncoming · May 25, 2006

blastula said:
The bale that was not chosen is still a bale of hay sitting there.

I expect the donkey to eat both bales. The donkey may even take alternate bites. The dilemma was only about the first bite.

blastula said:
It's inherent value as a bale of hay is still there waiting to be used or be naturally decomposed ecologically to the ground.

As with the dog poo, that is your Subjective Valuation, on others' behalf. On certain others' behalf, as I already indicated:

FutureIncoming said:
you ignored the multitude of other organisms which would be poisoned to death by the poo.

blastula said:
Just because a hay has become of no value to you, does not mean that it has no inherent value as ecological return to the ground.

We minds perceive that the hay has Subjective Value to all organisms that benefit from it, and no Subjective value to those that don't --and therefore it has no Objective Value, at all, since the Objective Universe might destroy it at any moment.
=================

blastula said:
you still have the inherent value as a human being.

Then specify it in detail. And leave the Subjectivity of beneficiaries out of it.

blastula said:
would you allow those that dislike you to treat you as a piece of valueless garbage?

I have mentioned the usefulness of the Golden Rule in this regard at least twice, and you continue to ignore it, even though you claim that morals such as that Rule have Objective Value. You can't have it both ways! And even if someone assigns the Golden Rule Zero Subjective Value, that cannot stop others from using it anyway! Which means I am exactly as free to treat anyone as valueless garbage, who treats me as valueless garbage. If they don't like the result, then all they need do is to agree with me to assign higher Subjective Valuations. Simple. And known to work, although it may take a while. Did you know that Hatfields and McCoys are marrying each other these days? I dare say that part of the reason that such agreements take a while is because of miscomprehension about Valuations. Lack-of-communications/understanding has been one of the major causes of war, over the centuries.

blastula said:
you have to accept the subjective value of others that differ from you

UTTERLY FALSE. And I already explained why, even though you ignored, that, too.

FutureIncoming said:
We do not need Objective Valuations when we are perfectly capable of (1) accepting the fact that all Valuations are Subjective, and (2) compromise.

Which is why I'm ignoring most of the rest of the nonsense in #89

blastula said:
To assert your right to survive, you are therefore asserting your inherent value of your life as a human being.

FALSE. First of all, the Objective Universe grants no such thing as a right for anything to survive. If that's not extremely obvious to you, from the fossil record alone, then perhaps we should end this conversation on the basis that you really cannot comprehend simple facts. The so-called "right to life" is a purely human fiction, intended to help humans get along with each other. It specifies a Basis of Equality, and it is purely Subjective. Nor is it even necessary; any Basis of Equality can work to encourage humans to get along with each other. Here, take a look at the Code of Hammurabi. Beware of that long sentence in the Prologue; it's just blather about how great Hammurabi claims to be. Look at the Code and tell me if you see a "right to life" in there. Yet that Code is considered to be an extremely important thing; when it was in force, they said a young woman carrying a pouch full of gold could walk across the country unmolested. Personally, I gather that the thrust of the Code is "You're all dirt under my feet, so get along with each other, or else!" Equality of being-dirt, for almost everyone, see?
======================

blastula said:
You said, "peace exists when many valuations are agreed-upon". But, what if there are no agreed-upon, which happen most often in the real world. The middle-east crises have been brewing for many millenia, and yet to date an agreed-upon situation is still not likely.

They are disagreeing about Objective Valuations! Every Religion in History has claimed it was One True Religion, and yet only one, if any of the current vast variety qualifies, can actually be that. The U.S. recognized the uncertainty of the situation by declaring Freedom of Religion, and Separation of Church and State, of course -- essentially declaring all Religions to be Subjective, due to lack of Objective Proof -- and as you know, they don't have that Basis of Equality in the Middle East.

blastula said:
Criminals such as robbers, rapists, mass murderers, and terrorists don't obey your subjective Golden Rule.

Nor do they obey any claimed Objective Valuations. So? And their ignoring the Golden Rule makes no difference when applying that Rule to them, as I already indicated. The Golden Rule is simply a Statement; ignoring it does not make it not-exist. So criminals can still be Subjectively assigned values equivalent to those they assigned their victims, and be treated accordingly. Net result, "make the punishment fit the crime", just as we try to do when Objective Valuations are claimed.

blastula said:
If you and them have equal right to Subjectively Value each other, how can you set a law that uphold two conflicting values that reflects both values at the same time?

YOU DON"T EVEN TRY. Instead you pick a Basis of Equality, and get everyone to accept it. Consider this one, just for example: "Every human has selfish desires, unrelated to personal survival. On what Objective basis can Person A say that a given selfish desire deserves to be fulfilled, moreso than a given selfish desire of Person B? Since there is no such basis, it logically follows that all humans are equal with respect to having selfish desires. And so all Laws can now treat all humans equally.

Jerry · May 25, 2006

Just a quick cut-and-post, Future: "I have no objective value or worth".

blastula · May 25, 2006

FutureIncoming said:
refer to above.

I'm not afraid of your shouting. I'm just telling you there is no need to shout. If you want to shout, go ahead. It's not my problem. And who are you to decide who deserved to be shouted by you? Are you the objective judge? What you called deliberate twisting is actually argument used against you based on your illogical argument which is derived from your twisted reasoning.

For a person who believe strongly on "Subjective Valuations", you sure seems to be holding a very firm position as if yours is the only objective truth and others are all false. So, if there is falsehood, then there must be an objective truth to reflect the falsehood. In effect, you believe there is objective reality and value. Therefore, it seems, what you practice and what you preach are two different things. And they contradict each other.

To those who you disagree, you called their arguments false, utterly false, error, twisted, stupid, and worthless. Whatever happened to your declaration that "We do not need Objective Valuations when we are perfectly capable of (1) accepting the fact that all Valuations are subjective, and (2) compromise"? Shouldn't a believer of subjectivity accept the fact that all Valuations are subjective and therefore should say, "You have your opinion and I have mine"? or "You are entitled to your opinion, but we can compromise..."? By breaking your own golden rule, you expose yourself as a person of contradiction.

We have been arguing from one topic to another. And for every argument, you don't abide by any objective standard. You set your own rules, and re-establish new ones when you break one of your own. Your values are not only subjective but highly arbitrary. Your ideas are so dispersed. And your notions are so illusive that not even the shadow could get a hold of your tail.

We have been harshing and reharshing about your "Objective Universe" being mindless ad infinitum. We harsh and reharsh over and over again about objective reality, objective value, and your "Subjective Valuations". Let's face it: we'll never going to agree on anything except to quit because the merry-go-around is now getting tiresomes.

At least we agree: perhaps we should end this conversation on the basis that I really cannot comprehend your elusive "simple facts". At least it will save you some server space and I will be able to enjoy a nice long weekend.

Now, you have the last words.

Happy Memorial Day, Y'all!

Jerry · May 25, 2006

.....and let those last words be "I have no objective value or worth".

FutureIncoming · May 26, 2006

Jerry said:
You do not need me nor anyone ells to agree with you in order to be right,

That's true, but I do need to be sure that I'm basing my conclusion on as much valid data as possible. So, look again at the last thing in my signature area:

FutureIncoming said:
What provable Objective Truth makes prohibition of abortion logical?

Human life having Objective Value could be such a Truth. But so far nobody, including you, has offered valid data supporting that notion. For example, everything blastula has posted in that other discussion here only reinforces the Subjectivity of Valuations, as this:

blastula said:
what a poo does. It gave nutrients to insect larvae and bacteria...

See? The poo has value because something can Subjectively benefit from it. If the poo really had inherent/Objective value/worth, it would have that value even if it was the only existing thing in the entire Universe -- and the "why" of it having worth could be explained irrefutably, also.

So, in alignment with that standing final Question in my signature area, "Are you withholding something I need to know, that is relevant to my argument about Objective/Subjective Valuations?" I am suspicious, see, of several things:
1) your sudden change-of-subject from that of Msg #78 and #79
2) your ignoring of my request that you explain that change-of-subject (especially when you don't need to fully understand my position to answer the questions asked in #79 -- go look!)
3) your ignoring of other requests involving what evidence do you have regarding Objective Valuations
4) your repeated insistence that I fully commit myself to the logical consequences of the data that I have, in spite of my attempts to be as sure as I can that I have available all relevant data.

FutureIncoming said:
What I "believe" is facts and logic. I simply took the facts and used the logic and reached certain conclusions. Have you ever done anything like that in your entire life? {{or are you just spouting early-childhood programming?}} Perhaps I actually dislike the conclusion, for illogical emotional reasons that are totally irrelevant in a debate forum. ... Can you show that the data I used is invalid, or that the logic is flawed? Can you offer more accurate data and superior logic? If so, that would be debating!

Jerry, what you are now doing is not the way a Debate is properly conducted!

FutureIncoming · May 26, 2006

blastula said:
who are you to decide who deserved to be shouted by you?

Who better to decide who I should shout at? Have you ever heard the phrase "You makes yer choices and you takes yer chances."? If the moderators think I am out-of-line in my choice of shoutings, I'm confident they will let me know.

blastula said:
What you called deliberate twisting is actually argument used against you based on your illogical argument which is derived from your twisted reasoning.

Oh, boy, what fun! Let's see...

FutureIncoming said:
7. Therefore my question, regarding why a human life can be considered more valuable than a tree life when killing the tree ALSO means effectively killing a human. Would you care to answer that now? And then maybe you might answer the question of whether or not abortion can be a valid way to ensure that does not happen.

This snippet relates to the initial Cusp Scenario of this Message Thread, which was based on the real-world experience of the Easter Islanders. At some point the need to cut trees for their growing population exactly matched the rate at which new trees were growing up. That point is the Cusp.

blastula said:
Your silly notion that " newborns needed resources, and the scenario involved trees" only argue for a case of infanticide to justify tree conservation.

Why do you mention "infanticide" when I asked about "abortion"? Why is your change of words not a twisting of what I was talking about? Nevertheless:

blastula said:
I did not replace what you actually said or delibrately twist things around. I merely use your premises and put them in context of your argument against you.

Moderators please note! Did or did not blastua twist what I wrote in #15? And if so, is blastula outright-lying in #34?