Ok, but if you aren’t sure what a person is how can you know a corpse is still a person?
Aren’t you basing a conclusion (a corpse is a person) on something you aren’t able to even define (what a person is)?
At the very least it seems to me you should be no more confident that a corpse is a person than you are confident what a person is…no?

Ok.

I understand the distinction you are making between human and person. I meant to say "person" in the same sense you are using it. You and I disagree about whether or not people in a vegetative state are people. That's a matter of value, not fact. — T Clark

Maybe. How do you define “person”?

To their family and friends, yes. — Vera Mont

That doesnt mean that they are. That is a sentimental illusion people might use for comfort, but does not form an actual basis to claim anything. In what way would they be a person if braindead? What possible definition of “person” could you be using here that includes a biological entity with no mind in it?

Human and person are not interchangeable, are you wanting to say the braindead are human or persons? I would say they obviously human, but not a person.
What do you mean “we get to decide what we consider human”? What merit does such a decision have? How do you justify that statement?

I think its pretty obviously due to squeamishness, not logic. Its really the same thing, ghoulish perhaps but not immoral. Its a carcass, an empty shell. In fact one could argue the merits of its morality, if one thinks of recycling and not being wasteful as moral imperatives.

Even if they are brain dead? Still a person?

The biggest philosophical puzzle I’ve encountered is the people who are trying to solve them. :wink:

That seems fair to me.

Thats why I referred to it as your pet false equivalence. It was clear the issue sticks in your craw. I realize you dont think its false of course but when I made comments like “in service of your false equivalence” I meant it to allude to your passion for this issue. Its obviously important to you.
I believe you, so apologize for chalking it up to a bit of trolling (which btw, doesnt really offend me). I’ve made a note to myself so that I too will try harder in our next exchange.

If atheism consisted merely in a lack of theism; I wonder where the motivation to argue for it would derive.

It seems to me that atheism would in many cases consist merely in lack of theism, and it seems likely that we don't get any argument coming from those people; we probably don't hear their voices. — Janus

The motivation is self defense. When theism wants to teach creationism in schools or prevent gay people from getting married then we must argue.
If theists didn’t do those things, people wouldnt have nearly the same reasons to argue.
When a theist uses their theism as a basis for things that effect other people, I think its perfectly reasonable to ask them to justify the theism. Thats where most of the arguments begin.

There seems to be no doubt that in many cases atheism is actually antitheism; and in those cases it would certainly count as an ideology. — Janus

I agree, I think antitheism is what most people are criticizing when they criticize atheism. I don’t know if antitheism is an ideology, but its at least a position on theism which goes beyond the simple binary stance on theism that atheism is.

On both sides, I would argue, we find the ideologues; one side arguing that everyone ought to believe in God and the other side arguing that everyone ought not believe in God. — Janus

I don’t think you need to be an ideologue to argue against theism, as mentioned above theists give you plenty of reason to argue without the need to be an ideologue.

Of course they do. It's part of their ideology and it's why the offer restrictions on religion. The atheism you find in communist countries isn't just an innocuous mission statement, but it informs the way they control their people and beliefs, and it's also part of their fundamental Marxist ideology. — Hanover

Atheism has no ideology. Thats why you always have to mention communism and marxism etc along with the atheism. Atheism alone has no edicts, no rules, no goals…its merely a position on theism.

It is therefore possible (and quite common) for a theist and an atheist to be secularists, meaning they have whatever beliefs they might have, but they don't believe government should involve itself in enforcing those beliefs.

What this means is that I disagree with your comment I quoted above, where you assume what my response to you would be. That is, I do not believe a theocracy can be secular because that is a self-contradictory statement. If a nation has a religious belief system and they use it as law, that would not be secularist, but would be theocratic, and it would be immoral. — Hanover

Uh..ok. I stand corrected as to what your response was going to be.

the same token, a government that has taken a formal stance on the issue and determined itself atheistic and then attempted to impose those beliefs on others would be as immoral as the theocracy I described above. — Hanover

Agreed, but that immorality wouldnt have atheism as its source.

That is, I have provided you the very example you were looking for, which was that of an oppressive atheist. What you are trying to say, which is simply false, is that the communist nations cited just happen to be atheist, just like they may happen to have red flags, and those two facts have nothing to do with their immorality. What I am saying is that I fully understand your distinction between relevant and irrelevant causes of the oppression, and I am saying that the atheism factor looms large as one factor among many in informing the cause of communistic oppression. — Hanover

We are talking about atheism, not communism.
Also, Im not saying they just happened to be atheist.
Listen:
Im saying that atheism is not the reason for their immorality. Atheism is not a ethical system, nor a system of belief of any kind. Again, this is why you must attach your criticisms of atheism to communism.

The point you are missing is that an atheist government doesnt do anything based on its atheism. What they do, they do for other reasons. You really need to get this bit down. Its important.
To which of course you will reply with a reference to the lack of theism being the source of any immorality.
Go ahead and make the case, I’m listening.

If my recent experience with you is representative, your response to posts you don't like is to question the motives and good will of those you disagree with. — T Clark

My conclusion was based on your responses. Maybe my conclusion is incorrect.
You DID rephrase what I said and tried to put words in my mouth. When I attempted to clarify what I actually meant you said it was irrelevant. You quoted my points partially and followed up with short rebuttals that ignored most of what I said. You didnt clarify points but quickly chalked them up to…I don’t know, atheist dogmatic responses?
It all gave me the impression that this wasnt a discussion for you. It seemed like you were annoyed and sorta fucking with the source of your annoyance. If you were actually interested in a good discussion you would have listened better, or so I imagined.
It wasn’t because I didnt like your post though, I’m not that petty. A good discussion needs disagreement.
I am understand where youre coming from, I admit I do rely on assessment of motive and good will when I cannot think of better explanations for peoples responses. Its the internet, a shitshow of personality disorders and the bravely anonymous. One must exercise caution.

I'm not "leaving it out." It's not relevant. — T Clark

It most certainly is relevant. Its what I’m talking about, and what you are commenting about. I just explained in my previous post exactly why its relevant. You choosing to ignore it in service of your pet false equivalence doesn't make it irrelevant.
You're obviously deeply invested in equating theism and atheism, have at it. I’ve made my point clearly and don’t think Ill add more.

Another reason it's irrelevant. — T Clark

You are the one who broadened it out! :lol:
You were being a word weasel, rephrasing what I said, leaving words out or adding them as you needed to in order to service your false equivalence. I point it out and your response is “bah its not relevant anyway”. Hilarious.
Im beginning to understand this isnt a discussion for you, but rather some adversarial trolling. So doubly hilarious for you I guess, congratulations.

Unless the atheist"s lack of morality arises from his atheism — Hanover

Your case to make.

Or some other ideology. — Janus

Yes, agreed. To be honest I think theism takes some unfair blame for what is just tribalism.

Are you saying that theists as a group do more bad things than atheists? — T Clark

No. Im saying theists as a group do more bad things based on their theism than atheists do bad things based on their atheism, and that theism can be the basis for a bad act by a good person.
You keep leaving out the “based of on their theism/atheism” part in service of your false equivalence.
Leaving that bit out is entirely different, because then you are just talking about groups (as opposed to what those groups do according to the groups theistic structure). Once you broaden the scope by talking about groups in that way theism and atheism become a false dichotomy, for we know that they are far from the only moral factors/basis. Thats another discussion Id be willing too have, but its its not the same thing that I am discussing here.

Where did you look and how hard? :roll:
As in the example in bigotry towards gays above, you can reference any instance where someone who is otherwise good, commits some immoral thing based solely on their theism. Have you seriously never seen evidence of that?

In order for this to be true, one of two things must also be true.

1) Atheists must do bad less than religious people do. I see no evidence of this.

2) Religious people must be better people than atheists are. — T Clark

I don’t see it. Atheists and theists are people, people can be good or bad. The same is true for vegans and non-vegans, farmers and not farmers, etc. people being people.
The difference is that the atheist is not referencing his religious belief system for instruction, the theist is. That is why it is a false equivalency. For example:
You got a bigot against gay people. He is a bigot because of his deep insecurity that he might be gay cuz he got a boner in the boys locker room in highschool and everyone made fun of him. This person could be atheist or theist, it really doesnt matter.
Now you have a non-bigot. They are a non bigot because there was no such incident as a catalyst/reason. This time however, whether or not they are an atheist or theist certainly matters, because the theist can read and learn from religion to be bigoted. The atheist has no such reference he can make to atheism, his atheism cannot be the reason for becoming a bigot.
So it bears repeating, good people do good things, bad people do bad things but for a good person (i don’t hate gay people) to do a bad thing (oh I hate gays now, bible says its a sin) you need religion.
So, Ill fix your statements (sorry, you left out key components in service of your false equivalence)
1) Atheists must do bad based on their atheism less than religious people do bad based on their theism. I see plenty of evidence of this.
2) Religious people must be better people based in their theism than atheists are based on their atheism.

To which my reply would be 1) is correct. 2) is incorrect because nothing is based on atheism.

You might have a point if you were talking about anti-theists, but alas with atheists your point doesnt land at all Im afriad.

The key difference being that an atheist wouldnt be doing it based off of atheism while the theist is basing it on their theism.
It bears repeating: good people will be good and bad people will be bas but for a good person to be bad you need religion.
This false equivalency between atheism and theism is so tiresome.

Edited for grammar

One can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing.

So it is with all acts of censorship
— NOS4A2

That doesn't follow.

What’s wrong with free speech absolutism?

Given that your reasoning appears based on a utilitarian principle, a simple argument against free speech absolutism is that there is at least once case where more is gained than lost by censorship. Perhaps the sharing of military intelligence with a foreign nation is one such example. — Michael

You must have missed this one. Interested in your response.

Fair enough.

I agree, ”what is best” is the question. Just to reiterate my point one last time, what isn’t best is doing things only one way.
“Whats best” is going to depend on context. Gotta know the job to know which tools best. So thats a very robust question. I think whats best will depend in whats valued though so it depends on ones values. The tricky part is conflicting values, those must be balanced.
So I guess my quick and dirty general answer would be that whats best is a balanced, adaptable and non dogmatic approach. In the context of what I think youre getting at I would say its best to achieve a balance between individualism and collectivism
Based on your OP, I think we disagree? You would want individualism to take precedent whenever the two come into conflict?

Ok, so sometimes we decide to take rights away and sometimes we do not. Sometimes we do collectivism and sometimes not, depends on whats best. This was what I meant by best tool for the job. I think my objection stands, I would not want to to restrict myself to one tool or solution (sort of has the stink of dogma doesnt it?) and instead use individualism or collectivism as the situation calls for.

Whose “we”?
Can “we” not choose when and where to afford these rights, or take them away? For example, if someone is jailed because they committed a crime, they lose their right to whatever restitutions (fine, jail etc) “we” have decided they lose.

Rights? As defined by what?

Yes, it seems like a false dichotomy to me. Like you must choose individualism or collectivism. I think you can use either or depending on what goals or paradigms each is best suited for. So my objection is that you seem to be demanding a choice between the two, whereas I would prefer not to become beholden to a single tool so I can use the best tool for the job.

Jesus Christ, it really not that complicated. When the moderators tell you to stop breaking a forum rule, listen and stop breaking the rule and you dont get banned.
That really shouldnt be something a grown adult has trouble with, and everyone in support of the OP is acting like a child and shouldnt be indulged. Grow up people, accept that if someone gets banned its nobodies fault but their own.
Also, ask yourselves why his is the best philosophy forum? Might it have something to do the moderation?!
OP and friends want to bring a little more kindergarten to the forum policies. I think OP and friends should be put in with actual kindergartener's so they get another shot at that whole growing into an adult who accepts the consequences of their actions and others.

Maybe. But if one can operate under the pretense of civility then it must be possible to operate based upon genuine civility. I interpret this as saying, that is difficult. — Pantagruel

Sure, it is possible to have genuine civility. I remarked on how it is more often not the case in the context of debate or argument. The pressure of debate brings out the weasel in people, and civility is often the means by which they avoid accountability.

Civility is highly overrated. It is good for smoothing social transactions with strangers but in the context of a discussion or debate its more often used to dodge accountability for ignorant or weak arguments. It is also used as a means of high roading or virtue signalling ones way out of a losing argument.
Also, sometimes the truth is not civil. Operating under a pretence of civility when this is the case is not only dishonest and coddling, it is generally unproductive. Too much sugar coating and the fact you needed medicine is too easily forgotten. :wink:

He wouldnt have anyway, thats his trick. Discourse with Bartricks was an illusion imo
He would have ignored anything he didnt directly use as a vessel for insult. You were just the latest hopeful to begin a lesson that ends with you realizing you’re wasting your time you just never got the chance cuz he got banned. Good riddance.

Doesn’t bother me. Always nice to learn what buttons set someone off. — Joshs

I sincerely hope neither of us is bothered by this exchange. Im just goofing on ya a bit cuz you think Barticks was a worthwhile poster. You’re begging to be made fun of there, like the flat earther website that says they have members all around the globe.

Really? Is that what this has come to? Quibbling about word meanings. Let's get back to the vituperation. — T Clark

Well Clark, the end game of quibbling about word meanings was an insult (couple of dunces I implied) so it was still in the right tone I thought. Sorry, word meanings was the only way to lump you two together since “idiot” only describes one of you. Ill do better, scouts honour.

You don’t know what “projecting” means. Look it up. It doesnt just mean identifying traits in others that you yourself possess, its attributing traits to others based on your own possession of them. Attributing traits based on the other person actually having those traits is just being accurate and rational.
Anyone got a pair of dunce caps for these chuckleheads?

Have you noticed that those most eager to jump on the
‘pummel Batricks’ bandwagon share some of his uncivil
tendencies? Maybe a bit of projection going on here? — Joshs

Whose pummelling the guy? This is a thread about bannings, we are discussing the banning of Bartricks.
Besides, you like it when I call you an idiot. Gets your juice flowing, right?

So he made coherent arguments that you were convinced were always incorrect? Sounds like a typical TPL interchange. — Joshs

His arguments were not coherent. They were at times internally consistent but all based on logical fallacy.
You just can’t be paying attention if you thought Barts posts were indicative of the normal discourse here.
There is being cheeky or abrasive, and then there is vacuous trolling.

Never underestimate what you can learn from trolls with a personality disorder. Or what you can teach them. — Joshs

Maybe the first one encountered, but I learned nothing from Bart, and Bart never learned anything from anyone that I saw. So what are you talking about?

Whoa whoa whoa champ, when was I mean? You got a problem with being a twat? Kinda sexist. :chin:

‘Bad actor’. Big deal, so he was obnoxious. Personally, insults get my competitive juices flowing and seem
to bring out my best arguments. Maybe we should use a metric like ‘percentage of insults to arguments’ to decide who gets booted, to make sure our delicate sensibilities don’t blind us to whatever substantive contributions are intertwined with a nasty delivery. — Joshs

Obnoxious doesn’t cover his behaviour. The bad acting was also utter lack of engagement bordering on proselytizing, disruptive influence on all discussions he was involved in and completely disingenuine.
His “interesting” ideas we're all based on the same basic fallacy he couldnt recognize.
The only reason he lasted as long as he did was because of idiots like you who thought they found a sparring part er rather than a troll with a personality disorder.

I can't believe you said that about Tclark! :fire: — frank

Lol, well come on. He NEVER misses an opportunity to express his self righteous condemnation of other posters, especially mods.