4 ms·

> There is a difference between a hate group, i.e. a group engaging in hatred and violence, and some institute whose policy ideas you disagree with. Not when t

by ebg13 7y ago

> There is a difference between a hate group, i.e. a group engaging in hatred and violence, and some institute whose policy ideas you disagree with. Not when the "policy ideas you disagree with" repress individuals for aspects of their personal lives.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Are you arguing that it represses people just to say that something is immoral, and try to convince people not to do it of their own volition? Or to publish empirical evidence just because it implies something ideologically inconvenient? Here's a thought experiment. Take it as axiomatic that heterosexual adoptive parents will, all else equal, generally raise more successful children. You're not going to want to do this because it's disadvantageous to a protected class, but there is nothing about the universe that requires all facts to be convenient. So assume for sake of argument that this fact is inconvenient but true. Now, sexual orientation may be a protected class, but so are children, so we've got to balance their interests. We've got to make a choice about which one is more important and when. But you can't even recognize the need to make a choice if nobody is allowed to say the inconvenient fact.
- ebg13 7y ago
  > Take it as axiomatic that heterosexual adoptive parents will, all else equal, generally raise more successful children Successful at what? Experience says that they won't be more successful at being good to other people. Your line of reasoning also leads one to say that black people shouldn't reproduce because their children are statistically less likely to become wealthy. That doesn't strike me as being an honest ethical framework. The ethical choice would be to advocate for making the world less shitty, not for population cleansing or other acts of repression.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Successful at what? Experience says that they won't be more successful at being good to other people. No, see, you're just challenging the axiom. The reason for the thought experiment is that nobody starts off by knowing things like that one way or the other. You don't know that it is true but you also can't assume that it isn't just because it being true would be inconvenient. You have to consider the possibility that not every fact is advantageous to your in-group, and be willing to accept the cases where that actually happens. Because it will. Just because somebody says something you don't like doesn't inherently mean that they're wrong. We shouldn't punish people for saying things that could be the truth. If you think they're wrong then you make your case. Everybody else gets to hear you both and make up their own mind. Censoring the opposition is cheating. > Your line of reasoning also leads one to say that black people shouldn't reproduce because their children are statistically less likely to become wealthy. That doesn't strike me as being an honest ethical framework. No, it doesn't, because existence isn't the same thing as adoption. The average black kid may have a harder life than the average white kid but that doesn't mean given the choice they would choose not to be born. Adoption isn't a matter of the kid existing or not; the kid exists. The question is who gets the kid. And the answer should be based on what's best for the kid. You can have a debate about how to define "best" but for any given definition, that's an empirical question with a factual answer. Which means we actually need the facts. And if the facts turn out to be convenient, that's great. But if they're not, they're not. The other side gets to make their case. You have to be willing to lose when you're wrong because it's the only way you can win when you're right. Anything else is just a war whose victor is decided by might rather than truth.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  > Here's a thought experiment. Take it as axiomatic that heterosexual adoptive parents will, all else equal, generally raise more successful children. Words fail me. Have you ever known a gay person well? The proper criteria for adoption is whether the adopting family can provide a good home for the child. That is all that matters. To make the moral issue more stark, let's flip the axiom a bit. For sake of argument, let's assume that Christian families, all else being equal, raise less successful children. Now, in this situation, how do we balance the needs of the child vs. the rights of a Christian couple that is looking to adopt? After all, religion is a protected class, but the child's well-being must be safe-guarded.

by ebg13 7y ago

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

Are you arguing that it represses people just to say that something is immoral, and try to convince people not to do it of their own volition? Or to publish empirical evidence just because it implies something ideologically inconvenient? Here's a thought experiment. Take it as axiomatic that heterosexual adoptive parents will, all else equal, generally raise more successful children. You're not going to want to do this because it's disadvantageous to a protected class, but there is nothing about the universe that requires all facts to be convenient. So assume for sake of argument that this fact is inconvenient but true. Now, sexual orientation may be a protected class, but so are children, so we've got to balance their interests. We've got to make a choice about which one is more important and when. But you can't even recognize the need to make a choice if nobody is allowed to say the inconvenient fact.

ebg13 7y ago
> Take it as axiomatic that heterosexual adoptive parents will, all else equal, generally raise more successful children Successful at what? Experience says that they won't be more successful at being good to other people. Your line of reasoning also leads one to say that black people shouldn't reproduce because their children are statistically less likely to become wealthy. That doesn't strike me as being an honest ethical framework. The ethical choice would be to advocate for making the world less shitty, not for population cleansing or other acts of repression.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Successful at what? Experience says that they won't be more successful at being good to other people. No, see, you're just challenging the axiom. The reason for the thought experiment is that nobody starts off by knowing things like that one way or the other. You don't know that it is true but you also can't assume that it isn't just because it being true would be inconvenient. You have to consider the possibility that not every fact is advantageous to your in-group, and be willing to accept the cases where that actually happens. Because it will. Just because somebody says something you don't like doesn't inherently mean that they're wrong. We shouldn't punish people for saying things that could be the truth. If you think they're wrong then you make your case. Everybody else gets to hear you both and make up their own mind. Censoring the opposition is cheating. > Your line of reasoning also leads one to say that black people shouldn't reproduce because their children are statistically less likely to become wealthy. That doesn't strike me as being an honest ethical framework. No, it doesn't, because existence isn't the same thing as adoption. The average black kid may have a harder life than the average white kid but that doesn't mean given the choice they would choose not to be born. Adoption isn't a matter of the kid existing or not; the kid exists. The question is who gets the kid. And the answer should be based on what's best for the kid. You can have a debate about how to define "best" but for any given definition, that's an empirical question with a factual answer. Which means we actually need the facts. And if the facts turn out to be convenient, that's great. But if they're not, they're not. The other side gets to make their case. You have to be willing to lose when you're wrong because it's the only way you can win when you're right. Anything else is just a war whose victor is decided by might rather than truth.
dwaltrip 7y ago
> Here's a thought experiment. Take it as axiomatic that heterosexual adoptive parents will, all else equal, generally raise more successful children. Words fail me. Have you ever known a gay person well? The proper criteria for adoption is whether the adopting family can provide a good home for the child. That is all that matters. To make the moral issue more stark, let's flip the axiom a bit. For sake of argument, let's assume that Christian families, all else being equal, raise less successful children. Now, in this situation, how do we balance the needs of the child vs. the rights of a Christian couple that is looking to adopt? After all, religion is a protected class, but the child's well-being must be safe-guarded.