I think he is talking about the lense of identity politics, where race is always a huge factor in any interaction with different races involved. (Especially with white and black people in the states). It adds to the problem because its creates a race issue where there isnt one (potentially, obviously race can still be a large factor it just shouldnt be assumed just because different races are involved).
Also, I think that Judaka means is talking about your personal impact on the world in the first quoted portion and talking about the identity politics Idealogy in the second quote.
Im not sure if you subscribe to identity politics in the way Judaka indicates but Im pretty sure thats what hes accusing you of.

Fair enough.

I didnt ask you. I actually think your a fucking liar, if you’ll remember. Ive got nothing to say to you.

Alright, so why do you two bother? I'm curious what you hope to get out of engaging with the levels of dishonesty and delusions you’ve been confronted with. That Benkei guy couldnt have been more clear about how useless it is respond to his dishonest nonsense yet you persist.
Why are you bothering? Nothing productive will come from this thread or the other on race, they arent discussions they are echo chambers. I mean, Judaka even said it was a waste of time to resoond but kept doing it. What are either of you getting out of it?

Well Ill leave it for readers to figure out which of us is blowing smoke. Hopefully they put more effort than you did.

Not really sure what response youre looking for here...you found a criticism. It was controversial, as expected. No one thought the Grievance studies people would go “youre right, you got us, we are full of shit and service ideology over true academic truth.”.
Look harder, you will see that the criticisms are very weak and if you don’t, look up “confirmation bias”.
Also, I referenced Sowell as an example of an academic who doesnt buy systemic racism to show that its not foolish to deny it exists. There are other examples, plenty of reasonable people question the claim of systemic racism. I wasnt positing Sowells body of work for argumentation.
Anyway, not sure what your point is.

The Grievance Studies Affair showed us just how much stock we should put into academic studies in the social sciences.
These are the same academics that changed the definition of racism to “prejudice plus power” bullshit.
Im not saying no stock at all should be put into these sorts of academic papers, but its certainly not indisputable that systemic racism exists, nor is it akin to believing the moon landings were faked. The definition of systemic racism may be so loose as to be only implausibly denied, but then it fails to pack any punch as a real problem...certainly not as real a problem as actual racists and racism found in a disturbingly high levels throughout the US.
Have you ever heard of Thomas Sowell? He doesnt believe in it, he is an academic. Do you have any peer reviewed papers refuting his writing on it? You said No peer reviewed papers that refute systemic racism? Did you even check? Ill bet you checked with the same authority you are referencing the academic papers of, the same authority that taught you this stuff in the first place. Strikes me as a bit circular.
Its not as one sided and obvious as you are portraying it to be, and trying to dismiss people arguing against the existence of systemic racism comes off as a cheap, strawman tactic.

Yes, I understand that. Ive been saying that since he got in, you dont have to sell me on any of that. I think I misunderstood what you meant when you said to just ignore Trump. You mean ignore Trump in so far as listening to him will only make it harder to try and relate to his base/followers? Is that right?

I also agree anti-trumpers need to self reflect. The way id put it is they would get more mileage if they admitted their own part in creating the hyper-polarised state of affairs.

When Trump says something ridiculous so as to stay in the headlines, we don't have to feed the beast by playing his game and getting all excited. Example: If I was making a bunch of wild angry claims on the forum you guys would yell at me for a bit, and then you'd get bored and ignore me. Like that.

We all know who Trump is now. There is no educational value in describing him any further. — Nuke

I agree, as I said I think you are making a good point here. I think I can be more clear...
What Im wondering about Is if Trump is being ignored by his opposition, than how do you prevent his empowerment among the people who are not ignoring him? Wouldnt the cult of personality only get stronger?

Lol, well I was referring to you and someone else so individual pronouns aren’t relevant.
Anyway, I didnt mean to speak for you or condescend to you by defending you, its about this clueless, blind dishonesty from way to many people on this forum. Its really starting to annoy me, So much bandwidth is taken up by this back and forth, posturing gotchya shit that it derails what would otherwise be interesting discourse.

Ok, last word. You shouldnt be dishonest, it ruins discourse and even subtle dishonesty like yours habituates deception until it isnt even noticed as dishonesty anymore.

First of all If you have followed anything that NOS has posted on this forum you know that NOS can defend himself if he feels it's necessary. But of all the highly personal flaming that has occurred and been discussed on this forum you get triggered by:

So you lived in the US and then moved to Canada? I was just always surprised at your level of interest in US politics.
— Monitor

And you leap from your foxhole to defend poor NOS from such a vicious unprovoked attack.
I urge you to contact the Mods about me. — Monitor

You aren’t listening. You even quoted me on it. This isnt about flaming, personal attack or defending anyone. You were being dishonest, and Im holding you accountable. Its important not to be dishonest, dont you think?

As for the Gotcha, I didn't ask him if he still beats his wife. In fact I was trying to let him correct an inconsistency that was apparent in my post and deflected in his response. This is not the first time there has been inconsistency in his posts. And we still don't know how he voted for Trump in 2016 while living in Canada? Dual citizenship? I don't know. But he has incensed people around here to the point that some think he is a Russian troll so I don't think I out of line by quoting him dire — Monitor

“Trying to let him correct..”? You were trying to play gotchya, trying to expose him as a liar. Your rephrasing is an attempt to
frame your response as something other than what it is, which is you playing gotchya. Thats very dishonest.
I understand it a subtle dishonesty, but we shouldnt do it. Its bad for discussion, to say nothing of the ethics.

Perhaps you are like NOS and the late Chester and just love to argue for the sake of arguing. — Monitor

Please. Like they are the only people who love to argue in this forum.
Im not interested in arguing, Im interested in people being honest so discourse is productive and interesting.

I think you are making a good point here, but how do you ignore Trump? His effect on discourse and divisiveness is very real, and has very real effect on trying to fo what your suggesting and make peace with his base.
How can you repair the rift with Trump stirring the pot? It seems to me that rather than ignore Trump, he must be accounted for in whatever solution employed.

How did he vote for Trump in 2016? No ad hom here. — Monitor

Right. You were playing “gotchya!”, I get that. What I was commenting on is your post afterwards where you said:

So you lived in the US and then moved to Canada? I was just always surprised at your level of interest in US politics. — Monitor

To NOS asking you:

Is there a point there? — NOS4A2

So you indicated pretty clearly your point was something about moving to Canada or surprise at his interest US politics. Now youre back to playing “gotchya!”. So your answer to his question about your point was dishonest. I'm not accusing you of making an ad hom, im accusing you of being a liar.

Really? It seemed pretty clear you were trying to point out a contradiction. So quoting those two separate posts was your way of...asking him if he moved to Canada from the US? Or just as a roundabout and non-sensical way of expressing surprise about his interest in US politics?
You expect anyone to believe that?

I think you are full of shit, and are making up or at least heavily exaggerating your experiences.
Your compassion is misplaced here folks, allow me to butcher a classic saying:
Dont be so open hearted your brain falls out. This guys story is obviously constructed.

Im not defending anyone you clown. Im calling you out. The fact you can’t see the difference should give you pause.
The guy was obviously a jack-ass, and deserving of his ban but for you to take the time to “respond” to him even though you know he is banned is unhinged. Its very telling about your character, and explains alot about the way you interact with others in here.
Even your childish framing of my “fallen hero” and “defending his honour” is dishonest and pathetic.

Talking to a ghost... — praxis

With no self awareness of how egocentric that is. What is the fucking point of “responding” to a guy you know is banned?!
You show your colours here, you are not interested in discussion. You are interested in pushing your narrative, thats it. Pathetic and disgusting. And cowardly, he isnt here to defend himself.
I know, I know...its ok cuz he was a piece of shit right? He got banned after all, so how could there be anything wrong with your acts of cowardice and showing of low, self serving, agenda driven character? Right?
Fucking pathetic.

Yeah perhaps you're right. It (faith) is often viewed as the antithesis of reason and whatnot and so would easily "fit the bill". It was kind of random I agree. I enjoy a few beers while I peruse the internet. Suppose I just wanted to assert that was not what I was alluding to. It could've easily seemed like it imo. Times are tough. Faith without evidence takes strength. Not one to knowingly or unknowingly weaken that. — Outlander

Well we can talk about faith if you want, but you said you’ve heard it all so...

Why would a mental prison be eternal? Why isnt there mental escape routes like with a physical prison? (Therapy, self reflection, enlightenment etc)
Also, a mental prison isnt going to deny you EVERY opportunity. Thats pretty dramatic. You will likely miss some.
You just asserted those things, without any support for the claim.
Also, what does religion have to do with it and why did you feel the need to preemptively get weirdly defensive about it? Is this a spin off from another discussion?

I doubt my existence more often than I believe in it. I must be in a different state of mind — Gregory

Well to be precise I should say that it makes no sense to doubt your own existence. Obviously one can try and doubt their existence or they might erroneously question theyre existence not knowing cogito ergo sum, so you are correct in some sense but not in the context of certainty. You can be certain that you exist, that you have some kind of existence.

Also, cannot be in a different state of mind if you do not exist.

Ya, most of that is lost on me but the self cannot be doubted, at least not by the self (I could doubt others peoples sense of self but not my own). Its just incoherent to think otherwise.

Maybe nothingness is doubting — Gregory

Sure, maybe but I see no reason to think thats the case. I stated the reasoning why we can be certain of our own existence, are you conceding that point or did you have a counter-argument?

Physics is founded on a static view of the universe that can not be proven over a dynamic view/perspective. Seeing this is through a reasoning that I believe is important in philosophical studies. The science perspective in the Chronicles of Narnia had a big influence on my thinking when I was young. Pushing the limit until the point of saying "is anything possible" is the only way to finally get certain knowledge, as far as I can see — Gregory

What certain knowledge do you think you have?

The cogito can be doubted. Doubt of it and science is part of the philosophical endevour — Gregory

No it cant. The act of doubting requires a doubter, the doubter must exist. The nature of that existence might be any number of things (brain in a vat, a gods dream, anythings possible) but that it exists is beyond the ability to doubt, it is the one true certainty. To expand the classic “I think therefore I am”:
“I think, therefore I am *something*. Meaning if you can doubt, then you are something doubting, something that exists.

False. The relativism of material laws is fundamental to doing philosophy. I've seen writers on this forum defend Hume and yet also defend physic's validity. They can't see that they are being inconsistent — Gregory

I think you are confusing human lack of 100% certainty with some brand of material relativism. The fact we cant be 100% certain or that science can be wrong doesnt mean it isnt describing the material world, nor that the material world is beyond its measure. As I asked you, do you offer something more reliable than science?
Also, could you explain how relativity of material laws is fundamental to philosophy? Im not sure what you mean.

Ok, but can you respond to what Im saying rather than just pivoting to something else? You make a point, i make a counter-point, and you just “but” into something else. It makes cogent communication more difficult.

Certain knowledge is very elusive, as far as I know its just Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum. No other knowledge is 100% certain. Even if that weren’t the case, the pursuit of certain knowledge is not at odds with science.
Im sorry to say, the only thing you’ve gotten right so far is philosophy is prior to science. I agree with that.

Whats more reliable than science? Whats your superior alternative?

Why is it so reliable if its a hoax?

What makes you think science is founded on taking random samples? The “ samples” are not random, and they arent the foundation of science. The samples, by which I take you to mean experimentation, are carefully constructed and monitored and usually very specifically targeted. The foundation of science is the scientific method, and nothing else even comes close to science as far as discovering knowledge/truth.
The changing of scientific conclusions is evidence the method works, not that it doesnt work. You have it backwards. The fact that science changes its mind is because they get new information which allows them to draw a better conclusion or identify bad ones.

1) science is founded on taking random samples — Gregory

This is not true. Right out of the gate. What makes you think science is founded on taking random samples.

You havent provided any explanation that hasnt been refuted. Just because you ignore arguments does mean they havent been made.
So what you really mean is no matter how many times you repeat the same assertion I will not be convinced by it, and you are right. You have to do better than that.
Implying that Im too dogmatic or narrow-minded to understand what you are saying is just your way of avoiding arguments/questions you don’t have answers for.
Im an open minded person, but not so open my brain falls out. You have to have an an actual explanation, not just a bare assertion and you have to address counter-arguments instead of just pivoting and deflecting.
There is no fury happening with me, im not angry at all. If my last post came across as terse I apologise. I thought you were having some fun in your last post so I was reciprocating.

Could you please introduce us to the atheist who does not believe that reason is qualified to generate useful statements on the subject? — Nuke

Non-sequitor. This doesn't address you mixing up uses of the word “faith”.

Here's how it works. Not understanding their own perspective, most atheists will sincerely claim it is "merely a lack of belief". And then dictionary writers who probably aren't that interested in the topic and are racing against a deadline will accept this claim and put it in the dictionary. And then the atheists will hold up the dictionary as proof saying, "See? We told you. It's right in the dictionary!" — Nuke

Thats ridiculous conjecture and completely baseless. Not only unable to show atheists do not understand their own perspective, the notion that they do not is absurd. They just have to answer something other than “yes” to the question “do you believe in god”. Thats it. Anyone can understand that, unless of course they have a vested interest in not understanding it such as oh lets say in defence of religion for example.
You have a good sense of humour though, your phrasing made me laugh. I pictured this uppity atheist badgering these busy 50’s newsroom style Dictionary writers and one just gets fed up and snatches the paper to change the definition so the atheist will shut up

Ah, good, so you will then be able to provide proof that reason is qualified. — Nuke

Non-sequitor. This doesnt address what you quoted.

Believers are making a positive assertion that they know they are making, and atheists are (typically) making a positive assertion that they don't know they are making.

Please recall, theism is thousands of years old, whereas atheism is maybe 500 years old, or something like that. It's grandpa talking to a teenager. — Nuke

Lol, really? We’ve just been getting dumber and dumber since the good old biblical days huh?
Please, tell me all about what ignorant savages who believe in magic can teach us intellectual teenagers.
And just because you call it a positive assertion doesnt make it so. I precisely pointed it out to you already. Bolded so you wont miss it this time.

“Because they are unconvinced of the claim, yes an atheist might say they do not believe there is a god but that does not mean they are making a positive claim.“

Ok, fair point. I will reframe my claim that this is a highly inefficient process which typically, but not always, goes pretty much nowhere. — Nuke

Ok. Why do you think that is?

So you think not saving someone is impermissible (you have to save them if you can), but killing someone is permissible (you can kill them if you have to)? That’s pretty backwards. Also contradictory: if you can save someone by not killing them, and you must save them if you can, it would follow that you must not kill them, yet you say also that you may kill. — Pfhorrest

Well I dont think anything in particular is always permissible or impermissible ethically, I dont go by a principled approach to ethics. Its only contradictory if you do. Even if I did though, that still doesnt necessarily mean my principal is that You must always save someone if you can. It could be either, or any number of other principals.

Sure, in which case it’s a contrived morally intractable situation. That doesn’t mean you get to murder someone. — Pfhorrest

Its designed that way precisely to challenge a persons principals. Your answer results in greater suffering and loss of life, and you call It the moral high ground. That has peaked my curiosity. In your view, where does suffering factor in, if at all?

No, you’re still misconstruing it. It’s: you can’t be expected to stuff yourself sick on as many chips as you can possibly eat, so it’s okay to leave some chips uneaten. — Pfhorrest

Ok, im trying to find out where you're losing me here, because you said I sounded backwards and now id say the same to you.
So this is essentially about the lesser of two evils, a choice you abstain from on moral grounds. Would you agree with that assessment?

Shifting the track does both of those things. One is supererogatorily good: saving peope. The other is impermissibly bad: killing something. That makes an act that does both of those things impermissibly bad. — Pfhorrest

Killing something isnt impermissibly bad. That's a convenient framing to service your conclusions.

Like is a hypothesis implies some things which are contingently true, but also some things that are impossible. That makes that hypothesis impossible. The true things are still true, but you need a different explanation for them. And the good thing (saving people) is still good, but you need a different means to achieve it. — Pfhorrest

There is no different way to achieve it, thats implicit in the trolley problem, its designed to exclude creative, problem solving ways around the moral dilemma posed.

No, I use the unreasonableness of saying that anyone who does anything short of absolutely everything they can do to help everyone they can is morally wrong (that that is impermissible) to conclude that failing to do good things is permissible, and therefore that failing to do a good thing because it would require an impermissible thing is permissible. — Pfhorrest

Thats still fallacious. I can’t eat 1 chip cuz I cant eat the whole bag. I shouldnt save one of my kids from falling off a cliff cuz I cant save all of them. I shouldnt try to save any jews from the holocuast because I cant save them all. Plus, you are taking something you yourself posited as unreasonable and using it as a basis to form your conclusion. Thats fallacious, like saying “a deeply unreasonable guy thinks the earth is flat, so Im going to use that as a basis to conclude NASA has been faking all the round earth stuff”. Garbage in, garbage out. We shouldnt trust conclusions with unreasonable basis.

Atheism is the belief that human reason is qualified to deliver useful statements on issues the scale of the God question. — Nuke

No its not. A specific atheist might have that belief but thats him, not atheism. Neither is atheism a “refusal” to believe in god, its simply the lack of a belief in god. Atheism isnt even specific about WHY the person doesnt believe in god.
An easy way to think about it is if the answer to the question “is there a god?” Is anything other than “yes”, then you are some kind of atheist.

Atheism feels like "simply a refusal to believe in God" to most atheists because their faith in the infinite reach of human reason is so deep, and so unexamined, that they take such a qualification to be an obvious given requiring no inspection. — Nuke

This is just a broad and inaccurate generalisation. First, there is no “faith” in reason, not in the same sense that religious people have faith in god. The distinction is “faith” in the sense of confidence and “Faith” as a reason for believing in god (which of course its not). You are mixing those two uses up.
Second, its rich that blind adherence to dogma somehow qualifies as examined but noticing the lack of evidence and very clear contradictions and magical thinking of religious thought is somehow “unexamined”. Just the act of questioning religion or the existence of god thats being fed to you by trusted parents or authority figures is substantial “inspection”.

Few atheists seem to grasp that atheism is just as much a positive assertion as theism, with just as little proof to back it up. — Nuke

No its not, Believers are the ones making making a positive assertion, and atheists the ones unconvinced by the positive assertion believers make. Because they are unconvinced of the claim, yes an atheist might say they do not believe there is a god but that does not mean they are making a positive claim.

That said, the belief that posting the above will accomplish anything at all is just as lacking in evidence as theism and atheism, so we are united as brothers in self delusion. — Nuke

Again, not true. There are many former believers who have been convinced by argument or discussion and are now atheists. There is plenty of evidential first hand accounts of the journey from believer to non-believer that directly contradicts your views here on every level. Likewise, many atheists have been converted to or back to religion and plenty of evidence there too.
The only way its a waste is if either or both participants in the discussion aren’t open to changing their minds and are being disingenuous.

Ok, I see what youre saying.
I dont think its “impermissibly bad” to shift the track to the one dude over the 5, youre just defining it that way. Your framing is “shifting the track to the one is killing one” and its just as easy to frame it as “shifting the track to the one is saving 5”. Semantics.
Also, you use the impossibility of preventing all bad things from happening as a justification to not prevent something bad where its entirely possible to do so. Thats fallacious reasoning.

Ok, but what Im asking is how you decided the prevention of greater loss of life in the trolley problem isnt obligatory. Walk me through your reasons for excluding it from obligatory in your diagram, I dont understand.

So what is the ideal moral person in your view? The one who acts the least is the most moral?

Do you think there are no moral obligations to act? Its just about what not to do rather than what you should do? If not, how do you justify excluding the trolley problem from the list of actions morality compels you to do?

I think the 3 things you described are part of the natural result of cognitive dissonance. The blurred lines that you are asking about between contradicting belief and action are cognitive dissonance in action.