It would indeed be eerie if you hadn't fabricated the quote.
There is also a crucial difference between me and Mr. Rush "The crypto-fascist" Limbaugh: as an anti-authoritarian, I value human life instead of simply pretending to value it.
EDIT: Am I really that alienating that you have to respond like that?
Apparently, Expelled is a movie produced by Ben Stein supporting the teaching of intelligent design in schools. Expelled Exposed is a project opposing his thesis. What are we to debate?
Not to be a dick, the initial post of a thread should make it clear to us.
You know, you don't have to be a jerk. One of the things about debate is respectfully reading each other's remarks so as not to claim they say things they do not actually say. It's really a serious issue, and if you are going to get mad when people resolve such issues, it's unreasonable of you.
What I think that how the issue effects us is that people judge others, then generalize based on their perceptions, then label them according to their supposedly popular beliefs. I feel uncomfortable using any kind of homosexual terminology because I don't know what you two are comfortable with. All I know is that I have many (what I think I can call them, don't get mad guys) gay friends.
No crap, dude. I share your concern. It really sucks when allies don't know what to call us because they are afraid of offending us. I'm sorry that as a community we make it difficult for you. I promise that if you don't call us by the F-word or the D-word we won't get mad.
I wouldn't say Obama is reminiscent of Tony Blair so much as Democrats in general are. Or maybe the other way around; I don't know which between the Dems or Labour started sliding rightward first.
In any event I always feel like I'm betraying my values when I vote for a Democrat higher than the local level, because they only stand for maybe half of what I do. It's just that I'm too concerned about a conservative Republican taking office that I feel it's my only viable choice. Ralph Nader just doesn't win elections.
Not to be an ass, but I strongly believe that people like you make it possible for the Democrats to swing as far to the Right as they have. If Clinton wins the nomination, I'd rather have McCain win than let the DNC get away with screwing its left-wing base.
And really, the difference between the human rights situation in the US under a Clinton administration versus a McCain administration will be negligible.
Ideally, I'd be doing it alone. I'm actually going to ask a friend of mine tonight if he'd be up for the move. I found out through a mutual friend that he'd love to move out there but fears he couldn't afford it (people on the East Coast sometimes have inflated perceptions of the cost of living elsewhere), so I'm going to offer him to come with me. Even still, I've run some numbers and I can get by alone, so if my friend doesn't come with, I'll be flying solo. Thanks though.
I was actually looking at listing tonight. My budget is $1000 a month for housing and I found several spots in that range. A huge swell more for a lot less if I'm open to just renting a room in a house, but that idea doesn't appeal to me. Studio is my target, one bedroom failing that. But Coquitlam is a big enough place that I should find a suitable place to live with little difficulty.
That would make you pretty close to me, as I'm Victoria.
This is the only claim that I reject; admittedly this is to my advantage, because if it is accurate than the logic follows nicely.
Yay. I win. Sort of. (Well, to be fair, I think you disagree with Thrasymachus, too, but you are trying to figure out why.)
EDIT: Wait, are you disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing? Because if so I'd say that's pretty rude. If you're not interested in other people's answer to the question "why is Thrasymachus wrong?" then it seems silly for you to have posted a thread about it.
That said, I reject it on the grounds that, Plato aside,
Do you mean that there is a Platonic objection to my claim? Have not read a single word Plato has every written outside of what is posted on BrainyQuotes, so you will have to enlighten me.
concepts cannot be said to exist in any fundamental, independent manner. They are human creations, and are therefore subject to human interpretation and (in some cases) degradation.
Okay, this will seem verbose, but I hope clear enough of an argument.
I take a concept (like justice) to mean "A mental construct seen as mediating between a word and whatever it denotes or is used to refer to. Thus a concept ‘dog’ would be seen as mediating between dog and the set of animals denoted by it; this concept might be seen as common to both dog and e.g. chien in French; and so on" (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics).
When I talk about justice, I am simply using the word to refer to the claims people can legitimately make against others.
The implication of my account is that while the description of justice is conceived of by humans, the legitimacy of such a description is independent of our opinions.
Thus if someone makes a moral claim "X is just," and if someone else makes the moral claim "X is unjust," somebody has to be wrong. And the reason one person is right is not because he believes it, nor even because he is justified in believing it. X simply has the property of being just or unjust.
Please tell me if I am being unclear. What I want to turn to is what I feel about your claim. I strongly believe that if the truth of justice is subject to human interpretation, then the whole concept kind of falls apart and loses its value.
It is, I think, essential to an anti-authoritarian outlook (which I know we both share) that we view claims about justice to come from objective standards. And if these standards are objective, I would argue that they can't be made up. If it turned out that justice was defined by the most powerful, "enlightened" person, then that would really suck for the average Jane, whose common sense tells her better. Even if she's not very good at philosophy, she can still make right claims despite lacking an intellectually satisfying story about said claim.
Is justice a "concept", in the strict mental construct sense of the word? Could it be, rather, some sort of regular category into which various forms of behavior fall? If I say, "This behavior is destructive", you're likely to know what I mean; destructiveness is an objective category of behavior that would exist whether or not humans are around to observe it. Justice, under this formulation, is much the same, albeit rather more complex (and philosophically contentious) in its definition.
If it were to turn out that I'm wrong (as opposed to unjustified) in claiming justice is a concept, I think that Blinking Spirit's reasoning would also vindicate my claim about justice.
Correct me if I misunderstood, but to me it looks you're saying that we shouldn't defer to or appease those who believe or behave unjustly and inhumanely, and that I suggested in my post something that deferred to unfairness out of a desire to get to people to listen.
I don't agree with that you said, but I don't mean to suggest any such thing as may have seemed. I think it's key to remember that bigots aren't the heart of soul of problems with injustice and unfairness, and that many times otherwise good people have wrongful beliefs. People can be very stubborn about them, at least because most don't like being told they're wrong.
I read your post as saying that we need to take special care in how we address those who espouse unjust beliefs or who are unjust in practice. I apologize for the misreading upon which the remark was based. While I recognize that the Bigot is not the origin of problems, this person is one who I take to be fundamentally misguided in his notion of the value of people and in his beliefs about justice. My point is that I am not prepared to have unlimited patience with this person. (Not that I am trying to attribute such a position to you, of course.)
Mhm, and victims of prejudice aren't immune to acting or thinking in a prejudiced way themselves.
Indeed not. My philosophy class on feminist issues has been very enlightening. I take bell hooks to be one of the best at noticing the bigotry of the feminist community regarding race, class, sexual orientation and gender difference. A valuable insight of hers is that we all have to battle with sexist thinking. And I think this insight generalizes to other facets of social relations.
I get what you're saying but I don't think that contradicts me, because it's not what I was talking about.
Then maybe I misread you again. However, I don't think that my remarks are contingent on you talking about labeling the queer community. I was rather trying to use it as an example to demonstrate how much energy I feel has been wasted on labeling as an issue of theoretical concern.
Some people are fine being called queer, but others are uncomfortable or even offended at being called that. In such a case, rather than keep using the term to prove some kind of point, I'd respect their feelings about it.
People ought to have the ability to decide how they should be addressed or talked about, within reason. When widely accepted and neutral labels aren't available, the least we can do is be careful about how a particular label for someone might be received by them. And when the great majority of a demographic feels a certain way about a label, then certainly that label is probably not a very good one. It doesn't take a lot of effort to avoid calling someone something that they don't like.
I agree. As a matter of course, I refer to others as they refer to themselves. Though I think you can understand that when I am not addressing somebody directly, it is reasonable to pick a simple label to refer to those people. Neither "gays and lesbians" nor "LGBT" reads well, but "queer" does.
To tie all this together, I think the intent of self-determining labels is to get others to refer to a group in a more respectful way. But no matter what word is devised, this is hard to do unless an overall attitude of respect gains prevalence.
That's fair, and I hope you don't read me as antagonistic to the idea. I am trying to point to one of the weaknesses I find in labeling debate, though.
Yes. And I will argue based on a number of really bold claims.
1) Justice exists, and it is some set of standards that humans can discover, yet it is independent of human opinion.
2) If it transcends opinion, and if it is central to a universal ethic, then it must apply to all people equally.
3) If justice is a tool of the strong to subdue the weak, then it fails to apply to all people equally.
4) This contradicts (2), meaning this is an erroneous concept of justice.
Honestly, Ljossberir, as far as the encroachment of statism is concerned, I would not count this as a concern of any great worry. Sure, it's dumb, but it's at least as dumb as owning a pet anyway. (Pets are your slaves.)
Well, Wright's "God Damn America" speech was really about how God does not change, but governments do. He spent a lot of time on how the US got better on human rights for Afro-Americans. However, he did ultimately conclude that America "failed" with respect to protecting the rights of its minorities. In ways, it is still failing. But that does not mean we cannot later suceed.
I have no idea what this means. What exactly are games two and three, here? Next lives?
Ah, so it was wearing thin. I meant that anarchism would probably be a better idea than our modern form of government, and that if it turned out that I'm wrong, a minimal state could be established with a (very) high standard for consent.
And it wasn't obvious that I was talking about the law and how I didn't agree with it?
"This is what the law says about <X>."
"You're wrong, <X> is morally justified."
I was taking the law, even as generally stupid as it is, to be rationally legislated enough that people can defend themselves with force. And it is the case. Just not to the degree either of us would like. In many states, you have a duty to retreat before using force. And there are often restrictions on how much force you can use. And unfortunately, the burden is always on the person who defends herself to prove her case. But the law does not say you can't defend yourself.
It would indeed be eerie if you hadn't fabricated the quote.
There is also a crucial difference between me and Mr. Rush "The crypto-fascist" Limbaugh: as an anti-authoritarian, I value human life instead of simply pretending to value it.
EDIT: Am I really that alienating that you have to respond like that?
Not to be a dick, the initial post of a thread should make it clear to us.
You know, you don't have to be a jerk. One of the things about debate is respectfully reading each other's remarks so as not to claim they say things they do not actually say. It's really a serious issue, and if you are going to get mad when people resolve such issues, it's unreasonable of you.
No crap, dude. I share your concern. It really sucks when allies don't know what to call us because they are afraid of offending us. I'm sorry that as a community we make it difficult for you. I promise that if you don't call us by the F-word or the D-word we won't get mad.
I think that's what we both just said.
Not to be an ass, but I strongly believe that people like you make it possible for the Democrats to swing as far to the Right as they have. If Clinton wins the nomination, I'd rather have McCain win than let the DNC get away with screwing its left-wing base.
And really, the difference between the human rights situation in the US under a Clinton administration versus a McCain administration will be negligible.
That would make you pretty close to me, as I'm Victoria.
Yay. I win. Sort of. (Well, to be fair, I think you disagree with Thrasymachus, too, but you are trying to figure out why.)
EDIT: Wait, are you disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing? Because if so I'd say that's pretty rude. If you're not interested in other people's answer to the question "why is Thrasymachus wrong?" then it seems silly for you to have posted a thread about it.
Do you mean that there is a Platonic objection to my claim? Have not read a single word Plato has every written outside of what is posted on BrainyQuotes, so you will have to enlighten me.
Okay, this will seem verbose, but I hope clear enough of an argument.
I take a concept (like justice) to mean "A mental construct seen as mediating between a word and whatever it denotes or is used to refer to. Thus a concept ‘dog’ would be seen as mediating between dog and the set of animals denoted by it; this concept might be seen as common to both dog and e.g. chien in French; and so on" (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics).
When I talk about justice, I am simply using the word to refer to the claims people can legitimately make against others.
The implication of my account is that while the description of justice is conceived of by humans, the legitimacy of such a description is independent of our opinions.
Thus if someone makes a moral claim "X is just," and if someone else makes the moral claim "X is unjust," somebody has to be wrong. And the reason one person is right is not because he believes it, nor even because he is justified in believing it. X simply has the property of being just or unjust.
Please tell me if I am being unclear. What I want to turn to is what I feel about your claim. I strongly believe that if the truth of justice is subject to human interpretation, then the whole concept kind of falls apart and loses its value.
It is, I think, essential to an anti-authoritarian outlook (which I know we both share) that we view claims about justice to come from objective standards. And if these standards are objective, I would argue that they can't be made up. If it turned out that justice was defined by the most powerful, "enlightened" person, then that would really suck for the average Jane, whose common sense tells her better. Even if she's not very good at philosophy, she can still make right claims despite lacking an intellectually satisfying story about said claim.
I take justice to mean fidelity to and concern for each person's rights motivated by a respect for the intrinsic value of each person.
If it were to turn out that I'm wrong (as opposed to unjustified) in claiming justice is a concept, I think that Blinking Spirit's reasoning would also vindicate my claim about justice.
I read your post as saying that we need to take special care in how we address those who espouse unjust beliefs or who are unjust in practice. I apologize for the misreading upon which the remark was based. While I recognize that the Bigot is not the origin of problems, this person is one who I take to be fundamentally misguided in his notion of the value of people and in his beliefs about justice. My point is that I am not prepared to have unlimited patience with this person. (Not that I am trying to attribute such a position to you, of course.)
Indeed not. My philosophy class on feminist issues has been very enlightening. I take bell hooks to be one of the best at noticing the bigotry of the feminist community regarding race, class, sexual orientation and gender difference. A valuable insight of hers is that we all have to battle with sexist thinking. And I think this insight generalizes to other facets of social relations.
Then maybe I misread you again. However, I don't think that my remarks are contingent on you talking about labeling the queer community. I was rather trying to use it as an example to demonstrate how much energy I feel has been wasted on labeling as an issue of theoretical concern.
I agree. As a matter of course, I refer to others as they refer to themselves. Though I think you can understand that when I am not addressing somebody directly, it is reasonable to pick a simple label to refer to those people. Neither "gays and lesbians" nor "LGBT" reads well, but "queer" does.
That's fair, and I hope you don't read me as antagonistic to the idea. I am trying to point to one of the weaknesses I find in labeling debate, though.
1) Justice exists, and it is some set of standards that humans can discover, yet it is independent of human opinion.
2) If it transcends opinion, and if it is central to a universal ethic, then it must apply to all people equally.
3) If justice is a tool of the strong to subdue the weak, then it fails to apply to all people equally.
4) This contradicts (2), meaning this is an erroneous concept of justice.
Ah, so it was wearing thin. I meant that anarchism would probably be a better idea than our modern form of government, and that if it turned out that I'm wrong, a minimal state could be established with a (very) high standard for consent.
I was taking the law, even as generally stupid as it is, to be rationally legislated enough that people can defend themselves with force. And it is the case. Just not to the degree either of us would like. In many states, you have a duty to retreat before using force. And there are often restrictions on how much force you can use. And unfortunately, the burden is always on the person who defends herself to prove her case. But the law does not say you can't defend yourself.