MSC

What exactly do you think the soft sciences are in your own words? Because I'm reading a lot of bias and misunderstandings in your answers.

I dunno, I find that most dialogues tend to end up as either an exercise in colliding philosophies or actual colliding people following different philosophies, whether the people in them would call themselves philosophers or not. I call it the war of the words sometimes. Simply out of a lack of anything better to call it really. For those of us here, self-interested philosophy permitting indulgence in our worst selves is the true enemy. The thing that unites us all, is that the prospect of having to authorize or carry out torture would give each of us extreme pause. Which I feel is good. Far better than the sinister types who use words as a weapon to do whatever they please, at the expense of others. The types of people who would jump at the chance for the very idea of legally being allowed to torture someone or to have them tortured. There is one last argument I would like to make in regards to why I think torture is wrong in any situation. As a torturer or someone with the power to command others to torture, you have absolute power over someone. Power is always intoxicating. Whether it comes from money, influence or control. Today we justify the torture of a terrorist in an extreme situation, tomorrow we justify torture for another terrorist who isn't an active threat. Where could it end? Torturing a starving man for stealing bread? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The thing that frightens me, as a human, is that I don't know the answer to these following questions; if I engaged in torturing someone, if all 7billion+ people on this planet begged me to do it and I did... would there be some part of me, small or large, that enjoys it? Would it change me? Would it make it easier for me to do things that the me of today would abhore? The whole colliding philosophies thing is aggravating for sure. This is why I am a pragmatic contextualist. I try to find the value of every philosophical view, whether it is from right reasons or right emotional sentiment. Within strict pragmatic definitions of knowledge. It's not perfect, no philosophy ever will be, but I do find that so far, contextualism is the most scientifically minded philosophy, in that it seeks to account for and explain why philosophical differences and debates occur in the first place and finding out where they fit in the grand scheme of things. The goal is to have some kind of framework that does for philosophy what the standard model of physics, does for physics. Probably not completely correct in the long run, but helps us reach feasible explanations we can use to our benefit now. By observing just what the fuck is actually out there.

Or you become like water! Be water my friend!

So too can the law, and it does so, extremely pedanticly at times. We set up martial scenarios as generals/warriors too. I think you'd actually be hard pressed to find a topic where none of these things comes up or is practiced to some extent. Everyday humans imagine scenarios for themselves to think about what they would do in almost any situation you can think of. Some are realistic, some are far-fetched and fanciful. Some are pointless to the person engaging with or creating the scenario, sometimes they are useful instead. Personally, I still feel like it is wrong and impractical to engage in torture. Simply because I am unsure beyond a reasonable doubt that is effective enough to work. I mean hell, people were tortured into claiming to be witches or in league with the devil. Historically speaking more often than not, torture has been used to make people say what the torturers wanted to hear. That is a problem for me which stops me from condoning the practice. Maybe it's a torture methodology problem, but if so, I'm not sure I'd even want to read up on different success rates with different torture methods. I'm pretty sure if I waterboarded someone, I could make them say all kinds of things, true or untrue.

The suspects of crimes and even the convicts also have rights in western societies. Namely, the right to no cruel or inhumane punishments. Right to legal counsel etc. In order to agree with you that your claim is in the majority, I'd need to see some opinion polling on torture. Even if you turn out to be correct on that point, being in the majority doesn't make your argument more likely to be correct. If I was a German in 1939 and believed that Jewish people were less than human (which I don't) I'd be a part of the German majority at the time. It would not make me any less incorrect. I believe in teaching children the principles of self defense. Turning the other cheek is all well and good unless by doing so you are enabling bullying behaviors or putting your own life/well being at risk. So I think you did the right thing in the long run in that situation and it sounds like there were no ill consequences. I'm a parent myself so it may be biasing me toward agreeing with you here but then I think adults ought to adhere to self defense principles also. Oh dear, I'll be canceled for sure this time! 😆 well I'm glad I managed because I wasn't sure. I am perfectly capable of being both (without realizing it of course) but on my good days, where I'm really trying to put myself into the shoes of the person I'm conversing with, I find myself surprised that I'm actually being listened to and appreciated. So thank you, really I mean that. Sounds very familiar! Except I had to wait until I was 16 to legally leave school. Then I tried to join the army. Physics was my self learning passion for awhile, then it was psychology, then philosophy and now ethics (plus a number of other fields and subfields around those.) I've had dialogues and conversations with 100s of professionals in those fields. I think the first person I contacted myself, was Peter Higgs, when I was 14... this was before the Higgs boson was finally discovered, but even then I was fascinated by his work. Personally; I don't know how successful you'll be in learning philosophy through implication by watching debates or discussions. However in this golden information age we find ourselves in; getting into massive debt for a thorough education in something is now no longer required. There are two YouTube channels I think you would really like. Crash course and The School of life. Crash course philosophy is exactly what it sounds like and is a great starting point and it can point you to names and concepts to research yourself. School of life has bio videos on different philosophers/philosophies. SEP - Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is pretty good. I've been fortunate enough to speak to some of the editors there and they are really amazing people who want to put out as much free knowledge as they can and they are interested to hear how people respond to their work. IEP - Internet encyclopedia of philosophy is a good resource, I don't use it as much as SEP but still worth a look in. Project Gutenberg - This is a free online library of classic and out of print books. Want to read Marcus Aurelius mediations? Its there. Want to read it in Latin? It's there. From philosophy, physics to cooking and gardening; it has books on everything. Some of them being 1000s of years old. I have one last scenario; You have been interrogating a terrorism suspect. You are reasonably sure he knows where there is a bomb in a densely populated area. You try everything short of torture to try and get the location. You think you are close to breaking him, but your CO comes in and tells you that the bomb just went off, killing 1000 people. Whom is responsible for those deaths? You, for not torturing? Or the terrorist who set the situation up in the first place? What if you did torture, got an answer that turned out to be a lie and 1000 people still died? Whom is responsible then? But the motive was clearly self defense and teaching an important lesson to the instigating child, that people can hit back and that it hurts. He was four at the time so I doubt he'd understand what it actually feels like to be hit or how it makes others feel. Learning to turn the other cheek is fine, until you're turning it for a knife. I agree with you that ultimately violence isn't the answer, but sometimes when reasonable answers are not or aren't going to be listened to, you either need to walk away or take a swing. Walking away isn't an option for a 4 year old whom has no control over where he goes or lives. Just my two cents really. That said, I probably would have confronted the parents myself first when it was clearly getting out of hand and let them know I've told my kid to hit back if their kid strikes again, and to get their shit together. I'd only say it reinforces the bias if the context of the situation changes and the same response is still given. For example if this had been happening between adults, and the advice is to hit back instead of calling the police, that could be a problem... then again if another adult where to hit me for no good reason, it might not be safe for me to assume they are only going to hit once and give me time to call the police. Hmmmm.. this is hard 😆 This was one of my thoughts too. How do you know guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Who decides that you do, without a judicial process to determine that? The judicial process exists out of recognition that no one person can truly know anything beyond a reasonable doubt and that justified certainty is difficult to reach. If I was a suspect In a crime like this, torturing me is probably the most effective way to make me hate a person enough that I would lie, just to see them fail. I doubt I'm the only person that feels that way either. Not that I'd ever do something like this; this is just me thinking about what it would be like to be in their self centered sociopathic shoes.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. What did you expect? It seems the "mumbo jumbo" you dislike the least is people pointing out where your logic breaks down. That's not their fault. It isn't anyone's job here to be convinced by fallacy ridden arguments or to hold your hand to the finish line. You can base your opinions about philosophy on non-philosophers if you would like, but it isn't a convincing appeal to authority. Especially when pragmatism is a philosophy and all science is born of natural philosophy. Right now, I want to know why you believe that your moral views must be within the majority in western democracies and why this assumption is correct? Could you torture someone as a job? If everyone else tells you that you had no choice, that you did the right thing, will that do anything to actually stop you from remembering everything you did to the person? Their screams and cries, the feeling of the flesh and bones being damaged by you. Would being morally correct stop you from feeling shame or guilt? Would it stop you from feeling like an innocent person yourself? Let's imagine another scenario, you are accused of one of these horrible crimes, somebody wants to torture you for information but you are innocent. You are tortured mercilessly for hours on end; by the time they realize you are innocent, you've been horribly disfigured and will likely live with pain the rest of your life and you gave a false confession just to make the pain stop. How would you feel about torture then? Here is a question you might not have considered; is choosing not to torture someone, even if someone might die if we don't, morally wrong? Ethics is not easy. Doing what is right; isn't always going to make you feel good. Sometimes, our choices are all so dire, that ultimately none of them are good ones, but some might be less bad than others. In the end, we have to be able to live with ourselves, with our choices and actions. If evil exists, and we fight it, we must take a care not to become something worse than the monsters we want to keep at bay. I'm not without some sympathy for your situation. Philosophers have a habit of sounding pretentious and condescending and we argue in a very different way than others, but you need to understand that our studies involve a lot of the terminology and theory about argumentation, logic and debate explicitly. Learn more philosophy. This isn't meant as an attack but is a sincere suggestion. Knowledge is power. Ultimately none of us really know enough to know whom is right. Learning philosophy at least, helps you figure out how to argue for your own views more convincingly but also helps you figure out how to question and consider your own and others views on things. I can send you some useful links on that front. You seem like an intelligent person who could stand to benefit a lot from learning this stuff.

I'm also struggling to recall if Spock ever once engaged in or condoned torture specifically. Pretty sure it's against starfleet regs though. The only thing I have personally to say on the subject; is that besides torture just being completely unreliable for gaining credible Intel, it's the last resort of fools that are too lazy to be creative with diplomacy or trickery. Trickery is useful in the hostage/bomb scenario, there was an episode of criminal minds where the terrorist was just straight up tricked by making him lose track of time and making him believe the attack had already happened, so gives away the location hours before it is due because he was brought a prayer mat at the wrong times everyday and he couldn't see the sun from his cell. That was a pretty good episode. Highly recommend. Now, nomatter what methods are used, you'll never be 100% certain if someone is lying or not until later, but lying to them is fair game and is easily less morally contentious than torture. That being said, I can think of scenarios where I personally would torture someone. If a pedo put my kids somewhere and I get a hold of him before the police do, I honestly don't know what I'd do in that situation. But it could be torture. I hope to never be in such an emotional state or a situation like that where I'd have to find that out. However if it was a stranger I didn't know and had done nothing to harm me personally, I'd never be able to do it. Interrogate, maybe. Torture, never. In what way is being against torture some controversial philosophy? Speaking of which, all philosophies are controversial depending on the audience of the philosopher. Are you suggesting all law enforcement bodies ought to be allowed to torture people when they feel it is justified and that somehow the majority of people all believe the same as you? Even if that were true, which I doubt, appealing to the majority means little and does nothing to give your arguments any credibility. If the majority of people believed the earth was flat, they would just be wrong. I'm just trying to understand what your position is exactly, as a lot of what you have said sounds far more controversial than anything Peterkin has said. Clearly you are in favour of torture in some situations. Can you give us some examples? Condescending posts aren't against the rules, especially when someone is being childish by threatening insults. Pretty sure insults are against the rules however. I doubt I'd be that offended by insults from you to be honest. The insults rule however is simply about no ad hom. It just makes your arguments look weaker.

I'm of the opinion that a multi-faceted approach, of everything you and peterkin have suggested, plus what I have suggested is the best approach. Since you used the analogy of a game, should we assume that early game, mid-game and late game require the same strategies and tactics as each other? I'm actually thinking about the long game. Most philosophers are very long game orientated. We kind of have to be, as our debates tend to rage on across millenia. So I think part of what motivates me toward multi-faceted approaches, is wondering if the people of the future will think that I or we have done enough. I don't know if there will be a God to judge me, but my descendants probably will. As much as I may try to not let that bother me, the idea of being held in contempt by future generations leaves a bad taste in my mouth and is a powerful motivator for me. Is there a deterrent value to be considered when broaching the subject of class discrimination in any setting that is appropriate? You say, not in employment, what about in education? That's assuming their is only one front to the problem. In my reply to Swansont, I referenced a multi-faceted approach in a long game, and suggested that may be more effective. The way I see it, is that no-matter what route we try to go down to truly address the problems, there is going to be a number of herculean tasks in making it work (mainly convincing people to even try). Hypothetical scenario: imagine Class was made a protected characteristic today. What might some of the negative consequences of that action be?

Have thought about this for the past couple of hours now. I believe there is an alternative to the main question. How would you feel about the idea of legally enforced policy changes to companies found guilty of committing concrete harm to the lives of lower class communities/individuals, policy changes that revolve around hiring more people from those sorts of backgrounds (but still qualified) into executive/management positions? The change to the question, makes it more like: Should the judiciary have more power to force companies to change the makeup of their leadership, when the current leadership has led the company into acts that are harmful to others?

3 questions: 1. How do you know it is exclusively a human property? To have a soul I mean, obviously we are the only ones lighting candles... on this planet at least. 2. How do you know that even we have a soul? 3. What is a soul?

This is genuinely one of your better counter-arguments. I'll have to reflect on it more, but those are some really good points. My first thoughts in response: A law protecting impoverished people, would be more about protecting the people than protecting poverty. I could also argue that it is a way of protecting the pipelines out of poverty. It can also be said that if you are born into poverty, it is an inherent characteristic of your past/upbringing, but yes, not your entire being as you point out. Not all of my immediate thoughts completely convince me that your point is moot. So I will definitely need to think on it more and get back to you. How seriously would you take precedent setting case law on this? If I can find cases where poverty came up as an important factor in a civil court, do you think that would give more to the discussion? Good point to make, as I said to Peterkin I will have to reflect on it more. Do you think there is a legislative means of protecting those in poverty more than we currently do, without making it a protected characteristic? We both agree classism is a problem, so going from there, how do we mitigate the problem, if we assume making it a protected characteristic is not a good solution? Realizing that is your position now. I'm sorry for snapping at you before.. again.. my anger management is still a work in progress. I think I have a shorter cooling off period now though and am more patient since my daughter was born.

Sorry, I should probably expand and say it is difficult, unless you're a man of as few words as disreepr. Better? 😆 but yes, I'm fairly sure. Or at least I'm fairly sure it is hard for me to play devils advocate, period.

This is the more succinct way of saying what I said! 😆 We can settle for emergent value at least.

A rock, does not value anything. It is not alive. The organisms that live on the rock, will engage in behaviors that suggest on some level that they value something. Food/energy, dark or light, heat etc. As far as we can tell, our valuing behaviors are the only ones that delve more into the abstract, away from the physical ones like basic biological needs, family or social group, procreation. Some may argue that all of our abstract values are utilities for the sake of attaining those physical resources. I'm not really going to take a side on that debate in this comment. Just lay out the different views. For life; the only universal (imo) is that life values its own existence. The shrimp values itself more than it values the squid. In some sense, you could argue that this means value is everywhere, you can try to quantify it, but you'll only be marginally accurate from the perspective of your existence as a human. Which some other human will eventually disagree with. Hence the marginal accuracy. If you want to go more meta and reflect on if there is any value to life's valuing behaviors, knock yourself out. That's a weird rabbit hole to go down though, take it from me. Now when I say life values it's existence or engages in valuing behaviors, I mean that in a very neutral sense. Valuing behaviors cover positive and negative value estimations. It values along a spectrum of different good and bad meta-ethical schools of thought. If you think life is terrible or is great, either way you're still engaging in valuing behaviors. Valuing behaviors only means the act of giving a value to something, positive or negative.

I'll concede that I misspoke before. This discussion is mainly around the question: Should socioeconomic class be a protected characteristic? You've made no comment on that claim, and are focusing one one thing I said, around all of the other things that I and others have said. I would like to hear your opinion on the central question. However, if you decide to answer that question in the negative, based on one mistake in my argument for it, you would be assuming that the whole cannot be correct because of the fault of one part. If is false of the part, then the central claim "Socioeconomic class ought to be a protected characteristic." Must also be incorrect. I still have little doubt, based on what I have read, that class discrimination is still a big enough problem in employment and education to warrant more protections for those who need it most. If I thought nobody was allowed to disagree with me or question me, I wouldn't post here at all. There is something to be said for how you disagree with me, and how you convincing you are at arguing for an alternative perspective. It's not my job to help you reach the threshold of convincing me I am wrong (of which there is an achievable threshold, just ask my wife 😂). In my personal opinion; it's very hard to play devils advocate without implying or inferring a claim. Without knowing your opinions, judgements and conclusions on the matter, then I don't really know what it is I'm arguing against or where you are coming from. That is key detail for me. I don't know, to me it feels intellectually dishonest. You obviously have an opinion on the matter, knowing what it is explicitly gives our dialogue a better chance of ultimately being fruitful for both of us, whomever is in the right or wrong. A person does not need to be asked for assumptions to be made. Some people are also proud of a working class background, the very notion that I'd need to hide it and not talk about challenges overcome from that background, just goes to show there us a prominent fear of us having it held against us, without consequence because our interviewer happened to go to Eaton and grew up with their parents calling lower classes scum or the great unwashed and little to no legal protections in place to restrict or restrain them from doing so. Just keep this in mind, while you are by no means obligated to agree with me, I am similarly not obligated to agree with you. We can also agree to disagree and leave it at that. Just want to explicitly state; thank you for telling me to step away. I needed that. Secondly, those questions are motivated by methodology as opposed to paranoia. Although admittedly by anger at the time too. To me, they are questions motivated by inquiries into the phenomenology of belief. Mapping out where beliefs come from, requires a certain amount of dialogical psychoanalysis to determine cognitive behaviors.

Or you could tell swansont to obey the rules of the forum and argue in good faith for once? Those were fair questions to ask. Nothing to do with paranoia. I've laid out where my biases stem from on this subject so why shouldn't I ask others about there's? Or is it offensive to call someone fallible now? If mods are allowed to break the rules here, then this place isn't worth a damn. I am sick of putting in a lot of time and effort into writing here, only to have the majority of it ignored. You guys forgot to add a rule: Never report a mod or we will gaslight you and call you paranoid whenever you accurately call out their antagonistic behavior and lack of forum etiquette. How can you expect users to want to express themselves or share information in good faith when the mods can't even do the same? Why is it that I am expected to answer any question swansont asks me but he doesn't have to answer anything I ask him? Where is the fairness there? Are you really incapable of seeing this from my point of view? Did you learn nothing the last time this happened and you banned me for a year for demanding an apology for him calling me a liar? My mind hasn't changed on that, I was still in the right then and I am now. You know what, just perma ban me this time. I don't care anymore. I've given every opportunity to Swansont to try to have a respectful dialogue with me and he spits it in my face every time. So Ban me permanently please, even though I've not broken a single rule in this thread. Just read the damn links. I'm not answering anymore of your questions until you have answered mine.

Class is implied by use off the word rich. I shouldn't have to explain that. To me it just seems like you're making an argument about semantics here. If the word choice bothers you that much, then assume I meant middle to upper class. Who do you know that can afford to go to private schools that is not middle/upper class? Assuming it's a school not run by a religious organization. As far as I'm aware, nobody in my area growing up got into a private school unless it was a school specifically for disabled children. My high-school was supposed to get a new building (because the current one is literally sinking into a brae) over a decade ago. The land developers sat on that land for 6 years until they were no-longer contractually obligated to build it and they gentrified the area instead and forced a lot of good working class people out. Not particularly relevant to this discussion I guess but maybe telling you it will help you understand why I believe I am just trying to speak what seems to be the truth to me, in good faith. You really need to read both of the links I sent you, thoroughly. You asked for them, so you need to at least respect them enough to reflect on them and read them carefully. I didn't write them, so if you want to counter the claims made in them, you'll need to find evidence in support of whatever your counter claims are. This is a two way street. You are not my peer, my boss, my professor or my parent. You're a fallible human being capable of being rude and callous, as am I. All I know of you, is how you behave toward me. I'm a fuckin open book. I don't know what any of your intentions are, but have you considered that how you are choosing to communicate with me is to blame for these misunderstandings wherein you keep making me feel like you just don't like me and are mostly antagonistic toward me? I get it, you're one of those people who believe brutal honesty is the best policy, but you also strike me as the type that focuses more on the brutality than the honesty. Compassionate honesty, now that is the diplomatic way to do it. I'm trying to work on that myself. I'm genuinely trying to be kinder and work on my temper. I really do want to understand you better, because I don't want nor like being upset with you. Am I just not getting your style of communication? What's going on? Well it's not outside the realm of mine. Maybe you have anosmia? Are you actually going to read the study? Or just the parts you think will prove me wrong? (when they don't) What is it that motivates you to debate this with me by the way? What do you want from this dialogue? What is your stake in this discussion? Do you stand to gain from a fairer and more equitable world or would it mean you have to share more?

Is sarcasm called for? I'm not doing anything wrong by wanting to open a discussion and expect the truth to speak for itself.

Wow... out of all of the arguments I've ever heard against free-will, this is the only one that has gotten me close to questioning my beliefs 😆 my cat overlord will be pleased.

https://www.beapplied.com/post/social-class-discrimination-and-fairness-in-recruitment https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122416653602 - from the second link above. @swansont Knock yourself out. Just to be clear though: When I read a claim made by someone on here, unless I'm already familiar with the contemporary literature, I do the person making the claim the courtesy of researching it myself. Sure I don't have to do that, burden of proof is usually on the person making the claim, but it does save everyone time and makes you much less likely to appear obtuse and pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. Yes this is a science forum, but this is the philosophy section. Which means we also utilize deductive methods of arriving at conclusions, as well as inductive methods. We also practice the principle of charity, wherein we put our dialogical counterparts claims into their strongest format before we refer to them. That is just how this is done in an academic setting. I don't like all of the methods either, but I do them, because they do help and they do increase your ability to retain a higher level of objectivity than you would if you did not use them. Do you want more evidence? I'm happy to find more over the course of the week. Keep in mind however, that since it is not currently illegal to discriminate on this basis, you won't find any case law on it. It's ironic to me, that the most scientific way of getting more data on this, would be to actually make it a protected characteristic for a few years and see what happens in the court system as a result. If the law was in place, and 1000 cases fail, I'll concede that it doesn't happen. As it stands, there is more evidence that it does happen than there is that says it doesn't. I've looked, but I've found zero studies claiming class discrimination in employment does not happen, in both rejections and wage disparities. Can you find any? @MigLI'm so mad at you right now! You aren't making fun of us all and lightening the mood enough! Do better brother, do better. Your humour is sorely needed! Roast me dammit!

So to be clear: you're asking me to prove to you, that classism and judgemental people exist? Are you saying you don't believe either exist? So the first question is actually a good example of class discrimination. What if someone answers "No, I can't rent good clothing and nobody will lend me clothes for my job interview tomorrow."? What then? For that matter, what to you are good clothes? Designer stuff or just functional attire? What if a group of ten interviewers all have different ideas on what is and isn't good clothing? As for the second question, I at no point stated that your accent makes you rich or poor. What I meant, is that accent, dialect, word choice and colloquialisms can and are used by some to determine class. This isn't news to linguists or psychologists. Also, when I say discrimination I mean both direct and indirect, as per the legal definitions. Which covers discrimination of malicious, ignorant and callous intent. That includes: individual attitudes and behaviors; systems of policies and practices that are set up to benefit the upper classes at the expense of the lower classes, resulting in drastic income and wealth inequality; the rationale that supports these systems and this unequal valuing; and the culture that perpetuates them Classism is held in place by a system of beliefs and cultural attitudes that ranks people according to economic status, family lineage, job status, level of education, and other divisions. Middle-class and owning- or ruling-class people (dominant group members) are seen as smarter and more articulate than working-class and poor people (subordinated groups). In this way, dominant group members (middle-class and wealthy people) define for everyone else what is “normal” or “acceptable” in the class hierarchy. People who are poor/working class sometimes internalize the dominant society’s beliefs and attitudes toward them, and play them out against themselves and others of their class. Internalized classism is the acceptance and justification of classism by working class and poor people. Examples include: feelings of inferiority to higher-class people; disdain or shame about traditional patterns of class in one’s family and a denial of heritage; feelings of superiority to people lower on the class spectrum than oneself; hostility and blame towards other working-class or poor people; and beliefs that classist institutions are fair. People who are middle-class and wealthy sometimes internalize the dominant society’s beliefs and attitudes toward them, and play them out against others. Internalized superiority is the acceptance and justification of class privilege by middle-class and wealthy people. Class privilege include the many tangible or intangible unearned advantages of “higher” class status, such as personal contacts with employers, “legacy admissions” to higher education, inherited money, good childhood health care, quality education, speaking with the same dialect and accent as people with institutional power, and having knowledge of how the systems of power operate. A person from the more privileged classes can be a class ally—a person whose attitudes and behaviors are anti-classist, who is committed to increasing his or her own understanding of the issues related to classism, and is actively working towards eliminating classism on many levels. - https://classism.org/about-class/what-is-classism/ So right away, in the very first paragraph it states clearly that classism is differential treatment based on social class or perceived social class. I think it's great that you feel you would not engage in this, but you cannot speak for everyone else. Debates on class are some of the oldest debates we have, and you're asking me to prove to you that it exists? The evidence all points towards it existing. Why don't you prove it doesn't exist? Since that claim would put you in the minority and is not the consensus of the majority on this subject whatsoever. Important question for you: How probable do you think it is, that class discrimination happens on a regular basis? What would a basic probability calculation say I wonder? If a company wants to hurt itself by only hiring rich people, a claim I don't agree with by the way, that is one thing. If it does this by rejecting, discriminating, wasting the time of and hurting suitable applicants perceived to be lower class, that is another. The thing is, I'm entirely confident that there is enough evidence out there that proves me correct. I am not confident you will take it seriously if it comes from me. Based on your animosity towards pretty much anything I say and disdain for any attempt to be diplomatic with you I make.

Isn't it also true that the many worlds interpretation of QM cannot be verified by inductive methods and is therefore extremely unscientific? That's what I've heard, but you'd probably know for sure.

Way to steer into the intellectual rigidity I guess..

No it isn't. Well you've yet to convince me it does not require that. Not something I believe. Therefore I care. As do a great many others. If you don't, then why are you commenting? Where? I'm sorry you've misunderstood, but I never claimed that. Moral philosophers observed that these are the foundations. Which you're now contradicting yourself on. You yourself said they were the foundations; now you're pointlessly bickering about whether or not the chicken or the egg came first. Or should we disqualify Einsteins theory of relativity because it came so late into human history too? If you want; you can try to maintain I meant something I never said, all because you misunderstood something somewhere, but I probably won't respond to that anymore because I'm not so weak minded that I'm not aware of exactly what I meant, and I picked my words carefully. If there is something about my answers you don't understand, ask clarifying questions. I won't mind. You can reject my words off hand and continue your knee jerk, but it says more about your intellectual rigidity than it does about anything I've said. Prove me wrong and maybe take a little bit more time reflecting on what I've said so far, before you respond next. Count to ten if it helps. 😆

I wonder how many other laws that have passed, have had this said about them. Not sure I agree. Moral anti-realists would say moral values don't exist and could ask us why we try to value anything at all. Why care about anything? What exactly is the value of value? It's a coherent question to me at least. Side bar: these keep copying and pasting in the wrong places for some reason. This was the point I addressed last. Another dimension would be too nebulous you say. It certainly would make moral discussion more complex and difficult, but if that is what the subject requires, how can it be avoided? Nothing is ever simple, as much as we would all like it to be. Personally, I like to value the challenge of it. If nothing else. Scales and spectrums can be thought of as tools, how sure are you that scales is the correct one to utilize here? I never suggested they didn't. What is the good though? I like how you phrased this by the way. One of the earliest markers of a moral compass that forms, according to developmental psychologists, is being able to differentiate between helping and hindering. So the way you phrased that was great because it acknowledges what our first moral instincts and sentiments form around.