If emotions are socially constructed then all that means is that they're like language. They help us communicate and regulate our energies appropriately. Of course we can be manipulated by others emotionally and with all forms of communication.

Meditation may offer a "spaciousness" where there's more room to not react mindlessly.

I could be wrong, but I think this is what NOS is on about. If this link doesn't work for you, just google "Race Social Construct". — EricH

Their concern is with its adoption in genetic research and medicine. NOS's concern seems to be with its social adoption, claiming that it is somehow inherently naughty and requiring absolution if ever socially applied.

Nice. Never thought of it like that before.

So intellectually honest are you that you like to lie about what I said. — NOS4A2

Where exactly did I lie?

I would suggest that you do more than suggest and actually explain but that is clearly too much to ask of you. One thing is certain, your unwillingness to explain yourself, as well as your trolling behavior, further demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. I suggest that you somehow become more intellectually honest. It will benefit everyone, including yourself.

I don’t really care how you think things look because you haven’t been able to portray with any accuracy what I’ve been saying and I’ve had to correct and clarify too many times to mention. — NOS4A2

No, I’m afraid that I got it right in the last post. :grimace:

It seems that according to Gert morality has all but nothing to do with irrationality because half the fun of morality is rationalizing our actions. Only the truly batshit crazy harm themselves for no reason. Take something like smoking for instance. A person can smoke for pleasure and fully realize that it is harmful to them. There are countless way to rationalize the behavior however, all so that the addiction can be satisfied and avoid the discomfort of withdrawal.

I quite like the idea that far more harm is done by people acting altruistically than out of self interest — Banno

That part I don’t get at all. Since when is going to war altruistic? People go to war because they’re sociopaths or because their leaders are assholes.

Again your trollish phrasing with “harbor”, suggesting that I welcome biases.

From your last couple of posts it now looks like you think that adopting the “false taxonomy” of race is racist because it could only be adopted by someone who believes that different races are actually different species. That’s plain stupid, quite frankly.

The philosophical problem is that as we are intelligent animals, we can harness our environment and other species to lengths that hasn't happened earlier on this planet, however when we are animals, we are part of the environment too. So, why the difference between us and the biosphere, when we don't make such with other animals? — ssu

If that’s not rhetorical could you rephrase the question?

No, a racist, because you think the taxonomy of races is as valid as the taxonomy of apples and dog breeds, and you admit you hold racial biases. — NOS4A2

Where have I stated that the taxonomy of homo sapiens, canines, or apples is valid? I’ve explicitly stated that each are varieties of their respective species.

Also, it appears to be intentionally misleading to say “hold” racial biases because it implies that I embrace racial biases.

Your troll game is weak this morning.

Right, apparently according to your thinking I’m both an appleist and a canineist.

we don't treat humans as we do animals — ssu

If only that were true. :broken:

Anyway, NOS is still trying to explain why adopting a “false taxonomy” requires absolution when applied to humans but not to anything else… I think. He stated that humans are special because they’re influenced by “social, cultural, and political” factors. I pointed out that both apple and canine varieties (also “false taxonomies”) are also influenced by human social, cultural, and perhaps even political factors. In fact, they wouldn’t exist at all without the influence of humanity and its culture.

Would you compare human races to dog breeds? — NOS4A2

Dog breeds are also cultivated by humans. They're influenced by social and cultural factors, in other words, though not necessarily political as far as I can tell.

So because of this you believe you hold a racist attitude towards certain out-groups. — NOS4A2

You apparently consider "holding a racist attitude" and "having implicit racial biases" to be synonymous. :roll:

The taxonomy of plants lack the influence of social, cultural, and political factors. — NOS4A2

You just pointed out that varieties of apples are cultivated by humans. :lol:

How do you know you have implicit racial biases if implicit bias is unconscious, and you are unaware of them? — NOS4A2

One way subconscious biases are revealed is in snap judgments where there's no time for consideration.

Did someone say it was a sin? I said it was false, unjust, and pernicious. — NOS4A2

You wrote:
"Adopting it [false taxonomies] for good intentions or for whatever other reason doesn’t absolve one of it."

This suggests that there is something inherently wrong with what you call 'false taxonomies'. That all false taxonomies, or maybe just this particular one, have an intrinsic property of evil or whatever. I don't know the metaphysics of how inherent negative properties bind with false taxonomies.

Going back to the example of red and green apples, if you recall I pointed out earlier that they are of the same species and appear nearly identical other than color. If I'm not mistaken the categorization of red/green apples would qualify as a 'false taxonomy', according to your thinking. Now if I were to adopt this false taxonomy, say I was at a farmers market and innocently requested a green apple from a farmer, you seem to think that I would require absolution for this transgression. That can't be right, can it?

Are you implicitly racist? — NOS4A2

I'm pretty sure that I have implicit racial biases, yes. Actually, I'm rather explicitly racist against Portagee's due to some young adult experiences.

Adopting it for good intentions or for whatever other reason doesn’t absolve one of it. — NOS4A2

It’s not a sin to distinguish people by race. Is this a religious thing for you?

Saying it is implicit is simply an admission of guilt. — NOS4A2

Realizing our implicit biases is self-awareness.

I remember watching an interview with Scott Adams around when he first publicly came out as a Trump fanboy. He was one of the ones who praised Trump as a genius, an expert communicator (I think he meant an expert manipulator). When acknowledging Trump's lies he basically said that the ends justify the means. Did they? Trump didn't accomplish anything that any other Republican candidate couldn't have, like lower taxes and reduce regulations for our corporate overlords, slashing entitlements, etc. He failed miserably at some of his most notable promises. If he was such a genius manipulator why wasn't he more successful? and why does he continue to lose so badly?

The truth is that people like Trump are simply unbound by things like principles and honor and are therefore capable of doing things that, thank God, relatively few people are willing to do. It seems that Scott Adams must be like Trump in this way, otherwise he couldn't admire him as he does.

Employing and furthering the problem doesn’t only resist change, though, it compounds it. The only way to banish it is to quit using it. — NOS4A2

Merely acknowledging race or "false taxonomies" is not the problem so if it were possible to be "color-blind" it would not solve the problem. Intentionally employing and furthering biases is done in order to manipulate the ignorant (racists who may lose more than they gain) and take or maintain the advantage over the disadvantaged.

The way to banish it is to realize what's going on and stop being manipulated, or stop being an asshole if you're one of the manipulators or one of the manipulator's bootlickers.

In the real world, some people are trashy. Just personally, I don't think anybody is under any obligation to think, believe, or feel positively about them. In the real world, some problems are imposed upon people and some problems are brought on by the people themselves. — BC

I'm not currently in any particular position to treat white trash unfairly. I don't live near or interact with any, plus I'm not an employer, landlord, civic authority, or hold any real position of power. If I were then I'd be concerned about my bias and treating individuals who appear to be of that subculture fairly.

Better to learn from actual flesh-and-blood human beings before any judgement upon them can be made. — NOS4A2

Yeah, that's not how the human mind works though. We automatically make assessments about people and things. That doesn't mean that we can't put aside whatever biases we may have, given the inclination and opportunity.

Rather, claiming to not believe in racial taxonomies attempts (badly) to rationalize the status quo.
– praxis

How? — NOS4A2

I think the motivation for claiming that a problem doesn't exist is to resist change, basically.

How do you parse out "belief" from "bias"? — BC

I was attempting to make a distinction between conscious beliefs and implicit biases, in an effort to make sense of NOS's claims.

If I think that white trash make bad neighbors, is that a belief or a bias? (I kind of think so.). — BC

Years ago I lived in a funky neighborhood for a while and once had what I would describe as white trash neighbors. They were very bad neighbors. I'm sure that that experience deepened whatever negative prejudice I might have for people like that. On the other hand, I can consciously appreciate that poor ignorant white folk could be sweet neighbors and that they're not all bad. For whatever reason, I might try to condition myself to have less of an implicit bias against white trash.

How do you parse out what, exactly, is motivating? — BC

Most broadly, by attraction and aversion. A bit less broadly, when competing for resources an advantage is desirable or attractive and a disadvantage is undesirable or aversive.

Is the difference between being motivated by a belief or a bias a difference that matters? — BC

Yes, because reason has the potential to change our biases. I think that I'm prejudiced against white trash neighbors, for example, and I can take action to change that bias.

I said discriminating against someone on account of their membership on in a false taxonomy is an inability to discriminate between individuals, not that individuals are unable to distinguish between individuals. Rather than let the individual inform their behaviors, they let the false taxonomy do so. — NOS4A2

We're all guilty of that to some degree, whether it be by race, sex, age, or whatever, though we can try to change our implicit biases.

I'm assuming people are motivated by their beliefs. — NOS4A2

A belief isn't necessarily motivating. People are influenced by their biases, if that's what you're trying to say.

If you believe in racial taxonomies it gives reason to discriminate against its members on racial grounds.

Again, merely believing in a 'false taxonomy' is not itself a motivator.

If you do not believe in racial taxonomies it does not give reason to discriminate on racial grounds.

Rather, claiming to not believe in racial taxonomies attempts (badly) to rationalize the status quo.

discriminating against someone on account of their membership on in a false taxonomy is, ironically, an inability to discriminate between individuals. — NOS4A2

Not true. A full-blown nazi white supremacist, or Scott Adams for that matter, has the ability to distinguish individuals.

If it isn't the belief in racial groups that motivates the discrimination against their members, perhaps you can name something else that is. — NOS4A2

It's a bad question but I'm curious how false taxonomies motivate discrimination against others. I have no idea how you would try to explain that. Please try.

Discriminating between individuals is one thing; discriminating between false taxonomies of human beings is quite another. — NOS4A2

How so? Both are discriminatory.

Going back to this...

Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is the fundamental idea motivating every racially discriminatory act. — NOS4A2

I imagine you believe that the "ideology of race" is the dogmatic belief in the "false taxonomies of human beings"? If so, this doesn't explain at all how this false taxonomy motivates every act of discrimination.

Green apples and red apples are of the same species, yet there's a deeply held dogmatic belief in this false taxonomy that distinguishes green and red apples. According to you this is appleism. Merely distinguishing green and red apples motivates people to perform discriminatory acts against apples. It is true that in order to discriminate against something you first need to identify it. Obviously though, it takes more than merely identifying a green apple or a red apple to discriminate against one or the other. The idea or identification alone is not a motivator.

The 'false taxonomies of human beings' is not what motivates every racially discriminatory act.

You should ask yourself what does motivate discrimination.

Again you’re missing the point. Mere classification is not what motivates discrimination. Greed or selfishness motivates discrimination. Can you speak to the point?

You’re missing the point. I’ve distinguished apples and oranges and therefore, according to your “reasoning”, I’m a fruitist.

To classify is to discriminate by definition. — NOS4A2

So distinguishing an apple from an orange is fruitism? :brow:

Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is the fundamental idea motivating every racially discriminatory act. One has to racially discriminate in order to formulate the question, ask the question, record the results, etc. — NOS4A2

:roll: Mere classification is not what motivates discrimination. Greed or selfishness motivates discrimination.

The object in the world is not an idea but an object. — Wayfarer

We have no idea if there are objects without ideas. :lol:

Interesting game. Congrats @Hanover :party:

But what if instead of being scared of death we actively try to make ourselves suffer and seek pain with the purpose of trying to force ourselves to want death? — MojaveMan

I'm pretty sure that people fear pain and suffering. I know that I do. So for your plan to work we need to first figure out a way to not fear pain and suffering.

It seems that Hanover's strategy of boring you into complacency may ultimately prove successful. :broken: :lol:

Haha! Hanover takes the bait.

Mikie baits the trap with c4. :gasp:

Still no brilliant moves, guys. Let's see some magic!

Do you think abstract thought is possible without language? — Janus

I'm tempted to say that all thought is abstract, especially in light of this 'non-dual' awareness that you mention. Are there really separate things or is it just that our minds separate things? If our minds didn't separate things then we wouldn't be able to 'see' anything, right?

For example, if I spoke to you in a language that you've never heard of before you wouldn't be able to pick out any words. It would just be continuous gibberish. You couldn't 'see' any words even though you possess the concepts of language, words, letters, etc. Similarly, if you didn't know anything about trees or plant life in general, if you lacked those concepts, the first time you saw a tree you wouldn't know what you were looking at. It would be one thing until you analyzed it and broke it down into distinct parts. Your concept of 'tree' could become more robust the more you learned about trees.

Animals form concepts the same way and manipulate them in order to fulfill their needs, without language, or rather without language like ours.

I gather it's like the Trinity. Not anything to do with number. — Banno

:lol:

The beauty of it is that if you can project sufficient authority you can say pretty much anything and the faithful will hang on your every word and hold it as precious truth.

Human experience is mediated by abstract thought. Consequently, we understand the world in dualistic terms. It is possible to let that whole machinery go, and you seemed to be claiming that if we did that we would experience nothing at all. So I asked you about whether you think animals experience nothing at all. — Janus

I think we're merely capable of more abstract thought than animals, because of our relatively large cerebral cortex. You'll need to be clearer about what "machinery" it's possible to let go of. I've already agreed that people can have a hyperactive default mode network or 'monkey mind' and that deactivating it can reduce any anxiety produced by the hyperactivity.

So I too can develop a giant ego like Leary and crew? No thank you.
— praxis

Your unexamined attitudes are a laugh! You don't know what you are missing. — Janus

I'm glad that your imagination has a good sense of humor. I do wish that Leary and his contemporaries had more thoroughly examined their attitudes toward it. Perhaps without their deluded visions of grandeur, it may not have turned out to be classified as a Schedule I substance.

Animals, I imagine, live in the eternal present, in a non-dual state of awareness. — Janus

We all live in the present, actually, though that present is often lost in thought, and all that thought may have a tendency to cause undo anxiety. Animals may suffer maladaptive anxiety nevertheless, though not caused by overthinking. The good news is that we can think our way out of it, unlike animals.

It's just that the other posters here presumably don't have much of a grasp of non-dualism — Wayfarer

Whoever has a solid grasp of it, please, explain away. :lol: