ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


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 19th August 2020, 04:15 PM   #361
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,298
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I keep not getting answers. Let's try it again, with a slight twist.


Is it only fascists? And how do you confirm they're actually fascism?
Does it extend to any authoritarianism or is it exclusively limited to fascism?
Does it extend to other forms of oppression?
Do the targets of this allowable violence need to belong to an organized group of some sort?
The honest answer (which I doubt you will get) is that “I will decide who fascists are and therefore who deserves a beating” or “I know a fascist when I see one and.....”.

It’s already been decided and stated in this thread that I’m a nazi sympathiser. Ergo I’m a fascist and deserve a punch in the face.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by zooterkin; 19th August 2020 at 11:54 PM. Reason: Removing broken quote tag
lionking 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 19th August 2020, 04:16 PM   #362
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
What is the general moral principle at play here?
The general moral principle at play is: "Whatever is in my interest is (morally) right. I am free to do whatever is in my power to do."

Quote:
Is is always okay to physically attack someone whose ideology is opposed to your own? Violently opposed to your own? Calls for violence against those whom you value?
It goes somewhat like this:

- There exists a subset of the population, call them fascists, for which it is against my interest if they can exert influence.

- Punching that subset of the population leads to them being driven/kept underground and not exerting much, if any, influence.

- The sort of influence they exert when they are not kept underground consists of violent attacks against me and my comrades and targeted groups in general (just some examples), so I consider punching them sufficiently justified.

- It is therefor in my interest to punch them, and hence it is right to do so as far as I'm concerned. Indeed, it is in my interest, and hence right, for me to declare others should too.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 19th August 2020, 04:17 PM   #363
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,493
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Yet it does.
"Fighting words" exists as a legal concept in part because it is recognized as a factor in assaults.
Stemming from the ethics of civilized behavior and acceptable responses to someone who has chosen to abandon it.
You're right - it's a factor. It doesn't however, make the assault that resulted from those words legal or allowable. The existence of fighting words as a mitigating factor in some cases (which are notoriously hard to defend, by the way) is entirely different from the view that fighting words means it's allowable to imitate violence. Fighting words don't make the crime a not-crime - it's still assault. The best they can do is mitigate the sentence for the crime.

Let's say that positive numbers represent "good" and negative represent "bad", and zero is neutral. Punching someone is -3 bad. Murder is maybe -100 bad. Punching someone is not as bad as murder... but that doesn't make it good. The fighting words defense adds a modifier of between 0 and +3. So depending on how much the jury and judge sympathize with your feeling of outrage about words, you could net out to between -3 and 0. But fighting words will never make you punching someone be worth a positive number.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 19th August 2020, 04:19 PM   #364
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
My take on Thermal is that he's a pretty good guy. I would guess that he would be willing to break smallish laws that he disagrees with, like speeding, maybe drugs (no idea if he indulges), but is also completely willing to pay the price of those actions if caught.

I don't get the impression that Thermal would engage in theft, vandalism, or any kind of aggressive violence. But he might, I surmise, be quite willing to beat up a thief or a vandal or someone trying to harm someone else - even if it constitutes assault. And he'd be willing to pay the price for that too.

He might very well be willing to initiate violence against someone spouting racist abuse at another person, in extreme circumstances. But he wouldn't be arguing that he should be "allowed" to do so, or that it was morally right to do so. I think he'd still recognize and acknowledge that he broke the law in doing so, but that he felt it was a fair trade.

That's my impression... but I could be wrong
Pretty much. Not trying to give the impression of being a swashbuckler. I want my kids to be proud of me. Of what they know about, anyway.

The big laws jibe anyway. Don't hurt or kill innocent people. Don't steal things. And I don't even want to make a woman feel uncomfortable, much less menace her in any way.

But if some punk wants trouble...yeah, not quite as concerned about the letter of the law there. I'm hoping that's what some posters here are really getting at. Not outright aggression, more like mutual fighting. That's only a Petty Disorderly Persons offence in my State.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal 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 19th August 2020, 04:20 PM   #365
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,910
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The general moral principle at play is: "Whatever is in my interest is (morally) right. I am free to do whatever is in my power to do."



It goes somewhat like this:

- There exists a subset of the population, call them fascists, for which it is against my interest if they can exert influence.

- Punching that subset of the population leads to them being driven/kept underground and not exerting much, if any, influence.

- The sort of influence they exert when they are not kept underground consists of violent attacks against me and my comrades and targeted groups in general (just some examples), so I consider punching them sufficiently justified.

- It is therefor in my interest to punch them, and hence it is right to do so as far as I'm concerned. Indeed, it is in my interest, and hence right, for me to declare others should too.
Wow. Just trying to play a word-substitution game with your post for the fun of it.
I wonder what kind of person I would be listening to if they were say the exact same thing with the word "fascist" replaced with an epithet for black people?
Any ideas?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 19th August 2020 at 04:22 PM.
Distracted1 is online now   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 19th August 2020, 04:21 PM   #366
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 14,968
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
This comes across as if you think laws against physical assault really should be optional, based entirely on whether you think the victim of such assault deserves it or not.

You're lauding violence and physical harm.
I just saw this thread. I was reading the posts not having seen the video, preparing to state my agreement with you because I generally believe violence should be a last resort.

Then I watched the video. Nobody should be expected to have that level of hate and intimidation aggresively spewed in their face. The guy went way over the line and got exactly what he had coming.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
My authority is total - Trump
varwoche 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 19th August 2020, 04:21 PM   #367
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by lionking View Post

The honest answer (which I doubt you will get) is that “I will decide who fascists are and therefore who deserves a beating” or “I know a fascist when I see one and.....”.

LOL, lies and strawmen. Ridiculous.

I told you to watch the video. It takes quite a fair amount of dishonesty from you to try and display the whole affair as "I will decide who fascists are and therefore who deserves a beating" while the guy clearly made racist comments.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
It’s already been decided and stated in this thread that I’m a nazi sympathiser. Ergo I’m a fascist and deserve a punch in the face.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Last edited by zooterkin; 19th August 2020 at 11:58 PM.
RedStapler 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 19th August 2020, 04:24 PM   #368
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,298
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Yet it does.
"Fighting words" exists as a legal concept in part because it is recognized as a factor in assaults.
Stemming from the ethics of civilized behavior and acceptable responses to someone who has chosen to abandon it.
Not in the UK. You have been told this. Why are you ignoring it?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 19th August 2020, 04:25 PM   #369
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And that's fair enough, at one level (and precisely part of my "wondering" was as you describe - what kind of laws was he talking about, and why).

But on the other hand, more than one serial or spree killer has stated that they knew they were going to get caught, and that they would spend the rest of their lives behind bars (or be executed), but that the killings were still worth it.

So do we allow any person to make their own personal judgement about what type/level of crime is "worth it"? Would we say to the convicted spree killer as they get taken out of court to death row "Well, you deemed it appropriate and "worth it" to kill all those people, so that's OK I guess"?


(NB: this obviously IS a form of reductio to the extreme, in order to illustrate the point. But one could easily do it for any crime in the scale. Drug dealers, for example, who judge that it's "worth it" to sell Class A drugs to kids....)
Are we now comparing forum members to sociopaths? Can we provisionally agree that forumites are not too far along on the ASPD spectrum?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal 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 19th August 2020, 04:30 PM   #370
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,910
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Not in the UK. You have been told this. Why are you ignoring it?
Does not make a difference. The concept stems from an idea of ethical behavior, the discussion is not about wether or not the assailants actions were strictly "legal"- I don't believe a single poster has made the assertion that they were- it is about the ethics of the act.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   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 19th August 2020, 04:31 PM   #371
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post

So do we allow any person to make their own personal judgement about what type/level of crime is "worth it"? Would we say to the convicted spree killer as they get taken out of court to death row "Well, you deemed it appropriate and "worth it" to kill all those people, so that's OK I guess"?

What a sad and naive way to look at laws and society.

ALLOW, lol.

If I decided to take a dump at my neighbors front door, who would stop me? I mean it's not allowed, is it? And yet I could go over right now.

Laws are rules for the time after a person is caught breaking one. Which means everything is "allowed" (LOL).
RedStapler 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 19th August 2020, 04:32 PM   #372
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,298
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Are we now comparing forum members to sociopaths? Can we provisionally agree that forumites are not too far along on the ASPD spectrum?
When some in this thread have been hoping that the loudmouth had brain damage as a result of the assault? Who were applauding not just that he was hit, but knocked unconscious? Sociopathic comments in my view.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 19th August 2020, 04:33 PM   #373
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
I wonder what kind of person I would be listening to if they were say the exact same thing with the word "fascist" replaced with an epithet for black people?
I'm fairly confident that approach is called Jim Crow here in the States, if you're looking at the first two bullet points.

ETA: The third bullet point remains in doubt, but I'm confident that the Jim Crow folks will find a way to rationalize that one as well.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 19th August 2020 at 04:36 PM.
d4m10n 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 19th August 2020, 04:33 PM   #374
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Wow. Just trying to play a word-substitution game with your post for the fun of it.
I wonder what kind of person I would be listening to if they were say the exact same thing with the word "fascist" replaced with an epithet for black people?
Any ideas?
I believe the word would be "liar" - as it is false that black people, as a group or otherwise, are engaging in such activities as the ones mentioned (attacking anarchist social centers, attacking communists, ...). Your point being?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 19th August 2020, 04:34 PM   #375
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,493
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
They were strawmen, please learn what this word means.
Why don't you educate us on what you think a strawman is?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 19th August 2020, 04:35 PM   #376
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
When some in this thread have been hoping that the loudmouth had brain damage as a result of the assault? Who were applauding not just that he was hit, but knocked unconscious? Sociopathic comments in my view.
Not as sociopathic as sternly defending the Nazi.
RedStapler 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 19th August 2020, 04:35 PM   #377
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,493
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
From that link:

Quote:
The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 19th August 2020, 04:36 PM   #378
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Why don't you educate us on what you think a strawman is?
At this point, I honestly think that would be a huge waste of time. But hey, since you have problems understanding the word, how about looking it up yourself?
RedStapler 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 19th August 2020, 04:38 PM   #379
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.
Why don't you educate us about exactly which fallacy you meant to expose with your weird domestic abuse and rape comparisons that you tried to put in my mouth (aka Strawmen)?

Last edited by RedStapler; 19th August 2020 at 04:40 PM.
RedStapler 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 19th August 2020, 04:40 PM   #380
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
When some in this thread have been hoping that the loudmouth had brain damage as a result of the assault? Who were applauding not just that he was hit, but knocked unconscious? Sociopathic comments in my view.
I sincerely hope it's more bravado and hyperbole than sober judgement.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal 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 19th August 2020, 04:41 PM   #381
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,910
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'm fairly confident that approach is called Jim Crow here in the States, if you're looking at the first two bullet points.

ETA: The third bullet point remains in doubt, but I'm confident that the Jim Crow folks will find a way to rationalize that one as well.
How could it be in doubt. No one has ever been attacked by a black person or group of them. Next you would be claiming that we have not always been at war with EastAsia.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   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 19th August 2020, 04:42 PM   #382
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'm fairly confident that approach is called Jim Crow here in the States, if you're looking at the first two bullet points.

ETA: The third bullet point remains in doubt, but I'm confident that the Jim Crow folks will find a way to rationalize that one as well.
Are you comparing punching fascists to Jim Crow?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 19th August 2020, 04:44 PM   #383
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,493
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And that's fair enough, at one level (and precisely part of my "wondering" was as you describe - what kind of laws was he talking about, and why).

But on the other hand, more than one serial or spree killer has stated that they knew they were going to get caught, and that they would spend the rest of their lives behind bars (or be executed), but that the killings were still worth it.

So do we allow any person to make their own personal judgement about what type/level of crime is "worth it"? Would we say to the convicted spree killer as they get taken out of court to death row "Well, you deemed it appropriate and "worth it" to kill all those people, so that's OK I guess"?


(NB: this obviously IS a form of reductio to the extreme, in order to illustrate the point. But one could easily do it for any crime in the scale. Drug dealers, for example, who judge that it's "worth it" to sell Class A drugs to kids....)
I'm inclined to think that it's not really a parallel. I don't think Thermal is asking that anyone else accept that it is okay, only that he is okay with the trade. In the example given, the serial killer thinks it's worth it, and knowingly broke that law. That doesn't make the serial killer's actions morally right or socially acceptable, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect that anybody would view it that way.

Circling back to the speeding ticket example, I might decide that I am willing to risk the ticket to speed. That's a choice I might make, being aware of the potential consequences. If I am caught, I'll pay the fine or lose my license (depending o n how fast I was going). My willingness to break that law in exchange for getting to the ice cream store before it closes is not, however, an indication that I think I should be excluded from the law itself. Nor does it suggest that any other person would be expected to think that my trade was justified or right in any way. Nor does it suggest that I think anyone who wants to should be allowed to drive 90 miles and hour in a school zone. It's not even a recommendation that anyone else should do so.

I do it fully cognizant that I am in the wrong, and I am breaking the law. But I really want some butter pecan ice cream.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 19th August 2020, 04:44 PM   #384
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 781
Not quite sure how we ended up with " laws that enforced racial segregation". But I guess he is trying to set up another cheap gotcha.
RedStapler 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 19th August 2020, 04:45 PM   #385
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,910
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
From that link:
I stand corrected.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   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 19th August 2020, 04:46 PM   #386
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,493
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
It is a fun turnabout for some of us.
Of course, that can never be the case in other threads when someone has the audacity to challenge the narrarative. Only in this one.
Sorry Distracted1, I'm not picking up what you're laying down here. I'm not grokking what you're implying.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 19th August 2020, 04:48 PM   #387
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
How could it be in doubt. No one has ever been attacked by a black person or group of them. Next you would be claiming that we have not always been at war with EastAsia.
Nice reference, and yes, Orwell illegally punched (or rather shot) fascists with the communists (the Trotskyites in particular, those from the paraphrazed quote above) too. Difference of course is that the attacks by fascists against anarchists, communists, etc are demonstrable and demonstrated whereas it is demonstrably not (groups of) black people doing so, contrary to your "word-substitution game."
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 19th August 2020, 04:49 PM   #388
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'm inclined to think that it's not really a parallel. I don't think Thermal is asking that anyone else accept that it is okay, only that he is okay with the trade. In the example given, the serial killer thinks it's worth it, and knowingly broke that law. That doesn't make the serial killer's actions morally right or socially acceptable, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect that anybody would view it that way.

Circling back to the speeding ticket example, I might decide that I am willing to risk the ticket to speed. That's a choice I might make, being aware of the potential consequences. If I am caught, I'll pay the fine or lose my license (depending o n how fast I was going). My willingness to break that law in exchange for getting to the ice cream store before it closes is not, however, an indication that I think I should be excluded from the law itself. Nor does it suggest that any other person would be expected to think that my trade was justified or right in any way. Nor does it suggest that I think anyone who wants to should be allowed to drive 90 miles and hour in a school zone. It's not even a recommendation that anyone else should do so.

I do it fully cognizant that I am in the wrong, and I am breaking the law. But I really want some butter pecan ice cream.
The underrated but oft played 'Butter Pecan' counterargument to the Rule of Law. You're a forumite after my own heart.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal 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 19th August 2020, 04:51 PM   #389
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Are you comparing punching fascists to Jim Crow?
Can you tell us which of these two bullet points isn't the essence of Jim Crow?

- There exists a subset of the population...for which it is against my interest if they can exert influence.

- Punching that subset of the population leads to them being driven/kept underground and not exerting much, if any, influence.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n 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 19th August 2020, 04:52 PM   #390
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,910
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Sorry Distracted1, I'm not picking up what you're laying down here. I'm not grokking what you're implying.
Grousing about experiences in other threads.
The forum has a number of members who are wont to paint anyone who does not agree with a pre-determined interpretation of racial interactions as racist almost as a reflex.

It is amusing, if one has been involved in it, to see it spewn in another direction.

Not impugning your character in any way, hope you did not think that.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   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 19th August 2020, 04:53 PM   #391
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,493
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It goes somewhat like this:

- There exists a subset of the population, call them fascists muslims, for which it is against my interest if they can exert influence.

- Punching that subset of the population leads to them being driven/kept underground and not exerting much, if any, influence.

- The sort of influence they exert when they are not kept underground consists of violent attacks against me and my comrades and targeted groups in general, so I consider punching them sufficiently justified.

- It is therefor in my interest to punch them, and hence it is right to do so as far as I'm concerned. Indeed, it is in my interest, and hence right, for me to declare others should too.
Hmm. Really only had to change one word in the entire thing to justify xenophobic attacks on the basis of belief. Imagine that.

Regarding this bit:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The general moral principle at play is: "Whatever is in my interest is (morally) right. I am free to do whatever is in my power to do."
If it's in my interests (so that I can actually get a good night's sleep) to murder the neighbor's dog (which barks a lot), then by your logic, it is morally right for me to kill that dog.

In fact, by your might-makes-right moral principle, any person could consider it morally right to murder a wealthy person and take all of their money, because it's in their interests to do so.

Actually, now that I think on it, your argument works just as well for the genocidal white supremacist as it does for you. He believes it is in his interest to eliminate minorities, therefore he is morally right to do whatever is in his power to accomplish that interest.

Your moral principle is devoid of morality altogether.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 19th August 2020 at 04:57 PM.
Emily's Cat 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 19th August 2020, 04:54 PM   #392
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Can you tell us which of these two bullet points isn't the essence of Jim Crow?

- There exists a subset of the population...for which it is against my interest if they can exert influence.

- Punching that subset of the population leads to them being driven/kept underground and not exerting much, if any, influence.
What does racial segregation have to do with this?
RedStapler 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 19th August 2020, 04:56 PM   #393
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Hmm. Really only had to change one word in the entire thing to justify xenophobic attacks on the basis of belief. Imagine that.
And yet again, none of your useless and outright childish ramblings are comparable to a guy actively harrassing people in public. Bet you felt very smart changing that one word.

Last edited by RedStapler; 19th August 2020 at 04:59 PM.
RedStapler 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 19th August 2020, 05:00 PM   #394
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,493
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Pretty much. Not trying to give the impression of being a swashbuckler. I want my kids to be proud of me. Of what they know about, anyway.

The big laws jibe anyway. Don't hurt or kill innocent people. Don't steal things. And I don't even want to make a woman feel uncomfortable, much less menace her in any way.

But if some punk wants trouble...yeah, not quite as concerned about the letter of the law there. I'm hoping that's what some posters here are really getting at. Not outright aggression, more like mutual fighting. That's only a Petty Disorderly Persons offence in my State.
If i had the impression that this was all other posters were after, I would have a lot less objection to their positions. While I might disagree with your premise, I can accept it. It seems that other posters however are arguing that they are morally righteous in attacking people on the basis of offensive beliefs. It has actually been stated that it's a moral imperative to do so. And not just against a singular individual who is out of line... but against anyone they decide represents the ideology that they wish to persecute.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 19th August 2020, 05:02 PM   #395
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,910
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Nice reference, and yes, Orwell illegally punched (or rather shot) fascists with the communists (the Trotskyites in particular, those from the paraphrazed quote above) too. Difference of course is that the attacks by fascists against anarchists, communists, etc are demonstrable and demonstrated whereas it is demonstrably not (groups of) black people doing so, contrary to your "word-substitution game."
Thanks for the historical tidbit.
Still a long way to go to sidestep the obvious.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   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 19th August 2020, 05:04 PM   #396
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
If i had the impression that this was all other posters were after, I would have a lot less objection to their positions. While I might disagree with your premise, I can accept it. It seems that other posters however are arguing that they are morally righteous in attacking people on the basis of offensive beliefs. It has actually been stated that it's a moral imperative to do so. And not just against a singular individual who is out of line... but against anyone they decide represents the ideology that they wish to persecute.
So sad, we already know how racism and fascism can deal huge damage, Emily's cat is WAY more concerned about the wellbeing of a racist. Disgusting.
RedStapler 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 19th August 2020, 05:05 PM   #397
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,493
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
I just saw this thread. I was reading the posts not having seen the video, preparing to state my agreement with you because I generally believe violence should be a last resort.

Then I watched the video. Nobody should be expected to have that level of hate and intimidation aggresively spewed in their face. The guy went way over the line and got exactly what he had coming.
Ahh... but here's the crux, varwoche. Do you believe that it is a moral imperative for people to punch people like him? Do you think that it is morally laudable, and should not be considered wrong in any way?

I ask, because there's a fine line in there. Thermal, for example, shares your view that the guy had it coming. I think (bad with memory sometimes) that Distracted1 had the same response. Honestly, I share the same emotional response. But there's a bit of a difference between that view, and the one expressed by caveman, Red Stapler, and Suburban Turkey, in which it should be legal and encouraged to physically attack people whose ideologies you disagree with strongly.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 19th August 2020, 05:09 PM   #398
RedStapler
Muse
 
RedStapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Ahh... but here's the crux, varwoche. Do you believe that it is a moral imperative for people to punch people like him? Do you think that it is morally laudable, and should not be considered wrong in any way?

I ask, because there's a fine line in there. Thermal, for example, shares your view that the guy had it coming. I think (bad with memory sometimes) that Distracted1 had the same response. Honestly, I share the same emotional response. But there's a bit of a difference between that view, and the one expressed by caveman, Red Stapler, and Suburban Turkey, in which it should be legal and encouraged to physically attack people whose ideologies you disagree with strongly.
By now I lost track of all the strawmen. Please cite me. Well you can't, so how about you stop these lies and strawmen. But I'm afraid you won't.

Last edited by RedStapler; 19th August 2020 at 05:10 PM.
RedStapler 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 19th August 2020, 05:09 PM   #399
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,311
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
And yet again, none of your useless and outright childish ramblings are comparable to a guy actively harrassing people in public. Bet you felt very smart changing that one word.
That's the point that you don't get.

The examples don't need to be comparable. They just need to both be consistent with the same general principle to illustrate that the principle justifies both of them.
Elaedith is online now   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 19th August 2020, 05:11 PM   #400
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,493
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
What a sad and naive way to look at laws and society.

ALLOW, lol.

If I decided to take a dump at my neighbors front door, who would stop me? I mean it's not allowed, is it? And yet I could go over right now.

Laws are rules for the time after a person is caught breaking one. Which means everything is "allowed" (LOL).
I honestly can't tell if you have dramatically misunderstood LondonJon's point... or if you're seriously suggesting that laws are optional because it only matters whether or not someone can stop you.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 » Social Issues & Current Events

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 09:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.