Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 3:38 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 6:26 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 6:42 pm
No, psychopaths are diseased. Healthy human nature is whole and not lacking in sympathy .

Scientific studies of infants go to show this is the case.

It's a developmental thing through the stages of maturation that all individuals have elements of psychopathology. Still, one develops in sympathy just as the power of reason does not develop until, on average, around seven years old. Still, a mature individual, a normal individual, has elements of psychopathology in their makeup. No, psychopaths are not diseased, it is a lack of development in certain parts of the brain, you cannot hold someone responsible for what they cannot perceive or feel, even though the strong trait proves dangerous to society at large.

Lack of development is part of what I mean by "disease". Disease has several categories of cause, some of which are mutually inclusive. The category of disease implies the category of health, the literal meaning of which is 'whole'.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Jul 30, 2025 9:31 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 30, 2025 5:21 pm I don’t defend racism.
But I wonder if there’s a biologic component to it, starting in infancy. A newborn begins to recognize its mother’s face and to prefer it to any other from an early age, becoming a full blown stranger anxiety before very long.

But what you describe is NOT biological. You are saying that "normal expectation" would be learned by the race of the adults and other children among which that newborn is raised. But learned "mother" would not be the biological mother but the woman who nursed the newborn. Many times/places that might be a woman of different race.

I rather suspect the newborn is learning mother/aunt/big sister without reference to race (lacks the classification). You are imagining the newborn would learn as significant "nurse mother has a different skin color than me' but why would the newborn expect the same color? Why not green or purple? I agree learned, but not until an age when more complex parts of social order are being learned, like gender, class, caste, etc. are being learned. The song "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught" from South Pacific says eight. That sounds reasonable to me.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 9:00 pm The “Woke Left,” which prides itself on its “anti-racism,” is actually the chief force keeping racism alive today.

Wow!

So it's the prophet
Standing on a bench in the park
Railing "Cease your injustice"
Feed the hungry among us
Make a home for the stranger"
He's the problem
Stone him into silence
Stop up his mouth
For were he not speaking
There would be no injustice
None who hunger
Or who sleep on the sidewalk.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:39 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 9:00 pm The “Woke Left,” which prides itself on its “anti-racism,” is actually the chief force keeping racism alive today.

Wow!

So it's the prophet
Standing on a bench in the park
Railing "Cease your injustice"
Feed the hungry among us
Make a home for the stranger"
He's the problem
Stone him into silence
Stop up his mouth
For were he not speaking
There would be no injustice
None who hunger
Or who sleep on the sidewalk.

When have you seen one of their “prophets” feed anybody? And when have you seen their social justice warriors save anybody? They’re terrific talkers, those people…but they never seem to make the lot of the “oppressed” any better.

Remember the BLM riots? Countless “oppressed” neighbourhoods burned to the ground, millions of dollars donated by well-meaning folks simply disappear into the pockets of organizers, businesses destroyed, Korean shopkeepers beaten, and off an duty black police officer murdered…and which one of those neighbourhoods “served” by social-justice “prophets” is better today than it was before the riots?

I can tell you the answer: not one. The whole point was to express hatred of the status quo, and to position protesters as virtuous, but not to make the lot of the oppressed one iota better.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 6:28 pm Solve poverty and and you solve racism.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 7:02 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 6:28 pm Solve poverty and and you solve racism.

Are you saying that only/all impoverished people are hated, or something else?

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 5:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:39 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:22 pm

Wow!

So it's the prophet
Standing on a bench in the park
Railing "Cease your injustice"
Feed the hungry among us
Make a home for the stranger"
He's the problem
Stone him into silence
Stop up his mouth
For were he not speaking
There would be no injustice
None who hunger
Or who sleep on the sidewalk.

When have you seen one of their “prophets” feed anybody? And when have you seen their social justice warriors save anybody? They’re terrific talkers, those people…but they never seem to make the lot of the “oppressed” any better.

Remember the BLM riots? Countless “oppressed” neighbourhoods burned to the ground, millions of dollars donated by well-meaning folks simply disappear into the pockets of organizers, businesses destroyed, Korean shopkeepers beaten, and off an duty black police officer murdered…and which one of those neighbourhoods “served” by social-justice “prophets” is better today than it was before the riots?

I can tell you the answer: not one. The whole point was to express hatred of the status quo, and to position protesters as virtuous, but not to make the lot of the oppressed one iota better.

There were no “BLM riots”

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 6:28 pm Solve poverty and and you solve racism.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:41 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 6:28 pm Solve poverty and and you solve racism.

What even is 'racism', to you, exactly?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 9:45 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:41 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 6:28 pm Solve poverty and and you solve racism.

What even is 'racism', to you, exactly?

Well in anthropological terms, "caste". I say that because we humans don't have biological races AND while "race" is thought of as if it were in societies with racism, sometimes not based on an honest examination of the difference. Thus we might be in a society with white vs non-white racism, but "who is white" fluid << and not always based on real color differences.

Now Martin, just why do you believe ALWAYS related to poverty? And if so, WHOSE poverty?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:41 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 6:28 pm Solve poverty and and you solve racism.

What even is 'racism', to you, exactly?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:41 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:06 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:41 pm There are three reasons you might believe being racist is the correct world-view.

a) You trust that racist people around you to have your best interest in mind.
b) You believe even if racism is bad, there is some other reason to be racist that is more important.
c) Your own experience shows you that racism is necessary.

Each of these can be addressed in a certain epistemological way.

I've never met a racist who self-identified as one, let alone consciously adopt it as a "world view".

Racists always have some other dominant narrative for justifying their behavior and beliefs: "White supremacy is scientific fact. Haven't you read the Bell Curve? Why do you hate truth?"

Just about the entirety of the problem is trying to explain to a racist why other people label them as such and how their behaviour is harmful to others in various, subtle socially-relevant ways.

"Racist" is a bad word, right? But I am not a bad person, so why are you calling me bad names? Is like convincing a child why they should stop stealing the delicious candy. At some point you figure out the carrot doesn't work so you resort to the stick.

Perhaps there wouldn't be this problem if the word wasn't so abused and misused by self-righteous, holier-than-thou, judgemental and intolerant wokie f'wits.

So, once and for all, define 'racism' for the rest of us who need your guidance and superior ability to 'think' in a correct way.

ps, From what I've observed, racists are more than happy to refer to themselves as such.

Which leads one to the conclusion that those who 'deny' being one and get genuinely offended might JUST NOT BE THAT WAY INCLINED, despite what your vastly superior detection skills lead you to deduce?

A mirror would be a good place to start looking.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 10:58 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 9:45 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:41 pm

What even is 'racism', to you, exactly?

Well in anthropological terms, "caste". I say that because we humans don't have biological races AND while "race" is thought of as if it were in societies with racism, sometimes not based on an honest examination of the difference. Thus we might be in a society with white vs non-white racism, but "who is white" fluid << and not always based on real color differences.

Now Martin, just why do you believe ALWAYS related to poverty? And if so, WHOSE poverty?

If you would like to reply to a question, which was asked for clarity sake, then I suggest you provide an answer, which clarifies.

What even is 'caste', to you, exactly?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Aug 03, 2025 5:46 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:41 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 6:28 pm Solve poverty and and you solve racism.

What even is 'racism', to you, exactly?

Racism is discrimination based on "race". Race, of course is a subjective term that has no objective meaning, that is it means whatever folks want it to mean. Or to put it a different way, races don't exist first, then individuals use racial distinction to discriminate. Instead individuals choose to discriminate first, then races are created along the lines thst the individual prefers to discriminate along.