5 ms·

> So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a de

> So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was. > And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter. Great! It's a free country. You don't have to participate in any debate you don't want to. But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten and mob them if they don't... well. Then I'm afraid we have a problem.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Yes. Everything can be debated. Fundamental moral axioms cannot really be debated (in the sense of rational argument based on logic and evidence); they can only be accepted or rejected. Furthermore, if you can't agree on them, nothing that rests on them (that is, any question of should rather than is) can be debated either.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Let's say that you're right about that. What's the consequence, then? War of all against all, as the Yale students seem to want? Or we learn to coexist with people who have different fundamental moral axioms from us? I vote for option B.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The answer, of course, will depend on your moral axioms (and, for most real sets of moral axioms people adhere to, the exact nature of the conflict between moral axioms. Its very hard to find a way to "peacefully coexist" with someone for whom actions which are a direct and immediate threat to your own highest values are morally obligatory.) Do I think the students that are the focus here are out of line? Sure. I think there is a real lack of balance, perspective, and proportion in their revealed values. OTOH, I think that finding a loud minority of university students behaving in a sophomoric manner to be decidedly unsurprising.
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    If you want people to peacefully coexist then you have to establish civil rights. No one's existence should be contingent upon personal sentiments or arbitrary morals. Either, we all have the same rights or we have none. There should be no debate as to who should have these rights as they benefit all.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      But rights depend upon 'personal sentiment or arbitrary morals' all the time. Who I rent out my upstairs room to - I'll decide. Which clubs I join; what movie theatres I frequent. And these things have economic/social impact beyond me - the theatre will close if it doesn't show movies acceptable to a large enough population etc. So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root, the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the majority, because free market etc. I'm in favor of peaceful coexistence, and treating everyone fairly. But I'm only one. The market (there are markets even in non-commercial/social transactions) will dominate the game. I'd be more interested in following the dialog, if there was one. We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to impede real dialog.
      - norea-armozel 11y ago
        "But rights depend upon 'personal sentiment or arbitrary morals' all the time. Who I rent out my upstairs room to - I'll decide. Which clubs I join; what movie theatres I frequent. And these things have economic/social impact beyond me - the theatre will close if it doesn't show movies acceptable to a large enough population etc." Economics doesn't factor into law. SCOTUS on the matter of Equal Protection has already spoken so economies adjust to legal realities (not vice versa). "So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root, the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the majority, because free market etc." Privilege in racism is the concept that you and I based on our ethnicity can take certain conditions for granted. For example, I'm white so I rarely feel need to change my behavior when a police patrol car passes me on the road but a person of color is acutely aware of the situation and must act above/beyond what the well adjusted citizen should act (more polite, more timid). Privilege is the freedom to not notice a power disparity since you have all the power or the social norms in your favor to acquire it. Markets don't factor into it either. Markets are the affect of social orders not their cause. "We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to impede real dialog." Okay, I'm not going too mean here but do you realize that POC aren't a position of power, right? If I get caught with a blunt I'm more likely to get a slap on the wrist since I'm white versus a person of color who may get a judge who'll throw the book at them. Just by being white I have a statistically better chance of lesser sentence for just about any crime. Just because POC say mean things to you on Twitter or to your face doesn't equate being shouted down. They (and you) have a right to not associate nor to consider any ideas if they (and you) so wish. So, please don't assume the "truth is the middle." It's time for people to just accept that the truth in this matter be it racial equality or LGBT (emphasis on the T imo) rights is very clear. The only debate should be on how best to handle the injustices in question.
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
  "Fundamental moral axioms"? Do you mean the kind of thing that philosophers write whole books about? I was under the impression that it's exactly those ideas that are developed through the most rigorous debate.
norea-armozel 11y ago
>Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was. No, the right to exist in peace is not negotiable. If it is then we're living in a world that fundamentally is built on evil principles as it makes human life without value. It gives a justification to murder, rape, and steal so long as you get away with it. Human lives must have fundamental value and with it fundamental rights such as the right to self-identification (ex. gender identity and expression), economic autonomy (free to trade in a free market), and social autonomy (ex. freedom of association). Without those rights we get a brutal world where only the strongest decides what's good and right. We've already had that for the majority of history. I'm sure no one in the West would want to go back to those times where life was short and painful. Only someone foolish would think such conditions are desirable or sustainable (at least with our level of technology, especially in warfare). >But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten and mob them if they don't... well. False equivalence. I never stated I wanted to mob anyone. But I will say if you want to be my friend or part of my family then you do have to adhere to some moral standard I find compatible. That's not up for negotiation. Everyone would agree that ultimately if you can't agree that X person has the right to exist in Y way (ex. allowing a transwoman to medically and socially transition) then there's nothing to debate. It's a conflict between fundamental principles. There's nothing to be gained by one bowing to the other. They're antagonists of the worse sort. Better they not associate than 'debate' which usually entails more violence than non-association. Also, criticizing someone in the public sphere isn't even equivalent to mobbing. If I send you death threats or call your boss then that's mobbing, harassment, and bullying. If I call you a dipstick on Twitter and not evade your block afterwards; it's mean words. There's a key difference I should think.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > False equivalence. I never stated I wanted to mob anyone Then I don't have a beef with you. But the students in these articles are mobbing people physically, are preventing others from speaking, are chasing people out of their jobs. That is wrong.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Yes. Everything can be debated. Fundamental moral axioms cannot really be debated (in the sense of rational argument based on logic and evidence); they can only be accepted or rejected. Furthermore, if you can't agree on them, nothing that rests on them (that is, any question of should rather than is) can be debated either.

13thLetter 11y ago
Let's say that you're right about that. What's the consequence, then? War of all against all, as the Yale students seem to want? Or we learn to coexist with people who have different fundamental moral axioms from us? I vote for option B.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The answer, of course, will depend on your moral axioms (and, for most real sets of moral axioms people adhere to, the exact nature of the conflict between moral axioms. Its very hard to find a way to "peacefully coexist" with someone for whom actions which are a direct and immediate threat to your own highest values are morally obligatory.) Do I think the students that are the focus here are out of line? Sure. I think there is a real lack of balance, perspective, and proportion in their revealed values. OTOH, I think that finding a loud minority of university students behaving in a sophomoric manner to be decidedly unsurprising.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  If you want people to peacefully coexist then you have to establish civil rights. No one's existence should be contingent upon personal sentiments or arbitrary morals. Either, we all have the same rights or we have none. There should be no debate as to who should have these rights as they benefit all.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    But rights depend upon 'personal sentiment or arbitrary morals' all the time. Who I rent out my upstairs room to - I'll decide. Which clubs I join; what movie theatres I frequent. And these things have economic/social impact beyond me - the theatre will close if it doesn't show movies acceptable to a large enough population etc. So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root, the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the majority, because free market etc. I'm in favor of peaceful coexistence, and treating everyone fairly. But I'm only one. The market (there are markets even in non-commercial/social transactions) will dominate the game. I'd be more interested in following the dialog, if there was one. We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to impede real dialog.
    - norea-armozel 11y ago
      "But rights depend upon 'personal sentiment or arbitrary morals' all the time. Who I rent out my upstairs room to - I'll decide. Which clubs I join; what movie theatres I frequent. And these things have economic/social impact beyond me - the theatre will close if it doesn't show movies acceptable to a large enough population etc." Economics doesn't factor into law. SCOTUS on the matter of Equal Protection has already spoken so economies adjust to legal realities (not vice versa). "So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root, the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the majority, because free market etc." Privilege in racism is the concept that you and I based on our ethnicity can take certain conditions for granted. For example, I'm white so I rarely feel need to change my behavior when a police patrol car passes me on the road but a person of color is acutely aware of the situation and must act above/beyond what the well adjusted citizen should act (more polite, more timid). Privilege is the freedom to not notice a power disparity since you have all the power or the social norms in your favor to acquire it. Markets don't factor into it either. Markets are the affect of social orders not their cause. "We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to impede real dialog." Okay, I'm not going too mean here but do you realize that POC aren't a position of power, right? If I get caught with a blunt I'm more likely to get a slap on the wrist since I'm white versus a person of color who may get a judge who'll throw the book at them. Just by being white I have a statistically better chance of lesser sentence for just about any crime. Just because POC say mean things to you on Twitter or to your face doesn't equate being shouted down. They (and you) have a right to not associate nor to consider any ideas if they (and you) so wish. So, please don't assume the "truth is the middle." It's time for people to just accept that the truth in this matter be it racial equality or LGBT (emphasis on the T imo) rights is very clear. The only debate should be on how best to handle the injustices in question.
YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
"Fundamental moral axioms"? Do you mean the kind of thing that philosophers write whole books about? I was under the impression that it's exactly those ideas that are developed through the most rigorous debate.

norea-armozel 11y ago

>Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was. No, the right to exist in peace is not negotiable. If it is then we're living in a world that fundamentally is built on evil principles as it makes human life without value. It gives a justification to murder, rape, and steal so long as you get away with it. Human lives must have fundamental value and with it fundamental rights such as the right to self-identification (ex. gender identity and expression), economic autonomy (free to trade in a free market), and social autonomy (ex. freedom of association). Without those rights we get a brutal world where only the strongest decides what's good and right. We've already had that for the majority of history. I'm sure no one in the West would want to go back to those times where life was short and painful. Only someone foolish would think such conditions are desirable or sustainable (at least with our level of technology, especially in warfare). >But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten and mob them if they don't... well. False equivalence. I never stated I wanted to mob anyone. But I will say if you want to be my friend or part of my family then you do have to adhere to some moral standard I find compatible. That's not up for negotiation. Everyone would agree that ultimately if you can't agree that X person has the right to exist in Y way (ex. allowing a transwoman to medically and socially transition) then there's nothing to debate. It's a conflict between fundamental principles. There's nothing to be gained by one bowing to the other. They're antagonists of the worse sort. Better they not associate than 'debate' which usually entails more violence than non-association. Also, criticizing someone in the public sphere isn't even equivalent to mobbing. If I send you death threats or call your boss then that's mobbing, harassment, and bullying. If I call you a dipstick on Twitter and not evade your block afterwards; it's mean words. There's a key difference I should think.

13thLetter 11y ago
> False equivalence. I never stated I wanted to mob anyone Then I don't have a beef with you. But the students in these articles are mobbing people physically, are preventing others from speaking, are chasing people out of their jobs. That is wrong.