What is the limit of secular tolerance?

[Cognisant]

Spoiler

The phrase "Islam is right about women" perfectly illustrates the problem with secular tolerance, it's all well and good to be tolerant of other cultures, we are under no obligation to convert others to our secular way of thinking or to proselytize our secular ideology but insofar as our society is secular we must enforce that secularity and that will necessitate some degree of intolerance.

I think teaching kids mythology as if it were fact and brainwashing them into a paradigm of damnation/salvation is manipulative, abusive and we shouldn't allow it to continue.

What do you think?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I think it shows that the concept of "tolerance" is inherently flawed and logically incoherent. And by virtue of being logically incoherent, it can be used and abused to serve whatever purpose one wishes, and this is what's been happening in liberal western countries for the past few decades. "Tolerance" cannot be an axiom, whereas things like individual rights can, because in the latter case you can detect immediately whenever a culture, religion or political system infringes upon individual rights.

But that's of course interpreting "tolerance" the way it's ostensibly supposed to be interpreted when uttered by individuals of a certain ideological makeup. As discussed in detail in the "Frankfurt School" thread a while back, the prototypical "tolerance"-based leftist-liberal ideology that emerged in the 60s wasn't based on concepts of individual rights, it was based on pitting certain groups of people against each other based on the concept of opressors-vs-oppressed. So in a leftist-liberal's mind, it's not about whether "Islam is right about women" – that's completely irrelevant - it's about how Islam and women can be pitted against a third group, the oppressors.

 

[Hadoblado]

Just to be clear, the author of that video thinks that women shouldn't have the option to choose who they sleep with - he's not some centrist who's open mindedly just calling it how he sees it. He's an extreme conservative who's pretending that it's a troll when he genuinely believes regressive Islam isn't wrong about women.

"By allowing women to fuck freely, the west has defacto entered a matriarchy that disincentivises young men. Islam on the other hand keeps their women chaste and their expansive energy as Unwin's theory predicts, is manifested in what we're observing today". ~ BPS

So BPS thinks that Islam is right about women, but hates Islam for other reasons (fearing their "expansive energy". But it's just a jokey joke guuuuuys. This also happens to be the equivalent criticism to what he's levelling at progressives (who disagree with how Islam treat women, but don't fear their expansive energy). So it's a contradiction when progressives do it but not for him?

 

[Hadoblado]

Most progressives don't have a problem thinking Islam is wrong about women, if we're assuming that Islam's views are the regressive ones that are constantly discussed in media.

It's not a very strong gotcha at all. Admittedly some don't really get it and get flustered when asked probing questions, but there're idiots in every movement low hanging enough for the daily click-fuel.

 

[Cognisant]

Just to be clear, the author of that video thinks that women shouldn't have the option to choose who they sleep with.

I don't agree with that, I haven't done an exhaustive background check on him and I find it a little irritating that you seem to be implying I should when I'm pretty sure it's clear my post wasn't about that. It's click bait, I clicked, it made me think something, I am now here to talk about the thoughts that I had, the video was just to give context.

To spell it out to everyone I'm using women's rights as an anvil on which to beat on religion, to do that I need women's rights to be on a solid foundation, that foundation being that I agree with them.

Note that I'm not talking about NPCs or the Church of Woke because I don't care about that, as you say every village has its idiot and there's no point getting worked up over their antics.

 

[Hadoblado]

But you promoted someone who doesn't agree with women's rights, undermining your own intended goal. So I'm pointing that out to you because the context you're providing doesn't make sense given the point you're trying to make.

See how Serac's response was about lefts and tolerance, not religion and tolerance?

Anyway, sure... women good, religion bad :shrug: I guess

 

[Cognisant]

"Promoted" is taking it a bit far, I'm not advocating his channel, I'm not telling people to like and subscribe, if I post a video with Trump giving a press conference and go on to talk about the decline of democracy would you say I'm promoting Trump?

Anyway I have had a thought along those lines (choosing who to sleep with) I find it an interesting thought exercise to examine the habits and reproductive strategies of various animals (also insects, plants, etc) and consider if we met aliens that had evolved sentience from such origins how would they be psychologically different to us and what kind of culture would they have?

There's some animals with extreme sexual dimorphism such that one gender exists solely for procreation and as far as I know that's always the male, although there's coral (or worm, kinda like both?) with spermatozoa that are practically creatures unto themselves, then again I think they're hermaphrodites so same-same but different. Imagine that, there's this person you really like so your body produces this like living dildo thing and you give it to them and maybe they give theirs to you and that's how reproduction happens.

They would probably think we're really weird.

 

[redbaron]

did you know men also get to choose partners? crazy i know

religion sucks yeah, all the institutionalised ones ideally need to go.

the limit of secular tolerance though is just the point where discrimination based on belief occurs. you cant fire, or not hire teachers that are gay because your school is catholic for example, and that's where secular tolerance ends. likewise you can't stop a catholic signing up to a physics course.

if you want one, you necessarily have to have the other. I don't think people should face discrimination based on their religion (or lack thereof), and as long as someone doesn't seek to do that then they're okay by me

 

[Cognisant]

the limit of secular tolerance though is just the point where discrimination based on belief occurs. you cant fire, or not hire teachers that are gay because your school is catholic for example, and that's where secular tolerance ends. likewise you can't stop a catholic signing up to a physics course.

Ah but you missed the important one, can you refuse to hire or fire a teacher because they're catholic?

Of course that's seldom a problem, people who become qualified teachers have to undergo various tests to prove they know what they're talking about, but what about about other people in the education system and politicians who can affect education policy? If a catholic can't be trusted to teach biology can we trust a catholic politician to write education policy?

 

[redbaron]

i didn't miss a point, i think you did?

i literally said you can't stop a catholic signing up to a physics course (in a secular society). the implication being that gay people and catholics are both afforded the same freedom from discrimination

 

[Cognisant]

Being taught isn't the same as teaching and I used biology as my example because catholic beliefs directly contradict the scientific consensus.

I know what you said, what I'm saying is that you're avoiding the actual issue. What is your stance when it comes to discrimination against people based on their beliefs when their beliefs contradict accepted science? i.e. refusing to hire a biology teacher because they're catholic

 

[Cognisant]

Suppose a Muslim joins the US military, are they going to let him fly an A-10, sure he might be the most qualified man for the job but if you’re fighting an Islamic enemy there’s a certain conflict of interest, he might be perfectly loyal to the US but on the off chance he’s not that’s not a risk worth taking, it’s not fair, it’s clearly discrimination but it’s not unjustified discrimination.

Would you let a Catholic work in an abortion clinic? Of course a Catholic probably wouldn’t want to work in an abortion clinic so if one applied for the job it’s only natural to assumed they’d be doing so with an ulterior motive and on those grounds it would be prudent to discriminate against them based on their beliefs. Now what about someone in a position to deny funding to that clinic, or redirect patients from that clinic, or to write policy that makes such clinics less accessible or more expensive, what about the janitor who has keys to the building can we trust a Catholic with those keys? Is their potential ulterior motive not a factor that weighs against them in the employee selection process?

In a secular society I believe people with non-secular ulterior motives/allegiances should be discriminated against for any role of authority or where their beliefs pose a potential security risk.

 

[washti]

I sympathize with Cog's conclusion. As idealistic approach to simply cut the possibility of harm and do it on clear criteria. But this is assumption of intent realistic only in the most dangerous cases when religious person's values motives and action are integrated with the ideology. That's rare.

Many people function under label but are not representatives of the ideology at all. They were born in one and just keep it going, hiding their real values and opinions. For shitload of reasons. Some perfectly justyfied one(if we look at it from their self interest perspective) They will perform their job with the same quality as secular person would.

The ambuigity and potential for radicalization still remains. So do tendency to look for absolute criteria to form a judgment and prevent the harm.

Personally I have a strong need for secure environment. I could not imagine myself living in places like Paris after so many acts of terror and silent social acceptance that those things will happen, its just part of live now, deal with it you fearful mongrel.

 

[redbaron]

okay stopped reading after the first paragraph

yes, you should hire a catholic teacher if they're the best candidate for the job, because personal belief =/= occupation

i actually did have a religious chemistry teacher in high school, who was passionate and probably my favourite of all my science teachers. he never brought religion into the classroom

meanwhile one of my shittiest science teachers had no (apparent) religious belief.

if a teacher's bad at their job there's already mechanisms to address that issue.

 

[Kormak]

Spoiler

The phrase "Islam is right about women" perfectly illustrates the problem with secular tolerance, it's all well and good to be tolerant of other cultures, we are under no obligation to convert others to our secular way of thinking or to proselytize our secular ideology but insofar as our society is secular we must enforce that secularity and that will necessitate some degree of intolerance.

I think teaching kids mythology as if it were fact and brainwashing them into a paradigm of damnation/salvation is manipulative, abusive and we shouldn't allow it to continue.

What do you think?

I have made an observation post-reading Nietzsche, that he was absolutely correct about Master and Slave morality. Western civilization and increasingly any other civilization trying to be like it is in the grips of what Nietzsche referred to as slave morality, while high functioning sociopaths leading it practice master morality's worst sides without restraint. It's at the heart of everything, rotting the whole thing from the inside out and making it vulnerable. This notion of tolerance and our secular liberal values will be our downfall, but not more so than traditional Christian values which are essentially similar.

Like HIV, they weaken the immune system. Our dear "masters" stir up ppl against us for-profit and the sheep invite them in to slit our throats.

 

[Cognisant]

But this is assumption of intent realistic only in the most dangerous cases when religious person's values motives and action are integrated with the ideology. That's rare.

Terrorist attacks are rare, we still have security screening at airports, even if the risk is low you still undertake risk mitigation measures if the consequences are high.

Many people function under label but are not representatives of the ideology at all.

Well if it means so little to them maybe they could just give up the label? Ever hear the phrase that it's the moderates that enable the extremists? Tell me this isn't true, that if it was only the extremists that refused to give up the label then discriminating against the label would only discriminate against the extremists.

They were born in one and just keep it going, hiding their real values and opinions.

Really. What reasons might those be? That they might be discriminated against? That secular people run the risk of being fired from their jobs, rejected by their peers and ostracized by their own families for being secular, IN SECULAR NATIONS NO LESS!

They will perform their job with the same quality as secular person would.

Because they know they'll lose their job if they don't and that is discrimination working as it should, we can never stop people believing whatever they want to believe in the privacy of their own minds but they have to keep that shit to themselves because they know if they don't there will be consequences, that's discrimination against bullshit and as you've just explained, it works!

Personally I have a strong need for secure environment. I could not imagine myself living in places like Paris after so many acts of terror and silent social acceptance that those things will happen, its just part of live now, deal with it you fearful mongrel.

But you shouldn't have to, the don't have the right to make us live in fear, we are the majority, we tolerate them on sufferance and I dare say we tolerate too much!

 

[Cognisant]

okay stopped reading after the first paragraph

Well aren't you the spitting image of an open-minded intellectual.

yes, you should hire a catholic teacher if they're the best candidate for the job, because personal belief =/= occupation

Wrong operator, you want !=
Also you're blatantly wrong for reasons I've already explained but you skipped over.

I have made an observation post-reading Nietzsche, that he was absolutely correct about Master and Slave morality. Western civilization and increasingly any other civilization trying to be like it is in the grips of what Nietzsche referred to as slave morality, while high functioning sociopaths leading it practice master morality's worst sides without restraint. It's at the heart of everything, rotting the whole thing from the inside out and making it vulnerable. This notion of tolerance and our secular liberal values will be our downfall, but not more so than traditional Christian values which are essentially similar.

Christians are fantastic slaves, so compliant and passive.
Global warming? That'll sort itself out.
Growing wealth inequality? Not to worry God's on our side.
Falling education standards? We don't need no edu-ca-tion!
Hey! Preacher! Leave those kids alone~

 

[redbaron]

okay stopped reading after the first paragraph

Well aren't you the spitting image of an open-minded intellectual.

yes, you should hire a catholic teacher if they're the best candidate for the job, because personal belief =/= occupation

Wrong operator, you want !=
Also you're blatantly wrong for reasons I've already explained but you skipped over.

read it since you insisted it was worth reading. not sure what you think is meant to change my mind on what secular values are?

being religious doesn't means you're inherently ignorant of and have a conflict of interest in teaching biology. dealing with teachers who do a bad job is already something the board of education aims to do.

until there's some kind of evidence for a tangible conflict of interest existing beyond simply, "this person is religious" it'd be pretty absurd to not just hire whoever the best candidate is

if you want to make the case that simply being religious makes someone scientifically illiterate and a poor educator, you're going to have to provide something better

institutionalized religious organisations aren't the same thing as individuals with a religious belief.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Well I guess I'm not surprised to hear fascist proto white nationalist rhetoric from you. Logical next step.

Watch your YouTube rabbit holes. You sound more cultish and radicalized than the preacher who presided over my grandfather's funeral. He's so caught up in his delusions he very publicly tried to take advantage of the grief of my brother and I in order to renew our faith.

Not all scams are religious and you're hardly innoculated.

 

[Cognisant]

You have a laser like focus on that one example.
Alright in the scenario where there is a teaching position available and you have an applicant who despite identifying with a religion (the teachings of which contradict what they would be teaching in that position) is the objectively superior candidate as compared to all other candidates, I will concede that not hiring them for that role in this highly specific instance would be suboptimal.

But what if the teacher we’re talking about isn’t the objectively superior candidate? One teacher might have ten years of experience while another has nine, that one extra year of experience is (with all else being equal) sufficient reason to call the more experienced teacher the objectively superior choice, but does it matter, is one extra year of experience really going to make all that much of a difference? Unless you’re splitting hairs like that then in the vast majority of cases there won’t be an objectively superior candidate, there will be a pool of candidates to choose each with their own individual merits and flaws and of those candidates most will be perfectly adequate for the role.

Now suppose we have two teachers, both of whom are perfectly adequate for the role, one teacher is religious and the other is not, knowing that being religious comes with some degree of risk doesn’t that make the irreligious teacher the superior choice? It might not be a huge risk, it doesn’t need to be a huge risk, the likelihood of any one plane being overtaken by hijackers is extraordinary low but that justifies the expense of security screening, here the consequences aren’t nearly so severe but the cost of preferentially selecting irreligious teachers is nil. If a risk mitigation measure costs nothing then insofar as there is a risk to mitigate (however slim and slight it may be) the onus isn’t on me to justify taking the measure, the onus is on you to explain why you won’t.

Now if we are discriminating against candidates who identify with a religion why don’t those candidates simply stop doing that? If you show up to a job interview with no shoes on you probably won’t get the job, it’s clearly discrimination against people who prefer to be barefooted. But if I came to you and bitched that I’m being discriminated against for my barefooted pedestrian preferences you would likely think I’m an idiot and tell me to just put some shoes on. Likewise if someone’s being discriminated against for openly identifying with a religion they could just not do that, it doesn’t even cost them anything, they don’t have to wear anything, they don’t have to do anything, they don’t even have to change their minds they can just keep their shit to themselves.

Indeed keeping that shit to themselves is what the guy you were talking about was already doing and as you pointed out the board of education already discriminates against people who don’t keep that shit to themselves, tolerating it only insofar as it isn’t a problem, it’s really not far to go from that to not tolerating it at all. Now you might be wondering what’s the difference, if we’re already practically discriminating what is there to be gained by making it official? Well it puts the onus of tolerance back on the individual, the onus isn’t on us to tolerate their religion it’s on the religious to be tolerable, as with being barefoot at a job interview if someone chooses to be religious and that disadvantages them it’s not us discriminating against them, it’s them disadvantaging themselves.

Furthermore if someone identifies with a religion but they don’t actually take it seriously why does it matter if they’re able to openly identify with that religion or not? When someone says they’re a religious scientist I think the word they’re looking for is hypocrite and we must not allow such blatant hypocrisy, no more of this “oh well it’s a metaphor” bullshit, if someone wants to identify with something stupid then they’d best be ready to suffer the consequences for doing so.

 

[Cognisant]

Well I guess I'm not surprised to hear fascist proto white nationalist rhetoric from you.

Mmmkay so you're just going to throw a bunch of labels at me?

Such a typical NPC response, see I can do it too

 

[Cognisant]

I think calling me a fascist is a little unfair, irl I’m ranting and raving to people about voting independent to break up the two party system because insofar as those two parts are the same you effectively don’t have a vote, also the centralization of power in two parties facilitates corruption since they’re not at risk of losing their power over a scandal, a single party state would be even worse in that regard. Then again I see what you’re getting at, I might not be a political fascist but at least regarding religion you could rightly call me a secular ideological fascist, but that’s like calling atheism a religion, as a secularist I’m not really standing for anything other than to stand against religion.

 

[Kormak]

read it since you insisted it was worth reading. not sure what you think is meant to change my mind on what secular values are?

being religious doesn't means you're inherently ignorant of and have a conflict of interest in teaching biology. dealing with teachers who do a bad job is already something the board of education aims to do.

until there's some kind of evidence for a tangible conflict of interest existing beyond simply, "this person is religious" it'd be pretty absurd to not just hire whoever the best candidate is

if you want to make the case that simply being religious makes someone scientifically illiterate and a poor educator, you're going to have to provide something better

institutionalized religious organisations aren't the same thing as individuals with a religious belief.

Hmm I think the essential problem is within the fact that Christians nowadays specifically as well as secular humanists have the same flaw in their way of thinking, namely that of tolerance and altruism towards those who have none for them, towards the weak individuals within the society who blame everyone but themselves, who can't accept reality and manifest a morality that turns other people into a means towards their own destructive ends. In this light, a lot of Christians are very similar to secular humanists who weaken and destroy themselves and everyone around them. This is so because secular humanism at it's core is essentially Christianity without the religious parts.

It would be easy to remedy, namely via adopting hostility and distrust towards those who do not reciprocate the tolerance and altruism, and by condemning any individual who adopts a mindset that goes against the logic of treating others as ends in themselves, namely anyone who uses other people merely as a means towards their own goals. Simply put: defend yourselves & set boundaries.

For example, if Christians were to heed Christ's words and "teach ppl to fish" instead of "giving them fish", we wouldn't have the humanitarian disaster of overpopulation issue in Africa, because they would not have the means to support the growing population. Secular humanists aren't much different, their charity is often also misplaced and leads to disaster, their vision short-sighted and far removed from reality. Sweden for example. Eventually, their charity will become the end of the country and the Swedish ppl themselves.

I think such warnings, however, fall on deaf ears, but it's not a problem really as there is no escape from the laws governing reality and all the accumulation of weakness and defects will at one point break the camel's back, while ppl like me, who set boundaries and operate based on a well researched logical & moral foundation with clear macro lvl insight prosper.

Like Rome and other civilizations be4 it, the west is in the middle of a massive decline due to rotten foundations and faulty logic.

I advise reading the following works:
The Decline of the West & Perspectives of World History by Oswald Spengler.
The Antichrist by Friedrich Nietzsche
Critique of Practical Reason (1788), the Metaphysics of Morals (1797), and the Critique of Judgment (1790) by Immanuel Kant

Funny enough Spengler and Kant are both INTPs :P only Nietzsche being INTJ.

I think calling me a fascist is a little unfair, irl I’m ranting and raving to people about voting independent to break up the two party system because insofar as those two parts are the same you effectively don’t have a vote, also the centralization of power in two parties facilitates corruption since they’re not at risk of losing their power over a scandal, a single party state would be even worse in that regard. Then again I see what you’re getting at, I might not be a political fascist but at least regarding religion you could rightly call me a secular ideological fascist, but that’s like calling atheism a religion, as a secularist I’m not really standing for anything other than to stand against religion.

e_e they like to call everyone a "fascist" who does not agree with their worldview, regardless of one actually being one or not. It has been drilled into ppl by popular media. To understand why, read: Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul Alinsky (see rule 11)

As stated above imo secular ppl need to reevaluate and strip themselves of habitual Christian tendencies such as liberal tolerance & charity without discrimination. The reasons are clear as to why imo.

I fundamentally can't agree with right-wing conservatives either, it is simply flawed logic to think Christianity or Religiousness benefited western civilization. It is simply dysgenic, while more modern phenomena, such as allowing women to have a choice, gay rights are eugenic in their outcome and voluntary, therefore they do not violate the categorical imperative, which makes them ok in my book.

I could argue abortion rights violating the categorical imperative because the mother kills the potential future individual for her own ends, but that's another topic and its why as an agnostic atheist do not agree with abortion rights. I can argue the same thing about war, on top of violating the categorical imperative, it is dysgenic.

 

[Cognisant]

I agree with the consistency of the categorical imperative but not the presumption that others will necessarily follow my example. That universal perspective on morality is very Christian imo, as I see it a philosophy you live by is your strategy for success because if it isn't then what is your motivation to live by it? Communism is detrimental to the individual unless the collective prospers then individual benefits by being part of a successful collective. Whether or not you choose to be a communist depends upon whether you're set to benefit by doing so, it's an egocentric choice not a matter of what's morally righteous.

The categorical imperative is for the most part optimal but as you say one must first prioritize self defense and the setting of boundaries, it is your philosophy, a philosophy you follow for your benefit, you do not belong to it nor should you sacrifice your own well being for it.

 

[Kormak]

I agree with the consistency of the categorical imperative but not the presumption that others will necessarily follow my example. That universal perspective on morality is very Christian imo, as I see it a philosophy you live by is your strategy for success because if it isn't then what is your motivation to live by it?
.
.
.
The categorical imperative is for the most part optimal but as you say one must first prioritize self defense and the setting of boundaries, it is your philosophy, a philosophy you follow for your benefit, you do not belong to it nor should you sacrifice your own well being for it.

I assimilated it because it made logical sense. I don't necessarily need to be altruistic to abide by it and it's a good rule that keeps me from doing regrettable things like using ppl. :P its certainly better than going by one's feeling of conscience, at least to me. I don't expect others to abide by it either even tho its universal. As you say, it benefits me and has become part of my internal framework.

 

[Cognisant]

Not conscience, rather pride.
If doing something is regrettable then that is reason enough not to do it.

You are your own creator of meaning (your own god), you are your own creator (not initially but you decide who you will become) to do something regrettable is to betray yourself and you must atone for that transgression against yourself lest you be forever burdened by shame. There's no escaping your own judgement because there's no escaping yourself, you'll always know what you did in the dark, you can lie to yourself but you'll never really believe it.

Egocentric morality is having standards and taking pride in having those standards, the more pride you wish to have the higher the standards you must hold yourself to.

You're already doing this with the categorical imperative, the appeal to some universal standard of morality is nothing but a vain attempt to convince yourself the universe cares about the standards you hold yourself to but you don't need the universe's approval because what you're really after in a roundabout way is your own approval.

You want to feel good about yourself.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

e_e they like to call everyone a "fascist" who does not agree with their worldview, regardless of one actually being one or not. It has been drilled into ppl by popular media. To understand why, read: Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul Alinsky (see rule 11)

Yup, the technique of dropping the “fascist” bomb started with Adorno and turned into a part of Alinsky’s more practical guide later on.

And btw as to slave morality, I think it’s a result of the Marxist roots of the people who shaped most of the contemporary leftist-liberal language. In transforming the capitalist-vs-worker idea into a more general oppressor-vs-oppressed framework it is necessary to assign moral virtue to being oppressed.

 

[Kormak]

Not conscience, rather pride.
If doing something is regrettable then that is reason enough not to do it.

You are your own creator of meaning (your own god), you are your own creator (not initially but you decide who you will become) to do something regrettable is to betray yourself and you must atone for that transgression against yourself lest you be forever burdened by shame. There's no escaping your own judgement because there's no escaping yourself, you'll always know what you did in the dark, you can lie to yourself but you'll never really believe it.

Egocentric morality is having standards and taking pride in having those standards, the more pride you wish to have the higher the standards you must hold yourself to.

You're already doing this with the categorical imperative, the appeal to some universal standard of morality is nothing but a vain attempt to convince yourself the universe cares about the standards you hold yourself to but you don't need the universe's approval because what you're really after in a roundabout way is your own approval.

You want to feel good about yourself.

I do want to feel good about myself, to know that I live up to my internal framework. In as far as external rules go I only care about that which makes sense. Everything else is fair game until proven otherwise. In a sense you are sort of right, but not fully. Being self aware is important tho, but having a purely subjective morality is beyond stupid.

I derive social benefit by operating according to it's laws. Ppl around me also benefit from it through what I chose to do, specifically because it keeps them safe from me, while still allowing me to defend myself and set boundries. It is elegantl, universally valid logic. While I can't and won't force the categorical imperative on everyone else, it is by no means subjective. Ppl have to chose themselves to adopt it by their own free will and reason or continue suffering and making others suffer at their own hands due to faulty logic. 2+2=4 not 5

Regarding whats necessary for this: I either consider myself a moral agent with free will or throw morality out the window and resign myself to materialistic determinism, which would make any morality irrelevant as noone would be a moral agent or responsible for anything they do. The latter is undesirable as it reduces individuals to defective machines where eliminating the most harmful is the most efficient course of action in terms of resources. Such a materialistic worldview would inevitabley end in a humanitarian disaster, it reduces people to being robots & makes way for stuff like large scale arbitrary eugenics.

At the end of the day for me it does come down to this "leap of faith" or presupposition that man at the very least even if other things about it are deterministic, has the capacity for free will to chose his own actions and is thus is a moral agent.

Sincerely I don't think the universe has any semblence of sentience, what it does have are discoverable rules, systems, logical structures, like a large interconnected machine. I consider it wise to discover, learn and adapt to these. If I have a God, that would be reason (logos) itself, its not me, because I make mistakes... while objective truth exists outside of myself.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was logos, and logos was with God, and logos was God" .

Nowhere in the above am I obligated to actually help or correct other ppl. They live and die by their own mistakes, sames as I.

Tuh categorical imperative (a solution to the failings of secular tolerance)
Those who tolerate the intolerant are fools leading themselves to the slaughter.


Fuck the greater good! XD


The reason Kant appeals to me as a INTP is due to Ti dom preference:

Central to the INTP is their coherent structure of laws and principles through which they formulate an understanding of the world around them. INTP are motivated by a need to analyse and make sense of their experiences, abstracting from them certain rules or regularities and drawing them into a consistent, theoretical framework. For them, truth is the pinnacle of understanding and such truth can only be reached if everything accepted fits together and makes perfect internal sense. Only then can their structure possibly be correct. Many INTPs will be drawn to fields where they are able to make sense of the fundamentals that ordain our world, with many being found in mathematics, philosophy or even theology. Less intellectual or educated INTPs will nevertheless have an emphasis on the general principles by which they have naturally come to understand their experiences and will insist on trying to make sense of things according to these principles. Some INTPs can dedicate their lives to being system-builders, slowly and painstakingly piecing together a jigsaw in their minds that might revolutionise their chosen field. However, at some level, all INTPs will be driven to create a certain theoretical consistency in their lives, carefully ordering their thoughts and ideas through which to interpret a variety of phenomena.

 

[Cognisant]

having a purely subjective morality is beyond stupid.

Haha yeah but y'know there's no such thing as an objective morality, don't make me give you the nihilism speech you know axiomatically that which ought to be isn't that which is. There's no denying this if morality cannot be objective then it must be subjective, your Kantian categorical imperative is just a standard that you hold yourself to for ultimately egocentric reasons.

secular humanism at it's core is essentially Christianity without the religious parts.

The categorical imperative is Christian morality without the religious parts, of course that's no small difference your Kantian morality is far superior to Christian morality, but you're still looking for external approval to justify your self approval.

Skip the middle man, trust yourself, you are a good person with good intentions, you're not going to justify eugenics to yourself because you don't want to.

 

[Kormak]

The categorical imperative is Christian morality without the religious parts, of course that's no small difference your Kantian morality is far superior to Christian morality, but you're still looking for external approval to justify your self approval.

Skip the middle man, trust yourself, you are a good person with good intentions, you're not going to justify eugenics to yourself because you don't want to.

Yes, yes.. Kant's ethics is deontological like Christianity and Kant himself was Christian... but there is a difference between what Christians consider God to be and what Kant thinks. The categorical imperative is superior in every way to mushy flawed Christian morality. The guy was not wrong about things.

:P it needs to be logical. I can't do what INFPs do with the whole "it feels right" thing... that stuff is just odd... e_e sometimes pushing my sociopathic grandmother off a mountain would feel right, but that doesn't mean I should. Helping ppl we bomb may feel right, but then angry radicals go on a killing spree cus I was stupid enough let them in.

:P... damn it... fine! Its better to put maxims through the categorical imperative ^^ lel. It may very well be how my mind works and interprets the world... which makes it personally necessary. Even if its my own way, it still needs to make sense.

As a note, Kant is absolutely correct about transcendental idealism. We are unable to see reality as it truly is, time and space are created in your head. The observer orders reality, sets boundries, categorises it, so it can navigate it.

Aaaand I guess that is how we come to Herr Nietzsche and nihilism :P the INTJ who was correct about almost everything. The goal however would be to plow through nihilism and ultimateley overcome it, not to become one yourself.

There are plenty of destroyers out there already:

"What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. . . . For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end. . . ." - Will to Power

According to Oswald Spengler, patterns of nihilism are a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations and that is where we find ourselves today.

 

[Cognisant]

The categorical imperative is superior in every way to mushy flawed Christian morality.

Indubitably

I can't do what INFPs do with the whole "it feels right" thing... that stuff is just odd...

Neither can I and that's not what I'm advocating, I mean by all means continue to practice the Kantian method if you find it useful, I'm just saying any morality you derive from it is only moral because you deem it to be.

Use egocentric morality as lens through which to see the world more clearly, how all morality is really just an attempt at self satisfaction and that those who pretend otherwise (who operate under a pretense of humility) are only doing so because they have something to hide.

"What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. . . . For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end. . . ." - Will to Power

According to Oswald Spengler, patterns of nihilism are a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations and that is where we find ourselves today.

More on that when I'm less tired.

 

[Cognisant]

Nihilism is a stage you go through, like when you first find out Santa Claus isn't real or that your parent's don't know everything and they won't always be there for you, or that how you feel about someone doesn't mean a damn thing if they don't feel that way about you, it sucks but it's necessary. As children we're introduced to the world through stories and metaphors, we're given a simplified version of reality by our guardians because it's not easy to explain philosophy to a 5yr old.

Some people don't grow up, ever, sure they get older and go through hardships and have children and take on the responsibilities of being an adult but until the day they die they continue to believe that they live in, for lack of a better term, a managed environment. Global warming is a perfect example of this, some people are kicking and screaming that the world is coming to an end and the vast majority are complacent, convinced that the predicted consequences could never occur. This complacency is because they believe something will save them, some outside intervention of some sort will solve the problem, somehow, completely disregarding the fact that they are themselves the problem.

Nihilism is the realization that there is no safety net, there's no inherent morality, no divine arbiter watching over us, no preordained fate that awaits us, it's like when you're a child and you break something and your parents tell you it can't be fixed, that irrevocability is terrifying, but necessary.

I look forward to a post nihilism society.

 

[Kormak]

Global warming is a perfect example of this, some people are kicking and screaming that the world is coming to an end and the vast majority are complacent, convinced that the predicted consequences could never occur. This complacency is because they believe something will save them, some outside intervention of some sort will solve the problem, somehow, completely disregarding the fact that they are themselves the problem.

At my job my third responasability is managing proper waste disposal and reporting it to the government on a monthly basis. Believe me I know... its even worse than ppl believe it to be. The government europe wide has mismanaged the legal side of this which caused the collapse of the trash industry. I'm at a point where nobody wants to collect the industrial waste, because it's practically worthless... while the EU is breathing down my neck to dispose of it properly... yet they fail to provide the means to do so. Its a mess on all sides and shit will hit the fan soon. One of our previous collectors still has more than 12 tonns of our industrial plastic PMMA Poly(methyl methacrylate) on stock from last year. Nobody wants it.

I look forward to a post nihilism society.

:P same, fine, I don't really disagree tbh.

e_e I guess there is a good song for all of this that most ppl can understand, :P funny its from an album called "Will to Power"

Lyrics because the screaming might be uninteligable:


When I was born the seed was sown
I will not obey, my life is my own
Battle those who wish to enslave me
Expose the lies that enrage me

I don't believe in heaven, I don't believe in hell
Never joined the herd, could not adjust well
Slave and master, it's not for me
I chose my own path, set myself free

I, I go my own way
I swim against the stream
Forever I will fight the powers that be

I, I go my own way
I swim against the stream
Forever I will fight the powers that be
The eagle flies alone

Reject the system that dictates the norm
This world is full of lies and deceit
I have felt betrayal, cut so deep
Suffered defeat only to rise again

I, I go my own way
I swim against the stream
Forever I will fight the powers that be
I, I go my own way
I swim against the stream
Forever I will fight the powers that be
The eagle flies alone

Alone!

I, I go my own way
I swim against the stream
Forever I will fight the powers that be
I, I go my own way
I swim against the stream
Forever I will fight the powers that be
The eagle flies alone



Nietzsche has caught some fish...​

 

[Minuend]

:P it needs to be logical. I can't do what INFPs do with the whole "it feels right" thing... that stuff is just odd... e_e sometimes pushing my sociopathic grandmother off a mountain would feel right, but that doesn't mean I should. Helping ppl we bomb may feel right, but then angry radicals go on a killing spree cus I was stupid enough let them in.

You're reducing "feels right" to instant gratification level here, though. It's not like what feels good in the moment automatically takes precedence of what feels good long term, or that feelings are so one dimensional that sentence even makes sense. People will not always and automatically prefer instant gratification and thus will not kill their grandmother even though they have a moment of it feeling right.

Perhaps they take more emotional gratification of developing a moral/ behavior system they feel is logical and thus follow that. Being consistent gives more of an emotional high than killing someone, as killing someone would also be accompanied by unpleasant sensations for most, unless neurological deviant.

 

[scorpiomover]

The phrase "Islam is right about women" perfectly illustrates the problem with secular tolerance, it's all well and good to be tolerant of other cultures, we are under no obligation to convert others to our secular way of thinking or to proselytize our secular ideology but insofar as our society is secular we must enforce that secularity and that will necessitate some degree of intolerance.

I think teaching kids mythology as if it were fact and brainwashing them into a paradigm of damnation/salvation is manipulative, abusive and we shouldn't allow it to continue.

What do you think?

I think that before you can understand this, you have to learn to comprehend the concept of tolerance.

If you love tuna but your friend hates tuna, you've got 3 options:

1. Learn to hate tuna.
2. Learn to hate your friend.
3. Tolerate the contradiction, so you get to keep both of the things you love.

Now go back and re-read your post while thinking about how this principle of tolerance applies to your post.

 

[scorpiomover]

I think it shows that the concept of "tolerance" is inherently flawed and logically incoherent. And by virtue of being logically incoherent, it can be used and abused to serve whatever purpose one wishes, and this is what's been happening in liberal western countries for the past few decades. "Tolerance" cannot be an axiom, whereas things like individual rights can, because in the latter case you can detect immediately whenever a culture, religion or political system infringes upon individual rights.

Tolerance means that you don't get hurt if you don't hurt other people. So you can do whatever you want, but only so long as you aren't hurting anyone else in the process. So as long as you can find a safe way of doing things, everyone gets to be happy.

Tolerance is something YOU do to help your life. So it's something that is in your power to control and make a reality.

Rights mean you are told that you are entitled to things that no-one has provided yet, and the only security you have is a vague implication of a promise from a government that can be very patchy and nepotistic about keeping that promise.

Rights are things the GOVERNMENT does to help your life. So it's something that is completely out of your control.

If you want to understand why tolerance works, become friends with a violent ISTP. He'll be nice to you as long as you don't insult him. If you insult him, he'll put you in the hospital. You made a mutually beneficial arrangement. You broke the deal. Therefore, he is under no obligation to not put you in the hospital.

The problem with the way modern secular governments treat Muslims, is that they aren't being nice to Muslims because they are being tolerant of religions. They are doing it because in their view, Islam is a religion of over a billion POC. Secular liberal governments that desperately want to be not perceived as racist, and want to secure the respect of billions of POC, are afraid that if they then charge a Muslim with a crime that he committed, then POC people will not like them anymore.

 

[scorpiomover]

Just to be clear, the author of that video thinks that women shouldn't have the option to choose who they sleep with - he's not some centrist who's open mindedly just calling it how he sees it. He's an extreme conservative who's pretending that it's a troll when he genuinely believes regressive Islam isn't wrong about women.

"By allowing women to fuck freely, the west has defacto entered a matriarchy that disincentivises young men. Islam on the other hand keeps their women chaste and their expansive energy as Unwin's theory predicts, is manifested in what we're observing today". ~ BPS

So BPS thinks that Islam is right about women, but hates Islam for other reasons (fearing their "expansive energy". But it's just a jokey joke guuuuuys. This also happens to be the equivalent criticism to what he's levelling at progressives (who disagree with how Islam treat women, but don't fear their expansive energy). So it's a contradiction when progressives do it but not for him?

Ah. OK. This is a commonly raised problem with the modern day breakdown of the class system. The rejection of consideration of the problem is also a common response.

Unwin's theory is easy to understand. For society to progress, its citizens must freely choose to practise self-restraint. Imagine if the astronauts in Apollo 13 couldn't hold themselves back from getting stoned on the morning they were to fly. Can you imagine 3 people who are stoned out of their minds, surviving such a launch?

So Unwin's theory is not really about sexual restraint, as much as it is about rational self-restraint. It includes motivating yourself to have sex with an eager partner when it's reasonable, as much as it includes making yourself hold back from sex when it's the rational choice.

Extreme pressures that force women to repress their sexual needs, is also not about rational self-restraint, because the women aren't choosing to practise self-restraint because it's more rational to do so, but simply because they could go to prison. So people aren't used to rational self-restraint, and so struggle to use it when it makes a big practical difference.

For the same reason, sexual freedoms that are accompanied by unbridled lack of rational sexual restraint from the people, neurally reinforce habits of a lack of self-restraint for rational and practical reasons.

Even Christine Keeler (of the Profumo scandal) said that back in the 1960s, women had sexual freedom. But they didn't understand what to do with it.

The common response is to ridicule whoever is pointing out this problem. A lot of people think that if you tell people to not get drunk the morning before a launch, that's the same as telling people they're not ever allowed to drink alcohol. Ironically, this inability to express when those restrictions should be applied and when they should be ignored, is itself a lack of self-restraint: it's all or nothing.

So unfortunately, here, the problem isn't that the person expressing this is wrong. It's that a heck of a lot of the people who say he is wrong, are saying he is wrong for the exact same reasons that he is taking that attitude, i.e. lack of rational self-restraint, only he's going one way and they are going the other.

 

[scorpiomover]

To spell it out to everyone I'm using women's rights as an anvil on which to beat on religion,

Then that's why you were not getting the responses from @Hadoblado that you were hoping for.

You can't beat on religion. It's not a person. It doesn't care what you do to it. You'd have more success beating on a rock. At least you can hit it physically.

You can't beat on religious monsters who commit atrocities. They don't care about being moral. They're like psychopaths.

You can only beat on innocent religious people who already do everything they can to avoid hurting other people.

Since on average, women tend to have a much higher percentage who are religious than men, this is like someone trying to use women's rights as leverage to make women suffer by trying to convince courts to take away rights from religious women.

 

[Cognisant]

:P it needs to be logical. I can't do what INFPs do with the whole "it feels right" thing... that stuff is just odd... e_e sometimes pushing my sociopathic grandmother off a mountain would feel right, but that doesn't mean I should. Helping ppl we bomb may feel right, but then angry radicals go on a killing spree cus I was stupid enough let them in.

You're reducing "feels right" to instant gratification level here, though. It's not like what feels good in the moment automatically takes precedence of what feels good long term, or that feelings are so one dimensional that sentence even makes sense. People will not always and automatically prefer instant gratification and thus will not kill their grandmother even though they have a moment of it feeling right.

Perhaps they take more emotional gratification of developing a moral/ behavior system they feel is logical and thus follow that. Being consistent gives more of an emotional high than killing someone, as killing someone would also be accompanied by unpleasant sensations for most, unless neurological deviant.

I’m not a fan of transcendental idealism because people take it much too far, our perception of reality is necessarily based on representational models but that doesn’t mean reality itself isn’t objectively real, I have a great loathing for such subjectivist sophistry.

If these representational models are paintings then emotions are the paint as such it is impossible to make a completely dispassionate decision, so when making a decision it’s not a matter of whether you’re doing it rationally or emotionally but rather how well considered your emotions are. A complete lack of consideration is killing someone in a moment of fury only to realize you’ve made a terrible mistake, we can see this in the painting “Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan”. A lesser lack of consideration can be seen in people whose morality is based upon superficial impressions, consider the attempted lynching of Tom Robinson in the book “To Kill a Mockingbird”, hence why I’m not a fan of lynch mobs no matter how righteous they may believe their cause to be, especially when I would fancy joining said mob.

Being “rational” simply means putting a lot of consideration into one’s decisions, no matter how well reasoned the decision may be the reasoning itself is ultimately based upon certain subjective biases, that being said it is preferable to give one’s decisions as much consideration as possible so as to avoid acting in opposition to one’s own long term desires.

 

[Cognisant]

Since on average, women tend to have a much higher percentage who are religious than men, this is like someone trying to use women's rights as leverage to make women suffer by trying to convince courts to take away rights from religious women.

Paraphrased: By oppressing religion you're denying women their right to be oppressed by religion, that's oppression!

I see your point and I think it's stupid.

 

[Marbles]

I look forward to a post Nihilism society.

I find much freedom and subjective meaning in Nihilism. It is the renunciation of objevtive meaning, not subjective. If the universe has no purpose for us, we are free to construct our own purpose. I supose that might be what you mean by a post Nihilism society.

 

[Minuend]

I’m not a fan of transcendental idealism because people take it much too far, our perception of reality is necessarily based on representational models but that doesn’t mean reality itself isn’t objectively real, I have a great loathing for such subjectivist sophistry.

If these representational models are paintings then emotions are the paint as such it is impossible to make a completely dispassionate decision, so when making a decision it’s not a matter of whether you’re doing it rationally or emotionally but rather how well considered your emotions are. A complete lack of consideration is killing someone in a moment of fury only to realize you’ve made a terrible mistake, we can see this in the painting “Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan”. A lesser lack of consideration can be seen in people whose morality is based upon superficial impressions, consider the attempted lynching of Tom Robinson in the book “To Kill a Mockingbird”, hence why I’m not a fan of lynch mobs no matter how righteous they may believe their cause to be, especially when I would fancy joining said mob.

Being “rational” simply means putting a lot of consideration into one’s decisions, no matter how well reasoned the decision may be the reasoning itself is ultimately based upon certain subjective biases, that being said it is preferable to give one’s decisions as much consideration as possible so as to avoid acting in opposition to one’s own long term desires.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Our brain makes us feel goody or baddy thinking certain things. They also impact our opinions and what we think is "rational" or what is emotional. In fact, there are arguments that would explain why lynch mobbing would be a rational thing, like it would remove dangerous or harmful aspects from our society, making it beneficial for the pack etc. Thinking a lot and hard does not mean our opinions will be objective or detached from our emotions. In fact, thinking a lot and hard sometimes only means we're better able to grow into our delusions and justify them. Making better arguments for them. Better arguments does not mean more right, however. I mean, we can discuss what's right and not, but let's create an example. A very intelligent anti vaxxer makes amazing arguments vs the vaxxer who isn't interested in philosophy or logic but thinks vaxxing is necessary.

In the end our dedication to our beliefs stop when we are no longer motivated or when we feel no reward for it, doesn't matter how logical or rational it is.

As for the main topic. Some people are shit, others are less shit. You can't automatically tell from someone being religious. Sorry, but that perfect scientist atheist might be a pedophile. Maybe you should only hire women teacher as there are more male pedos than female. I mean, the chance is low the male teacher will be pedo, but the chance is higher. So why not hire the woman?

That's kinda your argument. Religious more likely to have harmful beliefs interfering with education, even if small. Well, men are more likely than women to be sexually abusive to kids, however small the chance.

 

[Cognisant]

A very intelligent anti vaxxer makes amazing arguments vs the vaxxer who isn't interested in philosophy or logic but thinks vaxxing is necessary.

And I could beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match if both his arms are broken, that doesn't make me a better boxer than Mike Tyson.

That's kinda your argument. Religious more likely to have harmful beliefs interfering with education, even if small. Well, men are more likely than women to be sexually abusive to kids, however small the chance.

What if I told you that's a perfectly valid argument and you've convinced me that ideally men shouldn't be allowed to teach children without supervision, granted there are short term practicality concerns with implementing such a policy.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

That's kinda your argument. Religious more likely to have harmful beliefs interfering with education, even if small. Well, men are more likely than women to be sexually abusive to kids, however small the chance.

What if I told you that's a perfectly valid argument and you've convinced me that ideally men shouldn't be allowed to teach children without supervision, granted there are short term practicality concerns with implementing such a policy.

That would probably be either inverse fallacy, base rate fallacy, or prosecutor's fallacy or similar. I.e. e.g. confusing 1) the probability of having a certain gender conditioned on being a pedophile with 2) the probability of being a pedophile conditioned on gender.

 

[Polaris]

What if I told you that's a perfectly valid argument and you've convinced me that ideally men shouldn't be allowed to teach children without supervision, granted there are short term practicality concerns with implementing such a policy.

It's not that simple. Women are often enablers of abuse. They know it happens but choose not to say or do anything because they are afraid of the consequences, or because kids don't get taken seriously.

For example, when I was a kid, I was stalked and harassed by a male teacher. He would creep up and grab me from behind at school, and I had to watch over my shoulder every day on my way home from school, because if he spotted me on the road, he'd stop and try to convince me to hop into his car. I always refused, and when I was able to spot his car early enough, I'd throw myself into the ditch on the side of the road until his car passed.

I told my mum and she didn't believe me. She just said she couldn't believe such a handsome and nice man would hurt anyone, and that I was exaggerating. But I was afraid every day and hated him so much I fantasised about killing him. At school, even the female teachers knew about his tendencies but nobody took us seriously. They also did nothing when the boys attacked the girls in class, or when a boy punched me so hard in the stomach I couldn't breathe because I didn't respond to his advances. Everyone knew that the teacher used to watch the girls while they were showering "to make sure the taps were working ok" during PE class. I fucking hated PE class, and avoided showering if he was teaching. Of course, he harassed me about it.

I very early learnt not to trust men, but also that I couldn't trust women to protect me.

People are rotten to the core, scared and/or cowardly regardless of sex, belief or lack of thereof.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm being set up to defend a flawed premise, how annoying.

IDEALLY a risk mitigation measure should always be taken in so far as there is a risk to be mitigated and is feasible to do so.

Of course circumstances are seldom ideal and there are many conditions that can disqualify the feasibility of a risk mitigation measure.

Ideally men shouldn't teach children without supervision, that's not to say all men are pedophiles or that women can't be pedophiles, I am saying ONLY THAT WHICH I AM ACTUALLY SAYING: If men only teach children with supervision that will mitigate (note: mitigation is no the same as elimination) the risk of child abuse.
Unless you have some evidence to refute Minuend's argument?

@Polaris
Thank you for you interesting albeit irrelevant segue.

@Serac
Some words of advice, before you accuse someone of making a fallacious argument actually figure out which fallacy it is so you don't look like an idiot when they point out you don't know what you're accusing them of, it somewhat undermines your credibility.

 

[Marbles]

@Polaris

That is a truly terrible story. I am so sorry.

When abuse in some form takes place in fiction, everyone has immense sympathy for the victim, but then compartmentalize abuse to something that happens elsewhere, in the past or indeed in fiction: "Our contemporary institutions are clearly professional and filled with decent members of the community." I get really fired up about the witnesses who do nothing, too, and the even worse enablers. However, I believe they are often driven by cowardice, conformity rather than malice, and that the perpetrators themselves are worse. Still, it is hard to have any love for humanity when predators and enablers are rampant.

What really scares me is that this side of humanity flourishes when power is unevenly distributed, and that we are consequentially living in the greatest lull of power abuse in human history. It will not last when our economical system isn't able to suppress the mechanism driving wealth to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands. Eventually we will return to despotic societies, and the century old brothels filled by child prostitutes and frequented by people like King Leopold and the Prince of Wales will reopen in cities like London.

That is, unless smart people like the ones on this forum can come up with a really good solution.

Thank you for you interesting albeit irrelevant segue.

That is really harsh.

In other news, I'm surprised you have to defend the idea that pedophilia rate in the genders would be accounted for in an ideal hiring process. You already yielded it's probably not practical, so I don't get the controversy.

Now stop bashing pedophiles y'all, before the LGBTP community comes down on us.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Some words of advice, before you accuse someone of making a fallacious argument actually figure out which fallacy it is so you don't look like an idiot when they point out you don't know what you're accusing them of, it somewhat undermines your credibility.

some words of advice, don't react super-defensively and in lack of any iota of social grace any time someone isn't kissing your ass and agrees with you 100%. That way it won't look like you have a severe inferiority complex when it comes to formal fallacies. I didn't "accuse" you of anything, I commented on the particulars of what was said between you and Minuend.

 

[scorpiomover]

Since on average, women tend to have a much higher percentage who are religious than men, this is like someone trying to use women's rights as leverage to make women suffer by trying to convince courts to take away rights from religious women.

Paraphrased: By oppressing religion you're denying women their right to be oppressed by religion, that's oppression!

I see your point and I think it's stupid.

Your argument assumes that religion is oppressive.

If religion is oppressive, then that is enough of an argument that you don't need to come up with a justification of oppressing religion.

If religion is not oppressive, then by oppressing religion you're oppressing religious women who are not opressed by their religion.

So either your arguments for oppressing religion are immoral or redundant, and either way, the rational and moral choice is to not make them.

Now, that's not to say that we should let religious people do things that harm others and break the law. But if religious people break the law, then they should be arrested and tried for the laws that they have broken and for harming the people that they have harmed. If found guilty by a jury, then they should be fined or incarnerated for their crimes, the same as anyone else.

If you do anything else, you're either letting them off for breaking the law or harming people, or you're sending them to prison for being religious when they haven't harmed anyone at all and haven't broken the law. The first is a lack of justice, and the second is punishing people who have done nothing wrong to anyone.

 

[Polaris]

@Marbles

Don't worry. I've developed a hard shell over the years.

I also used myself as an example, not for the sake of pity but because the risk of being brushed off as "leftist" by speaking in general terms. Of course, my argument will be misrepresented either way.

n other news, I'm surprised you have to defend the idea that pedophilia rate in the genders would be accounted for in an ideal hiring process. You already yielded it's probably not practical, so I don't get the controversy.

It's not about paedophilia though. The whole point was to take Cog's argument to it's only logical endpoint: if you're going to start screening individuals based on some general attribute and statistical probabilities of these being a risk in any hypothetical situation, you're going to have to engage in some pretty despotic type process. Scorpio's point about the punitive system (as non-ideal as it is, it is nevertheless the better evil) is important here because in our current system we have criminal records. And as much as these can be inaccurate, it's currently the best method we have for background checks.

It doesn't matter what the fucking context is because the context is more complex than "just screen out x people". It's a band-aid solution. You're going to have to look at what it is about the whole context that allows certain behaviours to become normalised.

And of course, at that point it becomes so complex that there is no real solution other than to hope for some paradigm shift. We're talking about ideal solutions, not real ones.

What has all those years of social conditioning done for humanity? Not much, if we are to judge by the current zeitgeist. We're almost programmed to fuck up, and there are probably very good reasons for that from a natural perspective.