3 ms·

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

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.
    - davorak 4y ago
      It looks like mariusor gave you a statement, with no direct connection to a real group of people, that is almost tautologically true. > 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. To reword a little bit, it is immoral to persecute(or support the act) a group for arbitrary and trivial detail(s). So if you agree with that then you and mariusor would have some common ground and could build from there.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        I don't agree with the characterization that there's no direct connection to a real group of people with this statement, as it would be a non sequitur at best, and an intentional misdirection at worst. I, and probably most people reading this thread, are under the impression that we are talking about the Uyghurs of Xinjiang considering the topic of the post, and it's kind of absurd to assume otherwise.
        davorak 4y ago
        It is a common technique, in my experience, to generalize parts of an argument to make it easier to find a shared philosophy or principle. Then Shared understanding can cooperatively be built on the common ground formed by the shared philosophy or principle. mariusor generalized their argument, tried to separate his argument form any specific group, with: > 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. After common ground is found the next step is to apply the shared understanding or philosophy to the specifics of the issue at hand. This often allows both parties to separate themselves from their biases, at least some, and think more clearly.

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.
  - davorak 4y ago
    It looks like mariusor gave you a statement, with no direct connection to a real group of people, that is almost tautologically true. > 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. To reword a little bit, it is immoral to persecute(or support the act) a group for arbitrary and trivial detail(s). So if you agree with that then you and mariusor would have some common ground and could build from there.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      I don't agree with the characterization that there's no direct connection to a real group of people with this statement, as it would be a non sequitur at best, and an intentional misdirection at worst. I, and probably most people reading this thread, are under the impression that we are talking about the Uyghurs of Xinjiang considering the topic of the post, and it's kind of absurd to assume otherwise.
      - davorak 4y ago
        It is a common technique, in my experience, to generalize parts of an argument to make it easier to find a shared philosophy or principle. Then Shared understanding can cooperatively be built on the common ground formed by the shared philosophy or principle. mariusor generalized their argument, tried to separate his argument form any specific group, with: > 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. After common ground is found the next step is to apply the shared understanding or philosophy to the specifics of the issue at hand. This often allows both parties to separate themselves from their biases, at least some, and think more clearly.