:100:

What about conservative morality matches those aspects specifically? What about non-conservative morality doen't match those aspects specifically? — flannel jesus

Its occurring to me I subconsciously saw the question as this, above and thought something like "Surely, that ambiguous of a question isn't being asked?" and perhaps my response "Well, I look at/hear about CM (conservative morality) and it appears more coherent, consistent and thought-out (again, even I feel the need to distance myself from defense of same on moral grounds). So, i apologise for the terseness of the last couple of replies. I should have been able to notice this and lay it out.

I think one aspect that strikes me as clear rather than esoteric as most are, is the incredibly widely shared nature of Conservative morality. One of the biggest things I've taken away from conversations is that whether fiscal or social, conservatives tend to stick together on their views and that appears a strategy rather than a failure of imagination, to me. One reason told to me is to counteract the very disparate and fracture "left" morally speaking(on this, I think they're overlooking a rather large elephant in their own room, but that's an aside - leftists stick together to avoid reproach from peers(whether true, no matter. This is the strategy)). I tend to agree that the Left is a bit more amorphous. An example (albeit, a relatively trivial one) would be that during COVID there was stark divide between right/left. In New Zealand, we had an entire campaign from the Labour (left, but only standard left. We have the fringe groups too) which hinged literally, and without my needing to fudge things: Be Kind. That was it. Be Kind. Nothing else.
They did exactly (and conveniently for me) what you've charged me with and they used the concept you used as an example, so I hope this hits in some way. What that campaign actually did was make leftists fearful, paranoid and extremely anti-social incapable of their own moral reasoning. Further, it incited other institutions (insurance companies, for instance) to push the exact same narrative as a response to the unsophisticated nature of leftist morality. The point was to grab that demographic in a moment of fear, with the phrase "Kindness Is Everything". Put frankly, this is fucking ridiculous and one of hte least-sophisticated responses to the moral crisis of COVID one could imagine (besides ignoring it which no one actually did, in aggregate). And I note that the facts of COVID aren't really, because they weren't the same as they are now, it seems (lab leak being a good example).

The point is that the entire movement hinged on an ill-defined cudgel used against anyone who even dared question the narrative or people's choices (question - not attack). It had nothing to do with the facts or what is 'best'. It was just an ideological move that kept people fearful of their neighbours.
The "right" narrative was "Hang on a minute, let's sort out some details before unilaterally legislating the reduction of freedom across the entire nation". The right were, admittedly, calling people stupid sheep for the above, which is not helpful, but it is at least reasoned on those facts.
But they were not calling people racist, bigoted, hateful and illiterate for asking the questions that have now been answered in a way that would have supported their position at the time.
The left was. I was called racist for thinking it perhaps a bit odd for Maori to be given full priority for vaccinations when the disease is novel, and we have no idea what markers might have an effect on the efficacy of the vaccine. Death threats were lobbed at those flouting the lockdown rules. Even when they posed no threat to anyone.

Now, these appear to be paradigmatic ways I see the two groups responding to issues. I do not see right-wingers trying to brow-beat people into conceding political ground. I don't see the use of personal attacks as a standard method for persuasion. I don't see a complete lack of unity. I don't see a total lack of coherent moral views within the same person (largely because of the singular source: religion. Notwithstanding - I just hate that aspect). I am currently trying to seek answers as to why the left are so hard-up for coherent moral systems within my phil classes at University. It is tough going.

The right have a simple answer: Religion. However, they will tell you outright where their religion fails to give 'correct' answers. The left say things like "All those who voted for Trump are Evil". This is cartoonish bullshit. I do see a lot of similar things (feminism is cancer, for one) among the right, but its small pockets and in most cases memery. The left doesn't have those to fall back on. They double down on the cartoonish stuff, where the right doesn't (IN MY EXPERIENCE. I AM NOT A SAGE).

Is this a bit closer to what you want to see? Again, I am not being disingenous.

but from racism. — Christoffer

Islam is not a race my friend.

Is it well poisoning to mention how “free speech absolutism” is used by extremist groups as a rhetorical tactic? — Christoffer

Yes. Obviously. Hitler loved dogs.

Radicalizing incrementally. How much do you know about extremist radicalization psychology? — Christoffer

Quite a lot. You're caving into a fear of someone else's mental state. Ridiculous.

How do you avoid the tolerance paradox when these groups use the “absolute” to change a society from a tolerate to an intolerant one? — Christoffer

There is no paradox when it comes to speech. In any case, I am not an absolutist so you're asking the wrong person. I wasn't defending absolutism, I was criticising a clear dumb argument against it. There are better arguments (some on this page).

Ahh. Dammit, I was sure you could do this one.

The harm of speech, is that when it is aimed at and intended to cause harm it often will.
If you can't see this, it's a tough go talking about it. Let's just make it simple.

An Iman proclaims that true believers must now, at that moment, leave their homes and kill all infidels.

Fair game? Yes or no will do. We can go from there.

Further, it's a strawman that leaves out that someone who has lived their life killing, raping, and pillaging isn't likely to repent on their deathbed. — baker

I think this is false, unless you want to say they are sociopathic (likely). The average person carries those things out because they think they are 'right' (needfully, "average" here actually means "in the extremely small number of people who murder, the average murderer....") and so the fear of Hell will motivate any attempts to reduce the likelihood of Hell. This is a fairly common thing.. death-bed confessional and what not.

That's a strawman of Christianity that conveniently leaves out the idea of purgatory. — emancipate

Purgatory is a Catholic concept. It is not a standard Christian doctrine. Most Christians do think recanting gets you into heaven. The caveat, as I understand, is that it must be an honest recanting - "Lord, search my Heart". That is unlikely in someone who is prone to mischievous behaviour in life - not that they wouldn't try.

(just to cut in, as I think that's a great question) The only instance in which I think such a brute reading of "ought" could be used is where one is "living" and wishes to continue "living". There are no other options, but death, which is no option at all unless we take a 'further fact' type view of ourselves. So, I think when Timothy runs from something as base as this, up to "You ought to not kick puppies, because you don't want to" the mistake is just missing the "don't want to" part in relation to a choice which could be otherwise.

You're going to need to explain where a 'right' even exists, besides from 'on high' as it were

I cannot deal with this level of non-comprehension. I have replied with those aspects of "well-developed" which apply (in my view) to conservative morality

coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking — AmadeusD

This is what I see in Conservative morality. Those aspects come out when I speak to a conservative about their moral positions, despite disagreeing with a large proportion of the actual moral statements they would make (or, have, in the conversations I have had).

Can you be a bit clearer in what you actually want? I see this:

doesn't explain why you think tha — flannel jesus

which aspects of conservative morality make it more well developed — flannel jesus

And there's an answer right above this, which I gave in briefer form earlier.

What more do you need? I am not being disingenuous. I want to answer your question, but by "aspect" I can't tell what you mean, given i've told you what attributes give it the flavour I'm driving at.

Aside: This could be answered by pointing out a worse-developed "lefty" morality, rather than why Conservatives are per se more-developed so please do be clear what you want. Just explaining the various positions conservatives hold, and why they hang together wont give you what you want.

So even though people call food good without any explicit qualification, you are reinterpreting everyone to be saying something else, namely that "food is good for such-and-such"? — Leontiskos

100%. Not just this, It is actually what people mean. Ask them. "It's tastes good". "It will keep me alive". Only in a romantic moment of poetics would someone claim food was "good" tout court. Are you suggesting that is actually what they mean? It would be bizarre if that tradition ("good food") related to something other than what is referred to in the various instances it is uttered (well-cooked, tasty, healthy etc..). This is a pretty ubiquitous way of speaking about things (i.e not completing a commonly-intuited phrase to save time - an extreme modern version is "I can't..." in the face of a difficult conversation).

It's literally not all you had said. In fact you contradicted that claim. Here is the exchange: — Leontiskos

The quote you exchange shows exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

It is necessary to survive. — AmadeusD

Exactly what I claimed, is exactly what I said. This is going to make the rest of this reply pretty ridiculous...

If you can't give truthful answers to questions posed to yo — Leontiskos

Quite frankly, sit the whole way down. This type of charge is utterly beneath you. You are wrong and I've just shown that clearly.

...That's a bit like playing chess and then saying, "I'm not going to move until you tell me your strategy, so that I know where I should move." — Leontiskos

I knew you'd say this, instead of answering. Ironic.

you give the answer, see if a false inference is drawn, and then address the false inference. — Leontiskos

You lie about such. Why would I bother?

is because it shows your claim about the arbitrariness of the good to be false. — Leontiskos

If you think this, not only is it clear you've not paid attention, it is clear you are just giving up because nothing I've said leads to the conclusion you drew before we even exchanged. Not my circus.

One only refuses to move when they are at a loss. — Leontiskos

False. If this is your position, I don't care. People refuse to answer shitty questions. As they should.

It simply does not follow from what I've said that true/false must be synonymous with good/bad, and "I find it silly" is in no way an argument for that odd claim. — Leontiskos

It does (give it a few days, and re-read the entire exchange. I dare you). It wasn't an argument. I find it silly and clearly wrong.

I take it that we both know, if we are using words accurately, that it is not an arbiter that makes 2+2=4 true. — Leontiskos

If you had paid any attention to my response, you'd know I don't agree with that. what the hell is going on dude - you're responding to my comments as if they are something other than what i've said.

I've not declared anything. I simply think you've failed to do what you are claiming to have done (and, in fact, you are just claiming that I must, secretly, accept your position)... It's sort of the opposite of what's being claimed, and its not something that can be 'gotten on with' as it were. I think this may be the end of this conversation if so. I imagine if we spoke in person or over the phone, this wouldn't be the case.

Fair enough - thanks for the comments. I think hoping for Utopia is absurd on it's face unfortunately.

Free speech absolutism is a common tactic to shift goalposts and slowly adjust people to follow something that they wouldn't outright do. It's a commonly used tactic within neonazi groups for example. — Christoffer

This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen you say. Free Speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view and this type of well-poisoning is below even the worse discussions on TPF.

"There's a story" is not good enough. That should probably be the stance, particularly with such high heat on the issue.

I've already done this, twice now. If you cannot grok it, that's not much my issue. I can only requote myself:

but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument
— AmadeusD

coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking — AmadeusD

These are hallmarks of development and effort in assessing ones views — AmadeusD

If you're disagreeing, there's no conversation to be had. Your conception of 'well-developed' is alien to me. You don't want to afford "conservatives" the plain language whicih applies to them, maybe because its hard to admit given a left-leaning bias. I can understand this, but I cannot accept that this:

I still don't know why you think conservative morality is more well developed. It's not obvious, — flannel jesus

Isn't ignorance.

Well, I think you're wrong and clearly in the grip of a bias. But whatever, that's not all that important. MTG is an absolute loon.

If you cannot see the argument, we're in the same place we always are Athena. No matter...

I was hoping this would not be necessary: It is hard for me to see how you're not trolling.

The question is obviously and clearly about speech. So, can you have another go and see what kind of speech I might be talking about?

Something like a politician saying "Go forth, my disciples, and murder those who would oppose" or if you want, imagine an Imam doing the same.
If you want that to be allowed, and rely on human behaviour to reduce the out-going harm, so be it. I think this is patently absurd. — AmadeusD

Could you perhaps point out, in the above, where I suggested, or intimated that this is what you wanted? Or that I was questioning it? You'll notice I don't.

Again:

I don't think you're coming into contact with what's being said. — AmadeusD

Hmm. I may not be getting where you want to go here, but the first section seems just an exegesis of sorts. Fair enough. You clearly do not see the Democratic party the way many do. That's fine. But we wont have a lot to talk about there, as you probably have intuited LOL.

And any tu quoqueism — tim wood

From you or me? I can't see the relation to our exchange there. Fwiw, I don't think we're comparing apples and oranges (partially, i assume, because the preceding paragraph doesn't illustrate it to me). They are two political parties that operate the same way, and always have.

You're taking it for granted that your point of view is obvious, and not even attempting a justification. — flannel jesus

What justification are you looking for my guy?
I look at the two sets of moral generalities - one seems cogent, the other not so. If you disagree, that's fine, but that's not what's being interrogated.

Your response would've made more sense in the form of something like
"Ah, i see. Well, in this case, I don't think conservatives are well-developed".

I'd have said "Cool. It's a difficult one, and I don't like their morality per se due to the religious overtones, so I can understand that".

I might agree that the criteria that determine what counts as hate speech has been unreasonably extended in some arenas of the social sphere. — Janus

Possibly, this resolves it. If we're both seeing this, is it just the degree which is in question? Hard to tell. It seems like you're arguing something a little stronger.

Do you disagree with that? You haven't actually answered my questions about whether you would allow the examples I gave and the like. — Janus

Yes I have. And i've requoted those replies above. I cannot see that its possible you've missed this:

IN any case I also directly answered you in detail** :

Literally asking someone to harm and animal should be. Joking about what kind of a person would say "x" or "y" shouldn't be. And its hard to tell, sometimes.
— AmadeusD

Just ftr, I agree, those types of statements, generally, should have at least some kind of consequence attached. That might be social, though. I'm unsure how I feel.
— AmadeusD
AAn additional note is that forums are free to police their own content. The Law doesn't need to be involved.

Are you perhaps skimming these replies? — AmadeusD

Are you skimming? It would explain why you saw that as non-cogent, if not how you missed these quotes lol.

conclude that no hate speech should be banned — Janus

You have certainly misunderstood. Certain things should be restricted speech. It is not on the grounds of 'hate'. It is on the grounds of predictable negative acts as a result (inciting is a clear case here, as I'm sure you'll agree). Saying "Trans women are not women" doesn't fall into this category. That's my gripe. That's it. There's no way to make that distinction in law without allowing an arbitrary authority to decide what does and doesn't come under that head. Surely this is clear?

Cannot tell if this will be relevant, but the thread put me in mind of this book Physics as Metaphor.

Yes, I keep the same logic. — tim wood

Thank you; appreciate it.

The subject is statistics. Answering questions based on statistics is usually a fool's game unless there is at least some understanding of what the statistics are about. — tim wood

Definitely true.

And the present question was what you meant by "over-incarceration." — tim wood

I may have misunderstood, but it was quite loaded on the back of everything that came before it. I would also say it seems self-evident, but y'know, you're asking so I must be wrong.

Which is to say that an ordinance - a decree - with the force of law behind it, is not a law. — tim wood

It is not (quite). An ordinance is simply a law enacted by local government. Decree is the right word here. Law is just a broader term under which decrees also fall. They happen all the time.

I was asking Brendan about his usage. — tim wood

Weird way to ask lol (i'm jesting, entirely. He's a difficult character).

At fault for what? — tim wood

Not understanding what she's meant to be doing (in that particular context, anyway. She seems a totally stand up legislator generally).

you would not want to marginalize them, would you? — tim wood

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I don't want to harm anyway. But in this case the margin is that on one side, we use definitions for terms in law, and on the other we just do whatever the fuck we want and then expect law to protect us, I have no time for it. I'm not interested in protecting a minority if they are outwardly hostile to the majority and refuse social convention. They can sleep in that bed (as I do, along many lines for which I don't adhere to a social norm). I see nothing wrong with this. Law need be best applied to the middle ground, not the extreme.

what is a man? (Not looking for your answer.) — tim wood

Can't tell if you do want me to say what it is, or whether you don't LOL.

As you seem to be an apologist for him — tim wood

Haha is all i can say. I am not.
I am arguing points of my own, or in some other cases noting where you're saying something irrelevant to the OP (the Decree one is a good example. You were wrong, and he might not even know why). I am entitled to do so, to help a brotha out, as it were. He isn't doing too well.

At bottom, I found the OP very objectionable. — tim wood

Yes, clearly. And fair enough. It was a contentious OP with quite a bit to get through. Though, it is very much relevant that it goes against the general grain of thought here. It was always going to be contentious, even if in the wider world it isn't. So, yeah, that's totally normal stuff.

If you want to answer for him, then please do so substantively. Or raise your own Issues — tim wood

I feel (and it seems, in retrospect, fairly obvious) I have done both of these. I'm happy to take questions from the audience though (lol). However, there's a difference between jumping in to correct what seem obvious mistakes of either interpretation or reading/vocabulary and actually arguing the points therein. I agree with a lot of what he's said in the OP - I disagree with a lot. Hell, my second (i think) reply was pushing back.

My question to you is, how do you account for McConnell's specifically and explicitly making it the goal of the Republican party to obstruct, block, and thwart any initiatives of Obama's? — tim wood

They same way Dems want to do this to Trump. You do not need race to explain why life-long (and clearly indebted-to-party) Repubs would want a particularly effective, lightning-rod Democrat who took over from GWB at a time that, even plenty of Repub voters saw Obama as a watershed moment in US history. You only need one or more of stupidity, intense party affiliation and a lack of critical thinking. Additionally, Obama ran plenty of (now)conservative policies (think a couple of have been brought up recently). Perhaps he was a threat tot he two-party system?

But this isn't what he was saying/ I was asking. Conservatives are not McConnell. They aren't even the party. They are the voters. And insinuating all conservative voters are overtly racist is absurd and hateful (not to mention patently false).

Isn't politics all about moral issues — ssu

Hmm, I can see why this is the take, but I don't think so. This seems best illustrated by the illusory way politicians have us thinking they care about hte social issues. I think there's a reason "social politics" is a term.

Yes. we think of politicians to be these corrupt power hungry narcissists — ssu

Hahaha, not always, but yeah, largely.

in reality shouldn't politicians be the arbiters of social conflicts? — ssu

No. Unsure what more to say LOL.

I'm not surprised that Americans or Brits would see me as a leftist. — ssu

That wasn't at all what I was trying to say. But, fair lol. I meant to say that your quoted passage seems to be, itself, a left-leaning frame for what "culture war" amounts to. Though, i agree with anyone who thinks "culture war" is a reasonable term - but I also disagree with anyone who thinks its some media invention. One of the most naive takes I've ever heard about social life (very, very common in NZ left circles).

I don't believe it qualifies as such. It doesn't follow that there are no clear cases of hate speech. — Janus

I assume you will read the rest of my comment, and delete this eventually?**

That's a weak response! — Janus

If you think so. But it goes to the core of why "hate speech" is a nebulous, unweildy term giving us nothing to legislate effectively. So, I'm happy to agree to disagree. It's an important point, on my view.

you think that someone who posted on public forums that th3ewy think it is good to torture animals for fun would be just "being sarcastic'. — Janus

If you think this isn't possible, I have several bridges up for sale. One of them goes the entire way across 4Chan.

I asked you a question which apparently you don't want to answer. — Janus

You asked me a disingenuous question which was a reasonable response to something I did not say. I wont defend some position I don't hold. I don't want to answer it because it doesn't apply to me. "Are you saying that..." is an implication. Not sure that you can avoid that...IN any case I also directly answered you in detail** :

Literally asking someone to harm and animal should be. Joking about what kind of a person would say "x" or "y" shouldn't be. And its hard to tell, sometimes. — AmadeusD

Just ftr, I agree, those types of statements, generally, should have at least some kind of consequence attached. That might be social, though. I'm unsure how I feel. — AmadeusD

AAn additional note is that forums are free to police their own content. The Law doesn't need to be involved.

Are you perhaps skimming these replies? I am not being rude, but having missed those two passages above is a big flag for what you're saying..

Why would you not want to prevent such a thing? — Janus

I want to prevent the state having control over what people are allowed to hear and see. Now, as is obvious in my above quotes of myself, I agree there are exceptions to this. Literally inciting violence is one. So, if you have an issue with acts (i can only assume that's the problem. You can't be insinuating that people having thoughts is hate speech) subsequent to some speech act, then you police those acts. Which we already do, and this is a deterrent enough in my view. It's not an author's fault that some wacko took their writing and did something abhorrent with it. It's that person's fault for doing something wacko. There is no transitive blame on actions to my mind. Orchestration or inciting are different things, so again, there are exceptions - but they are specific and conceptually different to "criminalising hate speech".

You seem to be mounting a "slippery slope" argument. — Janus

More than this: I am telling you that is what's already happening, in practice, when we talk about Hate Speech publicly. It is a slippery slope. Yes, there are clear cases. There are vastly more unclear ones. It is a slippery slope and at least the last five to ten years has been an excercise in kowing to the least-resilient and reasonable among us, I think (if you don't, that's cool and explains a lot but that is then our conflict, not what Hate Speech is).

So you are claiming that things which enable us to survive, such as food, are not generally considered to be good? — Leontiskos

No, no, no, no. LOL. I haven't said or intimated this. You probably need be a bit more precise in how you're reading me:
Obviously that's how things are generally considered. What I am saying, is that what people are doing is saying that "X is good for..." So, "food is good" is not what's being conveyed. "the good" is what we're talking about, so a different arena. If you mean to say you think when people say something like "food is good" that this is tout court; no qualification, then I disagree. I don't think people have that type of view.

one of the reasons we call food good is because it enables us to survive — Leontiskos

This is literally all i had said. People call food good because it performs a necessary function towards a certain goal. If that's your definition of "good" cool. It's not any common one. "Good" tends to require reason. "I will survive" is a fact, not a reason. "Surviving is good, to me" is perfectly acceptable response, though, so maybe you actually mean to say something like this? Not making a lot of sense otherwise...

No, I asked a simple question and you've avoided answering it twice now. — Leontiskos

I can only repeat my previous reply. It's not a reasonable question, because I didn't intimate it was in question. You're not getting an answer. The question is ridiculous. What people? What acts? What reasons? Probably I eat for hte same reasons as other people, but there's very little chance I do some of my more personal things for the same reasons as others. The answer you want is a fugazi imo. "yes" tells you nothing whatsoever except that I think I know why everyone does everything they do, and "No" tells you nothing but "I am special". These are not part of our discussion and I am telling you, point blank period, the question is not helpful for what you want to know. Given that I am the source of what you want to know, I'm happy to just not respond if you re-ask this one. Take that as you wish.

It's not necessary to know what someone is getting at before answering their question. — Leontiskos

Then, I did answer it. You just didn't appreciate my response, i take it. That's fine.

Right, and given that we can talk about true and false without an arbiter, I see no reason why we can't talk about good and bad without an arbiter — Leontiskos

Then you think "true" and "false" are synonymous with "good" and "bad". I both disagree and find it silly.

So does it then follow that we also need an arbiter of the terms in "2+2=4" if they are to mean anything? — Leontiskos

We have infinite arbiters of that equation, given we accept the definitions. two items, and two other items make four items. If you want to change the words that's fine, but they arbitrate the same issue.

The whole "arbiter" argument requires some explanation. — Leontiskos

It doesn't, as I see. You've not provided an objection to it. We cannot talk about truth and falsity (in situ) without an arbiter. We can only speculate, or talk conceptually. something must indicate that whatever proposition is, in fact, true or false, if we are to take those views (well, without conceding assumption, lets say, which is usually how its done). We can talk about good and bad, but to actually ascribe that to anything is a matter of personal view. There is nothing in this thread that goes against that, other than reaches for versions of Divine Command.

He captures your position very clearly before arguing against it. — Leontiskos

Perhaps you've missed, but I addressed this. He fails (on my view). YOu pointed me to an article. I read it. It was woefully inadequate to counter what I'm positing (on my view). There we are... You seem to want everything you put forward to result in a change of my mind. You'd need to present something which affects my views to do so rather than discussing them (which is much fun - and you're good at it). I am not complaining, but there's nothing in any of this exchange that would go toward giving me areason to adjust the priors involved. I am all ears, even if you have to assume I am not. I am getting a very interesting, and appreciated understanding of your views. Nothing to sneeze at. It's good stuff.

Hard to respond - feels (I know you're not) like you're ignoring:

but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument — AmadeusD

coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking — AmadeusD

These are hallmarks of development and effort in assessing ones views. You do not need to agree with the views. I think Nietzsche is one of hte worse philosophers of all time. But calling his work "under-developed" is, i take it, a laugh.
If you're simply not capable of affording something like "well-developed" to something because of hte political flavour involved, that's fine. I don't ascribe to or enjoy the standard Conservative moral either. Even ignoring hte overly religious aspects. But it is patently wrong to say it is not well-developed (particularly as compared to the varied, hotch-potch (this is the real term) of random personal grievanced that "left wing morality" appears as.

I don't much care to use either group "as a group" though, in discussion. I'm just responding to what's been said in this thread.

I don't think you're coming into contact with what's being said.

Something like a politician saying "Go forth, my disciples, and murder those who would oppose" or if you want, imagine an Imam doing the same.
If you want that to be allowed, and rely on human behaviour to reduce the out-going harm, so be it. I think this is patently absurd.

I don't have many. I agree. Broadcasting, generally, requires regulation.

The state is the source of rights. I see nothing that could upend that bare statement.

Can you explain what it would mean for something to be "ethically good" on your understanding of the term? Under what conditions can something be good in this sense? — Count Timothy von Icarus

A very good question. I am not convinced it's a coherent concept. It's like something being "factually Good". Just seems a nonsense to me. To me, I guess "good" would, in an ethical sense, be a relative term. "good for..." makes more sense than "good" bare to me.
Perhaps we need to invoke something like Coherence theory to allow this to not be a total nonsense in practice, rather than on paper. This way, several views could be totally reasonable on an ethical issue and several actions could be acceptable (even as between conflicting views, holistically speaking).

Do you not find it ironic that simply explicitly calling out what your own statements imply about your own words seems like an insult or "side-swipe" to you? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, because that's not what you did. You made insinuations which I did not either say, or imply elsewhere. That passage spoke more to what you make of my views than anything else. I was probably too harsh, but it was well out of place. Further insinuating that all you did was report on my views seems... well, i'm just going to say it: dishonest. I'm not fussed as to whether you'd cop to that or not.

Wouldn't a good argument be one that leads to truth? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Unless you have a succinct, universal definition of Truth I wouldn't think so. PLenty of arguments aren't geared toward truth anyway, and persuasion instead. So, no, i'd disagree.

A "good argument" in science, or "good evidence" would then be simply "whatever combination of argument and evidence convinces people of a position, regardless of its truth." — Count Timothy von Icarus

This seems to be the case, yes. In the real world - not particularly my view. A good argument works. It doesn't have to be 'true'.

I would argue that it's the political parties and the politicians who make many Culture War issues an issue that the people then start to heatedly to debate — ssu

I understand. A fair take. I disagree, on historical grounds, but this is not something particularly arguable. It's how I see it, rather htan some set of facts.

In political usage,

This seems to betray what you want that 'definition' to say. When it's not being used as a political cudgel (or similar) it refers to the conflict between cultural views. This is a decidedly social conflict, as I see it and politicians just pick up on this (knowing they aren't the right arbiter) to get less-intelligent people to vote for their buzz-word speeches. So, we see politicians the same, at least LOL. Just a reversal of directionality.

I would also, in some degree, reject that definition. It seems designed to play into a leftist "if you disagree you're a bigot" type thinking. Ironic LOL (but also probably partially bias on my part).

Hate speech is readily recognizable. — Janus

This is exactly the problem. You think this. So do people who think misgendering is hate speech and needs to be a criminal offense. The use of the word 'niggardly' has been touted as hate speech. Some people think saying "Black people can be racist" is hate speech. You disagree, I'm sure.

We don't agree on utterances about animals entirely - those sorts of things are often said as sarcasm etc... and this is not captured by such a view on 'hate'. And so the point still stands:

no one has that authority — AmadeusD

Your (one's; not your particularly) views are not everyone's. No, 'hate' is not as obvious as you seem to want it to be. If only...
I will say though, you're right, in my view, to insinuate that only clearly harm-motivated statements could be considered hateful. I'm not opposed. But that isn't obvious (or, what comes under that banner isn't obvious). Just ftr, I agree, those types of statements, generally, should have at least some kind of consequence attached. That might be social, though. I'm unsure how I feel.

Are you saying that such should be allowed on public forums? — Janus

(i'm largely jesting here) Now, this comes across disingenuous. I don't think i've said anything that would insinuate this. I didn't mention any type of utterance, for instance. I'd think the answer is 'it depends on the context'. Literally asking someone to harm and animal should be. Joking about what kind of a person would say "x" or "y" shouldn't be. And its hard to tell, sometimes.

What you are not allowing for is that there are impressionable people who may be influenced by such hateful propositions. — Janus

I am. But I'm anti nanny-state type legislation. I think those with this view should stop thinking the lowest common denominator is the best way to inform ourselves.

The repercussion is you’ll be known as a liar, slanderer, and a defamer. — NOS4A2

Not if you're successful - you will harm and that'll be that. Still happens these days.
That's the point. Causing actual damage is something which needs to be addressed. You cannot rely on social life for justice. It is almost never going to happen. I'm very sympathetic to an actual 'absolute' freedom of speech, but the harms visited by speech on concert with intent to harm is something I am not comfortable with.

"free speech" is either free, or restricted. So it's worded somewhat misleadingly.

To me, there are clear instances where utterances are blameworthy. Whether this should be legally codified is iffy. I think the consequence is more important. If no harm has come, I can't see why we would do so. And we already have laws that deal with actual (not perceived) harm.

You don't see this as just self-aggrandizing: — Hanover

I don't see it as self-referential at all, let along aggrandizing. I think its a totally reasonable set of things to say (not true of everything he's said, granted).

The conduct of this hypothetical person isn't suggestive of an independent thinker. — Hanover

I quite disagree. Unfortunately, that might speak to your state of mind with regard to his points. I don't know that, I'm just offering an explainer for why we see it so differently. It may also just mean that I'm in some category you have laid out by which I am not 'engaging' with what's being said. I don't know, really but I see nothing wrong with that quote. It just seems pointless to wade in to why we see it so differently (though, I'm open to that i guess).

Fear coupled with a rejection of cooperation is the driver here. — Hanover

I really don't think so, and having (I think) understood OP a bit better than most here, it seems that this quoted line will be read as a hook-line-sinker type of statement. You're drinking the kool aid. Again, I don't know if that's the case or whatever but I can see that this seems to just reject OP on the basis that you see things differently to the writer. That's fine... He's likely to say something dumb about it, but that's not what I'm defending.

Let's take the sample given and see where it gets us — tim wood

I would have preferred an answer to the question. I am asking about how you apply logic to similar (in my opinion, indistinguishable) scenarios. I very much appreciate what you're getting across and roughly speaking, agree with how stats get used etc... but this doesn't help me understand what you're saying or whether its consistent. I was interested in that. I did not ask for an analysis of old mate's chosen statistical pull. In any case, all this does is show me that you use this assessment here, and wont answer as to whether it applies elsewhere. You clearly have views in those 'elsewhere', so this seems obviously disingenuous. If that's annoying, I am not bothered.

As to over-incarcerating, yours a loaded question. — tim wood

It wasn't. I wanted a straight answer. Not prevarication. I suppose I can understand from this that you think its a complex issue and it requires a different assessment than that of hiring in regard to ethnicity. Ok. I don't think so, though. As to 'over-incarcerating' I'm having a hard time not thinking you're doing a bit of trolling here. Are you unaware of this concept? For what it's worth, 'mass incarceration' is also used. This article is on point at least in terms of presenting the ball park i'm in with this. No comment on it's actual content/conclusions.

I don't know what DEI is, beyond its initials, which I suppose are reasonably descriptive. — tim wood

That's fair. I think I have an idea, but it matters not. That's totally fair (including the exposition following..)

I am generally aware of the damage of riots - but maybe you should know a bit more history. In any case, BLM is a red herring here. — tim wood

Well, as far as I'm concerned this is prevarication. I am aware of history, and it's lead-ins to modern events. This simply isn't relevant to the fact that leftists encouraged and carried out billions in damage and violence(19 dead, i believe) in mainly black and Hispanic communities. In terms of the modern West, this is on the most extreme end of ideological behaviour. I think only this was what was being pointed out there. Again, what OP insinuated I'm not particularly here or there on.

Decree: don't confuse laws with decrees, they're not the same thing. As you can easily see by just consulting any, or many, dictionaries. — tim wood

I am a legal professional. A Decree is "an official order that has the force of law". As google would have shown you. I am not confusing the two, at all.

But that's not the context. Nor do you understand the issue. The definition called for is categorical, and Justice Jackson wisely demurs. It's not about judging particular cases but about creating a class definition that applies to all, and that easy only for people who are confused or ignorant, or both. — tim wood

Given what you've quoted, I cannot made heads of tails of this. All is already responded to in the portion of my reply you quoted. Particularly the bolded part which is clearly wrong, as I've just done that and am neither confused, nor ignorant. It take it then, this is confusing or not easy for you. That's fine. It is easy and not confusing for me.

You appear to be taking on the part of the OP. If so, account for, defend, this from his OP: — tim wood

No. Just stop making shit up about things i've said. It'll be way easier my dude.

Obama's election. Conservatives could not deal with a black man as president — RogueAI

Are you even close to being in the vicinity of serious?

Yes, you can. Are they coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking.
Again, you can disagree with the positions, but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument. If you don't think well-developed arguments are possible, then I concede.

but not much truthfully — DifferentiatingEgg

Disagree.

Left or Right is merely a new age dogma for people who can't think for themselves. — DifferentiatingEgg

That is exactly what he's been saying, as I see it. Clearly an axe to grind with the Left though, no doubt.

Exactly what I said would happen, has happened. *sigh*. The cognitive dissonance in this forum, on solely political issues, is impressive.

I actually don't know what that is. Could you explain the context? Thanks. — J

Divine Command theory holds that ethical statements are beholden to a revealed truth about a creator deity, essentially. Not always exactly that, but it means there is a prescriptive ethical system which cannot be jiggered with. Its easy, simple and does not require any kind of deliberation.

"I'm not going to read your posts past the first sentence or actually engage with any arguments at all. But my position is very strong. No, I can't positively articulate it either. I will write posts consisting of just the word 'wrong' though." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I may well not be responding to you again if this is your response to someone pointing out that your entire premise is wrong in their view, and so did not literally waste their time reading what (and now I have read it, this is true) amounts to a rehashing of the same wrong-headed position (from my view). Why would I do that? Why would you want me to do that? Not something I want to be dragged in to. I suggest, if you have any interest in engaging with me in future, to seriously rethink how you've responded to this. If you don't, that's fine. I am merely giving you my terms.

Now, that aside...

Afterall, what possible arguments or explanation could I offer that could constitute "good" arguments? — Count Timothy von Icarus

On the upside, I also cannot possibly have "bad" arguments either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

1. One which actually goes any length toward establishing an ethical truth, if that's your goal**. You have not even begun to do so, as pointed out (and exactly why there's not a lot of reason for me to pursue your posts beyond that). That you think (perhaps?) that you have done so doesn't butter bread for me my guy.

2. You are, again, failing to delineate between "that which will result in X" and "that which ought to be done". You are arguing about something I am both (in this thread, anyway) not interested in, and don't really disagree with you about. The words "bad" and "good" have multiple meanings. You are not using an Ethical meaning. You are using a practical, empirical meaning. That you are not noticing this, despite it being pointed out several times is odd. That you are then, insulting and childish, instead of trying to clarify, is also odd. Why not actually figure out what I'm saying here? You clearly don't get it. There's nothing wrong with that - but then coming at me with immature retorts isn't helpful.

And thus, when you make your moral pronouncements (which seems to be in most posts) about all the flaws of "Wokeness," I take it that this is just meant to articulate something like "boo-hoo for Wokeness." It cannot mean that it is truly bad to accept such beliefs at least. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Putting aside this incredibly silly and unfounded side-swipe, yes. That's correct. What's your problem with that? I make arguments as anyone else does. They are either effective, or they're not. Has it helped you understand my positions? Then it might be good. If all I've done is make people think less of me, there are two options:
1. They are bad arguments (or my positions are insensible); or
2. You hold positions that don't allow for you to be generous to certain other positions.

**Arguments being 'good' is not ethical. They are effective, or they are not. A good (i.e effective) argument for racism doesn't make it ethically good. This is not complicated, I don't think. Can you let me know what's not landing here? I think i've been sufficiently clear and patient.

the term “Left” and “Right” are by now slurs meant to impugn another, or otherwise to signal one’s political purity, and not much else. — NOS4A2

You often say crazy shit. This is patently not one of those. This is bang on.

Then I have no idea what you're talking about. There seems no difference.

It seems your just describing political discussion as 'across the aisle', noting it can get aggressive.. and....??
the Culture Wars such as they are branded are simply the set of issues people want to be dealt with either socially or politically. To the degree that parts of that whole apply to political discussion: yes. They do. There's nothing wrong, weird, untoward or manipulative about that. Almost all 'culture war' issues became issues because real, actual people, really, actually came into contact with those issues in their actual, real life and had actual, real feelings about that. If we want to trivialize this I can kind of understand where you're going.. otherwise, i'm kinda lost.

Can you maybe let me know what the difference is, for you?

In reverse, I generally agree, but I am not entirely sure how I feel about the sacredness of hte Constitution. It's been open to update before. Why not now...

I think it should be assumed. Otherwise, prevarication and 'be nice' ends up where you/we/they are.

I have a moral obligation to be vegan and live like a monk. But I don't wanna. — RogueAI

This tells me either you, or your moral system, is quite obviously defective. If you don't want to and that trumps all this suffering, that's on you. If you actually do want to, but find other things more enticing, perhaps the moral system is a bit bankrupt. Personally, my take is that you're obliged at all.

I agree with your premise, I'm just making the point (in the previous comment/s) that exploitation isn't the issue.

Without a lot more information, these are "gee-whiz" statistics. That is, by themselves they don't mean anything. — tim wood

(This isn't loaded. I understand you'll have a reasonable answer) Do you keep this same logic when it comes to noting other, prima facie interesting statistics? Something like the crime statistics vs ethnicity? Is it "gee whizz" or is it "we're over-incarcerating?"

Anything in that you object to? — tim wood

This is a kind of disingenuous 'gotcha' I wouldn't have pegged you for. "DEI" is not "diversity, equity and inclusion" and that's it. DEI is a movement with tenets, expectations and results. I, for one, am not a fan. I think those three words are fine things to have a penchant for, though. Enforcing them seems... self-defeating.

I asked what leftists burned and you talk about BLM, and as to what was burned, and you say, "Duh, I dunno, but they burned a lot of stuff." Like what? — tim wood

Equally disingenuous,. You either are, or are not aware of the literal billions in damage to predominantly black communities and businesses and (iirc) 19 dead bodies. If you're not, just say that.

Further, are you really trying to say BLM was some kind of 'business as usual'? It wasn't. Not by a loooooooooong shot. It was thuggery of the most obvious kind.

I suggest you look up "decree." — tim wood

He's using the word correctly. It is an ordinance with the force of law behind it.

How was Penny abused? — tim wood

He should have never been charged with anything. Hero? Probably not. But htis is again just disingenuous.

And how was Justice Jackson at fault? — tim wood

A law maker that cannot define the element of law which applies specifically to herself, in the context of lawmaking, is at fault. I cannot understand your attitude throughout htis reply. Its bizarre.
A woman is an adult human female. It is simple, and not at all a problem for 99 % of people throughout most of history.

In sum, you have doubled down on your vicious stupidity — tim wood

Your entire reply is condescending (mostly wrong) babbling. Keep that same energy and report your own posts my guy.

Of course there are many legitimate grounds for deporting illegally-arrived migrants — Wayfarer

They're being in the country, for one. Something Crockett seems to not know is a crime.

New Guinea and Nauru — Wayfarer

Yes. A dark chapter.

In the US, there is an over-arching need to be seen to be deporting millions of people — Wayfarer

Hmm. Until Trump, the single thing about immigration i was made aware of through media etc.. as an 'American' tenet, was 'Take on everyone, from everywhere, all the time" and that deporting people was reprehensible, unless a "true criminal" (what that meant, I dont know.. Murder, fraud and rape I assume). But Obama was roughly speaking, anti-immigration. So it struck me as weird.

So it seems that ICE is just... — Wayfarer

Yeah, it pretty much does.