So you agree that disabled people organising together to push the introduction of disabled access ramps is fine? And that it secures their individual rights? If not, why? And why does it go against individual rights? — fdrake
And you agree that slave revolts and humanitarians back home organising to push the abolishing slaving was good? And that it secures individual rights? If not, why does the abolition of slavery go in the face of individual rights? — fdrake
Do you think disabled people wanting disabled access groups are 'trying to win at the expense' of non disabled people? Slaves revolting and humanitarians back home also definitely were 'trying to win at the expense of other people' - they wanted the fucking slave owners not to remain in possession of some of their assets. This is completely incoherent, and I believe you know this because you're always presenting more trivial reasons people might organised to solve their collective problems.
In this is the incredible equivocation that the abolition of slavery was the same as forcing a baker to make a gay couple a wedding cake. — fdrake
You see disabled people not having access to the same places as people who can walk as not a problem. Of course you don't, you don't have to care about the problem[/u]. You're a bloke who doesn't need a wheelchair. People who need wheelchair access see it as a problem because it is a problem for them. — fdrake
Also, why should what you see as a problem matter? Lack of disabled access really is a problem for people who need wheelchairs! You would deny them access to spaces because you believe them raising their voices together to gain access is disabled people 'winning' over the non-disabled. The reason they would want to do this is because non-disabled people already win over disabled people due to the established norms and expectations of society. — fdrake
Rather, it's a matter of moral intuition first and then may be a matter of opinion or rationalization. For example, it would be a typical human intuition that selling organic vegetables is more morally 'good' than selling cigarets. Provided that we know about the unhealthy effects of smoking, we should have an intuitive sense that selling them generally does harm to some degree. We might reason that in this case personal liberty or the liberty to buy and sell cigarets is more important than the harmful effects, but the intuition is still experienced regardless of whatever moral reasoning is employed. — praxis
So you don't think individualism and freedom can solve the world's problems? You think an all powerful government that forces people to act in a way that the government thinks is the best at stopping climate change is good? — AppLeo
Maybe it's just me but I think it's clear this is just someone puking out bog-standard conservative and libertarian talking points. The poor are bad because the social safety net (I wonder why Rand used SS then???), affirmative action is bad because who knows why those uppity blacks couldn't get into university (what is racism???), and the gubment is bad because not free. — MindForged
This feels like someone who hasn't engaged in any broader political discourse, has no knowledge of any non-trivial aspects of sociopolitical history (race relations, ideological developments and shifts) and is not at all familiar with the underlying philosophy and consequences of their own views. — MindForged
Well do you know why I'm saying what I'm saying? I have good and valid reasons for my points. — AppLeo
Pffft... — AppLeo
Your reasons thus far have boiled down to their terrible "Climate change is a leftist religion and we can't mitigate it", claims that groups don't exist — MindForged
Buddy, you compared the disabled being given easier access to entering a business location to the Nazi regime, — MindForged
you had such brilliant insights as "Can't try to save the world by weaning off fossil fuels because it might 'hurt' the economy" (I don't think you understand the multiple absurdities of this claim of yours) — MindForged
and have betrayed a lack of understanding of how capitalism works and when it works best. — MindForged
You thought it was OK for monopolies or near monopolies to exist because "It only happened through free exchange, which makes it good". — MindForged
I mean it's not like capitalism's main selling points and fertile ground is when there are high levels of competition which is the antithesis of monopolies (which, not coincidentally, use their power to control the government through means I mentioned earlier). — MindForged
When I refer to "winning" what I'm saying is that the winners have the government on their side. The government shouldn't be on anyone's side. — AppLeo
Those that live the most rationally will the most happy and prosperous. — AppLeo
If they didn’t want to, why did they work for 16 hours a day? No one forced them to do it. They chose to do it given their circumstances.
I don’t see why working 16 hours a day to feed yourself and your family is a bad thing. I think it’s great that people had opportunity to work for long periods of time and make enough money to feed themselves. — AppLeo
I liked Ayn Rand back in the day. As I got older, it became clear to me that what I found appealing in her was her valorization of a life of excellence lived alone. And it became to clear to me that I found that appealing precisely because I was alone. The less alone I was, the more her appeal wore off. — csalisbury
don't know where you're at in your life, and how alone, or non-alone, you feel. But I do know the thing of setting something up, in order to draw out antagonists, in order to defend it. — csalisbury
So you're low-key saying that I'm a lonely person? Who do you like now since Ayn Rand no longer appeals to you? — AppLeo
What do you mean? You think I'm drawing out antagonists? — AppLeo
Considering Rand's philosophy is called 'objectivism', and it is explicitly stated that emotions make for poor guides in life, I think you are not staying true to her point by saying emotional choices can be rational. — Tzeentch
What does such a rational life look like? — Tzeentch
If we cannot agree that de facto enslavement of the working class is a bad thing, I doubt we will be able to agree on anything. — Tzeentch
I don't know if you're lonely. I'm saying I liked her when I was. If you're not lonely, mine is a case to pass over quickly, noting how its particulars are inapplicable to your case. — csalisbury
I like the philosophers in my bio - Sloterdjik, Lyotard, Sellars, and Hegel. — csalisbury
It seems that way, but I may be wrong. What were you looking for in posting? — csalisbury
A rational life is a person who makes the conscious decision to think, reason, and use logic as much as he can. — AppLeo
That's no life. That's an attempt to reduce from life the elements and qualities you dislike. — emancipate
What? Can you give a better explanation? — AppLeo
You can have sex with hookers and snort cocaine, but that's an irrational aim for happiness. A rational person values productive achievement and has a purpose, which is better for happiness. — AppLeo
A rational life is a person who makes the conscious decision to think, reason, and use logic as much as he can. — AppLeo
If you observe history, capitalism has lead to economic prosperity and is the most moral system because people are treated equally under the law. — AppLeo
I mean maybe I'm a bit lonely from time to time, but loneliness is independent when it comes to the validity of a philosophy or ideology. — AppLeo
Well I don't know. I like to argue with people and see how wrong they are when they make their arguments — AppLeo
Why? To both assertions. — Tzeentch
So how does listening to one's emotions fit into this? — Tzeentch
Even though I don't agree with the general sentiment of this statement, it should be noted that it was not unrestricted capitalism that created a moral system. It was in fact the balance between economic freedom and individual rights. In practice these are often juxtaposed, which is why Rand's assertion that total economic freedom is 'the' system of individual rights is quite simply wrong. — Tzeentch
I don't disagree. I guess I'm thinking in terms of valuation. I think independent types tend to think in terms that valorize the worldview which accommodates the type of life they're living. It's hard to separate the valorization from the ideology itself. — csalisbury
Arguing is fun. But when you talk about seeing how wrong others are - how could that be anything but antagonistic? — csalisbury
Just because someone is disabled does not mean that they are entitled to a wheelchair system. If a disabled person wishes to have a wheelchair system built for them, they must acquire it through trade, charity, or voluntary consent. But they cannot use government force. — AppLeo
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.