Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I edited a line into my post after you quoted, which I think is important so I'll repeat it here. I think a lot of these historical practices that are rooted in ancient superstitions, including religion itself, do not necessarily make the people who practice them evil, just ignorant, and can be fixed with education rather than expulsion from Western society.
Why do you think it's different for the masses and political ideas? I can see excusing the masses for believing in bullshit (I disagree, but I can see a coherent logic behind it) but then it would apply also to antivaxxers, people who believe the 2020, election was stolen, people who believe GMOs are very dangerous for human health and so on and on (except perhaps some leaders of those movements who actually know better).
Basically I don't see how you can criticize Americans who are against homosexuality because of how they read the bible, and excuse people in some corner of the world who infibulate because of some purported local superstition.
Btw even if you believe those ideas were fixable (and they an certainly be), why importing a defective person who requires investment to be fixed if you have enough supply of people without that problem requiring a fix?
Why do you think it's different for the masses and political ideas? I can see excusing the masses for believing in bullshit (I disagree, but I can see a coherent logic behind it) but then it would apply also to antivaxxers, people who believe the 2020, election was stolen, people who believe GMOs are very dangerous for human health and so on and on (except perhaps some leaders
I'm not sure where I suggested that ignorant Americans who believe in stupid superstitions are any different to ignorant Somalians who believe in stupid superstitions. If the Somalians show as much resistance to being re-educated as the Americans, they are in fact exactly the same.
I won't comment on why immigration from Somalia would or would not be desirable, mostly because I don't know much about the subject of immigration and don't have any strong views on it myself.
nobody ever brings up the topic of eugenics, except lucium!
did I say nobody? not nobody!! every year there comes 1-2 nazies into this forum who brings it up and then does a kamikaze and gets perma-banned from this forum bc he goes full potato then shortly after.
OTHER THAN THAT, nobody dares to touch the topic, EVER-
schools, politicians, nobody ever talks about this topic bc it is so frowned upon, controversial, and wrong. it is outdated from a time nazis baked jews in an oven. from a time along time ago, when the greeks made an instition out of having sex with boys... and and and WTF?
we need a call here from bobo or gansta imo
I don't even know what it means to say one group of humans is "better" than another. There is no universal scale for measuring the quality of humans.
nobody ever brings up the topic of eugenics, except lucium!did I say nobody? not nobody!! every year there comes a nazi in this forum who brings it up and then does a kamikaze and gets perma-banned from this forum bc he goes full potato then shortly after.OTHER THAN THAT, nobody dares to touch the topic, EVER-schools, politicians, nobody ever talks about this topic bc it is s
Washoe, allowing elective abortion is eugenetics, and many people in this forum are pro abortion
no that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with eugenics!
where did you get that from? the person who told you this is seriously
misguiding you.
its common sense, call it science or whatever, not eugenics. are you playing dumb, or are you under the impression there is nothing wrong with what you say?
there is a reason nobody talks about this like you EVER,
you cant cite anybody,
WHY?
THE ONLY PERSON YOU CAN CITE IS
DAVID DUKE
OR HITLER HERE!!
DO YOU GET THIS???
98% of Somalians agree with barbaric practices so given it's very hard to determine who the 2% who don't is, we should ban immigration from somalia in western countries -> allowed or not?
Seems like it would be a good thing to have those people immigrate to a country where that practice would not be allowed.
I don't even know what it means to say one group of humans is "better" than another. There is no universal scale for measuring the quality of humans.
As with every scale, there can be, it's just about defining one.
As I tried to describe, one possible way to say if a group is better than another is to check measurable outcomes we agree upon being objectively positive morally and move from there.
Ofc if you are a true relativist, in the sense that you deny the existence of any kind of objective morally positive definable thing, then you will disagree with the attempt.
But in that case you need to explicitly say that exterminating homosexuals isn't necessarily morally worse than not doing it, it's all relative (just one example).
Which I don't think you (or actually anyone) truly believe to be the case.
Which is why I'd like to know where the line is so I can come as close as allowed to make my arguments, when they are predicated on group characteristics
Just make them. I am sure they are unassailable based on sound logic and facts that no one could possibly counter your theories, let alone ban you for them.
no that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with eugenics!where did you get that from? the person who told you this is seriously misguiding you. its common sense, call it science or whatever, not eugenics. are you playing dumb, or are you under the impression there is nothing wrong with what you say?there is a reason nobody talk about this like you, you cant cite anybody, W
No it's you who have a problem with the word eugenics.
If you abort fetuses with undesirable characteristics that's really basic eugenics.
Eugenics is about anything that influences the genetic pool of the population explicitly, toward the outcome of achieving a purportedly better gene pool (however defined).
Aborting fetuses with genetic defects is very basic eugenics.
Just make them. I am sure they are unassailable based on sound logic and facts that no one could possibly counter your theories, let alone ban you for them.
Nothing is only about logicals and facts, you also express your moral preferences, and some moral preferences are forbidden here.
I just need to know which ones precisely
As with every scale, there can be, it's just about defining one.As I tried to describe, one possible way to say if a group is better than another is to check measurable outcomes we agree upon being objectively positive morally and move from there.Ofc if you are a true relativist, in the sense that you deny the existence of any kind of objective morally positive definable thing,
I think it makes sense to say that one group of people has a generally better system of morality than another. That is based on their choices, not on something inherent to a group they were born into.
If that is what you mean, I think it is much better to specify that instead of saying one group is just "better than" another.
I think it makes sense to say that one group of people has a generally better system of morality than another. That is based on their choices, not on something inherent to a group they were born into.
If that is what you mean, I think it is much better to specify that instead of saying one group is just "better than" another.
Which makes them subject to critic, right?
And to a long list of corollaries (like deciding which side of an international conflict you favor for example).
Why the inverted commas for "better"? Why the deep seated fear of admitting explicitly people are not all equal in value?
No it's you who have a problem with the word eugenics.
If you abort fetuses with undesirable characteristics that's really basic eugenics.
Eugenics is about anything that influences the genetic pool of the population explicitly, toward the outcome of achieving a purportedly better gene pool (however defined).
Aborting fetuses with genetic defects is very basic eugenics.
ALONE the term is offensive and racist, the past of this concept is not only wrong, it has been used by hitler to kill all the jews and other people. it has a very negative past it is taboo in classrooms around the world AND in every government of the world! why? IT DOESNT EVEN GET MENTIONED EVER! THATS HOW BAD IT IS!
BUT YOU THINK ITS OK??? LOL
oh and then you come in here acting like stupid. like you didnt know or something... WTF??
ALONE the term is offensive and racist, the past of this concept is not only wrong, it has been used by hitler to kill all the jews and other people. it has a very negative past it is taboo in classrooms around the world AND in every government of the world! why? IT DOESNT EVEN GET MENTIONED EVER! THATS HOW BAD IT IS!BUT YOU THINK ITS OK??? LOL oh and then you come in here ac
in literature the word is used appropriately and it isn't offensive or racist (???)
it is,
thats an australian idiot, probably descendants of rats and convicts.
he is alone there and sinking.
nobody quotes him, do you see that?
Which makes them subject to critic, right?
And to a long list of corollaries (like deciding which side of an international conflict you favor for example).
Why the inverted commas for "better"? Why the deep seated fear of admitting explicitly people are not all equal in value?
Because, as I said, there is no standard for "better" in humans, it is far too vague. I don't think that would even make sense for animals. Could you say one dog is better than another and expect everyone to agree on that?
There is certainly no standard in "value" of humans. The only way that would even make sense would be if they were being sold as slaves.
Because, as I said, there is no standard for "better" in humans, it is far too vague. I don't think that would even make sense for animals. Could you say one dog is better than another and expect everyone to agree on that?
There is certainly no standard in "value" of humans. The only way that would even make sense would be if they were being sold as slaves.
Dunno, I'm pretty comfortable saying that Trump supporters as a group are "worse" than non Trump supporters, for example. Or that zealous religious adherents at a net negative to humanity. Unlike Luciom I don't think killing them all is a moral imperative, though. Baseball bat to the kneecaps should suffice.
Which is why I'd like to know where the line is so I can come as close as allowed to make my arguments, when they are predicated on group characteristics
Luciom, discussion is one thing as has generally been the case in this discussion.... so far.
Frankly anyone who is looking for the line in the sand.... really should be tossed out in my opinion. Does that help you when a mod says this about your posting?
I don't even know what it means to say one group of humans is "better" than another. There is no universal scale for measuring the quality of humans.
Luciom, my personal belief is exactly what chillrob posted here.
My race is better than your race is a sickening statement and will not be tolerated by me. (Please do not define my definition of race).
Clear enough line in the sand?
What about the line for looking for the line? How big a buffer zone are we working with here?
What if you find the line accidentally?
Not sure how you could accidentally find the line within the context of what KS said and if you're actually looking for a line at all, it seems you're kinda looking for mod confrontation to begin with.
