|
? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
44 | 35.20% |
| No |
|
81 | 64.80% |
| Total: | 125 votes | ||
|
Seconds are getting longer.
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2020 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, you're correct, I misread your post. If a frictionless figure skater falls in a vacuum, does she make a sound?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
No blue check
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
Engaging in logical reasoning isn't required to fight, just to succeed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:The problem with logic is that it is fundamentally amoral, and so it should not be the actual objective in decisions that require morality or ethics. It should inform, but not be the final arbiter Agreed, however, the logical process is required to make accurate predictions as to outcomes. If you are morally responsible for the distant outcomes of your actions and not just the immediate, then refusing to argue from a point of logic is refusing to suffiently examine the potential outcomes. Edit: also not every soldier must be a general, but if you don't want to rationally process the world around you then you're entrusting your leaders and influences to do it for you. I hope you know who those are and have cause to trust them with such a prize. piL fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Dec 6, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:All true, but you also have to accept that moral objectives frequently are not logical, which is why militaries tend to commit so many attrocities(the very existence of a military is logical, but not moral because killing is inherently immoral) This is a good point, but there's a difference between challenge and dismissal. Perhaps more effort should be taken to challenge from a moral framework instead of a logical one, but if the moral issue lies in a remote outcome, I'm not sure its easy to separate the two.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:But why is that bad, given the context of the characterization? Is dehumanization inherently bad, or only in the context of bigotry? Proximately: Because the original context was "They unlike us do a thing." I think an argument could have been made that the degree is different--that chuds are dehumanizing us more than we dehumanize them. Remotely: Decisions about people's lives, made without empathy cannot be compromises and cannot work without coercion and force or incredible luck. When dehumanizing others you are likely to replace old horrors with new horrors, or, if you lack sufficient capability to coerce, fail in your aims. Its an information gap issue, hence the luck portion which acknowledges that correct decisions can be made without acceptable levels of knowledge. At the scale of governance, I'm not even sure if that's possible, I'm just willing to accept that its possible because I don't think it affects my point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That's where we'll have to disagree. If someone chooses to live their life in a way that oppresses other people, I really don't give a poo poo about decorum when it comes to talking about them. If its only decorum, then its not inherent. If I understand PeterCat's position, the inheritance has nothing to do with etiquette, but with belief and espousal. Belief in whether some humans are beneath common human dignity and the act of espousing those belief in order to convince others that there exists a class of subhuman. One can violate the first component and therefore commit what is claimed by the previous poster to be an immoral act and still be within the bounds of decorum because the violation is that of belief. While treating other people as human is the common etiquette, you can violate the second half, espousal without breaching etiquette, as evidenced by, you know, all of American history. Based on this, the issue is separate from that one decorum. The issue is of belief in the subhuman and in convincing others to treat others as subhuman. I dont expect you to agree with that--based on your statements, I expect that you believe that transgressions make someone worthy or not of being treated as a human and that the moral failings of the "chuds" to earn them this unworthy role is that they did not properly assess who to dehumanize, not the act in general. Is that correct?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
MazelTovCocktail posted:I think we can all agree that if someone can do it Darrell Davis job on a CHUD, Nazi, or KKK member that is cool as poo poo to. So maybe there is some room for a certain type of decorum. I dont know what a Darrell Davis job is, but, in theory, I dont really take moral qualms with being mean to people who are mean to others as long as it there are appropriate brakes before causing undue harm and its applied to those who have demonstrated the behavior, not those that belong to a clade of individuals similar to others. I suspect many people aren't concerned with being terribly rigorous with the second of my qualifications and I worry if caught in the wrong situation, they'll be normalized to not worry about the first. From a practical argument though I dont think the tactic is effective. It best serves to create an isolated and damaged class who finds their socially enforced position justified whenever they try to interact with "the other". Because they're forever tied to that other group based on their birth location and rearing, along with all of their social connections, those people have to completely isolated during a pivotal period in their life to be extracted. The socioeconomic means of that extraction, moving from rural area to the city for economic, social, or educational reasons in small groups, or personal deep review of literature independent of social group, will not outstrip the the recruitment rate. Especially since there's power in playing them against that "other". It's a recipe for continuous conflict or continued friction within the political system and a schism thats geographically messy and very dangerous.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:
Where I see the moral risk here first is that one will make that assessment without sufficient data for many people fairly easily. I.e. all of those people are x, because they are very similar to the y who clearly wronged me. Things become fuzzy when you're defininf groups of real people and not dealing with famous ones with well established records or hypotheticals. One is likely to put people in that category based on unproven connections. This is part of the path that got them there to begin with, and so that path is demonstrably fraught. The second moral issue to consider is that, based on location, economic backgrounds, social structures, quality of schools and curriculum, the supporters of those who have been demonstrated as meeting your sufficient conditions did not choose the circumstances of their birth that led to their beliefs, erroneous or not. So if you conflate the demagogues and their supporters, you may very well assign this value to individuals who are at fault for listening to nearly every authority figure, loved one, and peer in their early lives instead of having a rebellious streak and finding the right corner of the internet or were sufficiently antisocial enough to arrive at conclusions in opposition to these influences through other means of personal exploration. This is not dissimilar to blaming someone for the circumstances of their birth. I dont know who you refer to when you define your groups of course, but I think its very easy to cross into the other. I think this is the moral justification some will use to say that its never moral to think of people like that--because of how easy it is to stray off the cleanly defined, "morally justified" range of derision.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 02:37
|
|
|
MazelTovCocktail posted:I totally understand, but when a black man ends up with a Klan members robe...it feels like the greatest victory of all. I just...I dunno maybe it’s being Jewish and a lawyer and traditionally being regarded as weak in the American political system (barring Meyer Lansky) that a man who broke a Klan members defense makes him the greatest hero of all. Maybe not the most effective, but still the ultimate victory of wits. I should add that this assumes the person hasn’t done something repulsive and vile. Oh yeah, now that I spelled the name right, I found not a basketball player from the 60s, but this guy. And thats the thread of my argument from practicality. The Atlantic article suggests that treating them as human was key to those results. Daryl Davis to The Atlantic posted:You challenge them. But you don't challenge them rudely or violently. You do it politely and intelligently. And when you do things that way chances are they will reciprocate and give you a platform. So he and I would sit down and listen to one another over a period of time. And the cement that held his ideas together began to get cracks in it. And then it began to crumble. And then it fell apart.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Shame about the terror it caused. Saving these seven syllables for a haiku.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
PookBear posted:I wish we treated people like corporations. Imagine being able to write off all food, rent, and utilities as operating expenses Every person itemizing every meal is probably a barrier of labor and record keeping to the non wealthy, and the wealthy would have increasing deductions available for meals, their $100,000 condos, second apartments, and for leaving the lights on. Sounds like instead, you want to increase the standard deduction.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:Macaroni in a pot
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
Space Force officer ranking structure details
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:She’s not firing on all cylinders. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:How the gently caress do you serve the electoral college??? With Fava beans and a nice Chianti.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:On Christmas Eve. 1. What wars? 2. Not sure which NATO power is ready to leave NATO by initiating an attack on a NATO member in defense of the rights of truck drivers caught in a political shitslide. Edit: or I guess which non NATO nation is interested in rolling the dice. piL fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Dec 24, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 10:42
|
|
|
Decimated? Well at least 90% of the staff survived.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
Now he owes you a Koch.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2020 20:51
|
|