There are all sorts of irrelevant criteria they can discriminate with, but only some raise Constitutional concerns, and race is one of b them. That is, discrimination on the basis of introversion doesn't violate the Constitution, but on race it does. That is why the argument before the Court is as it is.

Sex and skin colour are a bit hard to hide although I guess from a social experiment perspective it would be totally cool if a black man could pretend to be white and then show up normally on his first day. Preferably somewhere in Mississipi. — Benkei

Actually gender is subjective, so maybe I can say we're all gay women and they'd have no way to disprove it. Race is actually complicated if we try to break it down to 1/16 or however they might define it (and I doubt they do). How are they going to tell someone they're not a particular race?

This whole thing is on a collision course.

Have you really? Someone has asked that from you in your work?

Or have you read an article that basically urges people to do this? — ssu

You'd be amazed at what's actually occurring. I solicit business from major corporations and am told very directly that they need a certain percentage ownership by minority and then I get these 10 page forms where I'm asked for specific breakdown of employee by race and sexual orientation. It's illegal for me to ask, and impossible for them to verify for accuracy.

Tell them the race of those involved has no bearing on anything in the entire process. — NOS4A2

Telling someone his community's subservient lot in life is well deserved will not lead to societal harmony, regardless of how morally justified you think it is.

Your position just demands stricter rules and stricter enforcement, which means bigger police forces and bigger prisons. If a better result can be crafted for a cheaper price (both in dollars and human suffering), that would seem to be the better pragmatic solution, as opposed to dying on the sword of moral consistency.

don't notice a lot of Asians in the US government; they are simply pursuing their interests using the available rhetoric. — unenlightened

This requires an acceptance of some sort of illuminati that sets up the puppets on the strings and then watches as they half knowingly play out their roles on stage.

Asian culture, whatever it might historically have been long before America was a twinkle in anyone's eye, must play some role internally here as well, meaning their values must also be leading them toward STEM based occupations, without manipulation by the powers that be.

A for example. I'm Jewish and can attest to the emphasis upon education in my community, which also leads to over-representation in the professions and in leadership positions. Am I to believe that cultural norm really is just reactionary to the Jewish experience in the US over the past couple hundred years?

What else would you have when you try to correct the errors of the past, segregation and racist legislation, with still holding on to the core idea of dividing people into categories of race? — ssu

American racism has obviously affected many groups, so I don't want to diminish any group's suffering, but no where has it been more extensive than with African Americans and Native Americans. I'd probably be OK with efforts directed at promoting those two groups, as opposed to separating the country into hundreds of sub-groups.

I fully accept, for example, that gays have had a tough path historically in the US, but I don't think part of that struggle was in exclusion from universities, real estate markets, or employment. So why am I being asked to be on the lookout for them to be sure they get hired?

While I think that affirmative action is defensible in principle (and the benefits of inclusive diversity are well documented and researched), it has shown to be ineffective to change overall culture and should be replaced with something that works. That it hasn't changed anything is because the "tone at the top" is the same old, racist, white people in power. There's no good example to be had (and in this respect the Netherlands is even worse). — Benkei

What is the replacement you allude to?

This response seems too simplistic. You say the problem is old school.racists, but where is the evidence of that? Not that I've sat in important board rooms to know much, but all I hear from my seat is how everyone needs to promote diversity. The US is a diverse nation and diverse employment is good for business.

I think the best you can argue is a CRT argument, that racism is hidden within the structure, but neither currently intended or overt.

Your instincts are correct here. It’s morally wrong. As the case proves, any race-based inclusion leads to race-based exclusion. — NOS4A2

So should we let the chips fall where they may, how do we explain to racial groups that go dramatically under-represented in some fields that the cause is pure fairness?

Meritocracy" is the cloak under which dynastic rule likes to hide, and is the justification for grinding poverty amid fabulous wealth. — unenlightened

I don't doubt that's the case sometimes, but how does that apply to Asians? They can't be said to be advancing a meritocracy ideology in order to protect their historical power.

I'd have given a total thumbs up on this post, but the regret of not being able to fuck your sister was a weird turn.

And so again, Baden sets the prices of participation at being nice to fools. — Banno

To quote our rules:

"A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted)."

This rule was followed closely here. If we did fail to follow this rule, it was in extending leniency in the hopes we could gain compliance, but we couldn't get that to happen.

Anyway, where you arrived at the conclusion @Baden acted unilaterally, I don't know. I'm not here to defend him, but I'm also not going to pretend that I and the other mods weren't as much a part of the decision as he was.

Maybe y'all should go camping together or something. :kiss: — Baden

Yet again, back to the Brokeback Mountain fantasy thing.

I'm just furious with people who have contributed much, much less to the forum than he did pissing on him now that he's gone. — T Clark

I hear you, but, despite his contributions, he seemed to have burnt a number of bridges along the way, and you have to expect those affected to voice those experiences as well. This thread won't always be limited to eulogies.

To add some context, it was not the result of an isolated comment, but it was cumulative, with efforts made to avoid this result. But, most recently, there were comments against Christianity that if made against any other religion would have resulted in an immediate ban.

I say this to let everyone know this was a difficult decision, made over a long period of time, with plenty of prior warning.

I have no representatives. — Michael

Ahem

The Court has previously held that the unenumerated rights have to be "deeply rooted in the nation's history."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Glucksberg

This was a 1997 case where the Court unanimously held that physician assisted suicide was not a protected right.

The problem with unenumerated rights is in deciding what they are, and this standard by the Court in Glucksberg is the one previously unanimously accepted.

The current Court does not believe abortion to satisfy the Glucksberg standard. While you may disagree, how is the decision patently unreasonable? Just because you don't like the result?

Your post isn't based upon empirical fact, but it is a speculative etiological myth, written to provide you a better understanding of your world. You just did what you objected to the religious as having done, only the stories of the religious are better thought out, more interesting, and filled with more wisdom.

it reasonable to believe that there is no substantive due process in the constitution? — Michael

Yes, that is reasonable. The only way we arrive at these unspoken rules (like the right to have an abortion) is through a biblical sort of sensus plenior exegesis upon a fairly limited document. If 100 otherwise uninitiated interpreters were asked if abortion were protected under the US Constitution, I can't imagine anyone would write an opinion remotely close to Roe v. Wade, especially with regard to trimester framework described in it.

But even if I grant you that substantive due process is reasonable, that doesn't negate the reasonableness of those who reject it, but you're instead left with a reasonable disagreement, although few describe the dispute in that way.

You're not attacking SCOTUS specifically, but Anglo rules of construction generally, calling all who inherited the great traditions of the Kings and Queens of old (the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, the US, and I'm sure others) cunts. That's a lot of cunt. The better (or shall I say best) part of the Western world weeps at the insult

Since the document was written by Anglos for Anglos with full understanding of how Anglos would be expected to interpret it, doesn't it make sense that that be how it should be interpreted?

If it were meant to be interpreted broadly with an eye toward evolving standards, wouldn't a good Anglo analytical cunt just have written that into the document? It's not that Anglos can't behave like the well mannered Dutch, they just insist upon those rules be more plainly stated.

An unfortunate reality:

1. Abortion ought be afforded to those women who choose it in certain circumstances.
2. The US Constitution doesn't speak to that right.

You can believe in 1 and 2 at the same time.

That you see the Constitution as a vehicle to justify a progressive morality, regardless of the the actual content of the text, is a political position. I'm not condemning the sentiment and an argument can be made that the harsh rule of law should be bent by those wise enough to see its injustice, but so too can an argument be made that the rule of law ought be followed and not be overturned upon subjective notions if fairness.

That is, the ruling was a reasonable result if one sincerely holds to the position that the Constitution doesn't say whatever we think it ought to say.

I sincerely hope American empire will implode in my life time if its politics and judiciary continues to be this regressive. — Benkei

There's a pretty good chance that the Netherlands doesn't survive the implosion.

The shitstorm of fire & blood begins — 180 Proof

I'd argue the shitstorm began when Roe was decided. It began a 50 year battle from the right to change it, resulting in a more conservative court than otherwise would ever have been created. The right, with all its floundering over the many years, stayed focused on making this a foundational issue.

But, yes, I agree, now the Democrats have a rallying cry, although their fight will be on the legislative side. They've lost the judicial side at least for a good while.

I wonder how much this will matter though. For those directly affected, it's a profound issue, but for most, it's ideological and not something they'll have to directly consider. The storm on the horizon is the economy. Fuel, food, and housing prices are spiraling out of control and the stock market is falling. That is going to drive elections in the near future more than these ideological debates.

Can this be pinned down to genetics i.e. do Jews have a modified brain chemistry that gives 'em a high even when drinking plain water, forget about what they experience with psychotropics ? — Agent Smith

I don't agree with the basic nonsense of your post, but Jews do have a disproportionately low rate of alcoholism.

https://www.verywellmind.com/rare-gene-discourages-alcoholism-among-jews-63179#:~:text=An%20estimated%2020%20percent%20of,first%20step%20in%20alcohol%20metabolism.

I've read other studies that have found a correlation between when a group was first exposed to alcohol and the rate of alcoholism in the group. Apparently evolution eventually reduces alcoholism.

Jews have been drinking wine for thousands of years, native Americans much shorter, for example, with the latter group devastated by alcoholism.

I think for some, drugs provide enlightenment. For most, just temporary escape. For a select few, devastation. For me, sleep.

Demographically, it's a dying party, and this is the death throws perhaps.. — schopenhauer1

Bold predictions. I'm predicting the Dems take a beating in the mid-terms and a Republican wins the next Presidency.

Amongst the variations in certainty listed in my last post, there is the position in which someone takes specified beliefs to be no just indubitable, but infallible. There is a way of thinking in which the believer takes the position that certain of their beliefs are true even if everything else were to count against those beliefs. These beliefs are to be held despite of the evidence, and despite their consequences. — Banno

You envision a scenario where one believes X is wrong, but some authority tells him otherwise (perhaps a person or writing) and so he over-rules his belief and favors the authority, not from duress or fear of reprisal from his community, but from sincere reconsideration because he is faithful to that authority.

And you worry about this scenario because that person ignored all that counted against the authority and sided with the authority and then did something terrible.

This of course ignores the counter situation, where someone has plans to do something terrible, yet the authority steers him to the right path, causing the man to over-rule all that he considered as counting in favor of acting badly. This counter scenario might just be the more common occurrence, but be that as it may.

The question that is begged here is which authority do we honor? Do we honor our own conclusions and assume them correct and that be the authority, or do we rely upon some external authority and consider it?

Let's put this in the concrete with an example. Let us say that a co-worker of mine gets behind at work and he works on the sabbath. As we know, per Exodus 31:15, "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death." My personal thought is that this man should live, but I know the Bible is right, so I slaughter this man. So there's a good example of the conflict you envision: Authority A which guides modern society says it's wrong to kill my co-worker, but Authority B from our time honored past says I've got to kill him.

So much counts against his killing, but a good man (me) was turned evil due to this faith in authority problem you're talking about.

But here's the problem with your position. The problem with the killing had nothing to do with reliance upon authority. It had to do with relying upon the wrong authority. I obviously agree A was the right authority and the man's life should have been spared, but Authority A is an authority just as much as B.
It's just that A is a good authority and B is not.

What does Authority A consist of in our example? I suspect it might be reason, experience, logic, the sound of our parents ringing in our heads, social norms, and maybe all sorts of other things.

What does Authority B consist of in our example? The literal translation of the Bible.

And that again brings us full circle to what we always talk about, which I submit is your unrealistic, strawman position of what Authority B really is. When we look at the world, and we see all the power that is given to the Bible, and we read Exodus 31:15, yet we see that exactly zero people are being killed for disobeying the law of keeping the Sabbath. What this means is that Authority B likely contains much of Authority A as well, which explains why more often than not we get the same results.

So what? What is it to you if other people believe falsehoods? — baker

I'd prefer my bridges be supported by sound engineering principles as opposed to devout prayer.

there is a difference between the written law and the implementation of that law. — Moses

Well, even more than that. There's a difference between the written law and the actual law. The idea that the Torah (the written law) is the law is simply false, not just to liberal Jews, but to Orthodox Jews and to Fundamentalist Christians as well.

This idea that there are sizeable groups of religious folks who read the Torah (the 5 books of Moses) alone and use that as their sole guide for life simply have no idea how these religions work.

The oral law (the Talmud) and the thousands of years of rabbinical interpretation are as primary and authoritative as the Torah. You indicated that with your reference to the prohibition against the death penalty. A biblically authorized death penalty hasn't been carried out in over 2,000 years, yet thousands of death sentences have been carried out in the West in the past 200 years.

And this goes for Christians as well, who rely heavily on the New Testament and the traditions of their various denominations. That is, they don't just run out and try to emulate the biblical characters.

Just a rant about the constant anti-religious claims made here...

Citing to sources is generally helpful. If you're making empirical claims (for example if you're arguing about gun violence, Covid deaths, global temperature changes, etc.), it makes sense to provide support so that people will believe your information. If you're making philosophical claims that have been advanced by others, it makes sense to reference them so that the conversation can move more quickly to the real issues of debate.

If you're plagiarizing, actually quoting others without reference, then I think you'll lose much credibility once discovered. Unlike in the real world where there might be some financial or professional gain from plagiarizing, it'd just be really weird to that here.

Someone told me that I lack a “subtly nuanced” understanding of heaven and hell, meaning, I suppose, that I lacked a theologian’s understanding. — Art48

That was me.

There's nothing interesting in defeating the weakest form of a position. If, for instance, millions believe the world were created in 6 days, you hardly need to spend dozens of pages explaining to a fairly well educated crowd that could not have been. We all knew all the problems with that position before you shared your knowledge with us.

The interesting question is how you would respond to the strongest form of the argument in favor of a position (like Christianity). Such a discussion would require that you actually know what that argument is and it would require that you have spent some time thinking about it.

The fact that many, if not most, church goers really can't explain to you the subtleties of their ideology and cannot intelligently respond to objections might prove that the state of religious education among those claiming religion is lacking, but it doesn't say anything interesting to the person searching for underlying meaning derivable from the belief system.

That is, I should reject Christianity because under close analysis it doesn't provide adequate answers, but not because the bulk of Christians adhere to a simplified version of Christianity that I find unappealing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pull one towards Christ." — Ciceronianus

That all roads lead to Christ I suppose. Shouldn't be a shocking conclusion based upon:

As a Christian I believe that Christ is the fulfillment of truth. — Dermot Griffin

What's the point. Pedantic nonsense. You can define "essence" as purple egg yoke for all I care. — Banno

I didn't make that definition up.

Do you disagree that the essence of a thing is what is necessary and sufficient for that thing to be that thing? — Banno

I define an essence as "a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is."

So, if the essence of a person is that he have moral worth, than an entity without moral worth is not a person.

However, if a goat has moral worth, it is not a person simply because it shares a property with a person. It is also the case that a goat that has no moral worth can still be a goat because that property is not essential for goats.

An essential element of mammals is that they breath air, which is also an essential element of birds, but birds aren't mammals.

Sure, and an essence sets out both the necessary and the sufficient conditions. — Banno

Now we're debating what the essence of an essence is I suppose.

Nice. I like 'ethical standing' more too. 'Moral worth' sounds like a Christian apologist. — Tom Storm

All of this is religion. Don't let the terminology fool you. The difference in positions only being in how much we wish to admit to our religion. I accept mine full on.

You say humans have moral worth because it's inherent in their being.

I say humans have moral worth because of their divine essence.

Tu-may-toe tu-mah-toe.

I build my magical castles in the heavens. Yours are built from the ground, but all is magic nonetheless.

To get to moral worth as the essence of being human one would need to claim that something is human if and only if it has moral worth.

But there are things that have moral worth that are not human.

Hence having moral worth if not the essence of being human. — Banno

It's just plain if, not iff. That moral worth is an essential element of humanity does not mean that all entities with that element be human.

That an essential element of a cup is that you be able to drink from it doesn't make a river a cup it just makes a shattered cup no longer a cup.

The moral worth of humans is not derived, but intrinsic — Banno

Can a being without moral worth be human? If not, is that the essence of a human?

Still seems not to help us decide what it is to be human in a way that suits — Banno

If you're looking for a set of attributes, then, no, we don't have a definition we can resort to in all situations to determine if X goes in the bucket we mark "humans" and Y into some other bucket. But that's what we all knew would happen regardless of whether we were defining humans are any other thing.

My approach was to ask instead what it was that made humans of ethical value. The answer is that they have been set aside as holy and therefore occupy a different metaphysical place in the world. It's why the interference with a person's ability to live out their full capability is a terrible loss, and why I insisted upon offering an education to those who will surely never be able to use it for any societal or economic purpose. That a holy being is being restrained is the sin, so to speak.

To the question of how we distinguish the person from its seed or close variants, I don't really know, but I can say that once we have satisfied ourselves with a particular case where the thing is a person, I can define very clearly what respect that thing is to be afforded.

So, what is a person? It's that sacred thing we treat differently than all else. That's my definition, wholly wanting in the respect that it doesn't offer a description of what it takes to be a person, but it does otherwise tell you what a person is.

If these words are interchangeable as you've indicated, then are we just left with our personal preferences of which to use?

If yes, isn't greater inspiration and meaning found invoking the sacred as opposed to beetles?

Does this not conflate two separate questions: (1) what is a human versus (2) what is it like to be human?

I ask because I don't hold that I obtain knowledge of my soul through private thoughts. The term "soul" obtains meaning through use like any other term. I acknowledge the soul is claimed to be known in a non-empirical, faith based way, but that doesn't make it a beetle in the box. That just means it's known through an alternative epistemological system.