pro life and pro choice the words

FutureIncoming,
The freedom of speech extends to declining a response, and I decline to give response on the grounds that I reject your authority to make any argument, in any way, to any degree, based on your eventual confession that you have no objective value or worth.

My experience is that those who first declare that something does not exist, then "request" evidence of said thing's existence, are trolling for a fight. This is not the Basement, quit trolling.

{{continued from my next Message}}

blastula said:

I had provided you with plenty of data and evidence, ...

Click to expand...

OF OBVIOUSLY-SUBJECTIVE VALUATIONS ONLY. You have yet to offer any evidence of an indisputable Objective Valuation. Here:

blastula said:

Even if there is only one human being in an island, ... the existence of the human being is inherently valuable by virtue of existence.

Click to expand...

All I see is a claim. I do not see any explanation of why or how existence is associated with Objective Value.

blastula said:

... you just refused to acknowledge them ...

Click to expand...

FALSE. I explained how each one of those items was either Subjectively Valued, thus making not-obvious any Objective Value, or lacking in completeness (like in Msg #9).

blastula said:

... because you operate in a subjective, whimsical and arbitrary principle.

Click to expand...

I do indeed sometimes operate in a subjective way, just like anyone/anything else. Even rocks, for example, experience a Subjective gravitational pull, because most rocks are different from each other, and so the pull on each is different, Subjective to each rock. And because I have Free Will, I also sometimes choose to operate in a whimsical and arbitrary way. But not always, and not in this subsection of the overall Debate. I have been operating in a consistently Objective way here, just as Newton's Law of Gravitation is Objective (even if that Law isn't as accurate as General Relativity). It is Objective because anyone anywhere in this Universe can use it in the same way to get the same results, just like 1+1=2 is an Objective thing. But regarding the notion of Objective Valuations, you have not provided any clue as to how anyone can obtain either Absolute results or Relative results. All there have been so far are mere claims. Well, consider these claims: (1) "Humans have more Objective Value than terrestrial plants." (2) "Extraterrestrial intelligent plants have more Objective Value than humans." Without a way of determining either Absolute or Relative values, how can you say that Claim 2 is either true or not-true? How can you even know for sure that Claim 1 is true or not-true?

blastula said:

You didn't even answered most of my questions, and try to turn around and said I didn't answer yours.

Click to expand...

I might make a wager that I have answered more of your questions than you have answered of mine. Should not the ratio be 1:1, in a Fair Debate? And what of this:

FutureIncoming said:

in Msg #1: ...is abortion an OK way to ensure human life does not exceed its demands upon that other life form?

Click to expand...

-- which obviously was asked first, and which you still haven't answered? Also, I clearly explained in the "Human Life vs Tree Life" Thread that because many of your initial questions obviously resulted from misinterpretations or twisting of what I wrote, so they didn't need to be answered until after your errors were corrected. And one of those errors appears to be the claim that Objective Value exists.

FutureIncoming said:

Rest assured that I expect to eventually deal with every point you raise that is not nonsense. The current focus on valuations is important, because so many pro-lifers are relying on faulty data relevant to it, and base their arguments on it --and that faulty data needs to be corrected. Including your own faulty data. (And I'm sure some of my own data is faulty, too. But not this particular block of data.)

Click to expand...

So there is practically a promise made, dependent only upon your providing actual evidence that Objective Worth exists -- or accepting the consequences if you cannot provide the evidence.

blastula said:

I guess if your house is on fire, you are expecting the firefighters to gather in front of your house to come into a subjective agreement as to who or what has value? Are you expecting that the possibility that they may decide the tree and caviar have more value than your life or your loved one's lives? Afterall, caviar is expensive you know, and they don't get anything in return for saving you or your family.

Click to expand...

NO. I expect them to be aware that if they save the persons in the house, they can sometimes send those persons a bill for services rendered. (You should look up how Marcus Licinius Crassus became the richest man in Rome, and how the word "crass" entered the language.) And that is in addition to the expectation that since persons are assigned by persons greater value than other things (regardless of whether Objective Value exists), the firemen accept those assignments and will act accordingly -- because a fireman trapped in a burning house might otherwise not be rescued. The Golden Rule still works!

blastula said:

See how ridiculous your arguments are?

Click to expand...

See how you consistently fail to provide any actual evidence for anything other than Subjective Valuations?

blastula said:

Like I said already, please stop your nonsense.

Click to expand...

Your mere claim that I am expressing nonsense is unproved. There is far more evidence in these posts that you have been expressing nonsense, such as your twistings of what other people say.

blastula said:

Since you said you have no inherent value, Whatever you try to patch up on your dificiencies, it's going to be more nonsense.

Click to expand...

BAD LOGIC. "Person" does not equate to "argument".

blastula said:

So, give this a rest and stop contaminating this thread with more of your nonsense.

Click to expand...

AH, BUT I AM NOT CONTAMINATING THIS THREAD.

blastula said:

I speak out for the injustice against the unborn and therefore against abortion.

Click to expand...

FutureIncoming said:

So? All this means is that you are exhibiting a prejudiced "pro-justice-for-humans" position. ... As we have discussed elsewhere, your prejudice for humans is based on the totally unproved assumption that human life has objective value.

Click to expand...

FutureIncoming said:

In every single Message Thread in an Abortion Debate, if someone claims that human life is inherently valuable, and tries to use that as a reason to oppose abortion, then someone else has the right to request the evidence that supports the claim.

Click to expand...

It is not nonsense to request that information. Every piece of so-called "evidence" you have offered so far has easily been shown to involve Subjective Valuations. Not once have you offered a genuine indisputable Objective Valuation, so say nothing of a method by which an Objective Valuation might be determined, not even a Relative Objective Valuation.

Well?

star2589 said:

objective value is a useless concept because there is no way of knowing what it actually is.

Click to expand...

DISAGREED. If objective value exists, then the fact of that existence is worth knowing, regardless of knowing the exact value. Here is an analogy:
Consider the phenomenon of "gravitational potential energy". This is the amount of energy that can be released when an object falls from Point A to Point B in a gravitational field. So let's look at a random Point A for a moment, say the top of a cliff. Note that any rock sitting there is composed of atoms that originally, billions of years ago, fell to Earth when the planet was formed out of a cloud of gas and dust. Thus the rock, sitting at Point A on a cliff-top, is also at a kind of Point B, where its location is representative of some amount of anciently released gravitational potential energy. How much? We have no idea!!! Because the Earth sits inside the Sun's gravitational field, and the Sun sits inside the Milky Way Galaxy's gravitational field, and the Milky Way sits inside the gravitational field of a cluster of galaxies known as the "Local Group", and so on. We can't compute the amount of gravitational energy that was released when the rock reached our Point A/B, because we have no idea how far it (as atoms) fell to get there. At this time physicists don't know for sure whether or not they need to know the answer to that question; many would probably say they don't need to know. But all would agree that the altitude of that rock is indeed representative of some amount of released gravitational potential energy. The fact is worth knowing, if for no other reason, to remind us of our puny-ness and non-importance in the vast vast Universe (and if we want to change the Universe, then we probably first need to stop squabbling over who gets to be king-of-the-mites, and stop breeding like mindless animals, and stop wasting resources with planned obsolescence, and so on).

blastula said:

It may be useless to you, but it is just as useful as gravity and would not disappear or lessened in value despite your denial.

Click to expand...

First it has to exist, before it can be useful for anything. When do you plan on presenting evidence that withstands scrutiny, in support of your otherwise-worthless claim that Objective Value exists?

blastula said:

You ... need to let this topic rest ... because it had been harshed ... without concession.

Click to expand...

I'm not requesting a concession yet. I'm only requesting the Objective Valuation data that keeps you from conceding that your opinion is faulty. If you have no such data supporting your opinion, perhaps you would care to explain why it is intelligent to hold an unsupported opinion (a phrase synonymous with "prejudice")? Let me offer you this phrase to play with: "There is far more evidence that God exists, than there is evidence that God's existence has any Objective value whatsoever." (Here is a sample of some of the evidence: http://members.aol.com/ccmail/page2.html) It means that people can believe that God exists without being prejudiced in holding that belief; they have some supporting evidence for Something beyond the merely physical. But your belief about Objective Value is purely prejudice, if you cannot offer the slightest whit of supporting evidence, a genuine Objective Valuation.

blastula said:

If you both truly believe that there is no objective value and no objective truth, ...

Click to expand...

Your twistings of what was actually stated accomplish nothing.
Neither star2589 nor myself have claimed in this Thread that there is no Objective Truth. (And while I can't speak for star2589 in other Threads, I can categorically say for myself that I haven't made such a claim elsewhere. Go ahead, just try to find a place where I said such a thing!!!) Why are you putting your non-comprehension into other people's mouths?

blastula said:

... then why try relentlessly and so hard to prove your point?

Click to expand...

Since Objective Truths do exist (e.g., 1+1=2), it is possible that the lack of Objective Value, due to your continuing failure to offer any actual evidence for the notion, is an Objective Truth. That's why the point is worthy of being pursued relentlessly! And all you need do is present a single example of something that truly has Objective Worth, to end the pursuit.

blastula said:

And why do you expect to be correct and why do you insist your argument has objective value and objective truth?

Click to expand...

Your twistings of what was actually stated accomplish nothing. Since Objective Truths do exist, it is possible that the lack of Objective Value, due to your continuing failure to offer any actual evidence for the notion, is an Objective Truth.

blastula said:

So, it doesn't make sense, and run contrary to your own principle, that I should provide data or evidence that you alone would agree with.

Click to expand...

FALSE. My argument makes perfect sense once you remove your own misinterpretations/uncomprehensions from it. And also you are being silly; if I agree that something you specify has Objective Worth, why shouldn't others? If it is truly OBJECTIVE, they must agree also, else expose prejudice of their own!

blastula said:

After all, if there is no objective value and no objective truth, what is the use of data and evidence?

Click to expand...

IRRELEVANT, since I am not operating on the "if there is no objective truth" assumption. Since Objective Truths do exist, it is possible that the lack of Objective Value, due to your continuing failure to offer any actual evidence for the notion, is an Objective Truth.

{{continued in my previous Message}}

FutureIncoming said:

Eventually, you will either Answer those Requests, or you will Answer to the moderators of this Debate Forum, for failing to abide by its Rules. And that's an argument you cannot ignore, no matter how Objectively worthless I am!

Click to expand...

just curious, what rules are you refering to?

BodiSatva said:

FutureIncoming

I do not care enough about that debate to engage in it at this point, but I am tired of seeing it all over the place.... .

Click to expand...

You're just as chidish as FutureIncoming. I'm not here playing games to see who win the debate. You can declare him winner all you want it doesn't bother me since it is just your subjective opinion. In debate, it is the logic, the rationale in reasoning, and consistency that are more important than your subjective title of being a winner. I leave it up to interested parties and objective readers to decide who makes sense.

Your advice to FutureIncoming: "Just declare it so and ignore them adn understand that they are not worth any more of your time on that issue" just showed your biasness. Or are you trying to do a lovers' make-up after he called on you?

Unless you're truly blind, how can you not see that it was him who is relentlessly pursuing this harsed and reharsed debate into another thread. I had already given him the last word in the previous thread where this debate about objective and subjective values were started. Since he is not the one trying to ignore me but I am the one trying to ignore him, your advice for him to ignore me and about not worth the time is clear indication of your lack of truthfulness due to your bias.

On top of that, i.e. your lack of truthful character, you're also a hypocrite. If you're tired of this so-called dump and stupid debate, why get into the debate with your silly comments regarding firefighters and saving life scenario?

You said firefighters get paid saving human lives, ok I don't deny that because as I said the life of a human being has inherent value. So, why would saving the caviar translates into firefighters not be the same as saving humans? And why would firefighters not getting paid if the decide and agree on saving caviar instead of humans? And why would you say "caviar is gone and "Bye Bye return...fleeting"? Is it because the lives in the caviar are not more valuable than the life of a human being? Therefore, your lame argument only proves my point that there is inherent value in human being which is far more than the inherent value of caviar.

The paradox is not created by me, it is inherent in your thought process. It is the illogical consequence of irrational reasoning from people of your same mentality. You want subjectivity, but yet insist on an objective outcome of the debate. You said you "do not care enough about that debate to engage in it at this point" but yet you jumped right in to debate about the firefighters scenario. You advised FutureIncoming to ignore the debate that is not worth the time, but yet you can't seems to take your own advice. You are paradoxical and self-contradictory all the times. So, when are you going to straighten up and be tired of your own little games? If you want to debate this further, please take the other 2 with you into the lovers quarrel section or the basement. Like I said, I had enough of FutureIncoming'sa irrational nonsense.

star2589 said:

the comparison of human worth and gravity is invalid. though I suppose we can never truly understand what gravity is or where it came from, we can measure its effects very accuratly and make predictions based on it. we at least know that it exists.

I'm not saying that an objective value doesnt exist. I'm saying that the concept is useless in this matter, because there is no way of knowing what it is if it does exist. you say there is an objective value to a human fetus, and futureincoming says there is not - that it is essentially zero, but neither of you can prove your claim, so what use it is?

Click to expand...

The comparison is not between human being and gravity. If you did not follow through the whole argument from the previous thread, why made comments that you don't understand? The premise is that everything has inherent value by virtue of their existence whether you are aware of their existence or not. The inherent value does not equate to our human perceiptive value. I am not going to go over the whole argument again in this thread because I didn't intend on debating this issue in this thread. As far as I'm concerned the debate about tree life vs human life and objectivity vs subjectivity had been argued in great depth and reharsed over that the case is close.

You said you're not saying that an objective value doesnt exist. This debate was about whether objective value exists or not, so what's your point? You said that the concept is useless in this matter. Well, that's just your subjective opinion. And you said because there is no way of knowing what it is if it does exist. But, it doesn't prevent the sanity of humanity to recognize that unjust killing of a human being is murder and is wrong. Or are you suggesting that murder of a human being is subjective and ok? So, if you have a criminal mind and think murder is ok, then it's ok? Have you watched the documentary on History channel regarding the massacre in Columbine?

So, if according to your reasoning, since there is no way of knowing what the objective value of human life is if it does exist, and since the concept is useless then it is ok by you that the 2 mentally disturbed teens went on the killing rampage in the school?

You're just as bias as BodiSatva. You try to down play the debate into human fetus. No, the whole debate is about the life of human being and tree, and now including caviar. If there is no objective value to human life, then why bother about having capital crime for murder and why not on tree? Did you make your agreement or disagreement with society for or against murder for human being or tree or caviar?

The 2 teen killers massacred defenceless children and adults because they were mentally disturbed, and to their deranged minds, and in their "subjective valuation" human lives have no value to them. To them the life of a human being is worthless. The only worth to them is to subjectively devalue human life into an object for target practice.

I just hope never in my life would I meet people like those criminals nor people of likeminds with such mentality regarding the value of human life. With "subjective valuation" principle in some minds, no wonder we have so many spouses murdering the other spouses, or parents against children, or children against parents, all for the sake of collecting life insurance monies. To those people, their "subjective valuation' of a human life is how much your life are worth to them and therefore denial of inherent value of human life plays well into their modus operadi.

Jerry said:

The freedom of speech extends to declining a response, ...

Click to expand...

That true of ordinary speech, agreed. But a Debate is not ordinary speech. Declining to respond to a point in a Debate is considered acceptance of your opponent's point. And my point is that the lack of evidence for the notion of Objective Worth means that it does not exist. But one single piece of evidence can overthrow that conclusion.

Jerry said:

... and I decline to give response on the grounds that I reject your authority to make any argument, in any way, to any degree, ...

Click to expand...

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! On what basis is authority needed to make an argument? Haven't you noticed the number of people here who have no idea what they are talking about?

Jerry said:

... based on your eventual confession that you have no objective value or worth.

Click to expand...

SO WHAT? I am not an argument. Once I let loose an argument, it exists independently of myself. And regardless of whether or not that argument has Objective Value, it may contain Objective Truth and be useful for, if nothing else, scoring points in a Debate Forum.

Jerry said:

My experience is that those who first declare that something does not exist, then "request" evidence of said thing's existence, are trolling for a fight.

Click to expand...

Nice try, but no cigar. I'm looking for a Debate, not a fight. And in a Debate, if you make a positive statement that something exists, you can be required to provide the evidence that supports the statement or retract the statement. I've been requesting of evidence supporting claims that Objective Worth exists ever since I enountered people here who make the claim. My prior claims that it did not exist was and is strictly based on the Zero quantity of valid evidence that I previously experienced. I am open to the evidence, but I am finicky about what qualifies as Objective. So, if Objective Worth exists, then something has an Objective Worth of greater-than-zero-magnitude. (1) How can that quantity be detected as something independent of physical existence? (2) How can it be measured? If you claim it exists, and that some things have more of it than others, you should have some idea about that, eh? Notice that if you can answer either of those two numbered Questions, then it is not necessary to present some Object that has Objective Worth; I can use either of them to see it for myself.

Jerry said:

This is not the Basement, quit trolling.

Click to expand...

And I'm not trolling; I'm merely persistently asking a Question that I have a right to ask, in a Debate Forum, so that a Point in the overall Debate can be resolved, indisputably.

FutureIncoming said:

DISAGREED. If objective value exists, then the fact of that existence is worth knowing, regardless of knowing the exact value. Here is an analogy:
Consider the phenomenon of "gravitational potential energy". This is the amount of energy that can be released when an object falls from Point A to Point B in a gravitational field. So let's look at a random Point A for a moment, say the top of a cliff. Note that any rock sitting there is composed of atoms that originally, billions of years ago, fell to Earth when the planet was formed out of a cloud of gas and dust. Thus the rock, sitting at Point A on a cliff-top, is also at a kind of Point B, where its location is representative of some amount of anciently released gravitational potential energy. How much? We have no idea!!! Because the Earth sits inside the Sun's gravitational field, and the Sun sits inside the Milky Way Galaxy's gravitational field, and the Milky Way sits inside the gravitational field of a cluster of galaxies known as the "Local Group", and so on. We can't compute the amount of gravitational energy that was released when the rock reached our Point A/B, because we have no idea how far it (as atoms) fell to get there. At this time physicists don't know for sure whether or not they need to know the answer to that question; many would probably say they don't need to know. But all would agree that the altitude of that rock is indeed representative of some amount of released gravitational potential energy. The fact is worth knowing, if for no other reason, to remind us of our puny-ness and non-importance in the vast vast Universe (and if we want to change the Universe, then we probably first need to stop squabbling over who gets to be king-of-the-mites, and stop breeding like mindless animals, and stop wasting resources with planned obsolescence, and so on).

Click to expand...

my response to you is the same as it was to blastula:
the comparison of human worth and gravity is invalid. though I suppose we can never truly understand what gravity is or where it came from, we can measure its effects very accuratly and make predictions based on it. we at least know that it exists.

I'm not saying that an objective value doesnt exist. I'm saying that the concept is useless in this matter, because there is no way of knowing what it is if it does exist. you say there is an objective value to a human fetus, and futureincoming says there is not - that it is essentially zero, but neither of you can prove your claim, so what use it is?

blastula said:

The premise is that everything has inherent value by virtue of their existence whether you are aware of their existence or not.

Click to expand...

prove it. prove that a fetus has an inherent value that is applicable to the debate of whether it is morally wrong to kill it.

or at least, make an argument as to why it has value.

star2589 said:

prove it. prove that a fetus has an inherent value that is applicable to the debate of whether it is morally wrong to kill it.

or at least, make an argument as to why it has value.

Click to expand...

Is a fetus a human being or not? Are you a human being or not? If you are a human being, do you or do you not have inherent value as a human being?

star2589 said:

just curious, what rules are you refering to?

Click to expand...

Well, I was thinking of the generally-accepted Rules of Debate; if this is a Debate site then some enforcement of those Rules should occur, lest the site just be a joke.

There are some rules that they take more seriously, it seems to me, than the Rules of Debate (and I've seen another site or two where the Rules of Debate appear to be the most important rules, so maybe I'm confusing myself a bit here).
http://www.debatepolitics.com/forum-rules/505-forum-rules.html

Nevertheless, I invite you to study some posts in the "British Study Says Premature Babies Feel Pain" Thread. This link:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/9861-british-study-says-premature-babies-feel-pain-2.html
works for me with my User Settings of 40 posts per page and most-recent-post viewed first. Thus it shows me Msgs #60 to #99, and this link:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/9861-british-study-says-premature-babies-feel-pain.html
shows me Msg #100 to #139. The posts to which I wish to direct your attention begin with #76, by jimmyjack, and continue to the relevant point in #91, by shuamort. Only the messages between those two need be examined by you (and they are mostly short). You will see that jimmyjack never answered a particular legitimate question, even up to Msg #117, which was the last posting between the two (but written by shuamort). Jimmyjack is now banned (although that might not be the only reason for it).

BodiSatva said:

I have seen star and future in debate for a while now...

Click to expand...

Of course you have seen star and future in debate for a while now..., of course... Just because you are blind doesn't mean others are just as blind as you are. Whether they are pretty smart and have reasonable heads on their shoulders, that is just your subjective opinion, and I strongly disagree.

You want to take my response to your strange comments as strange attacks on you that's your arbitrary "subjective valuation". If you want to tell story, go somewhere else. The way you respond to my posts reflected your insecurity and I am not sure why you feel threatened and came to these wacky conclusions that I am feeling threatened. If you can't take humor, don't try to be funny. And why do you feel you don't need to own up to your silly mistakes?

If you are so prone to misunderstanding, perhaps you should make sure you read it all and make sure you really understood before you jump in and ended up making a mockery of yourself. If you jumped in knowing you didn't care, that's simply rude and irresponsible.

I am not here to play games to see who can win the debate. I'd already finished the debate with Future in the previous thread about human life vs tree life prior to the Memorial holiday, and he had his last words.

But seems to me you are either blind or you are lacking in truthfulness to pretend that I was the one pursuing this argument. You accused me that if I were not here to win the debate, I would simply state my opinion and then move on. That's what I did, I didn't respond any further to Future's posts after giving him 2 fair warnings so he won't accuse me of ignoring him in the cold without giving him any reasons.

What you accused me of were what Future committed. Yet, to you he is blameless and not guilty of committing blah..blah..blah... Instead, you point your finger at me and blame everything he did on me.

And who are you to lecture me? You are self-contradictory and hypocrite. You said you didn't like this debate and called it stupid, yet you jumped into it nonetheless. You accused me and Future of not simply stating our opinions and then move on, and yet it seems you can't move on yourself but kept going blah..blah..blah... You're no saint you know, so please don't pretend to be one.

Your "caviar is gone" and "Bye Bye return...fleeting" also make no sense.

The two sentences of mine you said didn't make sense were because of last minute editing typo. Don't tell me you never made slipped typos before.
My first sentence: “So, why would saving the caviar translates into firefighters not be the same as saving humans" should read, "So, why would saving the caviar translates into firefighters not getting paid the same as saving humans". The argument was that if there is no inherent value in humans then why would it make any difference who or what the firefighters saved and how would it affect their pay?

My second sentence: “And why would firefighters not getting paid if the decide and agree on saving caviar instead of humans?" should read, "And why would the firefighters not getting paid if they decide and agree on saving caviar instead of humans?"

If you can't tell the difference between typos and your incoherent sentences, then you surely have a square head. I am not going into your blah..blah..blah... in other threads. But, suffice to say, you are not only lacking in truthfulness, but also lacking in basic human intelligence..

Do you think you're better than Future that you think he needed a blind bat like you to point out something to him? Your opinion is nothing but a worthless subjective thought that is true only to yourself. So, keep it to yourself because I don't value what you "still think".

The "paradoxical" thing is from your own. Normal people are coherent. You are not coherent. Perhaps you thrive on blah..blah..blah, don't you? And I have seen your use of English language, so don't try to be a smart *ss. Only people who can't debate logically will resort to attacking the person and/or his/her language.

Now if you want to pick on typos instead of asking for clarification, have your self-serving fun.

star2589 said:

objective value is a useless concept because there is no way of knowing what it actually is.

Click to expand...

FutureIncoming said:

DISAGREED. If objective value exists, then the fact of that existence is worth knowing, regardless of knowing the exact value. Here is an analogy: ...the rock, sitting at Point A on a cliff-top, is also at a kind of Point B, where its location is representative of some amount of anciently released gravitational potential energy. How much? We have no idea!!!

Click to expand...

star2589 said:

the comparison of human worth and gravity is invalid. though I suppose we can never truly understand what gravity is or where it came from, we can measure its effects very accuratly and make predictions based on it. we at least know that it exists.

Click to expand...

I think you have missed my point. I was making an analogy between one kind of unknown value (Objective Value) and another kind of unknown value (magnitude of released potential energy). Your orginial statement in #14 reaches a conclusion based on the assumption that Objective Value exists, and I was arguing against that conclusion, not against the assumption. The mere knowledge that something exists is indeed, all by itself, useful information. For example, currently there is a lot of Scientific Argument about a phenomeon called "Cold Nuclear Fusion" in electrolysis of heavy water. The argument exists because of uncertainty that a certain odd phenomeon really is (or isn't) associated with nuclear fusion. Well, if we knew for sure (either way!) whether or not any nuclear fusion reactions exist in those electrolytic cells, it would indeed be useful information. (The lack of existence could lead to much research effort no longer being wasted, which is why that information would be useful.)

star2589 said:

{{regarding Objective Value}} futureincoming says there is not - that it is essentially zero, but neither of you can prove your claim,

Click to expand...

Actually, in spite of the normal difficulties associated with proving a negative, I have offerred two different possible proofs, neither one of which has yet been challenged. I do not outright declare them to be proofs, because I might be missing some key piece of information. So I mostly concentrate on the basic notion that the absence-of-evidence of Objective Value is good evidence for the absence of Objective Value. (And yes, that is a vallid paraphrase of a well-known and valid opposite-seeming statement that absence of proof of something is not proof of absence of that something.)

Anyway, here's one possible proof:

FutureIncoming to Jerry said:

FutureIncoming said:

Consider this: Objectivity relates to Independence. Subjectivity relates to Dependence. So a Valuation is Subjective when Dependence is involved. If a piece of dog poo was the only thing that existed in the entire Universe, it would obviously be a totally Independent thing.

Click to expand...

In the normal Universe the poo can be valued because things like bacteria can depend on it. And alone in its own Universe the poo would have an opportunity to be associated with Objective Value --but what basis is there for assigning it a Value?

And there is more. Let's get really simple and fundamental now. Consider this question: "Why is there Something and not Nothing?" (Even God would count as a Something.) Well, notice that the definition of "Nothing" literally is "No Thing" --in other words, Something must be able exist in order for Nothing to be defined! And, reversing the starting point, suppose that there was indeed Nothing: What would there be to PREVENT Something from existing? NOTHING! The purely philosophical answer to the question thus appears to be: "The non-existence of Something would be a paradox." (And Quantum Mechanics obligingly supports this by offering physicists a very strange thing that is sometimes called "energy fluctuations in the vacuum" --supposedly-empty Space is actually always filled with both Something and Nothing, as "virtual particles" pop in to temporary existence and vanish almost at once.)

The net effect of the preceding is that both Something and Nothing are dependent upon each other! And when we add the notion of Dependency being associated with Subjective Valuations, then this might count as an actual Proof that no thing can have Objective Value. And while we both know it can be very difficult to prove a negative statement, we also should both know that sometimes it can be done (see Fermat's Last Theorem). Is this one such time? Can you point out any errors of fact or logic in this? Let me know!

Click to expand...

Next (first some preparation):

FutureIncoming to blastula said:

...because "there is no accounting for taste" it is perfectly possible for something having zero Objective value to be assigned by someone a high Subjective value. Consider the time, effort, and money that physicists spend trying to perfectly evacuate all the gas from some container, in which they would conduct an experiment. To them, a volume of vacuum, a volume of nothing, has value! (And, of course, that valuation is purely Subjective to those physicists....)

Click to expand...

(Might we agree that "a volume of nothing" has Zero Objective Value?)

And now a possible proof:

Futureincoming to blastula said:

And now you are confusing "existence" with "value", without even trying to explain the basis for such a claim. Please note this Objective Fact: Valuations are abstract, not physical. Therefore a valuation is not a physical property of something that exists. As further evidence, do recall that I just recently explained how a volume of nothing can be assigned Subjective value. Only an abstract concept can sensibly be connected to Nothing. And only minds, persons, deal with abstractions. Which therefore makes all valutions dependent upon the choices made by minds, Subjective, that is. This is the fundamental contradiction in claiming Objective Value exists. So, if you continue to claim that existence is automatically connected to value, you need to (1) find a flaw in the immediately-preceding argument, and (2) explain the rationale of your argument in detail. Thanks!

Click to expand...

blastula said:

Is a fetus a human being or not? Are you a human being or not? If you are a human being, do you or do you not have inherent value as a human being?

Click to expand...

in my opinion, no, my value is not inherent in that I am a human being, if "human being" is defined to include fetuses.

I cant prove I'm right, you cant prove I'm wrong. all we can do is say "yes it is", "no its not" over and over again until we're sick, and thats not really debating. that is why the concept is useless in this matter.

Blastula

I am not sure if you are being hostile because you felt threatened or if that is just who you are, either way, lighten up. I was more than open and honest to you regarding our encounter. I have yet to accuse you of anyting as ridiculous and rude as you have done to me. Should I say something as simple as "grow up"?

Bro, I haven't even bothered with you for two reasons...one I have stated and the other is simply because thus far, you have been basically childish. A little kid tossing out feeble insults against what you do not seem to have the patience or desire to understand. IT is OK. This does not define you or mean that we won't get along, but it is a rocky start to say the least.

Do you not admit that there are infinite perceptions of reality? YOu ignored this point...and I am not sure why. You have yours...they have theirs...I have mine...they fall into various catagories and they can not all be defined. You hvae made some great points in your debate with star and future...but so have they. That is why I felt that future should just let it go...and so should you. You can say that yo uare now, but to that point you had been going on and on and on and on and on and on...it was getting freaking ridiculous watching your guys go over it again and again and again and aiaig na and kjerkg jadklgjkd...haha...seriously!

I'll address our misommunication one more time and then see if you have the ability to act respectful and in an accountable manner.

I state...

Bodi
You though, in your strange attacks on me...well, that is another story. I am not sure why you feel threatened or where you came to these wacky conclusions since most of what I said was purposefully flippant and riddled with humor. I will go through all of this once and then see how you respond…if you have the fortitude to own up to a mistake or not.

Click to expand...

Blastula
The way you respond to my posts reflected your insecurity and I am not sure why you feel threatened and came to these wacky conclusions that I am feeling threatened. If you can't take humor, don't try to be funny. And why do you feel you don't need to own up to your silly mistakes?

Click to expand...

Any similarities? I was being funny...I still am. Why would you respond that as such..if we are both trying to be funny..then that is good. Right?

Italic part... I did Bro. See...
"Perhaps I misunderstood you and this was meant to be ironic…I did not read it all and I still have not to see if I made a mistake about what you are saying…"

Are you purposefully trying to be rude and ...what is it you keep calling me? Hmmmm...what is it now? It is super ironic. OH YEAH ------> ...and BLIND?

You need to acknowledge this point #1 for you to even been taken seriously again.

If you are so prone to misunderstanding

Click to expand...

Are you trying to be rude or do you really just toss out assumption oriented insults and hope that they make a person mad?

I am not here to play games to see who can win the debate. I'd already finished the debate with Future in the previous thread about human life vs tree life prior to the Memorial holiday, and he had his last words.

Click to expand...

Good. Perhaps I was mistaken about this as well...though I was referring to the whole subjective/objective debate that has transcended into a couple of threads now, not just this thread. Somehow I think that you know this and you are again, purposefully trying to ignore it. I am neither childish or unintelligent. I can tear you apart in a debate if you want...but thus far you are not worth it. You play lame-O games about he said she said and that is gay. You can't even get past the teeny weeny insults. Do you think that they make you superior? I have no idea why you are acting as you are, but it sure is revealing a lot about you as a person. #2

The two sentences of mine you said didn't make sense were because of last minute editing typo. Don't tell me you never made slipped typos before.

Click to expand...

Yes I have. But generally I am fairly careful so as to not create confusion. If I do create confusion, I just acknowledge my mistake and keep the immature insults out of the conversation. I am accountable for myself, something that you are barely able to do to this point. Again, grow up.

If you can't tell the difference between typos and your incoherent sentences, then you surely have a square head. I am not going into your blah..blah..blah... in other threads. But, suffice to say, you are not only lacking in truthfulness, but also lacking in basic human intelligence..

Click to expand...

You ridiculousness is getting tiring. Are you again trying to ignore the facts or what? What you accuse me of perhaps? Here you go...THIS SHOULD BE CLEAR!

Bodi
Perhaps English is not you first language, so we can let it go if it is not…But what the heck does, “So, why would saving the caviar translates into firefighters not be the same as saving humans?” mean? Really…what the heck? This sentence makes no sense.

Click to expand...

See? IS it clear now? I did ask for clarification and I even speculated about you not having English as a Primary language. This is called intelligent buddy boy. I am open to why it was incoherent...it was not simply a typo or two, those sentences are a mess. The syntax is bad in addition to the typos. It is all good, even now...I think we can clear up the miscommunication. #3.

And who are you to lecture me? You are self-contradictory and hypocrite. You said you didn't like this debate and called it stupid, yet you jumped into it nonetheless.

Click to expand...

No I did not. I told Future to end it because who cares who is correct and who is not? I certainly don't. You seem to though despite you denial. I simply said declare yourself a winner and move on. Big deal. Do you argue endlessly with a person when you can't change their mind to see your opinion? No. By your own admission no. Right? So I see this debate going on and on and on and I say...end it already...who cares, just move on. But that really bothers you. you think that this means that I have entered the debate. It does not. I am sorry if you do not agree or understand. Simple point of fact. I am not in that debate...I am debating you regarding manners and accountablility then and now.

This is #4 that you need to acknowledge.

Do you think you're better than Future that you think he needed a blind bat like you to point out something to him? Your opinion is nothing but a worthless subjective thought that is true only to yourself. So, keep it to yourself because I don't value what you "still think".

Click to expand...

No. But sometimes people can get caught up in something and lose sight of the issue.

Again with the blind? Who really are you talking to, it most assuredly is not me. I will certainly not do this with you until you can own up to your mistakes. You might not agree, again...that is the issue. Not that I am right about all of this, but the fact that the issue is miscommunication and misunderstanding.

Also, finish up with your false assumption that I am not intelligent and unaware please...it will save us both more of this inane banter. I don't think that you are stupid...why do you keep making these childish assertions that I am? It is most curious. Future and Star and you and I are all probably pretty smart...intelligence is not the issue...agreement is. Can you fathom this concept? This is another point that I would like you to address...#5.

Only people who can't debate logically will resort to attacking the person and/or his/her language.

Click to expand...

Not true. Some people do it on purpose. You should not use absolutes so often. This is the first time I am pointing it out, but this is certainly not the first time against me that you have done this. #6

Lastly, is this a joke on your part? Really...you started off the whole attacking thing. Are you really that deluded. You called me blind and all those other wonderful things that have to do with a lack of intelligence. Really? Who is the hypocrite. Seriously. Are you joking? Are you serious? This is for clarification again. I assume that you really are a lying jerk that has little to no accountability and takes no responsibility for your statements, but I could be mistaken. You might be just a kid, or perhaps a "special person". I have no idea really...there are a lot of possibilities. This is my last post to you if this is all that you have to offer. Sorry again if you do not understand the difference in how we are communicating...that is not my issue at this point and I am not here to lecture you, nor have I been...to answer you. I have been communicating in an adult manner except a couple parts of this post, about how we are miscommunicating.

I guess that you could just toss out some more "you are blind" and "you are a liar" and "you are a hypocrite" statements if you like...you could be totally dumb and just call me unintelligent again...but that is so pathetic that it will only display the truth to all.

FutureIncoming said:

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!.....SO WHAT?.....may.....Nice try, but no cigar.......strictly......detected.....measured.....either.......

Click to expand...

If the absence of Objective Value is an Objective Truth, then Objective Truth has no value, and is worthless. So why should I care?

I shouldn't, that's why.

If Objective Value does not exist, then objective evidence has no value, and is worthless. With your premise you have rejected the value of anything I could source, so your "requests" are nothing more than "requests" for worthless sources; which is a waste of my time.

If it is true that you have no Objective Value, then anything you say is worthless. Per your premise your posts are worthless, and I am wasting my time responding to them.

All this became the issue long before your many attempts to change the subject on that thread, thus the issue of your Objective Value comes before any of your other "requests", and forms the foundation of everything ells you have to say.

If you have no Objective Value, non of your words can ultimately mean anything. We are left with only opinion, which you and I have already given each other, so that's it.

BodiSatva said:

Blah..blah...blah...

Click to expand...

BodiSatva said:

I am not sure if you are being hostile because you felt threatened or if that is just who you are, either way, lighten up.

Click to expand...

I am just exposing your true character according to what you posted and being sarcastic at the same time. And you called that hostile and feeling threatened? If you can't take the heat, don't start the fire. I find it amusing that if you are not blind then you would know who was trying to end the argument and who was persistent in persuing the debate.

I am waiting to see when are you going to stop and practise your own principle. Apparently not. You can't just walk away like you advised: "Just ignore them and let others make up their own mind", can't you?

That is a hypocrite don't you think? .I am not calling you hypocrite for the sake of just being hostile, I am calling you what you are. There are plenty to expose regarding your hypocracy.

I have yet to accuse you of anyting as ridiculous and rude as you have done to me. Should I say something as simple as "grow up"?

Click to expand...

Oh yeah? How about your remarks such as "extremely closed minded"..."regardless of common sense", "Lovers Quarrel" "this Stupid Debate", "beyond dumb", " is a shame", "Bye Bye return...fleeting", "these wacky conclusions", "a deluded fool" and your attack on lauguage etc.. Of course, subjectively to you, you think they are amicable terms and you expect people you put down to swallow them whole heartedly? In the past you were rude when you jumped in with sarcastic remarks shouting with large colored fonts like a child, I just ignored you. Just grow up will you?

Bro, I haven't even bothered with you for two reasons...one I have stated and the other is simply because thus far, you have been basically childish. A little kid tossing out feeble insults against what you do not seem to have the patience or desire to understand. IT is OK. This does not define you or mean that we won't get along, but it is a rocky start to say the least.

Click to expand...

If you haven't even bothered with me, why start now. Please don't, I don't need hypocrites and untruthful characters who are cortically blind.

Do you not admit that there are infinite perceptions of reality? YOu ignored this point...and I am not sure why. You have yours...they have theirs...I have mine...they fall into various catagories and they can not all be defined

Click to expand...

You hypocrite! (That's really what you are). If you truly believe in your so-called "infinite perceptions of reality" why are so persistent in getting on me for? Is my viewpoint not fit enough to be included in your "infinite perceptions"?

Why did you feel that you had to point out to Future about a point I made regarding firefighters and caviar and drag this debate even further? We would have ended right there in my post #7. He made his point, you made yours and I made mine, so what is your problem? Why did you have to get mad when two people want to debate about something that you don't like?

Why can't you just ignore the posts that you don't like and move on to other posts or threads? There are other threads not just this, you know? If not, just start a new thread that you like. So, stop your childish whining.

That is why I felt that future should just let it go...and so should you. You can say that yo uare now, but to that point you had been going on and on and on and on and on and on...it was getting freaking ridiculous watching your guys go over it again and again and again and aiaig na and kjerkg jadklgjkd...haha...seriously!

Click to expand...

Yeah, you advised Future to ignore me as if I was the instigator and all the while insinuating that I was the one relentlessly pursuing him to win the debate. You wronged somebody, mocked at my posts and made fun of my typos, and drag on and on with the same freaking ridiculous arguments that should have ended when I told Future to call it off for the final time in post #7 http://www.debatepolitics.com/327705-post7.html

I'll address our misommunication one more time and then see if you have the ability to act respectful and in an accountable manner.

Click to expand...

The misunderstanding is stemming from you when you jumped in without comprehending what you're reading and also your intolerance to others who wish to debate.

Talking about respect, when did you ever give any respect? Calling people "closed-minded", "without commonsense", "dumb", and "stupid debate", etc, just because you don't like it, isn't exactly respectful. Making a one sided wrongful accusation against someone is even worse. If you want respect, you don't act like a hypocrite sitting on your high pedestral throwing insults and wrongfully accuse people while not practising what you preach.

Any similarities? I was being funny...I still am. Why would you respond that as such..if we are both trying to be funny..then that is good. Right?

Click to expand...

A word of advice, if you want to be funny, try to be funny at your own expense. Also, don't make fun while making a wrongful accusation. And don't be a hypocrite. Practice what you preach.

Italic part... I did Bro. See...
"Perhaps I misunderstood you and this was meant to be ironic…I did not read it all and I still have not to see if I made a mistake about what you are saying…"

Click to expand...

If you did not read it all and misunderstood, then apologize. And if you don't even bother to see if you have made a mistake, it only tells us that you are highly irresponsible. And if despite your blatant disregard to your irresponsibility you added insults to injury by being sarcastic, it only shows people your base character.


[

Are you purposefully trying to be rude and ...what is it you keep calling me? Hmmmm...what is it now? It is super ironic. OH YEAH ------> ...and BLIND?

Click to expand...

How can I be any more rude than you already are when I merely call you what you are and responded according to what you put out?

You don't think you are BLIND? Then go to tree life vs human life thread and read my last post 05-25-06, 07:47 PM #97 http://www.debatepolitics.com/320565-post97.html and tell me what did I said in the post. If you are not blind you should be able to read my last word to Future concerning this "Now, you have the last words".

I know you were reading that thread because you had posted in that thread in post #54 on 05-19-06, 01:04 PM #54 http://www.debatepolitics.com/317425-post54.html. In that post you were rude and obnoxious with your screaming big colored fonts. But I just ignored you.

If you weren't blind, you would also read my post #7 06-08-06, 12:16 PM #http://www.debatepolitics.com/327705-post7.html where I'd told Future I had had enough of his self-proclaimed worthlessness and to please don't contaminate this thread with his self-acknowledged worthless argument. And I ended it there with Future.

If you weren't blind you weren't be accusing me of going on and on pursuing this debate when it was you who now refused to let it go and move on. I had not revisited the previous thread from tree life vs human life debate since I called it off in May 25.

If you are not blind, then you knew the true events. Which means you purposely accused me of trying to win the debate by going on and on. In that case it just shows you lack truthfulness in your character.

You need to acknowledge this point #1 for you to even been taken seriously again

Click to expand...

.

Tell me, why should I obey your rule? Who are you that I should follow, hypocrite? Save yourself some embarrassment and don't talk about me not being taken seriously by you who is a proven hypocrite with untruthful character. It is you who had demonstrated to have untruthful character and don't practice what you preached that is who we have to be beware of and not to take you seriously.

Are you trying to be rude or do you really just toss out assumption oriented insults and hope that they make a person mad?

Click to expand...

I don't need to. I simply expose your hypocritic and untruthful behavior , the rest of your true colors just come out naturally. I bet it's hard to see your true colors in the mirror.

Good. Perhaps I was mistaken about this as well...though I was referring to the whole subjective/objective debate that has transcended into a couple of threads now, not just this thread. Somehow I think that you know this and you are again, purposefully trying to ignore it. I am neither childish or unintelligent

Click to expand...

It's not my fault if others had transcended the subjective/objective debate into a couple of other threads. When I debated with Future in the tree life vs human life thread, I had already warned him that I did not want to get into that debate because I knew it would get very circularly messy and abstract. But, he ridiculed me for being afraid to get into such debate, so I entertained him until the arguments became circular without end and I called it off before the Memorial weekend.

You should heed your own advice and lighten up. If people want to carry on a debate that goes on and on, let them enjoy what they like. Why are you so intolerance and start to get mad? Why all the fuss and much ado about nothing? Can you just go on with your life and read some other posts or threads? Nobody is putting a gun in your head to force you to read everything in this thread, is there? And worst of all you're accusing against the wrong guy.

I can tear you apart in a debate if you want...but thus far you are not worth it.

Click to expand...

And you're telling us you wonder why the hostility, disrespect, and rudeness? And yet you are blind to your own hostility, disrespect, and rudeness! I had already torn you apart in your failure at the firefighters and caviar scenario. I could even pulverize your silliness into powder if you keep going at your silly arguments.

You play lame-O games about he said she said and that is gay. You can't even get past the teeny weeny insults. Do you think that they make you superior? I have no idea why you are acting as you are, but it sure is revealing a lot about you as a person. #2

Click to expand...

And you're telling us you wonder why the hostility, disrespect, and rudeness? See what a hypocirte you are in every step of the way. And yet you are blind to your own hostility, disrespect, and rudeness!

You were hoping I won't point out your fault if you can just silence me into he said she said gay thing, weren't you? I know I have go into lengthy discourse to present my case against your false accusation. And not just sit there like a lame duck for you to slander. But, I won't drag on forever. I'll stop when I have said my peace.

Your attempt at name calling for trying to portray me as gay does not work with me. I don't look down on people who are gay or different than I am. So, you can call me what you want. It doesn't hurt me if there is no evidence to support your attempt at name calling (unlike your character as hypocrite and blind as you are as demonstrated with evidence already presented here). And shame on you to use the term "gay" in an attempt to slander somebody.

Yeah, it sure is revealing a lot about you as a person as I have exposed you here. As for me I am just giving you back what you deserve.

Yes I have. But generally I am fairly careful so as to not create confusion. If I do create confusion, I just acknowledge my mistake and keep the immature insults out of the conversation. I am accountable for myself, something that you are barely able to do to this point. Again, grow up

Click to expand...

Then quit mocking people's typing error. I am also generally careful so as not to create confusion, but why the need to attack typos or grammatic errors? If you find something you can't understand, simply ask for clarification without resorting to childish linguistic attacks.

And since when have you acknowledged your mistake and keep your immature insults out of the conversation? Saying you can tear me apart, gay, etc is not acknowledging your mistake nor keeping your immature insults out. That's a big flat lie. I would like to see you account for yourself and own up to your wrongs. I am waiting for your apology, and not another long ranting going on and on blah..blah...blah...

You ridiculousness is getting tiring. Are you again trying to ignore the facts or what? What you accuse me of perhaps? Here you go...THIS SHOULD BE CLEAR!

Click to expand...

What facts do you have other than insults and false accusation? Go back and read the previous threads and the beginning of this thread and you tell me who were going on and on trying to pursue the debate on subjective/objective argument. Whoever did, it doesn't need you throwing your tantrum for something you find dumb and stupid.

Just because you find it dumb and stupid that it must be so. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that people have to quit to appease you.. Whatever happened to your so-called "infinite perceptions of reality"? Or is it just YOUR perceptions of reality? Don't be a hypocrite!

See? IS it clear now? I did ask for clarification and I even speculated about you not having English as a Primary language. This is called intelligent buddy boy.

Click to expand...

You called that clarification? I call that an insult. Is this what is meant by subjectivity? So, you can insult somebody and call it clarification? And you wonder why people are rude?

I am open to why it was incoherent...it was not simply a typo or two, those sentences are a mess. The syntax is bad in addition to the typos. It is all good, even now...I think we can clear up the miscommunication. #3{/QUOTE]

Get off you high horses, you hypocrite! Let me show you your hypocracy of what you wrote:

"Perhaps English is not you first language, so we can let it go if it is not…"
"I'll address our misommunication one more time..."
"You ridiculousness is getting tiring"

At least get yourself straight if you want to be so self-righteous to criticise other people's typos and grammer. You hypocrite!

No I did not. I told Future to end it because who cares who is correct and who is not? I certainly don't.

Click to expand...

No, you give Future advice to ignore me and stating I was not worth the time. From the get go you already indirectly and directly slanted against me. But who cares about what you think. I am just giving you back what you ask for. If you don't like a debate, just move on, why find fault to create a quarrel that you can't seemed to walk away?

I simply said declare yourself a winner and move on. Big deal. Do you argue endlessly with a person when you can't change their mind to see your opinion? No. By your own admission no. Right? So I see this debate going on and on and on and I say...end it already...who cares, just move on.

Click to expand...

Why should I or Future declare ourselves a winner? And why should we move on if we intended to debate and didn't want to move on? Why do you think you have to be the one calling the shot? Why does it bother you? Are you having an itch you can't settle down? If you don't care, just move on. Nobody is forcing you to care. If we don't move on it's none of your business.

But that really bothers you. you think that this means that I have entered the debate. It does not. I am sorry if you do not agree or understand. Simple point of fact. I am not in that debate...I am debating you regarding manners and accountablility then and now.

Click to expand...

Get off your delusional high ground. Who are you to think that you are now teaching me manners and accountability. Don't be a big old nanny, and don't fool yourself that you are not in the debate. You just failed to practice what you preach. You can't move on yourself and here you are admonishing others of going on blah..blah..blah, which is what you are doing right now. I am here to see how far you can go before you eat your own words...

This is #4 that you need to acknowledge.

Click to expand...

Who said so? And why should I? Just becasue a hypocrite like you said so?

You should not use absolutes so often. This is the first time I am pointing it out, but this is certainly not the first time against me that you have done this.

Click to expand...

Is that your law that I should not use absolutes so often? I thought you said that there are "infinite perceptions of reality"? Or are you ignoring your own point...about "You have yours...they have theirs...I have mine"? So now you are saying I can't have mine? And you must have yours? See how you self-contradict your own principle. It's so pathetic, your principle just fell apart.

Sorry to all readers for very long posts trying to anwer point by point, but otherwise I'd be accused of not following the so-called Debate Rules by not answering all the questions or the points raised.

Anyway, I am tired of your foolishness. I've said what needed to be said. Now it's just getting ridiculous with all the name callings. It's also getting way off topic of this thread which I was trying so had to avoid at the beginning with Future.

Perhap, you never know how to practice what you had preached. Here, let me show you how to just let go and move on like I did twice with Future. And please be tolerant of others' debate. If you don't like it, simply move on to others quietly. There's no use to fuss and make much ado about nothing.

Here I am letting it go.....off.

:2razz:

Click to expand...

star2589 said:

in my opinion, no, my value is not inherent in that I am a human being, if "human being" is defined to include fetuses.

I cant prove I'm right, you cant prove I'm wrong. all we can do is say "yes it is", "no its not" over and over again until we're sick, and thats not really debating. that is why the concept is useless in this matter.

Click to expand...

Same thing with the concept of "personhood". Don't you also do the same in arguing about "personhood" You argued you're right and we argued you're wrong, over and over again. But it didn't stop the pro-abortion group to use it against the unborn in abortion, did it? So how can the concept of inherent value be useless?

A lot of things we intuitively know the preciousness of their inherent values, we just cannot quantify their value in human quanititative terms. This failure of human limitation is not proof of the null hypothesis, that there is no objective or inherent value. For example, we know the heart organ is very valuable to the survivable of animals and human beings.

Although we can't say in quantitative terms how valuable the heart is. We know that it is so valuable that if you remove the heart without a replacement, you would surely loose your life. Therefore, the equivalent value is the life of the living things. If you lose a hand, you still can learn to use the other hand even though life can be more difficult, but you won't lose your live. Those are inherent values that you can't quantify but you can surely appreciate and certainly a useful concept. It's useful because then you learn to respect your body and that of others and be healthy in your lifestyle choice and choice concerning others.

In terms of human being with inherent value, you learn to respect other human life and make the right choice concerning actions that can affect the life of another human beings, be it adults or unborns.

You said you are a human being to include fetuses, but are you saying no to the question regarding inherent value? Are you saying you have no inherent value as a human being?

Jerry said:

If the absence of Objective Value is an Objective Truth, then Objective Truth has no value, and is worthless. So why should I care?

Click to expand...

Because you are neglecting Free Will, and your power to set Subjective Value, and the additional power to reach compromise with others on those values. Subjective value is basically associated with usefulness-to-the-Subject. An Objective Truth can be Objectively Worthless, but it also can be Subjectively quite valuable. And you know full well you deal with Subjective Values at least occasionally (every time you compare prices for something you are thinking of buying) -- so just because everything in all the stores is Objectively Worthless; that does not change their degree-of-usefulness to you, and hence their Subjective Values to you, one whit. You do not need Objective Values for anything!!! ALL those values out there that you habitually think of as being Objective are actually arbitrary and Subjective, if you only take the time to think about their usefulness factor.

For example, the notion that all persons have equal value is equally useful to all persons, regardless of the Absolute Magnitude of that Subjective usefulness and Subjective Value. If you disagree with that lone statement (note it doesn't involve comparisons of persons to anything else), then you should be able to find a logical flaw in it. Let me know!

Blastula

Weak. Seriously weak.
You have a lot to learn my friend about accountability.

I apologize if I offended you in any way shape or form in this "debate"...
True offense was never an intent of mine.

Take it easy.
:2razz:

FutureIncoming said:

Because you are neglecting Free Will, and your power to set Subjective Value, and the additional power to reach compromise with others on those values. Subjective value is basically associated with usefulness-to-the-Subject. An Objective Truth can be Objectively Worthless, but it also can be Subjectively quite valuable. And you know full well you deal with Subjective Values at least occasionally (every time you compare prices for something you are thinking of buying) -- so just because everything in all the stores is Objectively Worthless; that does not change their degree-of-usefulness to you, and hence their Subjective Values to you, one whit. You do not need Objective Values for anything!!! ALL those values out there that you habitually think of as being Objective are actually arbitrary and Subjective, if you only take the time to think about their usefulness factor.

For example, the notion that all persons have equal value is equally useful to all persons, regardless of the Absolute Magnitude of that Subjective usefulness and Subjective Value. If you disagree with that lone statement (note it doesn't involve comparisons of persons to anything else), then you should be able to find a logical flaw in it. Let me know!

Click to expand...

You are mistaken if you think I am confusing Subjective Values with Objective Values.

All Subjective Values have no value if there is no Objective Value. Without Objective Value, nothing ultimately means anything and everything is ultimately worthless.

Making logical arguments are ultimately worthless. Showing a flaw in someone else’s logic is ultimately worthless. This and you have already rejected the worth of any objective evidence I could provide, so there simply is no point.