everybody's got a hard on for moral relativity lately
Well relativism gets thrown around a lot with what is really psychologism or post-modernism or other ethical philosophies that are basically just nihilism
Relativism is important
Instead of "what is good/bad?"
You have "what is better/worse?"
You can deny traditional notions of absolute morality without denying that some things are better than others, and there are things in this world worth valuing.
Personally I am "against" morality in the sense that I think subscribing to any specific morality system is bonkers
But the basic notion of morality -- promoting subjective well-being and minimizing suffering -- seems pretty much some consensus type shit right there.
Nothing, in my opinion, has inherent worth beyond subjective well-being and subjective suffering. The worth of anything else, including "fundamental" values like justice, or fairness, or privacy, is just derived through suffering and well-being in the first place, so why not just cut to the chase.
Backwardsname on
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
hunter explain how this will make hunting down illegal immigrants easier
i mean, we already require proof of working eligibility, but that doesn't stop people from hiring illegal immigrants under the table
How will an identification card make proving someone is or isn't an illegal or undocumented worker easier? Really?
Not only will more documentation at least help, going to finger printing puts a very individual mark on said card. Now repeat offenders can be prosecuted.
As far as the underlining problem of people hiring illegal workers, that's up to the citizens in the area. If the workers are needed to fill jobs Americans do not want, then support the undocumented workers and help them get documentation or ultimately obtain citizenship.
If it's something you don't want or don't like, then prosecute the people who hire them. Don't honor businesses that have the workers. Don't sit back and bitch about it while you hire ABC Lawncare to cut your grass who hires Juan from out behind Home Depot for almost no money. Cut it yourself or perhaps pay more to someone who isn't illegal. Heaven forbid...ask for documentation and fact check yourself.
i agree with you on the personal responsibility thing, but how will an extra redundant layer of identification solve the problem of people avoiding/not being able to get the identification already in place? i mean, all i can think of is starting an even harsher crackdown on illegal immigrants, but then only if some kind of amnesty program is put into place to force those people to register themselves
Undocumented workers are not avoiding getting the documentation because it's hard or they don't want to wait in line. They don't get the documentation because it costs to much and the employer would then have to pay taxes, meaning less money for all parties. So who's getting hurt by this.
Well for one, everyone else who pays taxes either to their employees or to the government from their checks. So yes, people are getting screwed over by illegal workers, even though yes Americans in general do not want to cut grass or pick fruit for a living.
The documentation being described specifically tags on a biometric (finger print) which readily identifies the person. It makes law enforcement's job easier. Catching the illegal workers should only be 1/2 of it though, you must also fine the people who employ them and in my opinion if you are a homeowner and hire a company that uses illegal workers, then you should be fined too.
The money from these fines should then be used as weed and seed funds to help the undocumented workers successfully get documented or in all honesty get them citizenship.
Call it redundant all you want, but when the current system doesn't work, just sitting back waiting for it to magically work is insane. Doing nothing different and expecting different results is also insane. It's broke and has no mutant healing factor.
Freedom of speech probably wasn't a big deal in fucking cave man times either, let's get rid of that too.
We don't have complete freedom of speech anyway.
But again my point with the hunter-gatherer argument is to illustrate that rights are not eternal nor do they exist outside of being enshrined in a system of law
arguing that rights are good "just because" isn't persuasive or rigorous.
i'd agree on the latter to an extent
i believe morality and rights as we view them through the lens of modern civilization is basically not being deprived of that which does not inherently harm before intent comes into play (to an extent, I guess and that's where it's muddled)
Yeah, you're right. Privacy is such a silly notion. Someone shouldn't be able to keep the fact that they're HIV positive private if they want to,
But you understand the risk of privacy is that they can choose to keep that information private even when having sex with other people, and thereby harming others?
There's a burden of just making responsible decisions on the part of the person having sex with someone though too. Sex is a risky activity because of a number diseases and you should make sure you trust the person you're having sex with and ensure that they're using protection and getting tested.
Granted, but counting on personal responsibility is not good policy. Just look at amnesty-only education.
We know how people operate in the real world, even if there are outliers who do things the responsible or reasonable way. Do we hope that people will just start being smart about getting tested and being up-front and honest with their partners? Or do we acknowledge that human beings are basically a bunch of stupid monkeys a lot of the time, and policy needs to take that into account
I mean I think the HIV argument is a bit of a red herring anyway because how would you even execute such a thing, logistically
but in principle if we could make sex partners aware instantly of the health of their prospective copulatory co-pilot then fuck yeah we should do it
Yeah, you're right. Privacy is such a silly notion. Someone shouldn't be able to keep the fact that they're HIV positive private if they want to,
But you understand the risk of privacy is that they can choose to keep that information private even when having sex with other people, and thereby harming others?
There's a burden of just making responsible decisions on the part of the person having sex with someone though too. Sex is a risky activity because of a number diseases and you should make sure you trust the person you're having sex with and ensure that they're using protection and getting tested.
Granted, but counting on personal responsibility is not good policy. Just look at amnesty-only education.
We know how people operate in the real world, even if there are outliers who do things the responsible or reasonable way. Do we hope that people will just start being smart about getting tested and being up-front and honest with their partners? Or do we acknowledge that human beings are basically a bunch of stupid monkeys a lot of the time, and policy needs to take that into account
I mean I think the HIV argument is a bit of a red herring anyway because how would you even execute such a thing, logistically
but in principle if we could make sex partners aware instantly of the health of their prospective copulatory co-pilot then fuck yeah we should do it
Freedom of speech probably wasn't a big deal in fucking cave man times either, let's get rid of that too.
We don't have complete freedom of speech anyway.
But again my point with the hunter-gatherer argument is to illustrate that rights are not eternal nor do they exist outside of being enshrined in a system of law
arguing that rights are good "just because" isn't persuasive or rigorous.
i'd agree on the latter to an extent
i believe morality and rights as we view them through the lens of modern civilization is basically not being deprived of that which does not inherently harm before intent comes into play (to an extent, I guess and that's where it's muddled)
I mean "does not inherently harm" is where it gets real messy though.
I think it's better to just throw out rights and morals altogether and just be empirical about shit.
Will policy X bring about subjective well-being to folks, or subjective suffering? Instead of making rule-of-thumb best guesses (using things like freedom or saftey as a proxy for well-being, while usually failing to fully analyze the externalities of such a policy--the negative consequences in other arenas), why not just be rigorous and use data to drive policy?
Yeah, you're right. Privacy is such a silly notion. Someone shouldn't be able to keep the fact that they're HIV positive private if they want to,
But you understand the risk of privacy is that they can choose to keep that information private even when having sex with other people, and thereby harming others?
There's a burden of just making responsible decisions on the part of the person having sex with someone though too. Sex is a risky activity because of a number diseases and you should make sure you trust the person you're having sex with and ensure that they're using protection and getting tested.
Granted, but counting on personal responsibility is not good policy. Just look at amnesty-only education.
We know how people operate in the real world, even if there are outliers who do things the responsible or reasonable way. Do we hope that people will just start being smart about getting tested and being up-front and honest with their partners? Or do we acknowledge that human beings are basically a bunch of stupid monkeys a lot of the time, and policy needs to take that into account
I mean I think the HIV argument is a bit of a red herring anyway because how would you even execute such a thing, logistically
but in principle if we could make sex partners aware instantly of the health of their prospective copulatory co-pilot then fuck yeah we should do it
No I'm not. I'm saying privacy is for the most part a shitty, flimsy, illusory protection against bigotry.
Did you even read the post you linked to?
You mean the one where you really didn't refute Dru's point? Yeah, I read that one.
There are plenty of good reasons to want to be able to do things that don't hurt or otherwise impact other people without other people finding out about them. That is what privacy is for.
Framling on
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
That's basically why we have a right to privacy though.
As a means to protect ourselves.
Again I argue that it's mostly an illusory protection. If a government becomes totalitarian, privacy is irrelevant.
Our grasp on it in our personal lives is tenuous and fleeting, and takes a great deal of effort to maintain.
When everyone is allowed privacy, it leads to a level of dishonesty and destructive acts done to us in return that it essentially cancels out any gains we might make in being able to manipulate they way others perceive us. Privacy cuts both ways.
Backwardsname on
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
You mean the one where you really didn't refute Dru's point? Yeah, I read that one.
There are plenty of good reasons to want to be able to do things that don't hurt or otherwise impact other people without other people finding out about them. That is what privacy is for.
But there's no way to ensure it's only used in that way, which is my point.
I'm not saying privacy is all bad, I'm saying on the balance it is bad.
Backwardsname on
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
you can't just run at things with only your noggin. You have to account for more than just science
So you're suggesting that because certain people are illogical or an extreme minority in a way of thinking or a behavior that clearly goes against the grain, it is up to the rest of society to not only tolerate that, but support it. Just because it exists.
Freedom of speech probably wasn't a big deal in fucking cave man times either, let's get rid of that too.
We don't have complete freedom of speech anyway.
But again my point with the hunter-gatherer argument is to illustrate that rights are not eternal nor do they exist outside of being enshrined in a system of law
arguing that rights are good "just because" isn't persuasive or rigorous.
i'd agree on the latter to an extent
i believe morality and rights as we view them through the lens of modern civilization is basically not being deprived of that which does not inherently harm before intent comes into play (to an extent, I guess and that's where it's muddled)
I mean "does not inherently harm" is where it gets real messy though.
I think it's better to just throw out rights and morals altogether and just be empirical about shit.
Will policy X bring about subjective well-being to folks, or subjective suffering? Instead of making rule-of-thumb best guesses (using things like freedom or saftey as a proxy for well-being, while usually failing to fully analyze the externalities of such a policy--the negative consequences in other arenas), why not just be rigorous and use data to drive policy?
for the most part, exclusively data driven policy would open up weird and scary doors for people
and even data is subjective and capable of being privy to individual prejudices. IE: gay rights
You mean the one where you really didn't refute Dru's point? Yeah, I read that one.
There are plenty of good reasons to want to be able to do things that don't hurt or otherwise impact other people without other people finding out about them. That is what privacy is for.
But there's no way to ensure it's only used in that way, which is my point.
I'm not saying privacy is all bad, I'm saying on the balance it is bad.
Of course there's no way to ensure it's only used in that way! Welcome to the fucking planet! People are going to fucking lie to you. No matter what. No matter how many cameras you shove up everyone's ass, people will still fucking lie to you.
But you know what the difference is? Now you've got a camera up your ass.
Framling on
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
0
Options
Snowbeati need somethingto kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered Userregular
you can't just run at things with only your noggin. You have to account for more than just science
So you're suggesting that because certain people are illogical or an extreme minority in a way of thinking or a behavior that clearly goes against the grain, it is up to the rest of society to not only tolerate that, but support it. Just because it exists.
Are you a spokesman for NAMBLA by any chance?
no, he's saying that government policy shouldn't be determined by sheer statistics
first you suggest that anyone who is against the government taking over employment overview from the private market is a technophobe and now you compare somebody who says that statistics shouldn't make policy to a pedophile
you can't just run at things with only your noggin. You have to account for more than just science
So you're suggesting that because certain people are illogical or an extreme minority in a way of thinking or a behavior that clearly goes against the grain, it is up to the rest of society to not only tolerate that, but support it. Just because it exists.
Are you a spokesman for NAMBLA by any chance?
I am suggesting that people consider more than just numbers when it comes to policy.
you can't just run at things with only your noggin. You have to account for more than just science
So you're suggesting that because certain people are illogical or an extreme minority in a way of thinking or a behavior that clearly goes against the grain, it is up to the rest of society to not only tolerate that, but support it. Just because it exists.
Are you a spokesman for NAMBLA by any chance?
I am suggesting that people consider more than just numbers when it comes to policy.
and they do! i think one thing you should think about when backwards is talking about subjectivity is that it guides the decisions of legislation you do and don't hate
you can't just run at things with only your noggin. You have to account for more than just science
So you're suggesting that because certain people are illogical or an extreme minority in a way of thinking or a behavior that clearly goes against the grain, it is up to the rest of society to not only tolerate that, but support it. Just because it exists.
Are you a spokesman for NAMBLA by any chance?
no, he's saying that government policy shouldn't be determined by sheer statistics
first you suggest that anyone who is against the government taking over employment overview from the private market is a technophobe and now you compare somebody who says that statistics shouldn't make policy to a pedophile
so
yeah
So governments should be ran on tea leaves, astrological signs, and whims of crowd?
Yes, I do believe people who think that concept like statistics shouldn't be used to make policy are pedophiles. Stupid pedophiles who run their unicorn cars on dreams and fairy farts. I think people who are against thumb print cards for identification are more afraid of the unknown then the true potential of a government ran Machiavellian scheme.
You mean the one where you really didn't refute Dru's point? Yeah, I read that one.
There are plenty of good reasons to want to be able to do things that don't hurt or otherwise impact other people without other people finding out about them. That is what privacy is for.
But there's no way to ensure it's only used in that way, which is my point.
I'm not saying privacy is all bad, I'm saying on the balance it is bad.
Of course there's no way to ensure it's only used in that way! Welcome to the fucking planet! People are going to fucking lie to you. No matter what. No matter how many cameras you shove up everyone's ass, people will still fucking lie to you.
But you know what the difference is? Now you've got a camera up your ass.
uh
this is pretty flawed reasoning
For instance, putting more cops on the street is directly linked to lower crime rates
This is essentially an extension of the state's ability to gather information on activities it deems unacceptable
It's an extension of the Panopticon.
People lie and cheat and steal when they think they can get away with it. I mean, that should be obvious. If we can't get away with it, it's not beneficial, and not worth the effort.
By diminishing privacy, we diminish the ability to lie effectively, and therefore the frequency with which people would choose to lie.
Government corruption is another good example. Now, with corruption, everyone's against it, so we call invading the privacy of bureaucrats and politicians "accountability," which it absolutely is.
And lo and behold, societies with more accountable governments are less corrupt governments. Governments where individual bureaucrats or politicians have enormous autonomy and leeway to do what they want without observation are societies with rampant corruption.
There is a direct link between accountability and less dishonesty. If you believe otherwise, well, you're just lying to yourself. And I suppose no amount of accountability can stop people from doing that.
I think people do not accurately estimate how little privacy, day-to-day, actually yields any kind of well-being.
As I said before, anything you gain from personal privacy cuts against you equally because other people are just as capable of using it against you.
You can use privacy to manipulate me into thinking something about you that isn't accurate but benefits you, and I can do the same thing.
It's a wash.
And on top of that, it requires lots of energy and effort to maintain, oftentimes causing psychological distress (lying to people can be hard to keep up, I think we all know) and feelings of shame or guilt.
Also, I'd venture that, at least on the issue of bigotry, privacy is counterproductive. We know, for example, that people who learn that they have a gay friend or family member become much more supportive of gay rights. Harvey Milk talked about this in the '70s when he pleaded with gay Americans to come out of the closet to move the struggle forward.
Posts
again?
me
Hard ons are always relatively moral
It just depends where exactly you put them
pipthefair
3DS FC: 5343-7720-0490
Well relativism gets thrown around a lot with what is really psychologism or post-modernism or other ethical philosophies that are basically just nihilism
Relativism is important
Instead of "what is good/bad?"
You have "what is better/worse?"
You can deny traditional notions of absolute morality without denying that some things are better than others, and there are things in this world worth valuing.
Personally I am "against" morality in the sense that I think subscribing to any specific morality system is bonkers
But the basic notion of morality -- promoting subjective well-being and minimizing suffering -- seems pretty much some consensus type shit right there.
Nothing, in my opinion, has inherent worth beyond subjective well-being and subjective suffering. The worth of anything else, including "fundamental" values like justice, or fairness, or privacy, is just derived through suffering and well-being in the first place, so why not just cut to the chase.
Undocumented workers are not avoiding getting the documentation because it's hard or they don't want to wait in line. They don't get the documentation because it costs to much and the employer would then have to pay taxes, meaning less money for all parties. So who's getting hurt by this.
Well for one, everyone else who pays taxes either to their employees or to the government from their checks. So yes, people are getting screwed over by illegal workers, even though yes Americans in general do not want to cut grass or pick fruit for a living.
The documentation being described specifically tags on a biometric (finger print) which readily identifies the person. It makes law enforcement's job easier. Catching the illegal workers should only be 1/2 of it though, you must also fine the people who employ them and in my opinion if you are a homeowner and hire a company that uses illegal workers, then you should be fined too.
The money from these fines should then be used as weed and seed funds to help the undocumented workers successfully get documented or in all honesty get them citizenship.
Call it redundant all you want, but when the current system doesn't work, just sitting back waiting for it to magically work is insane. Doing nothing different and expecting different results is also insane. It's broke and has no mutant healing factor.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
i'd agree on the latter to an extent
i believe morality and rights as we view them through the lens of modern civilization is basically not being deprived of that which does not inherently harm before intent comes into play (to an extent, I guess and that's where it's muddled)
Well why don't we just magically fiat that people will be personally responsible, just like we're magically fiating that they won't be homophobic bigots?
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
No I'm not. I'm saying privacy is for the most part a shitty, flimsy, illusory protection against bigotry.
Did you even read the post you linked to?
As a means to protect ourselves.
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
I mean "does not inherently harm" is where it gets real messy though.
I think it's better to just throw out rights and morals altogether and just be empirical about shit.
Will policy X bring about subjective well-being to folks, or subjective suffering? Instead of making rule-of-thumb best guesses (using things like freedom or saftey as a proxy for well-being, while usually failing to fully analyze the externalities of such a policy--the negative consequences in other arenas), why not just be rigorous and use data to drive policy?
even if it is not fun or safe to trust people, I personally believe that is something governments need to do
If it's a zoo, fill it with animals.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
You mean the one where you really didn't refute Dru's point? Yeah, I read that one.
There are plenty of good reasons to want to be able to do things that don't hurt or otherwise impact other people without other people finding out about them. That is what privacy is for.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
there will always be exceptions to the rule
you can't just run at things with only your noggin. You have to account for more than just science
Again I argue that it's mostly an illusory protection. If a government becomes totalitarian, privacy is irrelevant.
Our grasp on it in our personal lives is tenuous and fleeting, and takes a great deal of effort to maintain.
When everyone is allowed privacy, it leads to a level of dishonesty and destructive acts done to us in return that it essentially cancels out any gains we might make in being able to manipulate they way others perceive us. Privacy cuts both ways.
Or a farm...wait, I've read this book in like 9th grade and it sucked.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
But there's no way to ensure it's only used in that way, which is my point.
I'm not saying privacy is all bad, I'm saying on the balance it is bad.
So you're suggesting that because certain people are illogical or an extreme minority in a way of thinking or a behavior that clearly goes against the grain, it is up to the rest of society to not only tolerate that, but support it. Just because it exists.
Are you a spokesman for NAMBLA by any chance?
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
If people have no secrets, and anyone can out anything about someone else, here is what will happen.
People will start looking at people objectively. All the time.
Mental, sexual, physical history. Making decisions based on numbers.
Where the fuck is there room in here for someone just to dig on someone without busting out a fucking chart and detailed history of the person
for the most part, exclusively data driven policy would open up weird and scary doors for people
and even data is subjective and capable of being privy to individual prejudices. IE: gay rights
Of course there's no way to ensure it's only used in that way! Welcome to the fucking planet! People are going to fucking lie to you. No matter what. No matter how many cameras you shove up everyone's ass, people will still fucking lie to you.
But you know what the difference is? Now you've got a camera up your ass.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
no, he's saying that government policy shouldn't be determined by sheer statistics
first you suggest that anyone who is against the government taking over employment overview from the private market is a technophobe and now you compare somebody who says that statistics shouldn't make policy to a pedophile
so
yeah
I am suggesting that people consider more than just numbers when it comes to policy.
'nutter'
i got a computer screen, a coke of coca cola and some cigarettes nearby
hurry
then smoke it
computer screen, down the coke when she can't notice you, and then after puff on the cig
yourself
and they do! i think one thing you should think about when backwards is talking about subjectivity is that it guides the decisions of legislation you do and don't hate
naw man
once i get in shape maybe i'll be vain enough to once again nut all over myself
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
especially the unwilling
So governments should be ran on tea leaves, astrological signs, and whims of crowd?
Yes, I do believe people who think that concept like statistics shouldn't be used to make policy are pedophiles. Stupid pedophiles who run their unicorn cars on dreams and fairy farts. I think people who are against thumb print cards for identification are more afraid of the unknown then the true potential of a government ran Machiavellian scheme.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
uh
this is pretty flawed reasoning
For instance, putting more cops on the street is directly linked to lower crime rates
This is essentially an extension of the state's ability to gather information on activities it deems unacceptable
It's an extension of the Panopticon.
People lie and cheat and steal when they think they can get away with it. I mean, that should be obvious. If we can't get away with it, it's not beneficial, and not worth the effort.
By diminishing privacy, we diminish the ability to lie effectively, and therefore the frequency with which people would choose to lie.
Government corruption is another good example. Now, with corruption, everyone's against it, so we call invading the privacy of bureaucrats and politicians "accountability," which it absolutely is.
And lo and behold, societies with more accountable governments are less corrupt governments. Governments where individual bureaucrats or politicians have enormous autonomy and leeway to do what they want without observation are societies with rampant corruption.
There is a direct link between accountability and less dishonesty. If you believe otherwise, well, you're just lying to yourself. And I suppose no amount of accountability can stop people from doing that.
there is no she here
i live alone
and will die alone
I think people do not accurately estimate how little privacy, day-to-day, actually yields any kind of well-being.
As I said before, anything you gain from personal privacy cuts against you equally because other people are just as capable of using it against you.
You can use privacy to manipulate me into thinking something about you that isn't accurate but benefits you, and I can do the same thing.
It's a wash.
And on top of that, it requires lots of energy and effort to maintain, oftentimes causing psychological distress (lying to people can be hard to keep up, I think we all know) and feelings of shame or guilt.
Also, I'd venture that, at least on the issue of bigotry, privacy is counterproductive. We know, for example, that people who learn that they have a gay friend or family member become much more supportive of gay rights. Harvey Milk talked about this in the '70s when he pleaded with gay Americans to come out of the closet to move the struggle forward.
Acceptance rarely precedes interaction.