Duke_Freedom Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Ah that explains some. Discrimination can never be "better for the society" either as discrimination is not 'useful' in the first place. It's irrational, as simply follows from the definition of discrimination. Irrationality is not "better for the society" at all. That's only if you believe in an absolute to define "better." Some people might think irrationality is better. Some people might believe discrimination is better. Unless there is an absolute good, "better" cannot exist absolutely as you suggest. By taking your stance, you are denying that there is a "better" in the first place and thus there is no use in discussion anything. You're just defying logic, not arguing. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 So does every system today if we had a vote of this nature for it. If i don't beleive the democracy I live in to be the best form of government and I vote for change it is the same situation we see here. Except your belief allows this to be said simultaneously: 1. It is best if the individual is sovereign. 2. It is best if the individual is not sovereign. Those two sentences contradict each other. That does not change a defintion of a reason, it is a rational motive for a beleif or action. "I don't like" is not a rational motive for a beleif. Since you seem unable to grasp this concept of justification, here's an example: Example Absolute belief: Harm should be avoided. Law: People cannot murder each other. Justification: Because harm should be avoided, and murder harms people, murder should be outlawed. Example 2 Absolute belief: What I like dislike should be avoided. Law: Black people cannot go into public places. Justification: Because what I dislike should be avoided, and I dislike black people being in public places, black people should be banned from public places. Do you see how it is the absolute belief that makes the justification? You can't justify something without an absolute belief. By taking your stance, you are denying that there is a "better" in the first place and thus there is no use in discussion anything. You're just defying logic, not arguing. I'm not denying that "better" exists, it is the relativists who deny that. "Better" cannot exist if a "best" does not exist. "Best" does not exist if there is no abo[bleep]e standard to judge it by. A relativist says there are no absolute standards, therefore "best" and consequentially, "better," cannot exist. That's my entire point if you've read the discussion. Claiming that one thing is "better" when you don't believe in "better" is ridiculous. I'm not defying logic at all. You are just showing your lack of understanding of Logic by suggesting so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 So does every system today if we had a vote of this nature for it. If i don't beleive the democracy I live in to be the best form of government and I vote for change it is the same situation we see here. Except your belief allows this to be said simultaneously: 1. It is best if the individual is sovereign. 2. It is best if the individual is not sovereign. Those two sentences contradict each other. So does any beleif system. That does not change a defintion of a reason, it is a rational motive for a beleif or action. "I don't like" is not a rational motive for a beleif. Since you seem unable to grasp this concept of justification, here's an example: Example Absolute belief: Harm should be avoided. Law: People cannot murder each other. Justification: Because harm should be avoided, and murder harms people, murder should be outlawed. Example 2 Absolute belief: What I like dislike should be avoided. Law: Black people cannot go into public places. Justification: Because what I dislike should be avoided, and I dislike black people being in public places, black people should be banned from public places. Do you see how it is the absolute belief that makes the justification? You can't justify something without an absolute belief. This society votes for what they beleive is best for society as a whole, not just of what they beleive to be best for them. So "I don't like" doesn't come into a reason. If the person was to say "It's best for society because i don't like" it's still basing the reason on whats best for them, and not neccessarily best for society. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke_Freedom Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'm not denying that "better" exists Then why did your reply to me only state that my statement was only true if absolute truths / "better" exists? You basically admit that you weren't arguing anything now? The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 So does any beleif system. Not in a belief system that has no basis on individual sovereignty. This society votes for what they beleive is best for society as a whole, not just of what they beleive to be best for them. So "I don't like" doesn't come into a reason. If the person was to say "It's best for society because i don't like" it's still basing the reason on whats best for them, and not neccessarily best for society. Quit saying this. It is not a specific society. It doesn't matter what the reason is, as long as that person believes it will help society. If that person thinks that his likes are what best helps society, then it is just as valid as anything else because there is no absolute way to justify anything. You go in circles over and over and over... Then why did your reply to me only state that my statement was only true if absolute truths / "better" exists? You basically admit that you weren't arguing anything now? I assumed that since you jumped into the discussion, you knew what was going on. If in a relativist society, where "better" doesn't absolutely exist, "better" is left up to the individual for defining. "Better" is different for everyone else. In this society, if someone views discrimination as "better for society" that that is perfectly okay, because no true standard for better exists. For you to say that someone can't vote for discrimination to better society is ridiculous in a society where relativism rules, because "better" is left up to the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke_Freedom Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 If in a relativist society, where "better" doesn't absolutely exist, "better" is left up to the individual for defining. "Better" is different for everyone else. In this society, if someone views discrimination as "better for society" that that is perfectly okay, because no true standard for better exists. For you to say that someone can't vote for discrimination to better society is ridiculous in a society where relativism rules, because "better" is left up to the individual. Ok having read through the pages a bit now it seems that Satenza does not believe in absolutes and you do believe in absolutes? How about, in a relativist society everything is neutral (as there will always be people believing that it's good and people believing that it is wrong). This means that discrimination is neutral and this is no longer considered discrimination anymore? Who says a democracy is the best governement type for a relativist society anyway? There will be people arguing that too? Why should every persons opinion "count just as much"? Who's to say that's "good" in a relativist society? I thought an objective "good" did not exist in a relativist society? As I said in my earlier post, there is no room for discussion if you don't believe in absolutes, because fundamentally people will be disagreeing no matter what - thus I'm really not understanding the use of this discussion. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 How about, in a relativist society everything is neutral (as there will always be people believing that it's good and people believing that it is wrong). This means that discrimination is neutral and this is no longer considered discrimination anymore? It's still discrimination, it just loses the negative connotation. Which is what I was saying. Satenza said in his initial point that "the law should be blind to discrimination" but that is ridiculous if you believe the law should be left to the majority. Who says a democracy is the best governement type for a relativist society anyway? There will be people arguing that too? Why should every persons opinion "count just as much"? Who's to say that's "good" in a relativist society? I thought an objective "good" did not exist in a relativist society? The nature of relativism says that every persons opinion if of equal weight. You are correct in saying that does not make that we "should" make a Democratic state because that jumps the is/ought gap which logically can't be done. We're also not saying a democracy is "good," we are saying that in a relativist society where everyone's opinions carry no more weight than everyone else's, that creates a necessary democracy. As I said in my earlier post, there is no room for discussion if you don't believe in absolutes, because fundamentally people will be disagreeing no matter what - thus I'm really not understanding the use of this discussion. The use of this discussion is to figure out Satenza's beliefs without contradicting himself, because he currently is doing just that. He believes that A) Any law made by the majority is okay and B) The law should be blind to discrimination. That however is a contradiction because the majority could very easily vote in discriminatory laws, which would make the law not blind to discrimination, and therefore contradict part B. What I loved about your input here is that you highlighted a great point. Universally, Satenza's beliefs do not necessitate any type of governmental structure, but in order to get out of his own contradiction, he necessitates them. That is a point I have been trying to make clear that he keeps avoiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'd just like to point out, this isn't my beleif. I don't beleive someone who thinks black people arn't equal to white people because they don't like is at all good in any fashion. However i also beleive that my opinion has as much right as the next man. The state is essential because my beleif of this is represented by this state, my thoughts of whats good and bad do not come into such matter. This state is great because it allows a society which can accept truth without the prejudice we have seen other people suffer under. Even Jesus suffered it because of a system where people thought their opinion deserved weight over others. I am justifying you the state not my personal beleif in what discrimination or anything is, but would allow truth without prejudice. Lets start here as all we are doing is going around in circles. Firstly it assumes this: Harm is justified to be banned, offence is not, and that liberty will find truth. This also assumes society would respect such freedom and live within this state. Harm is defined as: to do or cause harm to injure or damage. Offence is defined as: a violation or breaking of a social rule. Liberty is defined as: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. The state I wish to live in is one which takes the individual to be sovereign for the sole purpose of finding truth, and adopts Mill's harm principle as a tool to help society judge what is harmful to society and what is not. If something does not harm society, it .can't be banned. An example of the harm principle: A man can throw his fist towards another man, and stop two inches from his face. This may cause offence, but not harm and so there is no reason to ban such action. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke_Freedom Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 An example of the harm principle: A man can throw his fist towards another man, and stop two inches from his face. This may cause offence, but not harm and so there is no reason to ban such action. Then you would be ok with discrimination too as it doesn't cause any physical harm either. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Discrimination is a type of harm like not giving a black person a job because there black. You're harming them through discrimination. Prejudice would be fine as long as you didn't use it to incite such harm. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke_Freedom Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Discrimination is a trype of harm like not giving a black person a job because there black. You're harming them through discrimination. Which is mental harm, exactly the same as in the example you gave as that causes mental harm as well. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 If that person experienced mental harm then I'm sure they could go to the police/docter too sort things out. That example is more if a symbolic example of what it stands for. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke_Freedom Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 If that person experienced mental harm then I'm sure they could go to the police/docter too sort things out. That example is more if a symbolic example of what it stands for. People can do the same if they are discriminated. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Discrimination: 3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually ~from Webster's dictionary I have a question to add to the discussion... Is it always bad to discriminate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 As i said, it's symbolic I don't want to go into law but you would have to prove intention ect. However discrimination is a defined concept and so making a law preventing it would be neccessary. Discrimination in essance is bad as it harms someone else. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Discrimination in essance is bad as it harms someone else. What if the reason you are discriminating in the first place is because they are trying to harm you? For example... Suppose you are part of a group of people being exterminated in a genocide... Would it be wrong to view the people(whether it is race/political party/religion/whatever) killing everyone you know differently? Would it be wrong not to want to be around them? Would it be wrong to view them differently? Would it be wrong to go out of your way to avoid them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke_Freedom Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 As i said, it's symbolic I don't want to go into law but you would have to prove intention ect. However discrimination is a defined concept and so making a law preventing it would be neccessary. It can be just as hard to prove that something is based on discrimination. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Discrimination in essance is bad as it harms someone else. What if the reason you are discriminating in the first place is because they are trying to harm you? For example... Suppose you are part of a group of people being exterminated in a genocide... Would it be wrong to view the people(whether it is race/political party/religion/whatever) killing everyone you know differently? Would it be wrong not to want to be around them? Would it be wrong to view them differently? Would it be wrong to go out of your way to avoid them? Well genocide wouldn't happen within the state. But I would say that if a group of white people where murdering black people, and a black person refused a white person a job on the grounds that they don't like white people. It would still be against the rules as it's discrimination. And Duke, i know discrimination is hard to prove yet that would not be the point. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Well genocide wouldn't happen within the state. In the 1880s Argentine President Julio Roca launched a campaign to exterminate the native population of the Pampas and the Patagonia regions, leading to the deaths of some 20,000 indigenous people. In late Ming Dynasty, the rebel leader Zhang Xianzhong who had occupied Sichuan was alleged to kill the majority of habitants in this province. The aftermath was a massive resettlement called Huguang fill Sichuan that lasted for nearly 100 years. Antero Leitzinger wrote in an article called "The Circassian Genocide", initially published in the Turkistan News, that a genocide committed against the Circassian nation by Czarist Russia in the 1800s has been almost entirely forgotten, and that it was the largest genocide of the nineteenth century. "The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland." Genocide against Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia. The Croatian Ustasha regime committed genocide against Serbs, Jews and Roma (Gypsies) during World War II. They also mass murdered other political opponents. The Jews during the Holocaust. During the Tokugawa shogunate, tens of thousands of Christians were murdered. During the time of Japanese colonization in World War II, millions (20-30 million people) of prisoners of war and citizens were killed. However, the greatest Japanese war crime was the Nanking Massacre, in which Imperial Japanese Army soldiers engaged in an orgy of rape, torture, beheading, burning, stealing, and beating of the Chinese city-dwellers over the next couple months. Most death tolls range between 200,000 to 250,000 dead, while some go as high as 400,000. Between April and September 1972 between 100,000 and 150,000 Burundian Hutus were massacred. The Khmer Rouge, or more formally, the Communist Party of Kampuchea, led by Pol Pot, Ta Mok and other leaders, organized the mass killing of ideologically suspect groups, ethnic minorities like the ethnic Vietnamese, Chinese (or Sino-Khmers), Chams and Thais, former civil servants, former government soldiers, Buddhist monks, secular intellectuals and professionals, and former city dwellers. Khmer Rouge cadres defeated in factional struggles were also liquidated in purges. The number of the victims is estimated at approximately 1.7 million Cambodians between 1975-1979, including deaths from slave labour. Saddam killing his own citizens the Kurds... The Soviets killing the Afghanis... The Indonesians killing the inhabitants of East Timor... Stalin and other Soviet leaders killing millions of Russians... Mao killing millions of Chinese in the great leap foward... Estimates are in the upper 40 millions... Rwanda... Congo... Uganda... The list goes on and on... About half of these genocides is the state exterminating it's own citizens. I fail to see your point. The point I am getting at is say you are a Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994 during the genocide. Was it wrong to treat Hutus differently because they are trying to murder you? Is it wrong to do all you can to avoid them? Is it wrong to make generalized assumptions about their culture? Should you just treat a group of 15-35 year old male Hutus as normal plain ol' people or should you pre-judge their intentions based on their race, appearance and culture and go hide for your life? Is there a time when it is wise and also correct to make discriminatory judgments in your mind about people that follow a certain culture, race or beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 About half of these genocides is the state exterminating it's own citizens. I fail to see your point. The point I am getting at is say you are a Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994 during the genocide. Was it wrong to treat Hutus differently because they are trying to murder you? Is it wrong to do all you can to avoid them? Is it wrong to make generalized assumptions about their culture? Should you just treat a group of 15-35 year old male Hutus as normal plain ol' people or should you pre-judge their intentions based on their race, appearance and culture and go hide for your life? Is there a time when it is wise and also correct to make discriminatory judgments in your mind about people that follow a certain culture, race or beliefs? This state would not operate like the states you described. Genocide is harm and therefore why would the state go against it's own beleif that harm is bad? Anyway, if a genocide was too happen within the state, then the only situation it would occur would be if the state had failed. So I would run and hide in a corner until they had gone. The states purpose is to protect the individual so with the state intact, it wouldn't occur. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 So I would run and hide in a corner until they had gone. Who are "they"? How do you define "they"? Why would you hide from "they"? Do you have to use generalized characteristics to determine who "they" are? Do you treat "they" differently (hide from them) based off these characteristics? Isn't that discriminating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 You're asking me on my personal beleif now not the states, since genocide would never happen unless the state had failed. I personally would run away from someone who's intention was to kill me. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 You're asking me on my personal beleif now not the states, since genocide would never happen unless the state had failed. This discussion is outside the realm of just the United States. Only focusing on one country like that is taking a narrow minded approach. It doesn't matter what country it is. The points remain the same. Another thing is why would you say it would never happen in the US as long as our government didn't collapse? Are you saying something here is better than something in other countries? Isn't that a discriminating remark towards other cultures since it implies dominance of culture in the US? I personally would run away from someone who's intention was to kill me. What if it was a culture, race, or religion trying to kill you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 You're asking me on my personal beleif now not the states, since genocide would never happen unless the state had failed. This discussion is outside the realm of just the United States. Only focusing on one country like that is taking a narrow minded approach. It doesn't matter what country it is. The points remain the same. Thats beyond the point though because within this state genocide would never occur because the principle is that harm is bad. Genocide is harm and so the state wouldn't allow it. I personally would run away from someone who's intention was to kill me. What if it was a culture, race, or religion trying to kill you? Well, if all christians where chasing after me. My personal opinion of them would change because they where attempting to kill me. I wouldn't assosiate with anyone who would be trying to kill me, but i guess thats just common sense. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Well, if all christians where chasing after me. So far for this thread the two potential "bad" people you described were white people and Christians... Why is it ok to say bad stuff about those two classes of people but to do so against other classes is considered bad form? Political correctness is loaded with tons of discriminating... not necessarily all being good forms of it. My personal opinion of them would change because they where attempting to kill me. I wouldn't assosiate with anyone who would be trying to kill me, but i guess thats just common sense. That is the point I was trying to make. Sometimes discriminating is a good and healthy thing because something is potentially dangerous and we need to be able to label it as that for our benefit and safety. Bad forms of discrimination are based off disliking people for no logical reason. That is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now