It is amusing but extremely distracting and annoying. It is impossible for me to read and take seriously anything nearby without actually covering it up with my hand. I am having a hard time even thinking clearly and writing this post with those jumping heads just above. — petrichor

Find a therapist

That last animated GIF just about sums up my feelings about your annoying tendency to post animated GIFs, especially mockingly-toned ones like the last two — petrichor

Distribution of various kinds of ability is measured in many varied scientific studies, straightforwardly. — Pfhorrest

Are they maybe just utilizing scores on certain sorts of tests? We'd need, for one, to examine whether the tests are really well-designed to tell us something about abilities, especially in a broader sense. And then re opportunities, we wouldn't have something as straightforward as tests.

I'm skeptical about it epistemically.

The reaction is understandable, but slavery does have a very real and direct effect on the wealth of the descendants of those slaves today. — Echarmion

That seems like it would be almost impossible to establish. There are so many variables at play, and we'd be trying to connect current data with a situation that ended 150 years ago.

ability has a normal (gaussian) distribution as most statistics about human characteristics seem to, then if opportunity had a uniform (equal) distribution, — Pfhorrest

How would we establish the distributions, exactly?

Basically if you're doing probability and it's not frequentist, it's Bayesian.

one can draw reasonable inferences from the premises or facts stated. Inductive reasoning relates to probabilities or likelihoods of things being true. — 3017amen

I don't at all buy Bayesian probability, which is what that would have to rely on.

At any rate, I also don't pay much attention to politics. (I'm interested in political philosophy; I'm not very interested in the daily political crap of the sort we see on the news.) So I can't offer much of an opinion about something like impeaching Trump. I did hear that it's supposed to have something to do with Trump approaching the president of the Ukraine for dirt on Biden, which doesn't sound to me like something that should be considered problematic (aside from the general fact that it underscores how stupidly we do political races in general), but I don't really know enough about it to have an opinion either way, and I'm not about to spend hours reading about it.

"Privilege" has to do with ethics — Harry Hindu

Privilege doesn't have to do with ethics. Privilege has to do with advantages that someone has--the idea is that it makes it easier for them to get and keep a job, earn more money in that job, rent and buy real estate, deal with the police, etc.

"That this group has privileges that that group doesn't have is wrong" would be an ethical stance.

The argument that whites have inherited a system built to their advantage is a better one, only because it's more difficult to respond to because the claim is more nebulous. The real question isn't whether American society has a sordid history of racism (as it surely does), but it's to what extent is that history the real impediment to success today. I'd submit that race is not the critical limitation in today's society and that opportunity and success can and does fall to minorities without heroic efforts, although perhaps with some special effort. I don't discount the special efforts needed as irrelevant and not something that ought be eliminated, but they also shouldn't be exaggerated and suggested that all struggles or failures are owed to it. — Hanover

What we'd need to do is look at specific cases of success or a lack of it and figure out what the exact assets or problems are. If we're going to claim that racism was a problem for specifics in the lack of success example, we'd need to be able to pinpoint just how something is racist, and not make claims that are broad/abstract platitudes.

It was, but the point I'm making is not specific to ethical normatives, so I used a more obvious example, to make it clearer. — Isaac

Okay, but what I'm most dubious about is the claim with respect to ethical normatives. So that's what I was hoping for an example of.

And now grumble grumble grumble with these friggin long posts again, by the way.

Why would I assume a person was right — Isaac

First off, when we're talking about morality, no one is correct or incorrect. So you're not assuming that they're "right." You'd be assuming that either to them, what they're saying isn't contradictory, or to them, they don't care about contradictions, rather than assuming that they're basically morons who haven't thought through what they're saying enough, but here you come to "correct" them.

So the track to take would be to learn more about them and how they think, so that you learn why it's not contradictory to them, or alternately why they don't care that it's contradictory.

You might learn that they actually do care that what they're saying is contradictory, and that they simply overlooked a contradiction, but you're not going to learn that until you talk to them more where you actually care something about them and how they think.

2. In the absence of your elucidation, I've assumed some of those moral and rational beliefs on the basis of my experience with normal human beings. I've assumed them rather than asked, for the reasons I've already given. — Isaac

Yet look at the thousands and thousands and thousands of words you're writing. Just this one post of yours is nearing 700 words! (An acceptable book length (including novels) is only 60,000 words--you could be putting this effort into something more productive that might actually be able to earn you money.) So maybe just ask--"But don't you think such and such?" That would be much simpler and save a lot of time and aggravation.

It's obviously not useful to make the assumptions you're making when it results in so much misunderstanding, when it results in having to blah blah blah on and on and on for so many thousands of words, when it results in so much aggravation. We're on page 71 of this thread already (!!) and most of it is bickering with me, where you're telling me how "useful" your approach is, where if you'd follow my advice instead, this probably would have been over on page 4 or 5.

Well first of all, I'm not sure you can really understand all the implications of your own beliefs about free-speech. — L Michaud

So this is kind of patronizing, and suggests that you have thought a lot more about it than I have, or at least you understand it a lot better than I have, and if only I had thought about it as much as you have, or at least if I had your understanding or insight, I wouldn't have the view I have.

Nowhere is there absolute free-speech. Nowhere. — L Michaud

Correct. What I'm saying is that if I were king, there would be no speech restrictions.

All that said, a society where free-speech is absolute would need to systematically punish people when they disrespect the free-speech of others. — L Michaud

I'm not going to punish anyone for "disrespect."

You'd simply not be allowed to initiate nonconsensual violence (for any reason, in response to speech or otherwise).

And sure, people might temper what they'd say in some cases as they do now, but that would be their decision. It's not as if I'd want to force people to say whatever is on their mind, even if they don't want to.

I actually have the opposite problem. I don't worry near as much as I should about the future.

So here is the question:

What is the standard to prove to you mind body dualism? Assume you had the grant money. How would you prove the mind body separation is valid enough to put more study into? What is your standard for simply being convinced that it is in fact the truth of our being? Essentially I'm curious where folks at large stand on this. Not in any religious sense but in the look in the mirror sense. When you hurt your arm do you feel it in your soul or simply in need of repairs on the old jalopy? Discuss. — MiloL

For me, one would have to begin by explaining what nonphysical existents are supposed to be in a manner that not only makes some sense, but that assigns positive attributes to them--in other words, it can't just be a set of negations a la "not physical," "not spatially-located," etc.

Nothing is real. You are not you. — Excessive

I think it all really comes down to me not being able to understand what the point of being alive is. — raindrop

Points in that sense are things that we devise. The world doesn't have them outside of us thinking about things that way.

I don't want to die, but I can't seem to understand why I am here (on a deeper level than just being born). — raindrop

There is no "deeper level" there.

If I'm real and everyone else is real and have a sense of "me", is the sense of "me" just an illusion then? — raindrop

And if I'm an illuson my brain creates, do I really exist? — raindrop

Your sense of you is created by your brain. That in no way implies that it's an "illusion."

It's just so weird to think deeply about how there can be other consciousnesses than mine which have a totally different expirence of reality. I just can't wrap my mind around how there can be 7,7 billion ways of seeing and expirencing the world. — raindrop

It's harder for me to grasp why that would be weird to you.

Think about it this way. When you're in your bedroom, your kitchen, a local restaurant, your favorite park, etc. those are all different experiences of reality, right? Does that seem weird to you? Even if you just stand in one corner of a room versus another, that's going to be different experiences. Well, for one, no two people are going to be exactly in the same place at the same time. So necessarily they're going to have different experiences.

No. Logic doesn't have anything to do with normatives.

Terrapin Station thank you very much for your response. I do like a respectful debate. I can give a very interesting source on how the majority smothers introverts. There's a free E-Book very easy to find online called "The power of introverts". The short conference by Susan Cain is also available on Youtube. It's about 48 minutes (and you can even put it at X1,25 speed to make it go faster). There's also the first part of the book available on Youtube. It's 6 hours long, and it's all worth it. — L Michaud

One thing at a time. Instead of listening to a 48-minute presentation, reading an entire book, etc. in order to have the question answered--especially since I'm skeptical about the claim, and I'd be really annoyed if I spent the time on something like that and I felt that it didn't answer my question, could you just give an example/explanation of why you think that free speech absolutism would "smother introverts" whereas censoring some speech would not?

but apparently you were unable to see it until I presented it as a formal deductive syllogism. — aletheist

Which is ridiculous to need to do, but Bartricks seems to have some sort of fetish for it.

Another solution is to have an ultimately government-supervised management of the commons, where part of how the commons are run is via public polling of preferences, and whoever utilizes the commons in a manner that most closely meets the public preferences is rewarded with scarcer resources.

So we're avoiding a dictator shooting things, we're avoiding just making it private, and we're avoiding simply depending on ideal people via their good will.

Two acts - A and B. They are the same in every non-moral respect. So, same intentions, same consequences, same everything. Twin acts, as it were. If one is wrong, mustn't the other one be too? — Bartricks

On my view--I'm a nominalist--numerically distinct things can not be identical in any respect.

Re the ethical question, things are only wrong or not wrong to a particular individual. There's nothing to say that a given individual couldn't judge act 1 morally wrong while judging numerically distinct but similar (what we could loosely call "the same") act 2 not morally wrong. If we can't figure out why that individual might judge them differently, we can ask them.

Imagine that Tim smacks Susan in the face for a laugh. That act is wrong, right? — Bartricks

It depends on who you ask, of course.

In my personal view, it actually depends on just how the one person smacks (or whatever they do to) the other. If it's not something that would leave macro-observable effects past, say, 72 hours, then no, I wouldn't say that's wrong.

I think people overreact and tend to have ridiculously draconian policies about this sort of stuff. Not every nonconsensual act, no matter how minor, is morally wrong or should be legally prohibited.

No, they have the same intent. Again: imagine two acts that are identical in every way apart from spatially and or temporally. Not hard.

I mean, if I ask you to imagine a car identical to yours in every way apart from it is in another location, would you find that difficult? Would you say "er, but then it is not the same car" - yes, I know. Not the same car. But similar in every way - apart from it is over there.

Am I in a primary school? Are you 5? Imagine two acts - two, not one, two - that are identical in every non-moral way apart from spatially or temporally. Will they be morally identical as well? So, if act A is wrong, does act B have to be too. — Bartricks

Aren't you familiar with nominalism?

Oh, and by the way, a lot of what I'm interested in when it comes to message boards like this is:

curating a collection of 'opinions from the Internet' — Isaac

I'm interested in people simply because I like people, and I think the variety we see in people is interesting. A lot of what attracted and still attracts me to philosophy to this day is "all the strange things that people say" under its rubric. I'm particularly interested in unusual people. (And not just when it comes to philosophy.)

I'd have to dig for why I thought this, but I thought that re your "assuming the likelihood of broad conformity" you were talking about broad conformity re ethical normatives.

"Does not like to hold contradictory ideas" isn't an ethical normative, of course.

But ignoring that, shouldn't what you assume be either:

(A) "I think all women should wear the hijab", and "I think all people should be treated equally" wouldn't actually be contradictory to the person in question (in which case you could inquire why the person doesn't see them as contradictory if you're interested in a conversation with that person),

or

(B) They don't have a problem with contradictory normatives (in which case you could get more info about that if you're interested in a conversation with that person)

?

Because otherwise you're basically assuming that (i) they'd think it's contradictory, (ii) they'd care about that, but (iii) they're simply too stupid, naive, careless or whatever to have realized this before your brilliant mind came along and noticed it for them.

And re this in the context of this thread and why you brought it up, you weren't thinking that I was claiming something contradictory, were you? I'm pretty sure that you simply had a problem with me not holding something you take to be an ethical/normative commonality, holding something that you disagree with.

First, it has nothing to do left/right politics for me. (And if you're curious, politically I consider myself a libertarian socialist, though I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of libertarian socialist.)

I don't agree with your assessment of intelligence or that science can fuel normatives (re what should/shouldn't be censored if we were going to censor anything). That's because in my view there are no true (or false) normatives; nothing is factually a normative.

Re "'The tyranny of the majority' will always tend to smother the introverts," and "absolute free speech means that morons will be able to force wise people to shut up," what do you have in mind, exactly? Could you give more details there/some concrete examples?

Then what does deductive logic do? — 3017amen

With respect to normatives? Nothing.

Induction can prove a normative. You're thinking deduction. — 3017amen

No it can't. There are no true normatives. No normatives that are factual.

I don't write many long posts. I can't recall the last one I wrote.

I read long posts until they start introducing a bunch of different issues. You don't need to read them in their entirety for that. Often it happens within a few sentences.

OK, so you didn't mean "never focused" but "almost never focused". — Janus

I haven't read every single post on the board. (Shouldn't that be obvious to you?)

I've never read a long post here that was focused.

You mean the topic or issue of the OP then? — Janus

No, not necessarily. Long posts here almost always ramble on about a bunch of different topics or issues.

A topic or issue.

And so with that said, I will prove overwhelmingly through using basic logic, that the scales have now tipped in favor of the sad fact that we must expect much better from our leaders. — 3017amen

Logic can't prove a normative.

Yes. Why? — S

Why--because that's what I asked for an example of (because that's what Isaac was talking about). What argument did I give?

I've given you one. — S

First, did I even give an "argument" for the stance of mine you're taking to be an example?

What? Anyway, I knew this would be pointless with you. — S

Because I'm skeptical about what's being claimed.

Showing a concrete example of how it would be useful would help convince me.

Looking for a concrete example. A fictional one is fine.

I very much doubt you'd be persuaded, or act as though you are, even if he provides a really good example. An example that's highly relevant here would be that consequences like the ones you dismissed earlier matter. I recall you earlier on dismissing a situation where someone couldn't even walk down a street because some thugs were throwing rocks off of a building. That would be a consequence of your stance regarding the law, and your response was basically that that wouldn't matter. It shouldn't be illegal. You shouldn't be able to call the police to intervene, or if you do, they should just say, "Sorry, this isn't a police matter. No laws are being broken".

In reality, all that really means is that you're abnormal, and that we shouldn't take your wild ideas seriously. — S

That's not actually what I said in that part, but I don't want to focus on that. You're not understanding what I'm asking for. I'm asking for an example of an argument someone could give where it's useful (and then explain how it's useful) to assume the likelihood of broad conformity,

Presumably I wouldn't be a good example, because how would it be useful to assume the likelihood of broad conformity in the context of my comments about ethics/morals?

15 is really just one year beyond where anyone could ever reasonably expect for anyone to be able to responsibly consent. — thewonder

The notion that there's anything difficult or sophisticated required to consent to sexual activities is bizarre.

We expect teenagers to understand far more complex ideas than what's required for sexual consent.

They start out within a web of rational justification and only when other people start to pick at the strands does it deteriorate into "that's just how I feel". — Isaac

That's never something I do because (a) things that hinge on how one feels--ethical/moral stances, aesthetic judgments, etc., aren't things for which I'd ever present a "web of rational justiication," and conversely (b) things for which I'd present a "web of rational justification" would never end with "that's just how I feel."

For example, you bring up metaethics. My stance on metaethics isn't at all just how I feel. It's reflective of what the world is factually like. Same for the mind-body issue, etc.