Someone's actions and someone's beliefs are just about the only rational reasons FOR hating someone. This is a dumb thread of dumbness.
maybe someone's actions and beliefs combined, but i don't think hating someone based solely upon what you know of their beliefs is rational at all.
Why?
because you're assuming that you fully understand a person's beliefs. that's a pretty arrogant and close-minded way of thinking.
i mean, let's say for some reason i hate Jewish people based entirely upon their refusal to eat pigs. that's all i know about the culture, but based on that one thing that pisses me off, i'm gonna hate 'em. now, the rest of Jewish culture could be immensely attractive to me, but since i don't know, i choose to hate based upon incomplete information.
it's bascially hatred through ignorance.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
bullshit. people make assumptions and create impressions about entire groups based on minimal information all the fucking time
"i hate radical Muslims because they support terrorism"
"i hate evangelical Christians because they think marriage is only between a man and a woman"
"i hate Mexicans because they just want American jobs"
and so on. any time you judge someone or a group of people based upon what you know of their beliefs, you assume that you are some kind of expert on those beliefs and that gives you the right to make a judgement call.
edit:
obviously if it's some kind of group that wears their intolerence on their sleeves, that's a different situation. but for every group that actually does this, there's 3490429190238409854302 that don't, and people base their opinions of them based o their own perceptions and incomplete information
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
bullshit. people make assumptions and create impressions about entire groups based on minimal information all the fucking time
"i hate radical Muslims because they support terrorism"
"i hate evangelical Christians because they think marriage is only between a man and a woman"
"i hate Mexicans because they just want American jobs"
and so on. any time you judge someone or a group of people based upon what you know of their beliefs, you assume that you are some kind of expert on those beliefs and that gives you the right to make a judgement call.
No, you're making a judgement call based on the only information available to you - whether you like it or not, you'll do it. Smart people are distinguished purely by recognizing the extent of how much information they have.
No, you're making a judgement call based on the only information available to you - whether you like it or not, you'll do it.
okay, but how is that rational? like, at all?
i would think that a rational approach would be to realize that you've got incomplete information, and maybe hold off on hating a person or a group based on that incomplete info
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
bullshit. people make assumptions and create impressions about entire groups based on minimal information all the fucking time
So you're not actually addressing the thread topic, then. You have a problem when people make judgments based on erroneous assumptions; not when people make judgments based on an accurate assessment of another person's beliefs.
I can't tell if this a tangent or a strawman. Either way it's only marginally relevant.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited August 2007
Hating someone because of their harmful, repugnant, bigotted and destructive beliefs is not comparable to hating someone for not eating pork. Not all beliefs are equal.
Re: Mexicans : Hating whole groups of people based on incorrect generalisations is also not the issue at hand when talking about rational reasons to hate people.
I'm not seeing what's wrong with the two religious examples you offered there.
But more importantly, your objection, in so far as it makes any sense whatsoever, is merely arguing for having sufficient knowledge before forming any sort of feeling towards a group. Which is utterly trivial and does not uniquely apply to the question of whether or not it's rational to hate someone for their beliefs - it's not an argument against it, that's for certain.
bullshit. people make assumptions and create impressions about entire groups based on minimal information all the fucking time
So you're not actually addressing the thread topic, then. You have a problem when people make judgments based on erroneous assumptions; not when people make judgments based on an accurate assessment of another person's beliefs.
I can't tell if this a tangent or a strawman. Either way it's only marginally relevant.
i was responding to
Someone's actions and someone's beliefs are just about the only rational reasons FOR hating someone.
i don't think hating someone based entirely on what you know of their beliefs is rational at all
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Someone's actions and someone's beliefs are just about the only rational reasons FOR hating someone.
i don't think hating someone based entirely on what you know of their beliefs is rational at all
So if I see somebody standing around at a pride parade with a sign that says "God hates fags!" while screaming epithets at people, it's not rational for me to judge that person based on that behavior?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm not seeing what's wrong with the two religious examples you offered there.
and that's the problem. you're extrapolating a very small piece of information to the point where you're forming an opinion based upon something that doesn't even begin to offer a complete picture of that group.
if you want to do that, fine, that's totally within your right (and hell, people do it all the time). but it sure as hell isn't rational.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Someone's actions and someone's beliefs are just about the only rational reasons FOR hating someone.
i don't think hating someone based entirely on what you know of their beliefs is rational at all
So if I see somebody standing around at a pride parade with a sign that says "God hates fags!" while screaming epithets at people, it's not rational for me to judge that person based on that behavior?
edit:
obviously if it's some kind of group that wears their intolerence on their sleeves, that's a different situation. but for every group that actually does this, there's 3490429190238409854302 that don't, and people base their opinions of them based o their own perceptions and incomplete information
i mean, big ups on picking one of the most extreme examples possible, but i covered this.
my contention here is with the word "rational." people do that kid of thing, but like i said, it isn't "rational"
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I'm not seeing what's wrong with the two religious examples you offered there.
and that's the problem. you're extrapolating a very small piece of information to the point where you're forming an opinion based upon something that doesn't even begin to offer a complete picture of that group.
if you want to do that, fine, that's totally within your right (and hell, people do it all the time). but it sure as hell isn't rational.
You're yet to offer a reason that it isn't rational. Supporting blowing people up is, for example, sufficient reason to form judgements about such a person regardless of what else they believe.
I'm not seeing what's wrong with the two religious examples you offered there.
and that's the problem. you're extrapolating a very small piece of information to the point where you're forming an opinion based upon something that doesn't even begin to offer a complete picture of that group.
if you want to do that, fine, that's totally within your right (and hell, people do it all the time). but it sure as hell isn't rational.
You're yet to offer a reason that it isn't rational. Supporting blowing people up is, for example, sufficient reason to form judgements about such a person.
yeah, you're right. fuck nuance, right? why bother trying to understand motivations or processes when you can place the world into easy to understand right/wrong black/white up/down categories. it's certainly easier to deal with.
look, an acceptance of terrorist attacks and intolerence and other things is totally reprehensible, but using those beliefs as the sole basis for hating someone is just being willfully ignorant of the reasons behind those beliefs.
edit:
say you meet a kid over the inernet who thinks terrorism is legitmate. man, you must hate that kid, right?
what if the kid turns out to be from palestine? if you're being irrational, that doesn't change anything, because he still supports terrorism and therefore deserves your hatred. rationally, that changes everything. it doesn't make that kid any less wrong, but it definately changes how you should percieve his beliefs
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
yeah, you're right. fuck nuance, right? why bother trying to understand motivations or processes when you can place the world into easy to understand right/wrong black/white up/down categories. it's certainly easier to deal with.
look, an acceptance of terrorist attacks and intolerence and other things is totally reprehensible, but using those beliefs as the sole basis for hating someone is just being willfully ignorant of the reasons behind those beliefs.
So if somebody vociferously upholds clearly irrational or even hurtful beliefs, wouldn't knowing that they came to those beliefs through understandable circumstances merely make them slightly less deserving of scorn - rather than totally immune to scorn?
I mean, we are talking about nuances and shades of grey here.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
yeah, you're right. fuck nuance, right? why bother trying to understand motivations or processes when you can place the world into easy to understand right/wrong black/white up/down categories. it's certainly easier to deal with.
look, an acceptance of terrorist attacks and intolerence and other things is totally reprehensible, but using those beliefs as the sole basis for hating someone is just being willfully ignorant of the reasons behind those beliefs.
So if somebody vociferously upholds clearly irrational or even hurtful beliefs, wouldn't knowing that they came to those beliefs through understandable circumstances merely make them slightly less deserving of scorn - rather than totally immune to scorn?
I mean, we are talking about nuances and shades of grey here.
i never said it would make them "totally immune" from scorn, i ONLY said that hating someone based solely on their beliefs isn't rational.
and you're right, it wouldn't absolve them from anything, but it would properly contextualize their beliefs, which would be rational and maybe make them a little less deserving of hate
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
I think your use of the word "hate" is clouding the issue a bit here since it very often sounds negative to "hate" someone, regardless of how repulsive they are. If someone supports terrorism, then sure, they're usually wrong and a cunt - judging them on that is perfectly valid. You simply have to judge people in life or else you'll be forced to consider every other person in the world equally good. Taking into consideration a person's individual situation doesn't stop you making a judgement about them.
I'm pretty sure most people here are more sympathetic to the suicide-bombing endorsing Palestinian than the "bomb Mecca" American.
Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited August 2007
Wheeee.
So, we come full circle. You are arguing that your judgements of someone should be well grounded in a sufficient amount of knowledge. Big freaking deal. No one, certainly not myself is arguing anything to the contrary.
You cannot seriously be arguing that someone who despises black people, because "they're just not as good as us white folk" and thnks that they should be lynched, but simply hasn't because they fear the repercussions is not a bad person and is not someone who we should hold in contempt.
If you demand further understanding of what they believe, then either you're asking the ridiculous - ultimately something leading to a regress to a precise understanding of the environment and stimuli that lead them to form their beliefs - or you're not at all in contradiction with what we're arguing - once you discover that the basis of their belief is irrational, based upon some other loathsome belief or in some other way lacking any mitigating circumstance, then you must be under your own maxim justified in judging them because you are not ignorant of them or the deeper nuances of their belief.
I think your use of the word "hate" is clouding the issue a bit here since it very often sounds negative to "hate" someone, regardless of how repulsive they are.
Yeah, I was thinking this myself.
"Hate" is a powerful word. Despite the dictionary definition of "to intensely dislike" it carries a connotation that you wish to harm the object of your hate.
I don't think everyone here shares that connotation.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
So, we come full circle. You are arguing that your judgements of someone should be well grounded in a sufficient amount of knowledge. Big freaking deal. No one, certainly not myself is arguing anything to the contrary.
You cannot seriously be arguing that someone who despises black people, because "they're just not as good as us white folk" and thnks that they should be lynched, but simply hasn't because they fear the repercussions is not a bad person and is not someone who we should hold in contempt.
If you demand further understanding of what they believe, then either you're asking the ridiculous - ultimately something leading to a regress to a precise understanding of the environment and stimuli that lead them to form their beliefs - or you're not at all in contradiction with what we're arguing - once you discover that the basis of their belief is irrational, based upon some other loathsome belief or in some other way lacking any mitigating circumstance, then you must be under your own maxim justified in judging them because you are not ignorant of them or the deeper nuances of their belief.
see, i don't even think you realize what you're saying. you start out by saying you need sufficient knowledge to make a judgement about someone, but who decides when you've got enough knowledge to make that call? you do.
if you don't see the inherent problem with this, you're nuts.
if this were something where people did research and tried to understand why people felt that way, i'd agree with you. but they don't. they make snap judgements based on perceptions, and that isn't rational, which was my problem with what you sid in the first place.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
So, we come full circle. You are arguing that your judgements of someone should be well grounded in a sufficient amount of knowledge. Big freaking deal. No one, certainly not myself is arguing anything to the contrary.
You cannot seriously be arguing that someone who despises black people, because "they're just not as good as us white folk" and thnks that they should be lynched, but simply hasn't because they fear the repercussions is not a bad person and is not someone who we should hold in contempt.
If you demand further understanding of what they believe, then either you're asking the ridiculous - ultimately something leading to a regress to a precise understanding of the environment and stimuli that lead them to form their beliefs - or you're not at all in contradiction with what we're arguing - once you discover that the basis of their belief is irrational, based upon some other loathsome belief or in some other way lacking any mitigating circumstance, then you must be under your own maxim justified in judging them because you are not ignorant of them or the deeper nuances of their belief.
see, i don't even think you realize what you're saying. you start out by saying you need sufficient knowledge to make a judgement about someone, but who decides when you've got enough knowledge to make that call? you do.
if you don't see the inherent problem with this, you're nuts.
Who else is going to decide it for me? I'm not going to wait for a fucking independent commission to convene before I can decide to disparage someone for their bigoted beliefs.
I think your use of the word "hate" is clouding the issue a bit here since it very often sounds negative to "hate" someone, regardless of how repulsive they are.
Yeah, I was thinking this myself.
"Hate" is a powerful word. Despite the dictionary definition of "to intensely dislike" it carries a connotation that you wish to harm the object of your hate.
I don't think everyone here shares that connotation.
yeah, i think that's why i reacted to Apo's post the way i did. it'd be one thing to dislike or be mistrustful of someone based entirely on their beliefs, but "hate" is a really loaded word. if you're geared up enough to actually hate someone based entirely on a belief that isn't something like "kill all Jews," i think maybe it's time to take a deep breath and step back a little bit.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Who else is going to decide it for me? I'm not going to wait for a fucking independent commission to convene before I can decide to disparage someone for their bigoted beliefs.
NO ONE. YOU WILL. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RATIONAL OR CORRECT.
Someone's actions and someone's beliefs are just about the only rational reasons FOR hating someone.
that's what i've been responding to
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
So, we come full circle. You are arguing that your judgements of someone should be well grounded in a sufficient amount of knowledge. Big freaking deal. No one, certainly not myself is arguing anything to the contrary.
You cannot seriously be arguing that someone who despises black people, because "they're just not as good as us white folk" and thnks that they should be lynched, but simply hasn't because they fear the repercussions is not a bad person and is not someone who we should hold in contempt.
If you demand further understanding of what they believe, then either you're asking the ridiculous - ultimately something leading to a regress to a precise understanding of the environment and stimuli that lead them to form their beliefs - or you're not at all in contradiction with what we're arguing - once you discover that the basis of their belief is irrational, based upon some other loathsome belief or in some other way lacking any mitigating circumstance, then you must be under your own maxim justified in judging them because you are not ignorant of them or the deeper nuances of their belief.
see, i don't even think you realize what you're saying. you start out by saying you need sufficient knowledge to make a judgement about someone, but who decides when you've got enough knowledge to make that call? you do.
if you don't see the inherent problem with this, you're nuts.
if this were something where people did research and tried to understand why people felt that way, i'd agree with you. but they don't. they make snap judgements based on perceptions, and that isn't rational, which was my problem with what you sid in the first place.
Who decides when you've got enough knowledge to make ANY call? This is the basis of rationality. I'm not seeing where you're going here. Nor can I see where I said anything about snap judgements bsed on perceptions.
Who else is going to decide it for me? I'm not going to wait for a fucking independent commission to convene before I can decide to disparage someone for their bigoted beliefs.
NO ONE. YOU WILL. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RATIONAL OR CORRECT.
It's rational to judge a person on what they say and do.
y/n
Seriously, I can't see how you'd disagree with that.
Who decides when you've got enough knowledge to make ANY call? This is the basis of rationality. I'm not seeing where you're going here. Nor can I see where I said anything about snap judgements bsed on perceptions.
see above. just because someone has decided that they've "seen enough" to make a judgement call on something like hate doesn't mean they've actually "seen enough" to make that call. if everyone was rational and willing to make the effort to understand both beliefs and the reasons behind beliefs, i would totally agree with you.
but the point is, people aren't. they'll use one bit of information to make a judgement about someone or something, and that's simply not rational.
i'm just taking issue with the words "hate" and "rational" that you used. hate based on someone's perceptions of someone else's beliefs is generally not rational.
anyways, i've said my peace. i see where you're coming from, and i imagine that your hatred of things is probably more rational than not. i just disagree with the basis you use.
Who else is going to decide it for me? I'm not going to wait for a fucking independent commission to convene before I can decide to disparage someone for their bigoted beliefs.
NO ONE. YOU WILL. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RATIONAL OR CORRECT.
It's rational to judge a person on what they say and do.
y/n
Seriously, I can't see how you'd disagree with that.
i don't, but that's why i framed my discussion in terms of beliefs, not actions. if it's a combination of both, that obviously gives you a better impression of what that person is about. but it's often one or the other when you're dealing with an individual person
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
0
Options
DVGNo. 1 Honor StudentNether Institute, Evil AcademyRegistered Userregular
I'm not seeing what's wrong with the two religious examples you offered there.
and that's the problem. you're extrapolating a very small piece of information to the point where you're forming an opinion based upon something that doesn't even begin to offer a complete picture of that group.
if you want to do that, fine, that's totally within your right (and hell, people do it all the time). but it sure as hell isn't rational.
You're yet to offer a reason that it isn't rational. Supporting blowing people up is, for example, sufficient reason to form judgements about such a person.
yeah, you're right. fuck nuance, right? why bother trying to understand motivations or processes when you can place the world into easy to understand right/wrong black/white up/down categories. it's certainly easier to deal with.
look, an acceptance of terrorist attacks and intolerence and other things is totally reprehensible, but using those beliefs as the sole basis for hating someone is just being willfully ignorant of the reasons behind those beliefs.
edit:
say you meet a kid over the inernet who thinks terrorism is legitmate. man, you must hate that kid, right?
what if the kid turns out to be from palestine? if you're being irrational, that doesn't change anything, because he still supports terrorism and therefore deserves your hatred. rationally, that changes everything. it doesn't make that kid any less wrong, but it definately changes how you should percieve his beliefs
Not really. Motivations are great and all, and I'm sorry that kid had to grow up like that, but he doesn't get a pass on thinking "Gee wilikers, maybe someday I'll strap a bomb to myself and get on a bus of completely random people... for my beliefs"
While the world is not black and white, there are certainly some key criteria you can have on what is OK and what is not OK.
I believe in [deity]!
:^:
... so I'm going to blow some non-believers up!
:v:
And again, no matter what the person is bigoted against, I have a hard time believing that any reasonably intelligent person can look at that belief and not realize it's a complete crock.
DVG on
Diablo 3 - DVG#1857
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited August 2007
@pantsman : I'm really not seeing where you're coming from.
Clearly, there are some beliefs which are utterly worthy of contempt, for almost any system of morality or ethics.
Of those, there are a subset (such as "Kill all illegal immigrants via cheesegrater", "Women deserve no more rights than property does", "I am an anthromorphic tiger/wolf", "Titanic was a good movie") of those beliefs for which no extenuating circumstances will be sufficient to mitigate the contempt these beliefs are worthy of.
It is a fundamental fact that we hold people responsible for the contents of their beliefs, and thus people who hold the aforementioned kinds of beliefs are themselves worthy of the hate that we hold for those beliefs.
I'm not sure what in that you object to? Even if we were to conclude that there are no such beliefs and that we have a duty to discover the basis of repugnant beliefs and the person's wider belief system as a whole, it is clear that there is some set of beliefs alone, which would make a person worthy of hatred.
The question of whether or not we have sufficient information to pass a judgement of worthiness-of-hatred upon a person is a completely separate issue to whether or not it is rational or warranted to do so at all. The fact that people might make bad judgements on insufficient information is not evidence that making judgements at all, is irrational, even if it is the status quo or overwhelmingly prevailing state of affairs.
Just as the fact that people come to certain beliefs by means of insufficient or faulty evidence, does not mean that the process of believing something based upon the weight of evidence is an irrational state of affairs. The fact that the man on the TV with the nice singing voice says that if I send him money I will be healed of all my ails is a form of evidence, albeit a very weak one, but evidence nonetheless. The fact is that despite the fact that almost everyone will reject this as an irrational course of action, someone will consider this sufficient rationale to send the TV-man some of their pieces-of-eight. The moral of the story - not everyone is rational, not everyone utilises the full extent of their rational capabilities all the time, this does not mean that when a certain pattern of reasoning is misused that the pattern is itself broken. Likewise, the fact that some people might form hatred-judgements for people based on faulty or incomplete perceptions does not invalidate the enterprise of doing so at all.
You seem to be arguing that we will never know when we have enough information to decide whether or not we have enough information - which may or may not be true, depending on how you frame the question. However, it is clear that it applies to any state of affairs in which rationality comes into play, not just in that of the nature of other people and whether we should ostracise them. Now, I suppose that being opposed to rationality is a...position, that one might hold, albeit a self-defeating one, but it's rather another argument, I would think.
Even though I'm sort of responding to a post way back in the thread, I just wanted to address the TC on his "future generations will scoff at what you watched/experienced back in the day" post. You brought up the example of "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry." The problem with this analogy is that that movie in particular is a pro-gay film, and I think it'd be a lot more... well, intelligent to assume that in 50 years your grandkids would actually see the film as a progressive comedy. With the way American culture is changing right now, into a more pro-gay society, I doubt that film or the many others like it would be scoffed at.
The reason we're tolerant of the intolerant is because they are relics of days long past. America has always been a country obsessed with moving forward, being a role model for the rest of the world. Our society reflects this. It took a long time, but we've bowled over hurdles of prejudice that would have taken a second- or third-world nation a lot longer to get rid of. If you've ever watched the special "The Secret Gay World of Iran", you'd understand what I mean. Gays are frequently hung in Iran, just for being themselves. In America, this would be a hate crime. In Iran, they have no such idea in their justice system, and probably never will. I notice that the argument is still raging on, but I think people haven't noticed that the TC hasn't responded in quite a long time. It makes me curious, at least. Did he finally understand the errors in his judgment? Or has he just let others of a like-minded sort take his place?
No, I stopped posting because the spirit of the OP got muddled. It was supposed to bring around the point that showing prejudice against the prejudiced is still prejudice (:!!:) and it's beneath everyone. Then by the third page everyone was posting 'I don't like racists because racists harm society' but that's missing my first point ... which was we're not as tolerant as we think we are.
Anyone remember that Seinfeld episode where Jerry is having trouble with his recently converted dentist telling jokes about Jews and Jerry quips with an 'anti-dentite' joke and their relationship all goes to hell?
No, I stopped posting because the spirit of the OP got muddled. It was supposed to bring around the point that showing prejudice against the prejudiced is still prejudice (:!!:) and it's beneath everyone. Then by the third page everyone was posting 'I don't like racists because racists harm society' but that's missing my first point ... which was we're not as tolerant as we think we are.
Anyone remember that Seinfeld episode where Jerry is having trouble with his recently converted dentist telling jokes about Jews and Jerry quips with an 'anti-dentite' joke and their relationship all goes to hell?
The spirit got muddled because it was idiotic... something pointed out to you by the third post. You can't be tolerant of a group of people, like blacks or gays, and at the same time be tolerant of someone who wants to wipe them off the face of the planet. It's like an oxymoron... Gee, I totally support your lifestyle, but I also support this guy here who wants to hang you naked from a tree and castrate you.
Seriously, can you not see the contradiction?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Why, exactly, is right to property trumped by right to life?
Are you fucking kidding with this?
I'm guessing it's a libertarian thing.
I'm not a libertarian. Stop throwing labels around as insults. It's a silly way to debate.
And I was simply asking a question. I, of course, place more value on life than property. How, exactly, does me asking the above question hint at my own particular philosophy? I'll concede that most people on this forum only ask rhetorical questions, but I was asking if anyone could actually give me their own reasoning.
And I was simply asking a question. I, of course, place more value on life than property. How, exactly, does me asking the above question hint at my own particular philosophy?
Because it is a really, really stupid question that any idiot should be able to know how a person will answer the question.
And I was simply asking a question. I, of course, place more value on life than property. How, exactly, does me asking the above question hint at my own particular philosophy?
Because it is a really, really stupid question that any idiot should be able to know how a person will answer the question.
Right. Come back and call my questions stupid or obvious when you learn the basic mechanics of "confidence" and "honesty." You proved that you have no clue about either of those very simple concepts in the last thread I saw you participate in, so maybe you shouldn't be so quick to insult my "simple" questions, especially amid a philosophical debate.
Also, not everyone has the same answer for every question or the same reasons for coming to that answer, even the most obvious. My reasons for valuing life over property may differ from that of a strict utilitarian's or an objectivist's or any other sort of person.
No, I stopped posting because the spirit of the OP got muddled. It was supposed to bring around the point that showing prejudice against the prejudiced is still prejudice (:!!:) and it's beneath everyone. Then by the third page everyone was posting 'I don't like racists because racists harm society' but that's missing my first point ... which was we're not as tolerant as we think we are.
It's not terribly useful or clever to be purposefully obtuse about an obvious concept just to make a point about the definition of a word. When people say that we are "more tolerant" as a society, it is painfully obvious what they mean. Society is much more accepting of the equality of all human beings, and affords its citizens greater civil rights. Society is thus more tolerant. Just because as a result people are much less likely to sit idly by and "tolerate" harmful ideologies does not mean what you think it means. Yes, technically we are thus intolerant of a lot of things, by the meaning of the word tolerant. What the fuck is your point? People shouldn't say we are a tolerant society? There is no possible way that you do not understand what people mean when they say we are a tolerant society.
This is a pointless and juvenile discussion, with no purpose other than for you to share with us the meaning of the word "tolerate," as if we were not aware. Are you going to next have us discuss how we deny murderers the right to kill when we grant people the right to not be killed? I'm sure it'd be an interesting and insightful look at the rights our society denies its citizens.
EDIT: Actually, I have a clarifying question. Is your entire point that people shouldn't say that we are a "tolerant" society (because of the many things that are socially, if not legally, discouraged), or do you actually advocate (as I suspect you do) that we should be accepting of, and not judge people who believe very stupid and harmful things? Earlier you argued the latter (the whole slippery slope thing), and were rightly responded to about why tolerating harmful and irrational beliefs is harmful to society. Then you say people are misrepresenting your argument; that it ISN'T about the effect tolerance has on society, just on the word "tolerant" and whether we as a society truly are. So, again, what the fuck is your point?
Also, not everyone has the same answer for every question or the same reasons for coming to that answer, even the most obvious. My reasons for valuing life over property may differ from that of a strict utilitarian's or an objectivist's or any other sort of person.
And you would be able to easily know the reasons for them valuing it over property. It would take all of five seconds to know why a utilitarian and any other philosophy you can think of would value life more than property. How are the reasons for valuing life over property even relevant to the discussion? You only brought it up after a person said that a person's life was more valuable that a couple hundred dollars. If pretty much every major philosophy considers human life is worth more than a few hundred dollars, why does it matter to the original argument why it is considered more important?
Also, not everyone has the same answer for every question or the same reasons for coming to that answer, even the most obvious. My reasons for valuing life over property may differ from that of a strict utilitarian's or an objectivist's or any other sort of person.
And you would be able to easily know the reasons for them valuing it over property. It would take all of five seconds to know why a utilitarian and any other philosophy you can think of would value life more than property. How are the reasons for valuing it over property even relevant to the discussion?
You know what's not relevant to the discussion? You calling my question stupid. Or any of this bullshit right here. I asked a question and got an answer. Why you chose to go on some off-topic tangent on how I shouldn't have dared ask a question with such an obvious answer is beyond me.
You also snipped the part of my post where I said you should go get some common sense yourself before insulting mine. I'll reiterate that here in the hopes you read it and fuck off to go and do that.
It is stupid. It should be obvious why any modern philosophy considers property>life. It is equivalent to asking why rape is wrong. The particular reasons people have for believing rape is wrong don't matter unless some of the particular reasons are removed. If a person considers rape wrong because of the emotional and physical pain caused by rape and there is a way that makes it so that rape is in no way emotionally and physically painful, that person might consider it OK. However, anything like this will certainly never happen with life unless a magic respawning machine is created.
From the NAACP to the Michigan Militias and Arian Nation
Please tell me you're not seriously comparing the NAACP to the fucking Aryan Nation.
This is what I'm talking about. It only works if you reduce the groups to "organisations interested in race and society" and then completely ignore everything else about them. Its incredibly fucking stupid.
I'm not comparing anything, but if your set of beliefs is so fragile that a water balloon or two will change your course, maybe you should rethink it. Maybe it's just my time spent in the Bay Area where they'll march for pretty much anything? Anything. If you've got a catchy slogan and some bongos, you can rile someone up and have a march!
I've seen more than one college "protest/march" turn into a riot just because people basically wanted an excuse to do stupid shit and found one in a march for some group happy to have them along. I've also seen some pretty awesome rape awareness work done by student groups at a college in my hometown that stayed organized and serious.
Also, the NAACP is full of shit sometimes too. No more than I guess any other large group would be, but certainly no less.
It is stupid. It should be obvious why any modern philosophy considers property>life. It is equivalent to asking why rape is wrong. The particular reasons people have for believing rape is wrong don't matter unless some of the particular reasons are removed. If a person considers rape wrong because of the emotional and physical pain caused by rape and there is a way that makes it so that rape is in no way emotionally and physically painful, that person might consider it OK. However, anything like this will certainly never happen with life unless a magic respawning machine is created.
I didn't bother to read your post since you again opened it up with "it is stupid." (Protip: if you want people to read the nonsense you post, you should at the very least not open it with an insult.) I'm not going to bother explaining myself anymore either, because it's not worth it. Maybe if you learn how to participate in a discussion without being an off-topic, senseless douchebox, I'll pay attention to you again.
Posts
because you're assuming that you fully understand a person's beliefs. that's a pretty arrogant and close-minded way of thinking.
i mean, let's say for some reason i hate Jewish people based entirely upon their refusal to eat pigs. that's all i know about the culture, but based on that one thing that pisses me off, i'm gonna hate 'em. now, the rest of Jewish culture could be immensely attractive to me, but since i don't know, i choose to hate based upon incomplete information.
it's bascially hatred through ignorance.
bullshit. people make assumptions and create impressions about entire groups based on minimal information all the fucking time
"i hate radical Muslims because they support terrorism"
"i hate evangelical Christians because they think marriage is only between a man and a woman"
"i hate Mexicans because they just want American jobs"
and so on. any time you judge someone or a group of people based upon what you know of their beliefs, you assume that you are some kind of expert on those beliefs and that gives you the right to make a judgement call.
edit:
obviously if it's some kind of group that wears their intolerence on their sleeves, that's a different situation. but for every group that actually does this, there's 3490429190238409854302 that don't, and people base their opinions of them based o their own perceptions and incomplete information
okay, but how is that rational? like, at all?
i would think that a rational approach would be to realize that you've got incomplete information, and maybe hold off on hating a person or a group based on that incomplete info
So you're not actually addressing the thread topic, then. You have a problem when people make judgments based on erroneous assumptions; not when people make judgments based on an accurate assessment of another person's beliefs.
I can't tell if this a tangent or a strawman. Either way it's only marginally relevant.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Re: Mexicans : Hating whole groups of people based on incorrect generalisations is also not the issue at hand when talking about rational reasons to hate people.
I'm not seeing what's wrong with the two religious examples you offered there.
But more importantly, your objection, in so far as it makes any sense whatsoever, is merely arguing for having sufficient knowledge before forming any sort of feeling towards a group. Which is utterly trivial and does not uniquely apply to the question of whether or not it's rational to hate someone for their beliefs - it's not an argument against it, that's for certain.
EDIT: Beaten like a red-headed step-child.
i was responding to
i don't think hating someone based entirely on what you know of their beliefs is rational at all
So if I see somebody standing around at a pride parade with a sign that says "God hates fags!" while screaming epithets at people, it's not rational for me to judge that person based on that behavior?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
and that's the problem. you're extrapolating a very small piece of information to the point where you're forming an opinion based upon something that doesn't even begin to offer a complete picture of that group.
if you want to do that, fine, that's totally within your right (and hell, people do it all the time). but it sure as hell isn't rational.
i mean, big ups on picking one of the most extreme examples possible, but i covered this.
my contention here is with the word "rational." people do that kid of thing, but like i said, it isn't "rational"
You're yet to offer a reason that it isn't rational. Supporting blowing people up is, for example, sufficient reason to form judgements about such a person regardless of what else they believe.
It's bullshit. As stated earlier in this thread, race, gender, sexual orientation...those aren't picked for you, and they harm no one.
However, a fucking swatzika tattoo? Or being a KKK shithead? If it's intolerant to hate those things, then SO BE IT.
yeah, you're right. fuck nuance, right? why bother trying to understand motivations or processes when you can place the world into easy to understand right/wrong black/white up/down categories. it's certainly easier to deal with.
look, an acceptance of terrorist attacks and intolerence and other things is totally reprehensible, but using those beliefs as the sole basis for hating someone is just being willfully ignorant of the reasons behind those beliefs.
edit:
say you meet a kid over the inernet who thinks terrorism is legitmate. man, you must hate that kid, right?
what if the kid turns out to be from palestine? if you're being irrational, that doesn't change anything, because he still supports terrorism and therefore deserves your hatred. rationally, that changes everything. it doesn't make that kid any less wrong, but it definately changes how you should percieve his beliefs
So if somebody vociferously upholds clearly irrational or even hurtful beliefs, wouldn't knowing that they came to those beliefs through understandable circumstances merely make them slightly less deserving of scorn - rather than totally immune to scorn?
I mean, we are talking about nuances and shades of grey here.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
i never said it would make them "totally immune" from scorn, i ONLY said that hating someone based solely on their beliefs isn't rational.
and you're right, it wouldn't absolve them from anything, but it would properly contextualize their beliefs, which would be rational and maybe make them a little less deserving of hate
I'm pretty sure most people here are more sympathetic to the suicide-bombing endorsing Palestinian than the "bomb Mecca" American.
So, we come full circle. You are arguing that your judgements of someone should be well grounded in a sufficient amount of knowledge. Big freaking deal. No one, certainly not myself is arguing anything to the contrary.
You cannot seriously be arguing that someone who despises black people, because "they're just not as good as us white folk" and thnks that they should be lynched, but simply hasn't because they fear the repercussions is not a bad person and is not someone who we should hold in contempt.
If you demand further understanding of what they believe, then either you're asking the ridiculous - ultimately something leading to a regress to a precise understanding of the environment and stimuli that lead them to form their beliefs - or you're not at all in contradiction with what we're arguing - once you discover that the basis of their belief is irrational, based upon some other loathsome belief or in some other way lacking any mitigating circumstance, then you must be under your own maxim justified in judging them because you are not ignorant of them or the deeper nuances of their belief.
Yeah, I was thinking this myself.
"Hate" is a powerful word. Despite the dictionary definition of "to intensely dislike" it carries a connotation that you wish to harm the object of your hate.
I don't think everyone here shares that connotation.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
see, i don't even think you realize what you're saying. you start out by saying you need sufficient knowledge to make a judgement about someone, but who decides when you've got enough knowledge to make that call? you do.
if you don't see the inherent problem with this, you're nuts.
if this were something where people did research and tried to understand why people felt that way, i'd agree with you. but they don't. they make snap judgements based on perceptions, and that isn't rational, which was my problem with what you sid in the first place.
Who else is going to decide it for me? I'm not going to wait for a fucking independent commission to convene before I can decide to disparage someone for their bigoted beliefs.
yeah, i think that's why i reacted to Apo's post the way i did. it'd be one thing to dislike or be mistrustful of someone based entirely on their beliefs, but "hate" is a really loaded word. if you're geared up enough to actually hate someone based entirely on a belief that isn't something like "kill all Jews," i think maybe it's time to take a deep breath and step back a little bit.
NO ONE. YOU WILL. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RATIONAL OR CORRECT.
that's what i've been responding to
Who decides when you've got enough knowledge to make ANY call? This is the basis of rationality. I'm not seeing where you're going here. Nor can I see where I said anything about snap judgements bsed on perceptions.
It's rational to judge a person on what they say and do.
y/n
Seriously, I can't see how you'd disagree with that.
see above. just because someone has decided that they've "seen enough" to make a judgement call on something like hate doesn't mean they've actually "seen enough" to make that call. if everyone was rational and willing to make the effort to understand both beliefs and the reasons behind beliefs, i would totally agree with you.
but the point is, people aren't. they'll use one bit of information to make a judgement about someone or something, and that's simply not rational.
i'm just taking issue with the words "hate" and "rational" that you used. hate based on someone's perceptions of someone else's beliefs is generally not rational.
anyways, i've said my peace. i see where you're coming from, and i imagine that your hatred of things is probably more rational than not. i just disagree with the basis you use.
edit:
i don't, but that's why i framed my discussion in terms of beliefs, not actions. if it's a combination of both, that obviously gives you a better impression of what that person is about. but it's often one or the other when you're dealing with an individual person
Not really. Motivations are great and all, and I'm sorry that kid had to grow up like that, but he doesn't get a pass on thinking "Gee wilikers, maybe someday I'll strap a bomb to myself and get on a bus of completely random people... for my beliefs"
While the world is not black and white, there are certainly some key criteria you can have on what is OK and what is not OK.
I believe in [deity]!
:^:
... so I'm going to blow some non-believers up!
:v:
And again, no matter what the person is bigoted against, I have a hard time believing that any reasonably intelligent person can look at that belief and not realize it's a complete crock.
Clearly, there are some beliefs which are utterly worthy of contempt, for almost any system of morality or ethics.
Of those, there are a subset (such as "Kill all illegal immigrants via cheesegrater", "Women deserve no more rights than property does", "I am an anthromorphic tiger/wolf", "Titanic was a good movie") of those beliefs for which no extenuating circumstances will be sufficient to mitigate the contempt these beliefs are worthy of.
It is a fundamental fact that we hold people responsible for the contents of their beliefs, and thus people who hold the aforementioned kinds of beliefs are themselves worthy of the hate that we hold for those beliefs.
I'm not sure what in that you object to? Even if we were to conclude that there are no such beliefs and that we have a duty to discover the basis of repugnant beliefs and the person's wider belief system as a whole, it is clear that there is some set of beliefs alone, which would make a person worthy of hatred.
The question of whether or not we have sufficient information to pass a judgement of worthiness-of-hatred upon a person is a completely separate issue to whether or not it is rational or warranted to do so at all. The fact that people might make bad judgements on insufficient information is not evidence that making judgements at all, is irrational, even if it is the status quo or overwhelmingly prevailing state of affairs.
Just as the fact that people come to certain beliefs by means of insufficient or faulty evidence, does not mean that the process of believing something based upon the weight of evidence is an irrational state of affairs. The fact that the man on the TV with the nice singing voice says that if I send him money I will be healed of all my ails is a form of evidence, albeit a very weak one, but evidence nonetheless. The fact is that despite the fact that almost everyone will reject this as an irrational course of action, someone will consider this sufficient rationale to send the TV-man some of their pieces-of-eight. The moral of the story - not everyone is rational, not everyone utilises the full extent of their rational capabilities all the time, this does not mean that when a certain pattern of reasoning is misused that the pattern is itself broken. Likewise, the fact that some people might form hatred-judgements for people based on faulty or incomplete perceptions does not invalidate the enterprise of doing so at all.
You seem to be arguing that we will never know when we have enough information to decide whether or not we have enough information - which may or may not be true, depending on how you frame the question. However, it is clear that it applies to any state of affairs in which rationality comes into play, not just in that of the nature of other people and whether we should ostracise them. Now, I suppose that being opposed to rationality is a...position, that one might hold, albeit a self-defeating one, but it's rather another argument, I would think.
The reason we're tolerant of the intolerant is because they are relics of days long past. America has always been a country obsessed with moving forward, being a role model for the rest of the world. Our society reflects this. It took a long time, but we've bowled over hurdles of prejudice that would have taken a second- or third-world nation a lot longer to get rid of. If you've ever watched the special "The Secret Gay World of Iran", you'd understand what I mean. Gays are frequently hung in Iran, just for being themselves. In America, this would be a hate crime. In Iran, they have no such idea in their justice system, and probably never will. I notice that the argument is still raging on, but I think people haven't noticed that the TC hasn't responded in quite a long time. It makes me curious, at least. Did he finally understand the errors in his judgment? Or has he just let others of a like-minded sort take his place?
Anyone remember that Seinfeld episode where Jerry is having trouble with his recently converted dentist telling jokes about Jews and Jerry quips with an 'anti-dentite' joke and their relationship all goes to hell?
The spirit got muddled because it was idiotic... something pointed out to you by the third post. You can't be tolerant of a group of people, like blacks or gays, and at the same time be tolerant of someone who wants to wipe them off the face of the planet. It's like an oxymoron... Gee, I totally support your lifestyle, but I also support this guy here who wants to hang you naked from a tree and castrate you.
Seriously, can you not see the contradiction?
I'm not a libertarian. Stop throwing labels around as insults. It's a silly way to debate.
And I was simply asking a question. I, of course, place more value on life than property. How, exactly, does me asking the above question hint at my own particular philosophy? I'll concede that most people on this forum only ask rhetorical questions, but I was asking if anyone could actually give me their own reasoning.
And people did.
Also, not everyone has the same answer for every question or the same reasons for coming to that answer, even the most obvious. My reasons for valuing life over property may differ from that of a strict utilitarian's or an objectivist's or any other sort of person.
In short, fuck you.
It's not terribly useful or clever to be purposefully obtuse about an obvious concept just to make a point about the definition of a word. When people say that we are "more tolerant" as a society, it is painfully obvious what they mean. Society is much more accepting of the equality of all human beings, and affords its citizens greater civil rights. Society is thus more tolerant. Just because as a result people are much less likely to sit idly by and "tolerate" harmful ideologies does not mean what you think it means. Yes, technically we are thus intolerant of a lot of things, by the meaning of the word tolerant. What the fuck is your point? People shouldn't say we are a tolerant society? There is no possible way that you do not understand what people mean when they say we are a tolerant society.
This is a pointless and juvenile discussion, with no purpose other than for you to share with us the meaning of the word "tolerate," as if we were not aware. Are you going to next have us discuss how we deny murderers the right to kill when we grant people the right to not be killed? I'm sure it'd be an interesting and insightful look at the rights our society denies its citizens.
EDIT: Actually, I have a clarifying question. Is your entire point that people shouldn't say that we are a "tolerant" society (because of the many things that are socially, if not legally, discouraged), or do you actually advocate (as I suspect you do) that we should be accepting of, and not judge people who believe very stupid and harmful things? Earlier you argued the latter (the whole slippery slope thing), and were rightly responded to about why tolerating harmful and irrational beliefs is harmful to society. Then you say people are misrepresenting your argument; that it ISN'T about the effect tolerance has on society, just on the word "tolerant" and whether we as a society truly are. So, again, what the fuck is your point?
You also snipped the part of my post where I said you should go get some common sense yourself before insulting mine. I'll reiterate that here in the hopes you read it and fuck off to go and do that.
I'm not comparing anything, but if your set of beliefs is so fragile that a water balloon or two will change your course, maybe you should rethink it. Maybe it's just my time spent in the Bay Area where they'll march for pretty much anything? Anything. If you've got a catchy slogan and some bongos, you can rile someone up and have a march!
I've seen more than one college "protest/march" turn into a riot just because people basically wanted an excuse to do stupid shit and found one in a march for some group happy to have them along. I've also seen some pretty awesome rape awareness work done by student groups at a college in my hometown that stayed organized and serious.
Also, the NAACP is full of shit sometimes too. No more than I guess any other large group would be, but certainly no less.
I didn't bother to read your post since you again opened it up with "it is stupid." (Protip: if you want people to read the nonsense you post, you should at the very least not open it with an insult.) I'm not going to bother explaining myself anymore either, because it's not worth it. Maybe if you learn how to participate in a discussion without being an off-topic, senseless douchebox, I'll pay attention to you again.