How is that compatible with the following? — Tarskian
Is it just about any perceived Malaysian distaste for LGBTQ propaganda? — Tarskian
What you've posted is a popular article literally advertising specific bars in the area. — AmadeusD
These gay bars, a multitude of them -- being openly advertised -- seem to be perfectly legal in Malaysia. How is that compatible with your gay-persecution hypothesis? — Tarskian
You haven't answered to what seems to be a glaring contradiction in your position on the matter. — Tarskian
there is no need to read your sources of propaganda — Tarskian
You are cherry-picking — AmadeusD
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/life-hiding-kabuls-gay-community-driven-underground/
A life in hiding: Kabul’s gay community driven underground
I present you with a simple fact, and you answer again with a useless word salad. — Tarskian
This is clearly not the case in Malaysia. — Tarskian
What's more, your meandering word salads won't make any difference whatsoever to the facts on the ground. — Tarskian
My position on the matter is otherwise perfectly clear. The government should not enforce matters deemed of moral self-discipline unless public order is at stake. — Tarskian
You did not. You posted a popular, sponsored article which has been removed from the 'credible' list by more than one poster. You're going to beat a dead horse now too? — AmadeusD
Blue Boy Club
Club in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Google review summary
"Nice local drag show"
"I go to see the drag queen show more often. They are super profitional and amazing"
50, Jln Sultan Ismail, Bukit Bintang, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Are there gay clubs in Malaysia?
Source Built next to the Leisure Mall, Cheras, the iBlue Bar is one of the lively karaoke gay bars in Kuala Lumpur that holds regular dance and drag performances. The staff is polite and well-trained, and the owner is welcoming and gracious.
prostitution is persecuted only when it is deemed a disturbance to public order — Tarskian
They are certainly not peculiar to Aristotle. The parallels with Plato's argument about the leadership of the ideal society are inescapable. The common theme is the central importance of reason. They share the view that the critical feature required to qualify one for leadership is reason. (Admittedly, Aristotle, unlike Plato, distinguishes between theoretical and practical reason, and that is an important distinction.)The natural masters are fundamentally the virtuous or those who have been or those who have been perfected in their development and the natural slaves are fundamentally the vicious, or those who have been damaged or corrupted in their development. Many barbarians are in this condition, to be sure, but there is no need to suppose that all of them are. More to the point, some Greeks will be in this condition, in particular the many and (sc. those) whom the many admire. These views fit in with, and may in fact be said to fall out of, the teaching of the Ethics (where the many are certainly characterized as slavish and bestial (references to the text omitted). They are not views peculiar to the ancient Greeks or to Aristotle. — Simpson pp. 13,14
Aristotle says that most Greeks are not fit to rule. It is implied that some are. Nothing is said or implied about all Greeks - or barbarians. On the other hand, there is nothing to rule out the possibility that some random group of people may turn out (empirically) to share some characteristic which makes them all natural leaders or natural slaves. In fact, he proposes just such a group of people - "the many". One is inclined to think that "the few" must share the characteristic of being being leadership material.Aristotle says that Greeks are fit to rule because they have x, y, and z characteristics. He does not say that Greeks are fit to rule because they are Greek. — Leontiskos
The first sentence of Simpson's summary makes it quite clear that Aristotle equates the natural with the moral. So Aristotle's empirical case is not what we would call an empirical case at all. It is built round his moral principle that the rational should rule over the irrational. I'm sure he would accept that that is not always the case in practice. He would say that when it is not the case, something unnatural is going on, meaning that something wrong is going on. So his claim is fundamentally a moral claim, not empirical at all.Aristotle gave an empirical case for inequality qua ruling, and I don't see how serious-minded individuals can oppose Aristotle's arguments without making their own empirical case for equality. — Leontiskos
That's a very good test. It's not perfect. Some people have very poor imaginations and worse memories. I remember, in the small town that I lived in a while ago, there was a recession and a number of people lost their jobs. They got very annoyed about the welfare system - not much money, ill-mannered and unhelpful staff. When they got jobs, they forgot all about it and reverted to moaning about high taxes and the idle poor. — Ludwig V
I'm still trying to work out what that refers to. It doesn't reflect anything I know about and I can't find anything obvious in what the reference sites say. — Ludwig V
The Romans, therefore did not bring peace and prosperity - the Greeks were doing quite nicely on their own, thank you. — Ludwig V
That seems reasonable. But I feel that they are rather weak on the role of co-operation in making life worth living. — Ludwig V
Well, everybody accepted that. The point of war was to get rich quick. — Ludwig V
Of course. Nothing changes, except the way people dress up what they're doing. Hope is all there is. — Ludwig V
Talking Heads right? You might like McWhorter's book. A pretty good antidote the Kendi's, Crenshaw's and DiAngelo's of the world. — AmadeusD
Did you enjoy McWhorter's book? — Leontiskos
It might help your perspective on this to point out that the Greeks thought of themselves as Athenians or Spartans or Thebans. During the Persian Wars the opposition was never more than an alliance of city states, and some cities (Thebes) simply surrendered to them. That disunity continued until Philip of Macedon defeated them in battle and force a unification treaty on them. The story after than is very complicated, but a lasting unity was finally imposed by Rome in 30 BC. So although the culture was Greek, it was not the product of any single Greek political entity.Though, at the same time, we can't do without this narrative aspect -- it's the sweeping, big narratives that I'm skeptical of here; so in some sense to concede that Greek Culture was given a Mediterranean empire for free because their culture was absorbed and spread across the Mediterranean after being dominated is to say, sure, we can put the story this way, — Moliere
Some things are better, that's true. It's just that so many important things are not.I do think things change, actually -- it's just not a sweeping Progressive narrative, per se. And they can change for the better. The only way I know of in which this happens is when regular people get together to demand change, though. It takes effort and planning, but it can be done. — Moliere
Yes. That would be better. And I guess it can work, but only at a relatively small scale. Roughly, up to the size of community that can function at a person-to-person level.Anarchists believe in individual needs and individuals, but that they are a part of a wider community -- rather than a bundle of self-interested individuals anarchists build collectives of cooperation which are intentionally built through collective decision-making and consensus building. — Moliere
I agree regarding Kendi et al. I guess this is just a great counterpoint as its two prominent, intelligent black men basically saying 'not my circus'. It's neat. — AmadeusD
Aristotle says that most Greeks are not fit to rule. It is implied that some are. Nothing is said or implied about all Greeks - or barbarians. — Ludwig V
The first sentence of Simpson's summary makes it quite clear that Aristotle equates the natural with the moral. So Aristotle's empirical case is not what we would call an empirical case at all. It is built round his moral principle that the rational should rule over the irrational. I'm sure he would accept that that is not always the case in practice. He would say that when it is not the case, something unnatural is going on, meaning that something wrong is going on. So his claim is fundamentally a moral claim, not empirical at all. — Ludwig V
Aristotle says that Greeks are fit to rule because they have x, y, and z characteristics. He does not say that Greeks are fit to rule because they are Greek. — Leontiskos
Well, I think it is ambiguous and I didn't recognize that. However, because he says the "the many" are not fit to rule and therefore implies that some, but not all, are fit to rule, I should have realized that your interpretation is correct. So you are right.Right, "Aristotle says that Greeks are fit to rule," does not mean that Aristotle says that every Greek is fit to rule. — Leontiskos
So who is a natural slave and what is the index of being one?All he (sc. Aristotle) says is that it is unjust to enslave those who are not natural slaves. — Simpson - p.13
That's a most confusing sense of "nature". In the real world, disease is entirely natural. That's why we take many artificial measures to restore us to health.A thing is manifestly contrary to nature when it is not as its nature requires it to be, but is losing or has lost that nature. Disease is contrary to nature, in that sense. — Simpson - p.4
There is always a hierarchical top to society where all the political power accumulates, and therefore, also pretty much all the wealth. — Tarskian
Well, I think it is ambiguous and I didn't recognize that. However, because he says the "the many" are not fit to rule and therefore implies that some, but not all, are fit to rule, I should have realized that your interpretation is correct. So you are right. — Ludwig V
I'm in a bit of a quandary here. There are two conclusions in this argument. One is about leaders. I don't have any violent objection to that argument. I think it's false, but I'm not sure that I can be bothered to refute it. In practice, it wouldn't make any difference. The other is about slaves, and I cannot accept that it is right, or even all right, to enslave any human being. — Ludwig V
If we can identify characteristics that make someone fit to rule, then it follows that people who do not possess those characteristics are not fit to rule; it does not follow that they are slaves, or fit to be slaves. We could, instead, characterize them as natural followers or maybe natural independents (compare Simpson on tame and wild animals p.4) — Ludwig V
B. You may be mistaken, however, to think that "the rational are more fit rulers than the irrational" is empirical. I may be wrong, but I think that, for Aristotle at least, reason is the faculty that enables us to get things right. A leader needs to decide the best thing to do and how to do it; so, by definition leaders need to be rational. — Ludwig V
If slavery comes naturally to some people, why is it necessary to enslave them? — Ludwig V
A natural slave would accept slavery when it was offered. Voluntary slavery is a contradiction in terms. — Ludwig V
That's a most confusing sense of "nature". In the real world, disease is entirely natural. That's why we take many artificial measures to restore us to health.
We are in two minds about nature. Sometimes we consider that what is natural is good. Sometimes we consider that it is bad. It depends on the case. No general evaluation can stand up to the facts. — Ludwig V
Some of these theoreticians (though not their fault) became popular among fascists, nazi, and communists, who took for grounded that societies always are hierarchical/patriarchal/dominated etc., and for this reason the solution is not to go against a natural trend/inclination of humanity (they thought democracy and liberalism were doing that), but to choose the last worst outcome through placing the group who deserves it the most at the head of these ("inevitable") societal hierarchies. — Eros1982
We have a poor class in this country that may decide who will govern in 2025 and can hope in some money (through tax reforms) to be transferred from the rich to them. — Eros1982
So, I am more eager to believe that this country tends to be chaotic (like most of the countries in this continent), more than hierarchical. — Eros1982
I'll abandon the example of disease and this point until and unless l can work out a better way of putting it.A disease is contrary to human nature. That is the point. If it were not contrary to human nature then the human will and immune system would not oppose it. It is not being said that disease is contrary to Nature in some absolute sense. — Leontiskos
Voluntary slavery is not a contradiction if we attend to Aristotle's terms. Indeed, it is not clear that voluntary slavery of any kind is an analytical contradiction. — Leontiskos
You are right, Aristotle's slavery is not a sufficient condition of forcible enslavement. I was naive, then, to assume that all slaves are imprisoned by force and kept imprisoned by force as long as they are slaves. It should have been obvious, natural slaves are slaves whether anyone is forcing them to do things or not. (That's implicit in the discussion of the rules of war, where it is envisaged that the defeated army will be composed of a mixture of slaves and non-slaves.) Ordinary slavery, then, is a state quite different from Aristotle's slavery.Simpson's point in the quote you provide is that it is not necessary to enslave them (nor to not-enslave them). — Leontiskos
Details are given on the same page. The natural slave might cease to be irrational. Presumably, one should release them at the point.The condition that makes the natural slave need not be permanent
Does the master not require the slave to flourish? Mutual dependency, common good. Positively inspiring!For Aristotle a slave is a natural dependent in that they require the economia of a master to flourish. — Leontiskos
Perhaps. He may well not be. He probably doesn't have the time, what with running the whole show.The difference is that Henry Ford is capable of performing the manual laborer's job — Leontiskos
Yes. Intellectuals do tend to down-grade physical work. They might have more respect for it if they did some for a week or two.This maps to a proficiency with the mind vs. a proficiency with the body, — Leontiskos
You are right, Aristotle's slavery is not a sufficient condition of forcible enslavement. — Ludwig V
I left with just two questions. How do natural slaves who have no master live? How do natural rulers who have no people to rule live? — Ludwig V
Does the master not require the slave to flourish? Mutual dependency, common good. Positively inspiring! — Ludwig V
Perhaps. He may well not be. He probably doesn't have the time, what with running the whole show. — Ludwig V
I understand that some people think that Aristotle's argument demonstrates that universal human equality is nonsense. It is indeed nonsense if it means that everyone is the same. But Aristotle's argument demonstrates what it does mean. For the motivating assumption of the argument is that everyone should be treated in the way that is appropriate to them. Irrelevant circumstances (such as Hecuba's birth - Simpson p. 12) should not come into play. The only issue is what is appropriate to who. — Ludwig V
That's what universal equality means. — Ludwig V
Why do you assume that a natural leader with no people to lead and a slave without a master to serve will inevitably live in isolation. Why cannot they live in society?A master or slave in isolation would be like a part disconnected from the whole, and in both cases the lack of cooperation or communion will make their lives worse than what they otherwise would be. — Leontiskos
I'm glad about that.Yes, I agree. — Leontiskos
But now I'm a bit confused. It is just obvious that there are some things that are in common between all human beings (whether by essence (definition) or by accident (empirically)) and other things that are not. So yes, everyone is equally entitled to vote and equally entitled to a fair trial.It seems to me that universal equality means that the same things are appropriate to each. Or at least it often means this, or leans in this direction. A kind of classlessness. — Leontiskos
Why do you assume that a natural leader with no people to lead and a slave without a master to serve will inevitably live in isolation. Why cannot they live in society? — Ludwig V
I'm finding this very confusing. I think this would all have been a lot clearer if we could just drop the bit about slavery and talk about leaders and followers. — Ludwig V
I'm all for classlessness. But there's nothing wrong with distinguishing between classes of people when the criterion of membership is relevant. — Ludwig V
That's true, but doesn't answer my question. What if a (natural) master is isolated from slaves and vice versa?You asked about slaves without masters and masters without slaves. If a master is not isolated from slaves then he is not without slaves, and vice versa. — Leontiskos
But he does think that slaves are vicious and bestial and should be treated as animals. I think that's a pretty dirty, don't you?Isn't it just that "slave" and "servant" have become dirty words? But they were not dirty for Aristotle ("doúlos"). — Leontiskos
Yes, that's exactly what I think. Though I've qualified that below.Does not the substantive question come down to whether a distinction is relevant or real? — Leontiskos
Yes. As it happens, I think that his distinction is neither real nor relevant. But I've shelved the question whether it is real for the sake of the argument.When someone opposes him they are arguing that such a distinction is either not real or not relevant. — Leontiskos
Well, I don't know how we would count them. But certainly the argument is about which distinctions are real and relevant.We could say that those who favor "universal equality" are those who see fewer real and relevant distinctions between humans. — Leontiskos
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.