Search results

Is thinking justice matters but not doing anything about it (other than talking about it on the internet) worse than not giving a shit about justice in the first place? I'm not sure how the moral calculus works out on that one.

I don't see what's insane or unreasonable about any of that. The standard of harm is the same every time. Give me a different standard based on rational principles and explain why you think it's better and I'll listen.

lol

Let's see if that matches what I'm saying: Harm. Ruins nearby grass etc. Sure. No problem. Same sort of pollution harm as pissing on the sidewalk. Private property. Should be legal with the consent of the owners. Yep. Nudity doesn't hurt anyone. Just put down a towel (same issue as the poop...

GAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

1. Homosexuality is a social deviancy. 2. ??? 3. Homosexual behavior of all kinds should be prohibited from public spaces. The only thing that allows 3 to follow is "2. All forms of social deviancy should be prohibited from public spaces." But that's completely begging the question. Why...

Now THAT would be a demonstrable harm.

The difference is that I can tell you WHY I believe those things. You may not agree with my reasons, but there's (at least) an attempt at justification. I was actually pretty reticent to enter the debate at all precisely because I didn't want to argue with you about it and you seemed more...

"Might makes right" doesn't work any better as "majority makes right." It's not a given (at least with me) that those things ought to be criminalized either (pretty much for the same lack-of-demonstrable-harm reasons).

Some others.

I love that you're so simple you think the only people who could possibly have an interest in philosophy are people who went to school for it. That's really adorable. You know what? I take it back. Stick with your tv news. It's made with people like you in mind.

You don't understand the issue with "might makes right" as an argument? You're smarter than that. I think you're just trolling now.

I don't care about the guarantees of my lessers.

How would you know? You don't know anything about them because you haven't done any homework yet. You're the kind of lazy cunt that gets his news from the television. lol I guarantee you I do work that's more technically challenging than you. I don'tthinkI'm better than you. I look down...

Sure. Why not?

Do you have any evidence that it is beyond your opinions on the matter? Offend and harm aren't equivalent.

I gave you two examples. It's not my fault you're too lazy to read.

Because it was crushed from the outside militarily in order to prevent the threat of a good example during a period of heightened revolutionary activity.

Of course it is. Moreover, that's not the part I'm abstracting on. The hypothetical I'm talking about has to do with where power lies. That's very important because if your argument has more substance than "we have the power to stop you from doing this so you have to" then it will withstand...

1. I've already said like 20 times I don't want to derail the censorship debate. 2. I've already given you evidence.

I think it has been successfully implemented because of the evidence (as opposed to naked ideological assertion) I've already given you (and other evidence besides that).

You should start by establishing that he, in fact, ought to be stopped.

Isn't it? What's the reason to enforce laws if NOT to prevent harm? I'm really curious what you think here. No, but youmightwant to have a well reasoned and vigorous debate among your legislators and the people who elect them before and during the time they're planning to curtail freedoms...

I don't care about your theological convictions.

You don't have to want it to occur to think it isn't worth it to absolutely guarantee it doesn't occur.

For the sake of the hypothetical, that place is Russia. You know why you have to do that instead of providing an ethical argument for why that minority should be compelled to remain silent in public places is entirely "might makes right." As soon as the hypothetical changes to one where the...

I agree. The two examples I gave do show both those things. I'm not proposing that my opinion that communism is feasible now (really I don't even know what "feasible" is supposed to mean here) be enforced at gunpoint. That's why there's a different burden of proof.

lol No the police aren't doing the justifying. The society that pays them and orders them to stop bank robbers has to do the justifying. That justification isn't just that they have enough firepower to stop bankrobbers. There's a REASON they do so that's predicated on preventing harm (or...

You don't even have to go this way. Take their argument seriously. What's the worst case scenario? That people have TVs they program to skip over the gay porn channel? Little Billy one day accidentally sees two dudes buttfucking and that culminates in the end of his life as an AIDS infested...

You didn't do any reading at all, did you? I don't "know" any such thing, nor does anyone else (because it isn't true).

No. They could be 10% of the country with 100% of the military force. What reason would you give them to agree to the terms you've laid out then?

There's no distinction between anarchism and communism. They did fight against the red and the white armies (at different times) butfora fundamentally communist (and anarchist) society.

Right. That use of violence means that laws have to be justified. Otherwise violent revolt is what's justified. I'm asking what your justification is (apart from "we're the majority and we can force you to comply").

And if they had the power to bash the skulls of the "generous" community at large, what argument would you make to them for why they shouldn't and why they should accept those terms?

I think there's good experimental evidence actually, but I'm not going to talk to you about this right now. If you're interested you can look up information about Catalonia during the Spanish civil war or the Free Territory during the Ukrainian revolution.

When that standard is maintained by violent police enforcement of your subjective notion of what's offensive, deviant, and moral then yes, I think it is too much to ask.

So say those faggots do assemble in their public space. Now the police show up. What ethical reason can you give those faggots to agree to disperse and not use violence to defend themselves from the police (for the sake of argument we'll assume for the moment that they can win)?

Which clause is that?

1. I still don't want to have this derail right in the middle of the censorship debate. 2. I'm not convinced you and I share the same definitions of those terms (the distinction you draw between communism and socialism is particularly troubling as is your implication that there exist any...

I don't know what to say. Your argument is entirely predicated on idea that not-normal = suppression of it in public is justified. I don't see how that follows so I asked directly what difference it makes. I literally don't know how to say it any better.