Lol, I know. How this doesnt count as preaching and against forum regs is beyond me.

Stop feeding him for christs sake.

Depends on the 3 year old. Generally I would expect there to be things... parents, siblings or friends that care for the child, most of the time even a 3 year old brings something to the table, a collection of traits that net benefits for society or will benefit society. I dont have a very high bar, meaning Im not asking much more than just not ruining things for other people.

I feel that I might not have made by post clear enough.

Taking the life of a murderer or rapist is fine with you. That’s because you regard their crime as heinous. And what was their crime? It was the assault on the sanctity of someone else’s life.

For you that deserves the death sentence. That is because you regard life to have intrinsic value and it should not be interfered with in any way by another. — Brett

Its not the assault on lifes sanctity, the crime is only heinous if the life has merit, otherwise I don’t really care.
I think we are just using terms a bit differently.
Edited to add: i do not think that life should not be interfered with in any way, and its exactly because I dont see life as having sanctity that I lack any real concern for the lives of murderers.

What would you regard as ‘merit’? — Brett

The things about that life that are worthwhile or valuable to society, for example a virtuous person, or a skilled person. This opposed to life itself being whats worthwhile/valuable.

Its the merit of life that gives it value, lives with no merit I dont really care about. So its not intrinsic. Id say the opposite.

I imagine my threshold for what justifies taking a life is below the average persons, perhaps well below. Rapists, pedophiles, murderers, slavers, sex traffickers...The loss of any of those lives would be perfectly fine to me.

Yes, if I had a good reason. Self defence for example.

That poster has been banned.

I would say something like joy or happiness has intrinsic value.

Ok, thanks.

Thanks for that post, appreciated.

And excuse the festive sarcasm. The post in question was simply a non-sequitur. The implication you suggested didn't follow from anything I said. — Baden

Its hard to tell online when someones being lighthearted, its mostly interaction and experience that indicates when a person might be having a little fun with things. Consider your impish impulses duly noted, so long as you return the favour in kind. :wink:

Or read the guidelines. — Baden

I did read the guidelines when I first arrived, but obviously there is going to be some variance in application between different mods, thats what im trying to track.

It's understandable that it came off to you in a certain way. But there's not much I can do about that except point to his comment history. You are not on our radar re bans and as far as I know haven't been. — Baden

Thats good news, but Im still interested in not getting on that radar in the future as well.
If you could indulge me a bit further, Id like to offer an example id like b your take on.
So there is that “colorblind” thread, where race is being discussed. Ive said things in that thread that got me called a racist (I think a bigot as well if I remember right), and strictly speaking that is ban worthy, right? No mods said anything to me about it, but then this omni guy puts out something much more mild and he got banned...so I thought maybe I’d just slipped under the radar but still would be at risk should I be noticed by a mod the next time. Hence im feeling it out here.
If you are familiar with the colorblind thread, do you think I was playing with fire with the ideas I expressed?

Im not taking offence, and im not intending to argue so much as get clarity...as I mentioned to Baden the banning came off to me in a certain way.
Anyway, its nice to know my comments are constructive to someone at least!

Right, you mentioned that already. My purpose in quoting those posts was to review them and perhaps clarify them but also to understand what it is you think I was too dim to comprehend.
What exactly was your Christmas bulb comment referencing? Those posts?
As to what Im potentially allowed/not allowed to say, I meant in the sense that a moderator (I guess you specifically in this case) would consider ban worthy. Since I sometimes say unpopular things and sometimes make posts that are less than polite shall we say, and since I do not want to be banned, I am curious about the kinds of things people get banned for. This one seemed to happen quickly, and at the behest of another poster whose only reasoning is that he didnt like the opinion expressed. (Although I understand that might not be the case, and that you have more information than I do with which to act upon)

Well where do you think the intrinsic value comes from?

No, I don’t think so.

No, not really. I assume by religious purpose you mean purpose given by some kind of divine authority?

I think thats at least part of it yes. That is one reason given for the sacredness of life, that life has been endowed by god or gods with intrinsic value. It doesnt look like anyone wants to make that claim though...so where does life's intrinsic value come from? (Contrasted with life having value for that particular lifes merit.

Yes, I know Badens stated reasons for banning the guy. I was asking you, not him. I was careful not to mix up his banning with your call to intervention, That was what was intended by including “or otherwise dealt with by mods” but I see now that I could have been more explicit.

Sure, Ill guess as to which posts you meant me to review, correct me if these aren’t the comments you are referring to.

You said:


“I looked through his history. He didn't make the grade. I don't really know much about his opinions.“

So you looked at his posts, which is what I thought you meant by “history”. Then you say you didnt know much about his opinions.
So I said:

“He didnt state any opinions in the history you “looked” through? How does that work?“

Since it seems dubious that you were able to properly judge the quality of the posts without “much” noticing what those posts said, I wanted to know how that works. How did you miss his opinions but locked down his post “quality” so thoroughly that you were comfortable banning the guy?
Im not sure why you think you needed to be snarky with your response, Im just asking questions. I want to know what im potentially allowed/not allowed to say, thats all.

Its not a personal attack, and its not about Manson and the sort of batshit comment that Omni-guy made about him. Its about whether or not you think people should be banned (or otherwise dealt with by mods) for opinions you do not like.

Oh, well thats your prerogative, I was honestly asking if that was something you advocated. (Ok, like, 20% making a point as well.)
I could see moderators not wanting really boring contributors.

Ive already read it, I was following along. You were more than voicing your opinion on what he said, you made an implicit call for moderator intervention.

Im not trying to be difficult here but what is the relevance of what you said to the banning?
Are you suggesting that he should be banned cuz he was boring, or had boring “opening moves”?

I didnt say that, I offered no opinion about his statements at all. I was noticing that your problem is his opinion, not his post “quality”.
What would a show of hands matter? Are you trying to get people to agree his opinions are bad, to reinforce your own opinion about his opinions being bad? Why? You are entitled to your opinion, regardless whether or not you can get it popularised. I think everyone should be so entitled, din’t you? Or is it just the opinions you like that should be allowed?

Injustice against Manson? Yeah, that's some Helter-Skelter, racial wars, end of the world poop. — Wallows

Ya, his opinions. You wanted Baden to intervene because you didnt like his opinions.

He didnt state any opinions in the history you “looked” through? How does that work?

He got banned for that stuff in the Life is Sacred thread? That doesnt seem worse than alot of other poor posters that go unbanned...was it because of the quality, or his opinions?

Did you chose Manson after considered thought, or was it just a quick choice? Because he obviously presents problems for people because his situation is so complex. — Brett

Well it doesnt present a problem for the point im making, the facts about his crimes etc are irrelevant...but yes it was just the first person I thought of that we wasted time and money and energy to keep him alive for no reason I can see other than some sort of intrinsic value life is supposed to have.

The coma person can have no value when the intrinsic value of life is denied. That person, or rather that thing, can have no value for anyone for what it is. Someone may think it is valued when confusing it with the person it used to be or for having the false hope that it will wake up, but it is hardly possible to value the coma person for just what it is. (Unless you want to imagine some perverted reason.) — Congau

If the person has an emotional attachment to the comatose person, and values that attachment then the comatose person has value of a kind. It doesnt matter if you think they should value the comatose person or not...if they do, then it has value. You seem to be saying such a thing isnt possible but to me it clearly can have value to that individual at least, or are you talking in terms of value to society at large like I originally specified?
If thats the case, then that puts you in the camp of life not having any intrinsic value. You dont seem to think anything has intrinsic value, is that correct?

Sounds accurate to me.

Ok, I understand. Buzzwords and labels.

Us?

Then the next question is of course, if we take the others definition and go with it, do we then have an issue here? — ssu

It only matters to me that a persons stance follows from the definition, that the position makes sense given the definition being used.
The point of the comment wasnt to deal with either views definitions, but rather to identify the point of disagreement in the discussion on “colorblindness”. Its been strange, watching the thread have such disagreement when as far as I can tell everyone basically agrees.

The question could be put perhaps this way: if something has divided us and has caused discrimination, persecution and outright violence, what do we do with it? — ssu

Its not the words and categories that divide us, its the racism. Racism is the bad thing, racists are the problem.

Your interjection is misapplied, the part you quoted was not specifically about what you went on to rebut. Some sort of mutated strawman.
To your point, this is largely semantics. “Colourblind” is being defined differently by you and I. (and NOS I believe).
Being colourblind when judging the character of a person is not the same as the way you mean it as being blind to experiences or history relating to race/racism.

You aren’t engaging with what Im saying, just repeating yourself. I Heard you the first time.

You’ve Just repeated points ive addressed already.
Its not a harmful way of speaking, you just think that because you are being racially sensitive.
“Black” people in America gave birth to hip hop, rap and many expressions of urban slang used in popular culture. Wheres the harm that? It mixes culture and skin colour/race up as you describe but no harm is being done.
I understand you are worried that racists will use such categorisations to support or promote their ideology, but they are going to do that anyway. They do it with science, religion...anything they can use. Racists are the problem, not words and categories.

actually most usage of race is not confined to physical characteristics, an easy example are comedians "white people do this" ha ha ha, black people do this "ha ha ha" — dazed

Well that is an example if a cultural difference, not a physical one. People notice cultural differences between races as well sure, but we have been talking about physical traits. Also, comedians are making jokes...not factual claims.

and you are clearly not able to set out a clear description of which sets of physical characteristics belong where as that's simply not possible, hence non-sensical. — dazed

I don’t need to have an exhaustive list of the traits for it to be sensical. What makes no sense is denying that there are physical differences we categorise as race. Is that what you are doing?