That's your view. But that is obviously not true and you're slanging a slogan. Shame, really.

Of your references:

1. That's good;
2. That is the opposite of your claim.

I can see why things are the way they are for you.

Fair enough - seems like we see that one hte same way.

No, they clearly don't. That is simply a way to silence that position, by poisoning the well. "it comes from bigots!" Well, no. Hitchens was probably the loudest absolutist of the last 30 years. The position you hold is one of fear.

Doesn't it seem problematic that your conception of "ought" makes it impossible to develop a single example of it? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No; I don't think so. That's the point of what I'm calling out in this Ethical thinking. There literally isn't a conception of ought that isn't highly problematic for someone who claims ethical truth. It doesn't exist on my view, so I couldn't even begin to provide an example of same. I'm trying to say you can't either, i guess. I did give an example on my terms though, so If that's what you're saying - you literally quoted one? Unsure, given your reply here.

It's a strange definition of "ought" that can be divorced from value — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's a definition of 'ought' which relies on value. I just do not accept there are any objective values to be found. Therefore, no 'ought' which is not beholden to it's speaker's values specifically can be found either. We simply don't lay out the value to which our "ought" is in pursuit when we speak about our proposed oughts.

"Vehicle #2 is the better one." — Count Timothy von Icarus

(following comments pertinent to this whole example/discussion section)

You are simply not telling me the part of ".... as a family/commuter vehicle. It is less likely to break down, and it is more likely to achieve your goal with some efficiency and economic spark (as opposed to #1, anyway))" in your response. So, when I come back and say "you haven't told me why i ought to choose it" that's highly disingenuous. The implicature in your response couldn't be other than you are trying to help me achieve the goal i told you about with the economic assumption added, reasonably, on the fly. I don't need to ask that question. Anyone who did either forgot what they asked, or is being difficult.

If x is best, then from the perspective of ethical decision-making x is most choice-worthy, which means x ought to be picked. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To me, "best" is absolutely meaningless here. What is that referring to? I essentially agree with the form here, but "best" is not the right way to arbitrate imo, without the preceding value against which to make that judgement. And there, we have subjective value as the only possible source for that judgement (again, setting aside Divine Command and similar revelatory external systems to which only adherence matters).

But then you say you believe in "objective values," — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you point this out? I do not. I may have misspoken, but the position is that I absolutely reject objective values, intellectually. They are no where to be found, and I can't even find a coherent reason for thinking they exist.
But intuitively I cannot get away from the proposition they must be here somewhere to be found which I take to be a psychologically evolutionary thing. I hope that clarifies. I do not believe in object values. At all.

However, once there is agreement on such values, the question of what one ought to do, given those values, becomes tractable...

Only within the group in agreement at the time the agreement/s subsist. As soon as you disagree with the value, that becomes impossible yet again, for the members disagreeing. Those agreeing have their work cut out for them - much like cultists (I tend to think this is the basis for cults. And the fact that objective values can't be found, the basis for most of their dissolution).

If "rational" is reduced to "nothing but discursive (linguistic/formal) ratio," as it so often is in modern thought, then virtually nothing can be known rationally. When I say that Goodness can be sought and known as such, I do not mean "entirely in the context of discursive (linguistic) reasoning." Definitions of knowledge that focus exclusively on discursive justification are extremely impoverished. They are particularly deficient for ethics, where "knowing by becoming" (e.g. Boethius' Consolation) is very important. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I just reject these contentions. "goodness" cannot be found by becoming Good without first defining that Good in its own terms. That is a cat chasing it's tail, looking for it's mother. If your position is truly the above, then you're describing exactly what I see as an ethical system - but you're omitting the priors (values) that actually get anyone to "good" (i think!).

See below: — Count Timothy von Icarus

This, down to where you tag me again I cannot make much of unfortunately. Not that there's nothing interesting there, but it seems to me this is someone using words like 'good' 'become', "knowledge" , "knowing" and several others in ways that are entirely alien to me and don't give me any sense of what's being got at. Seems new agey type ranting. Those words seem to rest on literally nothing that could elucidate them in situ, and as I understand these sorts of positions, they rely on some kind of "self-evident" aspect of the concepts in play. I think I reject these in terms of a discussion about Ethics of hte kind we're having. Its some cool poetic stuff, but I am not seeing anything as regards some justification for an "ought" that isn't entirely in line with my own, so far

However, is it the only natural end? Does human happiness and flourishing consist solely in staying alive? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Obviously not. But it is the only 1 or 0 choice we have that i can see. The only possible "this or that, and there's one right answer" type thing. Then again, i've been truly suicidal and I am not particularly happy I didn't follow through. It's neutral to me, because that was the 'correct' move at the time given my values. So I'm not entirely convinced this is a particularly interesting example anymore, but it does do something different like you say.

For instance, the bee will sacrifice itself (quite gruesomely) for the good of the hive in pursuit of its ends — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a non-rational, and arguably non deliberative being. Are we wanting to conflate them? Bees don't, assumably, have ethical systems. They simply react.

In terms of the "metaphysics of goodness," it is ends that make things more fully "one." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Similarly insensible to me as the quoted passages. This seems to be uses of words that can't do anything in the phrases they're used in (what is "one" doing here?)

I guess at-base I want to know why you think human deliberation is somehow totally askance from other physical things. We are just aggregates of forces, after all - the emergence of deliberation doesn't seem all that relevant to metaethics - it seems an accident.

human ends (happiness/flourishing), and human excellences (virtues) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Precisely the type of incoherent phrases I cannot understand in the ways we wanted to me.

When we say "ought" in an ethical context, we mean "I ought to do this if I hold certain values and wish to achieve them." — J

Yes. That is my position, in basic form.

it doesn't help generate an ought. — J

I agree. I may have misspoken if I was objecting to this earlier.

I do think there are objective/intersubjective values, quite apart from my personal opinions about them. — J

Could you elucidate? I've been looking for something of that order for two decades.

Is it clear to you that it's even an ethical statement? — J

No, it's a moral one. It's about culpability. Ethics is prior, as I understand it, to actualizing a moral position.

Would an ethical subjectivist need to challenge that, do you think, and argue that the feeling is just that, a feeling, and doesn't point beyond itself? — J

I think so, and that is roughly my position on it.

You think what is of personal value cannot be universalized or objectified further — J

Not so. Your further comment essentially brings up what I think the next step is. Which is just justification, not actually coming to any moral view.

*sigh* Ah well. I just disagree with you man - not that deep. I've laid out arguments, you've failed to have me stray from them and that's how things work when you have competing views (and, arguably, talk directly past each other as it seems on review).
You see it otherwise. Ok, that's your take. So be it. Onward... Hopefully we can continue to come together in other threads nevertheless.

I've done my best to canvas replies and see if there's a good way to respond. If I've missed anything someone wants comment on, please do tell. I am rushing through these pings before leaving work.

This isn't my opinion - it's a fact. — James Dean Conroy

This will go swimmingly.

I am aware of all of this and repeat the question/s... For a believer, that is meaningless. Their God is good. A God who allows child cancer is also good (yes, they come up with ifs and buts for this). The point is that for the believer, there is no problem of Evil.
I am largely noting the ridiculousness, given I am a non-believer.

Lewis doesn't seem to understand that nature of belief, for this purpose. It isn't Evil if it comes from God. Plain and simple.

How can I see what is not there? — Athena

Athena, you missing a patently obvious point, literally bolded for your ease is not my issue. Blather all you want.

Their vision of a 1950's utopia would roll back women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and civil rights — RogueAI

Errr what civil/womens** rights are they trying to take?

**I am vehemently against the banning of abortions, but that is absolutely a conversation about two people's rights and which wins out, so not quite what I'm asking.

They certainly could - but I am not under the impression we're talking about individuals (though, I did address this extremely briefly in that I see less coherence within a single person's morality on the left than on the right) but the aggregates, such as they can be spoken about.

Even there I think in aggregate a smaller number on "the right" will have that issue (though, this is notwithstanding something like personal crisis (closeted right-wingers maybe)). It also may be the case that if two 'lefties' have obviously different moralities which are both well-reasoned and somewhat pitched on 'reality' then they are probably not both lefties. One might be, the other not. It seems highly unlikely both would be int he same vein, generally, but have specifically differing views.

That said, this also seems to be the case (on a less dramatic level) for those on the Right. A Charlie Kirk vs a Ken Hamm vs a black, gay conservative of some kind - they will have more in common that a trio of disparate lefties, I think as their general ethical outlook will align, allowing for only modest differences at the margins.

I also thikn "conformist" might be misleading. "Conformed" probably makes more sense to avoid the charge of being decidedly not well-developed, and simply towing a line.

Suppose instead I added "because I think it's wrong." — J

That amounts to the same thing**. We don't want to do things we feel are wrong. "I felt I had to" would present an issue. Is that's a more interesting avenue?

**after a bit of regression. Why do you think it's wrong? Because you don't want/like the outcome, i suppose.

That's a pretty naive way of looking at it. So, all I need to justify my ownership of my home is a "sense of property?" I just claim it's mine and, I guess, maintain possession of it against any who disagree with me, and that makes it so? — T Clark

I think he's saying that even toddlers have a sense of what is theirs. Not that they can willy nilly make claims to stufff. But This is a result of their parents behaviour, anyway. Not innate. So he's still wrong, if that's what he's getting at.

As someone said, when debating the Culture War, one doesn't have to use the brain. — ssu

I'm not sure why. That's true of any debate. Don't use your brain if you don't wnat. If you want to say anything of substance, you'll use it. A very ironic line, in the event LOL.

is coming to an end — ssu

Possibly. I'm unsure. Usually, the media predictions are not right because they don't reflect what's actually happening. But, i abstain anyway - just saying this as its relevant.

when the recession hits home — ssu

Well see. I don't see this happening. Call me ignorant

But that's not a possible outcome if they're following a Creator's decree, though (this, in the world where that exists lmao). I mean, i take the argument entirely. But for a believer, that does nothing but tell them you aren't one, surely.

:100:

What about conservative morality matches those aspects specifically? What about non-conservative morality doen't match those aspects specifically? — flannel jesus

Its occurring to me I subconsciously saw the question as this, above and thought something like "Surely, that ambiguous of a question isn't being asked?" and perhaps my response "Well, I look at/hear about CM (conservative morality) and it appears more coherent, consistent and thought-out (again, even I feel the need to distance myself from defense of same on moral grounds). So, i apologise for the terseness of the last couple of replies. I should have been able to notice this and lay it out.

I think one aspect that strikes me as clear rather than esoteric as most are, is the incredibly widely shared nature of Conservative morality. One of the biggest things I've taken away from conversations is that whether fiscal or social, conservatives tend to stick together on their views and that appears a strategy rather than a failure of imagination, to me. One reason told to me is to counteract the very disparate and fracture "left" morally speaking(on this, I think they're overlooking a rather large elephant in their own room, but that's an aside - leftists stick together to avoid reproach from peers(whether true, no matter. This is the strategy)). I tend to agree that the Left is a bit more amorphous. An example (albeit, a relatively trivial one) would be that during COVID there was stark divide between right/left. In New Zealand, we had an entire campaign from the Labour (left, but only standard left. We have the fringe groups too) which hinged literally, and without my needing to fudge things: Be Kind. That was it. Be Kind. Nothing else.
They did exactly (and conveniently for me) what you've charged me with and they used the concept you used as an example, so I hope this hits in some way. What that campaign actually did was make leftists fearful, paranoid and extremely anti-social incapable of their own moral reasoning. Further, it incited other institutions (insurance companies, for instance) to push the exact same narrative as a response to the unsophisticated nature of leftist morality. The point was to grab that demographic in a moment of fear, with the phrase "Kindness Is Everything". Put frankly, this is fucking ridiculous and one of hte least-sophisticated responses to the moral crisis of COVID one could imagine (besides ignoring it which no one actually did, in aggregate). And I note that the facts of COVID aren't really, because they weren't the same as they are now, it seems (lab leak being a good example).

The point is that the entire movement hinged on an ill-defined cudgel used against anyone who even dared question the narrative or people's choices (question - not attack). It had nothing to do with the facts or what is 'best'. It was just an ideological move that kept people fearful of their neighbours.
The "right" narrative was "Hang on a minute, let's sort out some details before unilaterally legislating the reduction of freedom across the entire nation". The right were, admittedly, calling people stupid sheep for the above, which is not helpful, but it is at least reasoned on those facts.
But they were not calling people racist, bigoted, hateful and illiterate for asking the questions that have now been answered in a way that would have supported their position at the time.
The left was. I was called racist for thinking it perhaps a bit odd for Maori to be given full priority for vaccinations when the disease is novel, and we have no idea what markers might have an effect on the efficacy of the vaccine. Death threats were lobbed at those flouting the lockdown rules. Even when they posed no threat to anyone.

Now, these appear to be paradigmatic ways I see the two groups responding to issues. I do not see right-wingers trying to brow-beat people into conceding political ground. I don't see the use of personal attacks as a standard method for persuasion. I don't see a complete lack of unity. I don't see a total lack of coherent moral views within the same person (largely because of the singular source: religion. Notwithstanding - I just hate that aspect). I am currently trying to seek answers as to why the left are so hard-up for coherent moral systems within my phil classes at University. It is tough going.

The right have a simple answer: Religion. However, they will tell you outright where their religion fails to give 'correct' answers. The left say things like "All those who voted for Trump are Evil". This is cartoonish bullshit. I do see a lot of similar things (feminism is cancer, for one) among the right, but its small pockets and in most cases memery. The left doesn't have those to fall back on. They double down on the cartoonish stuff, where the right doesn't (IN MY EXPERIENCE. I AM NOT A SAGE).

Is this a bit closer to what you want to see? Again, I am not being disingenous.

but from racism. — Christoffer

Islam is not a race my friend.

Is it well poisoning to mention how “free speech absolutism” is used by extremist groups as a rhetorical tactic? — Christoffer

Yes. Obviously. Hitler loved dogs.

Radicalizing incrementally. How much do you know about extremist radicalization psychology? — Christoffer

Quite a lot. You're caving into a fear of someone else's mental state. Ridiculous.

How do you avoid the tolerance paradox when these groups use the “absolute” to change a society from a tolerate to an intolerant one? — Christoffer

There is no paradox when it comes to speech. In any case, I am not an absolutist so you're asking the wrong person. I wasn't defending absolutism, I was criticising a clear dumb argument against it. There are better arguments (some on this page).

Ahh. Dammit, I was sure you could do this one.

The harm of speech, is that when it is aimed at and intended to cause harm it often will.
If you can't see this, it's a tough go talking about it. Let's just make it simple.

An Iman proclaims that true believers must now, at that moment, leave their homes and kill all infidels.

Fair game? Yes or no will do. We can go from there.

Further, it's a strawman that leaves out that someone who has lived their life killing, raping, and pillaging isn't likely to repent on their deathbed. — baker

I think this is false, unless you want to say they are sociopathic (likely). The average person carries those things out because they think they are 'right' (needfully, "average" here actually means "in the extremely small number of people who murder, the average murderer....") and so the fear of Hell will motivate any attempts to reduce the likelihood of Hell. This is a fairly common thing.. death-bed confessional and what not.

That's a strawman of Christianity that conveniently leaves out the idea of purgatory. — emancipate

Purgatory is a Catholic concept. It is not a standard Christian doctrine. Most Christians do think recanting gets you into heaven. The caveat, as I understand, is that it must be an honest recanting - "Lord, search my Heart". That is unlikely in someone who is prone to mischievous behaviour in life - not that they wouldn't try.

(just to cut in, as I think that's a great question) The only instance in which I think such a brute reading of "ought" could be used is where one is "living" and wishes to continue "living". There are no other options, but death, which is no option at all unless we take a 'further fact' type view of ourselves. So, I think when Timothy runs from something as base as this, up to "You ought to not kick puppies, because you don't want to" the mistake is just missing the "don't want to" part in relation to a choice which could be otherwise.

You're going to need to explain where a 'right' even exists, besides from 'on high' as it were

I cannot deal with this level of non-comprehension. I have replied with those aspects of "well-developed" which apply (in my view) to conservative morality

coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking — AmadeusD

This is what I see in Conservative morality. Those aspects come out when I speak to a conservative about their moral positions, despite disagreeing with a large proportion of the actual moral statements they would make (or, have, in the conversations I have had).

Can you be a bit clearer in what you actually want? I see this:

doesn't explain why you think tha — flannel jesus

which aspects of conservative morality make it more well developed — flannel jesus

And there's an answer right above this, which I gave in briefer form earlier.

What more do you need? I am not being disingenuous. I want to answer your question, but by "aspect" I can't tell what you mean, given i've told you what attributes give it the flavour I'm driving at.

Aside: This could be answered by pointing out a worse-developed "lefty" morality, rather than why Conservatives are per se more-developed so please do be clear what you want. Just explaining the various positions conservatives hold, and why they hang together wont give you what you want.

So even though people call food good without any explicit qualification, you are reinterpreting everyone to be saying something else, namely that "food is good for such-and-such"? — Leontiskos

100%. Not just this, It is actually what people mean. Ask them. "It's tastes good". "It will keep me alive". Only in a romantic moment of poetics would someone claim food was "good" tout court. Are you suggesting that is actually what they mean? It would be bizarre if that tradition ("good food") related to something other than what is referred to in the various instances it is uttered (well-cooked, tasty, healthy etc..). This is a pretty ubiquitous way of speaking about things (i.e not completing a commonly-intuited phrase to save time - an extreme modern version is "I can't..." in the face of a difficult conversation).

It's literally not all you had said. In fact you contradicted that claim. Here is the exchange: — Leontiskos

The quote you exchange shows exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

It is necessary to survive. — AmadeusD

Exactly what I claimed, is exactly what I said. This is going to make the rest of this reply pretty ridiculous...

If you can't give truthful answers to questions posed to yo — Leontiskos

Quite frankly, sit the whole way down. This type of charge is utterly beneath you. You are wrong and I've just shown that clearly.

...That's a bit like playing chess and then saying, "I'm not going to move until you tell me your strategy, so that I know where I should move." — Leontiskos

I knew you'd say this, instead of answering. Ironic.

you give the answer, see if a false inference is drawn, and then address the false inference. — Leontiskos

You lie about such. Why would I bother?

is because it shows your claim about the arbitrariness of the good to be false. — Leontiskos

If you think this, not only is it clear you've not paid attention, it is clear you are just giving up because nothing I've said leads to the conclusion you drew before we even exchanged. Not my circus.

One only refuses to move when they are at a loss. — Leontiskos

False. If this is your position, I don't care. People refuse to answer shitty questions. As they should.

It simply does not follow from what I've said that true/false must be synonymous with good/bad, and "I find it silly" is in no way an argument for that odd claim. — Leontiskos

It does (give it a few days, and re-read the entire exchange. I dare you). It wasn't an argument. I find it silly and clearly wrong.

I take it that we both know, if we are using words accurately, that it is not an arbiter that makes 2+2=4 true. — Leontiskos

If you had paid any attention to my response, you'd know I don't agree with that. what the hell is going on dude - you're responding to my comments as if they are something other than what i've said.

I've not declared anything. I simply think you've failed to do what you are claiming to have done (and, in fact, you are just claiming that I must, secretly, accept your position)... It's sort of the opposite of what's being claimed, and its not something that can be 'gotten on with' as it were. I think this may be the end of this conversation if so. I imagine if we spoke in person or over the phone, this wouldn't be the case.

Fair enough - thanks for the comments. I think hoping for Utopia is absurd on it's face unfortunately.

Free speech absolutism is a common tactic to shift goalposts and slowly adjust people to follow something that they wouldn't outright do. It's a commonly used tactic within neonazi groups for example. — Christoffer

This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen you say. Free Speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view and this type of well-poisoning is below even the worse discussions on TPF.

"There's a story" is not good enough. That should probably be the stance, particularly with such high heat on the issue.

I've already done this, twice now. If you cannot grok it, that's not much my issue. I can only requote myself:

but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument
— AmadeusD

coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking — AmadeusD

These are hallmarks of development and effort in assessing ones views — AmadeusD

If you're disagreeing, there's no conversation to be had. Your conception of 'well-developed' is alien to me. You don't want to afford "conservatives" the plain language whicih applies to them, maybe because its hard to admit given a left-leaning bias. I can understand this, but I cannot accept that this:

I still don't know why you think conservative morality is more well developed. It's not obvious, — flannel jesus

Isn't ignorance.

Well, I think you're wrong and clearly in the grip of a bias. But whatever, that's not all that important. MTG is an absolute loon.

If you cannot see the argument, we're in the same place we always are Athena. No matter...

I was hoping this would not be necessary: It is hard for me to see how you're not trolling.

The question is obviously and clearly about speech. So, can you have another go and see what kind of speech I might be talking about?

Something like a politician saying "Go forth, my disciples, and murder those who would oppose" or if you want, imagine an Imam doing the same.
If you want that to be allowed, and rely on human behaviour to reduce the out-going harm, so be it. I think this is patently absurd. — AmadeusD

Could you perhaps point out, in the above, where I suggested, or intimated that this is what you wanted? Or that I was questioning it? You'll notice I don't.

Again:

I don't think you're coming into contact with what's being said. — AmadeusD

Hmm. I may not be getting where you want to go here, but the first section seems just an exegesis of sorts. Fair enough. You clearly do not see the Democratic party the way many do. That's fine. But we wont have a lot to talk about there, as you probably have intuited LOL.

And any tu quoqueism — tim wood

From you or me? I can't see the relation to our exchange there. Fwiw, I don't think we're comparing apples and oranges (partially, i assume, because the preceding paragraph doesn't illustrate it to me). They are two political parties that operate the same way, and always have.

You're taking it for granted that your point of view is obvious, and not even attempting a justification. — flannel jesus

What justification are you looking for my guy?
I look at the two sets of moral generalities - one seems cogent, the other not so. If you disagree, that's fine, but that's not what's being interrogated.

Your response would've made more sense in the form of something like
"Ah, i see. Well, in this case, I don't think conservatives are well-developed".

I'd have said "Cool. It's a difficult one, and I don't like their morality per se due to the religious overtones, so I can understand that".

I might agree that the criteria that determine what counts as hate speech has been unreasonably extended in some arenas of the social sphere. — Janus

Possibly, this resolves it. If we're both seeing this, is it just the degree which is in question? Hard to tell. It seems like you're arguing something a little stronger.

Do you disagree with that? You haven't actually answered my questions about whether you would allow the examples I gave and the like. — Janus

Yes I have. And i've requoted those replies above. I cannot see that its possible you've missed this:

IN any case I also directly answered you in detail** :

Literally asking someone to harm and animal should be. Joking about what kind of a person would say "x" or "y" shouldn't be. And its hard to tell, sometimes.
— AmadeusD

Just ftr, I agree, those types of statements, generally, should have at least some kind of consequence attached. That might be social, though. I'm unsure how I feel.
— AmadeusD
AAn additional note is that forums are free to police their own content. The Law doesn't need to be involved.

Are you perhaps skimming these replies? — AmadeusD

Are you skimming? It would explain why you saw that as non-cogent, if not how you missed these quotes lol.

conclude that no hate speech should be banned — Janus

You have certainly misunderstood. Certain things should be restricted speech. It is not on the grounds of 'hate'. It is on the grounds of predictable negative acts as a result (inciting is a clear case here, as I'm sure you'll agree). Saying "Trans women are not women" doesn't fall into this category. That's my gripe. That's it. There's no way to make that distinction in law without allowing an arbitrary authority to decide what does and doesn't come under that head. Surely this is clear?

Cannot tell if this will be relevant, but the thread put me in mind of this book Physics as Metaphor.

Yes, I keep the same logic. — tim wood

Thank you; appreciate it.

The subject is statistics. Answering questions based on statistics is usually a fool's game unless there is at least some understanding of what the statistics are about. — tim wood

Definitely true.

And the present question was what you meant by "over-incarceration." — tim wood

I may have misunderstood, but it was quite loaded on the back of everything that came before it. I would also say it seems self-evident, but y'know, you're asking so I must be wrong.

Which is to say that an ordinance - a decree - with the force of law behind it, is not a law. — tim wood

It is not (quite). An ordinance is simply a law enacted by local government. Decree is the right word here. Law is just a broader term under which decrees also fall. They happen all the time.

I was asking Brendan about his usage. — tim wood

Weird way to ask lol (i'm jesting, entirely. He's a difficult character).

At fault for what? — tim wood

Not understanding what she's meant to be doing (in that particular context, anyway. She seems a totally stand up legislator generally).

you would not want to marginalize them, would you? — tim wood

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I don't want to harm anyway. But in this case the margin is that on one side, we use definitions for terms in law, and on the other we just do whatever the fuck we want and then expect law to protect us, I have no time for it. I'm not interested in protecting a minority if they are outwardly hostile to the majority and refuse social convention. They can sleep in that bed (as I do, along many lines for which I don't adhere to a social norm). I see nothing wrong with this. Law need be best applied to the middle ground, not the extreme.

what is a man? (Not looking for your answer.) — tim wood

Can't tell if you do want me to say what it is, or whether you don't LOL.

As you seem to be an apologist for him — tim wood

Haha is all i can say. I am not.
I am arguing points of my own, or in some other cases noting where you're saying something irrelevant to the OP (the Decree one is a good example. You were wrong, and he might not even know why). I am entitled to do so, to help a brotha out, as it were. He isn't doing too well.

At bottom, I found the OP very objectionable. — tim wood

Yes, clearly. And fair enough. It was a contentious OP with quite a bit to get through. Though, it is very much relevant that it goes against the general grain of thought here. It was always going to be contentious, even if in the wider world it isn't. So, yeah, that's totally normal stuff.

If you want to answer for him, then please do so substantively. Or raise your own Issues — tim wood

I feel (and it seems, in retrospect, fairly obvious) I have done both of these. I'm happy to take questions from the audience though (lol). However, there's a difference between jumping in to correct what seem obvious mistakes of either interpretation or reading/vocabulary and actually arguing the points therein. I agree with a lot of what he's said in the OP - I disagree with a lot. Hell, my second (i think) reply was pushing back.

My question to you is, how do you account for McConnell's specifically and explicitly making it the goal of the Republican party to obstruct, block, and thwart any initiatives of Obama's? — tim wood

They same way Dems want to do this to Trump. You do not need race to explain why life-long (and clearly indebted-to-party) Repubs would want a particularly effective, lightning-rod Democrat who took over from GWB at a time that, even plenty of Repub voters saw Obama as a watershed moment in US history. You only need one or more of stupidity, intense party affiliation and a lack of critical thinking. Additionally, Obama ran plenty of (now)conservative policies (think a couple of have been brought up recently). Perhaps he was a threat tot he two-party system?

But this isn't what he was saying/ I was asking. Conservatives are not McConnell. They aren't even the party. They are the voters. And insinuating all conservative voters are overtly racist is absurd and hateful (not to mention patently false).

Isn't politics all about moral issues — ssu

Hmm, I can see why this is the take, but I don't think so. This seems best illustrated by the illusory way politicians have us thinking they care about hte social issues. I think there's a reason "social politics" is a term.

Yes. we think of politicians to be these corrupt power hungry narcissists — ssu

Hahaha, not always, but yeah, largely.

in reality shouldn't politicians be the arbiters of social conflicts? — ssu

No. Unsure what more to say LOL.

I'm not surprised that Americans or Brits would see me as a leftist. — ssu

That wasn't at all what I was trying to say. But, fair lol. I meant to say that your quoted passage seems to be, itself, a left-leaning frame for what "culture war" amounts to. Though, i agree with anyone who thinks "culture war" is a reasonable term - but I also disagree with anyone who thinks its some media invention. One of the most naive takes I've ever heard about social life (very, very common in NZ left circles).

I don't believe it qualifies as such. It doesn't follow that there are no clear cases of hate speech. — Janus

I assume you will read the rest of my comment, and delete this eventually?**

That's a weak response! — Janus

If you think so. But it goes to the core of why "hate speech" is a nebulous, unweildy term giving us nothing to legislate effectively. So, I'm happy to agree to disagree. It's an important point, on my view.

you think that someone who posted on public forums that th3ewy think it is good to torture animals for fun would be just "being sarcastic'. — Janus

If you think this isn't possible, I have several bridges up for sale. One of them goes the entire way across 4Chan.

I asked you a question which apparently you don't want to answer. — Janus

You asked me a disingenuous question which was a reasonable response to something I did not say. I wont defend some position I don't hold. I don't want to answer it because it doesn't apply to me. "Are you saying that..." is an implication. Not sure that you can avoid that...IN any case I also directly answered you in detail** :

Literally asking someone to harm and animal should be. Joking about what kind of a person would say "x" or "y" shouldn't be. And its hard to tell, sometimes. — AmadeusD

Just ftr, I agree, those types of statements, generally, should have at least some kind of consequence attached. That might be social, though. I'm unsure how I feel. — AmadeusD

AAn additional note is that forums are free to police their own content. The Law doesn't need to be involved.

Are you perhaps skimming these replies? I am not being rude, but having missed those two passages above is a big flag for what you're saying..

Why would you not want to prevent such a thing? — Janus

I want to prevent the state having control over what people are allowed to hear and see. Now, as is obvious in my above quotes of myself, I agree there are exceptions to this. Literally inciting violence is one. So, if you have an issue with acts (i can only assume that's the problem. You can't be insinuating that people having thoughts is hate speech) subsequent to some speech act, then you police those acts. Which we already do, and this is a deterrent enough in my view. It's not an author's fault that some wacko took their writing and did something abhorrent with it. It's that person's fault for doing something wacko. There is no transitive blame on actions to my mind. Orchestration or inciting are different things, so again, there are exceptions - but they are specific and conceptually different to "criminalising hate speech".

You seem to be mounting a "slippery slope" argument. — Janus

More than this: I am telling you that is what's already happening, in practice, when we talk about Hate Speech publicly. It is a slippery slope. Yes, there are clear cases. There are vastly more unclear ones. It is a slippery slope and at least the last five to ten years has been an excercise in kowing to the least-resilient and reasonable among us, I think (if you don't, that's cool and explains a lot but that is then our conflict, not what Hate Speech is).

So you are claiming that things which enable us to survive, such as food, are not generally considered to be good? — Leontiskos

No, no, no, no. LOL. I haven't said or intimated this. You probably need be a bit more precise in how you're reading me:
Obviously that's how things are generally considered. What I am saying, is that what people are doing is saying that "X is good for..." So, "food is good" is not what's being conveyed. "the good" is what we're talking about, so a different arena. If you mean to say you think when people say something like "food is good" that this is tout court; no qualification, then I disagree. I don't think people have that type of view.

one of the reasons we call food good is because it enables us to survive — Leontiskos

This is literally all i had said. People call food good because it performs a necessary function towards a certain goal. If that's your definition of "good" cool. It's not any common one. "Good" tends to require reason. "I will survive" is a fact, not a reason. "Surviving is good, to me" is perfectly acceptable response, though, so maybe you actually mean to say something like this? Not making a lot of sense otherwise...

No, I asked a simple question and you've avoided answering it twice now. — Leontiskos

I can only repeat my previous reply. It's not a reasonable question, because I didn't intimate it was in question. You're not getting an answer. The question is ridiculous. What people? What acts? What reasons? Probably I eat for hte same reasons as other people, but there's very little chance I do some of my more personal things for the same reasons as others. The answer you want is a fugazi imo. "yes" tells you nothing whatsoever except that I think I know why everyone does everything they do, and "No" tells you nothing but "I am special". These are not part of our discussion and I am telling you, point blank period, the question is not helpful for what you want to know. Given that I am the source of what you want to know, I'm happy to just not respond if you re-ask this one. Take that as you wish.

It's not necessary to know what someone is getting at before answering their question. — Leontiskos

Then, I did answer it. You just didn't appreciate my response, i take it. That's fine.

Right, and given that we can talk about true and false without an arbiter, I see no reason why we can't talk about good and bad without an arbiter — Leontiskos

Then you think "true" and "false" are synonymous with "good" and "bad". I both disagree and find it silly.

So does it then follow that we also need an arbiter of the terms in "2+2=4" if they are to mean anything? — Leontiskos

We have infinite arbiters of that equation, given we accept the definitions. two items, and two other items make four items. If you want to change the words that's fine, but they arbitrate the same issue.

The whole "arbiter" argument requires some explanation. — Leontiskos

It doesn't, as I see. You've not provided an objection to it. We cannot talk about truth and falsity (in situ) without an arbiter. We can only speculate, or talk conceptually. something must indicate that whatever proposition is, in fact, true or false, if we are to take those views (well, without conceding assumption, lets say, which is usually how its done). We can talk about good and bad, but to actually ascribe that to anything is a matter of personal view. There is nothing in this thread that goes against that, other than reaches for versions of Divine Command.

He captures your position very clearly before arguing against it. — Leontiskos

Perhaps you've missed, but I addressed this. He fails (on my view). YOu pointed me to an article. I read it. It was woefully inadequate to counter what I'm positing (on my view). There we are... You seem to want everything you put forward to result in a change of my mind. You'd need to present something which affects my views to do so rather than discussing them (which is much fun - and you're good at it). I am not complaining, but there's nothing in any of this exchange that would go toward giving me areason to adjust the priors involved. I am all ears, even if you have to assume I am not. I am getting a very interesting, and appreciated understanding of your views. Nothing to sneeze at. It's good stuff.

Hard to respond - feels (I know you're not) like you're ignoring:

but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument — AmadeusD

coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking — AmadeusD

These are hallmarks of development and effort in assessing ones views. You do not need to agree with the views. I think Nietzsche is one of hte worse philosophers of all time. But calling his work "under-developed" is, i take it, a laugh.
If you're simply not capable of affording something like "well-developed" to something because of hte political flavour involved, that's fine. I don't ascribe to or enjoy the standard Conservative moral either. Even ignoring hte overly religious aspects. But it is patently wrong to say it is not well-developed (particularly as compared to the varied, hotch-potch (this is the real term) of random personal grievanced that "left wing morality" appears as.

I don't much care to use either group "as a group" though, in discussion. I'm just responding to what's been said in this thread.

I don't think you're coming into contact with what's being said.

Something like a politician saying "Go forth, my disciples, and murder those who would oppose" or if you want, imagine an Imam doing the same.
If you want that to be allowed, and rely on human behaviour to reduce the out-going harm, so be it. I think this is patently absurd.

I don't have many. I agree. Broadcasting, generally, requires regulation.

The state is the source of rights. I see nothing that could upend that bare statement.

Can you explain what it would mean for something to be "ethically good" on your understanding of the term? Under what conditions can something be good in this sense? — Count Timothy von Icarus

A very good question. I am not convinced it's a coherent concept. It's like something being "factually Good". Just seems a nonsense to me. To me, I guess "good" would, in an ethical sense, be a relative term. "good for..." makes more sense than "good" bare to me.
Perhaps we need to invoke something like Coherence theory to allow this to not be a total nonsense in practice, rather than on paper. This way, several views could be totally reasonable on an ethical issue and several actions could be acceptable (even as between conflicting views, holistically speaking).

Do you not find it ironic that simply explicitly calling out what your own statements imply about your own words seems like an insult or "side-swipe" to you? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, because that's not what you did. You made insinuations which I did not either say, or imply elsewhere. That passage spoke more to what you make of my views than anything else. I was probably too harsh, but it was well out of place. Further insinuating that all you did was report on my views seems... well, i'm just going to say it: dishonest. I'm not fussed as to whether you'd cop to that or not.

Wouldn't a good argument be one that leads to truth? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Unless you have a succinct, universal definition of Truth I wouldn't think so. PLenty of arguments aren't geared toward truth anyway, and persuasion instead. So, no, i'd disagree.

A "good argument" in science, or "good evidence" would then be simply "whatever combination of argument and evidence convinces people of a position, regardless of its truth." — Count Timothy von Icarus

This seems to be the case, yes. In the real world - not particularly my view. A good argument works. It doesn't have to be 'true'.