4 ms·

> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but ther

> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.

colordrops 4y ago
You are wrong about that because it's not possible to know if something is true with certainty. Hearing about things in the news and social media doesn't make it true. See: Iraq WMD.
- mariusor 4y ago
  I am not arguing about something that is true or not. I am arguing that someone that supports an objectively immoral act is objectively immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Let's talk about the word "objective" here. It means outside of any person's perspective, the same for everyone. Like the laws of physics for instance. "objective" and "moral" are contradictory, considering that "morals" are defined by individual perspectives. Even murder and child molestation were considered normal in some cultures historically (e.g. classical Greece). There is no such thing as objective morals, which is why the same story told by two different people can have vastly different tones. It's why we have laws to draw lines, and courts to get around the confusion about where those lines lie.
    - mariusor 4y ago
      Let's not argue semantics, please. I am pretty sure you understood what I meant. Persecuting a group of people for various criteria is unethical, immoral, evil, whatever you want to call it. I also claim that it is objectively so, and I would like you to argue in good faith how I am wrong about these two facts, instead of - like you accused grand-parent - moving the goal posts.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        No, it's not semantics. You can't say something that is not logical then argue that it's semantics when someone points that out. I don't know what you mean. There really isn't any situation that has an objective moral grounding. Just look at abortion. Both sides have pretty strong and reasonable narratives why their stance makes sense, and they both believe themselves to be objectively morally in the right. What is really happening is that both sides are small minded, thinking the other side is blind and nuts, and making the same mistake that you are.
        davorak 4y ago
        > No, it's not semantics. It is easy to interrupt you argument as semantics, because you can remove 'objectively' from mariusor's statement and the intended meaning does not seem to change much: 'I am arguing that someone that supports an immoral act is immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.' The main point of the statement does not seem to revolve around or or depend on 'objectively', so your argument can come off as arguing over an irreverent detail, which is one definition arguing over semantics.
        colordrops 4y ago
        It wouldn't have been confusing if not for them changing the subject and move the goalposts from their original statement, where the use of "objective" was absolutely material to their meaning, which was that the act is unquestionably immoral: >> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits > I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.
  - lenkite 4y ago
    Moral arguments are used by US state propaganda ALL THE TIME to get rid of the bad guys. I no longer trust 'objectively moral' arguments now. Folks who believe such are generally in the camp of the young, the brainwashed or the true 'change' fanatics who don't care about body count in pursuit of beliefs. Saddam is a bad guy with WMD - let's get rid of him with shock&awe. Oops, we lied to the world and caused 200k deaths, but we are really moral! Gaddafi is a bad guy who's oppressing the Arab Spring revolution (and threatening the USD). Let's get him with air-strikes and 'freedom-fighters'. Oops Libya fell-apart from a state that had guaranteed healthcare and education to a mess of conflicting factions and a multi-million casualty count. But hey - we are the good guys doing war for 'morality' and freedom. "We came, we saw, he died!"- Hillary Clinton. Assad is a bad guy who's killing rebels (and siding with bad Russia). Let's get rid of him by giving his opponents (Obama's moderate rebels) infinite ammo, arms and armour. So what if they chained and raped women, united and transmogrified into the ISIS and invaded Iraq - we get another opportunity to bomb the bad guys! All these 'moral American arguments' are responsible for multi-million deaths and casualties in the world - but doing it for morality makes it OK. It starts with your campus culture, then those same folks become members of the US state department and want to change the world by through cancelling nation states or enacting sanctions that cause economic collapse and famine.
- kmonsen 4y ago
  I feel that is a really bad example. I was an adult at the time and it was really clear back at the time that the Iraqi wmd was made up allegations, or at least the evidence we got to see was not worth anything.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    It's pretty clear to me that Xinjiang is not as bad as the US is making it in their propaganda war. I haven't seen any concrete evidence of genocide.

colordrops 4y ago

You are wrong about that because it's not possible to know if something is true with certainty. Hearing about things in the news and social media doesn't make it true. See: Iraq WMD.

mariusor 4y ago
I am not arguing about something that is true or not. I am arguing that someone that supports an objectively immoral act is objectively immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Let's talk about the word "objective" here. It means outside of any person's perspective, the same for everyone. Like the laws of physics for instance. "objective" and "moral" are contradictory, considering that "morals" are defined by individual perspectives. Even murder and child molestation were considered normal in some cultures historically (e.g. classical Greece). There is no such thing as objective morals, which is why the same story told by two different people can have vastly different tones. It's why we have laws to draw lines, and courts to get around the confusion about where those lines lie.
  - mariusor 4y ago
    Let's not argue semantics, please. I am pretty sure you understood what I meant. Persecuting a group of people for various criteria is unethical, immoral, evil, whatever you want to call it. I also claim that it is objectively so, and I would like you to argue in good faith how I am wrong about these two facts, instead of - like you accused grand-parent - moving the goal posts.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      No, it's not semantics. You can't say something that is not logical then argue that it's semantics when someone points that out. I don't know what you mean. There really isn't any situation that has an objective moral grounding. Just look at abortion. Both sides have pretty strong and reasonable narratives why their stance makes sense, and they both believe themselves to be objectively morally in the right. What is really happening is that both sides are small minded, thinking the other side is blind and nuts, and making the same mistake that you are.
      - davorak 4y ago
        > No, it's not semantics. It is easy to interrupt you argument as semantics, because you can remove 'objectively' from mariusor's statement and the intended meaning does not seem to change much: 'I am arguing that someone that supports an immoral act is immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.' The main point of the statement does not seem to revolve around or or depend on 'objectively', so your argument can come off as arguing over an irreverent detail, which is one definition arguing over semantics.
        colordrops 4y ago
        It wouldn't have been confusing if not for them changing the subject and move the goalposts from their original statement, where the use of "objective" was absolutely material to their meaning, which was that the act is unquestionably immoral: >> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits > I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.
- lenkite 4y ago
  Moral arguments are used by US state propaganda ALL THE TIME to get rid of the bad guys. I no longer trust 'objectively moral' arguments now. Folks who believe such are generally in the camp of the young, the brainwashed or the true 'change' fanatics who don't care about body count in pursuit of beliefs. Saddam is a bad guy with WMD - let's get rid of him with shock&awe. Oops, we lied to the world and caused 200k deaths, but we are really moral! Gaddafi is a bad guy who's oppressing the Arab Spring revolution (and threatening the USD). Let's get him with air-strikes and 'freedom-fighters'. Oops Libya fell-apart from a state that had guaranteed healthcare and education to a mess of conflicting factions and a multi-million casualty count. But hey - we are the good guys doing war for 'morality' and freedom. "We came, we saw, he died!"- Hillary Clinton. Assad is a bad guy who's killing rebels (and siding with bad Russia). Let's get rid of him by giving his opponents (Obama's moderate rebels) infinite ammo, arms and armour. So what if they chained and raped women, united and transmogrified into the ISIS and invaded Iraq - we get another opportunity to bomb the bad guys! All these 'moral American arguments' are responsible for multi-million deaths and casualties in the world - but doing it for morality makes it OK. It starts with your campus culture, then those same folks become members of the US state department and want to change the world by through cancelling nation states or enacting sanctions that cause economic collapse and famine.
kmonsen 4y ago
I feel that is a really bad example. I was an adult at the time and it was really clear back at the time that the Iraqi wmd was made up allegations, or at least the evidence we got to see was not worth anything.
- colordrops 4y ago
  It's pretty clear to me that Xinjiang is not as bad as the US is making it in their propaganda war. I haven't seen any concrete evidence of genocide.