Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

So, you are saying that their objections have less merit?

How is that no bias?

[wierd]

And now we are full circle again. (sigh)

The whole point was to space out this reform so that it takes longer than a single human lifetime to fully accomplish, so that there is not a disenfranchised population that can become radicalized!!!!

Complaining that "My gay spouse cant get emergency medical care in XXX state that has not endorsed gay marriages yet!" is 180 degrees counter that. 

Again-- Cancer patient analogy.  We have a cancer patient (society) that has tumors (Issues with social problems.) These tumors are not safe to just cut out (Causes radicalization)-- What do we have to do? Endure the tumors while we do radiation and chemo. (Suffer the issues like the above cited one, with the knowledge that our kids's generation wont have to endure them, and will have a better future for not having induced radicalism.)

YEESH.

You're still having to tell people that until the Baby Boomers all die they have to watch their spouses be left on life support against their wishes, among other things.

Reality-- It sucks. (tm)

[wierd]

I cant make an argument for their side, as I do not hold their views.


However, I can point out certain unfortunate facts about human physiology and behavior, and certain unfortunate facts about "rights."


Ultimately, the arguments boil down to simple disagreement, concerning subjective issues.  I take this position: The course of action that induces the least amount of social discord while still making social progress is the healthiest action (at that time.)

This means accepting negative consequences. (Cause heaven forbid that we dont get what we want, when we want it, which is now.)

[wierd]

No, that's a strawman. (or maybe a misunderstanding?)

More like this:

Given the problem of radicalization in human subjects, due to the gradual but unavoidable loss of behavioral plasticity with age, there is a serious conflict that arises naturally from enabling people to live longer:  Society is less able to accommodate much needed social reform without serious and long lasting adverse consequences, such as domestic terrorism.

Such reform could be practical matters, such as acceptance of automation, or it could be more esoteric, like matters of religious practice no longer being held in high esteem. That is moot. The issue is that new ideas are discovered, humans that are older are less able to accomodate these new ideas, which leads to a problem.

1) Either we stop extending lifespans, so that society can evolve at a brisker pace (a big can of worms in and of itself)
2) We have to carefully consider all of the consequences of social reforms, to reap the maximal profit with the least collateral consequence. (Which means enduring "seemingly needless" adversities until society at large is better able to accomodate.)


Take for instance, the hypothetical situation below.

Let's assume that ET comes down from Zeta Reticuli (or wherever they live), and they bring the gifts of high abundance, safe, high density energy and molecular replication with them. They give these things to humanity with open arms.

This effectively removes all need for humans to work as anything other than intellectual exercise (A La startrek). 

There would be riots in the streets, because a significant portion of the population would not be able to adjust to this reality.  To avoid this calamity, these gifts would need to be slowly phased in, and culture slowly adjusted.

[SalmonGod]

So, you are saying that their objections have less merit?

How is that no bias?

to base our decisions on that is to show vastly greater sensitivity to their concerns that have objectively less footing in a fair legal system than the other side's concerns.

And given your premise that we should be concerned that a group resorts to violence when they feel their government is failing them, and they cannot effect the change they want by non-violent means.

A.  The government refuses to discriminate, and fails the beliefs of bigots.
B.  The government agrees to discriminate, and fails to recognize a group as human beings by legal standards.
Either way, the government is failing someone

But for some reason, you're more concerned about terrorism as a result of scenario A than as a result of scenario B
Even though under the pretense of being granted equal rights under a fair legal system, scenario B has objectively more legitimate grievances
Yet scenario B persisted for centuries until fairly recently, despite the pretense that a group resorts to violence when they feel their government is failing them, and they cannot effect the change they want by non-violent means.

This appears to me as a double-standard, and the only basis for this double-standard that I can understand is that one side is simply more prone to react with threat of violence when they don't get their way.  I don't know how I can be more clear.

[SalmonGod]

Coincidentally, with all the riots going on right now in regards to racial discrimination, you could say that some change hasn't come fast enough.

Worth pointing out that the groups rioting have still been less violent than the police and racists in general.  Riots are in response to killings, yet no rioter has killed anyone as I'm yet aware.  Further, a good amount of the violence that rioters get blamed for is police-instigated, and positive actions that those same people try to engage in are sabotaged or ignored.

[Bauglir]

Cause heaven forbid that we dont get what we want, when we want it, which is now.

i can't help but sense an irony in insisting that society accept that most members of society are incapable of accepting this

i'm pretty sure it's coherent, it's just silly on some level

[wierd]

Oh, it's definitely silly Bauglir. On many levels.

Sadly.

Humans are, (as evidenced by their historical behavior) irrational beings.  Makes you wonder about the merits of trying to be rational in the face of that.


Ipsil--

On the contrary, I am very much aware that this happens--- which is WHY I very much am concerned with radicalization.  Radicalized parents and grandparents are vastly more "interested" in ensuring that those beliefs and mindsets stick around. It's why such backward notions as "being god's chosen elite!" still persist in the middle east.

By avoiding radicalization, we mitigate the rate at which this happens, and reduce the "staying power" of these atavistic culturalisms.  We cannot eliminate it, but we can mitigate it.

[wierd]

So, you are saying that their objections have less merit?

How is that no bias?

to base our decisions on that is to show vastly greater sensitivity to their concerns that have objectively less footing in a fair legal system than the other side's concerns.

And given your premise that we should be concerned that a group resorts to violence when they feel their government is failing them, and they cannot effect the change they want by non-violent means.

A.  The government refuses to discriminate, and fails the beliefs of bigots.
B.  The government agrees to discriminate, and fails to recognize a group as human beings by legal standards.
Either way, the government is failing someone

But for some reason, you're more concerned about terrorism as a result of scenario A than as a result of scenario B
Even though under the pretense of being granted equal rights under a fair legal system, scenario B has objectively more legitimate grievances
Yet scenario B persisted for centuries until fairly recently, despite the pretense that a group resorts to violence when they feel their government is failing them, and they cannot effect the change they want by non-violent means.

This appears to me as a double-standard, and the only basis for this double-standard that I can understand is that one side is simply more prone to react with threat of violence when they don't get their way.  I don't know how I can be more clear.

In a FAIR legal system, the rulings issued by a court on such matters represent the wishes of the majority, tempered with sobriety about the consequences of such rulings.

This is why we have things like the Laches doctrine, et al.
This leads to a lot of "grey areas" that need exploration, which is why applicability of prior rulings is always questioned (which is a good thing.)

(Note, I mention laches not for any specific applicability, but as an example of codification of such tempered sobriety. It is very forward thinking to establish laches, because hard-nosed support of rights holder claims without it leads down very strange and terrible roads. To avoid that, is exactly why Laches exists.)

I again point you at the subjectivity or "rights", which you acknowledged previously.  It is this subjectivity that allows social change in the first place-- The prevailing interpretations on what constitutes personhood (For a long time, women were not considered legal persons, for instance-- That's what the whole Women's Sufferage movement was about. More recently, arguments about limited personhood for non-human animals, such as chimpanzees and gorillas are being made. Who knows what the future holds. Maybe we will make sentient machines, and arguments about their potential personhood will be made?)  are at the heart of this, as this too is very subjective.  (as I just pointed out.)

What I am getting at here, is that you dont get to claim objectivity. You can't. EVERYTHING about this is subjective, and colored by the society and the culture of the people who live in it.

Since it is ALL subjective, there is no definitive qualifying reason for either side to be given extra weight.  Your argument about past actions going unaddressed is rather irrational in fact-- I expect a similar kind of rhetoric to pop up some centuries from now, concerning machine rights, and how our culture was blatantly anti-machine.   (Imagine! Forcing that poor computer to simulate horrible dwarf murders in unspeakable detail like we do! The poor computers!)

We currently do not ascribe personhood to inanimate objects. (we cant even really describe, with real accuracy, what sentience *IS*.) Does that mean that hypothetically personhood endowed computers of the future should look on us with derision?

[wierd]

RE: Laws

I disagree. Look at software piracy. I doubt you will find a 20somthing that does not do it, but the DMCA makes it definately illegal. Something being codified into law, does not have a magical effect like you seem to imply.


in regard to the "damned if you do, damned if you dont" aspect:
Which is why I advocated the "Dont hear the case" route.

Let society sort its problems out on its own timetable.  A subtle prod is ok, but hamfisted bull-roaring is not.

[scriver]

As somebody who is experiencing the opposite - a society changing from traditionally open, progressive, and socialist into one more right-wing liberal and conservative under pressure from the EU and our more reactionary immigrant communities (as well as high cultural pressure from the US through media dominance), I can certainly say that I wish change happened more slowly here so I could die before seeing it.

[SalmonGod]

I don't know why you're bringing up all this obfuscating junk about how we can entertain the idea of recognizing personhood in non-humans.  I already acknowledged that what can be considered a human right is subjective.  But what constitutes a human being is fairly clear for the most part, and they're either recognized as equal under the law or they're not.  The subject at hand has nothing to do with any edge cases.  If I'm going to be led down a rabbit hole about whether or not there could possibly be any merit to past cultures refusing to recognize women or minorities as human beings, then I'm done.  Other than some extreme edge cases like braindead coma patients or hypotheticals that have absolutely nothing to do with our topic, I do not acknowledge that there's any further subjectivity to what constitutes a human being, and there's no common ground for discussion if we can't agree on that.

[wierd]

So you are admitting to a fundamental bias?

You on one hand, admit that rights are subjective, but on the other, you refuse to accept that personhood is also subjective, and openly state this.

To be to the point-- You feel that since "personhood is not questionable", given the following hypothetical, which side would you choose?

Let's say that ET is some variety of sentient machine culture, and they come to earth, lured by our digital broadcasts. When they arrive, they are horrified by our internet culture, because to them, it looks like blatant exploitation of pre-sentient machines. (which they consider persons.)

Since the concept of personhood is not questionable, in your opinion, do you side with the humans--- who ascribe personhood only to humans-- or do you side with the machines, who ascribe personhood to both the machines and to humans?

This is a serious question, and I dont want you to dodge it.

I personally view that all matters of this nature are inherently subjective, and intimately tied to the opinions of the people making them. In terms of total health to the society, the prevailing definitions should be used. The instance of recent semi-personhood being extended to non-humans is not rhetorical. It is very much a real thing.

I am not opposed to the idea of chimps and other great apes being granted personhood, as long as the rest of society is also in agreement, and not forced into that decision.

[Shadowlord]

In a FAIR legal system, the rulings issued by a court on such matters represent the wishes of the majority, tempered with sobriety about the consequences of such rulings.

Now that you've come right out and said "The legal system isn't fair unless it supports and enforces the tyranny of the majority," I don't see any reason to keep reading your posts on this subject.

[wierd]

MmmHmm... I see....
/s

Since the majority opinion is not the gold standard in your estimations (which is what democracy actually is) -- You are saying you prefer the tyrrany of a minority?  How's that control by the 1% working for you? Was it a bad idea to tell king George to go stuff his tax without representation where the sun didnt shine? What about the intrinsic value of a jury of one's peers, and all that? (You know, the check and balance against a kangaroo court?) Perhaps you think the FISA court and its secret rulings are just fantastic, and so much better than courts where popular acceptance is given weight by design?

Oh, right! You said that you failed to see any merit of looking critically at that! My bad!

Please, DO go on.