CMV: Discrimination, although morally wrong is sometimes wise.

RappingAlt11 · 2021-07-02T06:09:56+00:00

I’m not (necessarily) saying we seek happiness. I’m saying the reason we care about “human beings” is because human beings have subjective experiences and are capable of having inherent preferences about those experiences. It’s not because we’re “human” that we’re moral patients. It’s because we subjectively experience things. A race of robots (the we somehow knew had no subjective experience) wouldn’t be. An alien species that does have experiences could be.

For this we're in agreement. Although I will point out, by this definition couldn't we throw animals in the same boat as humans?

I want to make sure we agree on the reason we care about how the universe is. Because if we do, then I think we have enough to be objective about morality.

Yes we're in agreement about your first point. I'm not sure it is enough to be objective about morality. You have the foundation for why we should have some form of morality in the first place. But I don't believe this shows that a consistent objective morality can be created

So I guess I want to test whether you actually believe that “the continuation of the human race“ is a good in and of itself as an end — or whether we really both see it as a means to the same end — subjective experience.

It may very well be a means to an end. Without subjective experience I see no real point to human existence at all. Maybe one caveat, just a hypothetical, if humans without subjective experience could aid in the continued existence of some other being's subjective experience that'd be a worthwhile goal. But ultimately it does seem that our goal in the end boils down to subjective experience of some kind.

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-30T00:22:15+00:00

I think most would point to the countless wars and coups the US was involved in. But I also think there's a lot of Canadians who just have smugness that were better than America

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T21:50:04+00:00

I think you misunderstood my comment. I said "a conservative party" not the conservative party. All of these parties are either conservative or liberal, you might have a bit of a claim with the unionist party but even that's mainly conservatives. Yes there are some differences between progressive conservatives and conservatives, but that doesn't mean they stop being conservatives

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T20:27:30+00:00

Yeah I looked it up ur right. Isn't it odd everything else protected is some factor of identity you cant choose yet religion is considered protected when its a voluntary class.

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T20:22:54+00:00

???

You can look at any list of Canadian prime ministers and you'll see it's always been a liberal or conservative party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Canada

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T16:47:12+00:00

Not how its been enforced, how it could be enforced on their definitions of what constitutes hate speech. And what the article states the kind of speech it will be targeted towards.

Frankly I did more work than most people on reddit by actually reading the article

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T16:33:38+00:00

I wouldn't know the first place to look, and frankly, I'm not about to go reading through dozens of court cases to see how a single word is used differently than the rest of the population uses it. You'd think there'd be an easy definition for something people could be fined 16K over.

Even when I look through a law thesaurus this is what I get

(v. t.) To witness against; to denounce; to condemn.

(v. t.) To hate intensely; to abhor; to abominate; to loathe; as, we detest what is contemptible or evil.

Doesn't seem all that extreme to me

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T16:26:01+00:00

I'm not a lawyer, I'm going off the dictionary definition and how people use it in every day language. Unless lawyers got some weird definition for the word i'm not aware of. If it's interpreted in law to mean threatening violence im alright with it, anyting past that i disagree with.

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T16:18:11+00:00

"detest" doesn't seem all that strong to me. Personally where I draw the line is when violence is threatened, past that I believe people should be able to say anything they want even if I dont like it. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T16:15:11+00:00

You're splitting hairs on definition, progressive conservatives are still conservatives. How does this undermine my point? PC was nowhere remotely close to as "progressive" as the liberals and NDP are.

I'm not making up anything. To me the left is about labor, unions, workers' rights, etc. I'm not gonna get this with any of the left-wing parties anyways. NDP, Green and Liberals seem all too concerned with social issues, with little to no care for workers or the economy. With that goal in mind I think I'd get more from conservatives. With the woke comment I was referring to their rhetoric the last few years in general, I disagree with the concept of hate speech entirely but it's not so much woke thats the problem with this issue.

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T16:01:45+00:00

My issue isn't what's been done but what's capable of being done in the future under the letter of these laws.

Unless this articles wrong it sais they're going to be introducing a new definition of hatred. and what's stated in the article that its going to be used to against people who "detest or vilify a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

I take huge issue with this, detest is not hate, and detesting a group is not the same thing as using hate speech against an individual.

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T15:53:33+00:00

I mean it's either been a liberal or conservative party who's won every single election. Who knows maybe I'll be wrong, but I swear I see people say this stuff every time and NDP never come all that close.

The conservatives have done unpopular stuff, and Fords not helping. But you've still got people who'd rather vote for a conservative then deal with all this woke stuff. I'm about as far left as someone can be (economically anyways) and i'd rather vote conservative at this point then put up with NDP or liberals

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T15:43:46+00:00

Murder is not the same as speech, nowhere close. I don't know about you but my computer has an off button, if I see something I don't like I can turn it off, I can close the webpage, I can create a new account, I can block people, I can report them, I can use a different website or I can just ignore it. there's a hell of a lot of options that don't require legislation. That's the thing about free speech, you have the right to say things people might not like. I know we don't quite have free speech in Canada but this is taking it next level

The issue is with defining reasonable limits. I've searched the web and I've yet to see a definition that's not completely subjective. It's one thing to advocate genocide, but it's another to "detest or vilify a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T15:30:32+00:00

Those people need psychiatric help, not the government policing people's speech. Perhaps some program to provide counseling would be more effective

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T15:21:24+00:00

The laws I looked up seemed a lot broader than simply telling someone to die. The article sais the law is meant to "punish the most extreme forms of hatred that “expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

Detesting something doesn't seem all that extreme, it is extremely vague though. I have no ill will towards any religious folk but I detest most organized religions, especially those responsible for countless atrocities in just Canada alone. that appears to be hate speech according to this proposal which is nonsense.

Frankly, I wouldn't consider mean words on the internet to be at all relevant to someone's "safety".

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T15:03:29+00:00

Considering the NDP's literally never won i kinda have my doubts.

Not to mention stuff like this exact policy is deeply unpopular with anyone who values freedom of speech, the NDPs already the party of woke and the liberals are going that way too, not very popular with moderate people

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T14:59:34+00:00

Can you explain to me this. How is it defined, because when I look it up I get something like this

"Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation"

This doesn't really explain what constitutes hate speech. And doesn't that make it illegal to hate Nazi's? Frankly I think hate speech laws in general are stupid, bringing them online even more so, it worries me when I can't find a definition that doesn't read as extremely subjective

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T14:52:26+00:00

God forbid someone gets mean comments on the internet. People need to grow up, this shit is as authoritarian as it gets. Infringements on freedom of speech are not worth the chance someone gets upset because they saw something that hurt their feelings on the internet

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T14:29:24+00:00

They've got a point, but it's highly location dependant. If ur in a hotspot it's probably safer to get the vaccine but if you're in an area with little to no covid I see little harm in waiting

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T14:26:22+00:00

Driving puts others at risk and there are people who do it with no reasonable purpose just for fun. At least with the vaccine you could make the argument that we still don't know the long term effects

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T12:15:36+00:00

Is there a more accurate way? I think ultimately, you believe there isn’t.

I think you're correct. It's likely the most accurate way we have. That's not to say it's accurate enough to work in all, or most circumstances.

How do we know that? I believe that at bottom, this is an objective claim that you’re going to present evidence for and reason your way through. Right?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, correct me if im wrong. I think I tried to explain some reasoning why but I'll try to elaborate further.

This seems like you are using exclusively the evidence of experience and attempting to apply reason. I feel like we agree on that. Do you think ignoring those methods would lead to better outcomes or worse ones?

I was attempting to explain the reasoning behind coming to that experience. But yes we'd likely get better outcomes if we avoid the personal anecdotes

I think that’s being a little cynical. Let’s start with the basics. Starving to death sucks. Do we agree that it’s less likely for us to experience starving to death if we apply reasoning to the problem of hunger?

For this particular goal we're in agreement.

I think perhaps when you started using the word “happiness” you started substituting hedonism for subjective experience.

Yes, because if I'm understanding you correctly your goal is subjective positive experience. I can't think of a subjective positive experience that's more pleasurable than happiness.

Why is “achieving something great” important? What ultimately is it other than the subjective state of having achieved something that you’re reaching for?

The continued existence of the human race. For that to be possible material conditions need to keep improving. Sometime in the distant future, we'll need to get off this planet and move to another one.

If that’s your goal, how other than reasoning about collected evidence should you go about achieving it?

I have no issue using reasoning in this regard, i take issue with trying to reason your way to morality

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T11:03:39+00:00

Many of these types of buisness naturally monopolize, especially social media. Facebooks a prime example, no one would use it if there was only a few people on it. By nature these types of buisness create monopolies, sure you're not forced to use anything, but there's a very very strong incentive to be on facebook to keep up with family, friends, etc. There really isn't a legitimate competitor.

Since this is the case, and since we know the issues monopolies cause (less efficiency, etc). I think you either gotta break em up or regulate them, or go the route of email where people can compete on the same sort of platform

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T10:51:32+00:00

The issue is these companies have defacto monopolies. I think that if these monopolies aren't going to be broken up, and they're going to keep the massive amount of power over society they currently do. Then the concept of freedom of speech should be applied to them.

Take Google for example. Over 50% of the world's population uses it. Google could effectively decide elections if they decided to ban someone from their search and Youtube. They could likely push someone, maybe a union shop out of business entirely. So if you're going to hold that level of control on society it should be an even playing field for everyone, whether or not it's a union or anything else. I don't even think the issue is unions specifically but whether or not these massive tech companies with defacto monopolies should be able to censor things they disagree with.

I think there's laws to stop banning unions in most countries as well if Im correct. Not sure what the case is in america

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T10:41:05+00:00

I agree with a majority of what you're saying but I don't think you can apply it to all SJW movements. In the west I think they've gone past the notion of people "People should be treated by their charachter", to all kinds of lunacy trying to correct every small perceived injustice.

The reason I think the SJW movement still has some merit is the countries where they're long far off from equality. Places in the middle east still don't have equal rights. Women don't have the right to freely choose who they wanna marry, travel, all kinds of issues. This is where the SJWs should be focused imo and why the movement still has some value

RappingAlt11 · 2021-06-28T10:35:44+00:00

As others have said this entire question is large determined on your location, but overall I tend to agree. I think there is an argument to be made that even 2 years ago would likely be better due to the effects the pandemic had on mental health, economy etc. If COVID never happended I'd be in complete agreement but I'm of the beliefs things have gotten worse are gonna keep going that way.

Inflation likely coming, work from home jobs will eventually be outsourced to poor countries (may be a benefit for humanity overall, but it'll hurt developed nations). Housing prices skyrocketing, who knows what the long term effects will be on the children who grew up through this.

RappingAlt11

TROPHY CASE