Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
I often use this analogy as it concerns discrimination in other contexts to point out the hypocrisy and inconsistent reasoning in response to discriminatory practices. That is, what if a government were to implement a quota which all must follow as it pertained to whom they decide to date and potentially engage in coitus? Why would one's practice of discrimination as it concerned sex be any less reprehensible than one who employs? And for those who'll mention that employment is categorically different from dating, I ask that one considers prostitution. For a prostitute who does not engage in coitus outside of her so-called "race," should she be sent to "sensitivity training"? What about a 5% quota for other so-called "races"? Should an escort service revamp their workforce despite the preferences of their clientele?
Is it discriminatory on the basis of so-called skin color (racist) to not date a particular "race"? Yes. But so what?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
ince smallpox was eradicated, the vaccine is not recommended in routine immunization. It is used to protect researchers who work on the variola virus that causes smallpox and other viruses in the same virus family (known as orthopox viruses).
Yes, I'm aware that it is not recommended in routine immunization. But that's not what I asked. You stated that smallpox has been eradicated according to the WHO. So why is the vaccine still administered, albeit not routinely? Isn't "eradicated" an exaggeration?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That is all they do. But, they do not create life as it is already a factor before they unite. That's the whole point; there is no interruption of life. You're trying to say they are not human. What else are they? They each represent one-half of the DNA helix. Human DNA.
Where did I state that they weren't "human"? I stated that "life" begins at fertilization and/or conception because that's when human development is defined to begin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You’re taking the discussion out of the original factors first noted:1. Human development: you ignore the extant gametes, which are already human and nothing else, and already alive, nor can or will they be otherwise prior to conception.
I ignore the gametes because they in and of themselves do not mark the beginning of human development. That is, having sperm, and having eggs does not create "life."
2. Morality and rights have naught to do with the subject at hand.
Fair enough.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
What about smallpox? During the 20th century, it is estimated that smallpox was responsible for 300–500 million deaths. In the early 1950s an estimated 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the world each year. As recently as 1967, the World Health Organization estimated that 15 million people contracted the disease and that two million died in that year. After successful vaccination campaigns throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the WHO certified the global erdication of smallpox in December 1979.
Then why is the vaccine still being administered?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you know Athias is elderly with co-morbidities?
Well, to be fair, he may have read my profile.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The side effect of life is death.'
What?
Today we can reasonably expect to live for 75 years......All largely, down to vaccination and other medical advances.A couple of hundred years ago, you were lucky if you made it to adulthood.
Vaccinations? I thought it was cleaner water, better sanitation methods, and the use of more effective antibiotics that increased life expectancy--not to mention, better hygiene.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
how does the risk benefit analysis tend towards not gettin the vaccine? if you get the vaccine, you have next to no chance of dying. the worst that i see is maybe you might feel bad for some side effects. if you dont get the vaccine, you stand the risk of dying, even if you take precautions you still stand a significant chance of dying.isn't this a no brainer decision that the vaccine makes the most sense?
No, it isn't a no-brainer. The presumed benefits of this vaccine do not outweigh the risks especially with steroid-pumped concoctions. The vaccine prevents neither the contraction nor the spread of the virus. So can the vaccine prevent one from dying from the virus? No. At best, the vaccine can fortify one's response to the virus once contracted; it is meaningless if one's immune system can't fight off virus (like giving a sword and shield to an eight year old.) This virus, much like influenza which spread just 100 years prior, isn't going away. And the more practical response--much like that to influenza--rather than a biannually administered intravenous pharmacological solution which risks heart disease, stroke, bone damage, etc., is to just simply practice good hygiene (and nutrition.) That's the no-brainer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What if your grandparents made a contract with a bunch of people to give them a bunch of land they could presumably hunt and farm on (so they could stay alive) and then changed the deal and gave them much less land than they had promised and also polluted the water supply and killed off the animals.You didn't do any of this.But you know, hypothetically, what if your grandparents did this.Does the passage of time magically make "wrong" things "normal"?
How could they have changed the deal if they made a contract, at least unknowingly to the other party? The stipulations should have been made known to each party involved before the deal was final. That is, if the other party did not want less land and a polluted water supply, then they could've opted out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Sounds like textbook coercion to me.
Only under the premise that they're entitled to a given wage rather than the one informed by the commerce their production generates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Modern society is based on money which you get from a job. So if you tell people you need to work to survive then yes it is an evil.
There are a few issues with your statements.
- It presumes that money is only, or at the very least primarily, acquired through work.
- It presumes that everyone who survives works.
- It presumes earning a low wage is evil.
Would you mind elaborating on how each contribute to or inform evil?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, I like where you're going with this.Would you perhaps say, INACTION IS NEVER IMMORAL?
Yes, I would.
You're right.We need to agree on an explicit definition of "evil" in order to avoid "begging the question".In the meantime, would you accept, "necessary-unpleasantness"?I propose,(IFF) you wish to stay alive and achieve and or maintain some level of physical and emotional comfort (THEN) you may need to prepare yourself to engage in some "necessary-unpleasantness"
I have a tendency to conflate evil with immoral. But let's put your proposition to the test. Suppose you have an identical twin brother. You're suffering from kidney failure and require at least one kidney to continue living. Your identical twin brother is a perfect match, but he refuses to give up his kidney. Do you steal it--his kidney that is? Is he--your brother--evil for not submitting his kidney?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Some believe dropping the atomic bombs on Japan were a necessary evil and that the war would have gone on for years if we had not.
The mass murder of non-combatant civilians was necessary? No, that was evil, the qualification of "necessary" notwithstanding.
Is allowing migrant workers to earn lower wages to keep our food prices down one.
Unless those workers are being coerced into work, then no, there's no evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe it is a "moral good" to let someone starve to death while you have more than you need?
One can't "let" someone starve. That presumes that one has a responsibility to the nourishment of others. (I'm fairly certain you know where I can extend the logic of this rationale.) And does one's need really qualify one's claim to a possession or mitigate the theft of that possession? One's need will always be determined by him or herself, not that necessity is necessary to establish a claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I am curious what people think are activities that are described as "a waste of time." I know there are many. One of them, to me, is spending time in discovery of who people are by identity. Oscar Wilde once said, "Be yourself; everyone else is taken."I take that as wise advice. The best person anyone can investigate is themselves. Who else is as important? If one is investigating another at the expense of knowing, for example, how to research a debate proposal to see if it a good fit with their body of knowledge and ability to argue with that body, which would be, after all, a good exercise to challenge the self, and to accomplish a bit of self-discovery in the process; to do otherwise is folly. A waste of time.Thoughts?
I always thought that quote by Oscar Wilde was a wonderfully poetic aphorism. As for matters that are a waste of time, I find that those who lack the inner resources to make best use of their time are the ones who engage wasting their time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And even beyond these technicalities, I find it imperative to nail down specific word definitions with specific speakers because each person has a somewhat different understanding of each term, based on their personal lived experience, even when both parties are speaking the same language.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving MIGHT BE a "necessary evil".
That's just prioritizing survival. It doesn't mitigate the nature of the action, which is wrong.
Would it still be the case if we were to change the context? Case in point: what if a man shoots up a convenience store, critically wounding its store owner, just to steal enough cash to move him and and his infant child out of a dangerous neighborhood?
What if a man lifts a loaf of bread from the same starving person who had just stolen said loaf in your reference because he himself was starving?
Primarily the idea of "necessary evil" revolves around the concept of "the noble lie".For example, in governance theory, just like a general in battle, "saving the lives of the soldiers under your command" is almost NEVER your primary goal.A king will always be "stuck between a rock and a hard place" because nearly every decision they make will cause SOME to suffer and SOME to profit.When there is no "perfect win-win" solution apparent, then one must choose from the "less wrong" of available "necessary evils".
The system of interaction is predicated on and manifests from evil. That would be like, for example, my deciding whether to kill one slave because he's bullying and threatening my other slaves. As "master," I too would have tough decisions to make especially as it concerns a group of people--their being coerced notwithstanding. Yet no one is scrutinizing my reasons or moral predication for my having slaves. The notion of "necessary evil" is no more than a platitude to justify those (evil) systems of interaction. It is a delusion which attempts to diminish the evils perpetrated on select individuals under the guise of a collective benefit. It is as cognitively dissonant as the notion of "the greater good."
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
No.
My point exactly. These vaccines aren't Teflon shields wrapped around one's respiratory system. Injecting the virus especially with some corticosteroid is an exaggerated response to that which can be addressed by simply practicing good hygiene (e.g. the way one avoids contracting the cold or flu viruses.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t get the distinction between a “necessary evil” and just plain evil.
Well stated. "Necessary evil" is nothing more than a cognitively dissonant prose which attempts to justify doing evil.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines could offer immunity against COVID-19 for up to two to three years. However, they will most likely have to be administered annually. [**]
But what does it mean when these vaccines provide "immunity" against COVID-19 for a specified period of time? Does that mean that one is insulated from contracting the virus? Does it mean simply to provide a strength in one's immune system which isn't necessarily quantifiable? Whenever I hear or read of these vaccines, the dangerous side effects are never mitigated by these presumed benefits.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
in medical matters, let's just say I have deep background;
And this means?
about as deep as can be had without going through medical school. It's been a profession in my family for three generations, it just skipped me by my own choice.
Then you and I are similar in this respect, but it does not provide any information to the extension of your argument, any more than it would mine.
The above ignores that the dosage of the vaccine is sufficiently low to usually allow the immune systems to make sufficient antibodies to prohibit infection should one contract the virus, rather than the full strength of the virus and not have any boost by a vaccine to sufficiently defeat the virus.
It does not ignore. It doesn't mention. And yes, I know that the vaccine introduces a weakened infection to the immune system. But once again, what does this mean to one whose immune system can't fight off the infection? I ask this to control for the effects of the vaccine, specifically to ascertain whether the effects are reproducible. And they are not. That is the reason one has an antibody test afterwards.
And I am in the highest risk population, so, you may feel sufficiently invulnerable, but I am not, and I know it.
I don't feel particularly invulnerable. I just know the risks of the pharmacological effects of these vaccines, not to mention that I believe in the resiliency of the immune system. One of the first books I read as a child was my mother's book on Pathology. So as a kid I developed the habit of practicing good hygiene especially with the knowledge of how infections transmit. I'm not stating one shouldn't take the vaccine if that is what one has decided, though personally I would not. But to claim one is a "stupid GOP'er" for neither wanting nor intending to take the vaccine is another thing.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That claim is a bit cheeky. Inoculation [the process by which a vaccine is introduced, so the two terms are mostly synonymous]
Inoculation and vaccination can be synonymous. So then it's merely a matter of describing that which vaccination/inoculation does, and that's to introduce the infection to one's immune system. So when I state vaccines "inoculate," I'm not stating that vaccines "vaccinate" which would reflect the cheeky characterization you mentioned. I'm stating that vaccines "introduce the infection to one's immune system [inoculate.]"
does not, by itself, "stop" a disease, but it does bolster the immune system to recognize and attack the viral infection to eradicate, or "stop" its progress.
That's like arguing that training to use one's firearm "stops" intruders. It's the immune system that produces the necessary antibodies that may "stop" the disease. The vaccine helps with this, but so does contracting the infection in the first place should one not succumb to it. And this is the reason I made sure to make mention of compromised immune systems as well. What good is a vaccine to an immune system which can't fight off the infection?
I maintain my argument: vaccines neither "stop" nor "cure"; they inoculate.
But, medical science has improved since those days [the 50s] in more fully understanding the body's immune system [not a great name considering what has been found] and now recognizes that I am not "cured" of ever contracting the disease again. Every five years, I am now vaccinated for small pox.
If you're getting vaccinated every five years, what has the vaccine accomplished? If it's to bolster one's immune system, then there are alternatives that don't require intravenous introduction of an infection/disease/syndrome.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you still haven't given a coherent response as to why a person wouldn't get vaccinated. the risk to reward here is a no brainer.
My response was coherent enough. Once again, vaccines inoculate; they don't cure. I don't know what "reward" you assume you're getting from being vaccinated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
No. As you agreed, an observation is unintelligible unless brought under a concept. I argued that they are interdependent. Reality would only be unintelligible if our observations aren't brought under a concept, but if they are, as I propose concepts must do In order to connect with reality in their own right, then they will be intelligible.
I neither agree nor disagree. I'm reflecting your own affirmations. And reality, according to your description, is not intelligible (i.e. "brought under concept") because it opposes concept. Here, let's define reality using your cited description:
Reality - The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Would you like to change your argument that observation must be "brought under concept" in order to be intelligible? Or would you like to cite another definition of reality? Because when incorporated together, these two premises in an argument are logically inconsistent.
There are an infinite number of Concepts that can be brought about in one's mind. Until those concepts have something empirical to tie them to reality, then there is no way to differentiate them from any other figment of one's imagination.
What is a figment of one's imagination? How is it different from concept? And why must observation be brought under "a figment of one's imagination" to be intelligible?
The empirical element seperates the concepts that correspond to reality from those that don't.
How?
Like I said, physical laws are properties of matter.
No, Physical Laws incorporate properties of matter, which in and of themselves, are informed by concept. They are not properties of matter.
The fact that matter behaves consistently in controlled experiments, is the reason we can describe those properties with equations. The reason we consider those descriptions "laws" is because thet consistently make testable predictions about novel future data.
Physical laws, once again, are physical laws if and only if they can be mathematically proven. You can argue that they help make "testable predictions about novel future data" but they are defined by a sound mathematical argument, which does not require a controlled experiment.
Yes, but it has to be able to be demonstrated to be called knowledge. Otherwise, one could call any wild conjecture, "knowledge". Its important to remember that knowledge that a concept exists is not the same as knowledge that that concept is true.
And concept cannot be demonstrated independent of this yet to be described "empirical element?"
What if one were to define demonstrate as:
Oxford:
2. clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.
and proof as:
Oxford:
1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
then, wouldn't the Ontological Argument be a demonstration reflecting knowledge?
Idk, maybe? Probably.
You don't understand the construction of your own argument?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
this is a pandemic. maybe we should wear masks, and stay away from folks who may have the virus. maybe we should get vaccinated. ya know the things that stops the disease from killing you.what's so complicated about this?they say only two thirds of folks want to be vaccinated, and that might not be enough to reach herd immunity.a lot of you are GOP'ers, so id think a lotta you dont want vaccinated.this doesn't have anything to do with sensibility, but it has everything to do with being politically brainwashed.so, why the stupidity?
First, and this is important: vaccines DO NOT CURE; THEY INOCULATE. THEY DON'T "STOP" ANYTHING. IN FACT, THEY CAN HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT WHICH PRODUCES THE RESULT YOU CLAIM IT STOPS.
Second, I have not been vaccinated, and I don't ever plan to get vaccinated. And I'm not a "GOP'er."
Third, here's the sensibility in not being vaccinated: the media has been exaggerating the effects of this so-called "disease" especially by producing mass panic in claiming that contractions of this disease may produce NO SYMPTOMS. (Not to mention the lockdowns and "social distancing.") Given the fact that it's primarily a respiratory infection, as long as one CAN BREATHE one can contract it regardless of social distancing, masks, or vaccination when one is exposed. Furthermore, unless one has a compromised immune system, the resiliency of the human immune system as well as one's off the counter supplements should suffice (I've personally seen this work with one who contracted the virus three times and bore a compromised immune system.)
The stupidity is in posting a hit-piece based on the information of sheep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Everything is debatable. Extending arguments/propositions to their logical conclusions however is not influenced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Reality - The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Wouldn't "reality" according to this description be unintelligible? What does it mean to "actually exist" in opposition to an idealistic or notional idea?
Physical Laws are descriptions of properties of matter. The empirical elements of matter inform the concepts they are brought under: physical laws.
Physical Laws are defined by mathematical proof. That is, physical laws = physical laws iff they can be proven mathematically.
Observation is, as you agreed, unintelligible without a concept to be brought under. If they are interdependent, then they will necessarily have to both be present with the other to convey knowledge.
Is this an inductive argument? Are you assuming interdependence? Once more, I'll ask: How can an unintelligible element offer "substance" to concept?
There is a problem trying to take a concept alone as knowledge, because there is no way to differentiate that between what's real and what's in one's mind.
But reality is unintelligible, as is observation according to your descriptions. What substance do either provide to the possession of knowledge? Isn't knowledge in one's mind?
There is a gap between a concept, and knowledge about reality. That gap can only be bridged with an empirical correlate.
How does an empirical correlate bridge this gap?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The reason that a concept needs an empirical element is because the concept and the observation are interdependent in order to inform about reality. Reality can't be reasoned conceptually alone, or else it has no tie to reality; in a similar fashion, observations rely on concepts to be intelligible. In this way, they are interdependent. Alone, neither produces knowledge, they have to be Incorporated together.Without an empirical element, you can never bridge the gap between a specified concept, no matter how specific, and knowledge.
How can an unintelligible element offer "substance" to concept? That is, how does an unintelligible element tie concept to reality? (Again, I'm using your description.) If the two are mutually dependent on one another (interdependent) then there'd be no concept without observation and no observation without concept. When I asked how you'd control for observation independent of conceptualization, you responded that you don't. Yet your criticism of the ontological argument presumes to control for conceptualization independent of observation. Why have you done this knowing that the two are mutually dependent?
To elaborate on this further, I'll invoke the concepts of physical laws. What makes a physical law a physical law? It's not observation, per se, but conceptualization. That is, a physical law is substantiated by mathematical proof alone. And what is the reason mathematics alone is sufficient in substantiating physical laws? Because mathematics is an arithmetical derivation/expression of what? Reason--a concept.
So let's revisit your argument:
- No concept, however specific, can convey actual knowledge if it doesn't correlate to some empirical element.
- So the argument can only generate specific concepts of god, but it is empty as a source of actual knowledge.
- In order to have knowledge, either empirical or conceptual, it has to bridge the gap between those categories. Concepts must tie to something empirical in order to have substance, and observations must be brought under concepts to be intelligible.
- Because if they don't, then you cannot ever connect that concept to reality, you can only specify the concept.
So why does concept need observation--an unintelligble element--to tie into reality? What would your description of reality be? And how does observation connect concept to reality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Concept alone cannot bridge the gap between concepts and reality. That bridge is incorporation of an empirical element. Without that, it cannot inform about reality.
Let me rephrase: you stated that observations (empirical) must be brought under concept in order to be intelligible. So what is reality independent of concept? That is, what function does an unintelligible observation serve in an argument of proof? You’ve already delineated what concept provides an observation, but what does observation provide a concept? Why is reason alone not sufficient in arguments of proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Because if they don't, then you cannot ever connect that concept to reality, you can only specify the concept.
So concept does not inform reality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
In order to have knowledge, either empirical or conceptual, it has to bridge the gap between those categories. Concepts must tie to something empirical in order to have substance,
Why?
and observations must be brought under concepts to be intelligible.
This is an inescapable consequence of being subjective observers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think one major problem for the Ontological argument is that it cannot convey knowledge of god's existence. It is a wholly conceptual argument, and without an empirical element, it can only become more specific as a concept.
So concept does not inform existence?
But no concept, however specific, can convey actual knowledge if it doesn't correlate to some empirical element. So the argument can only generate specific concepts of god, but it is empty as a source of actual knowledge.
It must correlate to some empirical element? First, how do you control that which you "observe" independent of the concepts you assign it?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
When I first moved to the state wherein I now reside, I immediately saw a TV local news broadcast of the retirement of the school board superintendant, whose retirement package included the title to her company car. Well, I wasn't that upset about that item until the broadcast included a photo of the car: a two-year-old Mercedes 2-door coupe. REALLY? Is that the best use of the education apportionment of property taxes? I'm all on for supporting public education with my taxes, but I draw the line at that kind of apportionment.
That's not the worst of it. Many of them receive six-figure severance payments. Public financing, in any form, whether it be for health care or even education, is a scheme. It's a means to siphon funds from the unwitting without legal dissent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Does human mortal life begin at conception? At the first breath of life [post-natal]? Sometime in between? At the first heartbeat? The first brainwave? At birth? Not at all [the simulation theory]?Or is it before all of that?1. Consider that the two meeting gametes, female and male, are already living organisms, even before they leave their protected residences.2. Consider that, at least for the female, her ova are created while still in fetal development. All of them she will have over her entire fertile life exist, and are living before she is ever born.3. Does extant gamete life somehow have a pause in life until conception, even briefly? No.I invite your theories.
I propose that "life" begins at conception because human development is defined to begin at fertilization and/or conception. Rights however begin with moral agency because rights are moral concepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's the hypocrisy of the "letter" movements. The transgendered "female" whom Rand Paul was interrogating clearly didn't want to hint that there's an implicit encouragement to sexualize minors. I remember I once had a discussion with someone I know well, who happens to be homosexual, and we were discussing Gabrielle Union's bringing her minor son to a gay pride parade, when I then asked her about her thoughts on the matter. I knew from past discussions that she was against the idea of sexualizing minors, so I wanted to know whether she thought that homosexuality would somehow mitigate her opposition. And to no surprise, she maintained her opposition to sexualizing minors, and thought it was "poor optics" to have children at that parade.
There are a lot of double standards going unaddressed because the people concerned, or the ones with the capacity to address it, are too afraid to come off as a "bigot."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Death23
@Death23There's pretty rampant discrimination against ugly people, short people, left handed (not so much in this culture) people, etc. that is all just the same to me as racial discrimination but is legal for the most part.100% THIS.
The problem with attempting to make discrimination illegal as far as it concerns "ugly" people, is how does one identify, much less quantify "ugly"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
@3RU7AL
Do you think someone should be able to be fired for sleeping with their employer's spouse?Even though you can't change who you're attracted to?
And there's that slippery slope. Nice one, 3RU7AL.
@Danielle:
What if a married couple who lives in the state of Massachusetts hires a 32 year-old male babysitter to look after both their 13 year-old daughter and their 16-year old daughter, and said babysitter starts a sexual relationship with the 16 year-old (let me point out that the age of consent in Massachusetts is 16 years-old) because he identifies strictly as an ephebophile (he "doesn't have a choice,") should his employment be protected by the Civil Rights Act or the Equality Act despite the married couple's intent to fire him after discovering the aforementioned sexual relationship?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
You are not the arbiter of what cancel culture is.
Irrelevant.
There is no set definition and there are many loose interpretations of what qualifies, including but not limiting to firing someone for a perceived moral transgression
Convenient for one who has just argued that there is "no set definition." If you're going to argue that you're applying a different definition of "cancel-culture" then your equivalence is undermined. You would have to establish how your definition equates to that of the conservatives you're criticizing.
Yes, I do.
I'm going to abandon this regress.
Was the passage of the Civil Rights Act informed by the notion that characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc. couldn't be changed?Yes.
How?
That wouldn't make sense given that they included religion which can be changed,Right, I said that.
No, you said that religion wasn't inherent to one's identity. But your argument is that the Civil Rights Act was informed by the notion that particular characteristics couldn't be changed. The Civil Rights Act includes religion. So if we were to operate on this premise, religion would/should not have been included, right? So how you explain its inclusion, while also maintaining your premise?
It was a good natured joke about Jewish people. That's why I said "lol." I don't feel the need to explain it if you don't get it.
I'm not questioning the nature of your joke. And there's a bit of a disconnect here: if I did "get it," why would you then feel the need to explain? I'm asking you to elaborate expressly because I don't know what you mean. If you don't intend to, that's fine. It's your prerogative.
Little kids are not researching the terms and should not be privy to sexual knowledge prematurely
Kids don't ask adults for explanations? Is that not research?
If they are, it is not the fault of gay people using the terms "husband" and "wife." Research the terms "mother" and "father" and they will lead to sex as well.
Their concern is not herterosexual sex, especially if it's sex among an adult male, and an adult female who are in a legally binding, long-term monogamous relationship (marriage) a la "husband and wife." Their concern is their children's impressions of homosexuality, which once again, they see as a perversion. And yes, the terms "mother" and "father" also indicate sex.
What I said was if the terms "husband" and "wife" conjure up thoughts of sex, then the parent has already failed at protecting their kid from knowing what sex is. As in if I referenced my "wife," little kids should not be thinking about us fucking. The same goes if I referenced my husband.
I extend my previous statement.
Right, and that's as idiotic as a parent saying they don't want their kid to know deaf people exist. Again saying "this is Danielle's wife" is not any more risqué or sexual than saying "this is Danielle's husband." Drawing pictures of families in kindergarten and one student drawing two moms is not any more risqué or sexual than drawing a kid with a mother and father. You don't need to talk about sex when it comes to families or relationships. I doubt anyone is talking to young children about their parents having sex, and if they are they should be investigated.
It's not. According to the aforementioned cultivated evangelical Christian base, homosexuality is an abomination; deafness is not. They're using their capacity as political participants to conscript the government into prohibiting the normalization of homosexuality, thereby insulating their children from any undesired impressions they may form of homosexuality. And once again, I extend my previous statement about their concerns.
I never said they were synonyms.
You didn't have to. I scrutinized psychology, not neuroscience. How would you explain your mentioning neuroscience at all if you weren't attempting to create an equivalence? Was it just a non sequitur?
Should so-called "Blacks" be deprived privileges by the State commensurate to their deviation from the mean?No.
Why not?
Do so-called "Whites" get afforded more privileges?Arguably, yes.
So-called "Whites" get afforded more privileges because of their recorded average I.Q.? Give me an example of few such privileges.
What about men and women, and their alleged psychological differences? What about adults and children?What about them?
For one, the arguable differences between men and women in their psychological profiles--i.e. women's profiles being more identical to those of children's particularly as it concerns fear, embarrassment, anxiety, and insecurity? What about the adult's capacity for reason in juxtaposition to a child's capacity? If you're arguing that similar psychological conclusions with respect to any given characteristic should eliminate discrimination, then would it not stand to reason that dissimilar psychological conclusions should encourage discrimination?
I still have no idea what your point is. I referenced psychology because the field has studied sexuality. Psychology research has been used to achieve civil rights victories. For example, the well-known Clark doll study was an integral part of the Brown v. Board of Education case as scientific evidence regarding the detrimental psychological consequences of segregation.
My point is to ask, what utility is there in citing a psychological standard in discrediting discrimination when it's just as useful in encouraging discrimination?
Yes, only because not being able to change something is the logic behind the CRA, and that is the topic of this thread.
So why were religion and color included?
Nobody wants to follow the Bible.
That is incorrect.
We'd have to criminalize tattoos, shellfish and masturbation for consistency which conservatives never advocate.
1961-1997 New York would have disagreed with you. And it's not a sin to masturbate. This is often misinterpreted. The reference was in a brother's not inseminating his dead brother's bride, instead letting the "ejaculate" spill on the floor. That's the sin, because it was a brother's duty to marry and inseminate his dead brother's bride.
Yeah that's how people make educated and informed decisions: sensing, observation and research.
Consensus does not inform truth statements, unless it's in direct reference to the consensus itself.
What's your preferred alternative for finding the answer to this question? If you have nothing to offer explaining why sexuality (attraction) is a choice, then this useless tangent is boring me and a waste of my time.
I've already explained this though:
Athias:
Actions, even sexual ones, are results of choices; and attraction is in someone's head.
There are a couple components to sexuality: attraction and sexual action.
Thanks for pointing out that people can choose to have sex thereby demonstrating a choice in their sexuality. You must be very proud of yourself for that astute observation using one definition of the term, and you are indeed correct.
Well, I wouldn't say "proud." Maybe, "slightly impressed"?
But I said change your sexuality. You described having sex i.e. sexuality in action, which does not reference anything that you have changed or can change. The definition of sexuality includes a person's identity in relation to the sex or sexes to which they are typically attracted; one's sexual orientation.
Not really. If I was having sex with women exclusively for, let's say, 10 years, and I started having sex with men, that would be a "change."
Choosing to have sex with someone you are not attracted to doesn't change whom you are attracted to.
Attraction does not define sexuality. With whom one has sex is also a component of one's sexuality, regardless of how one identifies oneself. And one can "CHOOSE" with whom one has sex.
I don't understand the point of you responding to me. You don't disagree that excluding sexuality comparative to the other metrics in the Civil Rights Act is nonsensical, but for some reason you want to argue useless points tit for tat as if you're turning my worldview (or even my view on this single issue) upside down which you're clearly not. It just looks like you're desperate to argue over nothing.This thread is asking why sexuality should specifically be excluded from legislation that the majority of people support regarding non-discrimination. If you don't support it, that's okay but not relevant. The obvious answer to my question is that religious/conservative people find homosexuality to be an immoral choice as opposed to a morally legitimate, inherent identity. Mocking that notion or arguing against anyone dull enough to believe that notion would be on topic.
The point of my response is to highlight that employing psychology as a standard is a double-edge sword, and as you clearly demonstrated, you do understand the reason conservatives are opposed to the bill you mentioned in the O.P. You are clearly "mocking" them, but you are doing so using your metrics, not theirs.
But you're here pointing out sExUaLiTy Is A cHoIcE bEcAuSe YoU cAn ChOoSe WhOm YoU hAvE sEx WiTh which is like... I don't even care enough to have this pointless conversation.
Because sexuality's being a choice should be irrelevant. Why would it matter? Discrimination is justified as long as one doesn't choose to whom he or she is attracted or with whom he or she has sex? It's a slippery slope argument.
Spare me. If you want me to pat you on the head for how smart you are in making these "accckchually" points, just pretend I have done that and hopefully that fulfills you for the day.
I don't let strangers touch me, both literally and figuratively. So I can't even pretend to receive your much solicited "pat."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Cancel Culture generally refers to boycotts, shaming, de-platforming and firing for perceived offenses. Even assuming public backlash must be a prerequisite to qualify, we know conservatives use the media to evoke cancellations over sexuality all the time. Example: Mass Effect 2 was supposed to have a character that was pansexual, but the creators decided to scrap that after a segment on Fox News lamenting sexuality in video games -- or all the times Disney was shamed into scrapping families headed by gay couples in their programming due to conservative media whining about it.
No doubt that conservative media also partakes in "cancel-culture," but that's not the same as firing someone for being gay. Then again, these neologisms always find ways to take on new forms.
(I do know it isn't )
No, you do not. Actions, even sexual ones, are results of choices; and attraction is in someone's head.
Whether or not sexuality is a choice (I do know it isn't )does matter. The Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on things one cannot change about themselves.
Was the passage of the Civil Rights Act informed by the notion that characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc. couldn't be changed? That wouldn't make sense given that they included religion which can be changed, or even "color."
I joked that being Jewish could arguably be an immutable characteristic because Jewish people follow matrilineality.
I know. How does that make it immutable in comparison to the patrilineal structure of Christianity and Islam?
The terms husband and wife have nothing to do with sex.
Yes, they do. Research both terms, and I assure you they'll lead to sex.
They only imply sex to those exposed or old enough to understand what sex is.
Yes, and many children are exposed to the PDA of their parents, even if they don't have an experienced adult's understanding of what it is they're seeing.
In that case parents have already failed at protecting their kids from learning about sexuality,
They're not trying to protect them from heterosexuality; they're trying to protect them from homosexuality, which depending on their inclinations, they see as a perversion.
and therefore can't say acknowledging I have a wife is somehow what will expose their children to the concept of sex.
Fair enough. But it isn't the concept of sex per se, but the "perversion of homosexuality."
Your gripes with psychology don't really interest me and are mostly untrue, especially as it pertains to neuroscience.
Psychology =/= neuroscience.
I don't understand the questions you are asking me about it though. It seems you are making assumptions about me agreeing with non-discrimination orders by government. Obviously discrimination is justified in many instances, especially age discrimination, but regardless I don't understand your point nor your point in responding to me at all unless it is to argue that sexuality is not immutable.
I'm asking you to be consistent. If you're going to use psychology as a metric to explain homosexuality, particularly that it is as immutable to a homosexual as is heterosexuality is to a heterosexual, then why not apply psychological metrics as far as it concerns the differences it informs when it applies to race, sex, and/or age for example? Case in point: so-called "Blacks" are argued to have a lower "I.Q."--a psychometric--than so-called "Whites." Should so-called "Blacks" be deprived privileges by the State commensurate to their deviation from the mean? Do so-called "Whites" get afforded more privileges? What about men and women, and their alleged psychological differences? What about adults and children?
My point is, what use is there in citing "psychology" if it can be used just as easily as a metric to justify discrimination?
My point was that I don't understand the right-wing argument for not accepting sexuality as a protected class. The best one I could think of is that sexuality is not an immutable characteristic.
So once again, I ask: does it matter whether or not it's a choice? If it was choice, would that be justification to afford them fewer privileges by the State? And again, if the Republican base consist predominantly of Evangelical Christians, then why is psychology as opposed to Biblical doctrine not being explored as a rubric which informs the positions of conservatives?
There is a general consensus within these communities that sexuality is not a choice, and it would behoove a decision-making person or persons to consider this. But if someone wanted to misnomer this as nothing but an appeal to authority, I'm sure the testimony of many people's empirical anecdotes could be included in the hearing as well.
It isn't an appeal to authority; it's an appeal to consensus. And while anecdotal evidence is useful in contradicting generalities, it can rarely be used to justify a phenomena or attribute which is applicable to an entire group.
I would start by asking the homophobes to change their sexuality to prove it can be done and go from there.
This can easily be addressed. Sexuality comprises of both sexual attraction, and sexual action. So having sex with someone of one's own sex despite not being attracted to them can demonstrate "sexuality as a choice."
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So "Q" is for questioning and queer.So what or who is queer?According to the dictionary G is Q......Strange, odd...A gay man.
Look at you--puling off your best "Athias" impresssion. Jokes aside, your arguments are on point. Well argued, zedvictor.
Opening Argument:The two premises on which I base my arguments are as follows:
- Age of consent policies are logically inconsistent.
- Age of consent policies are immoral.
As denoted in the description, age of consent (legal) is the age at which one is legally competent to give consent to marriage or sexual intercourse. However, for the purposes of this debate, particularly as far as it concerns my argument, I will adopt the definition of consent I provided above. Age of consent policies arbitrarily divide the capacity for individuals to make value judgements as it concerns sex based on their age alone. In the United States, it varies from state to state usually between the ages of 16 and 18 (where 16 is adopted by a majority of the states.) The reasoning for this framework is identical to that which informs the supervision of an infant by its parent: an infant's naivety to the dangers of its environment subjects it to the prospect of mortal danger; therefore, as the more experienced party, the parent presumes the infant's proxy in all decisions which serve the infant's utility. The government's approximation of this is known as Parens Patriae. At first glance, it's difficult to argue against this rationale. After all, our species has persisted due to the experience and innovation of its predecessors. So then why would I challenge the "wisdom" of a government using its "experience" in its seeking to protect the most naive of its citizens? We must first consider that from which we are attempting to protect them.It's important to note that age of consent doesn't protect minors from the dangers of sex. Instead these policies seek to regulate those with whom the minor engages in sexual contact and activity. Seldom are sexual interactions among minors condemned and/or punished, and in the cases where court proceedings are conducted, often the liability of each minor party is mitigated by Romeo and Juliet laws. When we speak of age of consent, typically one party is a minor and the other is an adult. Now here's the inconsistency: sexual contact between adult and minor is almost always condemned and punished. Ceteris Paribus, the sexual contact and sensations experienced between minor and minor and adult and minor (and even adult and adult) aren't different. The mechanics are essentially the same. If the government took the position that the participation of any minor in sexual activity is prohibited, that would be one thing. But to condemn it particularly in the cases where an adult is involved as if some non-sexual benefit (which these policies presume to be "predation") manifests makes no sense. After all, the adult is often presumed legally to be the competent and experienced party. The logic in this case is "reversed" in that the adult's experience, competence, and dare I say "wisdom," are presumed to harm the minor. The presumptions made about adulthood which served the adult's benefit is now used to aid in that adult's disadvantage. One would presume that adults would be more competent in dealing with unexpected pregnancies, STI's contractions, financial obligations, etc. Instead, the government treats this capacity as the makings of a predator.The second inconsistency I'd like to explore is consent. The law deems that minors cannot provide valid consent to sexual interaction with those among the age of majority. It dismisses the value judgements which inform consent. Deciding the capacity to consent on age alone produces a slippery slope argument. If the minor has no capacity to provide valid consent, then operating on that same logic, said minor cannot withhold assent, or provide valid dissent because age of consent policies render value judgements by a minor on his her own sexual desire and capacity null. It's one thing to state that a person who was raped DID NOT CONSENT; it's another to state that said person COULD NOT consent. Extending this premise of incapacity to provide valid consent to its logical conclusion would make it impossible to rape a minor because the minor would have the capacity to know that which is neither in its best interests, nor its worst interests--anundeniably absurd inference. The government, in my estimation, is currentlyoperating on the illogical platitude, as described by Judith Levine inher book, Crimes of Passion: Harming Minors, "statutoryrape is not about sex the victim says she did not want. It is about sexshe did want but which adults believe she only thought she wantedbecause she wasn't old enough to know she didn't want it." The government can't have it both ways: either the minor is capable of making value judgements and thereby can provide valid consent and dissent, or the minor can't, and we ultimately render the sexual prospects of that minor to the decisions of an outside party. Furthermore, would rendering these decisions on the sexual prospects of minors to outside parties be moral?Morals are concepts which establish conditions in which we ought to live, usually separated by notions of right and wrong, or good and evil. For this particular debate, I'm going to subscribe to epicurean moral themes--i.e. happiness is the greatest good, and pain and suffering is the worst. The former is maximized, and the latter is minimized best by individualist philosophy, particularly the axiom of individual sovereignty--i.e. we are of and ought to have exclusive control over ourselves. [I will expand on the reasoning as the debate continues.] From there, other concepts are derived such as liberty, property, association, etc. Now what does any of this have to do with sex? When a minor decides to have sex, said minor either thoughtfully or superficially considers the value(s) in having sex. It could be to attract the attachment of one whom the minor desires, boredom, lust, control, etc. Whatever the reason, one thing always remains constant: the minor is behaving his or her body in sexual contact. When the government can arbitrarily impose policy that dictates how an individual, in this case a minor, can behave his or her body, the government is presuming authority over that minor's body, undermining that minor's individual sovereignty. The government is committing an infraction upon a fundamental right of all individuals, including minors, to behave themselves as they see fit so long as it doesn't interfere with another individual's capacity to the same. The government recognizes, for example, a 14 year old female's right to bodily autonomy when she decides to get an abortion, but doesn't acknowledge said autonomy as it concerns the very act which produced the result that informs her decision to get an abortion? This inconsistency is demonstrative of government whim, which necessarily makes minors government property because their capacity to express values as it concerns themselves are diminished and outright dismissed in favor of government priority. And human beings--individuals--no matter how old, are the property of no one else
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Pedophilia is a consent issue same as rape.
Yes it is.
If you are under age you can't consent.
If one is "underage," one cannot "legally" consent, the qualification informed by an arbitrary, statutory division.
And being attracted to post pubescent teens isn't technically pedophilia that is specifically pre pubescent children. Which is why people get upset.
I believe 10 and under is pedophilia, 11-14 is hebephilia, and 15-19 ephebophilia.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I really don't care. Legal age of consent in America is 18 (17 in some states, but not mine)
This isn't necessarily true. The majority of states in the United States have a legal age of consent at 16 years-old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@zedvictor:
My "excuse" is that I am too busy.
I knew what you meant in your last response. Just taking the opportunity to poke fun.
@3RU7AL:
And that's about ten times better than most discussions (where they flatly refuse to cite sources and have never even heard of a logical fallacy).
I rather have discussions with those who can employ their own reasoning rather than those who merely cite sources in lieu of an actual argument. Citing sources can be important in some contexts, but it's been my experience that most of those with whom I've had discussions bear no intention to either read or watch sources, much less read or watch them carefully. The discussion typically regresses into a battle over sources which bears a disadvantage in that the author of those sources do not argue back, or provide counterarguments to criticisms. Sources help inform arguments, but it's still up to the arguer to provide context and demonstrate how the information of his/her citation applies to the affirmation or negation (or neutral?) of the proposition he or she is discussing. Few understand this.
I rather a indulge a discussion where one's mere response is "because I said so," than one where I'm compelled to read a 50+ page study, only to find out later that the source was entirely misrepresented because the person who made reference to it didn't read it carefully. Furthermore, having discussions with those who use sources as shields ("Talk to the source") can be quite a vexing experience as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The key to good debating is having the time to do it......And nothing better to do.Which you will come to realise, when you have adult responsibilities and wider interests.
So what's your excuse? ... ... ... ...
The key to good debating is the capacity to identify, understand and proceed accordingly as it concerns the fundamentals of an argument. Seldom do debaters (here) exhibit this capacity. Usually, as far as my experience goes, they regurgitate something they've read, or make some haphazard allusion to a "source" or "logical fallacy," without truly demonstrating a grasp of that which they argue. With that said, there are a few debaters here who do exhibit and have exhibited the aforementioned capacity. And while I'm not sure that anyone has exhibited enough to merit the superlative, I do respect a couple of the names mentioned in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I won't bother responding, why? Because from the first resopnse its clear that you don't go back and correct things I address later in the post. You have essentially written a Cinema Sins script.
It's your call.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The individualistic minded among us would view each politician as uniquely responsible for each bill they pass, disavow, or even ignore. Whereas systematically minded people would think that a particular bill being passed is more or less due to a system of people.
So then it behooves you to make explicit your meaning when you state "system of people." What is a system of people if not a composite of individuals who maintain individual values?The individualistic minded understand that ultimately values are attributable to the individual. It is far more prudent to attribute responsibility to an individual than it is to attribute responsibility to a group, whose individual members may be involved for a variety of reasons.
The more conservatively minded will typically disavow Biden at every turn, take any excuse to rip into him.
I don't think that's "conservatively minded." Liberals--so called Liberals--took shots at Donald Trump at every turn. (Forgive my incitement of violence.)
Conversely, they will typically defend or uphold Trump, even with apparent lies by Trump, but to get to the heart of the matter - the most typically defended point of Trump is that he was good for the economy (less so after Covid).
Accusing a politician of lying is like accusing water of being wet.
Whereas most left-minded people would see that as a product of Obama's pre-established laws.
Yes, they're oblivious.
What I'm trying to point out is that individualists typically care more about what a person has achieved, and more systemic-minded people typically care more about how something has been achieved.
Not at all. You're simply characterizing individualists as consequentialists. The means are important as well. Case in point: conservatives oppose raising taxes (not really, but that's their public veneer) especially as it concerns funding social welfare programs. It isn't that they oppose the reduction of the "poverty rate;" they oppose the means so-called Liberals employ to address it.
This explains why most conservatives find Biden so unfit to hold office.
Conservatives find Biden unfit to hold office because he's a democrat. I'm sure old Joe has a litany of neuroses and perversions that adds fuel to the fire, but his being a democrat is the fundamental reason.
With this understanding let's take a look at the case of systemic racism and sexism, starting with sexism just to separate ourselves from more controversial topics at first. I typically see people arguing along these lines, "Sexism was abolished, females have the same rights as you and I," then the Systemicist might respond, "There are several ways that females are still disadvantaged by the society around them". If my theory holds up, then the first response should be based on achievement, which it is, they point out that there are laws in place that make females legally equal to men. But... on first look, the Systemicist doesn't really care about how achievement was made, but how it hasn't been made. You see, just as Individualists care about what an individual hasn't accomplished, Systemicist care about how the system hasn't accomplished.
Because the argument against the "system" is fundamentally premised on a delusion, i.e. women = men. The deficiency isn't in what the system "hasn't accomplished" but the reasons it attempts to accomplish something that it can't.
It is a very thin line, and it can cross just like that. This isn't just a party line, sometimes liberals argue individualistically and sometimes conservatives argue systematically.
Because your argument is flawed. You're essentially arguing that conservative minded people are consequentialists and so-called liberals are deontologists. Neither are restricted to conservatism or so-called Liberalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@fauxlaw
Your statements are contradictory.
- If it is true you don't know what "race is a social construct" means then you have no authority to argue that such a statement is not a fair summary of fauxlaw's P#4.
- If you do actually know what "race is a social construct" means then your insincerity undermines your argument.
Which is it?
My statements aren't contradictory. And the reason is simple.
I entertain the possibility that I haven't gauged your application of "social construct" when I stated this:
But then again, I still do [not] know what you mean when you state that race is a "social construct." Is it synonymous with "imaginary"?
(Thanks for the correction, by the way.) "But then again," is an idiom which, when applied, indicates a contrary possibility. That is, I'm letting you know that I've only assumed a meaning and proceeded with it absent of your clarification. And there's a bit of nuance which needs identification: I never stated that I didn't know what is meant by "race is a social construct;" I specifically asked you what you meant when you stated that race is a social construct. Furthermore, fauxlaw literally didn't argue that "race is a social construct."
Wikipedia:Contrary to popular belief that the division of the human species based on physical variations is natural, there exists no clear, reliable distinctions that bind people to such groupings. According to the American Anthropological Association, "Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes." While there is a biological basis for differences in human phenotypes, most notably in skin color, the genetic variability of humans is found not amongst, but rather within racial groups – meaning the perceived level of dissimilarity amongst the species has virtually no biological basis. Genetic diversity has characterized human survival, rendering the idea of a "pure" ancestry as obsolete. Under this interpretation, race is conceptualized through a lens of artificiality, rather than through the skeleton of a scientific discovery. As a result, scholars have begun to broaden discourses of race by defining it as a social construct and exploring the historical contexts that led to its inception and persistence in contemporary society.
Most historians, anthropologists, and sociologists describe human races as a social construct, preferring instead the term population or ancestry, which can be given a clear operational definition. Even those who reject the formal concept of race, however, still use the word race in day-to-day speech. This may either be a matter of semantics, or an effect of an underlying cultural significance of race in racist societies.Which is perfectly in accord with fauxlaw's P4 thesis:
First let's define "social construct" using Wikipedia:
A social construct or construction is the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event. In that respect, a social construct as an idea would be widely accepted as natural by the society.
Now your citation, also from Wikipedia, states this:
Under this interpretation, race is conceptualized through a lens of artificiality, rather than through the skeleton of a scientific discovery. As a result, scholars have begun to broaden discourses of race by defining it as a social construct and exploring the historical contexts that led to its inception and persistence in contemporary society.
"A lens of artificiality" which lacks the information of scientific discovery, correct? This doesn't necessarily align with the aforementioned description. Case in point: the genetic similarity between Humans and Chimpanzees is at 99%; therefore "Humans" and "Chimps" are "social constructs" despite the terms predating the discovery of the genetic code in 1961. The description itself (social construct) isn't contingent on the presence of scientific discovery at all.
So then, does the latter description even correctly align with fauxlaw's statements? No. Read Fauxlaw's statements again: if anything he's arguing that race has no utility as a social construct since it doesn't produce anything a society would find significant. He isn't levying scientific criticism (for the most part) on the application of racial distinction, but more so it's application in the context of public goods--i.e. infrastructure, and education, the subject of this discussion.
Who is THEY? fauxlaw has failed to tether his pronoun specifically but we have two choices
- "NY schools" (which includes state and city and private and public)
- or
- "The woke generation" which fauxlaw does not define and the term has no well defined common meaning. If we assume that woke is being used in the sense of "a perceived awareness of issues that concern social justice and racial justice"then "the woke generation" is basically anybody who thinks they have a handle on the issues of social justice- which likely includes all debater on this site.
Or "They" can be both. That is, it is entirely possible that the administrations of New York schools exhibit "wokeness."
Is it true that NY schools have distinguished white people into seven separate categories? No, this statement is quite false.
Fair enough. "Eight" categories.
Is it true that everybody concerned abut social justice has distinguished white people into seven separate categories. No, this statement is also false.o
You're declaring it false based on your assumption of fauxlaw's meaning. Where's your "But then again..."? Or why not ask fauxlaw what he meant before declaring what he stated was false?
So what is fauxlaw talking about? fauxlaw still hasn't bothered to explain but his claim is based on a racist pamphlet that a high school principal mailed to his student's parents last week.
True, fauxlaw hasn't bothered to explicitly define what he meant by "woke generation." On the other hand, you haven't bothered to ask him what he meant. Instead, you extended your criticism on the assumption of what he meant. So let me put forward the same characterization you levied against my argument: if you do in fact understand what he meant by "woke generation" then isn't your "insincerity [undermining] your argument"? The difference between your extensions and my extensions, however, is that I have at least a couple of times entertained the notion that I might be misinterpreting your application of your terms; you've afforded fauxlaw no such courtesy. Instead, you've strawmanned him.
All reporting indicates that the pamphlet represents the opinion of one man and that NY schools (public, private, state, and city) haven't yet had a chance to investigate much less issue a press statement, much much less indicate any measure of support for Federman's racism, and much, much, much, much less representing the opinion of all people concerned with social justice.
This is inaccurate. The origin of the graphic was reported to originate from Barnor Hesse who teaches at North Western University in Illinois.
fauxlaw's generalization reveals an unjustified bigotry towards both of his unwarrented targets: NY schools and a whole generation of people are racist because one example of racism happened this week.
Or his allusion to this event serves as an exemplar delineating a "woke" trend. It would have behooved you to extend this inquiry:
How did we get from Federman to [all] "NY schools" (state or city? who cares it is fiction anyway) which then transmogrifies into the whole trans-generational woke generation by the very next sentence?
which would have compelled fauxlaw to explain himself. Furthermore, if we're going to indulge lexical semantics (an indulgence with which I take no issue) then we have to be meticulous. fauxlaw doesn't state AT ALL that his reference was to "ALL" New York schools. He just states, "New York Schools." (You added the "ALL.") It's not a generalization; at best, it's an erroneous plurality since he doesn't qualify it with quantifiable descriptors.
I'm not saying that this sentiment is unworthy. I am saying that after starting out with a couple of acts of casual bigotry visited upon NY schools and "woke" people, fauxlaw's P4 calls to celebrate difference reads as insincere.
The subject isn't whether your find it worthy; the subject is whether his subsequent statement reflects a radical "overnight" change. And it doesn't.
fauxlaw (post #1):
They have distinguished "white" people [never saw anyone who is white in my life, not even an albino is white, nor are few Blacks actually black, which means all such labels are ignorance incarnate] into seven separate categories, demonstrating, once again, we are adept at segregating and criticising one another more than we are inclusive and celebratory of our differences.
fauxlaw (post #4):
So, why are we so hung up on racial profile at all? Why can't we look at one another, celebrate our differences rather than discriminate by them. Is that so hard?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Summary of fauxlaw's P4 in contrast to his P1: he says we missed his point but his apparent thesis has shifted radically overnight.
Except fauxlaw hasn't argued that race is a "social construct." Fauxlaw has argued that the preoccupation with the labels used to identify demographics (i.e. "race") are at best shallow, and produce little--if any--significance. He has also argued that these labels are misused particularly in his mention that he has seen neither a "White" person, nor a "Black" person.
But then again, I still do know what you mean when you state that race is a "social construct." Is it synonymous with "imaginary"?
Furthermore, his position didn't change radically overnight. His thesis remained the same throughout both posts which expressed his claim that "we" are exercising futility in segregating ourselves rather than celebrating our differences.
You should care though because you are unfairly characterizing the entire school system and then an entire generation of people based on the misguided pamphleteering of one individual. I expect 99% of folks can agree that we should seek fewer racial distinctions in our civil accords but you can't claim that NY Schools or the Woke generation are promoting increased distinction based on something some guy named Federer did last Friday.
Perhaps, he was using the individual's actions as an exemplar which helps delineate a trend. And I happen to know that he isn't far off in his characterization.
Created: