Home
Gallery
FAQ
Search
Log in
Register
DarthAnt66Moderator
DarthAnt66 vs Trini - Summer 2022
January 21st 2023, 1:35 am
This is a debate between myself and allegedly well-respected debater Trini concerning his verdict on DarthSkywalker0 and Warrior Legend's debate on utilitarianism. Much of the original context may be difficult to understand, but please do your best!
TRINI: POST ONE:
Legend won.
DarthSkywalker0 argued that rape is a priori bad ("basically by definition") for utilitarians in order to diminish the power of the criticism. Yet, he also admitted the counterfactual permittance of rape for utilitarians (paraphrasing, "only in some hypothetical world, but that permittance would not be in the real world").
It is with my deepest condolences that I apologize for my companion's performance against DarthSkywalker0. While the victory was expected - and all competent parties have been able to infer this conclusion - I understand that select individuals are outraged by the uncontestable dominance of semi-retired Dragon Ball inverse debater/irregular Ask Yourself student, Warrior Legend.
We shall not show remorse for such an immaculate accomplishment of profound and sagacious philosophical engagement, but we do recognize and apologize for any broken delusions. It is a tall task to overcome the symptoms of schizoesque psychological issues, a condition certain humans, as subjective-oriented creatures, are bound to struggle with. In consideration of these crushed fantasies, we are urging all affected parties to please review some of D+'s introductory reading on self-therapy methods!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
DARTHANT66: POST TWO:
(Black blocks = "DarthSkywalker0")
DarthSkywalker0’s position is that rape is bad because it generates negative utility. The woman suffers physically and emotionally while it happens and for the rest of her life. DarthSkywalker0 believes that this suffering is greater than the utility gathered by the perpetrator. So, rape is not inherently bad; rape is bad BECAUSE it generates net negative utility. The “because” emphasis was repeated dozens of times over, including in the audio snipped.
DarthSkywalker0 explicitly said that in an act utilitarian framework, rape may sometimes (although rarely) be permissible. For example, if the action of raping someone led to a child who then cured cancer, then that rape is permissible. However, DarthSkywalker0 explicitly said in a rule utilitarian framework, rape being permissible in contexts of localized positive utility would ultimately generate more negative utility in a macro/long-run perspective.
DarthSkywalker0 saying you have “changed the definition of the word” if you’re redefining rape as a net positive utility action means that the actions/conditions outlined within his conception of the definition of rape bring forth net negative utility, and so you have to change the actions/conditions within the definition to yield a consistently positive utility output that Legend was describing. This is not in contradiction with DarthSkywalker0 saying rape is “sometimes” permissible because:
(A) DarthSkywalker0 was speaking here from a rule utilitarian perspective. His repeated clarifications surrounding his line make this apparent. That is, DarthSkywalker0 said several times that rape is not permissible under rule utilitarianism but sometimes (although rarely) permissible under act utilitarianism. So, when you hear DarthSkywalker0 say that a definition change is needed, you know under what framework he is referencing.
(B) Legend’s hypothetical was a blanket redefining of rape as net utility positive. You would have to change the definition of rape to satisfy that standard even if there are some cases where rape is permissible.
This--
--and related messages like this show a fundamental misunderstanding of what DarthSkywalker0 said. Because he never said they were necessary. He said they were emergent explicitly and implicitly dozens of times over. You are trying to pin him on the “definition” line despite there being equally permissible interpretations that conform with everything else DarthSkywalker0 said (which I outlined). Not to mention DarthSkywalker0’s clever insertion of the word “basically” before he made the “definition” line, with “basically” not just allowing but signaling that what he is about to say should be taken more loosely than hyper-literalism, and so cannot be in a position to usurp/contradict other points made anyway.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
TRINI: POST THREE:
It's kinda crazy how all Mr. Ant did was restate his initial position. Where did he evidence the interpretation he's offering beyond "I AM ASSERTING HE WAS CONSISTENT"? We have competing interpretations, I presented evidence to the intermediary, and he failed to provide evidence to satisfy said intermediary...
Not looking so hot, mate!
Everything you said doesn't reject he contradicted the position, but, by your own interpretation, conceded on the "metaphor" (?). So, he's a degree of separation from contradicting himself on a literal level... and he used the terms "redefine"/"changing the definition" at least once each.
I forget... what does redefine mean? Restating a definition or changing it. Presumably, high-tier debater DarthSkywalker0 wasn't attacking a criticism by going, "You're restating it." That wouldn't actually defeat the criticism. As such, he meant "changing".
And how did Legend change it? Ah, yes! By saying rape possibly is a utilitarian good.
For him to square that statement, he would have to directly concede one of his points. And then Legend just made him concede. :^]
Guess when rape is redefined (changing the definition of the word) by DarthSkywalker0, that means he kept the same definition the entire time! Brilliant!
When DarthSkywalker0 says "the definition", does that mean the social definition? Perhaps... he held to the social definition he described, which apparently (!) precludes possible rapes that are "utility positive".
I never heard that social definition! I guess when Legend presented the hypothetical of a woman getting assaulted and birthing a world-class doctor, DarthSkywalker0 crumbled under the pressure of Warrior Legend. He randomly cited a social definition he never agreed to, which precludes Legend's point... but also precludes DarthSkywalker0's moral analysis. In short, the best excuse is that - and get this! - DarthSkywalker0 brought up absolute non sequiturs to Legend's critique in addition to failing to communicate without sounding like he conceded his position in 5:56!
Wunderbar!
Any definition that wasn't DS0is' is not relevant to the quality of his moral theory! I know it hurts to hear... it's the truth, though. :^'[
He could have made the point that it aided him in his conceptual analysis... yet, he never did any conceptual analysis on the subject of rape in a moral theory debate (?).
Novice mistake, my dear chaps!
My recommendations: learn conceptual analysis, adapt to commonplace utilitarian critiques, work on using non-concessional language, admit when you're angry at the world for unplanned losses, and carry on!
Dick is rideable any day, even the days you're at your most frustrated!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
DARTHANT66: POST FOUR:
DarthSkywalker0 explicitly outlined the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. DarthSkywalker0 explicitly provided an example under which rape is permissible under act utilitarianism (the child who cures cancer). DarthSkywalker0 explicitly explained that a society that allows rape in localized morally permissible contexts would lead to greater macro/long-run harm and so is not morally permissible under rule utilitarianism. And so DarthSkywalker0 explicitly built a framework of utilitarian understanding.
Are you asking me for proof DarthSkywalker0 did those things? I was told not to record the debate. You have the debate audio. Send it to me, and I’ll be happy to point out these instances with time-stamps. But you spectated this debate, and so you should know what I’m referencing.
Explain why what I said doesn’t reject the contradicted position, lol.
But let me break it down:
Take the definition of rape. More specifically, take DarthSkywalker0’s personal definition of rape, as that is what being discussed here.
That definition has specific actions/conditions. For example, one of these actions/conditions is loss of bodily autonomy.
Said action/condition generates negative utility.
DarthSkywalker0’s position is that given the actions/conditions set within the definition (e.g., loss of bodily condition), rape is generally but not always net negative in an act utilitarian framework but always net negative in a rule utilitarian framework. As aforementioned, recall DarthSkywalker0 clarified the act and rule utilitarianism distinction and ramifications several times.
And so, let’s look at what DarthSkywalker0 said:
“When the rape is given, the wellbeing for everyone is increased.”
First, regardless if you think this is a mischaracterization of Legend’s hypothetical, this is the framework DarthSkywalker0 said Legend “changed the definition of the word.” You’ll notice it functions as a “if, then” and does not have a “possibly” caveat. That is, its meaning is identical to saying, “If rape happens, wellbeing for everyone increases,” or “rape necessarily leads to an increase in wellbeing for everyone.” Note that believing DarthSkywalker0 mischaracterized the hypothetical is different from saying DarthSkywalker0 contradicted himself, or that DarthSkywalker0 mischaracterized the position for the whole of the debate. DarthSkywalker0 also has the discretion to offer subtly different hypotheticals to help better contextualize his response to the presented hypothetical. Legend misinterpreted what DarthSkywalker0 said on almost everything he said. When you send me the debate audio, I’d be happy to point this out, but DarthSkywalker0 was even audibly laughing at several points over this.
.
Notice DarthSkywalker0 is correct to say this is a definition change because rape’s definition doesn’t necessarily yield net positive utility. It leads to net positive utility only a small amount of the time under act utilitarian situations and none of the time under rule utilitarian situations. You have to change the actions/conditions within the stipulations such that they yield prevailing positive utility all the time.
Now, suppose we actually loosened up what DarthSkywalker0 said a bit more: “When the rape is given, the wellbeing for everyone is possibly increased.” That’s not what he said in this instance--and that makes a difference--but let’s suppose he said that. DarthSkywalker0 is still correct to say this is a definition change because he does not believe this under rule utilitarianism. DarthSkywalker0’s repeatedly clarified that rule utilitarianism does not hold rape may even possibly yield net positive utility.
(Addendum clarified in final post: * Note I’m not saying you cannot break down the rule utilitarian non-permissibility of rape into a list of smaller rules, some of which may be permissible. All discussion of rule utilitarianism is specific to a singular rule for rape here. The basic applications of utilitarianism is not complicated -- it should be easy to track the consequences of whatever stipulations listed. )
If you’re saying DarthSkywalker0 here would have to directly concede either act or rule utilitarianism with that line, no.
Absolutely not given what he actually said.
But even taking that new “possibly” quote, still no. DarthSkywalker0 was explaining how both systems work to Legend. DarthSkywalker0 is allowed to make statements specific to only one of the metas, especially when he has provided abundant context for us to know which he is referring to. We know that he is specifically referring to rule utilitarianism because of his prior commentary outlining how they function.
There is no contradiction.
Legend said to suppose rape yields net positive utility then asked would rape be morally permissible if it produces net positive utility.
DarthSkywalker0’s position is that the actions/conditions set within the definition of rape overwhelmingly doesn’t produce (emergent!) net positive utility under act utilitarianism and never produces net positive utility under rule utilitarianism. So, you have to change the definition of rape for that to work generally for act utilitarianism and for any instance under rule utilitarianism.
That’s neither citing a random social definition nor a non sequitur. That’s DarthSkywalker0 explaining that net negative utility is always emergent from rape under rule utilitarianism and overwhelmingly under ac utilitarianism and so you have to change what rape means to have net positive utility instead be generally emergent. So, no, it doesn’t preclude Legend’s point. And no, it doesn’t preclude DarthSkywalker0’s moral analysis.
---
Note that this would be ideally resolved in a call between you and DarthSkywalker0 since, as I told Xan, I have little interest in a back-and-forth debate on this. If you respond, I’d like for you to allow DarthSkywalker0 the opportunity to rebut in voice call in the coming days.
Xan can vouch for my sincerity when I say I have debated for ten years and and have never seen such a discontinuity between someone’s arrogance and demonstrated mental faculties. I am shocked you are actually a college student and existentially rattled that some hold you in high-esteem. You don’t even seem close to getting it, and random side-comments you make reveal additional comprehension failures of even greater absurdity. I am tempted to ask your IQ and GPA to see if they also reflect the unbridled mediocrity I see before me, but you haven’t demonstrated the slightest inkling of good faith for me to think you’ll report them accurately.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
TRINI: POST FIVE:
I know you debate Star Wars (!), but the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism doesn't affect a hypothetical presented in a vacuum of utility-positive rules. Maybe try reading up on the subjects beforehand because DarthSkywalker0 even pointed to this in the debate.
You can build a utilitarian framework then contradict it. Hahahaha! That's unimportant to establishing the absence of concession.
I'm asking for you to rationalize the inference structure relating any of what you said to crippling my interpretation that he contradicted himself. Oh, boy! Good one! Your evidence underdetermines, Star Wars! I recommend examining that key term!
I did. I went line-by-line and mentioned how my position ("DarthSkywalker0 lost") isn't derailed by the contentions since he'd either be a.) an egregious communicator of galactic proportions or b>) he conceded another key point in his frothing tangents! I can simplify more if need be, lad! Just say!
Young Padawan, surely you are not this naive! You can lose bodily autonomy while, through a series of consequent causal events, there is a net positive! Did you not understand that rule utilitarianism permits net positive goods on the condition they lead to good rules, too! Maybe they lead to good rules, which demands that rape is acceptable! That's what DarthSkywalker0 (DarthSkywalker0, gooooo!) talked about in relation to the vacuum point. Interestingly, you mentioned how I should recollect the debate considering my presence, but you are failing at recollecting such a notable statement!
I believe you meant to write that this is the [utilitarian] framework analyzing rape, which DarthSkywalker0 alleged Legend changed the definition of! And surely you're not failing to respond to how Legend was mischaracterized!
Conditional statements typically assume bivalent logic, which clearly are referential to logical possibility as delineated in classical logic of the three Laws of Logic! Are you saying DarthSkywalker0 argued for polyvalent logic, a position he never presented? Even then, conditional statements are referential to some type of logical possibility, even if you stipulate a polyvalent one. It's actually irrelevant to changing the concession assessment because it still permits a shift of position. Good to know you're unfamiliar with conditionals, however! Let me know if you want some reading!
This isn't a definition change for either party, so did he say it out of sheer ignorance of Legend's view, did he concede, or is DarthSkywalker0 a terrible speaker? Legend's argument never supposed the necessity of utility positives indexed to rape! Again, your position is that DarthSkywalker0 can't grasp a simple traditional modality point: in some possible world P, rape produces desired utilitarian outcomes to DarthSkywalker0's liking! That's not saying in all possible worlds, genius!
I can't tell if you can't listen properly, can't read, Xan/DarthSkywalker0 kept you out of the loop, or if you're coping to Hell and back right now...
Xan asked him to clarify, so your entire interpretation that he believes rape couldn't possibly unveil net positives directly contradicts his own clarification! Moreover, that would be a hilariously incorrect position to take considering nothing about rape conceptually necessitates "no rule utilitarianism positives". In a world where raping people leads to our species completely prospering, there isn't an internal contradiction you're going to derive. Again, hence why DarthSkywalker0 himself said in a vacuum and in a minority of cases that rape yields net positives. Please try again!
Note that my position didn't change ("DarthSkywalker0 lost"). I'm saying that even if we steelmanned your silly billy clarifications, which are philosophically inept and directly oppositional to DarthSkywalker0's own words (!), you would be admitting DarthSkywalker0 rhetorically shot himself in the foot and can't follow simple logical inferences. How is that a win by any means? It's not, in short! Maybe winning at a "I can't follow elementary reasoning or speak appropriately!" contest!
Yes, he is permitted to allow more hypotheticals in a vain attempt to mask his poor sense of internal consistency!
You didn't understand what I claimed he had to concede! He has to concede that he was committing logical fallacies, like the non sequitur variety! You see, either he's saying rape isn't possibly acceptable or he used a definition of rape neither party were subject to! Jolly bad show!
It is! Read up!
So, he ranted about a distinction irrelevant to the point! He admitted that the hypothetical was legitimate in its applicability (read Xan's quote of him, sir!), but you don't seem to understand the difference. Rule-act distinction isn't a meta distinction, lad! It's a normative ethical distinction of the flavors of utilitarianism! They are distinct in what they evaluate under the utilitarian lens: individual actions or rules!
So, he's an unparalleled level of bad at speaking... and he even directly contradicted your position? This form of debate is quite sophisticated! I suppose directly contradicting yourself isn't a concession, Ant! You really rewrote the game, my boy!
Yes! You're finally tracking! Proud of you!
Not only is that not his point, but if that were his point, he's a complete pseudo intellectual. I presume he isn't, so I am begging you to please drop that unbefitting point! It would emerge as a utilitarian good if it produces net-positive rules or net-positive consequences as an individual action! Please read up before you comment so boldly! Saying Legend must change the definition of the word (unless you wanna argue a fuzzy/deflationary concept of "rape") means it must shift its essentialist profile! Are you saying DarthSkywalker0 argued that rape isn't possibly capable of generating net positive outcomes on either utilitarianism despite DarthSkywalker0's admission? Please stop! MY ribs are, as a matter of fact, tickled!
AvBvC ⇒ L. You agreed DarthSkywalker0 argued impossibility of the contrary, and he accepted the contrary in the debate alongside in a clarification to Xan, my cherished acquaintance! Any of the other conditions, or many of them simultaneously, are sufficient to call Legend the victor. You've chosen A, that he affirmed and negated the bedrock of his argument in the debate!
He said the opposite. And in some possible world P, rape can almost always cause net positives. Therefore, in some possible world P, rape will qualify as good under rule utilitarianism there, too. Hahahahaha! Oh, well!
Either of you two are welcome! And you're also welcome to revisit this debate with @Jason Lee Scott or @Hasta La Muerte ! I get it, though: you won't be able to! :^[ Poor thing! Peace be upon thee!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
DARTHANT66: POST SIX:
The extent by which you’ve misinterpreted or offered non sequiturs to what I said is staggering. I feel like someone who has just been told they have cancer, with the cancer being the newfound knowledge that someone could write so many pages of text that still fail to grasp, let alone interact with, let alone meaningfully refute very obvious points. This is an astoundingly straight-forward discussion being derailed solely by your ineptitude.
---
Very basic summary of what DarthSkywalker0 said for clarity, though I’m sure somehow misunderstandings will form:
You can imagine situations in which a localized situation of rape yields net positive utility, e.g., you rape someone and their kid cures cancer.
However, if we allow for rape to be morally permissible in localized situations where rape yields net positive utility, then this will dramatically harm other women’s wellbeing due to all the fear and societal restructuring.
Accordingly, from a rule utilitarian lens, rape is not morally permissible in even localized situations because the macro/long-term effects of that would be net negative.
DarthSkywalker0’s post-debate clarification to Xan was specifically about act utilitarianism. Also note that DarthSkywalker0 never said that in alternate realities where the macro/long-run consequences of rape were different and instead net positive that rape would still be considered morally impermissible under rule utilitarianism.
--- --- ---
Now into the specifics. Note I respond to many of your points directly, but all points are responded to throughout --
This is what you originally said:
And you repeated this claim multiple times in DMs:
What you said here was retarded. Not retarded in the sense that you made a single silly blunder but retarded in the sense that you misinterpreted the core underlying and basic point of an hour’s worth of conversation and that only retarded people would do that. DarthSkywalker0 explicitly stated multiple times that rape is not inherently bad but rather bad insofar as it generates net negative utility. DarthSkywalker0 said this at least five times explicitly, including the audio snippet you posted, and innumerable times implicitly through all the examples/hypotheticals discussed and rebuttals offered. I want the debate audio because there is no way to listen to that debate and get the impression DarthSkywalker0 did not do this. To listen to what DarthSkywalker0 said and misinterpret the totality of it is an unprecedented failing on your end. It is a grand testament to you being exceptionally unexceptional.
To your credit, you seem to have recognized this unprecedented failing given you changed your argument into being DarthSkywalker0 contradicted himself between the debate and his post-debate explanation with Xan. I will take that change as a concession.
I applaud the infinity-and-beyond effort in trying to find a way your friend won the debate, but this still doesn’t work. And it doesn’t work for multiple reasons, so you weren’t particularly close.
(A) The “basically” precludes an “if and only if.” The “basically” means DarthSkywalker0’s subsequent line must not be taken word-by-word. DarthSkywalker0 saying you “have to basically change the definition of the word” is not the same as saying you “have to change the definition of the word.” The “basically” signifies you should interpret the line loosely, the actual technicals/specifics being informed through his extensive explanations and examples before and after the line. And so the “basically” prevents the line from generating a contradiction in and of itself. The purpose of the “basically” line is relieving fears that utilitarianism seems unappetizing, and so the line is absolutely relevant to the debate and permissible to say. (“Changed the definition” is said within the context of a pre-stipulated reality in which “if rape is performed, the hypothetical wellbeing for everyone is increased.” As in, if it always is the case within a reality that rape leads to a net utility positive outcome, then DarthSkywalker0 said that is “basically” changing the definition the rape… as rape doesn’t do that in our reality. Again, all of this is concerns clarification of a distinction between that hypothetical world and our world, not the rebuttal itself. Note DarthSkywalker0 is not saying you necessarily must change the definition of rape and cannot keep the definition but then presuppose consequences that always ensure the whole generates net positive utility. DarthSkywalker0 explicitly provided examples of this (e.g. suppose rape stays the same but it means five kids in Africa experience eternal happiness) and even explained to Legend how this works (something along the lines of, “regardless of the negative utility generated from the rape, you’re saying the positive utility would scape upward prevailingly”). However, DarthSkywalker0 did also speak to examples where you do change the definition of rape, such as supposing if you swapped the definition of rape with the definition of sex.)
(B) Even if you removed the “basically,” DarthSkywalker0 still did not necessarily contradict himself. It is permissible to interpret what he said in other ways that conform to everything else he said. (1) As you acknowledge, DarthSkywalker0 and Legend never agreed to any definitions. DarthSkywalker0 permissibly may have at least two definitions for “definition,” one of which catches a wider net of the meaning that includes consequences. Again, DarthSkywalker0 referencing this definition as a clarifying aside to his argument does not mean he failed to address Legend’s argument directly as he explained it in full for many minutes before and after the line. (2) As I said before, DarthSkywalker0 already set up differences in outcomes between act and rule utilitarianism, and DarthSkywalker0 addressed different applications of Legend’s hypothetical. DarthSkywalker0’s line could be read within the context of rule utilitarianism* within a broader framework of supposing that Legend’s hypothetical is stipulating a change to the actions/conditional listed in the definition of rape. If you take issue with DarthSkywalker0 responding to Legend’s hypothetical within such narrow parameters, recall (a) The “basically” point--this is all just saying even if he never said “basically,” you’re still wrong to say he definitely contradicted himself; and (b) DarthSkywalker0 already had responded to the whole of Legend’s hypothetical, and DarthSkywalker0 had established a precedent of addressing subset hypothetical parameters throughout. * Note I’m not saying you cannot break down the rule utilitarian non-permissibility of rape into a list of smaller rules, some of which may be permissible. All discussion of rule utilitarianism is specific to a singular rule for rape here. The basic applications of utilitarianism is not complicated--it should be easy to track the consequences of whatever stipulations listed. Circling back to your revised argument, you still demonstrate a failing to understand DarthSkywalker0’s argument. DarthSkywalker0 provided many examples of how rape would be permissible in our own world within the framework of act utilitarianism during the debate. Saying DarthSkywalker0 does not hold that position unveils your actual understanding of these topics and the debate. (Extremely low-level!) DarthSkywalker0’s post-debate commentary to Xan was explicitly within the framework of act utilitarianism. DarthSkywalker0 tried to explain how both frameworks worked in response to the debate questions. Your confusion seems to arise in an instance where DarthSkywalker0 clarified he’s using loose language (“basically”) and in an instance where DarthSkywalker0 did not explicitly clarify which framework he was using in a post-debate question since he thought you would understand his meaning.
Your whole grievance is a manufactured farce, though whether its manufactured through your Fall of Kabul-tier raw incompetence or utter shamelessness, I cannot tell. Your original grievance has been utterly abandoned, and your new grievance is contingent on a single line that can not just be interpreted a variety of different ways but must not be interpreted in the manner you chose. You are suggesting that the whole of the debate is a wash because a specific reading of a single line contradicts a post-debate question of clarification. Forget a judgment assessing holistic argument consistency, logic comprehension, argument sophistication, and so forth. You’ve chosen to die on the hill that a possible single contradiction between something said within a debate and not within the debate throws the whole thing up in the air. Discarded as fast as you dropped your original grievance after you realized how dumb it seemed! And so shifting to your individual points, I have to emphasize how much of what you said was retarded. You wrote me seemingly complicated word salads you knew your friends wouldn’t understand (you and I both know Legend especially didn’t understand any of that) with the hope that that smoke screen masked your incompetence at following the debate. So many points you made just… didn’t have anything to do with what I said. It’s almost as if you dropped what I said into Google Translate, muddled it around through ten different languages between turning it back to English, then responded to some argument you thought was like the one you read. If you wrote all this on my Star Wars server, I would partner you with another member as an apprenticeship!
---
The distinction can be relevant. Is the utility-positive rules exclusive to the localized system or does it extend to the macro system? DarthSkywalker0 walked through the different variations and explained his position for each. And the distinction ultimately can become relevant (see: point B2!).
It’s important when establishing the absence of concession when the alleged concession is a line that has other readily plausible meanings that conform with the pre-established utilitarian framework!
That doesn’t interact with what I said whatsoever, lol. I said:
This is true. A component of the definition of rape is the loss of bodily autonomy. I never contested the idea that “you can lose bodily autonomy while, through a series of consequent causal events, there is a net positive.” Re-read what I said closely. I said that DarthSkywalker0’s position is that actions/conditions like loss of bodily function, encoded within the definition of rape, generate net negative utility most of the time in an act utilitarian framework and none of the time in a rule utilitarian framework. Now, as aforementioned, if you specifically presuppose consequences of rape that are not emergent from the definition but still yield macro/long-term net positive utility, then DarthSkywalker0 explained his position. Recall his example of the five African kids experiencing eternal happiness and his clarification that the positive utility must scale upward prevailingly. If you presuppose consequences of rape that are emergent from the definition but still yield macro/long-term net positive utility, then DarthSkywalker0’s position would be that this requires a definition change as it pertains to rule utilitarian outcomes.
It’s permissible to just say “framework” in this context. So, no, lol.
Lmao. Fear not about my anger, though. It didn’t need to subside--it’s been fully replaced with the cringe of reading these word salads that have nothing to do with what I said. “When the rape is given, the wellbeing for everyone is increased” is the pre-stipulated truth in the hypothetical. It’s literally the axiom of the conversation. And it is relevant to changing the concession assessment (see: point B2!). Not that it’s needed to change the concession (see: point A and B1!).
You seem to be getting confused between the distinction of something “never” being true within our reality versus “never” being true across all possible realities. The only times DarthSkywalker0 even spoke to the latter was saying that’s not how this works. Legend’s hypothetical world stipulated that net positive utility is generated given rape. My recollection is that in this hypothetical, this was “always” true. Again, that’s not to say it is always true within all realities, but that it always manifests within that particular reality. This “always true within that particular reality” interpretation is specifically what DarthSkywalker0 addresses in the disputed line. However, DarthSkywalker0 still spoke to cases where it was only “possibly true within that particular reality” as well. I sincerely think you’re trying to come at this too fast. Slow down, relisten to the debate, chew on the concepts, get back to me. You’ve come to a baseball game arguing about basketball here even after seeing the baseball game being played.
DarthSkywalker0’s clarification that rule utilitarianism holds that rape is morally impermissible is within the context of our world. DarthSkywalker0 never said all possible worlds. DarthSkywalker0 said “in a minority of cases” within an act utilitarianism framework. This is not that hard to follow, man.
TRINI: POST ONE:
Legend won.
DarthSkywalker0 argued that rape is a priori bad ("basically by definition") for utilitarians in order to diminish the power of the criticism. Yet, he also admitted the counterfactual permittance of rape for utilitarians (paraphrasing, "only in some hypothetical world, but that permittance would not be in the real world").
It is with my deepest condolences that I apologize for my companion's performance against DarthSkywalker0. While the victory was expected - and all competent parties have been able to infer this conclusion - I understand that select individuals are outraged by the uncontestable dominance of semi-retired Dragon Ball inverse debater/irregular Ask Yourself student, Warrior Legend.
We shall not show remorse for such an immaculate accomplishment of profound and sagacious philosophical engagement, but we do recognize and apologize for any broken delusions. It is a tall task to overcome the symptoms of schizoesque psychological issues, a condition certain humans, as subjective-oriented creatures, are bound to struggle with. In consideration of these crushed fantasies, we are urging all affected parties to please review some of D+'s introductory reading on self-therapy methods!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
DARTHANT66: POST TWO:
(Black blocks = "DarthSkywalker0")
DarthSkywalker0’s position is that rape is bad because it generates negative utility. The woman suffers physically and emotionally while it happens and for the rest of her life. DarthSkywalker0 believes that this suffering is greater than the utility gathered by the perpetrator. So, rape is not inherently bad; rape is bad BECAUSE it generates net negative utility. The “because” emphasis was repeated dozens of times over, including in the audio snipped.
DarthSkywalker0 explicitly said that in an act utilitarian framework, rape may sometimes (although rarely) be permissible. For example, if the action of raping someone led to a child who then cured cancer, then that rape is permissible. However, DarthSkywalker0 explicitly said in a rule utilitarian framework, rape being permissible in contexts of localized positive utility would ultimately generate more negative utility in a macro/long-run perspective.
DarthSkywalker0 saying you have “changed the definition of the word” if you’re redefining rape as a net positive utility action means that the actions/conditions outlined within his conception of the definition of rape bring forth net negative utility, and so you have to change the actions/conditions within the definition to yield a consistently positive utility output that Legend was describing. This is not in contradiction with DarthSkywalker0 saying rape is “sometimes” permissible because:
(A) DarthSkywalker0 was speaking here from a rule utilitarian perspective. His repeated clarifications surrounding his line make this apparent. That is, DarthSkywalker0 said several times that rape is not permissible under rule utilitarianism but sometimes (although rarely) permissible under act utilitarianism. So, when you hear DarthSkywalker0 say that a definition change is needed, you know under what framework he is referencing.
(B) Legend’s hypothetical was a blanket redefining of rape as net utility positive. You would have to change the definition of rape to satisfy that standard even if there are some cases where rape is permissible.
This--
--and related messages like this show a fundamental misunderstanding of what DarthSkywalker0 said. Because he never said they were necessary. He said they were emergent explicitly and implicitly dozens of times over. You are trying to pin him on the “definition” line despite there being equally permissible interpretations that conform with everything else DarthSkywalker0 said (which I outlined). Not to mention DarthSkywalker0’s clever insertion of the word “basically” before he made the “definition” line, with “basically” not just allowing but signaling that what he is about to say should be taken more loosely than hyper-literalism, and so cannot be in a position to usurp/contradict other points made anyway.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
TRINI: POST THREE:
It's kinda crazy how all Mr. Ant did was restate his initial position. Where did he evidence the interpretation he's offering beyond "I AM ASSERTING HE WAS CONSISTENT"? We have competing interpretations, I presented evidence to the intermediary, and he failed to provide evidence to satisfy said intermediary...
Not looking so hot, mate!
Everything you said doesn't reject he contradicted the position, but, by your own interpretation, conceded on the "metaphor" (?). So, he's a degree of separation from contradicting himself on a literal level... and he used the terms "redefine"/"changing the definition" at least once each.
I forget... what does redefine mean? Restating a definition or changing it. Presumably, high-tier debater DarthSkywalker0 wasn't attacking a criticism by going, "You're restating it." That wouldn't actually defeat the criticism. As such, he meant "changing".
And how did Legend change it? Ah, yes! By saying rape possibly is a utilitarian good.
For him to square that statement, he would have to directly concede one of his points. And then Legend just made him concede. :^]
Guess when rape is redefined (changing the definition of the word) by DarthSkywalker0, that means he kept the same definition the entire time! Brilliant!
When DarthSkywalker0 says "the definition", does that mean the social definition? Perhaps... he held to the social definition he described, which apparently (!) precludes possible rapes that are "utility positive".
I never heard that social definition! I guess when Legend presented the hypothetical of a woman getting assaulted and birthing a world-class doctor, DarthSkywalker0 crumbled under the pressure of Warrior Legend. He randomly cited a social definition he never agreed to, which precludes Legend's point... but also precludes DarthSkywalker0's moral analysis. In short, the best excuse is that - and get this! - DarthSkywalker0 brought up absolute non sequiturs to Legend's critique in addition to failing to communicate without sounding like he conceded his position in 5:56!
Wunderbar!
Any definition that wasn't DS0is' is not relevant to the quality of his moral theory! I know it hurts to hear... it's the truth, though. :^'[
He could have made the point that it aided him in his conceptual analysis... yet, he never did any conceptual analysis on the subject of rape in a moral theory debate (?).
Novice mistake, my dear chaps!
My recommendations: learn conceptual analysis, adapt to commonplace utilitarian critiques, work on using non-concessional language, admit when you're angry at the world for unplanned losses, and carry on!
Dick is rideable any day, even the days you're at your most frustrated!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
DARTHANT66: POST FOUR:
DarthSkywalker0 explicitly outlined the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. DarthSkywalker0 explicitly provided an example under which rape is permissible under act utilitarianism (the child who cures cancer). DarthSkywalker0 explicitly explained that a society that allows rape in localized morally permissible contexts would lead to greater macro/long-run harm and so is not morally permissible under rule utilitarianism. And so DarthSkywalker0 explicitly built a framework of utilitarian understanding.
Are you asking me for proof DarthSkywalker0 did those things? I was told not to record the debate. You have the debate audio. Send it to me, and I’ll be happy to point out these instances with time-stamps. But you spectated this debate, and so you should know what I’m referencing.
Trini wrote:Everything you said doesn't reject he contradicted the position, but, by your own interpretation, conceded on the "metaphor" (?). So, he's a degree of separation from contradicting himself on a literal level... and he used the terms "redefine"/"changing the definition" at least once each.
Explain why what I said doesn’t reject the contradicted position, lol.
But let me break it down:
Take the definition of rape. More specifically, take DarthSkywalker0’s personal definition of rape, as that is what being discussed here.
That definition has specific actions/conditions. For example, one of these actions/conditions is loss of bodily autonomy.
Said action/condition generates negative utility.
DarthSkywalker0’s position is that given the actions/conditions set within the definition (e.g., loss of bodily condition), rape is generally but not always net negative in an act utilitarian framework but always net negative in a rule utilitarian framework. As aforementioned, recall DarthSkywalker0 clarified the act and rule utilitarianism distinction and ramifications several times.
And so, let’s look at what DarthSkywalker0 said:
DarthSkywalker0 wrote:'If we lived in a world where rape increased happiness, then would rape be good?' Then, yeah. But it doesn't do that in our world. The reason why rape is bad, and the only reasons you provided why rape is bad, is because it decreases the wellbeing of the victim. If you presuppose in the hypothetical that the wellbeing for everyone is increased when the action is given, then you've basically changed the definition of the word.
“When the rape is given, the wellbeing for everyone is increased.”
First, regardless if you think this is a mischaracterization of Legend’s hypothetical, this is the framework DarthSkywalker0 said Legend “changed the definition of the word.” You’ll notice it functions as a “if, then” and does not have a “possibly” caveat. That is, its meaning is identical to saying, “If rape happens, wellbeing for everyone increases,” or “rape necessarily leads to an increase in wellbeing for everyone.” Note that believing DarthSkywalker0 mischaracterized the hypothetical is different from saying DarthSkywalker0 contradicted himself, or that DarthSkywalker0 mischaracterized the position for the whole of the debate. DarthSkywalker0 also has the discretion to offer subtly different hypotheticals to help better contextualize his response to the presented hypothetical. Legend misinterpreted what DarthSkywalker0 said on almost everything he said. When you send me the debate audio, I’d be happy to point this out, but DarthSkywalker0 was even audibly laughing at several points over this.
.
Notice DarthSkywalker0 is correct to say this is a definition change because rape’s definition doesn’t necessarily yield net positive utility. It leads to net positive utility only a small amount of the time under act utilitarian situations and none of the time under rule utilitarian situations. You have to change the actions/conditions within the stipulations such that they yield prevailing positive utility all the time.
Now, suppose we actually loosened up what DarthSkywalker0 said a bit more: “When the rape is given, the wellbeing for everyone is possibly increased.” That’s not what he said in this instance--and that makes a difference--but let’s suppose he said that. DarthSkywalker0 is still correct to say this is a definition change because he does not believe this under rule utilitarianism. DarthSkywalker0’s repeatedly clarified that rule utilitarianism does not hold rape may even possibly yield net positive utility.
(Addendum clarified in final post: * Note I’m not saying you cannot break down the rule utilitarian non-permissibility of rape into a list of smaller rules, some of which may be permissible. All discussion of rule utilitarianism is specific to a singular rule for rape here. The basic applications of utilitarianism is not complicated -- it should be easy to track the consequences of whatever stipulations listed. )
Trini wrote:He would have to directly concede one of his points.
If you’re saying DarthSkywalker0 here would have to directly concede either act or rule utilitarianism with that line, no.
Absolutely not given what he actually said.
But even taking that new “possibly” quote, still no. DarthSkywalker0 was explaining how both systems work to Legend. DarthSkywalker0 is allowed to make statements specific to only one of the metas, especially when he has provided abundant context for us to know which he is referring to. We know that he is specifically referring to rule utilitarianism because of his prior commentary outlining how they function.
There is no contradiction.
Trini wrote:He randomly cited a social definition he never agreed to, which precludes Legend's point... but also precludes DarthSkywalker0's moral analysis. In short, the best excuse is that - and get this! - DarthSkywalker0 brought up absolute non sequiturs to Legend's critique in addition to failing to communicate without sounding like he conceded his position in 5:56!
Legend said to suppose rape yields net positive utility then asked would rape be morally permissible if it produces net positive utility.
DarthSkywalker0’s position is that the actions/conditions set within the definition of rape overwhelmingly doesn’t produce (emergent!) net positive utility under act utilitarianism and never produces net positive utility under rule utilitarianism. So, you have to change the definition of rape for that to work generally for act utilitarianism and for any instance under rule utilitarianism.
That’s neither citing a random social definition nor a non sequitur. That’s DarthSkywalker0 explaining that net negative utility is always emergent from rape under rule utilitarianism and overwhelmingly under ac utilitarianism and so you have to change what rape means to have net positive utility instead be generally emergent. So, no, it doesn’t preclude Legend’s point. And no, it doesn’t preclude DarthSkywalker0’s moral analysis.
---
Note that this would be ideally resolved in a call between you and DarthSkywalker0 since, as I told Xan, I have little interest in a back-and-forth debate on this. If you respond, I’d like for you to allow DarthSkywalker0 the opportunity to rebut in voice call in the coming days.
Xan can vouch for my sincerity when I say I have debated for ten years and and have never seen such a discontinuity between someone’s arrogance and demonstrated mental faculties. I am shocked you are actually a college student and existentially rattled that some hold you in high-esteem. You don’t even seem close to getting it, and random side-comments you make reveal additional comprehension failures of even greater absurdity. I am tempted to ask your IQ and GPA to see if they also reflect the unbridled mediocrity I see before me, but you haven’t demonstrated the slightest inkling of good faith for me to think you’ll report them accurately.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
TRINI: POST FIVE:
DarthSkywalker0 explicitly outlined the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
I know you debate Star Wars (!), but the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism doesn't affect a hypothetical presented in a vacuum of utility-positive rules. Maybe try reading up on the subjects beforehand because DarthSkywalker0 even pointed to this in the debate.
And so DarthSkywalker0 explicitly built a framework of utilitarian understanding.
You can build a utilitarian framework then contradict it. Hahahaha! That's unimportant to establishing the absence of concession.
Are you asking me for proof DarthSkywalker0 did those things?
I'm asking for you to rationalize the inference structure relating any of what you said to crippling my interpretation that he contradicted himself. Oh, boy! Good one! Your evidence underdetermines, Star Wars! I recommend examining that key term!
Explain why what I said doesn’t reject the contradicted position, lol.
I did. I went line-by-line and mentioned how my position ("DarthSkywalker0 lost") isn't derailed by the contentions since he'd either be a.) an egregious communicator of galactic proportions or b>) he conceded another key point in his frothing tangents! I can simplify more if need be, lad! Just say!
That definition has specific actions/conditions. For example, one of these actions/conditions is loss of bodily autonomy.
Young Padawan, surely you are not this naive! You can lose bodily autonomy while, through a series of consequent causal events, there is a net positive! Did you not understand that rule utilitarianism permits net positive goods on the condition they lead to good rules, too! Maybe they lead to good rules, which demands that rape is acceptable! That's what DarthSkywalker0 (DarthSkywalker0, gooooo!) talked about in relation to the vacuum point. Interestingly, you mentioned how I should recollect the debate considering my presence, but you are failing at recollecting such a notable statement!
First, regardless if you think this is a mischaracterization of Legend’s hypothetical, this is the framework DarthSkywalker0 said Legend “changed the definition of the word.”
I believe you meant to write that this is the [utilitarian] framework analyzing rape, which DarthSkywalker0 alleged Legend changed the definition of! And surely you're not failing to respond to how Legend was mischaracterized!
You’ll notice it functions as a “if, then” and does not have a “possibly” caveat.
Conditional statements typically assume bivalent logic, which clearly are referential to logical possibility as delineated in classical logic of the three Laws of Logic! Are you saying DarthSkywalker0 argued for polyvalent logic, a position he never presented? Even then, conditional statements are referential to some type of logical possibility, even if you stipulate a polyvalent one. It's actually irrelevant to changing the concession assessment because it still permits a shift of position. Good to know you're unfamiliar with conditionals, however! Let me know if you want some reading!
Notice DarthSkywalker0 is correct to say this is a definition change because rape’s defintion doesn’t necessarily yield net positive utility. It leads to net positive utility only a small amount of the time under act utilitarian situations and none of the time under rule utilitarian situations. You have to change the actions/conditions within the stipulations such that they yield prevailing positive utility all the time.
This isn't a definition change for either party, so did he say it out of sheer ignorance of Legend's view, did he concede, or is DarthSkywalker0 a terrible speaker? Legend's argument never supposed the necessity of utility positives indexed to rape! Again, your position is that DarthSkywalker0 can't grasp a simple traditional modality point: in some possible world P, rape produces desired utilitarian outcomes to DarthSkywalker0's liking! That's not saying in all possible worlds, genius!
Now, suppose we actually loosened up what DarthSkywalker0 said a bit more: “When the rape is given, the wellbeing for everyone is possibly increased.”
I can't tell if you can't listen properly, can't read, Xan/DarthSkywalker0 kept you out of the loop, or if you're coping to Hell and back right now...
Xan asked him to clarify, so your entire interpretation that he believes rape couldn't possibly unveil net positives directly contradicts his own clarification! Moreover, that would be a hilariously incorrect position to take considering nothing about rape conceptually necessitates "no rule utilitarianism positives". In a world where raping people leads to our species completely prospering, there isn't an internal contradiction you're going to derive. Again, hence why DarthSkywalker0 himself said in a vacuum and in a minority of cases that rape yields net positives. Please try again!
Note that believing DarthSkywalker0 mischaracterized the hypothetical is different from saying DarthSkywalker0 contradicted himself, or that DarthSkywalker0 mischaracterized the position for the whole of the debate.
Note that my position didn't change ("DarthSkywalker0 lost"). I'm saying that even if we steelmanned your silly billy clarifications, which are philosophically inept and directly oppositional to DarthSkywalker0's own words (!), you would be admitting DarthSkywalker0 rhetorically shot himself in the foot and can't follow simple logical inferences. How is that a win by any means? It's not, in short! Maybe winning at a "I can't follow elementary reasoning or speak appropriately!" contest!
DarthSkywalker0 also has the discretion to offer subtly different hypotheticals to help better contextualize his response to the presented hypothetical.
Yes, he is permitted to allow more hypotheticals in a vain attempt to mask his poor sense of internal consistency!
If you’re saying DarthSkywalker0 here would have to directly concede either act or rule utilitarianism with that line, no.
You didn't understand what I claimed he had to concede! He has to concede that he was committing logical fallacies, like the non sequitur variety! You see, either he's saying rape isn't possibly acceptable or he used a definition of rape neither party were subject to! Jolly bad show!
Absolutely not given what he actually said.
It is! Read up!
But even taking that new “possibly” quote, still no. DarthSkywalker0 was explaining how both systems work to Legend. DarthSkywalker0 is allowed to make statements specific to only one of the metas, especially when he has provided abundant context for us to know which he is referring to. We know that he is specifically referring to rule utilitarianism because of his prior commentary outlining how they function.
So, he ranted about a distinction irrelevant to the point! He admitted that the hypothetical was legitimate in its applicability (read Xan's quote of him, sir!), but you don't seem to understand the difference. Rule-act distinction isn't a meta distinction, lad! It's a normative ethical distinction of the flavors of utilitarianism! They are distinct in what they evaluate under the utilitarian lens: individual actions or rules!
especially when he has provided abundant context for us to know which he is referring to.
So, he's an unparalleled level of bad at speaking... and he even directly contradicted your position? This form of debate is quite sophisticated! I suppose directly contradicting yourself isn't a concession, Ant! You really rewrote the game, my boy!
Legend said to suppose rape yields net positive utility then asked would rape be morally permissible if it produces net positive utility.
Yes! You're finally tracking! Proud of you!
DarthSkywalker0’s position is that the actions/conditions set within the definition of rape overwhelmingly doesn’t produce (emergent!) net positive utility under act utilitarianism and never produces net positive utility under rule utilitarianism.
Not only is that not his point, but if that were his point, he's a complete pseudo intellectual. I presume he isn't, so I am begging you to please drop that unbefitting point! It would emerge as a utilitarian good if it produces net-positive rules or net-positive consequences as an individual action! Please read up before you comment so boldly! Saying Legend must change the definition of the word (unless you wanna argue a fuzzy/deflationary concept of "rape") means it must shift its essentialist profile! Are you saying DarthSkywalker0 argued that rape isn't possibly capable of generating net positive outcomes on either utilitarianism despite DarthSkywalker0's admission? Please stop! MY ribs are, as a matter of fact, tickled!
That’s neither citing a random social definition nor a non sequitur.
AvBvC ⇒ L. You agreed DarthSkywalker0 argued impossibility of the contrary, and he accepted the contrary in the debate alongside in a clarification to Xan, my cherished acquaintance! Any of the other conditions, or many of them simultaneously, are sufficient to call Legend the victor. You've chosen A, that he affirmed and negated the bedrock of his argument in the debate!
That’s DarthSkywalker0 explaining that net negative utility is always emergent from rape under rule utiltiarianism and overwhelmingly under ac utilitarianism and so you have to change what rape means to have net positive utility instead be generally emergent. So, no, it doesn’t preclude Legend’s point. And no, it doesn’t preclude DarthSkywalker0’s moral analysis.
He said the opposite. And in some possible world P, rape can almost always cause net positives. Therefore, in some possible world P, rape will qualify as good under rule utilitarianism there, too. Hahahahaha! Oh, well!
Note that this would be ideally resolved in a call between you and DarthSkywalker0 since, as I told Xan, I have little interest in a back-and-forth debate on this. If you respond, I’d like for you to allow DarthSkywalker0 the opportunity to rebut in voice call in the coming days.
Either of you two are welcome! And you're also welcome to revisit this debate with @Jason Lee Scott or @Hasta La Muerte ! I get it, though: you won't be able to! :^[ Poor thing! Peace be upon thee!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
DARTHANT66: POST SIX:
The extent by which you’ve misinterpreted or offered non sequiturs to what I said is staggering. I feel like someone who has just been told they have cancer, with the cancer being the newfound knowledge that someone could write so many pages of text that still fail to grasp, let alone interact with, let alone meaningfully refute very obvious points. This is an astoundingly straight-forward discussion being derailed solely by your ineptitude.
---
Very basic summary of what DarthSkywalker0 said for clarity, though I’m sure somehow misunderstandings will form:
You can imagine situations in which a localized situation of rape yields net positive utility, e.g., you rape someone and their kid cures cancer.
However, if we allow for rape to be morally permissible in localized situations where rape yields net positive utility, then this will dramatically harm other women’s wellbeing due to all the fear and societal restructuring.
Accordingly, from a rule utilitarian lens, rape is not morally permissible in even localized situations because the macro/long-term effects of that would be net negative.
DarthSkywalker0’s post-debate clarification to Xan was specifically about act utilitarianism. Also note that DarthSkywalker0 never said that in alternate realities where the macro/long-run consequences of rape were different and instead net positive that rape would still be considered morally impermissible under rule utilitarianism.
--- --- ---
Now into the specifics. Note I respond to many of your points directly, but all points are responded to throughout --
This is what you originally said:
Trini wrote:DarthSkywalker0 argued that rape is a priori bad ("basically by definition") for utilitarians in order to diminish the power of the criticism. Yet, he also admitted the counterfactual permittance of rape for utilitarians (paraphrasing, "only in some hypothetical world, but that permittance would not be in the real world").
And you repeated this claim multiple times in DMs:
Trini wrote:"DarthSkywalker0's assuming the a priori evil, and he contradicted that position by admitting there are cases of rape being good. If rape is definitionally bad, then it's impossible to have cases where it's good."
Trini wrote:"Yeah, he argued by definition and said there was a case of exception."
What you said here was retarded. Not retarded in the sense that you made a single silly blunder but retarded in the sense that you misinterpreted the core underlying and basic point of an hour’s worth of conversation and that only retarded people would do that. DarthSkywalker0 explicitly stated multiple times that rape is not inherently bad but rather bad insofar as it generates net negative utility. DarthSkywalker0 said this at least five times explicitly, including the audio snippet you posted, and innumerable times implicitly through all the examples/hypotheticals discussed and rebuttals offered. I want the debate audio because there is no way to listen to that debate and get the impression DarthSkywalker0 did not do this. To listen to what DarthSkywalker0 said and misinterpret the totality of it is an unprecedented failing on your end. It is a grand testament to you being exceptionally unexceptional.
To your credit, you seem to have recognized this unprecedented failing given you changed your argument into being DarthSkywalker0 contradicted himself between the debate and his post-debate explanation with Xan. I will take that change as a concession.
Trini wrote:The main issue he has with DarthSkywalker0's argument is in response to Legend's hypothetical, DarthSkywalker0 said that rape would be ok under a utilitarian lens if and only if the definition is changed. But when I asked DarthSkywalker0 to clarify what he meant post-debate, he said that in some small amount of cases, rape could be justified through a utilitarian lens IRL, not just in a hypothetical world where the definition is changed. And as a result, DarthSkywalker0's original claim that rape can only be justified if the "definition is changed" would contradict what he said when I asked him to clarify.
I applaud the infinity-and-beyond effort in trying to find a way your friend won the debate, but this still doesn’t work. And it doesn’t work for multiple reasons, so you weren’t particularly close.
DarthSkywalker0 wrote:'If we lived in a world where rape increased happiness, then would rape be good?' Then, yeah. But it doesn't do that in our world. The reason why rape is bad, and the only reasons you provided why rape is bad, is because it decreases the wellbeing of the victim. If you presuppose in the hypothetical that the wellbeing for everyone is increased when the action is given, then you've basically changed the definition of the word.
(A) The “basically” precludes an “if and only if.” The “basically” means DarthSkywalker0’s subsequent line must not be taken word-by-word. DarthSkywalker0 saying you “have to basically change the definition of the word” is not the same as saying you “have to change the definition of the word.” The “basically” signifies you should interpret the line loosely, the actual technicals/specifics being informed through his extensive explanations and examples before and after the line. And so the “basically” prevents the line from generating a contradiction in and of itself. The purpose of the “basically” line is relieving fears that utilitarianism seems unappetizing, and so the line is absolutely relevant to the debate and permissible to say. (“Changed the definition” is said within the context of a pre-stipulated reality in which “if rape is performed, the hypothetical wellbeing for everyone is increased.” As in, if it always is the case within a reality that rape leads to a net utility positive outcome, then DarthSkywalker0 said that is “basically” changing the definition the rape… as rape doesn’t do that in our reality. Again, all of this is concerns clarification of a distinction between that hypothetical world and our world, not the rebuttal itself. Note DarthSkywalker0 is not saying you necessarily must change the definition of rape and cannot keep the definition but then presuppose consequences that always ensure the whole generates net positive utility. DarthSkywalker0 explicitly provided examples of this (e.g. suppose rape stays the same but it means five kids in Africa experience eternal happiness) and even explained to Legend how this works (something along the lines of, “regardless of the negative utility generated from the rape, you’re saying the positive utility would scape upward prevailingly”). However, DarthSkywalker0 did also speak to examples where you do change the definition of rape, such as supposing if you swapped the definition of rape with the definition of sex.)
(B) Even if you removed the “basically,” DarthSkywalker0 still did not necessarily contradict himself. It is permissible to interpret what he said in other ways that conform to everything else he said. (1) As you acknowledge, DarthSkywalker0 and Legend never agreed to any definitions. DarthSkywalker0 permissibly may have at least two definitions for “definition,” one of which catches a wider net of the meaning that includes consequences. Again, DarthSkywalker0 referencing this definition as a clarifying aside to his argument does not mean he failed to address Legend’s argument directly as he explained it in full for many minutes before and after the line. (2) As I said before, DarthSkywalker0 already set up differences in outcomes between act and rule utilitarianism, and DarthSkywalker0 addressed different applications of Legend’s hypothetical. DarthSkywalker0’s line could be read within the context of rule utilitarianism* within a broader framework of supposing that Legend’s hypothetical is stipulating a change to the actions/conditional listed in the definition of rape. If you take issue with DarthSkywalker0 responding to Legend’s hypothetical within such narrow parameters, recall (a) The “basically” point--this is all just saying even if he never said “basically,” you’re still wrong to say he definitely contradicted himself; and (b) DarthSkywalker0 already had responded to the whole of Legend’s hypothetical, and DarthSkywalker0 had established a precedent of addressing subset hypothetical parameters throughout. * Note I’m not saying you cannot break down the rule utilitarian non-permissibility of rape into a list of smaller rules, some of which may be permissible. All discussion of rule utilitarianism is specific to a singular rule for rape here. The basic applications of utilitarianism is not complicated--it should be easy to track the consequences of whatever stipulations listed. Circling back to your revised argument, you still demonstrate a failing to understand DarthSkywalker0’s argument. DarthSkywalker0 provided many examples of how rape would be permissible in our own world within the framework of act utilitarianism during the debate. Saying DarthSkywalker0 does not hold that position unveils your actual understanding of these topics and the debate. (Extremely low-level!) DarthSkywalker0’s post-debate commentary to Xan was explicitly within the framework of act utilitarianism. DarthSkywalker0 tried to explain how both frameworks worked in response to the debate questions. Your confusion seems to arise in an instance where DarthSkywalker0 clarified he’s using loose language (“basically”) and in an instance where DarthSkywalker0 did not explicitly clarify which framework he was using in a post-debate question since he thought you would understand his meaning.
Your whole grievance is a manufactured farce, though whether its manufactured through your Fall of Kabul-tier raw incompetence or utter shamelessness, I cannot tell. Your original grievance has been utterly abandoned, and your new grievance is contingent on a single line that can not just be interpreted a variety of different ways but must not be interpreted in the manner you chose. You are suggesting that the whole of the debate is a wash because a specific reading of a single line contradicts a post-debate question of clarification. Forget a judgment assessing holistic argument consistency, logic comprehension, argument sophistication, and so forth. You’ve chosen to die on the hill that a possible single contradiction between something said within a debate and not within the debate throws the whole thing up in the air. Discarded as fast as you dropped your original grievance after you realized how dumb it seemed! And so shifting to your individual points, I have to emphasize how much of what you said was retarded. You wrote me seemingly complicated word salads you knew your friends wouldn’t understand (you and I both know Legend especially didn’t understand any of that) with the hope that that smoke screen masked your incompetence at following the debate. So many points you made just… didn’t have anything to do with what I said. It’s almost as if you dropped what I said into Google Translate, muddled it around through ten different languages between turning it back to English, then responded to some argument you thought was like the one you read. If you wrote all this on my Star Wars server, I would partner you with another member as an apprenticeship!
---
I know you debate Star Wars (!), but the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism doesn't affect a hypothetical presented in a vacuum of utility-positive rules.
The distinction can be relevant. Is the utility-positive rules exclusive to the localized system or does it extend to the macro system? DarthSkywalker0 walked through the different variations and explained his position for each. And the distinction ultimately can become relevant (see: point B2!).
You can build a utilitarian framework then contradict it. Hahahaha! That's unimportant to establishing the absence of concession.
It’s important when establishing the absence of concession when the alleged concession is a line that has other readily plausible meanings that conform with the pre-established utilitarian framework!
You can lose bodily autonomy while, through a series of consequent causal events, there is a net positive!
That doesn’t interact with what I said whatsoever, lol. I said:
That definition has specific actions/conditions. For example, one of these actions/conditions is loss of bodily autonomy
This is true. A component of the definition of rape is the loss of bodily autonomy. I never contested the idea that “you can lose bodily autonomy while, through a series of consequent causal events, there is a net positive.” Re-read what I said closely. I said that DarthSkywalker0’s position is that actions/conditions like loss of bodily function, encoded within the definition of rape, generate net negative utility most of the time in an act utilitarian framework and none of the time in a rule utilitarian framework. Now, as aforementioned, if you specifically presuppose consequences of rape that are not emergent from the definition but still yield macro/long-term net positive utility, then DarthSkywalker0 explained his position. Recall his example of the five African kids experiencing eternal happiness and his clarification that the positive utility must scale upward prevailingly. If you presuppose consequences of rape that are emergent from the definition but still yield macro/long-term net positive utility, then DarthSkywalker0’s position would be that this requires a definition change as it pertains to rule utilitarian outcomes.
I believe you meant to write that this is the [utilitarian] framework analyzing rape
It’s permissible to just say “framework” in this context. So, no, lol.
Conditional statements typically assume bivalent logic, which clearly are referential to logical possibility as delineated in classical logic of the three Laws of Logic! Are you saying DarthSkywalker0 argued for polyvalent logic, a position he never presented? Even then, conditional statements are referential to some type of logical possibility, even if you stipulate a polyvalent one. It's actually irrelevant to changing the concession assessment because it still permits a shift of position. Good to know you're unfamiliar with conditionals, however! Let me know if you want some reading!
Lmao. Fear not about my anger, though. It didn’t need to subside--it’s been fully replaced with the cringe of reading these word salads that have nothing to do with what I said. “When the rape is given, the wellbeing for everyone is increased” is the pre-stipulated truth in the hypothetical. It’s literally the axiom of the conversation. And it is relevant to changing the concession assessment (see: point B2!). Not that it’s needed to change the concession (see: point A and B1!).
This isn't a definition change for either party, so did he say it out of sheer ignorance of Legend's view, did he concede, or is DarthSkywalker0 a terrible speaker? Legend's argument never supposed the necessity of utility positives indexed to rape! Again, your position is that DarthSkywalker0 can't grasp a simple traditional modality point: in some possible world P, rape produces desired utilitarian outcomes to DarthSkywalker0's liking! That's not saying in all possible worlds, genius!
You seem to be getting confused between the distinction of something “never” being true within our reality versus “never” being true across all possible realities. The only times DarthSkywalker0 even spoke to the latter was saying that’s not how this works. Legend’s hypothetical world stipulated that net positive utility is generated given rape. My recollection is that in this hypothetical, this was “always” true. Again, that’s not to say it is always true within all realities, but that it always manifests within that particular reality. This “always true within that particular reality” interpretation is specifically what DarthSkywalker0 addresses in the disputed line. However, DarthSkywalker0 still spoke to cases where it was only “possibly true within that particular reality” as well. I sincerely think you’re trying to come at this too fast. Slow down, relisten to the debate, chew on the concepts, get back to me. You’ve come to a baseball game arguing about basketball here even after seeing the baseball game being played.
Xan asked him to clarify, so your entire interpretation that he believes rape couldn't possibly unveil net positives directly contradicts his own clarification! Moreover, that would be a hilariously incorrect position to take considering nothing about rape conceptually necessitates "no rule utilitarianism positives". In a world where raping people leads to our species completely prospering, there isn't an internal contradiction you're going to derive. Again, hence why DarthSkywalker0 himself said in a vacuum and in a minority of cases that rape yields net positives. Please try again!
DarthSkywalker0’s clarification that rule utilitarianism holds that rape is morally impermissible is within the context of our world. DarthSkywalker0 never said all possible worlds. DarthSkywalker0 said “in a minority of cases” within an act utilitarianism framework. This is not that hard to follow, man.
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum|
|
|