Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Morality is subjective. In as much as we can even determine what is better for humans and the public at large human wellbeing and the public health are not opinion based.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Let's say that I personally am equally unconvinced by arguments for a round earth and any supernatural beings.
Please detail how you would convince me of each proposition and I will tell you if I am convinced.
The above IS NOT coequal with the following
I didn't say otherwise. You are making the mistake that one is always convinced of that which is rational though.
I have not claimed that all humans are equally rational or even that a given human is equally rational on regards to every subject. I have only said two things.
1. I do not choose whether or not you have convincing evidence you either do or do not.
2. I do not need to meet any burden of proof to remain unconvinced by your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Can you elaborate?
Certainly.
You could present me with any given peice of evidence and I will either be convinced by it or not. I cannot choose to be convinced when I am not and I cannot choose to be unconvinced when I am.
If you present me with one hundred pieces of evidence and none are sufficient to convince me then I will have no choice but to remain unconvinced.
I do not need to meet any burden of proof to remain unconvinced.
If the options are A or B I don't need to choose B in order to he unconvinced that you are correct in thinking that the answer is A.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It 'sounds more like a goal one is focused on, than a moral argument?
I am disinterested in discussing what constitutes moral and immoral. I don't care if you think that harming humans and endangering the public are "morally correct". I am in fact not prepared to argue against someone making a claim to that effect. I'd rather just politely inform them that if this is the case then I really would rather not be moral.
It is far easier than trying to convince someone that they should accept human wellbeing and protecting the public as the defacto a priori standard of what is and is not moral if they are for any reason disinclined to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
That depends entirely upon the evidence itself. No amount of insufficient evidence will EVER add up to sufficient evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I think he is a Pescatarian.
I didn't know you were funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I still experience moral outrage. This is an emotion and my emotions are not trustworthy.
I am capable of extraordinary selfishness and extraordinary selflessness. Neither is inherently correct and neither impulse leads to exclusively positive or negative outcomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I am disinterested in nihilism. I just want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. I have a vested interest as a human and a member of the public.
You can change your stance on some subject but then you must defacto agree with your new stance. You cannot disagree with yourself in the moment in any sensible way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The burden of proof is always on the side with the least evidence.
This is nonsensical if only one "side" is making a claim. I do not need to do anything to support a nonclaim. I also do not need a reason to dismiss any claim whatsoever. I don't have to believe you in regards to claims about what you had for breakfast.
Dismissal of a claim is bot coequal with a counterclaim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
"Right" and "wrong" are subjective. They can only be applied in regards to a goal. I will do as I think will most reliably accomplishes my goals. It is impossible to disagree with oneself in any meaningful way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It doesn't matter. No label will change my actual position. My position is that I am disinterested in morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant.
People do not need to be dishonest to be incorrect.
Anecdotal evidence is weak evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Solaris1
Good and evil are subjective. Without a common standard agreed upon by all interlocutors the conversation stops at "is that really evil though?".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Please define man as you are using the word in this context.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't give a fig about morality. I only want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. In any case where morality does not support these two considerations I do not support morality and in any case where morality is in opposition to these two considerations I oppose morality.
Questions, comments and criticisms welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Clearly there is systematic racism and if your claim is that there is no racism while simultaneously claiming racism against whites who are the privileged class you are being self contradictory and not arguing in good faith.
So can we drop it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So as long as we can find some statistic that averages out numbers across the entire nation that shows a disparate outcome, we can make laws that disproportionately favor one group over another based on skin color, correct?
This thread was never about skin color. Why are you so determined to argue that there is no systemic racism that you made yourself sound like a racist in a thread which has zero to do with race? I mean you do understand that whether you actually are or not you have certainly given the impression that you are.
Created:
Posted in:
Anyway I have a much better idea anyway. What if anyone who is worth more than a million dollars was made to be worth only one million dollars (no one needs or deserves more than a million dollars) and these funds were used to fund social programs that would feed, house, clothe and educate all disadvantaged people. I'm not much for any segregation let's disadvantage the wealthy and give advantages to the poor regardless of arbitrary non differences such as sex or skin color such that they have equal power to effect executive policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
And how is a law that forces white people to be paid less than black people not considered disproportionately harmful?
You keep on about this. It is the case right now that people of color are paid significantly less than their white counterparts. Let's assume you are right and white people would be harmed (though I'm not necessarily in favor of the policy in question or in favor of any wage slavery and I'm not sure white people how white people would be being harmed if equality were restored) by being paid less. People of color ARE being paid less right now in real life. No law makes this the case it is just the way our society functions.
IF you think it would be unfair for white people to be paid less THEN you must be in favor of paying people of color more OR you don't actually want equality you want preferential treatment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You know like whites are disproportionally favored and people of color are disproportionally harmed right now today in our society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The vagueness and flexibility of that definition tells me you really have no idea what you mean by equality.
I do know what I mean and if I find I have not described what I mean adequately I reserve the right to adjust my definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What definition of equality are you using?
Well let's start with not being disproportionally harmed or favored either explicitly or implicitly and if I find that isn't all I mean or isn't quite what I mean I will adjust the definition accordingly
Created:
-->
@FLRW
So ask them
Created:
you know that owners have to care about their company right? they dont just hire employees and call it a day,
They care about profits at the very least and employees are the ones who generate those profits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The argument about mythical freewill aside is liberty not preferable to constraint?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
IF your freedoms impinge upon mine THEN I am not free.
IF my freedoms impinge upon yours THEN you are not free.
THEREFORE your freedom too move your hand can and does end at the tip of my nose.
Created:
Posted in:
The fundamental problem with the plight of black people in American history was that black people were not treated equally under the law.
AND that they continue to be on unequal footing.
I don't really support the idea of employment anyway so really it is inaccurate to say I am in favor of some employee making more than others but you keep ignoring that.
And again do not compare being paid a little less than another person for whatever reason to being paid less and given fewer opportunities and being subjected to extra violence and to be persecuted by the law for generations AFTER generations of bondage.
Also I am not doing it because of the color of there skin. That was determined by the previous racism itself. Whites were unfairly privileged and I don't know how to redress that without disadvantaging them somehow until equality is achieved. Like a handicap in golf. If you agree with a handicap in golf you should be in favor of some sort of reperations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Says the guy who argues for determinism
That you do not choose your actions only makes it all the more vital that people not be needlessly constrained. To do otherwise is to punish them for things over which they have no control which is not justice.
More importantly it is counter to the greater good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Yet, the number of cities making homelessness illegal is on the rise.
Besides the point I'm making which is that it would not be necessary to make homelessness illegal in order to justify arresting the homeless.
I believe in personal responsibility, and fulfilling that responsibility.
So do I. I just don't think that has to be tied to employment. It is interesting to me that despite my continued corrections you keep arguing as though I am in favor of people being lazy and entitled when what I really want is for people to be free and fulifilled.
There was a time when the government was not in the business of providing low-income housing as an entitlement.
IF basic necessities such as food, water, shelter and medicine are privileges that can be revoked if one refuses to be exploited THEN the 'right to life' is by extension also merely a privilege that can be revoked if one refuses to be exploited.
Freedom from tyranny is meaningless without freedom too act on your own will.
Created:
Posted in:
What good is freedom from handcuffs without the freedom too use your hands?
What good is freedom from imprisonment without the freedom too move about freely?
What good is freedom from tyranny without the freedom too excercise your will?
What good is freedom from forced labor if you are not free too define the terms under which you are willing to labor?
There is no freedom too without freedom from but there is no true freedom without the freedom too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So I've been thinking about it and I have a question.
How dare you?
How dare you compare the plight of the African American people throughout the centuries and today with the idea that someone else might be paid a little more than you?
May as well say you understand veterans because you built a box fort once or that you know what prison does to people because your mom grounded you for a whole year.
It isn't just hyperbolic it is insulting.
I also decided I don't care to enforce people of color making more money than whites I realy want the one percent to share there trillions of dollars with everyone. The money, space and resources exist to care for everyone if it weren't being hoarded by rich narcissists who absolutely see working whites as equal with working blacks. Equally inferior to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
discrimination against white people
Firstly the wealthy one percent are the ones who created the system. The world is what they made it so simply saying white people doesn't address the actual problem although it is true that the one percent are overwhelmingly white. Secondly it would not be discriminatory to be made to share prosperity with others. Why must you do worse for someone else to do better? Can't we all help each other? One of the big problems with racism is in fact that it can be used as a tool by the one percent to keep everyone down. Now forget about critical race theory. Its conclusions such as I understand them are not incorrect and so far as I know no policy makers are seriously considering redressing the wealth gap anyway. It is a tangential issue in our discussion at best.
Created:
Posted in:
it must be specific, and it must be current, because old policies and statutes are no longer documenteed and in force, therefore, it is people within the system, i.e., individuals, who act with racial animus, but they have no leg to stand on legally.
This is, if you truly believe it, incredibly naive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
To be systemic, yes, it does need to be explicit.
Please elaborate. How would implicit policy not be systemic? For example a statute against camping in city limits explicitly prevents everyone from sleeping in parks but the practical implication is that it is illegal to be homeless. No one has to say that it is illegal to be homeless making camping in city limits allows that policy to be enforced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Redressing inequality is not discrimination."[Negatively and explicitly discriminating against white people based on the color of their skin] is not discrimination."That is explicit racism against white people. Stop being a racist.
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Also this whole thing started about the exploitation of wage slavery and how it takes a lot of potential satisfaction at work and now you have me arguing about who should make the most currency for their labor. This is a distraction from the actual argument rather than any sensible counter argument.
Created:
Posted in:
show me a current government or private industry policy that expresses systemic racism.
Racists are not explicit in their language because of the social backlash. Instead the policy is implicitly harmful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Redressing inequality is not discrimination. I'm open however to your ideas for addressing inequality. How do you intend to bridge the wealth gap and perhaps even reversing to some degree the huge amount of white privilege endemic to the system?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
For instance, most people would say that negatively discriminating against someone based on their skin color is racism. Yet as you said, and as is consistent with CRT, discriminating against white people is not actually racism - it's justice.
In order to address racism in any meaningful way we must find a way to make up for hundreds of years of explicit and implicit racism which had crushing effects on entire neighborhoods financially. How would you make up for the loss in equity from people of color statistically being far more likely to be denied home loans or for loss of wages from being statistically more likely to be passed over for a position, promotion or raise? To redress the systemic targeting of black communities by police and also higher conviction rates? Even if there were no current racism and there is, the effects of past racism would still be enough on their own that we cannot really claim to be a nation of equality.
I reject any system that can justify negatively discriminating against anyone based on the color of their skin.
Me too but I might be able to get behind one that redressed such discrimination past and present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It might be considered by some as a way of redressing some of the racism although it is unlikely to become policy for a number of reasons. If you are genuinely interested and not just trying to maneuver the conversation to some kind of gotcha moment you might consider asking someone who actually has studied critical race theory. I can discuss the brain but I am not a neurologist. I can discuss racism with you but I am not a sociology professor and more specifically not one who specializes in critical race theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So to be clear, racism can only affect people of color and not white people?
In a majority white country where the white population is the privileged group? It is unlikely to negatively impact them in the same systematic way that enforces poverty.
Maybe they could be subjected to racist comments but not systemic racism. That is not to say it is inconceivable that such a system could be instituted but in the United states the systems of oppression on average harm people of color disproportionately.
If you do not recognize the difference between the way white people are treated by the system and the way people of color are treated then it is because you are willfully ignoring the facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Policy that disproportionately effects people of color is systemic racism. Even assuming that it is unintended racism it is still a problem that needs to be addressed and I feel no obligation to be so generous in my assessment. If that is unclear to you then I believe you are misunderstanding purposefully and I can think of no reason to do so other than to shield racist individuals and systems from criticism. Even if you are not a racist yourself that is not a noble pursuit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Apparently I am correct that our education is insufficient to the task. Your inability to spot racism only girls to show that we do need some kind of curriculum on the subject
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No one is unfairly targeting whites though if for example a corperations was heavily invested in a dangerous but expensive drug then systemic racism might even shelter black communities from the effects as they would be unable to afford the drugs.
You are muddying the waters by falsely conflating one problem (corporate cronyism oppressing any consumers regardless of race) with another (self perpetuating systemic racism that once firmly entrenched continues even with some policy makers best intentions). If I didn't know any better I'd think you were trying to claim that racism doesn't exist as a sheild against accusations of racism but that would be silly since I have not made such an accusation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I've answered your question. Your attempts to muddy the waters are counterproductive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So are laws that punish opioid users implicitly racist against white people, showing evidence that racism against whites is woven into all of our social institutions and practices?
And again no it doesn't it shows systematic oppression of patients implicitly harming them more than the healthcare industry. Now can we please stay on topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
They are implicitly pro big pharma and disproportionately harm those most effected by the corporate greed that created the epidemic. Systematic oppression takes many forms. Racism is not the only social evil we engage in. Now please try to stay focused especially since we are already on a tangent and a tangent you have brought us on I might add.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The law nevertheless had the net effect of disproportionately targeting people of color.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Why is it logically incoherent? There is a whole realm of philosophy devoted to this subject.
Rather say entirely speculative which is after all your primary objection here. That we may only speculate or admit ignorance? How does speculating about some non physical thing specifically resolve this issue?
That was a tangent from the actual topic, which was my dispute that you know that no one knows why there is something rather than nothing.
We can only speculate.
Created: