Philosophy Now Forum

It reminds me of one of the reasons I quit teaching. I got to the point where I just didn't care if the students learned or not, And even when I did fail a student for a class, guidance or the admin would change the grade to passing. It was like "why should I care if they don't?"

I understand the frustration. But you're the teacher, that's why. What they do makes no difference to who you are.

Mannie,

It's clear to me: not a one here, who opposes my position, can dismantle my position.

If any could, then at least one would have.

No, all I get is poop flung at me (which I've dodged quite nicely, I think).

As my position is clearly stated in this thread, I can't see any reason to restate it (or any of its variations).

If the opposition 'can' dismantle my position, then let them, otherwise each and every one should admit to being either inadequate to the task or (more accurately) just plain wrong.

My expectation of any admission of the sort I describe, from any of 'them', is next to nil.

*shrug*

Any (honest, sane) reader of this thread knows which way the winds blows and who's sail is full (and who's is lax).

#

Doc,

"now I can just read what I would have posted"

HA!

Like minds and whatnot...

henry quirk wrote: Doc,

"now I can just read what I would have posted"

HA!

Like minds and whatnot...

Now that's just plane scary. - And a bit late for Halloween.

HA!

Embrace your anarchistic sociopathy...

Muahaha!

Kayla wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Moral claims are not true or false. They do not submit to "refutation".

certainly not true of many moral claims

e.g.

homosexuality is wrong

why

the usual reasons - it spreads aids, god forbids it, it leads to drug fueled orgies - are empirical claims

most moral claims are of this sort

I don't think you have refuted my claim in the slightest, in fact all you have done is give an example of where it is right. Homosexuality is both right and wrong and neither right or wrong, it all depends on the context.
Morals are emotional responses and matters of opinion and social normatively; socially, culturally and historically contingent.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Kayla wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Moral claims are not true or false. They do not submit to "refutation".

certainly not true of many moral claims

e.g.

homosexuality is wrong

why

the usual reasons - it spreads aids, god forbids it, it leads to drug fueled orgies - are empirical claims

most moral claims are of this sort

I don't think you have refuted my claim in the slightest, in fact all you have done is give an example of where it is right. Homosexuality is both right and wrong and neither right or wrong, it all depends on the context.
Morals are emotional responses and matters of opinion and social normatively; socially, culturally and historically contingent.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? you are both saying the same thing.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Kayla wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Moral claims are not true or false. They do not submit to "refutation".

Morals are emotional responses and matters of opinion and social normatively; socially, culturally and historically contingent.

I would say it's the other way around. Emotional responses (by your own definition) exist in response to something, stimuli, teaching, insight, etc., and hence also come about because of the mental cognition of morality. Morality itself would be absent if it was not taught, and strong morality is taught by an authoritative source. In the latter case it is, of course, the bible, Christ's teaching, your parents, your community etc..

Further, all claims are claims only because they have to be based on something and that something is true or false (not the action of making a claim). In this case, the basis for the claim are what I mentioned above and they can, depending on the eye of the beholder, be true or false. Hence we are back to the typical square one, namely I say, you say. I say it is morally wrong because of the bible and other religious teaching and by objective societal standards as well, and you would say otherwise.

thedoc wrote:

Kayla wrote:
certainly not true of many moral claims

e.g.

homosexuality is wrong

why

the usual reasons - it spreads aids, god forbids it, it leads to drug fueled orgies - are empirical claims

most moral claims are of this sort

I don't think you have refuted my claim in the slightest, in fact all you have done is give an example of where it is right. Homosexuality is both right and wrong and neither right or wrong, it all depends on the context.
Morals are emotional responses and matters of opinion and social normatively; socially, culturally and historically contingent.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? you are both saying the same thing.[/quote]

I think you seem to be the one with the problem.
You've just made an ass or yourself.

QMan wrote: I would say it's the other way around. Emotional responses (by your own definition) exist in response to something, stimuli, teaching, insight, etc., and hence also come about because of the mental cognition of morality. Morality itself would be absent if it was not taught, and strong morality is taught by an authoritative source. In the latter case it is, of course, the bible, Christ's teaching, your parents, your community etc..

Further, all claims are claims only because they have to be based on something and that something is true or false (not the action of making a claim). In this case, the basis for the claim are what I mentioned above and they can, depending on the eye of the beholder, be true or false. Hence we are back to the typical square one, namely I say, you say. I say it is morally wrong because of the bible and other religious teaching and by objective societal standards as well, and you would say otherwise.

You are nearly there. However ....
What ever a 1800 year old book says is not relevant.
Are menstruating women "unclean" and have to stay at home?
Are you in the practice of stoning adulterers?
Would you suffer a witch to live - that would make watching "Harry Potter" a bit of a problem for you.

It is sad of you to submit to an "authoritative" source. Have you never heard of enlightenment, and making up your own mind?

"Emotional responses exist in response to something" is missing a massive point.
Were a human to be innately unemotional, they would not have the sort of evolved cerebral structure which is determined to react in some way to the "something" of which you speak.
Thus it is the 'passions' as Hume noted that lies at the heart of all moral reason.

Took your advice Henry and read the whole thread.
Your first contribution has been seconded by several people:

henry quirk wrote:Lil Jimmy Sparkles is born smart, beautiful, and healthy.

Lil Johnny Shit is born dumb, ugly, and sickly.

From the start: demonstrably there is no *equality.

'nuff said.

Skip wrote:Of course no two complex entities could ever be equal in every way - not even twins, and probably, if we looked closely enough, not even clams.

Immanuel Can wrote:People manifestly differ in age, weight, height, intellect, athleticism, gender, ethnicity, language, wit, experience, locality, generation, preferences, values, sensory input, perception, vitality, health, longevity, upbringing, culture, religion, cunning, dexterity, variability, ...the list continues. This is obvious and uncontroversial.

Kayla wrote:but obviously people have different needs and capabilities - in that sense they are not equal and i do not think anyone disputes that

From what the original poster said, I think they had something more like this in mind:

Hobbes Choice wrote:Equality implies an even playing field in rights to education, health and the law. It implies that all persons regardless of race, birth, and any other categories that come under the purview should receive the same treatment.

henry quirk wrote:I come to this place to say 'no' to your communitarianism...to remind 'you' that not every one thinks as you do...that some stand in opposition to pansy, utopian, schemes.

I think you justifiably ask people to back up their claims of what you have said, by the same token, what ‘pansy, utopian, schemes’ are you referring to?
One of the things we know about you, Henry Quirk is that you own a coach gun. In all probability, you didn’t make it yourself, but it was built instead by skilled workers, to the specification of designers, all taught by people who are prepared to trade their skills in return for money. As well as a number of schools being involved, there was almost certainly a factory, a distribution network and, at some point, a retail outlet. We also know that you at least have access to a computer or other device that allows you to partake in forums like this, and that you have the means to power it. All of which relies on some form of cooperative behaviour.
I don't know what you understand by 'communitarianism', but I think it is probably true that we wouldn't have a lot of the things that we take for granted, were it not for people working together.
You have stated that you are willing and able to pay for what you use so presumably, if you use the infrastructure which is dependent on society, roads for instance, you pay for it by means of taxes.
It may be true that you ask less of other people than some, but, like other users of this forum, you dip in and out of society as much as pleases you. In that respect we are all equal. We are lucky to have that freedom, and at times we have to defend it. Even people like Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie, who by all accounts could look after themselves, recognised that. Probably a good thing too, it's possible that otherwise the whole of North America could be sharing the standard of living currently enjoyed by Mexico. That might not affect your particular lifestyle greatly, but quite possibly the gun you back it up with wouldn't shoot as straight.

"...what ‘pansy, utopian, schemes’ are you referring to?"

Oh, just the generalized sort that usually comes with, or from, thinking evidenced by Hobbes.

Since He hasn't seen fit to correct me on that (even adopting 'communitarianism' for some of his later posts), I'm thinkin' my assessment is on the money.

But, if it offends you, Uwot, I can retract it...doing so won't diminish my points in this thread.

#

"you dip in and out of society as much as pleases you"

Yes I do, paying and profiting the whole time.

At no point do I get the 'free ride'; at no point do I offer the 'free ride' to others.

#

On 'communitairianism"...

Politically, it refers to a kind of social democracy.

Philosophically: it refers to the notion that the one is merely piece or part of the many and that the many is superior to, and more important than, the one.

I accept that I live in the midst of, and pay into and profit from, some form of social democracy.

I oppose the notion that I am a cog in a machine, that the machine should take precedence over me (that I should serve 'it'), and that I owe the machine sumthin' beyond 'transaction'.

#

My coach gun: made in Brazil, sold by Stoeger Industries out of Maryland.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

QMan wrote:This is a fun thread. I for one read what is in
front of me. Henry did not claim he has thick skin, he said he has think
skin. Is he implying he can outthink people on this forum ?

Fun aside, is anyone confusing these two?

sameness = possessing same qualities
equality = valued/treated equally

I brought this up in my first response.

The way I see it, equality can be reasonably described by Venn diagrams,
namely, that it is applicable with boundary conditions to different
types of qualities and situations.

It cannot be equated with sameness because sameness would imply the end
of civilization and humanity.

Also, how does one resolve this paradox, that we are all equal before
God and yet God clearly knew what he was doing by not creating us to be
the same?

Thanks QMan, Henry's obviously a genius, for casually enjoying the
freedoms that communitarian action brought about. Freedoms so easily
lost by people with his selfish attitude. Freedoms that have to be
defended and fought for with each new generation, ,as each. like Henry
has a tendency to take these freedoms for granted.

Actually, you are inverting what Henry is doing. He had no control over
the situation he was born into (like all of us). All he knows is that,
before he arrived, some characters were sitting around a camp fire and
arbitrarily decided to implement group rules that they (altruistically)
thought would provide the most comfortable life style for everyone.
Naturally, he was not being consulted. Now he arrives and eventually
finds not that he does not enjoy the existing freedoms that were
supplied but that there are not enough freedoms (to be left alone, to
not redistribute wealth, not to have to be charitable and concerned for
others by edict, etc.). So to him it looks not like communitarian action
brought about freedom but that the purpose of such action (as it
obviously must be, or it becomes a free for all) is to restrict freedom.
So, he must toe the line on what he can get away with with regard to
maximizing individualism and its freedom without ticking off the
campfire crowd, which is stronger than he is. As long as what he does is
legal, he is obviously entitled, and it is safe for him, to do so.
Also, he never let on how he feels about personal charity, which has the
purpose of mitigating inequalities. He may have dropped more $$s into
that Salvation Army pot than you or I and he owes no one an explanation
about that. So I don't think he is abusing, attacking, or denigrating
freedom, he simply wants to maximize it and, in that process, quite
possibly introduce a greater sense of personal responsibility (actually
something we can all use a dose off). Now, I described the idealized
Henry, will the real Henry please stand up?

QMan wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

QMan wrote:This is a fun thread. I for one read what is in
front of me. Henry did not claim he has thick skin, he said he has think
skin. Is he implying he can outthink people on this forum ?

Fun aside, is anyone confusing these two?

sameness = possessing same qualities
equality = valued/treated equally

I brought this up in my first response.

The way I see it, equality can be reasonably described by Venn diagrams,
namely, that it is applicable with boundary conditions to different
types of qualities and situations.

It cannot be equated with sameness because sameness would imply the end
of civilization and humanity.

Also, how does one resolve this paradox, that we are all equal before
God and yet God clearly knew what he was doing by not creating us to be
the same?

Thanks QMan, Henry's obviously a genius, for casually enjoying the
freedoms that communitarian action brought about. Freedoms so easily
lost by people with his selfish attitude. Freedoms that have to be
defended and fought for with each new generation, ,as each. like Henry
has a tendency to take these freedoms for granted.

Actually, you are inverting what Henry is doing. He had no control over
the situation he was born into (like all of us). All he knows is that,
before he arrived, some characters were sitting around a camp fire and
arbitrarily decided to implement group rules that they (altruistically)
thought would provide the most comfortable life style for everyone.
Naturally, he was not being consulted. Now he arrives and eventually
finds not that he does not enjoy the existing freedoms that were
supplied but that there are not enough freedoms (to be left alone, to
not redistribute wealth, not to have to be charitable and concerned for
others by edict, etc.). So to him it looks not like communitarian action
brought about freedom but that the purpose of such action (as it
obviously must be, or it becomes a free for all) is to restrict freedom.
So, he must toe the line on what he can get away with with regard to
maximizing individualism and its freedom without ticking off the
campfire crowd, which is stronger than he is. As long as what he does is
legal, he is obviously entitled, and it is safe for him, to do so.
Also, he never let on how he feels about personal charity, which has the
purpose of mitigating inequalities. He may have dropped more $$s into
that Salvation Army pot than you or I and he owes no one an explanation
about that. So I don't think he is abusing, attacking, or denigrating
freedom, he simply wants to maximize it and, in that process, quite
possibly introduce a greater sense of personal responsibility (actually
something we can all use a dose off). Now, I described the idealized
Henry, will the real Henry please stand up?

Not far off, but I'm sure Henry will correct me if I am wrong. It seems that Hobbes suffers from the idea that he has the right ideas and everyone else should be just like he is, or they are wrong. A particularly nasty form of closed mindedness, and one I have first hand experience with. A total inability to accept that anyone else could believe something different that they do, and a particularly stupid outlook on humanity. Fortunately there is a rich diversity of human life and opinion and a few of us can appreciate that diversity and welcome the opportunity to discover just how different others can be. So what do you believe, that we should all be the same, or can you accept differences?

If that question is addressed to me, then I answered it in a previous append on page 5 where I compared sameness and equality. Sameness (in its purest form) is not feasible and would mean the end of civilization and mankind. This is pretty self-explanatory since, e.g., we can not all be employees of Ladder Company 6 putting out fires since nothing else would get done. Difference is therefore essential. However, limited, circumscribed, sameness is also essential since there must be more than one employee at Ladder Company 6 to get the job done.

However, I will not hand a blank check to those who propose that all differences are OK giving me this flawed contemporary political correctness nonsense of diversity for diversity's sake. Both, sameness and difference must be subject to scrutiny in regard to scope, intensity, and practical and moral value. E.g., since I belief in God, I argue that he cannot possibly share his living space with someone who has irreconcilable differences with him and lacks sameness with others in that living space. This, of course, holds true on a human level as well.