SSCReader
11d ago
Second, you are modeling me as a politician, when I'm actually just engaging in leisure time. This is what makes your point irrelevant. Even if I did not realize your point, I do not need it and will never use it, because I am not in the business of convincing people of anything. I just want to debate on the internet for fun.
Not at all. I've worked with politicians. If I was modelling you as a politician I would be appealing to your naked self interest and nothing more. I wouldn't waste time arguing with you. I just enjoy arguing on the internet.
You're confusing the idea that moral substance does not exist in any real way with the idea that morality does not exist in any way.
Like I said before justice only exists in reference to people. It has no reality outside of that. In a universe with no sentient beings there is no justice (or indeed injustice) to be found. So talking about how just something is relative to an individual is of no merit, because what is just is what you can convince people to believe is just. No moral substance but still morality.
Moral error theory says that there is no such thing as moral facts, but that doesn't mean it doesn't recognize that people have beliefs about what is right or wrong. It just specifies these are not in and of themselves either true or false in any objective way.
Is a unicorn blue? No because unicorns don't exist. But the color blue does indeed exist. And someone could paint a picture of a blue unicorn. The representation exists, the idea exists, but the unicorn does not.
SSCReader
11d ago
apparently you thought I said that other people don't exist, and that nobody has different views than me.
No my point is that unless you convince those other people of your views, your views are worthless. What ought to be is irrelevant compared to what is and will be. That is what you are fundamentally misunderstanding. Moral substance doesn't really exist, so yes I am stripping that away. That's my point!
My reply is productive because I am attempting to explain what is apparently a very alien framing to you. (Perhaps badly, apparently!)
SSCReader
11d ago
Maybe an analogy will help:
It's like saying God tells us not to murder, and then when someone answers that God doesn't exist, complaining that you wanted to talk about God's commandments, not God's existence. One flows from the other. If God doesn't exist, whatever people claim he says about murder is worthless. So someone disputing the existence of God isn't misunderstanding anything. They're attacking your argument one level up, which is entirely valid.
You're assuming normative claims are some kind of freestanding thing in their own right which is moral realism and it's a disputed position. My point is a second order claim, your whole framing of normative claims rests on an assumption you haven't actually argued for.
If you want to have a discussion with the assumption moral realism is correct, then you need to state that upfront. Otherwise you are leaving that surface area of your argument up for debate.
SSCReader
11d ago
You can indeed, of course. But as you are just making a statement and not backing it up, I think anyone reading will correctly take my point which is that descriptivism is not a triviality in an ethics argument.
Do you have an actual argument for why it is just a triviality? An assertion does not an argument make.
SSCReader
11d ago
Pragmatism is a valid response to a normative claim. Thats what you are not understanding.
If you don't like it, ignore me. But you said "Stop with the amoralism"
I am telling you no, I will not because it is a valid rebuttal to your ideas.
You have asserted it is not, but you have not even made an attempt to argue why it isn't.
SSCReader
11d ago
We do discuss philosophy but we aren't a philosophy forum. The Culture War is very little to do with what is just and more to do with the overarching clash of culture within societies. So it shouldn't really surprise you if your ideas are critiqued within that framework.
Having said that pragmatism is a philosophy, so pointing out that your ideas do need to account for others is a valid point.
Or to put it another way, you can say people shouldn't care when a 25yo man dates a 16yo girl. And a valid response is shouldn't is irrelevant only what actually is.
This is a discussion forum, so you don't get to control who responds or the frame of their arguments. You can simply choose not to respond if it goes in a direction you don't wish to pursue however.
SSCReader
11d ago
Because you are talking to me, one person, not the whole of the world? Politics is politics so it will influence what happens and why. But neither of us are responsible for every other person just because we happen to share views with them.
But again note my arguments are pragmatic. Trump is not going to outlaw homosexuality. Your side lacks enough control of media to actually shame gay people like they used to be. You currently cannot try the old ways. Maybe in 5 or 10 years it will be. Who knows? Then the calculus might change.
SSCReader
11d ago
Well thats part of the problem. I'm not gay, but i did work in public health. It's not that I want this. If we could make gay men more cautious that would be great! I'd do it in a heartbeat. Just like making obese people eat less. It would be amazing!
But we must tackle the issue with the gays we have not the gays we wish we had. And keeping the gays in the closet and shaming them just meant they wouldn't come forward for treatment and then put wives of closeted men at risk and so on and so forth. We have been down this road. It failed and led us here.
Its not what I want vs what you want, its what seems to work best with the constraints we have.
Whats going to be easier getting cheap Prep or realigning society to put gay people back in the closet? Even allowing that shaming them would work?
You can go ahead and try to organize that. But in the meantime if you want to minimise breaking out into the rest of the populace making Prep cheap and easily available is the best lever we have.
It certainly is not perfect by any means.
SSCReader
12d ago
Nope, I just use the last posted page to browse and saw one comment then the other. No sinister Discord groups to stalk random people. Just reading. Promise.
And even if you want your discussion at the level of individuals then you may feel it doesn't harm anyone and another individual may feel it does. If that individual can persuade other individuals to intervene through social pressure or laws then you end up in the same place. Sets of people can coordinate actions from families on up.
You exist in a world with other people. Those other people may have different views to you. That you don't think it harms anyone matters not a jot. Only what you can persuade others to accept. To that extent society is real.
SSCReader
12d ago
Except we did the homophobia thing remember? And the fat shaming thing. And still here we are. There are some things apparently you cannot propaganda your way out of.
SSCReader
12d ago
I think the framing is incorrect here. People in general are not rational, so Group 1 is almost certainly not responding to rational incentives, it is responding to the socialization and social pressures that can approximate rational behaviour and have evolved over time based upon certain situations and conditions.
But yes from a public health perspective what matters is what people do, not some world where you wish people would be more rational. Most people should eat fewer empty cheap calories. We seem entirely incapable of doing that. So public health messaging and resources should be allocated accordingly. The people you have not the people you wish you had.
As for Group 2 in your example, well arguably their socialized set of behaviours is indeed working. Group 2 is just as much a part of society as Group 1. They are under no obligation to bow to Group 1's preferences if they are not forced to do so. That's what a culture war is for. To determine whose cultural mores and preferences are dominant.
But in the meantime those at the cutting edge must work with the resources they have.
SSCReader
12d ago
Either way you'll notice that, if this is true, it is precisely why tobacco is covered by heavy vice taxes.
Can I just point to history to show that we are very good as a species in judging our own behaviour objectively against others? The existence of the Russell conjugation proves it really, as it is describing a very common behaviour, for which the term would not need to be created if the action did not exist. I absolutely concede that there are some people who are rational enough not to do it. I think history shows the majority of humanity does though. Arguably that's part of the whole reason rationalism exists as an ethos/sub-culture.
As for smoking, "sin" taxes are indeed one way to square the circle, because they also disincentivize buying the product. But for gay people sex is the "product" and while we could raise taxes on rent boys, I don't think that really will be helpful volume wise. Adding a sin tax to Prep disincentivizes people buying it which makes the treatment happen less frequently. That's the opposite of what a sin tax is meant to achieve.
That's why you can't treat all "sins" the same. For some making the sin more expensive may help (where you have to buy a product or service) because it might make people indulge less frequently and you can put that money towards offsetting costs (see tobacco, alcohol, sugar et al). But in many other cases the sin is free. So making the preventives cheaper fills the same niche. Despite time periods that had heavy shame towards gay men, we have found no way to prevent them having pretty large amounts of sex with each other. Even in places where being gay can get you executed, it still happens, just more hidden. That's why you raise costs on smoking but make condoms free for example.
I appreciate the correction, though I reserve the right to skepticism until I look into it further.
Sure, that is absolutely understandable. I think it's likely in some places with some combinations of taxes and healthcare/social care costs smoking may be cheaper. In others it might not be. The breakpoint is likely to change across time as well.
SSCReader
12d ago
God knows I don't play any of the games I buy, but I can pass it on to the grandkids
Well....
"Unfortunately, Steam accounts and games are non-transferable," the support rep explained. "Steam Support can't provide someone else with access to the account or merge its access to another account.
"I regret to inform you that your Steam account cannot be transferred via a will."
SSCReader
12d ago
Right, but everyone wants to minimise their own risk factors. Which is why the deal is we won't deny medical treatment to anyone. No-one can be trusted to objectively measure their own risks (I only overeat a bit!) against those of the people they dislike (they jump out of planes like lunatics!).
We are well aware that groups cannot be trusted to tell extreme outliers apart from non-outliers when social distaste is involved (as it pretty much always is) so our institutions have evolved to minimise that issue. Trying to go back to "this group doesn't deserve x because they do y" is opening the can of worms we just escaped from. We do it this way for a reason.
And smoking may kill people but it still puts a lot people in hospital for long painful treatment and decline. Smokers are not doing it so they die early in 30 years time after smoking 2 packs a day as some kind of honorable suicide. Plus the study that showed it was cheaper for smokers is contested. It was funded by Phillip Morris after all.
"This critique analyzes the methodology used in a study of the economic burden imposed on public finances in the Czech Republic by the consumption of cigarettes. The study was prepared by a consulting firm on behalf of the Phillip Morris Company. This critique, by using economic theory and a cost-benefit methodology, refutes the conclusion of the Phillip Morris study that smoking represents an economic benefit to Czech state finances. In fact, the correction of only one among numerous errors in assumptions and calculations in the Phillip Morris study leads to the opposite conclusion: Instead of savings of $150 million per year, smoking drains at least $373 million from the state budget annually, nearly.8% of the Czech gross domestic product. The net loss to the society is even greater if all pertinent costs and benefits are calculated properly. The critique demonstrates how to craft a rigorous economic response to common industry attempts to influence public opinion in which the industry employs specious or erroneous assumptions and data."
SSCReader
12d ago
Yes but to an extent everyone is an amateur alligator wrestler. Some people overeat, some people smoke, some people drink, some do extreme sports, or sports in general, some drive too fast, or pilot light planes and so on and so forth.
There are very few people who are utterly viceless when it comes to activities that increase the risk of illness or injury.
SSCReader
12d ago
It is in fact possible. Why wouldn't it be possible? I do it all the time.
Most cooking is not a high decibel activity.
SSCReader
12d ago
Even if that kind of idiosyncratic statement was true, so what? You just said society isn't real, so if my family wants to outwork your family then you have no say. Society is what sets norms around what is reasonable behaviour. If it doesn't exist then everyone gets to set their own norms, no?
SSCReader
12d ago
Sure, but with an absolute position i only need a thin expansion to disprove it. And of the if the French could and so could the Spanish, then it seems like the Ottomans could have and so on and so forth.
SSCReader
12d ago
Sure, but there is a large gap between no-one else can do it and anybody else can do it.
Your claim was no-one else, my claim is likely someone else. I don't claim it is everybody else.
If you're claiming only this specific idea of gravity could do x, probably yes. The US was a huge mostly empty resource heavy new frontier. It's why we called it the New World. I think a counter-factual nation of French Americans seems pretty likely to have been hugely successful as well.
If you want to say only this version of Americans could have done everything its not a claim thats well backed up by evidence if you don't know why.
SSCReader
15d ago
The same kind of purity death spiral you see on the left,
Given the churches repeated and ancient schisming I think you have it the wrong way round. The left has the same sort of purity death spiral we see in Christianity.
SSCReader
15d ago
You are not getting it -- this conversation never happens, people just do stuff.
That however isn't good enough. In order for the audits (some even by Republican officials) to match, it would have to be organized. Otherwise one person is paying homeless people to vote, one person is faking postal ballots from scratch, one person is faking postal stamps from the right areas on ballots that are late, one person is swapping ballots by faking damaged ones and the last is adding a tranche of made up votes to the reports. And obviously none of these people can rely on monitors being kept away because they aren't organizing anything. So you have to have someone else decide to keep Republican monitors away even though they have no idea anyone is actually cheating.
There will be simply too many discrepancies in too many places, so not only do all the auditors have to be on side to cover it up, they also have to know which things are THEIR side cheating and not the other.
It's simply not viable. Your options are one single lone wolf actor making small changes or an organized group. A whole swathe of lone wolf actors acting independently is not going to work.
If Democrats can indeed even with no communication, cheat undetectably individually and then cover up something they don't even know is happening, and convince Republicans to also participate in the cover up while not saying anything to anyone, then quite frankly elections are the least of your worries because Democrats have evolved into a psychic species and we're going to be manifesting Daemons from the warp any day now.
SSCReader
16d ago
How do wokies deal with the very common idea of "You don't like thing x, but you have to do thing x as part of your job / role / responsibility?" They don't, the cry out "oppression!"
I wager most of them just get on and do it. We could also turn that around of course. Christians sometimes refuse to do their jobs and cry oppression (Kim Davis and gay marriage?), and often complain about being persecuted for their beliefs. So it goes. It's nothing to do with being a religion pseudo or otherwise, just that people who believe things strongly enough understandably may not want to violate their beliefs. And if forced to will often complain about it.
Nothing special about wokeness in that regard.
I mean definitionally it is:
The revised UCR definition of rape is: penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
That doesn't mean this story is true of course. But having sex with someone without their consent is rape. Whether they fight back or freeze or do nothing.
If she consents to having sex with Platner no matter how grudgingly then it isn't rape of course, you are correct there. But then there is consent. Lack of consent is exactly what turns sex into rape.
More options
Context Copy link