| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Feminism, Ethnic diversity and Equal Rights
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Feminism, Ethnic diversity and Equal Rights

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Feminism, Ethnic diversity and Equal Rights
    Posted: 24 Feb 2016 at 04:55

There has been a cat fight on the internet of late between self declared feminist and males that find feminism wacky for lack of a better term. Perhaps the most famous case surrounds Anita Sarkeesian and the role feminism should play in computer gaming. According to the Entertainment Software Association 56 percent of computer "gamers" are male and 44 percent female and revenue reflects those numbers.. Some studies even show that more females than males play computer games. So yes it is obvious that for the computer entertainment industry male and female buying habits is important. The problem is that Anita Sarkeesian seems to have certain character flaws that make her a poor representative for feminist values. This is common theme in our search for equal rights in so far as in trying to eliminate discrimination we have become undiscriminating. Groups that have traditionally been discriminated against seem to have trouble selecting their spokespersons carefully.

The real problem is not that there is no need to have groups that diligent defend the rights of minorities and woman but that there is a serious flaw in the logic of these groups. Equating equal rights to actual equality means that there are no standards by which to judge the merit of the arguments. In a world in which we believe that all people are equal there can exist no inequality in logic, intelligence, character, or ambition.

I think we have to examine the "sins of the fathers" to really see how we got to where we are at. The irony of equal rights is that those that have beed discriminated against in the past are inherently poorly prepared to fully participate equally in a pluralistic society. The disadvantages are not only monetary but intellectual as well. A poorly educated class has many disadvantages. While it is taboo to discuss it there is also a history of genetic selection at play as the more aggressive and bright members of minorities are those most likely to be eliminated from the gene pool.

To correct for the negative selection forces of the past it seems clear that to be fair some preference should be given to minorities. The problem is that if the selection process is not discriminatory you perpetuate the problem. It is a bit of a catch 22 in fact. This is the flaw in the current approach to eliminate discrimination. It is based on the discredit ideas of post modernist thinkers who in there obsession to eliminate discrimination adopted the poor philosophical tenets of men like Marx. Many 19th century philosophers had little of no real experience in the world and wrote before biology became much of a science in is little wonder their ideas seem so incongruent with reality today.

I don't think the seriousness of the failures of our universities to teach young people how to be discriminating can be exaggerated. To be discriminating is at the core of understanding. Compound that with the insanity of concepts like emotional intelligence and you have a recipe for disaster. In a world where ideas cannot compete the only selection is based on who is shouting the loudest and can generate the most sympathy.


Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2016 at 06:06
ideas can and do compete.  If you have a free market.  If government, however, presupposes what ideas are good, well no, ideas will not compete with dogma, and no I am not worried about religious dogma, I am talking about political dogma because it is only through the power of the state, that you can coerce people into being unthinking proles.  Religious dogma is not really the problem in such states as Saudi Arabia or Iran, the problem, in my book, is with what politics does with religious dogma in states such as those.
So what your saying is that enlightened big government should 'weigh' people against each other, with a finger on the scale, making sure that the "disadvantaged" become the "advantaged" and the "advantaged" become the "disadvantaged?"
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2016 at 07:00
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

ideas can and do compete.  If you have a free market.  If government, however, presupposes what ideas are good, well no, ideas will not compete with dogma, and no I am not worried about religious dogma, I am talking about political dogma because it is only through the power of the state, that you can coerce people into being unthinking proles.  Religious dogma is not really the problem in such states as Saudi Arabia or Iran, the problem, in my book, is with what politics does with religious dogma in states such as those.
So what your saying is that enlightened big government should 'weigh' people against each other, with a finger on the scale, making sure that the "disadvantaged" become the "advantaged" and the "advantaged" become the "disadvantaged?"

I hope I didn't say that but it is possible Embarrassed

I can agree with you that religion is not the problem, however political movements like the progressives have taken on some of the meme like devices of religion.  I can't object to what I see as the fallacies of faith based beliefs in political movements without doing the same for religion.


You either believe that states and civilization are correlated or you don't.  We all hope that people will become enlightened someday so that government does not have to have the authority it does today. Anyone can imagine a world where there would be no need for social engineering.  I believe however that we don't live it that world and some degree of social engineering is necessary or at least desirable.  Of course you could be a strict darwinian and believe the less fit should be eliminated by selection.

Education is part of social engineering and while it could be entirely private that would leave a large part of the population sinking. What I'm suggesting is that we deconstruct the predominate post modernist view in our educational system and retain some of the social safety net.  Even quotas could be acceptable if they were regulated by higher standards.  Gender and racial quotas are of course more controversial than means testing.  What is being done today is a kind of forced equality that in the long run leads to bitterness and social discord. 

I think what many people fail to consider is that there is of necessity a hierarchy of rights.  While it would be nice to live by the axiom that no one can have a right that violates someone else's rights in reality rights are always in conflict.  I'm willing to accept that some times even constitutional precepts must be violated to avoid the systematic suppression of rights.  For example when the courts unconstitutional intervened to avoid systematic discrimination.  When public schools were closed with the full participation of elected official to avoid desegregation it was clear democracy had failed.  An enlightened government would discourage not intervene but again it is not a perfect world.

    
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2016 at 03:06
I want to take some time and talk about why feminism itself is not a problem.  

Few people have gained there rights without some sort of violence and the term social justice warrior, which many people mistakenly now use as a derogatory label, reflects the historical reality that social justice is often vigorously opposed.  Even peaceful movements need to use shock tactics to promote their ideals and get their message heard.  The behaviour of women campaigning for suffrage and prohibition were considered shocking at the time.  Some people would argue that slut walks against rape may have gone to far but they reflect the historical norm for social justice activist updated to the 21st century.  Some would argue that the less aggressive tactics of the civil rights movement are more effective but you have to remember that at the time society felt that blacks should be seen and not heard.  For many non minorities the idea that blacks would organize for any purpose was not only shocking but frightening. 

That the feminist movement should adopt "radical" tactics is well within the historical norm for any "marginalized" group.  The question is then if the demands are radical.  I don't think any rational person would argue that there is no need for protesters to swing past the harmonized center to eventual return to it.  Reasonable people will therefor ignore the excesses of social justice warriors.  The next question is then if the gains are worth the cost. 

Social justice comes with the cost of destabilizing social institutions.  I don't think anyone would argue, that ignoring the massive destruction of infrastructure, the South was as economically competent after slavery was abolished as it was before.  The real tragedy was that there was no plan to integrate the newly freed slaves into society.  The genius of capitalism is that free people produced a vibrant economies.  In the South however the natural energy of free people was never unleashed.  In this analogy then the goal for society collectively is to unleash the productive energy of woman by eliminating all forms of oppression.  The irony is that the necessary radicalization of marginalized people works against their constructive participation in society.

What we need to consider is how to integrate the radical into society.  The temptation is to simply adopt their radical views to shut them up.  We allow radical ideology to creep into our institutions in minimal ways to maintain the feeling of harmony and our sense of altruism.  I would argue that is not the right approach.  What the radical needs is an environment that normalizes and harmonizes their views.  There is a necessity even for the most just causes to be meet with a certain degree of skepticism and to maintain freedom of opposition speech.  The radical is often easy to coop for other purposes if freedom of speech and an open mind is not maintained.

What often happens is that peripheral organizations coop radicals to promote organizational patterns not in the long term interest of the protestors.  One interesting case involves how university administrators can use political correctness to promote the economic interest of conservative organization to suppress academic freedom.  Often these behind the scenes consequences pass under the radical's radar.  Another example is how radical's may fail to see how their agenda's marginalize other fundamental rights.  The list of unintended consequences is long but in general  the negative consequence are a result of the radical's inability to integrate normally into society. 

This topic is too long to discuss in depth but I found this video interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD6EVe87w1c

In my next post I want to discuss the contribution of feminism to the intellectual discourse.



Edited by wolfhnd - 27 Feb 2016 at 03:11
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2016 at 07:46
"There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science."

Albert Einstein


On the advise of franciscosan I took a look at what Allan Bloom had to say about the decline of the university experience in the U.S. and would sum up his critique by saying modern education is soulless. Somehow the emotional experience and appreciation of true intellectual achievement is no longer apart of education. I might add it is equal absent from the political activism on campuses but that it not really the point to focus on. There is certainly no lack of passion in campus activism and that is as true today as it was in the 60s when Bloom wrote. I would sum up the difference between passion and appreciation dependant on nuances. To make that point I want to focus on "emotional intelligence".

Some time in the late 50s and early 60s a strange phenomena appeared in which people started to deny what had been considered common knowledge throughout all of proceeding history which is that some people are more intelligence than others. At the same time scientist were steadily establishing that cognitive ability could be measured. It seems common sense and science were being supplanted by "political correctness". Anyone who worked in cognitive science knew that there was a ticking time bomb of dissonance between the politically correct view and established work in the field. To dissipate the cognitive dissonance "social scientists" came up with the idea of emotional intelligence as a "common sense" alternative to IQ or general intelligence as measured by IQ.

There is a growing body of work that supports the importance of emotions in the quality of problem solving. I will link to just one such paper.

Feeling the Future: The Emotional Oracle Effect: by Michel Tuan Phan, Leonard Lee and Andrew T. Stephan

"Eight studies reveal an intriguing phenomenon: individuals who have higher trust in their feelings can predict the outcomes of future events better than individuals with lower trust in their feelings. This emotional oracle effect was found across a variety of prediction domains, including (a) the 2008 US Democratic presidential nomination, (b) movie box-office success, (c ) the winner of American Idol, (d) the stock market, (e) college football, and even (f ) the weather. It is mostly high trust in feelings that improves prediction accuracy rather than low trust in feelings that impairs it. However, the effect occurs only among individuals who possess sufficient background knowledge about the prediction domain, and it dissipates when the prediction criterion becomes inherently unpredictable. The authors hypothesize that the effect arises because trusting one’s feelings encourages access to a “privileged window” into the vast amount of predictive information that people learn, often unconsciously, about their environments."


What is easy too often missed in this work is the nuances. For example in the Oracle Effect the positive effect goes away if the emotions are intense or if there is an empathetic relationship between the subject being tested and the person supplying the data.

For me emotional intelligence is just another good idea gone bad because of political bias. Intelligence is perhaps the best example of how a poor understanding of statistics is significantly affecting the quality of our intellectual landscape.  There was never any real reason to address different forms of intelligence in the first place.  While humans evolved to make black and white distinctions that is no longer an appropriate process for decision making and we are forced to weigh vast amounts of information. 


Edited by wolfhnd - 29 Feb 2016 at 20:53
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2016 at 12:36
Does anyone read my long and boring posts :-) 
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2016 at 18:38
Sorry Wolfie, I have been away a little bit.  I usually try to read them, and my eyes glaze over<grin>, and then I look at it in general, and the literary equivalent of a bright shiny object in them attracts my inner magpie;) and from there I jump around until I get a sense of the parts and then put together it as whole (with probably some holes in the whole:P  ).  I don't know if I get _there_ in the end, but I definitely get somewhere in the end....  Which is in itself, illuminating.  
I will definitely want to see what you thought of Bloom, but I need to look at the earlier posts that lead up to that as well.  Bloom is known for Closing of the American Mind, but I prefer his essays in Giants and Dwarfs.  They are, however, not as relevant to this topic.  I haven't gotten into his book On Friendship, but I suspect that when I read it, I will wonder why I took so long.
I think you mean nuance not nuisance??  Although I can see the modern university as valuing an appreciation dependent on nuisance.... ;)
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2016 at 20:56
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Sorry Wolfie, I have been away a little bit.  I usually try to read them, and my eyes glaze over<grin>, and then I look at it in general, and the literary equivalent of a bright shiny object in them attracts my inner magpie;) and from there I jump around until I get a sense of the parts and then put together it as whole (with probably some holes in the whole:P  ).  I don't know if I get _there_ in the end, but I definitely get somewhere in the end....  Which is in itself, illuminating.  
I will definitely want to see what you thought of Bloom, but I need to look at the earlier posts that lead up to that as well.  Bloom is known for Closing of the American Mind, but I prefer his essays in Giants and Dwarfs.  They are, however, not as relevant to this topic.  I haven't gotten into his book On Friendship, but I suspect that when I read it, I will wonder why I took so long.
I think you mean nuance not nuisance??  Although I can see the modern university as valuing an appreciation dependent on nuisance.... ;)

well spelling is the least of it's problems but I fixed that one
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2016 at 01:22
I believe that progress is illusory, or rather only occurs within a closed system.  So progress within a certain context can occur, say particle physics, but only at an accompanying cost, for example everyone in the university has a specialty, but nobody is a generalist, a "renaissance" man, everybody is in their own little niche, and cannot communicate well with anyone, even in their general field.  Of course, there are some people that because of their intelligence or charisma are able to communicate and cut through the barriers.  
I believe that piecemeal social engineering can be (within a closed system) positive, I do not think that utopian social engineering (due the law of unintended consequences) is in the long run beneficial.  
A lot of "success" in politics depends on how the implimenter keeps score.  Another name for social engineering in general is manipulation, manipulation should be limited and focused.
There is a name for a person who is perfectly emotionally secure with themselves, they're called a sociopath.  Politicians come close.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2016 at 08:57
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I believe that progress is illusory, or rather only occurs within a closed system.  So progress within a certain context can occur, say particle physics, but only at an accompanying cost, for example everyone in the university has a specialty, but nobody is a generalist, a "renaissance" man, everybody is in their own little niche, and cannot communicate well with anyone, even in their general field.  Of course, there are some people that because of their intelligence or charisma are able to communicate and cut through the barriers.  
I believe that piecemeal social engineering can be (within a closed system) positive, I do not think that utopian social engineering (due the law of unintended consequences) is in the long run beneficial.  
A lot of "success" in politics depends on how the implimenter keeps score.  Another name for social engineering in general is manipulation, manipulation should be limited and focused.
There is a name for a person who is perfectly emotionally secure with themselves, they're called a sociopath.  Politicians come close.

Nice post!
 

I would call the process you describe evolution.  

To quote Dirty Harry "a man needs to know his limitations".  Many political problems are a result of expectation exceeding our intellectual ability to foresee unintended consequences.  I think the people that reject capitalism out of hand are simply not in touch with their own limitations or a thorough understanding of man and his design.

The human mind is by design resistant to the idea of bottom up design. The brain, as can be seen in the discussions on consciousness, projects it's internal logic onto the world.  The chemical nature of our brains impose natural limitations which mean that they are far to slow to consider multiple combinations of solutions in real time. Instead we reduce the thing under consideration to the minimal number of choices necessary to pick the closest analogical solution. This process employees both innate logic and experience. For this process to work it must impose on reality tight control or it will drown in data very quickly. Consider the following to see how counter intuitive the intelligent design of evolution is and how it applies to human understanding.  Or as it is generally stated competence without comprehension.

Quote In the theory with which we have to deal, Absolute Ignorance is the artificer; so that we may enunciate as the fundamental principle of the whole system, that, IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL MACHINE, IT IS NOT REQUISITE TO KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT. This proposition will be found, on careful examination, to express, in condensed form, the essential purport of the Theory, and to express in a few words all Mr. Darwin's meaning; who, by a strange inversion of reasoning, seems to think Absolute Ignorance fully qualified to take the place of Absolute Wisdom in all of the achievements of creative skill.

MacKenzie: and early critic of Darwin


Quote In order to be a perfect and beautiful computing machine, it is not requisite to know what arithmetic is.

Turing

It's not so much that decent human beings want to impose the bloody tooth and claw logic of nature on human affairs but that we want empathetic altruists to consider their own limitations.  
 


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2016 at 03:47
Back to ethnic diversity.  The liberal idea of diversity is a black, a hispanic, an Asian, a white, an Indian, who all believe the same thing.  If you believe in the multi-"cultural" "cohort of allies," then you advocate all the colors in the rainbow, except for white, which becomes a dirty word.  "White" means bleached free from color in such thinking.

Most poverty in the US is white and rural, but the cohort of allies will do everything they can to keep race based affirmative action going.  It is not about righting wrongs, its about protecting territory.

One can imagine a truly diverse group based on beliefs, a Jew, a Protestant, a Catholic, a Muslim, an atheist, they may all be white but their beliefs, where they come from intellectually and emotionally, are fundamentally different.  Which is more diverse? a variety of religious belief? or a pseudo-marxist ideology + a variety of skin tone?
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2016 at 14:07
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Back to ethnic diversity.  The liberal idea of diversity is a black, a hispanic, an Asian, a white, an Indian, who all believe the same thing.  If you believe in the multi-"cultural" "cohort of allies," then you advocate all the colors in the rainbow, except for white, which becomes a dirty word.  "White" means bleached free from color in such thinking.

Most poverty in the US is white and rural, but the cohort of allies will do everything they can to keep race based affirmative action going.  It is not about righting wrongs, its about protecting territory.

One can imagine a truly diverse group based on beliefs, a Jew, a Protestant, a Catholic, a Muslim, an atheist, they may all be white but their beliefs, where they come from intellectually and emotionally, are fundamentally different.  Which is more diverse? a variety of religious belief? or a pseudo-marxist ideology + a variety of skin tone?

Their is a rising tide of "traditional" liberals against what they call the regressive left.  

What happens in this eglatarian movements is they allow in the worst members of society because they have no way to discriminate between individuals other than their position on non exclusion.  In a way I would include Marx as one of these undesirables.  Marx simply took advantage of ideas about fairness that were in wide circulation at the time and made it a rant against the people who had rejected him because of his lack of personal character. 

I think sexual morality is perhaps the one area where the mainstream Left has absolutely failed.  You don't have to be against homosexuals to be against promiscuity.  You don't have to be against woman to be in favor of family values.  Woman and men don't have to be equal to deserve equal rights.  If the values of sexual liberation were valid then the most feminised country in Europe, Sweden, would not be the rape capital of Europe.  You can't solve every problem by emotional manipulation, there are things that require competitive investigation to solve.

The other area where traditional liberalism has failed of course is in how it has created the problems that it now is desperate to solve.  If you preach that all forms of personal behavior and life styles are equally valid then you are going to promote a great deal of poor character in your follows.  When you equate equality with equal rights you are going to cause a lot of dysfunctional self hatred.  If you want to make the world absolutely safe then people will not have the skills to navigate difficulties.  Some of the blame can be placed at the feet of post modernist blank slate intellectuals but a lot of the blame is related to the total rejection of common sense.

I think one phrase explains how we got to where we are at "pathological empathetic altruism" a form of narcissism which leads to self hatred.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2016 at 19:55
Did you know that the word "value" comes from economic language.  When people originally talked about "value" and moral issues, they were putting moral issues on an economic scale.   Do you "value" courage more than a $1000?  How about a $1,000,000?  How much would it take for you to cut and run?  With "value" talk, everything ends up having its price.  Whereas in traditional morality, virtues demand absolutes, although they are also in a way, relative, not all situations demand courage, and courage is inbetween foolhardiness on the one hand, and cowardice on the other.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2016 at 21:39
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Did you know that the word "value" comes from economic language.  When people originally talked about "value" and moral issues, they were putting moral issues on an economic scale.   Do you "value" courage more than a $1000?  How about a $1,000,000?  How much would it take for you to cut and run?  With "value" talk, everything ends up having its price.  Whereas in traditional morality, virtues demand absolutes, although they are also in a way, relative, not all situations demand courage, and courage is inbetween foolhardiness on the one hand, and cowardice on the other.

I don't think we will ever find our way out of the fly bottle but as I have told you before I'm not a trained philosopher. 

Perhaps the most stated arguments against absolutes is the example of war.  If murder is wrong then you can conduct very few military missions without the risk of killing innocents and those innocents may include combatants forced into service.  I really don't like this example because it doesn't address any of the qualifications.

For me the whole question of absolutes is troublesome.  As far as I know the only absolutes are the speed of light and the direction of time.  Other people may say the absolutes are "death and taxes".  It doesn't really matter how you define absolutes they remain relative terms.  How do you measure the speed of light or what time it is.  In the same vein how do you define death without knowing what life is or how much tax is unavoidable.

Moral absolutes are abstraction like dollars, they are out there somewhere in the same way free will is.  We don't really believe dollars are real or that anyone is absolutely free.  We assign values to things not because they are absolutely "real" but because they serve some purpose that are culture allows us to agree on.  At the same time we expect that the abstractions have absolute value.  In the case of dollars we expect the government to enforce their value and in the case of free will we hold a murderer absolutely responsible.  In baseball a hit is either foul or not their isn't a foul home run.

There are requirements for us to be moral agents.  We have to be free of coercion or manipulation.  We have to be aware enough to choose a course of action.  In other words we have to have practical free will.  How much free will is possible defines the limits of absolutes and all the evidence suggest that it is our intelligence that defines our free will.  Intelligence however is not an abstraction nor ever absolute. 

  

   
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2016 at 00:11
Is there any technical jargon in that passage about '"value" coming from economic language'?  I mean, maybe the word "absolute," but I think that you understood that.  Moral absolutes are something to aim for, we might never be totally "wise" or "courageous" or "pious" but we can aim for that and if we are successful (but not completely successful), and the circumstances are "right," we can be considered a wiseman or medal of honor hero, or a saint.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2016 at 03:34
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Is there any technical jargon in that passage about '"value" coming from economic language'?  I mean, maybe the word "absolute," but I think that you understood that.  Moral absolutes are something to aim for, we might never be totally "wise" or "courageous" or "pious" but we can aim for that and if we are successful (but not completely successful), and the circumstances are "right," we can be considered a wiseman or medal of honor hero, or a saint.

Give me the technical jargon and I will look up the definitions and reconsider my position.  
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2016 at 05:46
You said you were not a trained philosopher, and I said that there was no technical jargon (as would be the case if we were dealing with 'official' 'professional' philosophy.)

Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2016 at 07:00
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

You said you were not a trained philosopher, and I said that there was no technical jargon (as would be the case if we were dealing with 'official' 'professional' philosophy.)


Fine I'm sorry but I thought I was missing something.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2016 at 03:26
No problem, what I did say was sort of complex, no "technical jargon," but it does involve some ideas, which if one is not familiar with them, well, it is understandable that one would not necessarily want to "buy in" to the whole kittenkaboodle without having thought about it.

Or maybe they're familiar ideas, but the way I am approaching them might be a little different.

Of course, everything I say is well thought out.... (of course) ;) , however, that doesn't mean I am always right, for example, I might have misspelled "kittenkaboodle." <grin>
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2016 at 09:53
Hi wolfhnd, thank you for raising this topic. I'm someone who has followed the Gamergate saga and finds the underlying reasons for it interesting.

Gamergate was the first truly coordinated and grassroots effort to combat the movement known as "feminism", that actually succeeded and acted as the catalyst for wider push-back at the creeping authoritarianism this movement has been advancing on society for the last half century. It grew out of the disgust and outrage that people had for meddling feminist agit prop interference with gaming journalism and game design.

Contrary to what feminists claim to be, they are not a womens' equality movement. They are one of the many arms of the movement which those in the know recognise to be "Cultural Marxism". This subversive movement arose during the interwar period. Marxists in the West were disappointed that communism had failed to take root during WWI because of the strong cultural forces that prevented it, and so theorised that by infiltrating Western institutions like education, the media and civil service that they could essentially wreck the cultural institutions of the Western world which had prevented Marxism from gaining power. In the misery and chaos which resulted, the isolated and unhappy masses would then be amenable to surrendering their loyalty to increasingly Marxist authorities.

The Cultural Marxists intended this process to be slow an inexorable. To achieve this they would use a sword and shield. The sword helped them destroy their enemies and begin unravelling the West's cultural and intellectual institutions. It is known as "Critical Theory", a disingenuous approach to analysing society where the old classical Marxist "oppressor/oppressed" dichotomy is continued but with groups like males, whites and heterosexuals replacing the classical Marxist burgeois. The oppressed group has been reworked to include women, homosexuals, racial minorities, non-Christians - and lately even Muslims, trannies and fat arses. Critical Theory is the propaganda which gradually erodes the value and investment we have in our culture and intellectual institutions.

Then you have their shield: Political Correctness. This one is familiar to us all. It's basically an authoritarian control mechanism designed to stop you from in turn criticising them or calling attention to the destruction of your culture and institutions.

Cultural Marxists have been frighteningly successful in progressing their mission. Feminism is arguably the most insidious and evil manifestation of the phenomenon of Cultural Marxism. At Gamergate the feminists were just doing what they always do: interfering in affairs they have no business manipulating. Trying to force people to do what they want, pumping out propaganda about how sexist everything is. Pumping out propaganda, telling lies about how their provocative and mendacious behaviour had put their safety at risk. And by this point people had had enough. They refused to allow these Cultural Marxist bullies to control them - and I say good on them!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.