MSC

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.

This is a good example of what we would call a white lie. When people are talking about lying, they are really only talking about one form of falsehood. It often ends up being a catch all term for all falsehoods. If you present what you believe to be the truth with a clear argument and justification for believing in that claim, by way of logical consistency and preferably evidence, you should not stay quiet about it or lie about it. To be clear though, just because you are not lying about what your belief is, does not mean you are not just wrong and engaging in a falsehood. However, if your argument runs the risk of being dangerously misconstrued, you have a duty to stay silent and be careful about who you are speaking to about it. Once you've said what you say, it is out there in the world and it is your epistemic responsibility to make sure it is not misinterpreted in a way where an outcome that you did not want comes to fruition. Like an argument being used to advocate violence against a group, or an argument that claims superiority of one group over another, which can be misconstrued as justification for said violence. If you believe you can make an argument for a moral claim and are confident it will not be misinterpreted to ill effect, then by all means speak it from the hilltops. Reality does not have to match your confidence however and you can still choose poorly. This is why Wittgenstein only released one book while he was alive and why he detested people taking notes of what he said in casual conversation. Words are dangerous. Talking about ethics, is very dangerous and is very high stakes. A lot of people do not appreciate or understand the gravity of this. It's one thing to be wrong when making claims about what the answer to a mathematical problem is, being wrong in ethics, can have some very far reaching consequences. Nietzsche for example is often greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted to ill effect for him and his readers.

A thick concept description toward airing a grievance publicly if it is required. Or maybe people who bring lawsuits are just having a "bitch session" too? This is an example of throwing an eggshell onto the ground. If you find it tasteless for people to air their grievances in a public setting, then your issues are with natural responses towards perceived misuses of authority. Last time I tried to deal with this in a PM, I was banned. So maybe with a little empathy you can perhaps understand why I felt the need to make it public? Since it seemed like the only way to have a reasonable discussion where one side wasn't silenced completely. Just so you know, the issues have been resolved, in part because I aired them here. If you don't want me to take things personally, don't describe my behaviour as bitchy in anyway. I detest the use of thick concepts to describe peoples behaviour and if your desire is to NOT escalate things, don't use that word unless you are actually talking about a female dog. This is what I meant in my earlier comment when I asked if it was somehow distasteful for a man to display or admit to hurt feelings. To the point where you'd use the term 'bitch session' as a means to shame me into not breaking that cultural taboo again. Too bad, I'm a man, I have feelings, the only thing wrong about my sharing that publicly are peoples attitudes towards that act being so negative in the first place. Take out mating from that definition and you have broad eugenics. Who decides what is and isn't a desirable trait and is any desirable trait always a desirable trait? Advocating for selection criteria based solely upon inherited traits, internal or external, is eugenics. It's a slippery slope to be on, because if you can justify selecting who gets an education based solely on what one or a majority group of people decide is a desirable trait, then why not just go the whole nine and claim the genetically "inferior" should just be destroyed so they stop trying to get into school and demanding things like equality of opportunity? In philosophy and ethics, a lot of people get caught up in finding the right definition for a word, instead of the right definition within a certain context. A quick look at any dictionary will display clearly that few words have only one meaning. If it is a philosophy dictionary, that reality becomes even more apparent. This is a science forum, ethics is a social science. Like any other science, it has it's own vocabulary and definitions are relative to the context in which they are used. Linguistics is also a science and that too has theories which revolve around meaning of a word being relative to the context in which it is used. However, this should not be taken to mean that the meaning of a word is subjective and that we can use any word to mean anything whenever we want, that would be chaos. No, it has to make contextual sense. This includes the etymology of a word, it's past and current uses, the history behind the use of a word. The history of the theories of eugenics, does not end at selective mating, but using genetic criteria to be selective about everything, from who gets to have freedom, rights, opportunity, resources, everything. The question that I've yet to hear a eugenics advocate answer, from minor eugenics to extreme eugenics, who exactly decides what is and is not a desirable trait and what gives them the authority to make those judgements? This is the sort of thing I compulsively perseverate over. Using those words very specifically, compulsive and perseverate. That way people will maybe be open to the possibility that I take things personally because I cannot forget and it actually takes a lot of effort for me to just move on with no resolution to a problem. This is something most autistic people have a problem with. It doesn't make me bitchy nor does it make me a bad person. If people would remember that I do infact have an ASD diagnosis, maybe they'd understand why I communicate differently and also why selecting based on neurology is abhorrent to me, I don't know if you've ever come across an autism hate site, but people there regularly argue that people like me be aborted and go so far as to put out misinformation that autism can be cured by drinking bleach. Parents have actually believed this and tried to force feed bleach to autistic children. Ethical discussions, tend to be all eggshells. It's not always fun, it is not comfortable, these sorts of talks are difficult to have and even the best of us lose our heads. I stand by my categorization of VenusPrincesses claims as eugenics. I've also given them the opportunity to rephrase it since maybe they aren't aware of the history of eugenics nor it's different modal applications.

No, that is the barrier to equal opportunities in education thread, not the eugenics thread I was referring to. This is also not the claim that you made in the education thread. This was in fact your first comment. Your claim is that we should not try to fix inequality because genetic difference is the underlying source of it. You also conflate equality with genetic sameness in this instance and are using genetics to make moral claims about how we should treat people who are different. Which also ignores the environmental factors at play in the neurological evolution of an individual within their lifetime. If by progressive, you mean liberal, then you're wrong. I'm not a liberal or a conservative and this is not a political debate, it is an ethical one. Ultimately your argument rests on maintaining an unequal status quo, on the basis that those at the top are neurologically superior to others because of achievement, while adhering to a very strict definition of achievement in academia being a reflection of success as an organism. You even used the phrase "passed down". My claim, is that using morphological and genetic criteria to come to the conclusion that inequality should not be fixed, reeks of eugenics. Yes, you've not straight up said we should destroy the people you deem to have genes and neurology inferior to your own, but you are still allowing it to dictate your moral reasoning. I also don't think you want to make that argument to me, about neurological difference in academic performance. I have a better memory than most, due to my neurological structure and this has been verified through peer reviewed research into autistic individuals (allowing for variance within that spectrum of course) and I out performed most of my peers in written exams. Not all and I can only give first hand accounts to the people I went to school with. Don't have the data to compare to other schools. It shouldn't matter either way anyway. As my neurology does not make me more or less deserving than others of an education. There is always a bigger fish in the brain department but should we not even bother to teach children because they start out with the neurology of a complete ignoramus? Does our society have a need for achievers and success in multiple areas of life? Not just success in academia? Yes. Then you have the notion that what makes you weak in one field of study, can be a strength in another field of study. So you'll have to forgive me for saying you have presented yourself as a eugenics advocate, but your word choice and conclusions look like eugenics. So maybe you'd like to retract and rephrase what your moral claims are?

This is the first time any of you have even mentioned the possibility that we weren't BOTH on the same page. Up until now it has been put that it was solely me whom was not on the same page. This is the first time any one has even admitted I was right in the first instance when I said there was a eugenics thread on this forum. If Swansont can't admit he misunderstood me the first time, he can forego the apology. As it is, an apology for misunderstanding me or accusing me of lying, it makes no difference. I am owed an apology one way or the other. I'm happy to apologise for my part in a misunderstanding. You also did not address what I mentioned about me being okay with your moderation in the first instance, only for swansont to make it personal and pile on, hypervalent Iodine too, whom has never spoken to me at all and I know nothing about, save that they scolded me for being upset that I was misread or accused by swansont. Have you truly tried to see this from my perspective? Or is it somehow distateful for me as a man to admit that you and others are capable of hurting my feelings without good justification? Who are The Ethical Folks? Do you hate how it is studied or do you hate that you don't know exactly how it is studied, discussed and debated? Or maybe you do know exactly but still hate it because it can lead to a lot of emotional charging and triggering on all sides? To me that is just part of the human condition itself. I myself have witnessed (although not here which is good) arguments and debates in hard sciences that get just as emotionally charged as ethical subjects. To be completely honest with you, there are plenty of contexts where I'd agree, I really wish how ethics was studied was different, or at least consistent. I also hate how other ethicists can make the same implications that bother you, about my integrity. Whenever I get into a debate with Antinatalists, I am usually faced with the same thing. Unfortunately, integrity is a moral subject. Do I believe you personally have a lot of personal integrity? Yes, you wouldn't be arguing this hard if you didn't and anyone who creates or contributes to a free source of learning and discussion definitely is a good person in my eyes. I think the thing that really bothers people about ethics, is that if you talk about it with anyone for long enough, conflicts will arise as everyone invariably ends up having to deal with the knowledge that they cannot be ethically perfect or that others cannot. We all have blindspots, biases and predispositions not only towards different ideas but also different styles of putting those ideas across in communication. I don't really know if it is possible to keep such things out of the field. It also isn't just your integrity that is at play, my own is at play too. Swansont insulted it, I returned it in kind. I firmly believe in giving people what they give and it doesn't take a genius to know that Swansont can be unfairly abrasive and rude when he speaks to people he has authority over. If by "the ethical folks" you mean ethicists, or people whom have devoted their lives toward that intellectual pursuit, maybe you can look at it this way. How would you feel if your area of expertise is viewed by most people as subjective or a matter of opinion, even from experts within that field who have to make sincere efforts to argue consistently from a moral realist position, the position that has led to the increased levels of safety and security some of us in the modern world enjoy? My position has never been that I am unassailable or more moral or immoral than the next person. Do I believe there is a number of right and wrong ways to engage with a situation? Yes. Am I always going to be right? No. Is anyone? No. Are you? No. There are consequences to our actions. The consequences for Swansonts misreading of me and appearing to accuse me of lying, is that I feel deeply insulted and the insult grows the longer I am without an apology. I can forgive without one, but I won't forget it without one. I am also not in control of how I feel. I'm not feeling a certain way to make anyone feel as if I am saying they are an awful person. I am just saying, if you want to repair the damage and cost of the harming actions, the best start is with an apology. Do not refuse to give one, out of an unassailable position that you have somehow not done anything wrong when the negative consequences of the actions are right there in front of you. Not giving one at this point isn't the moral high-ground or preserving integrity, it's pride and an invalidation of the hurt party as less than, not worthy of an apology on even a basic human level. Of course, if anyone wants to claim I have not been wronged on deontological grounds, I'm all ear. Consequentialist grounds won't work though as negative consequences have already happened.

I've already said my piece on that and I considered the matter closed until Swansont came in and accused me of lying after misreading what I said. I did not "fly into a rage" as you say until the point where he had accused me of being a liar. This is what I mean by imagining my writing as if I'm shouting it at you, instead of assuming I was calm when I said what I said. My anger, is towards eugenics and being accused of lying. I did not break any rules by reaching out to the moderation team, reporting what I thought may have been rule breaching posts for you to evaluate, nor is it against the rules to communicate that if a certain view (eugenics) is not moderated the way it has been in the past, I won't feel comfortable enough to remain here. It was in no way blackmail and I dropped the issue after you had moderated the person. Swansont piling on and calling me a liar was out of order, the molehill as you put it, had been dealt with. I did not dig it back up. Swansont did. There is a eugenics thread on this site, he countered that claim by saying there was not, I then sent him a link to that thread and he never retracted his statement or acknowledged that I was in fact telling the truth. He instead doubled down and moved the goalposts to say he was talking only specifically about what is on his report list, something I have no access to as I am not staff here nor do I want to be. The original message I sent highlighted very specifically the eugenics thread, not the eugenics report which I never made nor claimed to word in any report I have made. The eugenics thread exists, so Swansonts claim that there was not, came across as an accusation that I was lying about the existence of a thread. Why would I lie about something so easily and quickly verifiable? Why is that accusation not worthy of an apology to the person who got accused of lying?

Probably, but on which side? I wasn't the one who originally misread what I said about a eugenics thread and then accused someone of lying by saying no such thread exists. I think we haven't ruled out the problem that someone should apologise, for the sake of maintaining civility and de-escalating conflicts at least. Or, you can just keep on insulting me and expecting me to listen to that like it's valid. Knowing full well I will not. Do you really think that's the best strategy here? I gave you plenty of opportunity to send an apology privately, you have not as you think I'm beneath you for some reason, knowing full well I believe in equality and knowing that I believe no one, myself included, is faultless or perfect. If I believe that of myself, what could possibly make you think I don't believe the same of you? 😕 I genuinely want there to be resolution here, but I'm not the one slapping the hand away. There is an apology to you in a suggestions thread, if you wish to have an open dialogue about this, where the goal is resolution and amends, we can carry on this conversation there. I claimed I study ethics. I never claimed you were unethical or that I was more or less ethical. I'm not the one strawmanning nor am I the one who is now projecting. If I truly believed you were unethical, I'd not be speaking to you now. Out of the two of us, only one has made biased ethical comparisons and judgements, it was not me. Do I need to quote you from the private message you sent me? Neither of you even behave as if I am worthy of an apology. Who's making the ethical judgements? Who banned who and accused who of abusive behaviour? I was direct and honest, imagining that I shouted my writing at you has caused you to justify your behaviour, even though I was calm and sincere when writing, as I still am. Can you really not see how hurtful your actions were? Do you think I'm lying when I say I feel unjustly hurt by you? Why would I lie about that? I know you're not lying if you say the same to me. Do you want an apology? Ask for it, I've already given one in another thread but it is no skin off my nose to apologise, I know better than most how I come across to others, I know better than most that even with the best of intentions, I can still cause hurt. But you don't have to be wary of that too? Okay. PhiforAllism reigns supreme and you decide right and wrong for everyone, from now on. So am I unethical? Am I a bad irredeemable person who should be dead and not here? Just saw this disclaimer. That is fine by me and I'll retract my previous inferences of your underlying motivations for commenting. There is a thread open elsewhere if you or anyone else wants to discuss the grievances. I focussed on love and hate in the OP, however my main point, or Humes point, is that we are all emotionally motivated. Ethics too is an intellectual pursuit, so how can you fault anyone who puts their passions into it, if that is what your advice is? The reason I talk about valuing as the basis for meta-ethical reasoning and not on values themselves, is due to observation that we all in fact engage in value ascriptions every day, in every way. Emotional sentiment is the core motivator for engagement in all pursuits, intellectual or otherwise. I'd even go so far as to say that even when we feel certain we are being rational and reasonable, these two are emotional states. How familiar are you with stoic temperance and what do you take temperance to mean? This is very important as a lot of people misunderstand what is meant by temperance. In the rest of this discussion, there will be a lot of ground to cover and it will take me some time to mention everything in my research that contributes to my methodology. This is a disclaimer where I state clearly that my methods for philosophical and moral evaluation and reasoning are NOT unassailable, but they are nuanced and complex and will take time for me to go over. So I'd appreciate if people can reserve judgement on it until the picture has been painted, at which time constructive criticism will be more effective. Ultimately, I actually believe that myself, Swansont and you have similar values and morals, but we differ greatly on the modal expression of those. Particularly I think when it comes to the subject of authority. Which is a very contentious topic of conversation anywhere. From this point on though, when we discuss authority we will steer clear of discussing it's dynamic in this forum and focus on other venues where we are equal in that neither of us is an authority within those venues, neither of us are career politicians for example.

This is a strange apology?

This rule here for example; as it is written, it is a good rule for the hard science sections but even when arguing in good faith in say the ethics or philosophy forum, what exactly is considered evidence in those fields? How could the rule be copied but reformatted for the sections where although science is a part of the fields in question, it is not the only part? I am making this request out of sincere desire to understand exactly how the staff here want the rules of engagement within these forums to be interpreted as recent arguments, misunderstandings and hurt feelings are probably being caused by these sorts of confusions. As it is, it seems even quoting a moderator from a past moderation is being deemed as abusive behaviour. I don't think anyone here wants to feel responsible for discouraging individuals from taking part in the forum but that is currently what is happening at times. So how can we fix things if no one is willing to address this, offer apologies where they are due or not directly insult members who are making sincere attempts to obey the rules and guidelines of the forum as they are written? I do enjoy my time here when everyone is being respectful, peaceful and everyone is viewed as equally worthy of basic respect. I'd prefer not to feel forced to leave because the rules or staff do not allow for inclusion of people who, through no fault of their own, find the rules ill suited to parts of the forum where they are hard to apply or easily interpret. I apologise to the moderators for the upset I have caused with them, I would appreciate a reciprocal apology as it takes two sides to argue. I summarily reject the narrative where they are choosing to believe I am a bad and unethical person that should not be spoken to in a respectful manner. It's very closed minded and being closed minded is behavior I know and have observed them being capable of not being. I understand we are all here voluntarily, that should not be a good reason as to why it's allowable to throw insults and accusations peoples way, then justifying it by how the person reacts to the insults and accusations. We are all people first, we are not the screens we all see and we are all here for the same reasons. Why is that not enough to resolve conflicts we are all equally responsible for? I'd ask and suggest this directly and not air this publicly, however I do not trust that I won't simply be banned for sending another message to request this and I'd rather not be ganged up on by three different moderators again without witnesses. Just for trying to be a direct, and helpful member of this community, who would at the very least like their good intentions to be acknowledged and recognised.

No but I snapped at you before and misinterpreted what you were saying so I wanted to make it up to you and treat you more respectfully. Oh I know what you mean, in America it is just crazy, the airports were jam packed of people travelling to be with their families for thanksgiving and it was quite a shock to me, I haven't seen my family in two years and some people here can't manage a single month without spreading the virus everywhere. 😕

I didn't say you sucked? Okay, I can see that you're still angry with me and not in the frame of mind to discuss these things without an attitude. Maybe you should try and chill out a little and stop holding a grudge you have no business having in the first place. You didn't get called a liar and an asshole so you can stop pretending like you are the one owed an apology. I should be the one holding a grudge, yet here I am still trying to have a conversation with you despite the passive aggression you throw my way. I'm asking you, how does anyone form an intellectual argument first when emotion is always the motivator? This is my last comment until after the holidays. Figure out if you want to treat me with basic respect by then, if not we probably shouldn't bother discussing anything with each other. I really can't be bothered with people who hold grudges and talk down to people they aren't even prepared to try and understand.

Beyond reproach or have a high bar for proof? What is an intellectual motivation in comparison to an emotional one? Are you suggesting there is a state of pure reason where no emotion is felt, no desires are had and only reason and rationality exist? Doesn't sound human to me and flies in the face of facts of human psychology. Do you not love science? Do you not hate ignorance? I kind of get the feeling that someone who doesn't feel emotion wouldn't be rational and reasonable, they just wouldn't do anything at all and would have little motivation to do anything at all. For example; let's say I want to learn about the human body because I am curious as to how it works. Now, you'd maybe call that a purely intellectual motivation. If it is purely intellectual, should it matter if you study on a cadaver or a living being? Also, who said ethics is basic? I don't agree with that nor did I claim it, ever. It's actually very difficult. Maybe you want to reread my OP and not react with a jerk of the knee yourself. Maybe you want to quote and narrow down which parts of the OP you are specifically addressing with your response as it seems unclear to me. Maybe a better way to display some of my own moral beliefs (since you've never really bothered to ask what any of them are before judging me) will be to ask this question. Do you think it is possible to be ethical? Or will every act we do invariably be perceived as an injustice or harm to someone else? My main point, is that we as living beings, cannot help but value things. For example you value intellectual pursuits but seem to hold emotions in a state of negative value, which is kind of like having an emotional reaction to the idea of emotions and is kind of funny to me. Just so we are clear, I absolutely do not think I am beyond reproach, ethics to me is an intellectual pursuit, I didn't talk about a "sense of rightness", I don't think people feign moral outrage when someone calls them a liar and an asshole, I think they are just feeling emotionally hurt because neither are very nice things to call people and it is kind of abusive. But then, by this forums logic, being called a liar and an asshole makes you the abusive one, not the people calling you that, for some reason. Last I checked the people shutting down and claiming the moral high ground was never me. So maybe you want to engage with this thread appropriately and save the projection and guilty conscious for someone who's trust and respect for you, you haven't damaged.

I do value accuracy in discussion, when and where possible. That being said, achieving that can be difficult when you don't know who you're speaking to that well or when you're strapped for time. Sometimes you have to sacrifice accuracy, in favour of accessibility. I do appreciate the questions the the criticisms though. I suppose I do mean a broad definition of education but it is good to highlight the dichotomy between the two formats, institutionalised formal academia and access to materials for informal learning. So on the one side of that are things like school policies, formats, teaching methods and philosophies. On the other side, library, internet, work and life experience etc. So you are right. We should diversify and expand our current discussion by delineating not precisely what we mean by education, but delineating what education can mean in different contexts and asking the questions of each of those contexts. This way, we are looking at and evaluating the different barriers towards different styles and formats of education and figuring out what factors are at play and if any can be found in all contexts of what we can mean by 'Education', and which ones belong only within certain contexts. As for your query about whether or not the attitude I had when I wrote the OP was a good way to address people. By that I'm assuming you mean the emotionality and accusatory nature of it. Probably not the best way to start a discussion but then I've always worn my emotions on my sleeves and I am also of the opinion that sometimes you have to consciously show how you are feeling rather than bottle it and pretend you don't have any. We can agree to disagree on that front. Asking me to change the past or not feel nor express my emotions is probably a waste of time. Changing the past is beyond my control, whether I express any emotions is beyond others control. I might be doing it consciously to make a point or I might genuinely be having trouble regulating. Either way, whether or not it is conducive toward creating open and constructive dialogues, depends on context. Personally I don't mind if people are angry or emotional when they are speaking to me, so long as they aren't calling me or others names, shutting down conversations, using thick concepts or are being judgemental for the sake of dehumanising someone. However, if someone is going to tell me, I am behaving like an asshole, they better have a logical argument as to why, else I'll not bother with them as me and my self esteem have better things to do than listen to someone who is not only feeling emotional, but making it personal, inciting and spiteful. You know the types I mean, the one's who say something really insulting or accuse you of something with no evidence and then shut down the conversation and give the silent treatment for not agreeing with their summary that you are some unchangeable evil asshole. Shock horror, wonder why. Anyway, I only came back here to reply to you, I have one more comment to make on another thread, then I'm out of here until the New Year. Enjoy the Holidays

I'd like to start by quoting from this forums Statement of Purpose. I love this Purpose statement, yet I also hate it, because despite there being a Philosophy section here, I like to think that I try hard to discuss philosophy and ethics with the highest degree of integrity and respectability. 'Try' being the operative at least. I am by no means perfect. So it would be nice if the purpose statement of this page extended to mention this of ethics and philosophy, as well as science. For I have a love for Ethics and Philosophy that is just as bright as the one I have for Science. When I look around me, I am valuing everything as a something. We often talk of what values we should have, yet ignore the constant that we all are valuers. In ethics and meta-ethics, we have to talk about theories of value because how, why, what and to what degree we value are fundamental to moral motivation. I love ethics for what it can do for the individual and the collective. I also hate it for what it can do to them. One of the things that shocked me the most about ethics, was that it stopped everything being black, white or gray in my eyes. It seemed more like their was this whole rainbow of a moral spectrum. Black and white still existed, but grey was gone and replaced by other colour. Virtue theory seemed yellow, Utilitarian Green, deontology blue. I even had a strange dream about this where the same scene was showed to me with my sight shaded by different colours each time I looked at it. I can't remember the scene, just what the colors felt like in my mind although in the end colour coding is arbitrary in this instance. The more I learned and diversified my studies in all of these different moral perspectives, the more diverse the colours became and the more I started to suspect that there are very few, potentially no people who can truly be seen as being in the ultra negative or positive end of this spectrum, whether you call that black or white. I suspected that a person would have to be blinded to something to be in or close to either extreme. In Pragmatic ethics, you'll maybe sometimes read the phrase Moral Ecology. Which describes the moral landscape of humanity and at times life itself, as diverse and constantly evolving. I believe this to be so. The one constant I see is that living entities can be described as agents of value. We all have that love/hate relationship with the universe and reality. More or less everyone seems to have things they value in the positive or the negative in this reality. From the basically physical demands and obstacles of life to the more abstract mental ones. This is why forms of moral-antirealism seem so ludicrous to me, value exists because valuers exist. All moral anti-realism does is take value and moral as concepts and applies a negative value to them as false, therefore all attempts to have a moral discussion is meaningless. Even though they literally just did the valuing act.. In conclusion, my purpose with this thread is to open up discussions in meta-ethics where we can focus on identifying just who it is that we are and what we are doing when we talk about things like good, bad, maladaptive, beneficial, etc. I can honestly say I am motivated by love and hate, love of the things that benefit our physical and moral ecology, hatred of the things that threaten it by being maladaptive or needlessly destructive. Using intellect, language and my own emotions in service to a principle of defense for our moral ecology. Albeit imperfectly, as I'm only human.

Ahhh I see now where our wires have crossed. My poor word choice and lack of expansion. I am really sorry for misinterpreting you. Forgive me, real life intrudes and my effort here suffers for it at times. In Scotland, there are means tested grants, bursaries, loans, allowances for disabled people, single mother specific grants etc. Creches and other facilities have also been implemented in some colleges and universities, all the ones in Edinburgh and definitely one in Glasgow that I know of 1st hand. So for some, but admittedly not all, fees, textbooks, and living costs are paid directly to students in the form of bursaries, allowances and loans. This includes travel costs for those who need it and live further than a mile or so away from the university. These funds go to the people who, upon the conclusion of an income means test, are identified as needing the help in order to have an opportunity to enter into higher education. Also, at 16, EMA, that is educational maintenance allowance is given as a stipend to students who remain in education, as they can leave of their own volition at 16 when they are in the 4th or 5th year of highschool. This was £120 a month when I was sixteen but it's probably went up a little bit with inflation over the years. At 18, you're eligible for a bursary to continue higher education. So who are the individuals who are not eligible for these sorts of financial aid? The people who by means testing were found to be from a wealthy enough background that they could pay their own way. All of that being said, in the greater context of the thread, you raised interesting points about loss of opportunity for work and personal computer/laptop. Yes, most students who are not living with parents take on part time jobs to pay for these sorts of things. Their Bursaries, are not enough to cover it all. There are probably some good arguments to be made about how much students should be given. Colleges and universities here do have a large amount of onsite computers that are always free for students to reserve or access if they are free. That point is a bit moot under covid though and even if you booked a day off in a computer lab, the school does not cover that travel fair so unless you have college that day, you have to spend your own money. Now when I was at school, full time students weren't eligible for housing financial aid from the government. I think that might have changed now but I'll need to double check. So in conclusion, upon your direction I'll revise and clarify my claims. In Scotland, if you're a citizen or permanent resident and you can't afford an education, you can get one. However it does not pay for all the costs associated with it unless you're a spartan minimalist with a laptop, or living with parents. Most students have to take on part time jobs. Students in the US do the same, the difference is that students in Scotland won't have massive amounts of debt they can't pay when they are finished, unless they were dumb enough to get a credit card or something? But then their debt isn't to their school. So I should have expanded when I said cost and I will retract statements where I implied all costs are paid for. https://www.mygov.scot/student-bursaries-grants-scholarships-loans/

Agreed. I apologise for those who feel or have felt mine. I have a long fuse for ethics but when it blows, it blows.

What were the alleged falsehoods again? That the scottish education system runs at zero cost for the student? I didn't say it runs at zero cost all in. Someone has to pay for it, it just isn't typically the student. Which was the nuance in my original comments. What other falsehoods are you alleging? As for the slapping you with a wet fish, I'm sorry, I had just read that eugenics comment from another user and it made my blood boil. Not your fault at all. Growth and proficiency is a really interesting debate and is key to education. Growth Vs Proficiency This link goes over the basics. For those who might have been unaware, this was the debate that Betsy Devos got completely railroaded for having no knowledge of during her committee meeting judging her suitability for education secretary. If you want to talk about education, it's best to be aware of the ins and outs of this debate.

Thank you. I'll stay.

Once the eugenicist has been banned, I'll return and continue these conversations. As it is, I can't take being here anymore. No you did, but then half of my responses and questions have been blatantly ignored and I really cannot be bothered with tackling your false equivalencies. Nobody has even touched upon proficiency and growth models, nobody wants to discuss school systems other than the US. Therefore this conversation is a waste of my time. But as always, I'm worse than the eugenics advocate right? Bye. Thank you to everyone who did take this conversation seriously. Eugenics and racism. So it was an agenda. Bye.

Or you should work on explaining things better. If I misunderstood it was because you were unclear. I'm not an expert in Gauchers disease nor did I claim to be. I don't even know if you are or if you're using the disease to fit some agenda you have. However you're conflating academic achievement with organism success and making moral conclusions that this must in some ways dictate who even gets to have their academic success measured to begin with in order to determine who academically achieves the most. Be clearer, what moral claims are you making here? Judging others on whether or not they understand how an off topic disease works or relates to moral value when you've made no effort to explain your position clearly won't score you points with me. So if you've got something to say, say it with clarity instead of beating around the bush and expecting everyone to read your mind.

Prove it's a possibility, then prove it's a reality. You've done neither. That's one of the things it's about at least. Not Venus Princesses use of one particular disease to infer a reduction in moral value of Ashkenazi jews, based on their propensity to have a certain disease and then calling that ridiculous claim 'a brutal reality'.

Your focus on using difference as a justification for an unfair status quo between peoples, misses the point of what ethics is about. I also don't think you truly understand the idea of neurological diversity. It sounds to me like you're saying, whoever comes out on top must just be neurologically superior, if it happens to be white rich people, they are obviously superior. Not accounting for force, subversion, intimidation or violence at all. Not accounting for neurological differences between every individual and it being constantly evolving and changing based on environment. Last comment, can't take you seriously princess.

It mentioned race and color. Black being a race and a color. You're coming off as pedantic and nitpicky a little. The point is, XIII is the legislation that freed black slaves. Due to the historical fact of the time that only black people were legally kept as slaves in the US, not whites. XV then references race in relation to prior conditions of servitude, because historically at the time, the ex slaves, were black. What point are you trying to make to me? That the legislation made all slavery illegal broadly? I know, hence why I said the EP and amendment XIII did not contain explicit language about race. It doesn't change the fact that the only slaves that were freed due to XIII, were black because only black people were legally kept as slaves until that moment, in the US. The only reason I went off-topic with this was because of misunderstandings in regards to the law as it is written and the historical context they were written in. The only thing at this point that could change the legal requirement of some schools to use affirmative action, would be for congress to undo amendments explicitly relating to protected characteristics and/or the bill of rights.

No, it does not. The XV amendment was the first to explicitly mention slavery and race in the same amendment, the connection I was referring to. The XIII does not mention race at all. The Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the USA. The XIII Amendment did. Here is the text for that: No mention of race until the 15th amendment. So I don't understand your criticism. But hey, maybe you can find a mention of race within the original EP document? Here it is.

I agree that the emancipation proclamation did not identify blacks. However, the XV amendment does. This is just one example of an amendment that specifically mentions race in relation to a previous condition of servitude. The XIII amendment also gives congress the power to enforce the article, which led to the later legislation of XV. It's also important to note, that just because XIII does not state "black slaves" it does not change the fact that in the USA there was no legal trade of white slaves. Therefore XIII was the counter to the legal slave trade within the US, which was entirely based on race. The reason the black slave trade was viewed as legal, is because black people were viewed as not human and therefore had no human rights like white people do. XIII was essentially about classing them as human and ending the practice of slavery because it was against their rights as humans and citizens of the US. The piece you shared about the Canadian land residential school system is really interesting. An example of where the road to ruin is indeed a good intention. I don't know if I would say affirmative action is consequentially the same, too soon to tell. Ultimately the goal of affirmative action is to reach a balance where it is no longer required in some places. That being said, I can see how it can be used by some to just tip the favour away from one group to another. If that is going to happen, it probably won't for a long time and hopefully when things are at a point where they are more equitable for all involved, the brakes can be put on and equilibrium can be maintained via a minor adjustment or two here and there. Regular servicing in your vehicle analogy. As it is, we can't stop people taking race and other things into account in the negative, individually or collectively, so what makes you think we can stop it happening in the positive? If racism is rampant and hard to stamp out, won't the true be the same of it's counters and foils? Is this neutrality or apathy?