No, I don’t think so.

No, not really. I assume by religious purpose you mean purpose given by some kind of divine authority?

I think thats at least part of it yes. That is one reason given for the sacredness of life, that life has been endowed by god or gods with intrinsic value. It doesnt look like anyone wants to make that claim though...so where does life's intrinsic value come from? (Contrasted with life having value for that particular lifes merit.

Yes, I know Badens stated reasons for banning the guy. I was asking you, not him. I was careful not to mix up his banning with your call to intervention, That was what was intended by including “or otherwise dealt with by mods” but I see now that I could have been more explicit.

Sure, Ill guess as to which posts you meant me to review, correct me if these aren’t the comments you are referring to.

You said:


“I looked through his history. He didn't make the grade. I don't really know much about his opinions.“

So you looked at his posts, which is what I thought you meant by “history”. Then you say you didnt know much about his opinions.
So I said:

“He didnt state any opinions in the history you “looked” through? How does that work?“

Since it seems dubious that you were able to properly judge the quality of the posts without “much” noticing what those posts said, I wanted to know how that works. How did you miss his opinions but locked down his post “quality” so thoroughly that you were comfortable banning the guy?
Im not sure why you think you needed to be snarky with your response, Im just asking questions. I want to know what im potentially allowed/not allowed to say, thats all.

Its not a personal attack, and its not about Manson and the sort of batshit comment that Omni-guy made about him. Its about whether or not you think people should be banned (or otherwise dealt with by mods) for opinions you do not like.

Oh, well thats your prerogative, I was honestly asking if that was something you advocated. (Ok, like, 20% making a point as well.)
I could see moderators not wanting really boring contributors.

Ive already read it, I was following along. You were more than voicing your opinion on what he said, you made an implicit call for moderator intervention.

Im not trying to be difficult here but what is the relevance of what you said to the banning?
Are you suggesting that he should be banned cuz he was boring, or had boring “opening moves”?

I didnt say that, I offered no opinion about his statements at all. I was noticing that your problem is his opinion, not his post “quality”.
What would a show of hands matter? Are you trying to get people to agree his opinions are bad, to reinforce your own opinion about his opinions being bad? Why? You are entitled to your opinion, regardless whether or not you can get it popularised. I think everyone should be so entitled, din’t you? Or is it just the opinions you like that should be allowed?

Injustice against Manson? Yeah, that's some Helter-Skelter, racial wars, end of the world poop. — Wallows

Ya, his opinions. You wanted Baden to intervene because you didnt like his opinions.

He didnt state any opinions in the history you “looked” through? How does that work?

He got banned for that stuff in the Life is Sacred thread? That doesnt seem worse than alot of other poor posters that go unbanned...was it because of the quality, or his opinions?

Did you chose Manson after considered thought, or was it just a quick choice? Because he obviously presents problems for people because his situation is so complex. — Brett

Well it doesnt present a problem for the point im making, the facts about his crimes etc are irrelevant...but yes it was just the first person I thought of that we wasted time and money and energy to keep him alive for no reason I can see other than some sort of intrinsic value life is supposed to have.

The coma person can have no value when the intrinsic value of life is denied. That person, or rather that thing, can have no value for anyone for what it is. Someone may think it is valued when confusing it with the person it used to be or for having the false hope that it will wake up, but it is hardly possible to value the coma person for just what it is. (Unless you want to imagine some perverted reason.) — Congau

If the person has an emotional attachment to the comatose person, and values that attachment then the comatose person has value of a kind. It doesnt matter if you think they should value the comatose person or not...if they do, then it has value. You seem to be saying such a thing isnt possible but to me it clearly can have value to that individual at least, or are you talking in terms of value to society at large like I originally specified?
If thats the case, then that puts you in the camp of life not having any intrinsic value. You dont seem to think anything has intrinsic value, is that correct?

Sounds accurate to me.

Ok, I understand. Buzzwords and labels.

Us?

Then the next question is of course, if we take the others definition and go with it, do we then have an issue here? — ssu

It only matters to me that a persons stance follows from the definition, that the position makes sense given the definition being used.
The point of the comment wasnt to deal with either views definitions, but rather to identify the point of disagreement in the discussion on “colorblindness”. Its been strange, watching the thread have such disagreement when as far as I can tell everyone basically agrees.

The question could be put perhaps this way: if something has divided us and has caused discrimination, persecution and outright violence, what do we do with it? — ssu

Its not the words and categories that divide us, its the racism. Racism is the bad thing, racists are the problem.

Your interjection is misapplied, the part you quoted was not specifically about what you went on to rebut. Some sort of mutated strawman.
To your point, this is largely semantics. “Colourblind” is being defined differently by you and I. (and NOS I believe).
Being colourblind when judging the character of a person is not the same as the way you mean it as being blind to experiences or history relating to race/racism.

You aren’t engaging with what Im saying, just repeating yourself. I Heard you the first time.

You’ve Just repeated points ive addressed already.
Its not a harmful way of speaking, you just think that because you are being racially sensitive.
“Black” people in America gave birth to hip hop, rap and many expressions of urban slang used in popular culture. Wheres the harm that? It mixes culture and skin colour/race up as you describe but no harm is being done.
I understand you are worried that racists will use such categorisations to support or promote their ideology, but they are going to do that anyway. They do it with science, religion...anything they can use. Racists are the problem, not words and categories.

actually most usage of race is not confined to physical characteristics, an easy example are comedians "white people do this" ha ha ha, black people do this "ha ha ha" — dazed

Well that is an example if a cultural difference, not a physical one. People notice cultural differences between races as well sure, but we have been talking about physical traits. Also, comedians are making jokes...not factual claims.

and you are clearly not able to set out a clear description of which sets of physical characteristics belong where as that's simply not possible, hence non-sensical. — dazed

I don’t need to have an exhaustive list of the traits for it to be sensical. What makes no sense is denying that there are physical differences we categorise as race. Is that what you are doing?

I think you are actually saying there are physical characteristics of humans that differ that I can see. — dazed

Well yes, that is what Im saying. Some of these physical differences we categorise as “race”.
Thats all I mean, and thats all most people mean when they use the term.
Its not nonsensical, and its so obvious that you yourself just used the category.

nice try, but go ahead and define for me how all the vast array of physical characteristics of humans can be neatly catergorized into things called races, such that each race has a unique set of characteristics that aren't shared by other "races" — dazed

Its not a “vast array”, and I didnt say “all” physical characteristics. Its some. There are some physical characteristics that can be categorised by race. This is obvious.

I had included a caveat, the subject is society at large. So your points about the “self subject” or “someone subject” dont really address the question.
Also, you end up broadening the scope to include the value we place on anything at all. Of course you are welcome to do that but it negates my question, its moot at that point isnt it?
Also, your last sentence contradicts at least some of what you said. By your own standards that person in a coma can have value to someone else, could it not? It cannot also be true that the coma person has no value.

Im not sure id go that far, but yes that is what I mean by trigger words. You scarcely have to do more than mention race and people pucker up tighter than...something tight. I didnt think that through lol

Would that include people who constantly talk about white privilege?
Im not sure your metric works, even just as a rule of thumb.
Its not hard to tell the difference between bigots and not bigots once you start looking properly. Just the words (including the frequency you mention) are not enough. What matters is what the person means, what the intent of those words are.

There's too many meanings, too many interpretations, too many 'translations' and 'dog whistles' or 'subverted or masked intensions' to make any sense of this. When somebody 'interprets' you meaning something else, it's a rabbit whole. And hence the race issue is so difficult. — ssu

I disagree, I dont think its difficult, nor nonsensical. People make it that way because of ideology and/or being triggered by a sensitive issue (race). Without that, just about nobody has a problem with it. When I say “a black guy” or “a white guy” or a “chinese guy”, everyone has a pretty good idea of what I mean. That it. Everything else is just posturing, either to justify racism/bigotry or to witchhunt for it.

The difference in skin colour and differences in physical characteristics is what is meant by “race”. Thats what most people mean when they use the term. A strictly academic use of “race”, the way a biologist would use it for their work, is not what is meant. A racist might try and use that academic sense as part of their racism to try and support their ideology but in that case the issue isnt their use of the word but rather their misuse of the word.

Are you saying they should investigate both?

Lol, I wrote that down. “If you have truth dont wield it like an asshole”.
Love it, thanks.

Could be boredom, Terra at least was on point, repeating the exact same talking points while lamenting how inadequate everyones responses were (always made me laugh when he called people aspies lol), so I think that he got bored and just said something like “ah fuck it, let them ban me”. S said basically the same thing. I think they are ready to quit and just go out swinging and just push the limits until they get banned.

I dont know how else to put it other than what ive already said, sorry.

Hmmm, well I said religion, not god. So no tilting at windmills for me sir.
Also, i was referencing you saying “only religious people have the potential to do great harm”, not your opening sentence. I should have been more specific, sorry. (Although my point about windmills still stands, you even go on to do the exact same thing again...”its all religions fault”. No ones saying that so who are you arguing with?)
I do agree that dogmatism is a human thing, and I agree that acknowledging our primitive past is the first step in taming it.
Thats all you have to say...ok.

No ones claiming ONLY religious people have potential for great harm. Complete strawman, or tilting at windmills.
To your overall point, good men do good and evil men do evil but to get a good man to do evil it takes religion. Dogmatism and intolerance exist outside religion but only religion makes a virtue of them.

Whether its the content or the posters or the topics is irrelevant, its just youre opinion. Thats not a good reason for doing what you suggest.
So now what your advocating is just allowing some people to discuss religion, those that you approve of? Lol
Maybe Im not being very charitable in how im reading you here, Ill give that some thought, but I dont think you understand the implications of what you are saying with the words you are using. You used the word “abolish” and took issue when I used the same word. Thats important, its the kind if thing you are doing consistently. It comes across as a bit dishonest.

He’s going to win again. The reasons he won the first time are still in place, and some reasons have become stronger.

Done, thanks.

How about a sub forum or archive for closed threads?