• Arabs and murder

    One way to see and to show this fallacy is to change taxonomic levels and see how it looks then. Is the Welsh Assembly Government a representative of all Celts or all people of Indo-European culture? How about all humans?
  • How can we justify zoos?
    Ask you yourself the following moral question: "when is it morally justified to rape an innocent child?"

    A consequentialist would answer: 'well that depends on the consequences.' A utilitarian could state that it depends whether it maximises the sum of aggregate happiness. This means that group rape could make raping morally more justifiable, and the larger the group, the better it would be. Sadism would be morally justified to indulge.

    Putting "suffering" at the centre of your normative moral view is troubling.
    Emptyheady
    Actually, that's a problem with putting happiness at the centre. Putting suffering at the centre solves that because then the babies experience of suffering trumps the sadists' experience of pleasure.

    Also, what is all this bs about how uncontroversial your view is? Why on earth do you care? How can you care? Popularity is the very least thing one should be concerned about when evaluating any view.
  • How can we justify zoos?
    Lol. Species have a very specific biological and taxonomical definition, which is rooted in reproduction. People from different races can reproduce, i.e. can make cute babies. There is a point where two (sexual) organisms can no longer sexually reproduce with each other, which have by that very definition become different species.

    Don't waste time with this ignorant hollow twaddle mate. 'Species is a race on a larger scale though' Jesus Christ...
    Emptyheady
    That defines the precise difference in scale and that definition of species had nothing to do with rights.
    Why do you have to be such a rude twat?
  • How can we justify zoos?
    If there were a species which is better capable of moral agency than us, would you consider them to have more rights than you?
    Or do you consider moral agency to be a binary property?
  • How can we justify zoos?
    Moral agency is not limited within a race nor gender.Emptyheady
    A species is a race on a larger scale though.

    Why do you think animals can't act morally?
    Because they can't do philosophy and think about morality that way?
    They can still do kind things for each other. Like picking nits out of hair. They can still do cruel things. Like needlessly play with mice.
    Likewise, humans are also capable of cruelty and kindness.
    What makes us moral agents and them not?
    Consiousness?
    Rationality?
  • How can we justify zoos?

    What properties do humans have that give them those rights?
    Would you be ok with being used as property/utility by beings with more of said properties?
  • Sapientia should read this
    Why do you, with controversial views (if they are), have more reason to speak them than people whose views are not controversial?Bitter Crank
    (or unpopular)
    Because by definition it is less likely that there are people already saying them and that the listener already believes them (preaching to the choir).
  • 'Proper' interpretation

    Oh. To what were you trying to convey a rejection?
  • 'Proper' interpretation

    It's not entirely the reader's responsibility. In fact I did not intend to say that. The misunderstanding was probably fault this time.
    I wanted to hear from people who believe that what the poster intends to say doesn't matter.
  • 'Proper' interpretation
    Misunderstandings can still be useful, interesting — (anticipated, possible response)
    True. And they can also be useful if they are corrected.
  • What's wrong with ~~eugenics~~ genetic planning?

    Are you trying to say that a person should not complain if he or she is misunderstood?
    Surely being understood and contributing what it is that the poster wishes to be understood is the entire reason behind posting something.
    http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/829/proper-interpretation
  • What's wrong with ~~eugenics~~ genetic planning?
    Our consciousness [means we should go extinct]Heister Eggcart
    Do you believe consciousness to be an inherent bad or is it just bad the way consciousness interacts with the other attributes of humanity?
    Either way, why?
    I expected it to be [spoiler]something like the fact that we're the most powerful species and therefore those able to do the most damage[/spoiler]

    Just to keep people on track here... Eugenics isn't about what "you" want, it's about what the authorities have decreed. Eugenics is a plan for improvement which has nothing to do with your personal preferences. Of necessity, it has been, is, or would be decreed and enforced by centralized authority with enough power to coerce "you" into breeding or not breeding as directed.Bitter Crank
    Actually the way I, OP, used it, it could also mean a cultural attitude and thinking or saying otherwise shows that you haven't actually read the OP properly.
  • Q for Hanover: Bannon

    I have interests. Just like everyone else. Some interests I am more interested in than others.
    You think I'm some kind of invader, trying to get to everyone to agree with me and I suppose in a way you are right, but only insofar as everyone else with an opinion does, to some degree or another. Convincing people and being convinced is part of the point of a place like this. Is it not?
    Also as someone with mildly(?) controversial views, I have more reason to speak them then someone with less controversial views.
    So as not to derail this thread: if you want to reply, it should be here
  • What's wrong with ~~eugenics~~ genetic planning?

    What do we have that other species don't that means we should go extinct?
  • What's wrong with ~~eugenics~~ genetic planning?
    Any totalitarian means or system which treats people as animals with no ability to choose for themselves is wrong. Eugenics is such a system, and thus it is wrong.Agustino
    See my answer to b:
    eugenics can just be from a common attitude in societyOvaloid
    Not an attitude of "I don't want to be with you because you are genetically inferior" but one of "I love you and want to be with you but I'm afraid we'll have to adopt or use IVF/artificial insemination".

    I wouldn't want only great people to exist... Just imagine a society formed of Alexander the Greats. That would result in chaos, as none of them would accept to be ruled.Agustino
    It's not necessarily true that every one would be equally great. They would just be greater than before.
  • What's wrong with being transgender?
    (I am sorry in advance if my points and questions have already been made)
    I believe that biological sex is one and the same with gender!Agustino
    Do you mean "should be" not "is" or that you can't distinguish between the two concepts?
    If the former, why?
  • I want to be a machine

    Ah, that does sound bad.
  • I want to be a machine

    www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
    Ctrl-f tattoo = 0 results
    Ctrl-f hair = 0 results
    Where's that citation from the law of whatever country? (you did say 'legally')
  • I want to be a machine
    Anyone joining the military is automatically considered property of the state. They can legally do anything they want with you because you are no longer considered just another human being.wuliheron
    [citation needed] also which country
    If that's true, do you know the reason for it?
  • What do you live for?
    its wrong because It is vainintrapersona
    Vanity is excessive pride. What's excessive about it?
    Now we've gone around in a circle.

    and illusoryintrapersona
    There's no such thing as objective achievement?
    Well, one can still strive for subjective achievement.

    But just think about if you had no one else to compare yourself to, and it was only you in existence? Of which standards would you set yourself up against? How would you know if you did well and could therefore be proud of yourself? It seems you NEED others to feel good about yourself, just not directly need them to see how good you are as you say,intrapersona
    It's hard to know how I would feel in such a circumstance because I've never been in one but it's possible that I feel neither happy nor sad ( about that particular thing). And I could still compare myself to a previous state.
  • What do you live for?
    then you drop dead on the floor, bahahaintrapersona
    There's absolutely no need for that. (btw mods, what is the point in banning bigotry if other kinds of meanness are left up?)

    You live for self-esteem? I can't imagined a more egotistic reason for a will to liveintrapersona
    How is it wrong? It doesn't mean I'm going to persue that goal to the detriment of others (nor is that necessarily the case with other goals for other people such as happiness or eudaimonia).

    exclaiming to everyone "you see how good I am?intrapersona
    self-esteem = feeling good about oneself, not necessarily = other people feeling good about one
  • Q for Hanover: Bannon
    I thought you meant since I came back
  • Q for Hanover: Bannon
    No disagreement there. But I think there's a need to call them idiotic when they're idiotic.Terrapin Station

    So, you don't disagree with the views but you think they're idiotic. How does that make any sense?
  • Q for Hanover: Bannon

    Mind taking a look at my comments and basing your view on facts like a rational person?
  • Q for Hanover: Bannon
    , based on SJW-fueled idiocyTerrapin Station

    Oh, come now. There's no need to call opinions idiotic just because you disagree with them.
  • Q for Hanover: Bannon
    You again? In another thread about <insert topic that you post about here>.

    Okay.

    Aren't there other forums out there for that?

    You could say that to almost absolutely anyone on absolutely any forum. Why me in particular?
  • Q for Hanover: Bannon
    What exactly is the relevant difference between managing and promoting an organization noted as a platform for racist, (as well as sexist, and xenophobic) material--and "being" a racist?Brainglitch

    It's the difference between allowing someone to say a view in one's house and saying that view oneself. Should all private property be dictatorial states?
  • Q for Hanover: Bannon

    Which cultural features do you regard as inferior and which superior?
    And what 'inferior' features does Palestinian culture have that justifies eliminating it?
  • What do you live for?
    What do you live for?intrapersona
    The possibility that I'll find a better purpose than this one, which will probably be the self esteem that comes from achieving difficult things.
  • What features could an non-human sapient being have (you can post non-sapient too)?
    How would that help them to get around? By giving their kids the ability to fart at near light speeds.Sir2u
    Maybe that would be their substitute for human technological advancement.
    Maybe they didn't have that ability at first but they gave it to their offspring.
  • What features could an non-human sapient being have (you can post non-sapient too)?
    It is really not easy to imagine a blob or slug like being being able to do such things. The same applies to ethereal or liquid beings and any other without some sort of appendages for interaction with the tools and machines necessary to reach us.Sir2u

    Maybe they can reach us without using appendages to design machines. Perhaps their equivalent of skin is hard enough for them not to explode in a vacuum (perhaps they have an evolutionary process similar to ours and their ancestors lived in something similar to an asteroid belt). Perhaps they can consciously design the genes of their offspring and their equivalent of sex is like a human brainstorming session.
  • Yet another blinkered over moderated Forum

    One person's trivial is another's mildly important.
    I don't get why you still want to continue that discussionSapientia
    I don't like having my view hidden like that.
  • Yet another blinkered over moderated Forum
    You could start by being honest. Your title suggested that there's nothing wrong with racism, so obviously you know it is held to be wrong.

    The National Guard has been called out to maintain order in Charlotte, NC because of rioting related to racism. Are you aware of that?
    Mongrel
    Er, where did I say that I don't know it's held to be wrong? And what does the US national guard have to do with this?
    Be honest yourself first. Making irrelevant criticisms like that for people who don't check to read is a pretty dishonest tactic.
    Also: I said there was nothing wrong with certain definitions of racism. Don't strawman either.
  • Yet another blinkered over moderated Forum
    Well, I've put in my two pennies worth. I'm not going to go round in circles.Sapientia

    Nor I


    Just start over, dude. Post your question in a non-inflammatory fashion. If you don't know what that is, I'd say there's no time like the present to learn!Mongrel

    I wasn't aware it was inflammatory. Could you help me put it in a better way please?
  • Can Belief Be Moral?
    Okay. So, does that mean that you believe that matter-of-fact beliefs can't be morally right or wrong? So, for example, if one believes that, as a matter of fact, rape is okay, or even good, then that isn't morally wrong? If so, that requires an explanation.Sapientia

    That's not what I think is a matter-of-fact belief.

    I'll make it clear for you. In my view (using race as the example because that was the original one):

    • Belief that a certain race has a certain 'superior aspect' or 'advantage' = matter-of-fact (even if it is not, in fact, fact) and cannot be morally right or wrong.

    • Belief that a certain race is not worth as much as another = attitude and is wrong to say and probably to believe also.

    I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough in the beginning.
  • Can Belief Be Moral?


    The belief itself is OK, but the prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt that goes along with it isn't.Ovaloid
    I'd like to clarify: I meant matter-of-fact beliefs not attitudes.

    I'm not of the view that any beliefs, or even any speech, is morally wrong.Terrapin Station
    What about the classic example of shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre?

    Further, there are opportunities that will be lost where belief itself is put on trial. In order to engage others in an exchange of ideas, it will be necessary to allow free expression.Mongrel
    Freedom in what ideas can be expressed, freedom in how they are expressed, neither or both?
    I think yes about what ideas can be expressed but not about how they are expressed. I think it's good to moderate heated comments.
  • Yet another blinkered over moderated Forum
    It was implied. That was the point of your discussion, was it not? You titled it as "By many definitions of 'racism' it is not a bad thing'. But more than that, you went as far as saying that in some circumstances, it is morally obligatory. You were espousing racism, given your qualifications. You were making a distinction between two definitions and distinguishing "good racism" from "bad racism".Sapientia

    Here you seem to imply that racism by any definition which anyone ever uses is unacceptable.


    Racism. I'm using the word how it's usually used. Not, for example, to point out that black people have naturally superior UV protection for their skin in comparison with white people.Sapientia

    And how is it usually used in your sphere of the world?
    Also how is stating that black people have naturally superior UV protection for their skin in comparison with white people less wrong than any other kind of stating a race is naturally superior in some aspect?


    you went as far as saying that in some circumstances, it is morally obligatory. You were espousing racism, given your qualifications.Sapientia

    I said it is only obligatory when and if the evidence implies it and the context makes it relevant and not insulting (perhaps I should have said "would be obligatory"). I never said that I believe such things. So I didn't actually espouse racism by any definition I came across and certainly didn't think anyone would be so overly sensitive as to consider it offensive. I am quite baffled.


    It wasn't deleted, and the admin who took the action has provided an explanation as to why.Sapientia

    I was referring to this quote by Baden:
    The reason the best place to clarify this issue is here is because you can freely say whatever you want in Feedback including arguing that we are being too hard on racists and their ideas. Any mod would be well within his rights to delete the other thread in its previous position. [my emphasis] So, in that sense the move is in your interest.Baden

    And I responded to his 'reason why':
  • How totalitarian does this forum really need to be?
    It is permissible, in my view, for moderators to act like that but only if posts are shared around forums in a Usenet-like manner so that if a minority doesn't like the moderation of a certain server they can change without disadvantages such as low post or reader rate.