3 ms·

It doesn't take any moral equivocations at all. Immanuel Kant points it out as one of 3 moral principles that are always true, regardless of conditions. [1] On

It doesn't take any moral equivocations at all. Immanuel Kant points it out as one of 3 moral principles that are always true, regardless of conditions. [1] Once you accept a moral system that justifies no longer treating human beings as people, you've allowed yourself a system that can justify anything. Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination. That is a view to be fought, not descended to. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Second_Formulation:_The_Formula_of_Humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Sec...

mgkimsal 9y ago
> Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination. Seems like those 'other' groups were generally defined by biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology, not biology, but the majority of examples I can think of that you're alluding to have to do with biology, no?
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
  > biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? No. "Jewish" isn't biological, although there is some correlation, and America's red scare was soundly ideological.
  - mgkimsal 9y ago
    "I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology" I would think that's your 'red scare' unless you're talking about something else. The "jewish" one - thinking specifically of ww2 - it definitely was more of a biological component, as "how much" you were jewish, and from what lineage, made a difference. "jewish" is both cultural and may have a racial/biological component (imu).
- heneryville 9y ago
  The Cambodian genocide had a definite ideological side, as well as the repression of Kulaks [1]. I'm not sure why it's not traditionally listed as a genocide since it's effects would squarely place it somewhere in the top 5. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
- pjc50 9y ago
  The "cultural revolution" and Cambodia's "Year Zero" were explicitly ideological.
zimpenfish 9y ago
> Once you accept a moral system that justifies [slippery slope] Quick question: does anyone defending the racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., have any other argument than "SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!"?

mgkimsal 9y ago

> Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination. Seems like those 'other' groups were generally defined by biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology, not biology, but the majority of examples I can think of that you're alluding to have to do with biology, no?

yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
> biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? No. "Jewish" isn't biological, although there is some correlation, and America's red scare was soundly ideological.
- mgkimsal 9y ago
  "I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology" I would think that's your 'red scare' unless you're talking about something else. The "jewish" one - thinking specifically of ww2 - it definitely was more of a biological component, as "how much" you were jewish, and from what lineage, made a difference. "jewish" is both cultural and may have a racial/biological component (imu).
heneryville 9y ago
The Cambodian genocide had a definite ideological side, as well as the repression of Kulaks [1]. I'm not sure why it's not traditionally listed as a genocide since it's effects would squarely place it somewhere in the top 5. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
pjc50 9y ago
The "cultural revolution" and Cambodia's "Year Zero" were explicitly ideological.

zimpenfish 9y ago

> Once you accept a moral system that justifies [slippery slope] Quick question: does anyone defending the racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., have any other argument than "SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!"?