Total posts: 14,582
-->
@Tradesecret
therefore this means that Saul is David is Solomon is Herod.
+ 1
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Course it applies to humans only who cares what tigers or deers are doing in their day-to-day life. They're off in jungles and forests doing their own thing they don't interfere with us. But to say there's no unifying moral principle is basically saying that human beings are pieces of s*** that want to do what they want to do and hurt others if that's how you want to live you're free to do that and when you get caught you'll go to prison.
ok, we both agree that humans are not animals (at least when considering morality)
do you have a coherent set of moral principles or do you mostly just consider your gut-feeling and or moral intuition ?
there are no "wrong answers"
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you have to ask that about certain things then you're evil.
asking questions is not evil
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Why did he kick Satan out of heaven?
demands for equal rights
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
ok, atrocious atrocity is atrocious, i get it
the obviously repulsive stuff is obviously repulsive
but i think what we're looking for here, is some sort of coherent moral principle
that applies exclusively to humans
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
All known intersex conditions still fall under this binary understanding.
so, no ancient greek hermaphrodites
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Just like there are conditions where a woman is born with an X and a Y Chromosome but develops entirely female is a woman.
"androgen insensitivity"
also,
in exactly what kinds of situations does it need to be "known" by the state, and or the public at large, what i look like naked ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
all humans are proto-typically female
the male is a mutant
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s irrelevant, and frankly up to a doctor to designate. Is it possible to have 6 fingers on a hand? Yes. But do we say that humans have 6 fingers on a hand. No.
it can't be "irrelevant", since it is EXPLICITLY the key point of this entire discussion.
"up to a doctor" you say ?
appeal-to-authority much ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Exactly. Deviation from typical traits does not make you no longer of a particular kind of thing. This is well known and established within the philosophy of science, yet it is ignoring this very understanding that leads to attempts to call sex bimodal instead of binary.
this is a matter of ontological choice
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore a certain amount of developmental anomalies relating to gender are to be expected.
THE QUESTION AT HAND IS, HOW DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE THESE "ANOMALIES" SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Men are adult males whose role in reproduction is delineated primarily as insemination.Women are adult females whose role in reproduction is delineated primarily as gestation.It's always been that clear-cut to me.
what do you make of those who have no reproductive capacity ?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I suppose one could argue that some fiction exists in which good always triumphs, and there is no evil,
it is extremely difficult to write an engaging story WITHOUT some sort of (implicit) "danger" that will hold the attention of anyone over the age of five
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
My moral intuition agrees with yours poly but that only makes it an opinion we agree upon and incidentally (or not so incidentally) one which aligns with the good of the species.Moral arguments are ought statements.
well stated
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
...may or may not be evil you have a problem with evil in your own self.
is it "evil" when a rabbit eats it's own newborn infants ?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
All people will age, that is inherent programming.
but not necessarily at the same rate
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Right. We wouldn’t change the age of consent laws and statutory rape laws to accommodate a person who feels a very different age.
a judge might consider "mental competence" however
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
We would never entertain a young-looking, botox-filled, plastic-surgeoned 76 year old claim to be 30 in any official sense.
according to "THE LAW" if you are younger than 18 you are not considered an adult (legal entity)
and if you are 18 or older, you are considered an adult (legal entity)
"THE LAW" does NOT concern itself with whether or not someone is age 30 or age 76 when they are expected to pay taxes or when they are charged with a crime
"THE LAW" also doesn't care if you wear pink or blue
human judges do seem to give preferential treatment to SOME older people and to perceived women in many cases, but this is not "THE LAW"
this is implicit human bias
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I actually know extremely extroverted people who are so self-assured it's scary and stupid. I equally know really insecure I's who value other's opinons alot.
an insecure (apparent) "introvert" is a failed extrovert - - this is someone who thinks they need positive social reinforcement, but does not receive (what they consider adequate) positive reinforcement
an overconfident extrovert is (EITHER) someone who receives enough social reinforcement to satisfy their sense of self-worth (OR) someone who has adopted a strategy of apparent over-confidence because it tends to result in bluffing out most social competitors
Created:
-->
@thett3
so the population continuously shrinks.
have you seen a world population graph lately ?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
an N over S would never say they equally enjoy travel and imagination
an I over E would always say one's self-image takes precedence over the opinions of others
nearly every single thing you write is J over P
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
ESTJ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What's your particular favourite?
(IFF) GOD = EXISTS (THEN) EXISTS = GOD
in other words, iff god is everywhere and created everything, then everything is part of god
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You're actually going to try to defend my Neo-Nazi family on this?
#NOTARACIST
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That's all there is to it.
yep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What you are seeing is a former KGB agent with severe ASPD already (psychopath/sociopath) growing into a jaded lunatic with PTSD and newfound schizophrenia.He needs psychiatric help but instead is enabled on a global scale to act out his mental illnesses.
zoiks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
if you are to subject some one's or being's actions to moral analysis, can the subject of that analysis still be characterized as "amoral"?
anyone can claim something they feel strongly about like, "mosquitos are teh pure evilz"
but such a claim is extremely difficult (and very likely logically impossible) to quantify
i would suggest that "amoral" might be best applied to (apparent) "actors" who demonstrate (once again, apparent) "moral blindness"
and or alternatively, NOT specifically proven to have (EITHER) "moral" (OR) "immoral" premeditated intentions
it is rare that someone intends to be and or conduct "evil" but it is not "unheard of"
intending to manifest something the actor believes themselves to be "evil" would seem to be a clear cut case of "immoral activity"
however, any claim (of "ill intent") by anyone other than the specific intentional actor themselves would seem impossible to quantify (self-reporting is notoriously unreliable by the way)
any system of justice that relies on "motive" or "intent" in order to render justice is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Thank you for your input.
I believe people are much to quick to rely on their identities to support their arguments.
I think stripping all identity from discussions makes a more focused discussion on facts and logic.
It would seem pointless to be "mean spirited" to someone you know absolutely nothing about.
And of course, invectives could still be reported as normal and actionable by the mods under their current understanding of the code-of-conduct.
I'm not proposing anyone would be able to hide their identity from the moderators.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Masked debates.
Unmasked after voting period has expired.
Pure genius.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I'd fully endorse anonymous forum games, or even masks over usernames in debates; but shuffling names everywhere would be so confusing, lead to weird grudges, and be hard on new members who are not in the know.
I like this idea.
Perhaps we could setup an specific category on the forum for anonymous posting.
Of course with the caveat that the mods could still see the "true poster" and posts could still be "reported" or "flagged" as normal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
That some people dislike the choices of the dictator, to you means someone is racist.
that seems like an astronomical leap
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
which religions and or belief systems do you consider "valid" ?The Golden Rule.
are you familiar with "the silver rule" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
maybe one in 10,000 ?Maybe, maybe not.
which religions and or belief systems do you consider "valid" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No. I vote against this.
what if you were given the freedom to "opt-out" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
we are spiritual beings having a human experience not a human being having a spiritual experience.
well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
but unless a specific perceived genetic component comes into it
presumed nation of origin (and associated genealogy) seems like a textbook "genetic component"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Human rights still apply.
what specific "line" do you believe needs to be crossed before "a right to life" evaporates ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
personally speaking, someone (a being) who commits an equal number of, and equal measure of "moral" and "immoral" acts could still be considered "amoral"How?
it becomes a question of motive (which i abhor)
for example, in the classic television series "red dwarf" one of the main characters is a strict "rule-follower" and yet, somehow accidentally causes a radiation leak that kills the entire crew (1,167 souls) - - i believe most people (consensus reality) would still consider this person a "moral" individual
in another example, someone like bernie madoff is NOT (directly) responsible for the gruesome deaths of 1,167 earnest and well-meaning individual humans, and yet, - - i believe most people (consensus reality) would still consider bernie madoff to be an "immoral" individual
there is a rather ridiculous legal standard that is salient to this specific point
technically, a "psychopath" and or "sociopath" is someone who can't tell the difference between (what most people consider) "moral" and "immoral"
i have absolutely no idea how anyone is even hypothetically expected to substantiate such a claim
regardless, this "condition" of being "morally blind" supposedly renders the hypothetical individual "amoral"
so, it appears that even beyond the normal weighing of "good" and "evil" actions of an OOC, we must also somehow "know the mind of god"
it is exceedingly difficult to imagine any such being as perceiving humans as anything other than insects or really probably more likely zooplankton
how much "empathy" do you have for the millions of unique creatures found in a barrel of seawater ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The portion which I've emboldened is key, and a statement I do not reject. Maintaining your description of amorality, would it not be inconsistent with said description to claim OOC is responsible for itemized list of bad outcomes, events, phenomena, etc. whether through inaction or direct cause, and therefore as a result, OOC would be characterized as "amoral"?
personally speaking, someone (a being) who commits an equal number of, and equal measure of "moral" and "immoral" acts could still be considered "amoral"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Certainly. The key thing being that it is by someone's willful choice, not genetics or even culture.
ok, so, no blanket or base "human-rights" for criminal convicts and or terrorism suspects ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
People could type really threatening and nasty stuff, even on PMs, ruining the other's reputation.
and of course, after the wacky-week, everything posted would be re-labeled back to the actual (correct) account that created it (and not the randomized pseudonym).
alternatively, instead of swapping identifiers, usernames and icons/avatars would simply not be displayed for one week
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I do entertain the notion that some people by their own choices, reject shared humanity. While I would still classify Putin as technically human, like a cancerous growth that is also technically human, surgery is needed to remove it.
does this "cancer analogy" apply to any other "(sub)humans" or is this a case of "special-pleading" ?
the concept of "human rights" is something of an obsession for me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, incumbent Vladimir Putin won reelection for his second consecutive (fourth overall) term in office with 77% of the vote.
all serious challengers have been imprisioned and or assassinated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Personally as someone who is pro-human rights, I believe the faster Putin dies by any means, the better for the human race.
i'm guessing you've somehow drawn the conclusion that some individuals are more human than others
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What a preposterous thread. Everyone from Russia I know viscerally opposes Putin's idiotic war in Ukraine, and is afraid to state as much because they risk incarceration if they do so under Putin's new laws. Blaming the Russian people for Putin's idiotic war is like blaming all Americans for Dick Cheney's push to invade Iraq.
well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
profile links would have to be disabled, you don't want to click on one name, go to a the wrong profile and PM.
Exactly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I think swapping front facing identity should be doable, custom but doable. You can't swap passwords. Then your replacement would get to change your settings and see all PMs. Never going to fly.
Yeah, the whole proposal is to make non-permanent name-tag swaps only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'd also be curious why the hell I'd want to be anybody but me.
to perhaps give people a fresh perspective
to see if people treat your words any differently if they don't weigh the burden of your "reputation"
implicit ad hominem (both positive and negative) is pervasive and insidious
Created: