I think a benevolent dictator is in a unique position to have the best possible economic system.
The best system is one that takes what works from all systems and creates a new one, so asking for a label that encompasses a particular economic system is folly to me.
What economic system is better than capitalism? The one that keeps the good parts of capitalism and replaces it shitty parts with good parts from other systems.

Her moral worth gives her authority? Does this apply to other people as well? I have moral worth therefore I have authority over others?
Your argument fails until you add a distinction that the life is of no moral value.
Just playing devils advocate, I actually am on your side in this. I do not bemieve in santity of life at all.

Benevolent dictatorship.

My argument in full: A woman has far greater moral worth than a piece of tissue. — Banno

Doesnt that imply that the women is at risk? Thats not always the case, and then your argument no longer works.

No one gets it but you huh? Still havent considered you are the one who might be wrong, and not listening, or understanding.

To the consideration of potential future, isnt there a presumption that the future is good? Wouldnt you have to consider a horrific, pain filled future as well? Also, what about considerations of the negative effects of carrying w child to term and then having it suffer through the system or end up as a criminal cuz they arent really wanted or somesuch? I may have missed this being addressed but it seems important to consider.

Seconded, very nicely put Bitter Crank.

I think I understand what you are saying, I just do not think you are recognizing that your basis and the basis of every moral system starts with an axiom, a definition of what the purpose of morality is. You can make a good, rational case for your method and its basis, and that sets it apart from “whatever you want” that you seem to be concerned about but it doesnt mean it somehow lacks the subjective basis of other moral systems.
Take Terrapin for example. He believes that morality is about how you feel about things, but (he can correct me if im wrong here) that doesnt mean he holds all morality equally valid. Some are better thought out, more educated or impressive in any number of ways and others are just irrational or invalid. Its the same for other moral methods, it ends up being about the same things anyway: logic, reason etc

What then is morality? How do you define morality outside of these concepts? — Christoffer

With other, similar axioms.

Such as? Outside of religious ones and emotional ones I really want to know what people define it as further. I argue that religious morality and emotional-based morality are flawed and cannot be used to define morality since they become such an undefined mess.

In what more ways do you define morality without it becoming "whatever you want it to be"? — Christoffer

I suppose it depends on what you define as emotion based, but any number of ethical systems that operate from a rational or logical basis are just as legitimate as yours is. Anything you must consistently reference in order to determine what is right and wrong. Any moral system with a system of measuement, like the 12” ruler in my analogy.

I know of Sam Harris and some of his thoughts, but this method is myself trying to deduce a working method out of a moral base that isn't emotional and free from religious doctrine. — Christoffer

This is what he endeavors to do in “The Moral Landscape”. His argument is very similar, you may find it a good read.

That isn't what I proposed though. I said they are parameters within the method that is used to define moral choices. — Christoffer

It forms the basis of your method, if you removed them, what basis would you have left?

Would you argue that the definition of harm and well-being as they are defined as concepts in our society is wrong? In what other ways can you define these concepts? Do they ever become so differently defined that — Christoffer

No, rather I would argue that harm and well being are their own ends and not the basis of morality at all. Part of your argument is that if the term means anything, it must mean that. There are other perfectly legit things morality can mean. You’ve read Sam Harris I take it? You are trying to paint a moral landscape?

- Definitions on "harm" and on "well-being" are generally existing within all societies. — Christoffer

This is the subjective bit people are taking issue with. This forms the basis of your standard, but it itself is based in subjective/feelings. I don’t think what you are saying is mutually exclusive to that, nor vice versa, but I think this is what people are getting at.

The part you quoted was sloppily put by me, I meant “you” in the general sense not “you” as in Christoffer.
Not sure you bothered reading the rest since that opening sounded like a miscomprehension on my part, but you go on to describe precisely what I went on to describe.

Only as brilliant as that one “S”assy. And this one.

I think what people are getting at is that you decide the basis for morality, for you its suffering/harm, for emotional reasons and not objective ones.
I think what you are getting at is an objective standard after the fact. The analogy I use is a ruler, say one that measures inches. An inch isnt objective, a person made up the inch and how long it is, it is man made and not objective. However, once this has been done you have an objective standard, an inch is an inch regardless of peoples feelings about it. Morality is like that, and I think the discussion here is divided by that distinction. The points made against you are talking in terms of the basis for morality, which is subjective or feelings or whatever term you want to use. Your points are being made in terms of already established parameters (objective standard) , which you are refering to in your arguments. You are asking, “ok, see that 12” ruler? How many inches do you think that tree over there is in height?”.
Obviously, morality is a lot more complex than a ruler but I think it makes the point. Does that fit with what you are saying or am I talking out my ass?

Lol, right on cue Terrapin.

So that you can understand your error and stop making it. That you see no value in at least the potential for that is intellectual cowardice.

no worries - we disagree. On to the next — Rank Amateur

No. You are wrong and im explaining why. This is a familiar display of cowardess from you. I had forgotten you were the guy who resorts to disingenuous withdrawal (disingenuous because this isnt agreeing to disagree as you imply but rather “i cannot admit I am wrong”).
I will try not to forget again: Rank Amateur is a pretender of civility (much more rude to dismiss rather than say “fuckoff dummy”) and an intellectual coward. I think it will stick now that Ive written it down, that seems to help my memory.

I am framing it in any position, just raising an issue that is part of the discussion. I think maybe yes, you think maybe no, we chat and see what happens. — Rank Amateur

Im sorry sir, but you are. The use of “consent” is being misapplied in direct service to you making the argument that taking on risk includes consent. It doesnt. This is the framing that im talking about, the structure (via misapplying the word “consent”) you are using to make your argument. It services your stance in abortion, but the framing is erroneous therefore it does not support your stance the way you think it does.

this is a legal definition of Implied consent — Rank Amateur

Why are you quoting this? Are we talking about the law, or the morality? I was under the impression its the latter you are concerned with, but you go on to insert more legal factors about doctors and consent forms...you are missing the point about the doctor example, and just muddying the waters.
Intentional or not, you are obfuscating here.

In the case of the robbery, there are 2 acts of free will, one walking down the street, and the robber's to rob them. If I flip your logic to the robber it goes like this - I am a robber it is what I do, I work this street - there is some probability that some innocent person will walk down it, if they do I rob them. I am not responsible, because they walked down the street. — Rank Amateur

Im sorry sir but this illustrates profound confusion. Please notice that you didnt mention consent at all in that, not even your previous, incorrect use of the term. Im not trying to be rude, but you havent flipped the logic at all. You have merely sidestepped and then tried to drag me down an alleyway with you. Your use of my example fails, as the robber is not assuming the risk of an innocent person coming down the street. Thats not risk, that is the whole point of the robbers plans of robbing. Its his hope that someone comes by for him to rob. So I think you’ve jumbled things up a bit here, as I mentioned before you are mis-using the term consent here and from that basis you have become confused. You said you understand but I cannot see how that's possible given your response.

My response would be that the robbery is the action of another. You can't implicitly consent to someone else's action. — Rank Amateur

You are missing the point, this is actually a non-response to the point raised against your position. The point is that doing something that has a non-zero chance of risk isnt consent of those risks. Consent is about a persons approval or willingness. When a doctor does surgery to save someone's life, they are not consenting to that persons death just because that is a risk entailed in the surgery...thats not what consent is.
When a person chooses to drive a car they are not consenting to anyones death if they get in a fatal accident, nor are they consenting that they should die if they happen to ram into a wall. They are accepting risk, not consenting to the results of the risks. You are only framing it that way to support your position, but it doesnt make as much sense as you think it does. You are mis-usung the word consent in this instance.

Well, if there's no paradox then there must be no difference between innocence and guilt as both are being dealt with in the same way via punishment. Do you agree? — TheMadFool

No, We do not punish the innocent, there is no paradox.

Children do not get punished because they are innocent, you would be punishing a kid for being guilty of something just like you would a criminal. Likewise, you would not punish an innocent adult either. You have missed a distinction between general instances and specific instances and conflated the two differently in your argument, as a result your logic skips a beat. There is no paradox.
Also, I think the reasons for punishment differ greatly between kids and adults, with kids its part of teaching them the rules and for criminals its about them breaking the rules having already known better.

I think the truest mark of intelligence is not a measure of intellectual strengths but rather the measure of the LACK of intellectual WEAKNESS.

Amen.

What makes you think they dont want to expand their empire? I think they are just playing a different game than Russia. Russia wants the Soviet Union back, they view it as theirs. After that...sure, probably keep going. The point is, its at the moment about physical power. Land. The Chinese are about information, and dominating in that arena. Like the Ottoman empire, they understand they can assert control without having a military presence. Its not about taking over other countries so much as subverting them. Say what you want about Chinas system, its very efficient. Things get done under a true military dictatorship. That makes them more dangerous imo

Dont forget about China. I think they are a bigger threat than Russia. They are much sneakier and engage in even more information operations, and have the benifit of absolute control over the huge chinese corporations that have inserted themselves on the world corporate stage.

The hysterics of the right and left, the buzzword culture on the right and left, the blatent agenda over truth of the right/left and the mindless demonization of the right/left are not discernable, at least in the US. From the outside looking in, it seems that anyone chastising one side over the other is delusional. Trump blatantly lies, and the left blatantly lies about him in turn. Its mud slinging all around, the bias and lack of good reasoning has infected media and been acerbated on social media by foreign powers.
In general the western world is experiencing a surge of insanity in the left, they have lost any highground they may have once had and the far left looks just as ugly as the far right.

I don’t know. But what I’m saying is that if human life is to be valued, it must be from the moment of its conception. Otherwise people will begin taking opportunities to kill it when it suits them to, as currently happens. — AJJ

I dont think that follows. Human life can have value that isnt intrinsic. You can value human life for traits that are present in a newborn but not a zygote, or egg or sperm or anywhere on the scale. It just depends on where/when the traits are present.

You are welcome, please, have a good day.

I said not all animals, specifically to address this sort of reference. My point being, I do not think it is a matter of only degrees. It is also something that animals either have or do not have. The new research seems to suppport that crows possess reason.

It would be more 'reasonable' to think of reason and instinct as a continuum rather than either/or. Non-human animals can exercise some reason and some human behaviors are instinctual. — Bitter Crank

Most animals aren’t capable of reasoning, they are not equipped for it at all. Its not unique to humans but its not correct to say reason is a continuum. It really is something that you have or do not have.

Why was any of that addressed to me? It has nothing to do with anything I said. Again. This is just you rambling now, using “responses” to other posters as an excuse to blather on about little of substance. Masterbate on your own time, Im out.

You misunderstand or intentionally misunderstand the method I proposed to make that argument. As I said, the method also makes it impossible for those trying to restrict free speech as a form of power, to be able to control free speech. In what way can a person use my method to do this? Give me an example and we can create a dialectic to improve the method further. — Christoffer

They can fail to reason, or both parties could have equally valid arguments. I do not think it avoids the problem at all really, since its still going to rely upon making arguments.

No, it's not. Only if your intention is control. If your intention is to promote well-being for the self and others while keeping the freedom of the individual you measure and calculate the methods according to those parameters. You straw man my argument into a binary idea of restrictions being just about control, nothing of what I said points to it being about control. — Christoffer

You arent listening. Someones intention WILL be control, your method is a mechanism they WILL use. Also, it isnt necassary. Free speech solves the problem better than your method. The two combined might be even better still. Just apply your method via free speech and thats a social policy I can behind.
I am not straw-manning you, perhaps if you are not too frustrated we could start there. Restricting someone's speech is control. You are controlling what they say, or not saying. The irony is that you have straw-manned me here, since I didnt say it was ONLY about control. Of the things that your argument is about, control is one. Thats what I mean.

You haven't understood a word about the method I described earlier. What you are saying is falling in line of a false dilemma fallacy ignoring the nuances of what I've been saying. — Christoffer

Thats because, as I pointed out, your method is not accounting for its inevitable failure. People will fail to reason but still be equally convinced they are right. We need to safeguard against this, free speech is the best way to do that.

Disagree completely, I think you have it backwards on a few fronts and you still havent addressed what ive said, you’ve just referenced some other posts that support what you’ve said. I'm not going to look them up but I understand your argument above.
When you put in the restrictions on speech to prevent people being manipulated by hate speech, you also install the means for others to use those restrictions to suppress whatever speech they choose. Its simply not a good idea for some people to have the power over other people to control what they are allowed to say. Again, all you will do is get the manipulation speeches being done in private, which is arguably worse. No, the best way to fight hate speech is with other speech, to point out the hate speech for what it is. This actually fits with the view you hold already about good argument and reason winning out.
Restricting free speech (to a certain extent, im not a free speech absolutist like Terrapin) is about control. That control might be fine in the hands if someone who truly has everyones best interest at heart (although I doubt it, as even the best intentioned person can be wrong) but the exact same logic and method can be used by bad actors with other, more nefarious interests at heart and has.

I agree generally, but the benifit of the doubt has delivered the goods too many times for me to not give the person a good, fair chance.

Ok, I understand all that, it doesnt address the failure of the process that necessitates the exclusion of exactly the kinds of things people call hate speech. You are familiar with the tragedy of the commons? As long as someone is able to ban certain opinions or expression of them, no matter how right they may be, someone will use that power to oppress. The worst atrocities in modern times emerge from this, and thats why free speech is do important. Besides, restricting what opinions people can express doesnt change thise opinions. The KKK wore hoods, they hid. I want my racists and crazies right in the open where I can see them. Shout your hate to the heavens at your discretion, so I know where to start looking when there is a lynching.

I think you are missing the point, the fact is that regardless of who is actually right, people will disagree even after going through your proposed tests of wrongness. When they do, an additional
appeal to what is objectively right isnt going to solve anything. The appeal that must be made is to an objective standard of some kind that functions in spite of peoples feelings about their rightness/wrongness. That way, no one can force their own standard on anyone else based on how convinced they are of the argument. For freedom of speech its the same reason that freedom of religion necessitates the seperation of church and state. Its a safeguard against when the process you are describing fails, and it does often fail. If it didnt, I would agree with you 100%.

Im not convinced as of yet that Athena is lacking in substance and logic, the succinctness I agree on though. She said she gets excited, and she seems to be operating from a fairly idiosyncratic basis...im trying to figure it out but Im not sure its a suspension of reason or anything like that.

Im not saying you dont make sense, im saying that the terms you are using dont have any meaning. They are just placeholders for a concept you cant define or explain or know anything about. Thats functionally the same as saying nothing at all.
Also, didnt say you were speaking gibberish, Im saying that a gibberish word with no meaning could function equally well as the one you are using (god etc).
Its difficult to see why your explanations should be called god at all.

Im not sure how to respond to any of that. Im glad that my questions amuse you, but you didnt really address anything I said.
You arent really offering anything of substance, the words are just empty assertions. You could replace “god” with any gibberish word and lose nothing from your statements.
Also, did you just state with pride that you were banned for being frustrating? That doesnt sound like a good thing.

I would say that is a description “b)”, no meaningful definition of god. You have taken some ideas you had and called it god. Why? Couldnt you avoid alot of confusion by not using the word god?
An unknowable god is not a meaningful definition either. It describes nothing, has no exlanatory power at all, no substance at all that would necessitate the use of the term “god”.
So I still disagree.