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.

Do we have an obligation not to benefit from the exploitation of others? — T Clark

It's a weird wording. Prima facie, no. We don't. I don't think exploitation is ipso facto bad, though. I would like to maximally exploit all the talented people around me, and hope i have skills that would lead to the vice verse. There are other rights violations that have my back in certain (though, typical) instances of exploitation.
I don't think we have an obligation to interrogate everything we do/consume for exploitation, though. Its a nice thing to do, of course.

This is a highly inconvenient truth, as far as Trump is concerned. He's right in saying that the process of giving all these unauthorised arrivals their due is highly impractical and he's saying that completely over-riding their constitutional rights is, therefore, justified. That is what is at issue. i think this will be the arena in which the impending constitutional crisis in the form of defiance of the Courts will manifest. — Wayfarer

I think you've nailed this being hte crux of how there could even be an actual 'crisis' of government. Trump is correct, and if they were all criminals, that's a rock/hard place issue. But, given the incompetence with which the policies are carried out currently, I'm unsure where I land. I don't think anyone should have rights simply by arriving (illegally) in the country. But I also think all of what's going on rn is insane, in practice if not in theory.

But isn’t this more or less how ethics already works in practice? Morality, as we experience and debate it, seems less like the discovery of timeless metaphysical truths and more like a code of conduct that is shaped by competing preferences, traditions, and values among different groups. — Tom Storm

I agree that this is what is happening. Though, I add that the majority of people don't think this is what's happening. They think that morality is objective, and they've got the goods (or, they can get the goods). This is, in my view, the problem. There's no issue with differing views, cajoling, adjusting, compromising etc. etc.. But when your interlocutor's don't believe this is acceptable because other views are ipso facto reprehensible, it's not a discussion or anything. Luckily, overall, the Law does this well and so people can cry into their cereal about it, i guess.

it is inaccurate to call it an insurrection, — Brendan Golledge

I agree with this, for sure. It wasn't at all an actual coup (though, I do have to leave open the "What if they got physical control of the building?" type stuff - and I can't be sure. old LSD Jesus or whatever would've done a number, but I imagine most would've gone home.

I don't think women in STEM fields really makes a difference. — Brendan Golledge

I mentioned others, but it also does make a difference. You're saying there's a trend under which women do not achieve in the same ways men do, intellectually. I am showing that, currently, there is a trend in that exact direction. We need another 50 years before we could make a call, is my position there. I don't think you've established what you're claiming, yet.

In my personal experience, all my worst experiences with authority have been from women. It has only been female authority figures who went out of their way to make my life miserable when there was nothing in it for them. There were also a couple who seemed to take an arbitrary liking to me. — Brendan Golledge

Unfortunately, I can't counter this. My experience has also been overwhelmingly that men in positions of power over me are either: 1. Uncaring, or 2. Extremely caring. For women, its generally been 1. They like me; or 2. They don't like me and that has informed their actions toward me. This seems particularly true of the legal field.

That said, my experience isn't much to go on. I think women aren't used to be in positions of power. Goes along with why I think the 'trend' you note probably isn't a fair framing of what's happened/is happening. In terms of optics, I'm right there with you though.

Also, 100% of marriages are initiated by men, but 70% of divorces are initiated by women. — Brendan Golledge

This isn't true. 100% means there is not a single marriage initiated by a woman. Do you care to own that claim? I suggest it is patently untrue.

you'd have to show that women have an objective moral standard rather than just siding with whoever sees weaker or more relatable — Brendan Golledge

No, you wouldn't. You'd just have to show that your final half-sentence is not true. I don't think it is, any more than a majority of men do the same. Men are particularly good at doing that to women. Perhaps the sexes are just evolutionarily, understandably, a bit wary of each other in a moral sense given their differing capacities and strengths.

But sometimes a woman makes up her mind to hate you and there's nothing you can do about it. — Brendan Golledge

Men do this all the time. And women do it to women more often, interestingly.

I'm trying my best to bring you back into a discussion where you're not foot-out-door. IT's making it hard to drill down to what you actually think about these issues, rather htan how you're currently feeling.

And lots of women recently have said that they would feel safer with a bear than a man. — Brendan Golledge

Most women not being paid to say it use this as an apt metaphor for the fact that they've never been attacked by a bear, and neither has the vast majority of women. They have, in some probably small majority, been attacked in some way by a man. Its a bit of a ridiculous click-bait thing, and some younger women seem to have fallen into thinking it was serious. That's lamentable. I don't think that has anythign to do wiwth women's capacity for moral thinking. That seems total non sequitur.

A young child is more likely to be killed by his mother than a bear, so I would rather keep my child in the company of a bear than a woman. — Brendan Golledge

I would think most of those who take the above seriously, would agree with this but want you to do a decent human being and acknowledge, as the law does, that birth often relegates reason to a backseat, thus reducing culpability. Nothing in a man's world can do this, other than some form of argument about how hormones cause men to be overwhelmingly horny and act out of character as a result (I think there's something to this, but not enough to reduce culpability). But, hormones v hormones usually gets an "Oh, I hadn't thought of that" in my experience.

Edit: However, I highly, HIGHLY recommend not reply to Mikie. There's no discussion to be had. He's even right, most of the time. But its not worth the time, and it seems you're already upset by the generally left-leaning nature of the forum. Mikie is exceptional in the degree to which he mimics a Twitter user.

They want to disable services to the undeserving, like third-world people with tiresome diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, AIDS, and so on. — BC

You needn't add 'undeserving'. The position doesn't consider deserts. Nor should it, imo. BUt my response still wouldn't be unilaterally removing support. The 'undeserving' aspect seems (and I wanted to broaden this to "us v them" discussions more generally, so read this as a vehicle for a wider, rather than a personal attack) to be added by the critic in order to morally condemn the position.
An example of how this could work would be: are the slaves of North African not deserving of our aid money? Our human resource? Our time? If so, why do Democrats think them undeserving of our aid?

Well, that's simply not what Democrats think, even when arguing for a denial of aid to those slaves. You can reverse this for most positions. That's why I, personally, require a decent discussion about goals before gettign into policy in a political discussion.

We've been cordial enough recently for me to say "Yes, that's true. Not what I was getting at " lol.

dwarfs what was done on Jan 6th — Brendan Golledge

This seems a bit of "whataboutism". I think BC has correctly identified a situation where, for all other viewers, the right-wing action was hypocritical. No?

I have not seen any counter points (individual persons don't really demonstrate anything). — Brendan Golledge

One counterpoint would be that, historically, this hasn't been possible. Currently, the trend is toward more educated/intelligent woman taking up more and more space in our 'important' fields like STEM and politics. Still a disparity? Yep. There would be, on either reading - so it's hard to understand why you think your version is the correct reading?

OK, so "law and order" and the January 6th attack on the capitol by right wingers. — BC

In their view, however misguided, they were upholding Law by pushing back against an illegally-won election (I know, I know. Roll your eyes all you want. I did. But this is consistent, at least).
It's the response, post-Jan 6 than gives me quite a bit of inconsistency to go on with.

Smart women have always been a trend, just like smart men. — BC

Could you point to this trend? Noting that I am well aware that that 'smart women" have existed as long as humans have. It seems quite clear to me that what Brendan is getting at is above this level of (fair) glibness.

Rawls would say it did not understand liberalism — J

Perhaps he needs another cultural moment. Certain seems like this sort of thing is trying to be brought into legislative styles. The recent UK court ruling seems to reverse this, somewhat ( in terms of a cultural picture - not that one ruling changes the Western conception of gender per se).

Just a note: we might be closer to each other htan many here, but saying things like this:

I feel like I'm probably wasting my time. It is a common trope of liberals to pretend like they were born yesterday in order to make their opponent explain everything that has ever existed before they will concede a point. — Brendan Golledge

every company that ever had a DEI page was advertising that they hate white men. — Brendan Golledge

but if you cared, — Brendan Golledge

comes across as emotional, dismissive and unhelpful to a conversation. You should assume most people will have a hard time with these topics and not lose patience. Don't fall into the NOS4A2 hole of being lumpen about conversations you apparently are deeply invested in :) If you don't want to reply, don't. But its not good to say "I don't want to reply, but I will" basically. Feels like you've already made up your mind.

I thought you were going? — James Dean Conroy

You've made a separate move (one which takes advantage of My leaving the thread - and perhaps was designed to get me commenting again - I think this is true).

You lied about me in a thread I can read. I don't actually care what you think about the OP or my 'takes' anymore, but lying about what I've actually said is something else entirely. You seem to want conflict, not discussion.

You don't even understand what an axiom is or how to conduct rational discourse. — James Dean Conroy

Both, patently untrue. This is the issue: you're telling me something I know, is in fact, something I don't know. You then go on to make an entire separate, childish sideswipe of post running down what an Axiom is. I know what an Axiom is. Your rejection of my comments on the same only serves to illustrate your inability to converse when someone disagrees with your axioms. You can just say "Ok, well I don't get how you get there" or something and move on.
Additionally, I am sorry, Axioms are arguable. They are not a matter of opinion, but which axioms one accepts is a matter of personal assessment. If this were not the case, we'd have our axioms and your post would be pointless crap. Which it clearly isn't. Axioms are, perhaps the only, aspect of a coherent worldview that must be chosen, not rationalized. You have, apparently, taken my rejection of a (imo, patently silly) axiom as somehow telling you several other things: That I don't know what an axiom is, that i think you are a Randian, that you are relying on Rand etc.. etc.. Never said anything like this.

So, don't lie, and I wont bother. Good? Good.

For anyone else thinking this is a Randian philosophy then attempting to undermine it purely based on that misconception — James Dean Conroy

I didn't do that. A reading of what I've actually said would betray this. So, do not attempt to be dishonest about me in threads I can read. :) You are extremely good at not reading clearly, and then saying someone else did it.

How can anyone be a moral person who waits to be told what to do, or to have others fix things or be responsible for fixing them? — tim wood

This is something that hte theory they're using has to answer for. Is it an objective moral, and can it be articulated? From a religious point of view, they're very-well sorted in that sense.

it seems to me that the political debate these days focuses on the crazies on both sides, without recognising that most people are closer to the centre. Perhaps I'm wrong about this. — Tom Storm

I was under this impression until some recent events had an overwhelming party-political bent to them (Karmelo Anthony, Luigi Mangione, Elon being drawn in to Government etc...) where the position is patently insane (Musk is a Nazi, Karmelo Anthony is a hero, Luigi Mangione is a hero) but correct, as far as the acceptable opinions for that group go. I could also be wrong, though, so your point rings very loud in my ears. The media etc.. heightens that impression, even if it's roughly speaking, correct.

Is moral development a matter of actual progress or simply of changing community values? — Tom Storm

Neither. For me, for that concept to hold much of anything, we're looking for coherence. IFF you believed your gay child was headed directly for Hell, your actions would be clear, concise and obviously toward the end of keeping them out of Hell. Well-developed. Doesn't mean good :P

Again, I wish it were that simple. — J

I'm the opposite. Intuitively, I assume there must be something more. But I cannot find even a coherent articulation of what that 'something more' could even be. I wish I could find it (maybe this amounts to the same thing lol - but I want my intuition to work, instead of be a clear instance of evolutionary illusion.

it would have been dismissed centuries ago. — J

Plenty of examples of why this is patently not the case! Divine Command theory being one.

Ok. Your misunderstandings are noted, and I shall go about my business. Good luck to you.

it's pure unadulterated sophistry. — James Dean Conroy

You're welcome to think so. I have already addressed this (among your issues).

It’s vibes-based dismissal masquerading as insight. — James Dean Conroy

Err nope. BUt again, you're free to think so.

I already did. — James Dean Conroy

You've not. You're still running arguments that are in her wheelhouse, while saying its not Randian. Bizarre.

That’s not a rebuttal. — James Dean Conroy

You didn't say anything to be rebutted. It's a quaint notion. Change my mind?

condescending — James Dean Conroy

No. But this, also, explains a lot. It's not all about you. You seem a little... over-alert.

you mischaracterised my position — James Dean Conroy

I didn't. It seems you cannot see your own position too clearly. Not uncommon.

What does that even mean? — James Dean Conroy

Your first statement is a nonsense in the face of this being hte follow up. Do you want an answer, or nah? Seems like nah.

“You didn’t respond exactly how I wanted, so I’m dismissing you wholesale.” — James Dean Conroy

Ironic. Particularly as I responded to part, and dismissed part (so, not 'wholesale'). I'm not one for pussyfooting: you come across as incapable of a discussion.

Pure gaslighting. — James Dean Conroy

Haha. Okay mate.

isn’t an argument. — James Dean Conroy

It is when your argument is somehow a different one (i.e "you didn't read X"). Its typical. Not interesting.

Your claim of engagement doesn't match the content of your responses. — James Dean Conroy

It does. Your responses match the content of your responses to others, though. I am sorry if you are bothered (it certainly seems so) that I note a distinct, and obvious Randian flavour. It's not my circus. If you reject Rand, you'll need to confront that basic tenet: Life/survival is the fundamental motivator for any value. That is explicitly Randian.

not just state that you "disagree". — James Dean Conroy

If it's an axiom, this is the only available retort. You believe its fundamental. I don't. We don't have a discussion. THis is a genuinely bizarre response.

That is, if I say, "My statement was incorrect," that is equally personal and internal, with no pretense to objectivity? — J

Not quite, but I think this comes into something about when we can even apply the note 'correct'. If it's a question of reportage, then there's a rubric in place. I think the problem of perception means we can never be objective even in this case, but I note a serious difference between that statement when referring to, for instance, the fact of a Cat being in the room at the time (and wrongly saying it wasn't) or making a claim about, for instance, the worth of a policy which you perhaps misunderstood initially. In the latter, its just your position (now). In the former, you can be wrong. That you think your interpretation was off, is what's motivated the latter. That you can now see a Cat in the room motivates the former. They seem different to me. "I was wrong' doesn't actually seem to properly capture either issue, though, so we mayyy be talking past each other.

The distinction — J

Right, so you're delineating desire and practicality. Fair enough. I still cannot understand the choice being 'not preferable' and still the correct choice, all things considered. Plenty of choices fit "undesired" though, which again, boils back to an emotional output in my view. Though, I seems you're trying to say in the one case, it's emotional and in the other not. Hmm. I don't know that I see the distinction.

But I would have said that we all know the difference between doing something we really want to do -- have positive feelings about -- versus doing something quite repugnant, yet morally necessary as we see it. — J

Sure. Based on our emotional statements about the things in question. That seems baked in here.

Or must we always be talking past each other? — J

This seems true. I have never had an objectivist say something I considered particularly rational about the basis for such a view. I assume the reverse is true.

I’m just trying to wrap my head around the image of Brendan sitting in the middle of a group of MAGA supporters and saying to himself “Gee, these people are so much more morally developed than leftists!”. — Joshs

Not hard to imagine. You just have to realise you can disagree with the morals, and still notice that they are more developed (or, better orchestrated/consistent). I think that's patently true (though, most reasons why that's the case are negative in my view lol).

Rand starts with the individual rational man as the root of value. — James Dean Conroy

This is not I, nor any Randian i interact with's take on this.
I have no idea why you're being difficult, dismissive and otherwise abraisive, but you seem to be impervious to other people's takes. If you're not a Randian, why do you care? Just reject Rand and be done with it. I am telling you in no uncertain terms you are using hte same rationalization. It happens, man. No beef.

That’s not shoehorning Rand, — James Dean Conroy

I wasn't talking about you. Perhaps this explains much...

It’s not quaint — James Dean Conroy

My view is it's quaint. You haven't convinced me otherwise.

Value only emerges within living systems, so life is necessarily the substrate of value. — James Dean Conroy

Non sequitur. Living systems often retain nothing like value, so something further must be at issue. Simple.

Where? — James Dean Conroy

All of your values. You aren't addressing what I've said in the next line, so I've ignored it.

Just don’t pretend that critique actually engaged what I said. — James Dean Conroy

It did. You're welcome to pretend otherwise.

I'd appreciate it if you engaged the actual material instead dismissing because of your presuppositions. — James Dean Conroy

I read your OP. I've followed references. These are my takes. If you don't like them, say so. You wont get far by charging anyone who doesn't agree with you with not engaging the material. That said, this isn't particularly interesting to me so I'm not even that keen to engage with you on it. Still, I did.

it’s about life itself as the substrate of value. Rand begins with man qua man. I begin with life qua life. Very different trajectories — James Dean Conroy

fwiw, this is how Randians comport themselves. hence the very apt comparison.

And "ipso facto good"? That’s the point of the axiom: good doesn’t float free. It emerges from the structural necessity of life valuing itself - or it ceases to be. — James Dean Conroy

According to you. I reject it. Brute value exists.

What do you make of the argument that because life is the basis of all value it is therefore good? — Tom Storm

I think its quaint, but very much misguided. I have a friend in the Philosophy Club I meet with who is a strict Randian and shoehorns Rand into literally everything. His take on Ethics boils down to exactly this, based on the Objectivist Ethics. It's never been convincing, even reading the parts of Rand he felt were relevant.

Two Randian threads in ten minutes. Colour me surprised! LOL.

Looks like I was going to reply last week lol.

I don't see how this is ipso facto good. — Tom Storm

(I agree, wholeheartedly!!! And that's my main gripe with any objective ethics, moreso THe Objectivist Ethics of Rand) REALLY?? I'd have taken you for one who needed to ground their ethic in something like this. Nice to know.

There is more in this post than most commenters are going to give it. But I can already see from the one response, people are not going to be even partially fair to an view-from-above post like this. A shame.

Both the followers of Hitler and Trump, Biden, Clinton, Churchill, Modi, Ceaucesu, etc... believe they were treated badly and their country was being ruined — Athena

Weak. Not even an argument.

But Banno does not accept that difference of meaning, and equivocates in his complaints about my explanations. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see this. I think Banno can be a total dick, so I get the conclusiory notes here, but I cannot see this happening. Sorry mate.

I believe it can be an overwhelming, all-encompassing disposition. In any case are such matters any of our business really? Why does it matter to you? — Janus

Leaving the prior notes aside, as they were vague so we're just going to be going in circles, the above is true. It is also true of severe bi-polar, schizophrenia, true (i.e without the political baggage) body dysmorphia, chronic depression etc.. etc.. etc... These things matter to other people, and we even have provisions to detain people with these mental aberrations because of the heightened potential for harm to self and others. I am not, at least in this meager of a discussion, suggesting there's some direct parallel here, but the logic is the same.

Unfortunately, humans are male or female. That said, I see that part of this discussion isn't quite on the table and that's fine. I don't want a tense argument about htat issue right now.

Additional rights" would have been better. — Janus

then I would need to say things like "this is racist" before any decent discussion could be have about merits. We're justifying racist policies. I am not entirely perched to reject that possibility. I was for some time (and may possibly still be) for policies which afford women additionally (read: advantageous) rights in law above men. So, your points about being 'decent' are not lost on me. I hear those arguments. But 'kindness' does not solve problems. Consider:
We grant additional rgihts,and do what we can to support population X who is a minority, and was historically harmed. Great. They continue to fail and draw resources for generations without ever coming to the table in terms of reciprocity. Perhaps this is somehow morally acceptable: but it would bankrupt a nation and potentially push other demographics into poverty and diseducation, lacking in health care etc... instead of allowing all boats to rise. We need to consider these things instead of just crying and say "oh the humanity".

Do you really believe that most liberals would condone assassination, even of those they disagree with? — Janus

They seem to. Luigi Mangione being a big example. Heck, this white kid stabbed in the heart seems to be another one. Karmelo Anthony is being praised as some kind of hero in (not insignificant) corners of the base for stabbing a kid in cold blood and admitting it. He has raised more money than the fucking victim. It is not a serious conversation if we're going to deny the utterly reprehensible moral compass of the left. It is not lost that sometmes, this is outright racist thinking (the Anthony example is one).
But, to be clear, I didn't even suggest this. It is a significant number. That's all I can say for certain. The above is just blood-boiling so I'm happy to make the point. The sheer number of people who praised the shooter at Trump would be another, including several celebrities and politicians (i'm not going to post instagram compilations on here, but you could find them if you wanted to. Threats and praising the shooter abound).

So, you would include so-called hate speech as being unnecessary to restrict? — Janus

It depends what your definition of hate speech is, and this is always the problem. I am 100% against any kind of hate speech legislation because (even taking the underlying loadedness of your question as legitimate) no one has that authority. We cannot rely on 'perceived hate' because that's utter bollocks, and so we need an objective measure. If that's just slap-dash written up in a Bill, it's going to be insane. And it always is, as the UK has shown over the last few years https://mythdetector.com/en/free-expression-on-the-internet/ This last link because its actually pretending to be counter, but you get lines like this:

"The law also penalizes the deliberate spread of false information intended to cause annoyance or anxiety."

Are you kidding?

Aside from this, I want to know who the racists are. Don't stop anyone from showing their true self. Otherwise they'll do it in the dark.

But why isn't it moral? — Leontiskos

It doesn't require a moral judgment. I am at pains to understand how this question arose.

I think assessing against a rubric requires judgment. — Leontiskos

Feel free. I don't consider that judgment. If i'm marking a student's exam against a rubric of which out of A, B, C or D is 'correct' for each question, i'm doing no judgement at all. I feel the same applies here.

I suspect that what you are really doing is trying to deny that such a moral judgment is objective — Leontiskos

AS above, it should be clear I am not. Though, I agree, It couldn't be even if it were moral/ethical.

It seems that to morally judge someone else is really just to judge their culpability. — Leontiskos

That would be judging their moral culpability. Again, finding it hard to understand how these sorts of things arise. Do you not see that there are any other kinds of judgements going on in life?