Print

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

[Rolepgeek]

First off, I don't think it's to people's personal detriment. People forget the enlightened part of enlightened self-interest. There's perfectly legitimate  reasons to oppose immigration. "Why should I bother helping anyone else" is not a very good reason.

It does not require absolute morality, either. Just a societally agreed definition. From what I'm seeing in Europe, society agrees on those morals.

Second, purely self-interested societies don't function great for the average layperson. Too much defection in the metaphorical prisoner's dilemmas.

My argument is that it's wrong to abandon people simply because they don't benefit you, and that more people have morals than you seem to think. Have a referendum. This time, people know what happens when you don't vote. Hell, institute mandatory voting like Australia. That way voter turnout doesn't skew results.

As for Trump: To some extent, yes. More motivated by the fact that my priors for his support level are such that if he won I would suspect foul play, however. Indeed, I would know it existed, considering the rulings concerning at least one law related to voter id and it's discriminatory implementation. Constitutions and the equivalent do exist for reasons, you know. They're where we pick and choose those principles of democracy we like. You know, since it used to be the democratic consensus that interracial marriage was illegal, up until a small non-elected body enforced it's will on the public against their perceived self-interest. As an example purely. There's good and bad in everything. Balance tends to be a necessity.

Democratic process only represents the will of the people if the people actually participate. And there's plenty of reasons and means to make sure only the proper sorts of people do. Would you be open to a second referendum on Brexit with mandatory turnout, given how many people voted against their self-interest in the hopes of making a point because of flawed perceptions of national sentiment, and the highly variable turnout rates based on age?

[Orange Wizard]

It's not a joke. Feel free to substitute FSM with Jehovah, Allah, Ganesh, or your own personal diety of choice. Either way, whatever actions you feel morally obligated to take or eschew are your own business - but if you consider me morally obligated to follow the same course of action, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Equally, unless you're a pretty hardcore Christian, I doubt you'd pay much heed to the people who said you were going to hell for not turning up in church every Sunday.

That's a terrible comparison

Please expand on this. Are you saying that because you aren't libertarian, you think it's justified to force other people to perform actions against their own self-interest without their democratic mandate? Sounds pretty despotic to me, if I'm not misinterpreting you.

I don't believe that people have some magical ball of rights that lets them do whatever they want without consequences

What made you think that I thought you supported Israel?

What made you think that I thought that you thought that I supported Israel?

[Orange Wizard]

That's a terrible rebuttal.

Religion is comparable to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is comparable to widely-accepted moral principles

And you're saying that you should decide who this applies to and what those consequences are, rather than the majority of citizens reaching that decision democratically?

Ideally, yes, but in this instance I'm happy to let democratically elected governments handle it for me.

I'm not even doing a thing. Your position on Israel never entered my mind when I made my comment - I don't really care what it is, to be honest. But if 'propping up' (or more realistically, simply ignoring) Islamic theocracies would be 'kinda counterproductive', than aiding Israel in destabilizing every nearby Arab country is a tragic, horrific, destructive farce.

k?

[Rolepgeek]

First off, I don't think it's to people's personal detriment. People forget the enlightened part of enlightened self-interest. There's perfectly legitimate  reasons to oppose immigration.

Reasons which many of us here have given, multiple times, and we just get shouted down with accusations of being racist, stupid, or heartless.

"But rape!" is not a legitimate reason to restrict muslim integration as a whole, which you seem to. It's an argument for finding the group that's doing that the most (I already described what I'm 85% certain it is), and restricting their immigration. Nobody seems to be talking about it lowering wages. No one seems to be arguing that the welfare system is overburdened so far. That it will be, sure, and like I said, don't take more than you can support. But your argument is, in your own words, about self-interest. I think you're wrong, Covenant, but I don't think you're evil. Only FSM cultists are evil

As for Trump: To some extent, yes. More motivated by the fact that my priors for his support level are such that if he won I would suspect foul play, however. Indeed, I would know it existed, considering the rulings concerning at least one law related to voter id and it's discriminatory implementation. Constitutions and the equivalent do exist for reasons, you know. They're where we pick and choose those principles of democracy we like. You know, since it used to be the democratic consensus that interracial marriage was illegal, up until a small non-elected body enforced it's will on the public against their perceived self-interest. As an example purely. There's good and bad in everything. Balance tends to be a necessity.

You seem to be pretty much saying in your post that even if the majority of your countrymen vote for Trump as president, you won't accept/respect that decision. I don't even know what to say to that - it just seems like we're coming at this whole 'being a part of society' thing from very, very different perspectives.

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I don't think that that would be the case. If it was proven to me that in a fair election with full and unbiased turnout, Trump won, I would go 'Whelp, hopefully he doesn't nuke anyone' and see how many gods I could find to pray to on Wikipedia. But with polling as it is, the election system as it is, and Trump as he is, I don't think that would happen. Furthermore, I would think that our society had reached a very, very bad place, and that we were in danger of mob rule and demagoguery. If people in Britain voted to allow quartering soldiers in people's homes around where you live, would you respect that decision and live with a soldier? Or if they voted that people needed to allow immigrants to stay in their home? Would you be okay with having to do that, since it's the democratic will of the people? There's a line we all draw in the sand where our respect for democracy and our beliefs conflict and the beliefs win out. Trump winning is very close to that line. Trump subsequently banning Muslims from the US is over that line.

Democratic process only represents the will of the people if the people actually participate. And there's plenty of reasons and means to make sure only the proper sorts of people do. Would you be open to a second referendum on Brexit with mandatory turnout, given how many people voted against their self-interest in the hopes of making a point because of flawed perceptions of national sentiment, and the highly variable turnout rates based on age?

We actually had a very high turnout rate on Brexit, and despite sensationalist reporting the number of people who regretted their vote was later found by pollsters to have been tiny. Would I be open to a second referendum? Tough to say, given your parameters. I don't support mandatory voting, for one thing, and 'my side' won for another, so why would I want to re-do it? Is it a trade? Would we be re-doing it if Remain had won? If we re-do Brexit can Trump re-do the American election if he loses?

Ultimately, it was a fair vote (some dodgy dealing by the government regarding leaflets aside), so starting a trend of rerunning any election if people complain hard enough seems daft to me. If it'd gone the other way, I'd have been disappointed in the result but happy we at least got the chance to vote, and I'd have respected the result rather than pulling a Nicola Sturgeon and whining for yet another referendum I'd likely lose.

With mandatory voting? Gladly! I love mandatory voting. I think it's great for getting maximal turnout so that election campaigns aren't run on the platform of increasing turnout. Which is basically how they're run right now. That's why activists don't try to convince. They try to outrage and vilify and scare. Over 50% of the people voting for either candidate in at least one survey (so I'm not entirely certain how reliable it is) put 'to prevent the other person from winning' as their primary reason for voting. Other people have said they plan on screwing over their countrymen by voting for Trump and leaving so the whole system can burn to the ground. That's the terms they use. They don't give a shit about the people left behind who have to deal with the fire. I like mandatory voting because it means you don't need a second one. You get the whole picture, right then and there. If I remember correctly, it was the Leave voters leader who was saying that they would ask for a second referendum when they lost. They were almost certain they would lose, and that they'd use it to keep fighting. I think that if we're not gonna have mandatory voting, a re-do is pointless and asking for trouble.

In case you didn't notice, I like mandatory voting.

And you're saying that you should decide who this applies to and what those consequences are, rather than the majority of citizens reaching that decision democratically?

Ideally, yes, but in this instance I'm happy to let democratically elected governments handle it for me.

So if you do support it being handled by a democratic process, then in a matter of such contention as this I presume you've got no issue with making certain that the will of the people is being carried out by utilising direct democracy, right?

After all, that's what referendums are for. Hell, as much as I'm glad to be out of the EU, I'd have been more than a little bit concerned if ol' Dodgy Dave had just decided to pull-out of his own accord.

Direct democracy's been tried a few times. Turns out temporary sentiment rules peoples minds far more easily than reason. That is, in fact, a third of the point of representative democracy.

EDIT: To make myself perfectly clear: If you're going to do direct democracy to try and see what people want, do it right, and make sure everyone votes.

[Orange Wizard]

At this point I think you're just being deliberately obtuse.

Of for the love of

Equating belief in the FSM to belief in altruism is extremely silly

So if you do support it being handled by a democratic process, then in a matter of such contention as this I presume you've got no issue with making certain that the will of the people is being carried out by utilising direct democracy, right?

After all, that's what referendums are for. Hell, as much as I'm glad to be out of the EU, I'd have been more than a little bit concerned if ol' Dodgy Dave had just decided to pull-out of his own accord.

I think direct democracy is a terrible system and I would prefer people who actually know what they're doing to make decisions. If people don't like it they can vote for a different party next time an election rolls around.

Referendums are useful, certainly, but applying them to particularly nuanced matters is quite self-destructive.

[Vilanat]

As opposed to what we're doing at the moment, which is funding Israel in their efforts to destabilize half the Middle East and make the problem that much worse?

Let me make an educated guess: you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[Vilanat]

JIDF please go.

Yep. i Was right.   

Not only you have no idea what the hell you are talking about, you will lump up every Jew that tries to reason with your ignorance/Israeli into a conspiratory organization. that's not just ignorance, that's ignorant bigotry.

[Rolepgeek]

Dropping FPTP is probably the single best thing we can do for democracy.

At least we agree on some things. *shrug*

[Rolepgeek]

Dropping FPTP is probably the single best thing we can do for democracy.

At least we agree on some things. *shrug*

Yeah, it is actually nice seeing while reading your posts that despite our strong disagreements we do have some common ground.

Although it's not that surprising. In all truthfulness, your posts remind me quite a bit of what I might have written myself ten or so years ago. I'm afraid you might be looking at your future

Either way, it was good talking with you, and I appreciate that you kept it rational and in good faith despite our strongly-opposed stances.

I certainly hope not, no offense meant.

It would waste a large portion of my life, considering I'm going into nanotech to try and essentially cure death. :/

But yeah, rational discussion seems to be a rarity nowadays. More so on the internet. I've heard that PMs tend to be better than public discussion because it means people stop arguing performatively, intentionally or unintentionally, for an audience.

[Rolepgeek]

I meant in terms of self-interest

Making your life goal one of helping other people isn't very much in line with that. Though there'll be a demand for nanotechnologists anyway, I suppose. And it's not entirely selfless. I don't like dying either, after all.

[SirQuiamus]

I'm saying that helping others despite it being to your own detriment is a choice. For it to be a moral obligation would require absolute morality, which does not exist. As it is, everyone decides their own moral code. Someone condemning you for not going to church on Sunday is attacking you for not following the code they they have chosen to follow.

Simply because you feel the desire or obligation to take in refugees, it doesn't mean that that desire or sense of obligation is universal, despite the prevalence of echo chambers these days.

All I'm calling for is that you allow people to choose for themselves what they wish to contribute, or how they wish to vote in regards things like refugees, etc, rather than trying to browbeat them into it with this 'But you have to! Human rights! It's our moral obligation!' nonsense. Because when you do that you sound just like the religious fundamentalists of a bygone age, trying to tell others what is moral and what is immoral.

I mean, if that 'But it's sinful not to!' stuff is the best argument you can come up with then stick with it I guess, but when we do finally get our day at the polls I really don't think it's going to get you much support.

Where do you draw the line with this kind of reasoning? If you refuse all externally-imposed forms of morality, what's stopping you from doing whatever you will to the detriment of others? If your personal moral code does not obligate you to help anyone in mortal peril, why should it obligate you to refrain from e.g. robbing and murdering people whenever it benefits you? Of course, coexistence and cooperation are usually more beneficial than wanton violence, but what's wrong with a little bit of murder if you can get away with it? I mean, if that 'But it's sinful to kill!' nonsense is the best argument against murder you can come up with, then I don't think your moral code is going to get much support in a society of free and rational self-interested actors. A society that truly respects the moral autonomy of its citizens must allow them to choose for themselves what they wish to take or contribute, and taking a life is just one rational choice among others. All this empty talk about 'moral obligations' makes you sound just like the religious fundamentalists of a bygone age, trying to tell others what is moral and what is immoral.

[Orange Wizard]

Where do you draw the line with this kind of reasoning?

Usual argument is "no-one is permitted to infringe upon anyone else's rights", so killing and stealing is infringing upon a person's right to bodily integrity and personal property.

[SirQuiamus]

Where do you draw the line with this kind of reasoning?

Usual argument is "no-one is permitted to infringe upon anyone else's rights", so killing and stealing is infringing upon a person's right to bodily integrity and personal property.

If you see someone drowning in water, leaving them be is not an infringement upon their rights. In fact, trying to "help" them would be a presumptuous insult to their liberty and bodily integrity.

(Also, "no-one is permitted to infringe upon anyone else's rights" is an example of externally-imposed universal morality par excellence. Covenant has already proved that it's irrational religious bullshit that has nothing to do with true morality.)

[Erkki]

You don't draw the line in morals. Not hurting anyone just because the law is against it doesn't mean that it has to be an absolute moral that is to be followed all of the time. I do not want to hurt anyone right now, but I recognize that at some point even law-breaking violence or threat of that isnt only for self defense may be the best course of action. I do value value the benefit of myself and everyone I care about over others' which may or may not conflict with the law or imposed "morals".

The way I see it, is that teamwork tends to help everyone within a society(a lot of the time any way), and thus an individual tends to be a valuable resource to the group of people working together or society(which means individuals are valuable to each other). Laws and "morals", that are "decided together"(or not!) prevent, punish or limit individuals within the society from competing one another too much, including killing one another, and thus from hurting the interests of the society. Law and order becomes useful, even if it were in individual cases disadvantageous to an individual's immediate interests in for example accumulating personal wealth.

Thus, I choose to follow law because its advantageous to me. Something that is hard-wired into me also finds helping others rewarding, so even if I were to break the law, I would likely do whatever I were to do because I found it advantageous to more than just myself.

[martinuzz]

than aiding Israel in destabilizing every nearby Arab country is a tragic, horrific, destructive farce.

What on earth are you talking about? You really think that instability in the Arab world is a planned act by Israel?
That's either some tinfoil hat level conspiracy nutting there, or a deliberate attempt at spreading anti-Israel sentiment by using desinformation.