|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 7, 2018 18:50:55 GMT
No threads are homophobic threads, goz, because "homophobia" doesn't exist. It's a term fabricated by globalist scumbags like yourself. It has no meaning outside of your thick head. Does it make as much sense as calling people who don't believe Satanic child sacrifice is being carried out in Bohemian Grove "pansies"...? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 7, 2018 21:30:10 GMT
No threads are homophobic threads, goz, because "homophobia" doesn't exist. It's a term fabricated by globalist scumbags like yourself. It has no meaning outside of your thick head. Always fun to see you triggered. I was going to say that homophobia is more real than chemtrails, Nibiru, or globalists... But your reply nailed it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 21:39:25 GMT
Always fun to see you triggered. I was going to say that homophobia is more real than chemtrails, Nibiru, or globalists... But your reply nailed it. Yeah, who doesn't love the prospect of Erjen, a man who literally believes that there is a magically invisible planet hiding behind the sun, that perfectly ordinary contrails are secret conspiracies to spray chemicals on everyone, that Walmart is part of a giant government conspiracy to take over the country, etc, etc... what business does such a gullible moron have telling anybody that anything doesn't exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 21:47:47 GMT
No, in my opinion it is fair and reasonable because in a system where people have very restricted choices, that ends up being a scenario where almost everyone loses and only a tiny elite (usually selected not based on grounds of merit) gets to win. It's fair and reasonable because there's no justifiable grounds for me to want to prevent others from having a choice that doesn't obviously infringe on anyone else's rights. And you believe that justifications, whether there is or isn't one for anything imaginable, are somehow something other than your own preferences, values, etc.? I don't believe that, but the same would be true for the justification for having laws which prohibit hammering a nail through somebody's eye. As I've mentioned, I'm not trying to peddle antinatalism as an objective truth; I'm merely stating that if you wouldn't want to have your own wellbeing arbitrarily endangered and jeopardised, then you shouldn't be doing that with the wellbeign of others.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on May 7, 2018 22:27:44 GMT
Always fun to see you triggered. I was going to say that homophobia is more real than chemtrails, Nibiru, or globalists... But your reply nailed it. He sort of admitted to that when he replied to me
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 22:51:26 GMT
And you believe that justifications, whether there is or isn't one for anything imaginable, are somehow something other than your own preferences, values, etc.? I don't believe that, but the same would be true for the justification for having laws which prohibit hammering a nail through somebody's eye. As I've mentioned, I'm not trying to peddle antinatalism as an objective truth; I'm merely stating that if you wouldn't want to have your own wellbeing arbitrarily endangered and jeopardised, then you shouldn't be doing that with the wellbeign of others. Okay, but then it turns out that it is fair and reasonable to you because it's your value system. What does "your own wellbeing arbitrarily endangered and jeopardized" amount to. In other words, what's an arbitrary endangerment versus a non-arbitrary endangerment?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 22:56:26 GMT
I don't believe that, but the same would be true for the justification for having laws which prohibit hammering a nail through somebody's eye. As I've mentioned, I'm not trying to peddle antinatalism as an objective truth; I'm merely stating that if you wouldn't want to have your own wellbeing arbitrarily endangered and jeopardised, then you shouldn't be doing that with the wellbeign of others. Okay, but then it turns out that it is fair and reasonable to you because it's your value system. What does "your own wellbeing arbitrarily endangered and jeopardized" amount to. In other words, what's an arbitrary endangerment versus a non-arbitrary endangerment? Well, there are certain strands of thinking that likely seem fair and reasonable to most educated and civilised people. The evidence of this being that democratic governments tend to value freedom to a certain extent, and this encourages the flourishing of society. Having my wellbeing arbitrarily endangered and jeopardised means that it is done so based on someone else's subjective rationalisation for their actions, and without my interests, needs and welfare being taken into account, and when that action isn't needing to be taken in order to protect others from being harmed by me. A non-arbitrary endangerment would be me having my rights taken away from me violently because I was threatening to infringe upon someone else's rights.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 7, 2018 23:21:54 GMT
Okay, but then it turns out that it is fair and reasonable to you because it's your value system. What does "your own wellbeing arbitrarily endangered and jeopardized" amount to. In other words, what's an arbitrary endangerment versus a non-arbitrary endangerment? Well, there are certain strands of thinking that likely seem fair and reasonable to most educated and civilised people. The evidence of this being that democratic governments tend to value freedom to a certain extent, and this encourages the flourishing of society. Having my wellbeing arbitrarily endangered and jeopardised means that it is done so based on someone else's subjective rationalisation for their actions, and without my interests, needs and welfare being taken into account, and when that action isn't needing to be taken in order to protect others from being harmed by me. A non-arbitrary endangerment would be me having my rights taken away from me violently because I was threatening to infringe upon someone else's rights. "Well, there are certain strands of thinking that likely seem fair and reasonable to most educated and civilised people. "--and what would that matter for anything? It implies nothing. Argumentum ad populums are fallacies. "Having my wellbeing arbitrarily endangered and jeopardised means that it is done so based on someone else's subjective rationalisation for their actions, and without my interests, needs and welfare being taken into account,"--so that wouldn't be relevant for anything but living persons old enough to have interests and needs, right? (Needs, by the way, hinging on wants.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 0:07:23 GMT
Well, there are certain strands of thinking that likely seem fair and reasonable to most educated and civilised people. The evidence of this being that democratic governments tend to value freedom to a certain extent, and this encourages the flourishing of society. Having my wellbeing arbitrarily endangered and jeopardised means that it is done so based on someone else's subjective rationalisation for their actions, and without my interests, needs and welfare being taken into account, and when that action isn't needing to be taken in order to protect others from being harmed by me. A non-arbitrary endangerment would be me having my rights taken away from me violently because I was threatening to infringe upon someone else's rights. "Well, there are certain strands of thinking that likely seem fair and reasonable to most educated and civilised people. "--and what would that matter for anything? It implies nothing. Argumentum ad populums are fallacies. Well, what is your reason (if you have one) for thinking that it is fair and reasonable for there to be laws against setting fire to your house, or assaulting you whilst you sleep? The basis for my reasoning is that all of us have the capacity to be harmed, and therefore we should recognise that other people are functionally the same, also with the capacity to be harmed. The reason why 'freedom' is popular is because it is mutually advantageous not to be oppressed. Any future harm caused to people not yet old enough to have interests and needs would also be relevant. Just because someone doesn't yet have interests and needs, it doesn't make it fair or reasonable to deliberately set in motion a chain of events that will later cause harm to someone. Same rationale that people have for caring about global warming (the effects of which will mainly be felt by people not yet alive), really. So it would not be permissible to cause harm to anyone in the present, unless you were protecting others from having their rights violated by that individual, or unless the individual was derelict in their responsibilities. But it would also be impermissible to plan to deliberately put someone in harm's way; and the fact that any such potential persons do not yet exist would not diminish the principle that it's wrong to knowingly place others in harms way without compelling need to do so, either for that person's needs to be met, or for others to be protected from them.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on May 8, 2018 0:48:04 GMT
We military brats were not taught to hate the gay, only Johnny Foreigner. Gay was an issue that was simply avoided. 👍
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 8, 2018 12:22:33 GMT
The basis for my reasoning is that all of us have the capacity to be harmed, and therefore we should recognise that other people are functionally the same, also with the capacity to be harmed. No should follows from any is. Likewise, no should, ought, etc. follows from the fact that anyone has the capacity to be harmed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 19:25:42 GMT
The basis for my reasoning is that all of us have the capacity to be harmed, and therefore we should recognise that other people are functionally the same, also with the capacity to be harmed. No should follows from any is. Likewise, no should, ought, etc. follows from the fact that anyone has the capacity to be harmed. Yes, I understand that morals and values are a social construct. But I think that it's very unlikely that you would want to live in the type of society wherein nobody follows any kind of code of conduct, and there are no laws to protect you from being harmed.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 9, 2018 0:51:41 GMT
No should follows from any is. Likewise, no should, ought, etc. follows from the fact that anyone has the capacity to be harmed. Yes, I understand that morals and values are a social construct. But I think that it's very unlikely that you would want to live in the type of society wherein nobody follows any kind of code of conduct, and there are no laws to protect you from being harmed.I Well, I don't even think it would be possible to live in a society where no moral stances were codified into laws and such. Or, I don't think that a literal anarchy could exist--someone would always organize and take control via force. Of course, none of this helps us derive any oughts from any is's. What we can't help but have is a bunch of competing views on just what sorts of things we should and shouldn't allow. What I prefer is letting everyone imbibe in their own preferences as much as possible. Laws restricting behavior, in my preference, should be kept at the minimum possible without risking there being more laws or even social pressure restricting/controlling behavior. Just where that balance point occurs would need to be dynamically shifted probably. So my personal concerns have nothing to do with any vague, categorical "harm" or anything like that. They rather have to do with freedom and control of others. When it comes to these sorts of issues I'm a minarchist libertarian. On economic and social support issues, however, I'm a (very idiosyncratic kind of) socialist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 0:59:17 GMT
Yes, I understand that morals and values are a social construct. But I think that it's very unlikely that you would want to live in the type of society wherein nobody follows any kind of code of conduct, and there are no laws to protect you from being harmed.I Well, I don't even think it would be possible to live in a society where no moral stances were codified into laws and such. Or, I don't think that a literal anarchy could exist--someone would always organize and take control via force. Of course, none of this helps us derive any oughts from any is's. What we can't help but have is a bunch of competing views on just what sorts of things we should and shouldn't allow. What I prefer is letting everyone imbibe in their own preferences as much as possible. Laws restricting behavior, in my preference, should be kept at the minimum possible without risking there being more laws or even social pressure restricting/controlling behavior. Just where that balance point occurs would need to be dynamically shifted probably. So my personal concerns have nothing to do with any vague, categorical "harm" or anything like that. They rather have to do with freedom and control of others. When it comes to these sorts of issues I'm a minarchist libertarian. On economic and social support issues, however, I'm a (very idiosyncratic kind of) socialist. I have the same preference as you with respect to "letting everyone imbibe their own preferences as much as possible", but with the caveat that they don't needlessly put anyone else in harm's way in order to attain their aspirations. It's not possible for everyone to have absolute freedom, so it makes sense for everyone to have certain rights over their own body and life and also certain responsibilities to pay back into the system that enables them to flourish. It doesn't make sense to include a "might makes right" clause, because then that would result in oppression of the weak. It also doesn't make sense for someone to have a codified "right" which needlessly puts someone else's safety and wellbeing in jeopardy, and that includes bringing someone into existence who will have needs that did not previously exist. I don't think that libertarianism tends to endorse willfully putting others in harms way in order to advance your own progress towards your own ends, although as I'm not a libertarian myself, I'll leave it to you to correct me on that if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 9, 2018 1:08:35 GMT
Well, I don't even think it would be possible to live in a society where no moral stances were codified into laws and such. Or, I don't think that a literal anarchy could exist--someone would always organize and take control via force. Of course, none of this helps us derive any oughts from any is's. What we can't help but have is a bunch of competing views on just what sorts of things we should and shouldn't allow. What I prefer is letting everyone imbibe in their own preferences as much as possible. Laws restricting behavior, in my preference, should be kept at the minimum possible without risking there being more laws or even social pressure restricting/controlling behavior. Just where that balance point occurs would need to be dynamically shifted probably. So my personal concerns have nothing to do with any vague, categorical "harm" or anything like that. They rather have to do with freedom and control of others. When it comes to these sorts of issues I'm a minarchist libertarian. On economic and social support issues, however, I'm a (very idiosyncratic kind of) socialist. I have the same preference as you with respect to "letting everyone imbibe their own preferences as much as possible", but with the caveat that they don't needlessly put anyone else in harm's way in order to attain their aspirations. It's not possible for everyone to have absolute freedom, so it makes sense for everyone to have certain rights over their own body and life and also certain responsibilities to pay back into the system that enables them to flourish. It doesn't make sense to include a "might makes right" clause, because then that would result in oppression of the weak. It also doesn't make sense for someone to have a codified "right" which needlessly puts someone else's safety and wellbeing in jeopardy, and that includes bringing someone into existence who will have needs that did not previously exist. I don't think that libertarianism tends to endorse willfully putting others in harms way in order to advance your own progress towards your own ends, although as I'm not a libertarian myself, I'll leave it to you to correct me on that if I'm wrong. I'm not a libertarian because I'm deferring to anyone else's stance on anything. I'm a libertarian in the respects that I am (again, in other respects I'm a socialist) because that term best describes my views. I'd never frame any ethical stance on "harm" or formulate any stance based on a complete aversion to risk. I wouldn't say that risks are categorically good--it depends on the risk, but I'd say that some risks definitely are preferable to an avoidance of risks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 1:14:33 GMT
I have the same preference as you with respect to "letting everyone imbibe their own preferences as much as possible", but with the caveat that they don't needlessly put anyone else in harm's way in order to attain their aspirations. It's not possible for everyone to have absolute freedom, so it makes sense for everyone to have certain rights over their own body and life and also certain responsibilities to pay back into the system that enables them to flourish. It doesn't make sense to include a "might makes right" clause, because then that would result in oppression of the weak. It also doesn't make sense for someone to have a codified "right" which needlessly puts someone else's safety and wellbeing in jeopardy, and that includes bringing someone into existence who will have needs that did not previously exist. I don't think that libertarianism tends to endorse willfully putting others in harms way in order to advance your own progress towards your own ends, although as I'm not a libertarian myself, I'll leave it to you to correct me on that if I'm wrong. I'm not a libertarian because I'm deferring to anyone else's stance on anything. I'm a libertarian in the respects that I am (again, in other respects I'm a socialist) because that term best describes my views. I'd never frame any ethical stance on "harm" or formulate any stance based on a complete aversion to risk. I wouldn't say that risks are categorically good--it depends on the risk, but I'd say that some risks definitely are preferable to an avoidance of risks. I don't have any problem with your second paragraph, as long as those are your own risks and aren't going to obviously impact on somebody else. In the case of procreation, if the child is born with a severe disability, then the parents will be severely inconvenienced, but the child is the one who is going to be the real victim who has to endure a life that many/most would likely feel was not worth living. And of course, not just disabilities, but every type of risk that exists. People should be allowed to gamble with their own welfare, but not with anyone else's (unless, of course, they can demonstrate that they have the advance consent of that party or would be serving existing interests and needs on the behalf of an existing person who cannot give consent due to incapacity). There's no coherent system of morals which can make sense of allowing people to take risks on behalf of someone else when they aren't serving any existing interests or needs on the part of that person in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 9, 2018 1:19:16 GMT
I'm not a libertarian because I'm deferring to anyone else's stance on anything. I'm a libertarian in the respects that I am (again, in other respects I'm a socialist) because that term best describes my views. I'd never frame any ethical stance on "harm" or formulate any stance based on a complete aversion to risk. I wouldn't say that risks are categorically good--it depends on the risk, but I'd say that some risks definitely are preferable to an avoidance of risks. I don't have any problem with your second paragraph, as long as those are your own risks and aren't going to obviously impact on somebody else. In the case of procreation, if the child is born with a severe disability, then the parents will be severely inconvenienced, but the child is the one who is going to be the real victim who has to endure a life that many/most would likely feel was not worth living. And of course, not just disabilities, but every type of risk that exists. People should be allowed to gamble with their own welfare, but not with anyone else's (unless, of course, they can demonstrate that they have the advance consent of that party). There's no coherent system of morals which can make sense of allowing people to take risks on behalf of someone else when they aren't serving any existing interests or needs on the part of that person in doing so. Assuming that there's no coherent system of morals as described, so what? Why do we have to be talking about a system and why does it have to be coherent?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 1:25:15 GMT
I don't have any problem with your second paragraph, as long as those are your own risks and aren't going to obviously impact on somebody else. In the case of procreation, if the child is born with a severe disability, then the parents will be severely inconvenienced, but the child is the one who is going to be the real victim who has to endure a life that many/most would likely feel was not worth living. And of course, not just disabilities, but every type of risk that exists. People should be allowed to gamble with their own welfare, but not with anyone else's (unless, of course, they can demonstrate that they have the advance consent of that party). There's no coherent system of morals which can make sense of allowing people to take risks on behalf of someone else when they aren't serving any existing interests or needs on the part of that person in doing so. Assuming that there's no coherent system of morals as described, so what? Why do we have to be talking about a system and why does it have to be coherent? Well, because if there is no coherent system of morals, then that will eventually result in anarchy. If people want to be safe and have their welfare respected, then the only way to make that workable is to set up a coherent system of morals whereby nobody is allowed to unjustly endanger others within that society. Civilised society already applies these principles to a large extent, but my view is that it doesn't go far enough, because it allows people existing in the present to use their power to take dangerous gambles on behalf of people who will exist in the future, for no reason other than because it suits their own life aspirations.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 9, 2018 1:27:14 GMT
Assuming that there's no coherent system of morals as described, so what? Why do we have to be talking about a system and why does it have to be coherent? Well, because if there is no coherent system of morals, then that will eventually result in anarchy. Absolute nonsense, because as I noted above, anarchy isn't actually possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 1:29:49 GMT
Well, because if there is no coherent system of morals, then that will eventually result in anarchy. Absolute nonsense, because as I noted above, anarchy isn't actually possible. If nobody paid any respect to anyone else's wellbeing, it would be a society that would be dangerous for the vulnerable, and where only the strongest could thrive. It's in almost everyone's interests to subscribe to a moral codes, and to have these enforced by a system of law.
|
|