5 ms·

> Look like intrinsically. Color of skin, fat, thin, hair, no hair etc. Clothes do change a lot like someone looks like though. On top of that, changing hair i

by mantas 9y ago

> Look like intrinsically. Color of skin, fat, thin, hair, no hair etc. Clothes do change a lot like someone looks like though. On top of that, changing hair is almost as easy as dress. Thin/fat ain't rocket science to change either. Even skin of color is changeable. Splitting by choices is generally not fine. Like my previous example - splitting by poor/rich or career choices. Judicial system is splitting by immutable traits too. If someone has a pathology which causes him to do harm to society, he won't be let go because it's immutable.

mpweiher 9y ago
OK, you are trying your utmost to willfully misrepresent what I wrote no matter what I do to clarify. One last time: Yes, you can change your look by choice. That's why I clarified that I meant those parts of "look" that aren't easily amenable to choice. And yes, you can always find extreme cases where choice can influence these types of attributes, but give it a rest. Exceptions prove the rule. Splitting by choices is absolutely fine, it's how society operates. We absolutely split by poor/rich: the rich have more money, with all that entails, and the poor have less money. We also split by career choice: those that choose specific careers will most likely be in those careers, and have the rights and responsibilities that go along with those choices. And the judicial system does not split by immutable traits. If you have a specific immutable trait but do not act on it, nothing happens. And it is your choice whether to act on it. Once you have acted on it, psychological problems may dictates whether you can be released. However, the diagnosis is re-evaluated and people are released when the diagnosis changes.
- mantas 9y ago
  All kinds of splits are happening all the time. People are damn good at grouping everything. What I'm saying neither choices nor immutable traits shouldn't be basis for judgement that are not reasonable and/or not directly related to specific situation. What I was talking about judicial system is the other way. When it looks the other way because of immutable trait it's seen as natural behaviour. Wether it's treating psychos lightly, because it's a condition or looking the other way from certain crimes because of skin color. P.S. Would you say "poor have less money, with all that entails"? I bumped into many people who think shitting on rich is fine, since it's part of the pack. Yet they go completely bananas if I do 180 and say the same about poors :) That's exactly the unreasonable judgement I was talking about.

by mantas 9y ago

mpweiher 9y ago

OK, you are trying your utmost to willfully misrepresent what I wrote no matter what I do to clarify. One last time: Yes, you can change your look by choice. That's why I clarified that I meant those parts of "look" that aren't easily amenable to choice. And yes, you can always find extreme cases where choice can influence these types of attributes, but give it a rest. Exceptions prove the rule. Splitting by choices is absolutely fine, it's how society operates. We absolutely split by poor/rich: the rich have more money, with all that entails, and the poor have less money. We also split by career choice: those that choose specific careers will most likely be in those careers, and have the rights and responsibilities that go along with those choices. And the judicial system does not split by immutable traits. If you have a specific immutable trait but do not act on it, nothing happens. And it is your choice whether to act on it. Once you have acted on it, psychological problems may dictates whether you can be released. However, the diagnosis is re-evaluated and people are released when the diagnosis changes.

mantas 9y ago
All kinds of splits are happening all the time. People are damn good at grouping everything. What I'm saying neither choices nor immutable traits shouldn't be basis for judgement that are not reasonable and/or not directly related to specific situation. What I was talking about judicial system is the other way. When it looks the other way because of immutable trait it's seen as natural behaviour. Wether it's treating psychos lightly, because it's a condition or looking the other way from certain crimes because of skin color. P.S. Would you say "poor have less money, with all that entails"? I bumped into many people who think shitting on rich is fine, since it's part of the pack. Yet they go completely bananas if I do 180 and say the same about poors :) That's exactly the unreasonable judgement I was talking about.