Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Willow Of Darkness
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus
TrueLore
There is no reason why I should simply respect other cultures.

Bigot.


Yes, in this instance it is appropriate to be a bigot.


Awwww so your lot are free to be as racist as you please?

How very convenient.


Not racist, it refers to a culture, not a gourd of a certain skin colour(though one can often act as the cause for the other, as culture differences can often fall, at least in perception, to be divided on skin colour lines).

Not as culturalist as we please, no, as it is only certain cultural elements that are unacceptable.

But otherwise yes, that is the nature of morality. If you don't want people oppressing women, you suppress it and consider it unacceptable. Just as if you don't want bombings going off all over the city, you suppress ideas that cause people to take such action.


racial prejudice or discrimination, is not about "skin color," since skin color is a piss poor way of defining groups. For example Ukrainians and Russians have the same skin color but despise one another and do not consider each other the same. Prejudice by any other name.

I see, so if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed?
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness
I Refute Berkeley Thus
TrueLore
There is no reason why I should simply respect other cultures.

Bigot.


Yes, in this instance it is appropriate to be a bigot.


Awwww so your lot are free to be as racist as you please?

How very convenient.


Not racist, it refers to a culture, not a gourd of a certain skin colour(though one can often act as the cause for the other, as culture differences can often fall, at least in perception, to be divided on skin colour lines).

Not as culturalist as we please, no, as it is only certain cultural elements that are unacceptable.

But otherwise yes, that is the nature of morality. If you don't want people oppressing women, you suppress it and consider it unacceptable. Just as if you don't want bombings going off all over the city, you suppress ideas that cause people to take such action.


racial prejudice or discrimination, is not about "skin color," since skin color is a piss poor way of defining groups. For example Ukrainians and Russians have the same skin color but despise one another and do not consider each other the same. Prejudice by any other name.

I see, so if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed?


In instances, such as that one, where it is not about skin colour it is. When it is about skin colour, it is most certainly not. I even said as much in my last post. The comment about racism was referring to instances where culture is perceived to run along skin colour(for example, people of middle eastern appliance and radical Islam), and so, even thought the disagreement might be about culture, the aversion is created along the lines of skin colour.

Depends which ethics are correct. If the ethics " if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed" were correct, then yes. If otherwise, then no(or "there is no answer" if you are taking that there is no such thing as a defined ethical truth).

The Willow Of Darkness
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness


Yes, in this instance it is appropriate to be a bigot.


Awwww so your lot are free to be as racist as you please?

How very convenient.


Not racist, it refers to a culture, not a gourd of a certain skin colour(though one can often act as the cause for the other, as culture differences can often fall, at least in perception, to be divided on skin colour lines).

Not as culturalist as we please, no, as it is only certain cultural elements that are unacceptable.

But otherwise yes, that is the nature of morality. If you don't want people oppressing women, you suppress it and consider it unacceptable. Just as if you don't want bombings going off all over the city, you suppress ideas that cause people to take such action.


racial prejudice or discrimination, is not about "skin color," since skin color is a piss poor way of defining groups. For example Ukrainians and Russians have the same skin color but despise one another and do not consider each other the same. Prejudice by any other name.

I see, so if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed?


In instances, such as that one, where it is not about skin colour it is. When it is about skin colour, it is most certainly not. I even said as much in my last post. The comment about racism was referring to instances where culture is perceived to run along skin colour(for example, people of middle eastern appliance and radical Islam), and so, even thought the disagreement might be about culture, the aversion is created along the lines of skin colour.

Depends which ethics are correct. If the ethics " if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed" were correct, then yes. If otherwise, then no.



So as long as one has the act is either popular or can be done, it is justified... so might makes right? You have the power to brow beat and subjugate them thus it is right, because you can? Fun stuff your lot have going on there.

For one, people of the Middle East have highly variable skin coloration. Second, were criticizing the culture of an ethnic group. Finally it seems your personal ethics come down to might makes right, ... actually might makes right if I do it, but it doesn't if others do it.
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness


Yes, in this instance it is appropriate to be a bigot.


Awwww so your lot are free to be as racist as you please?

How very convenient.


Not racist, it refers to a culture, not a gourd of a certain skin colour(though one can often act as the cause for the other, as culture differences can often fall, at least in perception, to be divided on skin colour lines).

Not as culturalist as we please, no, as it is only certain cultural elements that are unacceptable.

But otherwise yes, that is the nature of morality. If you don't want people oppressing women, you suppress it and consider it unacceptable. Just as if you don't want bombings going off all over the city, you suppress ideas that cause people to take such action.


racial prejudice or discrimination, is not about "skin color," since skin color is a piss poor way of defining groups. For example Ukrainians and Russians have the same skin color but despise one another and do not consider each other the same. Prejudice by any other name.

I see, so if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed?


In instances, such as that one, where it is not about skin colour it is. When it is about skin colour, it is most certainly not. I even said as much in my last post. The comment about racism was referring to instances where culture is perceived to run along skin colour(for example, people of middle eastern appliance and radical Islam), and so, even thought the disagreement might be about culture, the aversion is created along the lines of skin colour.

Depends which ethics are correct. If the ethics " if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed" were correct, then yes. If otherwise, then no.



So as long as one has the act is either popular or can be done, it is justified... so might makes right? You have the power to brow beat and subjugate them thus it is right, because you can? Fun stuff your lot have going on there.

For one, people of the Middle East have highly variable skin coloration. Second, were criticizing the culture of an ethnic group. Finally it seems your personal ethics come down to might makes right, ... actually might makes right if I do it, but it doesn't if others do it.


NO, might determines what gets DONE. I was referring to an ethical truth-i.e. it is simply true( "the case" ) that " if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed."

Anyone acting on a moral position is of course going to claim that what they are doing is based in truth, but just because they say it doesn't necessarily mean they are right. An ethical truth can only be so because it is so: they are axiomatic in nature.

As a result anyone is going to claim that the one the feel is right and there is no way to separate out which one must be correct. If you are going to hold a moral position, you simply have to accept that what you feel is reflected by the truth. However, just because people always express that their given moral position is true, it doesn't mean that it is.

Correct, that doesn't stop people from erroneously thinking otherwise though.
The Willow Of Darkness

NO, might determines what gets DONE. I was referring to an ethical truth-i.e. it is simply true( "the case" ) that " if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed."

Anyone acting on a moral position is of course going to claim that what they are doing is based in truth, but just because they say it doesn't necessarily mean they are right. An ethical truth can only be so because it is so: they are axiomatic in nature.

As a result anyone is going to claim that the one the feel is right and there is no way to separate out which one must be correct. If you are going to hold a moral position, you simply have to accept that what you feel is reflected by the truth. However, just because people always express that their given moral position is true, it doesn't mean that it is.

Correct, that doesn't stop people from erroneously thinking otherwise though.


I would argue that it is immoral to force or coerce Orthodox Jews to act as you do. Just as it is immoral for the Orthodox Jews to force you to act as they do.

The thing your not grasping is that I am fundamentally finding your use of "Might makes right," abhorrent, not necessarily what it is you wish people to do, but the fact that you feel it acceptable to coerce people into being that way.
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness

NO, might determines what gets DONE. I was referring to an ethical truth-i.e. it is simply true( "the case" ) that " if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed."

Anyone acting on a moral position is of course going to claim that what they are doing is based in truth, but just because they say it doesn't necessarily mean they are right. An ethical truth can only be so because it is so: they are axiomatic in nature.

As a result anyone is going to claim that the one the feel is right and there is no way to separate out which one must be correct. If you are going to hold a moral position, you simply have to accept that what you feel is reflected by the truth. However, just because people always express that their given moral position is true, it doesn't mean that it is.

Correct, that doesn't stop people from erroneously thinking otherwise though.


I would argue that it is immoral to force or coerce Orthodox Jews to act as you do. Just as it is immoral for the Orthodox Jews to force you to act as they do.

The thing your not grasping is that I am fundamentally finding your use of "Might makes right," abhorrent, not necessarily what it is you wish people to do, but the fact that you feel it acceptable to coerce people into being that way.


That is impossible in this instance. If you read the offending cultural element that the argument this was in reference to, it was a restriction to be placed on women. If the Orthodox Jew wins in this instance, then they are coercing me into a world where there are restrictions on women and the women they are placing restrictions on. If I win, then I am coercing Orthodox Jew to live in a world where women are not restriction as they think should be.

What you mean, I suspect, is rather that you don't like I support active interference against the ideas I disagree with(I'm not doing so because I can and that makes me right. I am doing so because it is the correct ethical position). The point you don't understand is that controlling the ideas is always going on(even now) and it is actually required to actually produce change in social attitudes, as the origin of much discrimination lies in the ideas which people understand others by.
The Willow Of Darkness
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness

NO, might determines what gets DONE. I was referring to an ethical truth-i.e. it is simply true( "the case" ) that " if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed."

Anyone acting on a moral position is of course going to claim that what they are doing is based in truth, but just because they say it doesn't necessarily mean they are right. An ethical truth can only be so because it is so: they are axiomatic in nature.

As a result anyone is going to claim that the one the feel is right and there is no way to separate out which one must be correct. If you are going to hold a moral position, you simply have to accept that what you feel is reflected by the truth. However, just because people always express that their given moral position is true, it doesn't mean that it is.

Correct, that doesn't stop people from erroneously thinking otherwise though.


I would argue that it is immoral to force or coerce Orthodox Jews to act as you do. Just as it is immoral for the Orthodox Jews to force you to act as they do.

The thing your not grasping is that I am fundamentally finding your use of "Might makes right," abhorrent, not necessarily what it is you wish people to do, but the fact that you feel it acceptable to coerce people into being that way.


That is impossible in this instance. If you read the offending cultural element that the argument this was in reference to, it was a restriction to be placed on women. If the Orthodox Jew wins in this instance, then they are coercing me into a world where there are restrictions on women and the women they are placing restrictions on. If I win, then I am coercing Orthodox Jew to live in a world where women are not restriction as they think should be.

What you mean, I suspect, is rather that you don't like I support active interference against the ideas I disagree with(I'm not doing so because I can and that makes me right. I am doing so because it is the correct ethical position). The point you don't understand is that controlling the ideas is always going on(even now) and it is actually required to actually produce change in social attitudes, as the origin of much discrimination lies in the ideas which people understand others by.


Is the restriction upon you? Are you every woman on the planet? If so, Hi Amanda..... Just thought I'd say hello to my girlfriend since apparently you are the collective avatar of every female human on the planet earth. Orthodox women and ultra-Orthodox women are free to cease being Orthodox, leave the Ashkenazic tradition for the Sephardi tradition (While still Orthodox, there are no separation of sects, and levels of observance can very from individual to individual). The Orthodox Jews have a code on of life. What are the traditions people are to follow whom wish to be Orthodox Jews. You are neither a Jew, nor an Orthodox Jew so why do you care what they are doing so long as you are not being forced to do it and or being forced to be one?

If an Orthodox Jew tries to stop say a Jewish woman from saying praying at the Wailing Wall, she should punch that guys teeth in. (Since obviously he does not own the holy places). If ect ect ect.... If your personal rights are being trampled by an Orthodox Jew, refuse and ask him to make you.... or call the cops... or go to court. I agree he has no right to force non-Orthodox Jews to conform to Orthodoxy. But you have no right to force Orthodox Jews to cease being Orthodox.

I disagree with your methods because effectively you set a bad precedent for yourself, and one that is antithetical to a liberal society. What if the Orthodox Jews gain enough power to force you to act as they do and you can't do anything about it? Well you have established the principle that it is okay to interfere in others affairs simply because you find their life, ideas, and customs to be bad. You have established the precedent that it is okay to use government force and coercion to tell them how to be.

Finally in a liberal society, one should have the freedom of conscious to think as they wish, and follow their faith as they so please. As long as the Orthodox Jew respects your right to do the same, why should you not support his or her right to do that as well?
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness
Lokshen
The Willow Of Darkness

NO, might determines what gets DONE. I was referring to an ethical truth-i.e. it is simply true( "the case" ) that " if I don't like you or what you do, I can gather a bunch of people and by rule of the mob have you suppressed."

Anyone acting on a moral position is of course going to claim that what they are doing is based in truth, but just because they say it doesn't necessarily mean they are right. An ethical truth can only be so because it is so: they are axiomatic in nature.

As a result anyone is going to claim that the one the feel is right and there is no way to separate out which one must be correct. If you are going to hold a moral position, you simply have to accept that what you feel is reflected by the truth. However, just because people always express that their given moral position is true, it doesn't mean that it is.

Correct, that doesn't stop people from erroneously thinking otherwise though.


I would argue that it is immoral to force or coerce Orthodox Jews to act as you do. Just as it is immoral for the Orthodox Jews to force you to act as they do.

The thing your not grasping is that I am fundamentally finding your use of "Might makes right," abhorrent, not necessarily what it is you wish people to do, but the fact that you feel it acceptable to coerce people into being that way.


That is impossible in this instance. If you read the offending cultural element that the argument this was in reference to, it was a restriction to be placed on women. If the Orthodox Jew wins in this instance, then they are coercing me into a world where there are restrictions on women and the women they are placing restrictions on. If I win, then I am coercing Orthodox Jew to live in a world where women are not restriction as they think should be.

What you mean, I suspect, is rather that you don't like I support active interference against the ideas I disagree with(I'm not doing so because I can and that makes me right. I am doing so because it is the correct ethical position). The point you don't understand is that controlling the ideas is always going on(even now) and it is actually required to actually produce change in social attitudes, as the origin of much discrimination lies in the ideas which people understand others by.


Is the restriction upon you? Are you every woman on the planet? If so, Hi Amanda..... Just thought I'd say hello to my girlfriend since apparently you are the collective avatar of every female human on the planet earth. Orthodox women and ultra-Orthodox women are free to cease being Orthodox, leave the Ashkenazic tradition for the Sephardi tradition (While still Orthodox, there are no separation of sects, and levels of observance can very from individual to individual). The Orthodox Jews have a code on of life. What are the traditions people are to follow whom wish to be Orthodox Jews. You are neither a Jew, nor an Orthodox Jew so why do you care what they are doing so long as you are not being forced to do it and or being forced to be one?

If an Orthodox Jew tries to stop say a Jewish woman from saying praying at the Wailing Wall, she should punch that guys teeth in. (Since obviously he does not own the holy places). If ect ect ect.... If your personal rights are being trampled by an Orthodox Jew, refuse and ask him to make you.... or call the cops... or go to court. I agree he has no right to force non-Orthodox Jews to conform to Orthodoxy. But you have no right to force Orthodox Jews to cease being Orthodox.

I disagree with your methods because effectively you set a bad precedent for yourself, and one that is antithetical to a liberal society. What if the Orthodox Jews gain enough power to force you to act as they do and you can't do anything about it? Well you have established the principle that it is okay to interfere in others affairs simply because you find their life, ideas, and customs to be bad. You have established the precedent that it is okay to use government force and coercion to tell them how to be.

Finally in a liberal society, one should have the freedom of conscious to think as they wish, and follow their faith as they so please. As long as the Orthodox Jew respects your right to do the same, why should you not support his or her right to do that as well?



Except:
1. They might not actually be free to leave.
2. The restriction might be of a legal nature.
3. There is the fact that such restriction is still wrong and produces an undesirable situation.
4. The ideas in question may gain traction and become the norm for society, then affecting anyone who lives there.

That is funny because liberal society(assuming this is a liberal society) actually uses it all the time. Our ideas are ways being always shaped and mould to a particular way by the prevent discourses. You just can't see it because it can often be done by absence(i.e not mentioning something) and defining your ideas by what is mentioned(censorship by you never hearing about alternate ways).

No, we establish the principle that it is okay to interfere in a given instance, not in every single situations.

Yeah well, that is just silly. There are some ideas that are just worthless and should be discarded.

The "liberal" world you profess(which is not liberal for a lot of people because they get mistreated by people harbouring ideas about them, which cause them to be discriminated against) is parasitic on the idea building of previous generations, the instances where opposing ideas were suppressed, allowing certain ones to dominate, ones which then allow you to live "freely" further along in time. You are blind to the power of ideas an why having control over them is important because you have never been put in a situation where you've been threatened by an opposing group. You can simply say: "Oh they can simply believe what the want because it doesn't affect people" because you have never been personally threatened by the acts that result from ideas about people. They do have effects. Big ones.
The Willow Of Darkness


Except:
1. They might not actually be free to leave.
2. The restriction might be of a legal nature.
3. There is the fact that such restriction is still wrong and produces an undesirable situation.
4. The ideas in question may gain traction and become the norm for society, then affecting anyone who lives there.


1. Unless someone is being tied down to a chair or held under threat of death, nobody is being forced.
2. They are "legal," in that within the context of said community they exist as law. One can not be a member of said community and break its rules without be excommunicated from it.
3. These restrictions and rules produce the results the community wishes. The results are merely undesirable to you... but again nobody is making you join the community... so what is your problem?
4. The ideas are not, we can not fight a maybe, a hypothetical. We best destroy it... something bad might happen.... what sort of horrible justification is that? More over, if more people wish to become Orthodox, is that not their right to make such a choice? How is what you suggest doing and what you fear the Orthodox might do any different?


The Willow Of Darkness



That is funny because liberal society(assuming this is a liberal society) actually uses it all the time. Our ideas are ways being always shaped and mould to a particular way by the prevent discourses. You just can't see it because it can often be done by absence(i.e not mentioning something) and defining your ideas by what is mentioned(censorship by you never hearing about alternate ways).


For practical reasons, the ideas and alternatives are present. Why should you and the Orthodox Jews have equal right to pursue your lives as you so chose? As long as you life and the Orthodox life does not force upon one another, who are you to care?


The Willow Of Darkness



No, we establish the principle that it is okay to interfere in a given instance, not in every single situations.


Where does the line end? You are entering into the murky waters of, its okay to interfere in the actions, thoughts and activity of a private individual, because their thoughts, actions and activity is not to the liking of another private individual (You). What is to stop the Orthodox from enacting laws against you because they find what you do distasteful?

Which is now what your for, interfering because you don't like them.



The Willow Of Darkness



Yeah well, that is just silly. There are some ideas that are just worthless and should be discarded.


So say's you.

The Willow Of Darkness



The "liberal" world you profess(which is not liberal for a lot of people because they get mistreated by people harbouring ideas about them, which cause them to be discriminated against) is parasitic on the idea building of previous generations, the instances where opposing ideas were suppressed, allowing certain ones to dominate, ones which then allow you to live "freely" further along in time. You are blind to the power of ideas an why having control over them is important because you have never been put in a situation where you've been threatened by an opposing group. You can simply say: "Oh they can simply believe what the want because it doesn't affect people" because you have never been personally threatened by the acts that result from ideas about people. They do have effects. Big ones.


You have no right to be liked, loved and admired by all. I live in an area where my tanner skin is not necessarily welcomed, I am of an ethnic group (I am in fact Jewish) that isn't exactly beloved the world over (Millions consider me part of a devilish conspiracy or two) and I go to a college where department heads can demand conformity in the class room or make your life hell for holding an idea different then there's.

Unless Orthodox Jews are psychic, or unless they are infringing on what you can do with your life or making you be Orthodox, you have no legitimate complaint to lodge.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games