Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

People ought to be able to say why genocide is idiotic and wrong, not just think that it is.

It's called "not being raised by shitty parents and have two brain cells to rub together." It's not "fragile." And it's unevolving because it's a core value that there isn't much if any wiggle room on, it has no need to change. Unless you can articulate a situation where exterminating an entire race of people is actually a good thing. (MSH We're not in the 40k thread!)

I don't disagree people should be able to articulate the logic behind their beliefs. It's just, in this instance, there's so need unless you want to have a pre-school level conversation about why hurting people for your own gain is bad for society.

It's like, do we really need to debate why NAMBLA isn't a good thing, or can we just say that preferentially having sex with children is bad.

You start to run into inconsistencies that can make you believe crazy things if you aren't able to apply criticality. Most everyone believes that genocide and child rape are wrong, but that's also not how people who do believe crazy things frame them for others to see and is manifestly unhelpful when considering more gray issue variants.

For example, even literal Nazis will often say that "genocide is wrong", but they aren't talking about murder, you see, they're committing an act of regrettable but necessary self-defense which may in extremis require liquidating the Jews. Why, even Hitler only wanted to send them to their own homeland in Madagascar before imperialist invaders of German soil forced his hand. Now, I know that's crazy, and you know that's crazy, but both of us are the kind of people who go on discussion forums and lock horns all the time. We have to be critical. A lot of people are not critical, their thoughts may genuinely not extend far beyond "Nazzies = bad, genocide = bad, America = good, self-defense = good" in the same way that I don't think a lot about organic chemistry because I've never studied it. Something about carbon, I think.

And this creates a problem when an uncritical non-Nazi comes up against a critical Nazi or someone repeating the arguments of one. The Nazis are bad because they committed genocide and America is good because we defended ourselves and others, but this turns into scrambled eggs when the Nazi says that Germany was only defending itself, was basically forced to commit genocide against the corrupt establishment placed on them by the League of Nations, and that the Allies were the only ones to willingly commit genocide against German people. And arguments for genocide are almost always predicated upon a justifying framework of "absolute necessity" or "self-defense" like that. (Funnily enough, the very same arguments used by the Imperium in 40k  )

Effective? Maybe not. But from listening to internet alt-reichers praddle on I can just about see that they grew and watered those beliefs from this kind of quibbling. It works sometimes, but against a critical mind this sort of thing works about none of the time, which is why critical thought is so manifestly important.

That's not even the worst thing though, because that form is limited. What's the worst is how uncritical thought about "core values" warps analysis of grey areas and edge cases. Genocide is wrong, but is it wrong to wage war to protect yourself even though it means committing a functional genocide if you win? What about waging war for motives other than protecting yourself, with the same consequences if you win? What about the way having a sole superpower affects the ability of other nations to commit war and genocide at all, is that pile of corpses worth the other one? These questions have answers that can be applied, but not by someone who just uncritically thinks "genocide is bad and self-defense is good". When the public at large thinks that way in a democratic system, we have a serious fucking problem on our hands. We have people who say "turn North Korea into a parking lot and let the Chinese sort it out" unironically, in public advocacy of policy. And if that doesn't scare you, it should.

So yes, we need to debate why genocide isn't a good thing. It's necessary to demonstrate the process of philosophy and rhetoric to those around us who didn't learn or have not yet learned what they believe and why they believe it.

[nenjin]

The two aren't equivalent in my mind. I'm also not in the habit of believing something is legit simply because the Greeks or Romans did it. Tutelage and mentoring I guess is a consolation prize for the being the sexual toy of your social superior, and I guess that's better than what we have today? But not by much.

So yes, we need to debate why genocide isn't a good thing. It's necessary to demonstrate the process of philosophy and rhetoric to those around us who didn't learn or have not yet learned what they believe and why they believe it.

Again, I agree we need to be able to defend our perspectives and way too many people today considering just saying it enough rather than being able to talk about it. But it also does in some way legitimize the opposition. I'm all for "let them say their piece." That does not extend to "Let's actively debate them as though their insane beliefs merit serious consideration." They should have their place in society where they're allowed to say stuff and things without being attacked as long as it doesn't break the law. But honestly debating the merits and costs of genocide? Beliefs like that and things like it are not something I think this country needs to waste even more time debating.

Because really all stuff like this does is create momentary doubt and crisis of conscience for people who generally knew the difference between right and wrong before some guy started going "But what is wrong?" It's like that guy who insists the sky isn't actually blue despite that being the accepted wisdom of the whole planet. Fine if debating whether the sky is blue or not causes you to momentarily work your brain muscle to make sure you're still correct in believing the commonly accepted wisdom. That's one thing. Turning violence, racial hatred, and all this appalling shit into a mental exercise though is a different kettle of fish. We're not talking about abstracts or shit that has no real bearing on people's lives (i.e. the actual color of the sky.) So when you start debating these things like we legitimately need to talk about genocide to see if we're still in the right about it......it's playing directly into the hands of people who DO think genocide is a good thing and have simply been dressing their beliefs up in sheeps clothing so they can continue to exist in society and spout their bullshit from a place of confidence.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

People who do that will still be out there even if you shut out their beliefs, and as per my example they're not as easy to shut out if you don't already have a complete set of logic about why genocide is bad in your brain. They can directly turn genocide-bad into genocide-good (or more accurately genocide-notgenocide) and instill that doubt in the uncritical even if the critical turn their noses up at them.

We don't have much choice but to confront this stuff. When groups refuse to confront issues en mass it tends not to end well for their beliefs (see:everything the Religious Right advocated for over the past 40 years).

[wierd]

Missed the point Nenjin.   I was ***not*** saying "The greeks were totally superior! Yup, every way!", even though you have chosen to interpret it that way.

What I **WAS** saying, is that what is considered a moral imperative is NOT an absolute term, as evidenced by it being considered morally dubious to NOT take an eromenos if you were an older male, in Greek society, and that the very fact that this was so, is counter-evidencial to your hardlined statement that "it is always morally bad."  and or "It is a no brainer."


Again, gay sex.

30 years ago this was "Morally unthinkable!"

Morality is not a universal, fundamental truth. It is a subjective opinion held by a society. The sooner you acknowledge this, the sooner you will understand why critical thinking is not something you can do without in these contexts.

To tie in with MSH-- We can critically determine that the Greek model was in error, because we now know much more about child behavioral development, and know that sexual experiences of these kinds are not healthy for children. (Critical thinking)-- vs "Child sex is not child sex!" (asserting that the Greek example was not actually pederasty, but was just a specific kind of cultural mentoring program.) The critical mind will flag this instantly, still disqualify the child sex as deleterious because of actually demonstrable reasons that can be falsified when tested (and are thus more objective in nature), and come to a rational conclusion.

However, the existence of the Greek model presented, historically, is also critically important in falsifying the assertion that morality is an intrinsic, unchanging thing. This is not so. Our knowledge has improved, and what is considered moral, has changed accordingly. Morality is an arrived position-- an opinion, not an absolute fact. People CAN get it wrong.

Because people CAN get it wrong, there is no substitute for the critical evaluation process to keep steering back toward objective rightness, as much as can be possible with a cultural subjective opinion.

[nenjin]

And yet, if we took some morality as a fundamental truth rather than a subjective determination of society, we would get trapped less often in these intellectual circle jerks IMO, or impromptu street debates between actual neo-nazis and your garden variety citizen, where someone decides the eventual best argument is an unopened can of Pepsi.

Remember relativism? Remember when conservatives thought it was a plague on mankind because things are not equal and the left was all "cultural relativism is totally a thing!"

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Conservatives have learned that relativism has its uses especially when they're on the ideological back foot, and liberals are now saying that no, morals are not completely relative, some shit is simply unacceptable and we don't need to debate it.

For me, what people did in the privacy of their homes between consenting adults has never been a question of right and wrong.

So it's not that moral absolutism is bad IMO. It's what the basis of that absolutist belief is that you need to pay attention to. My imperative is "do no harm." Most of my beliefs flow from that imperative. Compare and contrast to "White is right" or "Mud people aren't people" as the basis for a moral imperative and I don't find it that hard to find one superior to another.

Moral absolutism can be a trap for any side when it think it's in the right and doesn't have to justify itself, it's true. But until I start hearing the left saying things like "Rednecks aren't people" or "Rednecks have no right to exist" or "All gunowners should be imprisoned", I'm going to continue to find one set of beliefs superior to another without a whole lot of work on my part.

[Reelya]

The very notion of adult as being 18 years old is completely arbitrary however. There's really no way you can hold that up as some universal absolute. There's no fundamental justification for it. If you define "adult" as 18 and "not adult" as "below 18" and one is always ok, the other always wrong (an 18+ year old having sex with a 17 year old for example) then that's actually a really questionable line in the sand for a "universal law of morality".

Universal laws don't normally come with completely arbitrary cut-off points. e.g. with murder "dead" is clearly a binary state in opposition to "alive", but "age" is a continuum. This is the reason that "age of consent" laws cause some of the most fucked up possible cases in the legal system ever. There's no clean cut-off point for consensual behavior. Nobody has in fact come up with a completely sensible set of laws which covers this issue.

[nenjin]

Some places it's much lower than 18. For a lot of reasons. It's a matter of law. 1mph over the speed limit is technically a ticketable offense yet most would call a cop an asshole for deciding to ticket you for it. What really makes them an asshole though? Interpreting the law too strictly or arbitrarily deciding they don't need to enforce the law?

I'd also argue with "completely arbitrary." Not that I'm saying we have hard scientific evidence that it's the right age to call someone an adult, but the choice is informed by society's experiences. In places where you're an adult at 15, it's informed by their experiences. Like the need to strike out on your own early and stop burdening your overburdened family, to start a family of your own ASAP so they can work your farm and provide for you and your's. We here in America would be appalled at marrying off a 15 year old girl based on our cultural experience, but for us it makes sense due to how our society operates, whereas it makes different sense for another culture with different culture pressures and struggles.

Which, again, to me is all separate from the pan cultural experience of murdering your political/cultural enemies and social undesirables simply because of what they are. Like I said, I may hate what they stand for and may be uninterested in debating it like I think it has actual merit. But I stand by their right to exist as long as they don't break society's laws. (Specifically: inciting people to violence or committing actual violence.)

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean, 18 is just the point at which the law considers you an adult. Our education and social system is geared towards that, and we remind a child for most of their lives to that point that they will be working towards that goal. It's not arbitrary, it just has to be set somewhere that makes sense as a reachable goal. I don't think it's intended to be a bar for personal/emotional/any other measure for maturity.

Sort of like how you could say the speed limit is arbitrary, because it's not like if I go faster than 50mph my car combusts. But people looked at what was needed and drew a line in the sand, and it works.

[redwallzyl]

Some places it's much lower than 18. For a lot of reasons. It's a matter of law. 1mph over the speed limit is technically a ticketable offense yet most would call a cop an asshole for deciding to ticket you for it. What really makes them an asshole though? Interpreting the law too strictly or arbitrarily deciding they don't need to enforce the law?

I'd also argue with "completely arbitrary." Not that I'm saying we have hard scientific evidence that it's the right age to call someone an adult, but the choice is informed by society's experiences. In places where you're an adult at 15, it's informed by their experiences. Like the need to strike out on your own early and stop burdening your overburdened family, to start a family of your own ASAP so they can work your farm and provide for you and your's. We here in America would be appalled at marrying off a 15 year old girl based on our cultural experience, but for us it makes sense due to how our society operates, whereas it makes different sense for another culture with different culture pressures and struggles.

Which, again, to me is all separate from the pan cultural experience of murdering your political/cultural enemies and social undesirables simply because of what they are. Like I said, I may hate what they stand for and may be uninterested in debating it like I think it has actual merit. But I stand by their right to exist as long as they don't break society's laws. (Specifically: inciting people to violence or committing actual violence.)

Did you know America still has child marriages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

everyone likes to think they have the moral high ground, they don't.

[wierd]

Which, again, still requires critical thinking.

Take the 50mph metric you cited.  That number was reached in the 1950s, based on road handling tests with vintage vehicles of that era that lacked antilock breaks, lacked better engines and tire manuracture, and was based on traffic flow patterns endemic to that time period.

Fastforward to today, where these conditions are noplace even close to accurate of the modern reality, and the obviousness of revisiting these speed limits becomes apparent to the critical mind.

However, bureaucratic processes dont respond well to critical thinking, and expect blind obedience, even when it can be clearly demonstrated that these rules are actually deleterious in the modern setting.

To tie in with the above post--  Yet another example of how failure to apply critical thinking to social policy and law, as knowledge evolves, results in backward and absurd situations, and why it is not a good idea to substitute a bland soundbyte instead of the actual thinking behind reaching such conclusions.

[Dunamisdeos]

Some places it's much lower than 18. For a lot of reasons. It's a matter of law. 1mph over the speed limit is technically a ticketable offense yet most would call a cop an asshole for deciding to ticket you for it. What really makes them an asshole though? Interpreting the law too strictly or arbitrarily deciding they don't need to enforce the law?

I'd also argue with "completely arbitrary." Not that I'm saying we have hard scientific evidence that it's the right age to call someone an adult, but the choice is informed by society's experiences. In places where you're an adult at 15, it's informed by their experiences. Like the need to strike out on your own early and stop burdening your overburdened family, to start a family of your own ASAP so they can work your farm and provide for you and your's. We here in America would be appalled at marrying off a 15 year old girl based on our cultural experience, but for us it makes sense due to how our society operates, whereas it makes different sense for another culture with different culture pressures and struggles.

Which, again, to me is all separate from the pan cultural experience of murdering your political/cultural enemies and social undesirables simply because of what they are. Like I said, I may hate what they stand for and may be uninterested in debating it like I think it has actual merit. But I stand by their right to exist as long as they don't break society's laws. (Specifically: inciting people to violence or committing actual violence.)

Did you know America still has child marriages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

everyone likes to think they have the moral high ground, they don't.

We have slavery for labor, too! Truly we are an enlightened folk.

[wierd]

But economic slavery is not slavery! (Otherwise we would be forced to pay people living wages, and not try to force them into draconian, and one sided employment relationships with things like non-compete, binding arbitration, and nondisclosure agreements!  Let alone not looking the other way when it comes to illegal labor!!)

/sarcasm

[Dorsidwarf]

I think most people would object to have to go through airport security to check in and out of their hotel room every day they stay there. And I think the hotels would object to having to hire extra people to do the checking.

just noticed this and I'd like to point out that you need to go through metal detector/bag check to go into shopping centers in every south-east asian city I've visited. its not that unreasonable to have metal detectors -> beep beep -> " may I please check your bag sir" -> you dont have six ak-47s and a hand grenade in it -> "thank you sir carry on".

Hell, it'll create employment or something probbably

[wierd]

I think most people would object to have to go through airport security to check in and out of their hotel room every day they stay there. And I think the hotels would object to having to hire extra people to do the checking.

just noticed this and I'd like to point out that you need to go through metal detector/bag check to go into shopping centers in every south-east asian city I've visited. its not that unreasonable to have metal detectors -> beep beep -> " may I please check your bag sir" -> you dont have six ak-47s and a hand grenade in it -> "thank you sir carry on".

Hell, it'll create employment or something probbably

Dont let reality get in the way of the rhetoric DD. /s

In seriousness though, I would amend the building code to require metal detectors and scanning personnel for any building with a ratio of occupancy to floorspace above a certain limit.  This would *magically*  get that security at hotels, huge shopping centers (but not mom and pop, because they dotn meet the reqs), major civic events, and any place where there are lots of people in a small space.

But that would make so much more sense than once again trying to play the "I'm not touching you" game with the law.

EDIT
Ipsil-- You have clearly never really worked with a baggage scanner.

The cheapest ones are just an X-ray machine, with a conveyor belt. You can bulk put bags through, and scan for weapons or munitions. the human goes through the metal detector, not xray machine.  The bag goes in the xray machine, not the metal detectgor the time it takes to go through the machine is about the time it takes to go through the detector.  You put your bag on the conveyor, walk through the detector, the attendant looks at the scan, and either lets you in or detains you, all in about 6 seconds of time.

[RedKing]

And this is reason #3,271 why nothing will ever change. Well-meaning liberals fall into a bunch of useless fucking navel-gazing, while conservatives retreat into hugging their guns and whispering "It's okay, baby....I'll keep you safe".

Maybe we should put all our effort into Kevlar-lined clothing or personal forcefields. At least that would have potentially have some effect, even if only to create a dystopic situation of "Rich people are bulletproof, poor people are casualties".