The point is that in continuing to make the "bathroom" argument you are merely trying to address a symptom of the problem, not the cause - which is affirming someone's delusions. — Harry Hindu

Is that always a problem? People often have trivial delusions that their friends and co-workers humor. For example, someone might think they're a great singer or deep thinker and they're not and nobody has the heart to tell them the truth.

Hey Rogue,

I have a problem with the term 'systemic racism', or at least, how the term is used. So no, I don't think we have 'systemic racism' in Canada or the US, because that implies someone has built this system, on racist principles, when I think the primary 'systemic' power issue is social class.

Racism? Real and dreadful. Systemic racism? maybe not a thing? I don't see it here in Canada, anyway. — Jeremy Murray

Did you guys have anything like separate-but-equal? I see systemic racism as simply meaning there are many racist people in positions of power in all walks of life that reflexively make decisions against black people. They may not even be aware they're doing it. For example, if two people are applying for an apartment [ETA to add: "all else being equal"], and one is named Mary and the other Shaniqua, there's a bias against the Shaniqua's of the world. In my lifetime, blacks couldn't be priests in the Mormon church. In my mom's lifetime, blacks were legally discriminated against in the South and couldn't go to the same schools as whites. She remembers the Emmet Till lynching. I think pervasive racism like that takes a long time to wash out of a society, if it ever does.

In my line of work (teaching), I've worked with several very racist teachers. They got along well with black students who behaved themselves, but if you were black in their class, and you were a troublemaker, there was no mercy. And this is Southern California we're talking about.

Clinton and Harris were the only two female candidates for president, no? Both were pretty terrible candidates. — Jeremy Murray

The fact we've only had two female candidates for president in the history of the country is pretty indicative of how this country feels about women in leadership roles. Growing up in the 70's and 80's there was just this understanding that the president was going to be a man. Geraldine Ferraro made a big splash when she became the first female VP candidate and her ticket went on to get absolutely destroyed in 1984. It was the worst electoral vote shellacking ever. That was it for female high-office candidates for another 24 years. The Democrat party is OK with women in power now, but Republicans remain overwhelmingly male-centric. In the U.S. Senate, out of 53 Republican Senators, 43 are men. The GOP is heavily evangelical Christian, so the fact they're not comfortable with women leaders isn't surprising.

There are 10 states in America with abortion laws with no exceptions for rape. Does Canada have anything like that? And the fact that Trump could survive the Access Hollywood tape, and win, says a lot. Are you familiar with Andrew Tate and his popularity in MAGA world?

I'm wondering about your anti-woke bona fides. What do you think of gay marriage?

Bathrooms have been used quite simply for decades. Not sure why it would be an issue now. — Malcolm Parry

I agree, but isn't that a "woke" idea? I thought the anti-woke crowd, such as yourself, wanted trans people to have to use the bathroom of their sex instead of the gender they identify as.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

Millions of women world wide enjoy sport but you would happily dismantle the structure that allows them to do that. — Malcolm Parry

Yes, destroying womens' sports is nuts, but how would you enforce a bathroom law? Suppose Al has transitioned to Alice and looks like a woman. Do you want to force Alice to use the men's restroom? Conversely, if Alice has transitioned to Al, and looks like a man, do you want to force Al to use women's restrooms?

What do you say to renounced wokists like myself? — Jeremy Murray

I agree with some of what you say regarding trans, but do you think there is still systemic racism in this country against blacks? Do you think the fact we've never had a woman president is indicative of anything? Do you think the fact that Congress and the leadership of Fortune500 companies are disproportionately made up of white males is indicative of anything?

:up:

Is this sort of like when someone watching the same sunset next to you says it makes them feel "happy" and "at peace", despite the two concepts being universally known and recognizable, there may still be intricacies and subtleties that can vary greatly to the point of changing one's definition or idea of either quite significantly? For some, "at peace" may mean one feel's content in life and the world around them and thus fosters a strong urge to face tomorrow. For others, at peace" may mean one is comfortably resigned to the idea of one's own mortality and wouldn't mind (or perhaps even would wish) that particular day to be their last. Or something else altogether? — Outlander

No, I'm talking about something much more fundamental. If we're both watching a sunset, and you're talking about it and I'm listening, how do I know you even exist? When I dream, there are almost always "other people" in my dream who are interacting with me, but of course they're just aspects of me. But while I'm dreaming, they seem totally real and independent from me. So, the question naturally arises in the "waking world": how do I know that when we're watching a sunset together and talking about it, I'm not dreaming? From a materialist perspective, how do I know I'm not a Boltzmann Brain that popped into existence two seconds ago and is hallucinating everything?

And then, if I get past that issue, how do I know I'm not in a simulation? Nick Bostrom argues that it's actually likely we're in a simulation. Well, if that's true, and we're watching the sunset together, doesn't simulation theory beg the question: are you just a mindless zombielike bit of code? I know I'm not, obviously, but how can I be sure about you? If it's likely I'm in a simulation, it's just as likely I'm the only conscious being in the simulation.

And it I get past all that, there's the inverted spectrum problem.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/

So, when two people talk about their mental states, there are a whole lot of implicit metaphysical assumptions going on.

Science starts with observers sharing similar reactions and judgments to a public world. Not an unknown private world of a conscious being. — Richard B

It would be nice if science worked that way, but it can't get around the fact we all exist in private worlds and other minds are essentially black boxes. I understand what you mean when you describe a sunset and how it makes you feel, but I'm also making a lot of assumptions to derive meaning from what you say: you exist independent of me; you exist independent of me and you're not a p-zombie; you're not a p-zombie and your "red" is the same as my "red", etc. None of these assumptions can be empirically justified or verified. Science has nothing to say about whether solipsism is false.

I believe that mathematical platonism is right because it seems to me that mathematical truths are objectively true and independent from both the world(s) and our minds. They can be known, so they are not 'nothing' (or figments of our imagination because they are independent from our minds) - they seem to have some kind of ontological reality. — boundless

Well, there are infinitely many mathematical truths, so the realm they inhabit is going to be infinitely "large" (if that word even makes sense). Also, is some kind of interaction going on between our mental realm and the platonic realm? When you think 2+2=4, do you interact, in some way, with one of these mathematical truths, and that allows for the grounding of mathematical knowledge? If so, then the interaction between the specific mathematical truth and one of the infinite mathematical truths in this realm...how does that work, exactly? And if there is no interaction, why posit the existence of objective mathematical truths? To avoid contradiction?

Abortion rights are women's rights.

https://thehill.com/homenews/race-politics/5265021-donald-trump-executive-orders-disparate-impact-civil-rights/
"President Trump has taken steps to nullify a key component to the Civil Rights Act as he works to remove diversity, equity and inclusion policies from the federal government.

One of the executive orders issued Wednesday, dubbed Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, would dismantle disparate impact liability — a legal theory codified in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that holds agencies accountable for practices that have an outsized discriminatory effect on protected groups, even when there is no intent to discriminate."


https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11268
"On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173, entitled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity." The executive order (EO) states as one of its purposes to enforce federal civil rights laws "for the benefit of all Americans." As part of the President's directive to "streamline[]" federal contracting and "require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil-rights laws," EO 14173 revokes Executive Order 11246, entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity." EO 11246 is a long-standing executive order establishing antidiscrimination requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors and in the administration of federally assisted construction contracts.

but the individual people themselves, and their whole individual lives when they aren’t voting or aren’t saying what politics they are for and what they are against, the people are as good as any other people, right? — Fire Ologist

No. MAGA is dangerous. It's a cancer on the body politic. Their vision of a 1950's utopia would roll back women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and civil rights. Their scapegoating of various groups is reminiscent of 1930's Germany. They even traffic in the same tropes: https://apnews.com/article/trump-hitler-poison-blood-history-f8c3ff512edd120252596a4743324352 . Their leader is cruel and vindictive and they revel in it.

Hating “MAGA” (if that means people who wear maga hats), like hating “Mexicans” (if that means people who are from Mexico), is not addressing any actual people, and only shows a lack of interest in actual people. — Fire Ologist

It's not like hating Mexicans. Being Mexican isn't a choice. It doesn't denote anything except the person is from Mexico. MAGA is a choice. It denotes a set of morally repugnant attitudes and beliefs.

Why do you think MAGA and the illusion of the day is more important than the Military Industrial Complex that is behind what happens? — Athena

Military spending as a percent of GDP is quite low (2.7%), compared to when Ike gave that warning (7%). It's also a much lower percent of the budget.

Not true because I am not playing that game. — Athena

What game? In a Venn Diagram, MAGA and Democrat will have a tiny bit of overlap. Maybe. The rest of their beliefs will be night and day with each other. Are you disputing this? Do you think there are MAGA out there who are climate warriors? Democrats who want to "drill-baby-drill"? Democrats who want to round up and deport illegals without due process? Democrats who like Trump and MAGA who can't stand him? Qanon Democrats? Andrew Tate and Tucker Carlson Democrats?

Stop creating a false notion of reality by labeling people. — Athena

If someone identifies as MAGA, you have a very good idea of what they're about: anti-vax, stolen election, climate change denialism, cultish adoration of Trump, xenophobia, etc. Hillary was right about these people being deplorable, but wrong about their numbers- They're all deplorable cult members who cheer Trump's cruelty. Maybe some are "fine people", but I haven't met one yet.

RogueAI responds to the idea that abortion may be bad, or a lower priority issue with "because you're a man" putting Brendan's whole thought process and his humanity in a bucket - men - and downgrading that bucket with "you take...for granted" and "you can't think" and "you will never be...forced" and "lack of imagination" and "you can't understand" and "level of moral development is very low." — Fire Ologist

There are plenty of men who understand why women place such a high priority on reproductive freedom. This man,

Kohlberg was probably right that women on average have a lower level of moral development than men — Brendan Golledge

is not one of them. His posts are garbage. If he keeps up in this vein, he'll be banned. Good riddance. Do we really need more misogynists?

I agree. Legal immigrant quotas should be massively increased.

What’s funny about all this immigration talk is that everyone assumes there’s a problem. There isn’t. — Mikie

There's a problem with illegal immigration. It's immoral to turn a blind eye to people entering illegally so we can use them like helots. We have ten million people living in the shadows, terrified to go to the cops, just begging to be exploited by criminals and business.

:up:

The level of polarization today is not what it was 30-40 years ago. What changed? — Harry Hindu

Obama's election. Conservatives could not deal with a black man as president, so to cope they tried to "other" him and went down a rabbit hole of birtherism, qanon, pizzagate, antivax, stolen election nonsense where conspiracies and enemies are everywhere. They're still falling.

I would like to maximally exploit all the talented people around me, and hope i have skills that would lead to the vice verse. — AmadeusD

I don't think that kind of benign exploitation is what he's talking about. More like, should I boycott products that involve child labor or people working in horrific conditions akin to modern day slavery or that result in environmental exploitation? We can even broaden it to animal exploitation. Do I have an obligation to not benefit from the horrific exploitation of animals? Yes, to all of that. I have a moral obligation to be vegan and live like a monk. But I don't wanna.

I don't even have a strong opinion about when life begins, but it doesn't seem normal to me that a person ought to put killing their babies on the top of their priority list. — Brendan Golledge

Because you're a man. You take bodily autonomy for granted. And you also can't think. You will never be raped and forced to carry the rapist's child to term. Can you imagine how awful that would be? No, because your posts show a total lack of imagination. There are nine states with laws like that on the books. The fact you can't understand why women are passionate about abortion rights tells me your level of moral development is very low.

:up:

Are you saying that CDs, books and watches can come to be without their being a mind with intent to create them? — Harry Hindu

There's a small possibility of that, yes. Boltzmann Brains and whatnot.

Or, you can say the polio virus can cause paralysis. Now say what that exactly means. I think you will find that it does not exactly mean anything. — tim wood

The polio virus initiates the causal chain that leads to paralysis. That chain includes events like: the virus enters the body → the immune system fails to contain it → it infects motor neurons → tissue damage occurs → paralysis results. In that sense, the virus is both a necessary condition and the starting point of the process.

Isn’t that what we mean by "cause"? If we claim X causes Y, and consistently find through rigorous testing that removing X reliably prevents Y, then we’re justified in saying X causes Y — pending better evidence. Are you arguing for radical skepticism about causes?

I don't know the answer to that, but at that exact moment when you've extinguished the person by swapping out that critical part, you're a murderer. — Hanover

What if we swap out every part but his brain? He's obviously more valuable than the pig. What about after the brain injury that reduces his intellect/memory/awareness to pig levels? It's not obvious to me that he should be more valuable. I think he would be, but I suspect that's just specieism.

That might be taken as a bit insensitive to one who has lost a newborn, right? — Hanover

Maybe, but is it true for most people? It seems there's an obvious spectrum of awfulness to it: losing a one week old embryo is not as bad as losing a two month old fetus, which is not as bad as a stillborn baby, which is not as bad as losing a toddler. Do you agree with that or at least see where I'm coming from?

I don't find Singer persuasive, largely because I am fully accepting of the Western theistic view that humans are indeed sacred, meaning the value of smartest golden retriever is infinitely less than the least aware infant. — Hanover

Well, let's consider an average human vs a pig. The human has infinitely more value, right? We can't gas the human and eat him. But let's swap out the human's heart with a pig heart. Let's replace his arms and legs with pig arms and legs. Let's give him a traumatic brain injury that reduces his intellect to that of a pig. Can we eat him now? If we end up making him identical to a pig, down to the DNA, is it now ok to eat him?

But he does have a point. I don't see a newborn as a full-fledged person. They're close to being a person, but the loss of a newborn is not as devastating as the loss of, say, a ten year old.

A baby does in fact have the status of personhood, legally, and socially. It's a baby person. — Outlander

When, exactly, does a baby become a person? At the moment of birth? Well, what about two weeks before? A month before? Two months before? How do you draw the personhood line in a non-arbitrary way?

A CD player will still produce the air vibrations of the music. Nothing will be around to interpret those patterns as music though. Tree falls in forest. Ground shakes, as does air, but it that making a sound? — noAxioms

Yeah, the CD example wasn't that good. I think the Sherlock Holmes one is better. So what do you think of that? Isn't there information in the book about Sherlock Holmes? Can that information still exist in a mindless universe? I don't see how.

One realizes with horror that earlier, opposing one's parents because they represented the world, one was often secretly the mouthpiece, against a bad world, of one even worse. — Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia

At one point in 1984, Winston is confessing some horrible thing he did as a child that's always bothered him and Julia says: 'I expect you were a beastly little swine in those days. All children are swine.'

It's true, they are. I've worked with kids for almost 30 years. I look back in horror at what I believed and did as a teenager, but I was a stupid teenager. What can you do? Instead of being horrified, be glad you've grown up.

What about them? A number is an idea. Perfectly real as such. But have you ever seen one, ordered one at McDonald's with sauce? Seen one in the woods? And if no mind thinks two, then no two. Right? And similarly with any idea. — tim wood

I agree but mathematical platonism is very popular.

Ideas do not exist independently of the mind that has them. — tim wood

What about numbers?

Minds are not fundamental. Information is. — Harry Hindu

Let's say you have a compact disk of Mozart pieces. In a mindless universe, that disk is just a collection of particles assembled in a disk with a bunch of tiny pits. There's no musical information, right? But the CD also obviously contains musical information. Mind is fundamental viz a viz the musical information.

Or take a book about Sherlock Holmes. In a mindless universe, that book is just a collection of inks and pages. There's no Sherlock Holmes there. But that book also contains information about Sherlock Holmes which only a universe with minds could detect.

Murder is a specific type of killing, one that is uniquely wrong. It involves making the innocent one's target. — BitconnectCarlos

What about Trolley Car? The innocent is the target (or, you're slapping a big target on the innocent when you throw the switch which seems like a distinction without a difference)

Getting back to the OP, do you think it is ever rationally justifiable to dismiss or exclude someone, particularly because of some action or set of actions they have chosen? If so, when and why is this rationally justifiable? — Leontiskos

If someone is a flat earther, I don't engage with them. What's the point? Same with neonazi's, Qanon, electiondeniers, etc. They're not immoral, but they're not fun to talk to.

..I was saying, "Yes, obviously we oppose terrorists." Again, the question of the OP is, "Why?" — Leontiskos

This isn't even true. What about hypothetical Jewish terrorists in Germany during WW2? Suppose German Jews had adopted a policy whereby Jewish suicide bombers blew themselves up in popular German places (restaurants, theaters, nightclubs, etc.) until the Holocaust stopped. Should we oppose that?