Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that?Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having. — Baden
Yes very good points! I thought much the same. Furthermore, the racist/homophobic/sexist distinction looks potentially dangerous, as these terms are not very well defined. In many people's minds for example, thinking that homosexual intercourse is immoral is being homophobic, but the fact is the two are quite different. It's one thing to think an activity is immoral, and another to hate a group of people and want to harm them. So I think those terms should be defined, so that it becomes clear what is meant.Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that?
Or did you mean "Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having and don't listen to the other side"? — Ovaloid
In my opinion, simply believing or stating that a certain race is inferior or superior to another is fine and in some cases morally obligatory (when and if the evidence implies it and the context makes it relevant and not insulting). It is when it is used to insult that it becomes wrong. — Ovaloid
Since it is quite an emotive word that people generally don't like to be associated with I think it's definition should be and stay at "Prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt directed against someone of a certain race (so that said person feels it) based on the belief that it is inferior to another".
Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that? — Ovaloid
So I think those terms should be defined, so that it becomes clear what is meant. — Agustino
Okay, I agree that it's the right message, but what does that mean? What counts as homophobic? In common discourse in todays world, many things are associated as homophobic, which don't really express either hatred or desire to do violence to a group of people based on their sexuality. A religious person may think that it's sinful to engage in homosexual sex, for example - but does that make them homophobic, necessarily? I don't think so - and yet many common people would say "yes it does". I think that should never be acceptable here is (1) hatred of homosexual people and (2) desire to do violence to homosexual people based on their sexuality. Such should never be welcome, I agree.homophobes aren't welcome here. — Sapientia
Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that? — Ovaloid
Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having. — Baden
Furthermore, the racist/homophobic/sexist distinction looks potentially dangerous, as these terms are not very well defined. In many people's minds for example, thinking that homosexual intercourse is immoral is being homophobic, but the fact is the two are quite different. It's one thing to think an activity is immoral, and another to hate a group of people and want to harm them. So I think those terms should be defined, so that it becomes clear what is meant. — Agustino
Thanks for clarifying :)Well, we didn't want to write a book length tract. Anyway, no, you won't be censured for stating the view that homosexual intercourse is immoral. But, hate speech concerning homosexuals or other minorities won't be tolerated. So, your distinction is on target here. — Baden
The bit in bold seems to contradict your first sentence. — Michael
How can something like "I am morally obligated to point out that whites/men/heterosexuals are superior to blacks/women/homosexuals" ever not be an insult? — Michael
Well, we didn't want to write a book length tract. Anyway, no, you won't be censured for stating the view that homosexual intercourse is immoral. But, hate speech concerning homosexuals or other minorities won't be tolerated. So, your distinction is on target here. — Baden
No, it wasn't. It was a much more general criticism of the status quo. Therefore, I would like it left there, please. — Ovaloid
Also, why did you delete the comments? — Ovaloid
That horse has bolted. — Baden
I didn't delete the comments. I merged the thread, so the responses are here now. Or should be, at least. — Baden
You can reverse the change so the thread under politics can still be bumped. Is your problem that people will respond here still? In that case you can put a link and a note here. — Ovaloid
The belief itself is OK, but the prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt that goes along with it isn't. — Ovaloid
I agree that beliefs can't be inherently good or evil. I say that because I believe morality is about actions, not beliefs (Jesus disagreed with that... but oh, well.) — Mongrel
Unless a) morality requires a choice and b) we don't choose what to believe. — Michael
But that's philosophy, and we're in feedback, so let's not get sidetracked. :) — Michael
Any mod would be well within his rights to delete the other thread in its previous position. — Baden
But that's philosophy, and we're in feedback, so let's not get sidetracked. :) — Michael
Why can't it be about both? If beliefs play no part in your conception of morality, then all the worse for your conception of morality. It's not a category error to categorise beliefs as good or bad. He who believes that racism is acceptable is worse than he who believes that racism is condemnable (all else being equal), and he who believes that racism is acceptable and is actively racist is worse than both. The former sort of "passive" racism isn't okay or amoral; it's bad. — Sapientia
How come? — Ovaloid
Racists/homophobes/sexists: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
In my opinion, simply believing or stating that a certain race is inferior or superior to another is fine and in some cases morally obligatory (when and if the evidence implies it and the context makes it relevant and not insulting). — Ovaloid
Which definition of 'racism' are you referring to? — Ovaloid
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.