No it isn’t. — Xtrix

Compelling contrarianism.

But the group value (or lack there of) is a separate matter based upon their treatment of the individual. — James Riley

I think I understand this argument. It acknowledges that the individual and the group ought be assessed in different ways; at least acknowledging that people are a little more complicated than this or that ascription. It leaves room for hope.

It's bad practice to devalue groups of people.
— Cheshire — Xtrix

No it isn’t. — Xtrix

It's the basis for tribalism. The foundation of fascism. It reduces the human condition to some narrow division of ideals and places us further from a constructive process. In this particular case it makes broad equivocations; combining those propagating a pandemic with several thousand that are simply bad at physical science. It assumes the worst and distributes it.

Some groups of people devalue themselves. That can aid in finding their market value. — James Riley

This is a way of blaming them for one's low valuation of them. Historically lumping undesirables into sets and devaluing them has preceded atrocities. I think you can really get to know some one and determine they're shit on an individual basis if it's necessary to produce a market price.

It's bad practice to devalue groups of people.

Rephrased it reads "I didn't understand the point of the thread, nor properly interpret the OP" Is this literally asking about the morality of producing children?

Strange logic. — Antinatalist

What? We don't consider the present is exactly the same as the projected future states? How do we pretend cardiac base tissue is a person, by other means?

Nailed it

He states that a foetus, or even a newly conceived egg cell, is a potential person, and therefore an abortion would be a crime against this potential human being. — Antinatalist

So he drops the qualifier 'potential' in order to present a bad argument. One can't do crimes against potential things.

Or another way. Every living person is a potentially dead person so killing people is ok.

The meaning of french grey is what you do with it; ordering and applying a colour that is pleasing. — Banno

What? It's the name of a color. They make a crayon. I didn't get to label it. I maintain that this phrase above is never resident in some one's mind during an internal process of understanding things. No one thinks to themselves in a convoluted way. The meaning is what you do with it with respect to the context and any ceremonial entailments. How do you describe what it is to mean something? Seems thread relevant.

I thought we sorted this one out already? Ideas are physical if you need them to be in order to maintain a cherished belief that a non-physical thing is impossible. But, if one isn't restricted by their own assumptions, then it's possible to observe that ideas exist and yet we have no means to measure their physical characteristics. How we have physical things that can't be measured in a physical way is seemingly problematic or the assertion that non-physical things do not exist is problematic. Does anyone have a forceful dismissive conjecture? Preferably with a map metaphor?

I encourage you all to write objections to my OP if you have any. I tried to keep it short so I didn’t mention everything to be said about the topic. On a final note, I want to mention that I think there is a rather bad history regarding adultery being illegal where women were charged with it a lot more often than men were. I don’t think this is how adultery laws should work and laws in general are only as good as how they are implemented — TheHedoMinimalist

No great marriage ends in divorce. People should be free to take actions that finalize their internal state. I don't recommend "normalizing" infidelity if that's even coherent, but legislating against free choices is stupid. Leaving it legal allows things to end sometimes. Unless one fancies themselves a property owner rather than a mate. If the law is the only thing keeping your other honest then go ahead and give up while you got years left to enjoy.

What about color spectrum gradient? Let's get off the religiousic Witty high horse for a minute and realize that color exists on a gradient more fine than language does. Who's going to argue for one exact color gradient that the phrase "French Grey" defines? Come on now boys. — Noble Dust

The OP requests the indescribable; I try to make posts to order. To demystify the matter colors are describable by hexadecimal and I imagine even more sophisticated means by now. We have chosen a language our machines understand.

Being certain is easy. Any fool can be certain. Demonstrating that your notion of French grey doesn't change - that'd be interesting. — Banno

Agreed. In this context french grey is actually a static color that I happen to enjoy. Really, grey itself represents a unique balance, but a little blue washing over it meets my preference. So, in a PLA sense it is unchanging.

Wittgenstein's question: How do you know that what you think of as french grey doesn't slowly change in your mind... so that what you thought french grey on one day is different the next? — Banno

I'm certain it does change; I hadn't been aware of the greenish verision until earlier today. I'm not sure I can endorse "no common agreement"; rather there is no binding agreement as to what it is in any given conversation. We could probably arrive at it by a process of exclusion. It's certainly the color all the other colors are not and everytime I've requested it I've been presented with something some one identified as french grey. It's an observable phenomena so Wittgenstein wouldn't deny it exist, but I'm not certain he would believe it's a real color.

It's almost the reverse of the issue of whether we see the same duck-egg blue. And asks whether we expect to see the same color. I suppose a less ethereal subject might make for a better test. What do you call all the indescribable things? What type of box do they fit in?

The point is that despite it being indescribable, there are descriptions. — Banno

Granted, but if I do an image search for french grey I'll get any number of different colors. In order for something to be described it is necessary the thing and descriptions correspond. I can describe french grey as the sound dreams make, but it doesn't serve as evidence the feat as been achieved.

Is it what Aussies call "Duck-egg blue"? — Banno

Not grey enough for my taste. In my mind it's light grey with a non-obvious hue of blue that perhaps suggest yellow and green might have recently been present. Closer to a svenska blue without so much blue and more grey. It's a bit of a running joke in the fine art department from what I've been told; that french grey escapes any real definition. It is a bespoke grey.

b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate. — T Clark

The OP hasn't suggested an intention to advocate a position. So, the omission of arguments seems reasonable.

I believe 'yellow grey' is also attributed to french grey. It changes everytime I look it up. It's my favorite color.

The color french gray defies description.

It is the emotional development of the child that concerns me and then the cumulative effect on the mass of children. Children growing up with a repressed empathic system and undeveloped emotional depth and relationships, may make a strong military-industrial complex, but it will not be the democracy we defended in world wars. I am saying women's liberation did not liberate women, but made being feminine taboo and made the patriarchy stronger. — Athena

I think you are correct. Prior to an attempt at liberation there was at least a space for emotional existence. Probably a patronised and exploited space, but one none the less. The mistake might have been the assumption the men were free. Which brings me to your next point below.

I have add, it is not just the negative effect on women, of working for a wage, that bothers me, but also on men! The autocratic industry has been the enemy of humanity and our democracy all along. Men were treated terribly by industries that exploited them and held them powerless as they slaved for a wage. Sucking women into this too, should be the last straw and I am calling for a revolution. — Athena

I'm pleased to agree. We have professions that are designed to "burn and churn" where new hires aren't expected to last three years, but the industry relies on the output of the least paid employee and the ability to replace them quickly. We've tried revolution but no one ever makes it past the seizing of things and central control. It never blossoms into the ideal that justifies all the struggle.

Coroporations are finally having to at least acknowledge a social duty exists due to the power of consumers, but I don't think that alone is going to transform a culture. Like, society needs a heart transplant.

Choices are funny things. Maybe we don't get to pick our ideas, but maybe we do get to pick from a few options. Sometimes people do seem compelled and other times they step back from the ledge. The perception alone of what things we're told not to do could help "determine" our actions. Even with hard determinism and a pragmatic understanding of probablistic circumstances it's within reason to suppose there's a feedback loop that results from the assumption of responsibilty.

Even if we're manipulating some ununtterable field, it's still happening via or about the head.

Oh is that why our banking system and some industries have been run by psychopaths, a lack of a father in the home? I think you may have a point. Would you like to explain it? What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers? — Athena

Our banking system and some industries reward psychopathic skill sets. I think people in general have the capciety for both; but if one spends all day in one frame of mind then the empathetic tool set necessary for making a child feel connected to the world on an emotional level could atrophy. If both parents are competing in a capitalist struggle then yes I think there's a greater chance the child misses out on the sense of connection. I wouldn't expect it is deterministic. Going to requote below.

What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers? — Athena

Let me see if I can follow the logic train to emotionally loaded question town.

If two parents working is bad because no parents are at home, then a single parent working is bad because no parents are at home? Ergo, suggesting two people engaged in the coroporate world is the same as condeming a single parent trying to raise a child. In the sense of a numbers game it works. I guess "the problem" in this case would be the same as above. Where the demands of competetion force the repression of the empathic system that childeren ought have should they grow up seeing others as complete indiviudals with emotional depth they can have empathy for and make robust emotional connections with; but this isn't every case or even considered worthy of a guidline for one "ought do" in my perspective. The OP said to try and describe a problem I assume is asscioated with a cultural drift away from patrachrical society. I attempted to meet the request; and I don't have any desire to play the part the questions above are trying to script for me.

The better counter position might have been; well perphaps women will reduce the advantage of psychopathic skill sets by creating a coroporate culture that values relationships and human connections that laid the cooperative foundation for the civilizations we currently enjoy.

Instead, I'm depicted as criticizing single parents.

Sun up?

I read something about logic being preformatively unquestionable and you lost me.

How might the utility of an idea be measured? I would consider applying Hedonic Calculus. Does that seem like the right direction? What about memetics and the principles behind MEME success? Such memes of today's techno-culture have very little utility, wouldn't you agree? — Josh Alfred

The number of contexts in which the idea is relevant and the resulting explanantory power from understanding the idea. Like, Maxwell's equations would be the gold standard I'd imagine.

What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy? — Athena

In a matriarchy both genders are subject to becoming narcissistic coroporate machines. Then, we end up raising a generation of psychopaths that keep shooting up all the public schools. Just spit balling.

More than that, it would damage our marriage because she would learn that I will lie to her when faced with some tension, discomfort, or desire to spare her from the truth. — gloaming

I've heard varations of this argument over the years. One professor claimed that failing to give a movie a bad review would somehow lead to the fall of civilization. I like to think of myself as honest as the next person, but I think we omit, temper, and rationalize plenty of information. If you've never been served food you'd rather not eat by some one you care about that can't cook then you are as fortunate as you are honest.

If I give some one inaccurate information; they don't feel cheated. If I reserve the truth of the matter to spare emotions i.e. apologize when I'm not wrong, I've taken nothing. In any case Kant wouldn't suppose a duty to a murderer anyway. It's the most well defended absurdity in modern academic philosophy.

But, to the OP. Your wife has relationship attachment constancy well enough to know you aren't suddenly untrustworthy. The argument put forward isn't realistic.

Further more; listing the immoral things defeats the purpose of a catagorical imparitive. If you are correct than the whole of Kant's moral philosophy is some how redundant and for the most part unuttered. Going on, if he was going to start compiling the list of always wrong things then why start with lying? Seems battery and murder would be worth mention prior to defending the notion that misc. misdirections and polite omissions would be impermissible just cause they are impermissible. Instead, Kant hates lying on all counts; regardless if it treats a person as a means to an end. I'm not the one making the radical claim here.

An alternative to wry incredulity is just to look stuff up. — Isaac

An alternative to your response would be to address the entire sentence. What color is your "Covid Passport" for internal travel within your borders? I don't have such a document and I doubt you do either. But, you ignore that and PRETEND I asked only about mandates. Let me know if any honest observations strike you.

https://philpapers.org/archive/VARKAL.pdf

A point about Kant's permissible/defensible lie: he says you can't assure someone that you are telling the truth, and then lie to him. And I get it. I presume you do too.

And "defensible" because Kant seems to say that all lying is bad. From that I infer never permissible, but defensible. Like using gun to defend a home: not permissible but defensible, and all manner of evils befall the homeowner whose use is not defensible. — tim wood

It's more of a semantics matter to me when presented in this way. If you feel the precision of language achieves something, then I don't fault you. I don't see the need to prefer one term.

↪Cheshire No. The hazards of reading Banno or Verda(?) when it's easy enough to read the man himself, quoted by me about 26 posts above. The way I read it, lying is always wrong, but defensible under a narrow set of conditions. — tim wood

Well, I said; it was immoral and permissible in the conditions set forward in the OP regarding a man's wife asking about another woman's appearance. It falls in line with always wrong, but defensible under a set of conditions.

In regards to, "No. The hazards of reading Banno or Verda(?)"; suppose I just answer 'No' to the rest of your statements, how much weight would it carry with you? The case of the murderer at the door was a question of legal liability and not an example of ethical judgement. Kant was illustrating that telling the murderer the truth didn't constitute legal liability, because there is no way to ensure that a lie would have protected the neighbor seeking refuge. You'll notice your own quote discusses the lie and the intentions of the person using the information. It's the same basis we have now for legal fraud. Saying it's always wrong to lie (in Kant's legal sense) is the same as saying it's always wrong to commit fraud.

The wrongly established notion that Kant the grandmaster of objective morality would make such a flat footed argument is ridiculous and the popular position in academia; I've satisfied myself after looking into it in detail. Banno never offered a position, I requested reference material for a paper I was writing, so any knee jerk response to him has no bearing on the matter. So, Yes.

More compelling already. I got nothing to come back with off the top of my head.

Kant has a legal definition of lying that is misunderstood. To lie in Kant's legal sense entails cheating some one in some way. It's been misunderstood from people only referencing the secondary arguments against it. Banno gave me a link to a great paper on it a year ago. Verda I want to say is the author.

From an ethical standpoint, what is an appropriate level of honesty? — Nicholas Mihaila

Based on a thread I spun a few weeks ago it comes down to analysis of two parts. One is strict morality and the other one permissibility. It's immoral to lie and permissible to do so if no value is lost as a result. Since, lying to your wife about another woman's appearance doesn't devalue your wife or the other woman; then it is permissible to do so. If for some reason your wife needs objective input and this is some complex gaslighting it would be a hypothetical exception.

If you were in a Georgia swamp this time of year; I bet you'd understand. You are right there's a western tradition of dismissing a whole host of material off hand like no one could fathom a reason some one might have thought about it for 3,000+ years. Since, we don't generally know what it is we are tossing out it comes across with some undue ease. And what isn't tossed out is herded in religious studies, like a philosophical broom closet. I think if you had a better argument against the scientific position or navigated adjacent somehow then perhaps the position would command more ground. Specifically, what I would call straw-manning science by assuming the grade school structure of one step follows to the next in any predictable way. Science as I can tell is just rigorous subjugation of a matter to logic. Logic doesn't suggest hiring a poet to consult on your project; but maybe it should considering how disconnected society is from the edges of scientific progress. I know some one made a time crystal and it's a big deal. I like the name of the subject and verified it wasn't a joke. How many people were waiting on the time crystal results? Relatively few, so perhaps science is benefiting technology but losing the battle of helping the collective intellect? And there's a bathroom window worth sneaking in just like that...only an example. Best wishes on your endeavors, report back before the leaves fall off.

The mind thinks. It's takes the reference points created during our evolution and triangulates ideas. I think philosophy is this process being carried out on the stage with many different reference points. A three point structure that can build on it's own dialog or self coherence can create intelligence. At least enough to dominate the game of GO.

:up:

Does that work for blueprints. Where the idea maps a future territory?

No, the US oscillates between the Southern Democrats of the mid 20th century and the moderate/progressive Modern Democrats. Obama was a major step forward and Trump was the backlash. But, the mind worm of Trumpism still resonates with the defeated authoritarians that imagine themselves evangelical martyrs and think their religious beliefs are laws. As a people we have political identities that are no longer from the same universe which is driving quite a bit of weirdness. Hopefully Biden will provide the uneasy compromise of a decent human being with a desire to serve his countries best interest in the context of a global community. Easier said then done.

↪Cheshire Not sure I follow you. My point was / is 'don't forget that maps (ideas (e.g. metaphysical speculations)) are not the territory (reality)', even though mapmakers (mapmaking) is a constituent of the territory, so try not to mistake one for the other (e.g. reification fallacy, misplaced concreteness, category error). — 180 Proof

To me meta-physical the word implies what you are saying. Something that exist in reference to the physical world, rather than something that exist in it like a physical thing. The difference it seems is I want to place the metaphysical things in reality, because that's where I keep all my things. But, you are suggesting they are not part of reality. Really, it's seems like both in a way. I can have my book of ideas and I can have the conceptual thought of a book of ideas. They aren't the same.

Does reality demand this detail is acknowledged? My dreams contain ideas, are they a different type of idea? I'm willing to consider either at this point; I don't see the need for the distinction unless it satisfies a tangential matter.

Interesting, I see your position was more nuanced than my attempt to simplify it. I'll have to reconsider the matter. I think we have different definitions of what can be called a real thing. I acknowledge ideas need a person in order to have an effect on the world. But, I think if all the people died; their ideas could be recorded, and this record of ideas is a real thing. I think I'm closer than it sounds to being in agreement.

In jurisdictions where covid passports are mandatory for many activities, the matter of whether it is moral or immoral to refuse to get covid vaccinated has been rendered moot anyway, and made into a matter of practical convenience. — baker

What jurisdictions? Nursing homes and hospitals?