U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-22-2015, 11:04 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,670 posts, read 71,091,336 times
Reputation: 35839

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AFP View Post
The end of settling disputes with violence across the board.
That only works if there is an authoritarian power to keep all parties playing at the approved "board".

And even then, not workable. If you define exactly the line across which lies violence, and a negotiation goes up to that line, it's like a game in which first team to 21 wins. Negotiation would simply begin at 20 and the adversary would have no counter position to escalate to. In order to enforce the 21 limit, there has to be an empowered authority, so just go straight to that authority for a verdict in the first place. Which is a dictatorship.

And if you feel the verdict is unjurst, well, exert violence against the only authority that has the power to declare it off limits. Nobody on the "board" can use violence to counter you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2015, 12:57 AM
 
507 posts, read 332,295 times
Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Points of Convergence View Post
I guess a simple rule of thumb for defining discrimination is that it's about hatred over immutable characteristics, such as skin color. But I think you're alluding to the fact that the term "hatred" in this scenario has been distorted by the left-leaning media to mean any view that doesn't agree with them. That kind of subjectivist nonsense I just ignore.
You're vaguely along the right lines, but what I'm getting at is a little deeper: Do you have an objective standard on which to judge whether a criticism of someone (based on his non-immutable character) is morally justified or due to "unjustified hate"? There are deeper implications based on how you answer.

Stemming from the earlier talk about philosophy, I find it an interesting question (not just from a Christian theist point of view) because it's generally understood among academics that people who make sweeping statements such as "all religion should be abolished" or "philosophy is pointless" are the kind of people most apt to be deceived by religion and philosophy.

That is, when put to scrutiny, they are most likely to have unexamined (quasi-)religious or philosophical assumptions of their own that they've taken aboard, typically at an early age, and just assumed to be true or "common sense" without the knowhow or motivation to examine them.

Last edited by Yousseff; 05-23-2015 at 02:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 03:04 PM
 
1,770 posts, read 1,094,102 times
Reputation: 1679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff View Post
You're vaguely along the right lines, but what I'm getting at is a little deeper: Do you have an objective standard on which to judge whether a criticism of someone (based on his non-immutable character) is morally justified or due to "unjustified hate"? There are deeper implications based on how you answer.

Stemming from the earlier talk about philosophy, I find it an interesting question (not just from a Christian theist point of view) because it's generally understood among academics that people who make sweeping statements such as "all religion should be abolished" or "philosophy is pointless" are the kind of people most apt to be deceived by religion and philosophy.

That is, when put to scrutiny, they are most likely to have unexamined (quasi-)religious or philosophical assumptions of their own that they've taken aboard, typically at an early age, and just assumed to be true or "common sense" without the knowhow or motivation to examine them.
I can only speak for myself, but I find that no matter if there is a god or not or if the universe has meaning or not, rule utilitarianism is a safe ethical viewpoint to take.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 03:22 PM
 
5,815 posts, read 9,710,508 times
Reputation: 4484
Stop breeding
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:29 PM.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top