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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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).

Oh. To what were you trying to convey a rejection?

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.

Misunderstandings can still be useful, interesting — (anticipated, possible response)

True. And they can also be useful if they are corrected.

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

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.

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 do we have that other species don't that means we should go extinct?

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 society — Ovaloid

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.

(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?

Ah, that does sound bad.

.

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')

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?

its wrong because It is vain — intrapersona

Vanity is excessive pride. What's excessive about it?
Now we've gone around in a circle.

and illusory — intrapersona

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.

then you drop dead on the floor, bahaha — intrapersona

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 live — intrapersona

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

I thought you meant since I came back

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?

Mind taking a look at my comments and basing your view on facts like a rational person?

, based on SJW-fueled idiocy — Terrapin Station

Oh, come now. There's no need to call opinions idiotic just because you disagree with them.

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?

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?

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? — 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.

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.

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.

One person's trivial is another's mildly important.

I don't get why you still want to continue that discussion — Sapientia

I don't like having my view hidden like that.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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':

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.