IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd May 2022, 06:21 AM   #681
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
When I was mistaken about shuttit using the word "religion" and related concepts as pejoratives, my mistake was based upon examples such as these:
I know the examples, you linked to them before. Me saying I don't share your religion is not a condemnation of religion.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Turning now to shuttit's post of less than an hour ago, with my highlighting of some amusing typos:
And ignored.... honestly... that's your response... criticising my spelling? You are simply wrong about what I said.

Last edited by shuttlt; 23rd May 2022 at 06:23 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 06:40 AM   #682
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 18,346
In-group/out-group thinking depends on how you draw the line between in and out.
And experiments have proven that that is completely arbitrary.

If you think that the line is set by skin color or ethnicity, that's pretty much the definition of racism.
__________________
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

- Emo Philips
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 06:44 AM   #683
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 34,689
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
In-group/out-group thinking depends on how you draw the line between in and out.
And experiments have proven that that is completely arbitrary.

If you think that the line is set by skin color or ethnicity, that's pretty much the definition of racism.
Apparently the line is based on blood race culture and at least one person in this thread claims to be able to tell which "culture" you belong to by the way you look*

* - and not from what you're wearing or other fashion/taste related factors, but from your general physiognomy
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 06:55 AM   #684
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
In-group/out-group thinking depends on how you draw the line between in and out.
And experiments have proven that that is completely arbitrary.

If you think that the line is set by skin color or ethnicity, that's pretty much the definition of racism.
"The" line? I'm not sure that there is a single line. Like I've said a bunch of times, race and culture are highly correlated. Different racial groups act as political voting blocks, and are targeted for particular programmes. We live in a world where activist groups have the names of racial groups in their names. That ship has already sailed.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 07:06 AM   #685
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 5,957
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
That isn't the way these principles were developed or applied though. I mean, there is all sorts of discrimination actively practiced by progressives that are considered "good". Expressing racial hate is excused because of historic injustices, and other explanations. You routinely have anti-white statements trotted out as "merely speaking the truth". Affirmative action goes without saying. You have two moralities sitting on top of one another.... a universalist, rationalistic one that simply says "racism is bad" and a pragmatic one that gets flipped to when it is convenient.
Once again, you are muddying the waters to avoid having to condemn racism.
The way this principle was developed and enacted was by concluding that treating somebody badly because of the colour of their skin was wrong. You may whine and grumble and pontificate all you like, but until you can justify mistreating somebody because they aren't the same colour as you, you are still losing this argument.
Now, as for 'anti-white statements': well, a couple of points on that. Firstly, let's use your own 'logic'. 'Anti-white statements are not inherently wrong. They are only wrong if I say they are wrong, and then only because of their consequences. What negative consequences have there been for these statements?'
Now my logic: two wrongs don't make a right. Reverse racism is still racism, and it's still wrong.
Another point: I have never made such statements, nor do I support them. Your argument is also a strawman.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Ingroup and outgroup bias is simply a fact of the world. The utopia where it isn't and some evil person has come in to this garden of eden trying to turn everybody racist isn't the world. The world we live in is one where minorities are political interest groups who can be leveraged as voting blocks and in return get advantages for their members. That is the world. Or at least it is the US and UK and an increasing number of other places as mass immigration creates these voting blocks waiting to be used.
Bilge. You display a surface-level understanding of politics, to add to your shallow knowledge of history (Rome, China, the EU and the American Civil War- read some books!).

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It was a nice idea. I like it. The problem is that people "not be[ing] judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" can't really coexist with a perminant bureaucracy of racial social engineering, unresolvable racial greviences being leveraged for political power, and "whiteness studies".
The usual butthurt alt-right whining. This is fantasy, nothing more.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
This is the problem. Once you've done it, the problems are bordeline non-fixable. De Tocqueville talks about this extensively in relation to the South. The North escaped the problems of slavery by selling what slaves they had to the South.... at least one southern state was more than 50% black. De Tocqueville and the people he talked to in the South basically saw nothing but generation upon generation of racial strife coming and nothing that could be done to avoid it beyond maintaining the existing system. He mentions mixing the races together as in South America as another solution, but clearly that wasn't happening to anything like the degree necessary.

I'm not sure that the non-reversability of the situation is really an argument in it's favour.
This has absolutely nothing to do with my questions.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
They are certainly products of European culture. It feels much too specific to me. Plus the enlightenment took very different forms in different places. Rousseau, Hulme and Kant were all exemplars of the enlightenment, so I think what ever it is needs to be a lot more general and less specific than the philosophy of John Locke.
As I said, the culture you purportedly wish to defend, yet for which you display nothing but scorn and rejection.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I think people are taking rather recent, surface level things as being the "culture of the west". Culture can mean those things of course, but I don't think when people talk about it in this thread they mean opera, or double entry book keeping.... . There are always many streams at any one time. I think your stream is going in the wrong direction. Conservative thought is part of the western tradition just as much as the enlightenment thought you appeal to. It's worth remembering that the British enlightenment was a very different thing to the French one, with America being much more influenced by French. What you are really talking about is a development from the French enlightenment, that combined with a number of other things after WW2 to form the politics of the 1960s. As a dominant cultural force, we are only really talking about when that generation took power.... so maybe the 1990s. This is also the generation that killed the MLK dream.
In other words, you don't know what European culture is, but is definitely isn't what everyone else says it is. Do you actually know what it is you are trying to defend against the hordes of primitive darkies?

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I am English, and all of this is a Franco-American culture being backfilled on top of us. It is antithetical to the version of the Enlightenment that happened on this island. It makes me think very much of Rousseaue's attempt to destroy David Hulme.
The Enlightenment also happened in England. Have you heard of William Wilberforce, for example?

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
You are talking about a very brief amount of time, and a single part of the culture within that narrow strip of time. There is a trend for something like conservatism and something like progressivism to be in constant dialogue and contention. One seeking to preserve the things that are of value from the past, the other thinking that the idea it had yesterday should supercede all that collected experience. One thinking that man is perfectable, one that unless he is governed correctly he will revert to savagery. One thinking that the only rason utopia hasn't been constructed is because the previous generation are wicked, the other thinking that utopias are very often more like dystopias. Through that dialogue there is progress of a sort. One or other side getting the upper hand for a time, even an extended time, does not necessarily change the deep culture. If "European culture" means anything, we are talking about something deeper than all this aphemera.... it's the collected experience and prejudices of thousands of years.
When you say, then, that you wish to preserve European culture, you are talking about human sacrifices, slavery, child labour, the Inquisition, prima nocta, the Divine Right of Kings and child abuse in Catholic schools as well? You see, this culture has evolved, and become more civilised. As a result, we have left behind much of the barbarism of our past. I do not welcome your desire to preserve it.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
This is the basic problem. You have no conception of what conservative ethics looks like, how it works, or what it's history is. No wonder you think conservatives are terrible people. Again, this is one of the dominant world views in western thought going back hundreds of years.
Strawman, yet again. Nowhere have I said, or even intimated, that I consider conservatives to be terrible people. I have only said that I consider racism to be terrible: one does not inevitably entail the other.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I think by "progressive" you mean the political tribe that AOC is a member of. Some political philosophers divide liberalism into two schools, progressive liberalism and modus vivendi liberalism.. Vivendi liberalism is basically dead. A brief description is given below from Mearsheimer's The Great Delusion: Liberal dreams and international realities:
Sorry, but I don't fit into either of your little boxes.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
You want me to list the terrible consequences of racism? People are killed because of it. Is that a sufficient answer?
No, because apparently these deaths are not enough for you to condemn racism.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
OK, I apologise if I mischaracterised you. Good, but the thing is we do live in a world where things like affirmative action and a host of other racist policies and attitudes are a thing. Such things are official federal policy, the are UK government policy, the UN believes in them. There is the Ron Paul libertarian path to change, I do not think that that has proved very successful. While it is not succeeding, people who believe in and implement explicit race based discrimination against white people are gleefully talking about how this group will be turned into a minority by the immigration they support. Faced with that, and the failure of the MLK approach, nice as it was.... what then?
In what way did MLK fail? In what way did his approach fail? If you want to talk history, peaceful protests and revolutions work far better than violent ones do.
If you want to look at the consequences, ending segregation without causing another civil war looks like success to me.
In the UK, we developed a whole raft of anti-discrimination laws without even a rivulet of blood. That you find this disturbing is more a comment on you than it is on society as a whole.
Finally, as you may have gathered already, I do not appreciate being labelled with all the claimed attitudes of people and groups you dislike. If you want particularism and don't want universalism, practise what you preach.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Apologies again. I'm not talking economics, I'm talking social policy. What even is a Communist any more? Just look at the trans issue, or abortion, or Trump. This forum is absolutely, stridently on one side of all of that and a host of other issues besides.
Communism is a social policy as much as it is an economic one, and I still can't think of anyone here advocating extreme left-wing social policies. Perhaps you could quote some.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
May I ask what country you are from so that I can take that account in considering your politics? I'd be curious to know whether you consider yourself to be a vivendi or progressive liberal given the above definition.
My nationality is of no relevance. Neither is the colour of my skin.
I will add, though, in response to your claim that I am incapable of understanding or absorbing differing world cultures, that I have visited 64 countries, and lived for extended periods of time in Egypt, China, Turkey, Vietnam, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait. I will wager that I have been exposed to far more world cultures than you ever will, and reached a deeper understanding of those cultures than you ever will too.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis

'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Last edited by Cosmic Yak; 23rd May 2022 at 07:10 AM.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 07:09 AM   #686
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 103,198
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Apparently the line is based on blood race culture and at least one person in this thread claims to be able to tell which "culture" you belong to by the way you look*

* - and not from what you're wearing or other fashion/taste related factors, but from your general physiognomy
Hardly surprising when their most up to date reference is a liberal conservative who has been dead and buried for over 200 years. That they have "re-discovered" phrenology is not a surprise..
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 07:10 AM   #687
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 18,346
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
"The" line? I'm not sure that there is a single line. Like I've said a bunch of times, race and culture are highly correlated. Different racial groups act as political voting blocks, and are targeted for particular programmes. We live in a world where activist groups have the names of racial groups in their names. That ship has already sailed.
This is factually wrong, 100%.
Culture is a question of the place(s) you grow up in, and has nothing to do with ethnicity, as should be obvious to anyone who heard of Adoption.
Also, ex-Cubans in Florida or 2nd generation Mexicans in Texas and California have a thing to say about you putting them into a "political voting block".

Take a step back and think about your priors here.
__________________
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

- Emo Philips
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 07:21 AM   #688
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 34,689
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
My nationality is of no relevance. Neither is the colour of my skin.
I will add, though, in response to your claim that I am incapable of understanding or absorbing differing world cultures, that I have visited 64 countries, and lived for extended periods of time in Egypt, China, Turkey, Vietnam, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait. I will wager that I have been exposed to far more world cultures than you ever will, and reached a deeper understanding of those cultures than you ever will too.
Ah, we'll there we have it. Your exposure to the lesser alien different races cultures has already damaged your appreciation and understanding of your British culture (and probably diluted your vital bodily fluids too ).

You're a case in point for what would happen to British culture if the lesser alien different races cultures were allowed to arrive in any appreciable numbers.

I wonder why our culture is so uniquely fragile that exposure to a tiny number of immigrants can destroy ours but that same tiny number of immigrants manage to maintain, if not enhance, theirs.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 07:24 AM   #689
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,732
The racists are trying to trap us in a paradox where we only have two options, open hateful racism or wishy-washy "all cultures are equal lah-de-dah" tripe.

Some cultures are better than others.
Racisim is still wrong.

This is not a paradox or hard to understand or requires rewriting the language or any other argumentative stall.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 07:51 AM   #690
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 5,957
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I don't reject "any form of morality ". I reject self evident universalist morality. That morality comes from French enlightenment philosophy and I think it is profoundly incorrect and leads to a sort of totalitarian religious like fervour in which anyone who doesn't accept the morality is seen as an evil heretic. I think in its current form it is a type of secularised puritanism.
As a further point regarding this:
Commonly accepted codes of morality are not just one of the cornerstones of culture: they are also the foundation of justice, of any workable justice system. Societies decide what is mutually acceptable, and what is not, and devise their laws, legal systems and punishments on those decisions.
By rejecting all of this, shuttlt is rejecting any and all systems of justice. Kind of convenient, when one is attempting to justify the unjustifiable, and to reject the consequences of one's actions.
It is also rank hypocrisy to claim to want to defend a culture whilst rejecting the common values of that culture, because one is too advanced and special for that 'tribal' thinking to apply to one so exalted.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis

'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:05 AM   #691
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Once again, you are muddying the waters to avoid having to condemn racism.
The way this principle was developed and enacted was by concluding that treating somebody badly because of the colour of their skin was wrong. You may whine and grumble and pontificate all you like, but until you can justify mistreating somebody because they aren't the same colour as you, you are still losing this argument.
"Mistreating"? Unless you mean that in some circular way, we mistreat people all the time. This is an imperfect world in which different, incompatible goods contend. Of course it can be OK to mistreat people. It is also a world in which racial politics is a thing. Like I've said, that ship has already sailed.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Now, as for 'anti-white statements': well, a couple of points on that. Firstly, let's use your own 'logic'. 'Anti-white statements are not inherently wrong. They are only wrong if I say they are wrong, and then only because of their consequences. What negative consequences have there been for these statements?'
Lots of negative consequences for individuals. People have been killed because of these sentiments. Some people regard it as good anyway. I can't believe you are still asking me whether things are inherently wrong.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Now my logic: two wrongs don't make a right. Reverse racism is still racism, and it's still wrong.
Terrific. This is an abstract idea. This is libertarian morality. Believing that just makes you politically irrelevant. Maybe your individual conscience is clean, but there is an external, real world price to be paid for that clean conscience.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Another point: I have never made such statements, nor do I support them. Your argument is also a strawman.
I understand. I meant that "you've got" in a "there is sense". I can see how it would read like I was imputing it to you.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Bilge. You display a surface-level understanding of politics, to add to your shallow knowledge of history (Rome, China, the EU and the American Civil War- read some books!).
We disagree. I would say that every people who has ever lived has ingroup bias. The only exception to that that I am aware of is white progressive liberals who are biased in favour of non-whites. You see it in nature, my pack/not my pack. It's far from clear that you can have a society that doesn't operate in this way, particularly if it imports large numbers of people who do have ingroup bias.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
The usual butthurt alt-right whining. This is fantasy, nothing more.
Perhaps, but you can't really operate the MLK system, while operating a system of explicit racial discrimination that operates against the group you want to "not see race". It's self defeating. Maybe you can do it for a short time, but as a permanent system? I don't think so. All you'll do is create race consciousness in the group that you are explicitly discriminating against.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
This has absolutely nothing to do with my questions.
OK. I don't know what to say to that. You think you can have MLK while simultaneously operating a system of explicit racial discrimination, I don't think you can.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
As I said, the culture you purportedly wish to defend, yet for which you display nothing but scorn and rejection.
Not at all. If there is one thing conservative thought is about, it's not leaping on the latest bandwagon that set off 5 minutes ago.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
In other words, you don't know what European culture is, but is definitely isn't what everyone else says it is. Do you actually know what it is you are trying to defend against the hordes of primitive darkies?
I know what it is when I see things that are not it, or go to places that come from different traditions. That is the only concise definition. Everything else would be a thread in itself, and I think a rather pointless thread.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
The Enlightenment also happened in England. Have you heard of William Wilberforce, for example?
Obviously. The enlightenment in England was a significantly different thing to the Enlightenment in France though.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
When you say, then, that you wish to preserve European culture, you are talking about human sacrifices, slavery, child labour, the Inquisition, prima nocta, the Divine Right of Kings and child abuse in Catholic schools as well? You see, this culture has evolved, and become more civilised. As a result, we have left behind much of the barbarism of our past. I do not welcome your desire to preserve it.
This is very foolish. Do you want to have an actual conversation? Conservatism is about preserving what is good in the past, not every last thing that has ever existed.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
No, because apparently these deaths are not enough for you to condemn racism.
Lots of things have caused deaths, we don't call all of them evil. I presume you aren't a quaker?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
In what way did MLK fail? In what way did his approach fail? If you want to talk history, peaceful protests and revolutions work far better than violent ones do.
Peaceful revolutions work when the ruling elite no longer believes in its own legitimacy and will fall over under the next strong breeze, or the ruling elite is sympathetic to, and not threatened by, the revolution. In terms of MLK, I would say that he failed in that his "content of their character" rhetoric led to the construction of a bureaucracy to implement race based discrimination that has persisted for getting on for 60 years now.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
If you want to look at the consequences, ending segregation without causing another civil war looks like success to me.
There was never going to be another civil war. Was the US military going to divide up and come out on both sides? I think you are judging his success based on what happened rather than the rhetoric. Again, what was actually delivered was a permanent bureaucracy to implement race based discrimination at the federal level. That does not line up with what was sold.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
In the UK, we developed a whole raft of anti-discrimination laws without even a rivulet of blood. That you find this disturbing is more a comment on you than it is on society as a whole.
Yes, there are permanent sex and race based discrimination programmes in the UK as well, and women and ethnic minorities have been turned into voting blocks that are appealed to with policies intended to further the interests of those groups.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Finally, as you may have gathered already, I do not appreciate being labelled with all the claimed attitudes of people and groups you dislike. If you want particularism and don't want universalism, practise what you preach.
That isn't what particularism and universalism means.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Communism is a social policy as much as it is an economic one, and I still can't think of anyone here advocating extreme left-wing social policies. Perhaps you could quote some.
Well, no. I gave a few examples, but I don't expect us to agree on this so I won't push it.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
My nationality is of no relevance. Neither is the colour of my skin.
Of course it's relevant. Different people in different countries have different political traditions. Liberal in the US means a different thing to liberal in the UK.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I will add, though, in response to your claim that I am incapable of understanding or absorbing differing world cultures, that I have visited 64 countries, and lived for extended periods of time in Egypt, China, Turkey, Vietnam, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait. I will wager that I have been exposed to far more world cultures than you ever will, and reached a deeper understanding of those cultures than you ever will too.
OK, it seems strange then that you have such a hard time understanding my rather mundane Burkean conservatism. I'm not sure that travel necessarily in and of itself broadens the mind. It can, but not necessarily.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:13 AM   #692
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
As a further point regarding this:
Commonly accepted codes of morality are not just one of the cornerstones of culture: they are also the foundation of justice, of any workable justice system. Societies decide what is mutually acceptable, and what is not, and devise their laws, legal systems and punishments on those decisions.
But they don't have to be universalist, or propositional to do that.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
By rejecting all of this, shuttlt is rejecting any and all systems of justice. Kind of convenient, when one is attempting to justify the unjustifiable, and to reject the consequences of one's actions.
All I reject is the new fad morality that was injected into the UK from the US. Good lord, for somebody who is so well traveled and well read, I don't know how you could have failed to encounter conservative thought. This is a Franco-American ethical system that you are espousing. That is not the only morality to ever exist. The legal system didn't start in 1968.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
It is also rank hypocrisy to claim to want to defend a culture whilst rejecting the common values of that culture, because one is too advanced and special for that 'tribal' thinking to apply to one so exalted.
No. The problem is that you mistake your tribal thinking for some universal neutral thinking that has risen above. My thinking is certainly local, and in that sense tribal. The problem is that one set of values are being pushed out from the US and infecting everything else. Doing that is causing stresses to build up that is causing things to fracture. That is like some kind of value imperialism. What had before wasn't no values, it was just different values from the current Franco-American progressive-liberal ones.

Last edited by shuttlt; 23rd May 2022 at 08:15 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:13 AM   #693
EaglePuncher
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 691
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
"Mistreating"? Unless you mean that in some circular way, we mistreat people all the time. This is an imperfect world in which different, incompatible goods contend. Of course it can be OK to mistreat people. It is also a world in which racial politics is a thing. Like I've said, that ship has already sailed.


Lots of negative consequences for individuals. People have been killed because of these sentiments. Some people regard it as good anyway. I can't believe you are still asking me whether things are inherently wrong.


Terrific. This is an abstract idea. This is libertarian morality. Believing that just makes you politically irrelevant. Maybe your individual conscience is clean, but there is an external, real world price to be paid for that clean conscience.


I understand. I meant that "you've got" in a "there is sense". I can see how it would read like I was imputing it to you.


We disagree. I would say that every people who has ever lived has ingroup bias. The only exception to that that I am aware of is white progressive liberals who are biased in favour of non-whites. You see it in nature, my pack/not my pack. It's far from clear that you can have a society that doesn't operate in this way, particularly if it imports large numbers of people who do have ingroup bias.


Perhaps, but you can't really operate the MLK system, while operating a system of explicit racial discrimination that operates against the group you want to "not see race". It's self defeating. Maybe you can do it for a short time, but as a permanent system? I don't think so. All you'll do is create race consciousness in the group that you are explicitly discriminating against.


OK. I don't know what to say to that. You think you can have MLK while simultaneously operating a system of explicit racial discrimination, I don't think you can.


Not at all. If there is one thing conservative thought is about, it's not leaping on the latest bandwagon that set off 5 minutes ago.


I know what it is when I see things that are not it, or go to places that come from different traditions. That is the only concise definition. Everything else would be a thread in itself, and I think a rather pointless thread.


Obviously. The enlightenment in England was a significantly different thing to the Enlightenment in France though.


This is very foolish. Do you want to have an actual conversation? Conservatism is about preserving what is good in the past, not every last thing that has ever existed.


Lots of things have caused deaths, we don't call all of them evil. I presume you aren't a quaker?


Peaceful revolutions work when the ruling elite no longer believes in its own legitimacy and will fall over under the next strong breeze, or the ruling elite is sympathetic to, and not threatened by, the revolution. In terms of MLK, I would say that he failed in that his "content of their character" rhetoric led to the construction of a bureaucracy to implement race based discrimination that has persisted for getting on for 60 years now.


There was never going to be another civil war. Was the US military going to divide up and come out on both sides? I think you are judging his success based on what happened rather than the rhetoric. Again, what was actually delivered was a permanent bureaucracy to implement race based discrimination at the federal level. That does not line up with what was sold.


Yes, there are permanent sex and race based discrimination programmes in the UK as well, and women and ethnic minorities have been turned into voting blocks that are appealed to with policies intended to further the interests of those groups.


That isn't what particularism and universalism means.


Well, no. I gave a few examples, but I don't expect us to agree on this so I won't push it.


Of course it's relevant. Different people in different countries have different political traditions. Liberal in the US means a different thing to liberal in the UK.


OK, it seems strange then that you have such a hard time understanding my rather mundane Burkean conservatism. I'm not sure that travel necessarily in and of itself broadens the mind. It can, but not necessarily.
I see you have completely abandoned "culture" now that it does not work as a shield from "Please explan" anymore. Predictable
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:16 AM   #694
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 34,689
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
OK, it seems strange then that you have such a hard time understanding my rather mundane Burkean conservatism. I'm not sure that travel necessarily in and of itself broadens the mind. It can, but not necessarily.
I don't think anyone is having a hard time understanding, in broad terms, the arguments of an 18th Century conservative. Anything which upsets the current order is a bad thing and should be discouraged. From a man who did very well under the system that was in place at the time, this is understandable.

What people are disagreeing with IMO are:
  • That Burke is an exemplar for political and social thinking
  • That Burke is that relevant these days
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:19 AM   #695
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,732
One day I hope to establish a useful skill to anywhere near the efficiency that evil/wrong people have for justifying their evil/wrongness with vague references to some esoteric philosophical babbling.

"Sir are you beating that orphan to death with a bunch of kittens wrapped in a burning American flag?"
"Oh I see someone isn't familiar with the works of Sir Earl of Bumblefart."
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 23rd May 2022 at 08:36 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:25 AM   #696
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,758
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I don't think anyone is having a hard time understanding, in broad terms, the arguments of an 18th Century conservative. Anything which upsets the current order is a bad thing and should be discouraged. From a man who did very well under the system that was in place at the time, this is understandable.

What people are disagreeing with IMO are:
  • That Burke is an exemplar for political and social thinking
  • That Burke is that relevant these days
Exactly

And also why we should have to guess which parts of Burke's writing are to be followed and which parts are to be ignored or rejected and what is the reasoning behind these selections.

And coming back to the question that Bruto asked.

Why the inability to assert that banning interracial marriage is bad. Which really is not a trick question.

ETA, also what JoeMorgue said above.

By all means quote someone, but at least explain what it is about their arguments that are so compelling.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK

Last edited by jimbob; 23rd May 2022 at 08:28 AM.
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:38 AM   #697
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 36,225
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I don't think anyone is having a hard time understanding, in broad terms, the arguments of an 18th Century conservative. Anything which upsets the current order is a bad thing and should be discouraged. From a man who did very well under the system that was in place at the time, this is understandable.

The attribution to him of “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” has a certain irony.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:40 AM   #698
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 34,689
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Why the inability to assert that banning interracial marriage is bad. Which really is not a trick question.
Especially given the original question which was whether it should be forbidden which would remove any concerns over the practicalities of implementing legislation to make it illegal - which IMO would be very considerable.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:46 AM   #699
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,758
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Especially given the original question which was whether it should be forbidden which would remove any concerns over the practicalities of implementing legislation to make it illegal - which IMO would be very considerable.
As an aside and an illustration of this, last night, Dad was telling my girlfriend about one of his college friends who was brought up in South Africa, but whose family moved to England when she was due to go to secondary school as her hair was too frizzy to attend a white secondary school.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:49 AM   #700
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,758
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Especially given the original question which was whether it should be forbidden which would remove any concerns over the practicalities of implementing legislation to make it illegal - which IMO would be very considerable.
Yup, for the sake of clarity, I consider it a bad thing and cannot think of any plausible reason why banning such marriages would be the lesser of two evils. Magic racist supervillains threatening to destroy the world unless such marriages are banned are not plausible, for example.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 08:57 AM   #701
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,732
But again evil getting to invoke wild alternative reality speculation and demand it be weighed against actual wrong it is doing in the real world is the tactic now.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 09:12 AM   #702
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,758
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But again evil getting to invoke wild alternative reality speculation and demand it be weighed against actual wrong it is doing in the real world is the tactic now.


I *was* being ridiculous, but you're probably right.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 10:20 AM   #703
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I don't think anyone is having a hard time understanding, in broad terms, the arguments of an 18th Century conservative. Anything which upsets the current order is a bad thing and should be discouraged. From a man who did very well under the system that was in place at the time, this is understandable.

What people are disagreeing with IMO are:
  • That Burke is an exemplar for political and social thinking
  • That Burke is that relevant these days
Perhaps you could expand on these two points?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 10:25 AM   #704
EaglePuncher
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 691
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Perhaps you could expand on these two points?
When will you expand on "European Culture"?
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 10:28 AM   #705
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 103,198
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I don't think anyone is having a hard time understanding, in broad terms, the arguments of an 18th Century conservative. Anything which upsets the current order is a bad thing and should be discouraged. From a man who did very well under the system that was in place at the time, this is understandable.



What people are disagreeing with IMO are:


  • That Burke is an exemplar for political and social thinking
  • That Burke is that relevant these days
And he was a Liberal Conservative, shuttit seems to want to ignore that Liberal word.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 10:29 AM   #706
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,732
I'm going to try reverse psychology.

If I start a thread about the most obscure 18th century political philosopher I can find will someone finally defend their racism in it?
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 10:30 AM   #707
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 34,689
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Perhaps you could expand on these two points?
I think that those points have been more than adequately covered uptrend.

In any case it would be pointless me expanding, I haven't offered an opinion w.r.t. Burke.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 10:31 AM   #708
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 103,198
Originally Posted by EaglePuncher View Post
When will you expand on "European Culture"?
When it's been destroyed!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 12:24 PM   #709
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,758
Edited by xjx388:  <SNIP> Removed moderated content


Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Of course, whenever I use the word "should" in this sort of discussion it is according to my moral framework.

You seem to be saying that your moral framework is agnostic on the rights of individuals when they don't affect anyone else.

The underpinning of any moral or ethical framework is ultimately based on axioms or values. Mine is generally that increasing suffering is bad and increasing happiness is good. Of course there are difficult questions where one is balancing one against the other, but this particular question is not that.

If your moral framework is agnostic on whether marriage between consenting adults should be banned, then in my view, it's pretty useless and also highly distasteful.
The best you have come up with is a vague idea that it might lead to a possible but never-defined harm.

Which is an argument that can be used to justify doing nothing in any situation.



Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I disagree that such things don't affect anyone else. You, as a single individual, doing something may have a negligible impact on other people, but it's like the Kantian conception of ethics "what if everybody did it".... most issues that are treated as individual issues actually have huge social implications when a significant number of people are engaging in them.

I think individual issues are like perfect circles, they don't exist in nature. You are right though, what ever ethics I may have is certainly not based on any enlightenment rights of the individual idea.


That's fine, but I don't think that that is typically the basis of liberal reasoning. I think people much more commonly just equate a thing like liberty or equality with happiness, and then reason from those things. I'm more of a Burkian.


Moral ethics that clash with our own always appear distasteful. I'm sure that yours are distasteful to me. This is a given. As to whether inter-racial marriage should be allowed, you are reasoning based on a conception of things that impact the wider society being purely individual matters. Does this in fact increase suffering or happiness? I think these are complicated questions that really depend on the circumstances. If it increased suffering, would it still be good because it's an individual choice and that really takes precedence?

What I see a lot is a denial of the possibility that there is conflict between things like liberty, equality, and the general happiness of man. I think the world is a complicated place and very often they are in conflict.
Again, if you cannot even assert that it would be wrong to ban interracial marriage, you need to get a better morality that allows you to make decisions.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK

Last edited by xjx388; 23rd May 2022 at 12:30 PM.
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 12:39 PM   #710
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,807
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
This is factually wrong, 100%.
Culture is a question of the place(s) you grow up in, and has nothing to do with ethnicity, as should be obvious to anyone who heard of Adoption.
Also, ex-Cubans in Florida or 2nd generation Mexicans in Texas and California have a thing to say about you putting them into a "political voting block".

Take a step back and think about your priors here.
I would modify that 100 percent slightly (and sadly) because it is possible for a culture to be racist or ethnocentric in practice, and when it is, of course, separation is guaranteed.

Artificial division forces difference which we can then see upside-down. People will criticize others for not dressing in the club blazer, forgetting that they were never allowed in.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 02:35 PM   #711
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,422
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Apparently the line is based on blood race culture and at least one person in this thread claims to be able to tell which "culture" you belong to by the way you look*

* - and not from what you're wearing or other fashion/taste related factors, but from your general physiognomy
Does it involve feeling bumps on my head?
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2022, 11:25 PM   #712
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 34,689
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Does it involve feeling bumps on my head?
Not if they're from a different race culture, that would mean being touched, or touching, one of "them".
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2022, 01:02 AM   #713
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 103,198
Not called untouchables for no reason!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2022, 06:20 AM   #714
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,074
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Does it involve feeling bumps on my head?
It might, assuming the "other" is in the appropriate position of servitude.
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2022, 06:39 AM   #715
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 5,957
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
This is an imperfect world in which different, incompatible goods contend. Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.
This is the point where I stop debating and start pointing and laughing. Whether this is amused horror, or horrified amusement is unclear, but either way, it seems this is the only appropriate reaction.
shuttlt, we are done. I have no time for sociopaths with pretensions of erudition.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis

'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2022, 06:44 AM   #716
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,613
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It is not.


I have said already that I'm not against morality. What I'm against is universalist, rationalistic morality that comes from the French enlightenment. The pro-paedophilia/anti-age of consent activism comes from the same universalist/rationalist source.


There is no universal good or bad. It can be useful to pretend there is, but there isn't. Cultures develop ideas of what is moral and immoral over long periods of time and iterate on that. It's an evolutionary approach. I don't think the idea that racism is a moral evil came out of that approach, so I am suspicious of it. Even if it had, I wouldn't regard it as universal for all peoples. Many of the specific instances of racism that you would object to, I would likely object to as well... I would just get to that view in a different way.


You just have a different, newer set of superstitions which, just like many Christians, you consider to be universal in some way. Christianity though has survived for 2000 years across very different situations, so it's core seems unlikely to be absolutely an immediately toxic to society. Progressive morality has been around for the blink of an eye, so I am rather less confident about it.


That is a conservative view. Morality based on experience. Much left wing, rationalist thought derived from the sort of assumptions your morality is based on has reached the opposite conclusion on paedophilia.


I have said repeatedly that these effects count. Liberals have this blind view that they are the only side that cares, and that if you cared you would support their solutions. What separates us is not that I don't care about the suffering of other people, the issue is more like that I think you radically underestimate the difficulty, unintended consequences and tradeoffs of solving these problems.


Burke is not some obscure figure. He is arguably, and often described as, the father of conservatism. It's like calling John Locke an obscure figure. Imagine we were having a conversation about Liberal thought and I'd never heard of the French or American revolutions, Locke, Paine, or any of the various articulations of universalist rights like the Constitution. It would be a bit of a difficult and confusing conversation.


The idea that I am trying to fool you by presenting you with the philosophical and historical basis of conservatism, and saying I find significant parts of it convincing, is bizarre. This isn't some secret and unknown tradition.

shuttit, I've clearly acknowledged that, basis what you've said to me, you appear to be more of a true pragmatist rather than a racist per se. I was interested for seeing whether there are any limits to that true pragmatism of yours, and hence those two questions I'd asked you in my post #652, that you left unaddressed. I also clearly explained, in that post, just why, despite that, it is very clear to me that your "true pragmatism" is no more than a dodge. And it is that, without a shadow of a doubt.

It's very simple. You are asked whether you think banning inter-"race" marriages is right or wrong. There is no reason why that simple question should not be answered with a simple "I'm for it", or "I'm against it", or "I'm indifferent to it" answer. Not in theory, not in some abstract sense, but in actuality, in this real world --- so that to be literally indifferent to the prospect of banning inter-race marriages is to be utterly complicit in racism.

What you're trying to do here is to weasel out of taking a position by retreating into abstractions.

Look, it's simple. Say you are in a position to support either (or neither) of two positions --- whether by voting, or otherwise --- the only difference between which is that one advocates banning inter-race marriages, and the other is against ever considering any such move. Which do you support? Or will you refrain from supporting either? Why?

Now please don't just snip out that foregoing paragraph in isolation, like you tend to do, and launch into another long monolog on what Burke groaned out while jacking off in archaic English, complete with diphthongs, or about decomposed Greek philosophers and their ******* caves. That would be no more than yet another dodge. Engage, if you would, with the entirety of what I'm saying, or not at all. ~~~~~~~We're asking you your view on banning inter-race marriages, whether you'd support such a move, or not. The why of it is a secondary matter, that of course you're welcome to also discuss if you like. If you're a cross-eyed Jesus-cultist, then you might quote some weirdo commandment from some moth-eaten book written by ignorant ancients, and base your answer off of that, to answer with a "Yes" or a "No", to whether you support banning inter-race marriages. If you're an idealist, then you might explain the reasons for your ideals, and off of that support your answer. And if you're pragmatist --- as why shouldn't you be --- then, equally, you could clearly state whether or not you support such a move, and then, in addition, explain how exactly your pragmatism leads you to that answer. But, no matter the basis of your answer, no matter whether you're a superstitious Jesus-fetishist, or an idealist, or a hard-nosed pragmatist, or a despicable racist, no matter of which of these four you are, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to come out with a clear answer to that question, a clear "Yes" or "No" to whether you support or don't support banning inter-race marriages --- and, in addition, if you like, provide detailed justification for your answer using whatever it is you base that answer on.


What you keep repeatedly doing here ---- certainly in your posts addressed to me ---- is simply dodge. I ask you whether you support banning inter-race marriages, and you ask me if I'm willing to countenance killing others to prevent that. Well, the first time I got taken in by that dodge, and went on to introspect and come to the conclusion that I haven't the stomach to do that ---- but the point is, that was basically changing the subject, and my not catching on to your dodge did enable you, that time, to successfully change the subject, away from the (to you) uncomfortable question that was asked of you. Then when I ask you that same question again, you then bring in that sainted Burke of yours, and also bring in a discussion on idealism vis-a-vis pragmatism. All of that is a dodge, pure and simple, shuttit. It is also basically attacking a strawman, your repeated insistence that you refuse to take a "universal" position, because no one is asking you to do that: Just take that position in your own given polity and constituency, or any other real-life polity or constituency that you might be invested in enough to formulate a considered opinion on, in as pragmatic terms as you care to take it. You are being asked: Do YOU support banning inter-race marriages (let's say, to narrow it down, in whatever country/constituency you yourself vote in). Yes, or No? It's a simple question. No reason why you shouldn't, after answering with a Yes or a No, you shouldn't also append an explanation/justification for your choice, and basing that explanation off of your own philosophy ---- be it blind faith in religious superstitions, be it some set-in-stone ideals, or be it hard-nosed pragmatism, or be it shamelessly racist ideas.

I've already said this to you before, but here, for the last time, is why I've come off convinced that your answers, at least to me, are simply a dodge. I'm guessing you're dodging yourself as well as us, that is, refusing to own up to yourself the nature of your choices, because only a monster would actually acquiesce to such choices, and no one likes to think of themselves as a monster, so there's the cognitive dissonance thing kicking in: that's a charitable view, BTW, because it means I don't think you're being deliberately dishonest with us, with the express coldly reasoned intention of misleading us. But for all of that it's a dodge, this pragmatism sidebar of yours. I mean, by all means be as hard-nosed a pragmatist as you like, but that's no reason not to be able to come to concrete decisions about specific questions as it relates to the real world.

Last edited by Chanakya; 24th May 2022 at 06:53 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2022, 08:14 AM   #717
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,473
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
shuttit, I've clearly acknowledged that, basis what you've said to me, you appear to be more of a true pragmatist rather than a racist per se. I was interested for seeing whether there are any limits to that true pragmatism of yours, and hence those two questions I'd asked you in my post #652, that you left unaddressed. I also clearly explained, in that post, just why, despite that, it is very clear to me that your "true pragmatism" is no more than a dodge. And it is that, without a shadow of a doubt.
Apologies. There have been a lot of posts and things get missed. I will revisit those questions.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
It's very simple. You are asked whether you think banning inter-"race" marriages is right or wrong. There is no reason why that simple question should not be answered with a simple "I'm for it", or "I'm against it", or "I'm indifferent to it" answer. Not in theory, not in some abstract sense, but in actuality, in this real world --- so that to be literally indifferent to the prospect of banning inter-race marriages is to be utterly complicit in racism.

What you're trying to do here is to weasel out of taking a position by retreating into abstractions.

Look, it's simple. Say you are in a position to support either (or neither) of two positions --- whether by voting, or otherwise --- the only difference between which is that one advocates banning inter-race marriages, and the other is against ever considering any such move. Which do you support? Or will you refrain from supporting either? Why?
Why are they for it, why against it? Presumably if one of them is advocating it, some situation exists that makes that position plausible to a lot of people, what is that situation? I have no opinion in the abstract.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Now please don't just snip out that foregoing paragraph in isolation, like you tend to do, and launch into another long monolog on what Burke groaned out while jacking off in archaic English, complete with diphthongs, or about decomposed Greek philosophers and their ******* caves. That would be no more than yet another dodge. Engage, if you would, with the entirety of what I'm saying, or not at all. ~~~~~~~We're asking you your view on banning inter-race marriages, whether you'd support such a move, or not.
Under what circumstances? Why? If there is any possibility of it being implemented, it must seem like a good idea to quite a lot of people, what are their reasons? This isn't a dodge. As I keep saying, I have no position in the abstract.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
The why of it is a secondary matter, that of course you're welcome to also discuss if you like.
It isn't a secondary matter. Maybe it is for you, but not for me. Which fork in the road should I take, left or right....? Were they go is a secondary matter. For the reasons not to matter you have to have a system of morality that regards such things as good or bad regardless of the outcome. I've told you, I don't.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
If you're a cross-eyed Jesus-cultist, then you might quote some weirdo commandment from some moth-eaten book written by ignorant ancients, and base your answer off of that, to answer with a "Yes" or a "No", to whether you support banning inter-race marriages.
I'm not religious. These questions of things being good or bad in the abstract aren't really answerable without some notion of universal divinely revealed truths.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
If you're an idealist, then you might explain the reasons for your ideals, and off of that support your answer. And if you're pragmatist --- as why shouldn't you be --- then, equally, you could clearly state whether or not you support such a move, and then, in addition, explain how exactly your pragmatism leads you to that answer.
Why would a pragmatist support something in the abstract regardless of practical considerations? That feels like the opposite of pragmatism.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But, no matter the basis of your answer, no matter whether you're a superstitious Jesus-fetishist, or an idealist, or a hard-nosed pragmatist, or a despicable racist, no matter of which of these four you are, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to come out with a clear answer to that question, a clear "Yes" or "No" to whether you support or don't support banning inter-race marriages --- and, in addition, if you like, provide detailed justification for your answer using whatever it is you base that answer on.
As I understand it, pragmatism is about considering things practically in the real world. You are asking me to give pragmatic answers to non-practical questions. That's not possible.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
What you keep repeatedly doing here ---- certainly in your posts addressed to me ---- is simply dodge. I ask you whether you support banning inter-race marriages, and you ask me if I'm willing to countenance killing others to prevent that.
Well, yes... because I am trying to make it practical and turn it into a question about the real world. If your view is that we should implement policy based on idealised moral considerations and ignoring the real world outcomes, then I cans see how me asking such questions would be irrelevant. I'm not arguing that accepting the deaths of a bunch of people would necessarily be wrong to achieve your aims. Many great achievements that are near universally seen as moral goods involved a trade off in blood.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Well, the first time I got taken in by that dodge, and went on to introspect and come to the conclusion that I haven't the stomach to do that ---- but the point is, that was basically changing the subject, and my not catching on to your dodge did enable you, that time, to successfully change the subject, away from the (to you) uncomfortable question that was asked of you.
It's not changing the subject. Your policy ideas that you found in abstract moral considerations have real world costs. Depending on those costs, you might not in fact have the stomach for the policies that you want me to agree to or disagree with in the abstract. I agree with your stomach. I think the thinking you were doing is how I am thinking about the question.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Then when I ask you that same question again, you then bring in that sainted Burke of yours, and also bring in a discussion on idealism vis-a-vis pragmatism. All of that is a dodge, pure and simple, shuttit. It is also basically attacking a strawman, your repeated insistence that you refuse to take a "universal" position, because no one is asking you to do that: Just take that position in your own given polity and constituency, or any other real-life polity or constituency that you might be invested in enough to formulate a considered opinion on, in as pragmatic terms as you care to take it.
It could only be implemented nationally, I would think, in the UK and would almost certainly violate all sorts of human rights law. There would be riots and it would end the political career of any politician who supported it and the destroy the party who implemented it. I can't begin to imagine what the impact would be on the ongoing Brexit fun... it might even somehow get us back into the EU as the backlash would certainly blame Brexit. It could tip Scotland into leaving the Union. I doubt the bureaucracy of government would comply. I doubt a single mixed race marriage would be prevented. Is that a good enough answer? There is simply no way to implement such a policy in the UK.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
You are being asked: Do YOU support banning inter-race marriages (let's say, to narrow it down, in whatever country/constituency you yourself vote in). Yes, or No?
Like I say, there is simply no way of such a policy being implemented in the UK, or for any party with any hope of electoral success to support such a policy and survive. No mainstream party is actually interested in meaningfully restricting immigration. What would be the purpose of pushing this incredibly divisive policy that couldn't be implemented when there are far more important and, at least marginally, less divisive policies that they aren't pushing either. What have you learned from my answer other than the practical impossibility of such a policy?

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
It's a simple question. No reason why you shouldn't, after answering with a Yes or a No, you shouldn't also append an explanation/justification for your choice, and basing that explanation off of your own philosophy ---- be it blind faith in religious superstitions, be it some set-in-stone ideals, or be it hard-nosed pragmatism, or be it shamelessly racist ideas.
Any attempt to push such a law that had even the appearance of a chance of success would, I think, lead to an authoritarian crackdown on the people who supported it. Unless one is an accelerationist, supporting this policy would be self defeating.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I've already said this to you before, but here, for the last time, is why I've come off convinced that your answers, at least to me, are simply a dodge. I'm guessing you're dodging yourself as well as us, that is, refusing to own up to yourself the nature of your choices, because only a monster would actually acquiesce to such choices, and no one likes to think of themselves as a monster, so there's the cognitive dissonance thing kicking in: that's a charitable view, BTW, because it means I don't think you're being deliberately dishonest with us, with the express coldly reasoned intention of misleading us. But for all of that it's a dodge, this pragmatism sidebar of yours. I mean, by all means be as hard-nosed a pragmatist as you like, but that's no reason not to be able to come to concrete decisions about specific questions as it relates to the real world.
See my answers above.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2022, 08:26 AM   #718
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,758
So what hypothetical harms are you concerned about that means you are unsure whether it would be a good idea to ban mixed race marriages?

If your argument is simply that there might be something bad that you're not sure about, then that is an argument for never doing anything.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2022, 08:43 AM   #719
MarkCorrigan
¡No pasarán!
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Слава Україні
Posts: 11,126
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
So what hypothetical harms are you concerned about that means you are unsure whether it would be a good idea to ban mixed race marriages?

If your argument is simply that there might be something bad that you're not sure about, then that is an argument for never doing anything.
Which would fit his fanboy-ism of Burke to a T.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist. - Hélder Câmara
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2022, 09:20 AM   #720
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,613
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Apologies. There have been a lot of posts and things get missed. I will revisit those questions.


Why are they for it, why against it? Presumably if one of them is advocating it, some situation exists that makes that position plausible to a lot of people, what is that situation? I have no opinion in the abstract.


Under what circumstances? Why? If there is any possibility of it being implemented, it must seem like a good idea to quite a lot of people, what are their reasons? This isn't a dodge. As I keep saying, I have no position in the abstract.


It isn't a secondary matter. Maybe it is for you, but not for me. Which fork in the road should I take, left or right....? Were they go is a secondary matter. For the reasons not to matter you have to have a system of morality that regards such things as good or bad regardless of the outcome. I've told you, I don't.


I'm not religious. These questions of things being good or bad in the abstract aren't really answerable without some notion of universal divinely revealed truths.


Why would a pragmatist support something in the abstract regardless of practical considerations? That feels like the opposite of pragmatism.


As I understand it, pragmatism is about considering things practically in the real world. You are asking me to give pragmatic answers to non-practical questions. That's not possible.


Well, yes... because I am trying to make it practical and turn it into a question about the real world. If your view is that we should implement policy based on idealised moral considerations and ignoring the real world outcomes, then I cans see how me asking such questions would be irrelevant. I'm not arguing that accepting the deaths of a bunch of people would necessarily be wrong to achieve your aims. Many great achievements that are near universally seen as moral goods involved a trade off in blood.


It's not changing the subject. Your policy ideas that you found in abstract moral considerations have real world costs. Depending on those costs, you might not in fact have the stomach for the policies that you want me to agree to or disagree with in the abstract. I agree with your stomach. I think the thinking you were doing is how I am thinking about the question.


It could only be implemented nationally, I would think, in the UK and would almost certainly violate all sorts of human rights law. There would be riots and it would end the political career of any politician who supported it and the destroy the party who implemented it. I can't begin to imagine what the impact would be on the ongoing Brexit fun... it might even somehow get us back into the EU as the backlash would certainly blame Brexit. It could tip Scotland into leaving the Union. I doubt the bureaucracy of government would comply. I doubt a single mixed race marriage would be prevented. Is that a good enough answer? There is simply no way to implement such a policy in the UK.


Like I say, there is simply no way of such a policy being implemented in the UK, or for any party with any hope of electoral success to support such a policy and survive. No mainstream party is actually interested in meaningfully restricting immigration. What would be the purpose of pushing this incredibly divisive policy that couldn't be implemented when there are far more important and, at least marginally, less divisive policies that they aren't pushing either. What have you learned from my answer other than the practical impossibility of such a policy?


Any attempt to push such a law that had even the appearance of a chance of success would, I think, lead to an authoritarian crackdown on the people who supported it. Unless one is an accelerationist, supporting this policy would be self defeating.


See my answers above.

****, man. There you go, pulling that same old stunt again.

Whether you support issue A in polity X, or not, what the **** does that have to do with what others think of it, and why? Are you opinions and decisions no more than a reflection, or distorted refraction, of others' views ---- is that yet another fresh Burke-ism you're going to introduce here, that you've no opinions that are independent of others' opinions?

I'm not dancing this weird dance any more. For the last time, here's something that might, if you read it with an open mind, get you to see what you're getting sorely wrong, all of your reading of political philosophy notwithstanding: If you're religious, then your religion gives you set-in-stone morals and answers to (most) ethical questions. If you're a skeptic, you no longer have that certainty. You must now work things out on your own. But that doesn't mean you operate in a moral vacuum, that doesn't mean you are unable to decide right from wrong, ever. And that working out things on your own means having to inform yourself adequately, or as adequately as you can, to formulate meaningful opinions. Well, that's how, it seems to me, it would work with pragmatism. (And indeed, in the sense I've just now spelt out, we're all of us pragmatists!) If you're asked whether you'd support banning mixed-race marriages, then, if you wish to seriously engage with that question, if only to yourself, then it is on you, you not us, to find out what the factors are that would drive your decision, and how they stand. You live in UK, you've said, so fine: If the party you vote for decided on that as a major plank for the next election, would you support it? Basis an as-is situation, assuming things are exactly as they are now, what would you decide? That's on you, man, not others asking the question. What the **** does it matter what someone else thinks, and why they think that? Suppose such a plan were introduced in the US, and supposing you were invested enough to form an opinion: again, then it is incumbent on you to find out what factors might be relevant to you, not on others. Again, on an as-is basis, as things are in the US, would you support such a move?

Why on earth do you persist in lobbing the ball back to us, and demanding of us that we spell out all of the variables for you? Do you come running to us to hand-hold you through all of your national and local elections, do you come running to us to tell you what and how to think, and whom to vote for? So why now, with this single issue?

Look man, I'm done playing this ******* charade. We disagree, we disagree fundamentally, both about the rights and wrongs of racism, and also about whether you're honestly doing this thing. But that's fine, no reason for any unpleasantness over that: Go in peace, man, and God bless.




eta:

Quote:
I agree with your stomach. I think the thinking you were doing is how I am thinking about the question.

Except we don't think similarly at all. This, right here, is what's wrong with how you're addressing this issue.

I squarely oppose banning mixed-race marriages. On pragmatic grounds, I suppose, in a way; although you might see a codification of such pragmaticism into heuristics/effective-rules as idealism; but call it what you will, I oppose it. True, I will not, I find, on thinking this over, acquiesce to being instrumental, myself, in killing a whole bunch of people, in order to stop this monstrous ban from being put in place; but still, that notwithstanding, I totally oppose it, as I keep saying, and as you refuse to once say. And I'll go further: While I won't be instrumental in killing others, I'll do what I can to distance myself from a state that might pass these laws, including moving away from there, even at some cost to myself. In short, and shorn of details, I oppose such a move. As I am prepared to clearly declare, even though I won't kill for it. And as you very skillfully keep avoiding having to take an actual stand on, yourself, and unlike me.




eta one last time:

Quote:
If your view is that we should implement policy based on idealised moral considerations and ignoring the real world outcomes,

What on earth leads you to imagine that might be my view, even after my having clearly spelt out that that is most certainly not my view? After I've clearly specified, in words of one syllable, that no one is asking you to implement policy "based on idealised moral considerations and ignoring real world outcomes", where the **** do you get that "if" from at all? Hold you hand to your heart and tell me that isn't a ******* dodge, that isn't a disingenuous stawman-straddling stunt. I mean, no reason for you to insert that kind of a ridiculous "if" at all, even to begin with; but now, now after I spend a whole post spelling exactly that out, you blithely do it again? Who on earth are you trying to fool?

Last edited by Chanakya; 24th May 2022 at 09:37 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.