Print

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

[mainiac]

]
I don't mean historical wise and what happened historically, I was trying to make a different example for the Veil of Ignorance argument thing.

The Rawlsian take is that both of them are denying people their negative rights by killing them (freedom to live) and enslaved (freedom from coercion).  The conquistadors were also denying people their positive right to home rule but it's doubtful those people gave much of a shit for home rule except for the rulers.  The conquistadors also granted them the positive right to be forced into being christians but it's doubtful from the other side of the veil of ignorance that the natives wanted to be forced into being christians.  So pretty much murder and slavery were bad.  Shocking, eh?

[Orange Wizard]

It was more of the "freedom for all instead of freedom for some" combined with "Conquistadors were bad for killing as many as they did despite the Aztecs depriving people of..." well, life, for religious reasons.

I never said the Aztecs were good. Although my south American history is kinda shabby so my opinion on that is worth little anyway.

...

It occurs to me that this argument is never going to go anywhere because we're both arguing from positions of moral imperative - in my case is universal humanism, in weird's it's cultural acceptance.

[wierd]

Again, begging the question by defining things as 'negative'.

I am sure individual mantids think being eated by their mates and mothers is a very negative thing. Nevermind that it is an effective solution to maintaining a healthy and stable population. How they feel about it is not important in that judgement.

Likewise, if something we revile, like genital mutilation serves some valid and beneficial function in their society, we are not approaching it correctly to ascribe it as a negative thing in totality,  and approach it soley from how we would react to being the one being mutilated.

If all mantids survived breeding and hatching, they would destroy their biosphere, and in a single generation they would go extinct.

Sometimes the bad thing is actually a good thing, but you have to be willing to see it.  The viel of ignorance does nothing to address this prejudice.

[mainiac]

Again, begging the question by defining things as 'negative'.

No it isn't, it's using a term of art.

Get on my level.

[wierd]

It was more of the "freedom for all instead of freedom for some" combined with "Conquistadors were bad for killing as many as they did despite the Aztecs depriving people of..." well, life, for religious reasons.

I never said the Aztecs were good. Although my south American history is kinda shabby so my opinion on that is worth little anyway.

...

It occurs to me that this argument is never going to go anywhere because we're both arguing from positions of moral imperative - in my case is universal humanism, in weird's it's cultural acceptance.

Bingo.  I pointed that out two pages ago. No universal morality.



Mainiac: I am able to read. The method of word use is in dispute. not the words used.

[Orange Wizard]

Bingo.  I pointed that out two pages ago. No universal morality.

My morality is better. The whole world will adopt my peaceful ways, by force.

[mainiac]

Mainiac: I am able to read. The method of word use is in dispute. not the words used.

term of art. noun. 1. a word or phrase that has a specific or precise meaning within a given discipline or field and might have a different meaning in common usage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Google is your friend.

[wierd]

Bingo.  I pointed that out two pages ago. No universal morality.

My morality is better. The whole world will adopt my peaceful ways, by force.

Hence my crass quip about christian fundies.



Mainiac: apparently you cannot read.

Word choice
vs
Word use

Word choice is deciding to call a fruitfly a drosophila Melanogaster. (a rose by any other name, all things equal.)

Word use is calling somebody a flyface. (imposing additional subcontext through said use.)

Your word use is in question, not the definition of the words you used.

[mainiac]

Mainiac: apparently you cannot read.

Yeah the guy who answered your question can't read.  You apparently intend to just go through this conversation childishly insulting people every page?  Look, I used some basic political philiosophy 101 terms and now you are accusing me of not being able to read.  How about instead of schoolyard insults you bother to do a basic google search on what Rawls was about the next time you tell someone his Rawlsian world view is mob rule.  If you had bothered to do that, you would have noticed what positive and negative rights are.  Or you could have just looked at the context they were used in and said "gee, the right not to be murdered?  That sounds like a GOOD thing?"  I didn't make a value judgement, I used a term of art, something I just provided you with the definition of.

[wierd]

I was implying that you did not carefully read my reply, because I clearly defined what I found objectionable.

You responded with a dictionary definition, which does not, either then nor now, address the objection.

Either you did not read, or you cannot read. QED.

I do not, now nor then, discount that your interpretation of the words used is incorrect.

I object to the manner in which they were used, which is different.

[Orange Wizard]

don't bicker

[mainiac]

You responded with a dictionary definition, which does not, either then nor now, address the objection.

You objected to me calling things bad.  I clarified to say that I wasn't calling them bad.

Oh but maybe if you accuse me of not being able to read a bunch more times!  Yeah, that's a good plan!

[wierd]

(dont bicker)

Granted.


(Still misidentifying the objection.)

I object to the tonality and implications of the words you used, as they convey a prejudice. I cannot get more blunt than this. The words you used to make those implications I could not possibly care less about.

compare:

"I dont care to quibble about how many angels can dance on a pinhead."

vs

"I dont care to quibble with pinheads."

The latter properly uses the word pinhead, but does so with a prejudicial implication. The former makes no such thing, but can be seen to prejudice christians, via the subject matter.

I was telling you that your language was betraying a prejudice. not that the words you used were prejudicial.  There is a very important difference.

I explicitly called out this difference when I made the objection. A difference you either chose to ignore, or did not catch, despite its being purposefully and carefully placed, indicating hasty reading.

I presuppose hasty reading, not malice.

[mainiac]

I object to the tonality and implications of the words you used, as they convey a prejudice. I cannot get more blunt than this. The words you used to make those implications I could not possibly care less about.

Next up: objections to discussions of Georgia and Armenia for dragging the word "Caucasian" into it.

[wierd]

there you go again with your prejudices. (and no  I dont mean the use of the word caucasian.)