Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MSC last won the day on November 22 2020

MSC had the most liked content!

About MSC

  • Birthday November 12

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago, IL, USA
  • Interests
    Philosophy, Physics, Chemistry, Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, Psychiatry, Ethics, History, Art in the broadest sense of the word, Linguistics, Psycholinguistics, Philosophy of Religion, Phenomenology, Chess, Fire Performance arts.
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    On Hiatus until the New year. Hope everyone has a nice holiday period.

Recent Profile Visitors

1781 profile views

MSC's Achievements


Atom (5/13)



  1. Contextualists miss nothing. Onus is on you to be clearer in your communication. I've asked you to clarify multiple times. Can you link me to the literature that is currently inspiring you. I want to understand, however if you will do me the courtesy of reading back some of your own writing from a different perspective, you will find that you have contradicted yourself a few times and that there are a few terms you use that need to be better defined. I agree with the sentiment of this, however there is a diversity of modal qualities to every value expressed and clear conflicts of prioritization between values. Security/Freedom is one such conflict. There is also a diversity of thought in meta-ethical dialogical positions and reducing them to something simpler than that, eliminates the subtle but profound impacts of the differences in nuance has on the modal quality of values. That's the problem we have been addressing. Your reductionism isn't helping. If we cannot discuss diversity and how it relates to equality and equity, then we cannot have the discussion at all. This is about barriers to education. Now, you can express your view, but if you cannot recognize the influence concepts or social constructs and how others view and use them, have on the barriers to equal opportunity in education, then you are ignoring the majority of the problem. A few facts to keep this all on track. F1. Not everyone shares your view on how things are, or how they ought to be. F2. Bigots exist. F3. Bad faith decisions made by biased individuals on who does or does not get into a certain school, happen. F4. There are a few different degrees and types of discrimination, direct and indirect, conscious and subconsciously. F5. Some people believe diversity exists and has value in a number of different areas. F6. Public discourse does not take these concepts lightly. Conclusion: It is not pragmatic to take the fringe belief that diversity is the antithesis of equality and claims like that require proof. Especially since the concepts 'Equality and 'Diversity have uses in a multitude of different situations. Here, we are discussing equality of opportunity. Believing in the values of equality and diversity are not mutually exclusive. There is even a way to be pro-life and pro-choice based on pragmatic modalities of the underlying values involved.
  2. I see what you mean now. Maybe if you were more concise and not so intentionally ambiguous, there would be less shite in your word salads. Are you perchance a ghost? Because almost all of what you were saying, sounded like woo. It didn't really make much sense and was kind of hard to read because it sounds like you're trying to cultivate mystique and making fallacious appeals to science in an attempt to strengthen whatever it is you're trying to claim. Then there is this; Neurological, Genetic, Cultural and biological diversity are in no ways "subjective". It sounds to me like you're trying to abstract away from simply saying "I don't see colour or differences in peoples." Which I think is just you lying to yourself about having subconscious biases, because admitting you have them, would make you seem, in your eye's at least, less good or intelligent. You misunderstood completely when I said; Assume everything or assume nothing on a case by case basis. Meaning, upon examination of the objective context, which includes the individuals involved subjective beliefs, as it will factor into what is happening, in a given situation deduce whether or not discrimination is going on, and the type and degree of it. It's simpler but probably more appropriate meaning; consider all sides, empathise with and understand how and why different people may view the same situation differently. Give yourself the fullest view of a situation as you can, research it, double/triple check, be rigorous and accept that you fallible humanity will never lead you to a perfect answer. Just a best guess. (Unless it's the hard sciences of course. 9 is the perfect answer to what is the square root of 81.)
  3. So I saw a few comments I wanted to address; @dimreepr regarding the "benevolent" dictator, is there a specific historical example that you can think of that was definitely benevolent when they became dictator, and stayed that way? Conflicts between rights, like the right to good health and the right to freedom of movement have often been settled by the fact that all of our claims to rights, rely on the right to life and good health. There are moral grounds for medical professionals to subject people to medical treatments against their will. Conservatorship and stewarding for the mentally ill. I imagine there are probably many refusing vaccines who could be suffering from an environmentally caused form of panic disorder. If you are unconscious with a life threatening injury and next of kin cannot be found, chances are they will treat you up to and including life saving surgery. Without asking your permission, but assuming it. Only reason they would not, is if you had an official DNR order. I'm a little surprised the precedent for human rights in a pandemic has not been brought up. During the Spanish flu (H1N1 type a) of 1918, refusing to wear a mask in public, straight up got you arrested, in the USA at least. Can you imagine what they would have done with people refusing a vaccine for that, if they had one at the time? As it stands, 50,000,000+ worldwide died during the Spanish Flu. 5,000,000+ have currently died of covid, vs 50,000,000 whom have contracted it. The death toll of the Spanish flu in the USA, is around 200k lower than the current covid death toll. Now, the population of the USA has grown around 3 times as much, so by rate, the spanish flu killed a higher percentage of the population, yet the population at the time also lacked the potential to reach the sort of numbers we could see soon with the right mutations of the coronavirus with a far higher population. For me, it ultimately comes down to this, I can self isolate, get a vaccine, wear a mask, and can temporarily give up my freedom for the common good of all, a number of times in my life, but I can only die once. With death, the only thing I have close to rights then, is last rites. It's the end of freedom, health, marriage, owning a business and watching my daughter grow up. So people nutting up, vaxxing up and shutting up would be great. Or maybe we can just declare all the antivaxers mentally ill and just give them the vaccine whether they want it or not. Hey, it amounts to self harm if we just let them go out and get covid, plus biological assault of others. I think in some places, even pre-pandemic, you could get charged with assault for sneezing on someone. Especially if it is maliciously done, like spitting on someone. It's weird, even though nobody is eating each other, this stuff feels like a zombie apocalypse, the antivax crowd are pretty brainless.
  4. Firstly, by 'good' I mean conducts itself ethically. There are a few aspects to address with this question. Answers ought to take into account; 1. How this platform monetises and to what extent it does so? Does it just cover it's operating costs and staff man hours or does it make a profit? To extend this question, what does it do with this profit? 2. What does it do with users data? Does it have ads driven by the selling off of marketing data? Another question buried there, is who owns data pertaining to an internet user? The user or the data gatherer? 3. How does it manage moderation and censorship? Bare minimum adherence to the law or sets of guiding principles the users themselves have a hand in making? Those are just the two options based on opposite ends of a spectrum, I am not positing that as a binary choice. A programmer friend and I were discussing this at length the other day, neither of us believe any of the current platforms do enough to be ethical. Currently, I am grounding my perspective of the good, as that which is a net positive for life, biologically/psychologically. Feel free to critique that though. I get that rational meaning through conveyance, is a difficulty that most take for granted, so if I've not made sense at any point feel free to say. Happy to try to elaborate more when I see where people are at with this. I feel that if I don't address those 3 aspects of this question, then I won't be able to be certain of an answer to the main question. Thanks in advance, for any thoughts you contribute towards this discussion. The concerns which led me to this question, stem from the harmful consequences wrought by platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter etc. From screen addiction, to the spreading of misinformation and either a lack of justifiable censorship or over-censorship. I personally feel, that going forward, the discussion around this question is only going to get more prominent and that it is one we should all be asking ourselves and each other as much as we can. Optional homework: If you would prefer not to comment, I request that you have this discussion with at least two people you are comfortable with, then ask them to do the same. For those of you who would like to know moore about the original version and inspiration of this question... You just got a hint. If the hint was missed, The Heavy have a song titled after the question. Peace.
  5. I have to disagree with this claim. Not that this definition isn't the non-standard one, you're correct there. However, standard definition does not necessarily mean the correct definition, nor does it mean the only standard. Strict singular definitionalism is rejected not only by philosophers, but by the people that write the laypersons dictionary. Like most issues in ethics, it is rarely so cut and dry. I find that more often than not, whether or not any action is justified depends greatly on the context the action is happening in. Even when it comes to protected characteristics (which tend to vary based on local and national laws and policy) there are a number of contexts where most legal experts and ethicists will agree that discrimination based on even a protected characteristic, is in fact justified. Whether it's not letting any blind person, except for Mr LaForge, fly a commercial airliner.. Or any plane for that matter, telling a trans woman she cannot be your surrogate because she hasn't got a womb (differentiating between gender and biological sex + yes, Monty Python is awesome) a person with Parkinsons can't be a surgeon and a 5 year old cannot run for Congress. Those are a few examples off the top of my head but there are lots more I could use. The word 'Discrimination' does, can and ought to mean unjustified discrimination, except in the contexts where it does not. There is no other word for me to really use when I mean unjustified discrimination (bigotry doesn't tick all the boxes for me), yet at the same time, no other word for me to use when I mean justified discrimination, that make them both clearly distinct from the other. I often like to say, assume everything or assume nothing. Case by case basis. Being blind to unjustified discrimination as a reality that happens, amounts to missing it when it does, just as being blind to justified discrimination as a reality amounts to missing it when it also happens. Your last line seems strange and I wonder if you can be convinced to shed more light on what you mean by it? Are you saying the inverse, absolute conformity is the epitome of equality? A virtue theorist could argue that if diversity is a collective virtue, it is the golden mean between absolute conformity and pure individuality. For the individual, this means individualisation for the purpose of bringing a broad range of skills, aptitudes and value to the collective. For the collective, this means conforming to a shared value of diversity, for the sake of our survival.
  6. Tell me something I don't know, or tell this to someone that doesn't know, makes no nevermind to me
  7. Is autistic, human? Doesn't feel like it to me. Feels like I'm an alien on a strange world where up is down, down is up, kindness is hatred and hatred is kindness.
  8. I have a legal right to request that all content contributed by me on this site, be removed, I revoke permission for its use. This is currently a request, but I can get legal aid and make this court issue if my rights are not respected.
  9. Shit.. I'm of sound mind then. My psychiatrist never inferred or declared me non compos mentis, but then I haven't seen him in two years and cannot get another currently.
  10. Are autistic people of sound mind? I looked up definition of sanity and it used the word normal. I'm not normal... That being said, who exactly is normal?
  11. I've yet to meet anyone with a sound mind and our species is careening towards environmental disaster. Are any of us of sound mind? My loved ones tell me I am of sound mind, everyone else treats me like I'm crazy. So is it permissable for me to kill myself?
  12. Pretty straightforward. Should killing yourself be morally acceptable as a right to choose?
  13. Psh, everyone is off-topic in this thread. Opened it up thinking I was going to get to discuss Hume, no takers. Everyone just wants to pile onto the 'crazy' person and ignore absolutely everything said in the OP like it just doesn't fucking matter at all. So what is the hole in my argument? You might as well just say what it is since no one is on topic here. So is anyone going to even try to stay on topic or address any of the OP seriously? Cuz it seems to me like it's just becoming a thread where people pile onto me, call me bitchy, tell me to write less, infer that I can't read etc. It's fucking sick. Just talk about the fucking subject matter I am sick to fucking death of having conversations where people seem to judge me for having fucking feelings. Just everyone fuck off if you're not going to read the OP and stop using me as your bully boy target. Just picking on disabled people at this point.
  14. No, I don't. It's a good point to make and I had a feeling you would make it. So I prepared an answer in advance. Affirmative action is not discrimination based on racial traits but a racial history of injustice. Although, I suppose you could argue for when the period of restitution and reparation should end? I don't know. If the inverse scenario had been true, and whites had been enslaved on mass and brought to Africa to work against their will, then todays affirmative action would be for the benefits of that white history of being victims of a great injustice. It isn't solely based on race. Your arguments didn't even strike me as eugenics, I would have said something if any of them had struck me as such. You made your point in that thread that your ultimate fears in regards to affirmative action, reside in overcompensation leading to a different kind of racism or unjust prejudice. What you didn't suggest, was that current and ongoing systems of inequality are justified based on inherent superiority of one groups genes over another. Eugenics lite, for lack of a better way to describe what I mean. I could try and expand more, but I'm going to make more of an effort to be more concise and to the point, as INow suggests. So I'll try to refrain and stick to a more casual flow of conversation. Results may vary...
  15. You mean just in the forum setting right? That isn't the only reason you might not be able to say something concisely. Depends on how complex and elaborate what you're talking about is. I barely write more than a small essays worth at a time. Maybe the mistake I make is thinking that just because I take the time to write it, others will put the same amount of time into reading it? The annoying thing about writing a book, is slow feedback. I don't really know how you put a decades worth of research into something concise enough to be short, sweet and simple. The closest I can get to that; reality and existence are complicated, it isn't short, it isn't simple or easily describable, that is the simplest truth there is. I'm a devil is in the details and nuance type. If people want something that can fit into a tweet or makes a nice sounding short quote for someones yearbook, that is not philosophy or ethics... Oh my, how the tables have turned. I sound like the older ones just saying that and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but despite my ignorance and rejection of it at the time, they were right... I'll take your advice though, that the forum venue is not the place for my windbag proclivities and that I am wasting my time writing at length when time to read is not something everyone has. That being said, be aware that your advice runs counter to others on this same forum, which is that I should expand more. Unless you think the criticism, that I write too much when I should write little, and too little when I should write more, would be a valid criticism to make of me? You can answer that honestly without fear of me snapping back you by the way. You've displayed to me, a level of linguistic precision that I envy, within the ethics threads. You are also direct and to the point. I can't believe I'm saying it, but I actually trust you to objectively critique my approach, as you've displayed a great deal of competency in your arguments for affirmative action. As we'd say in Scotland; go oan san, intellectually roast me mate! Gi me the fear.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.