[RD] Our Children, Their Children, and the Question Dances With Wolves Couldn't Answer.

[Crezth]

Frankly the judgment of someone who would gleefully burn their own children at the stake is not meaningful to me emotionally. I don't feel very much investment in your opinion. But, if it's immoral to kill people, it's immoral to kill people. I may be willing to intervene and hurt someone in the name of preserving, say, the general safety, or someone I cared about, or an innocent child - but I wouldn't necessary feel good about taking a life, and I would have a whale of a time convincing myself later that what I did was good. I would take that sin with me for the rest of my life, and I wouldn't lie to myself or anyone else about it being a sin.

I think that's a brave position. That's why I try to live up to it.

 

[Ryika]

The question is not whether it's "moral", the question is whether it's "morally acceptable".
What you're saying there is that it is indeed morally acceptable to kill the person.
Because yeah, that's the obvious answer.

The real question is whether it would be morally acceptable to do nothing and let the children in the kindergarten die just for the moral absolute of "Shooting people is immoral."

I would say no, it is not at all morally acceptable to not intervene, it's completely immoral to have the ability to do something but not do anything in my opinion.

 

[Crezth]

The question is not whether it's "moral", the question is whether it's "morally acceptable".

I would say no, it is not at all morally acceptable to not intervene, it's completely immoral to have the ability to do something but not do anything in my opinion.

You're drunk, Valessa. Go home.

\/\/\/ ah, now i understand.

 

[Ryika]

I don't understand what you're objecting to.

There are things that are moral (white area), things that are immoral (black area), and things that are morally acceptable (grey area).

In a scenario where you have a choice between killing a person to save the lives of others and not doing anything, there is no "moral" reaction. There is a reaction that is morally acceptable (doing something that would normally be immoral, but is imho acceptable in this situation as it prevents a greater evil), and a reaction that is imho immoral (not doing anything and letting the greater evil happen).

 

[Crezth]

Honestly, it's sort of lost from your previous hypothetical where I had godlike senses. In this scenario I'm holding a man responsible for a crime-in-progress (taking the law into my own hands, at that), where I think you could probably start debating that I'm not taking an innocent life anymore - which was my point all along with being unwilling to let the raft-man drown, who hadn't committed a crime nor done anything wrong.

In this case it's something I have to take personal responsibility for, and whatever you think or the law thinks, the only true judge of my behavior will be my own moral compass - which points towards "don't take life." So even if I killed the man to save others, I would still have blood on my hands, and that's what really matters to me. It's possible I wouldn't feel good no matter what action I took, but I'm speculating. Moral absolutes have long abided the difference between taking innocent and criminal lives so I don't think you've debunked anything meaningful.

 

[civvver]

Wow six pages of you guys arguing philosophical (which I just skimmed cus honestly there is no point in engaging in your arguments) and only two posters got it.

It's was the gold!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hills_Gold_Rush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Indian_peace_policy

The US had already expanded into the plains of the midwest for farming and was already building intercontinental railroads. The souix signed a treaty and had retreated north and still had a lot of land to live on and though they weren't recognized as a nation, they were recognized as wards of the us whatever that means. But the US was reeling from the civil war and about to go bankrupt when gold was found in the black hills. So Grant nullified the treaty and ordered the souix out of the area, then they sent custer in to force them out when they wouldn't leave. Or the souix killed some prospectors who went into their land prompting the millitary to engage. I've read a few different viewpoints. But ultimately custer eradicated the souix over gold.

Other indian tribes were killed for other reasons like the Comanche in texas and the south would constantly raid settlers in those areas. Their attacks have been described in detail how brutal they were.

 

[Crezth]

Wow six pages of you guys arguing philosophical (which I just skimmed cus honestly there is no point in engaging in your arguments) and only two posters got it.

It's was the gold!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hills_Gold_Rush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Indian_peace_policy

The US had already expanded into the plains of the midwest for farming and was already building intercontinental railroads. The souix signed a treaty and had retreated north and still had a lot of land to live on and though they weren't recognized as a nation, they were recognized as wards of the us whatever that means. But the US was reeling from the civil war and about to go bankrupt when gold was found in the black hills. So Grant nullified the treaty and ordered the souix out of the area, then they sent custer in to force them out when they wouldn't leave. Or the souix killed some prospectors who went into their land prompting the millitary to engage. I've read a few different viewpoints. But ultimately custer eradicated the souix over gold.

Other indian tribes were killed for other reasons like the Comanche in texas and the south would constantly raid settlers in those areas. Their attacks have been described in detail how brutal they were.

Or the midwest force tready building in they went ints. So Grant nullitary to gold was alreaty and souix out the souix out ultimated a few differed the aread a nation, then gold was force they wouldn't reeling they werent in they wouldn't leave. I've on anded already expand was recognized the aready building into for farming and had as recognized north and they weren't leave. Or they wouldn't retread alreaty and about to engage. Or then to engage. Or though the midwest force tread recognized a few deaths, heheh. XD

The solution can only be 21st Century administrative alignment. You really can't fail with compatible reciprocal contingencies. Today marks the 20th anniversary celebrations of our four-dimensional transitional mobility. I can make a window to discuss your total organisational contingencies, but we need to cascade memos about our deconstructed organisational contingencies.

 

[Masada]

Having read and accepted Vanessa's wisdom I now believe we're all morally obligated to stop him or her now before he or she murders his or her children real or otherwise.

 

[Cutlass]

You're ignoring that people may (and often do) preserve their cultural identity because they wish to, not because they are forced to.
Assuming that a French Moroccan woman would certainly abandon her Moroccan identity if only she were accepted as French, reeks of cultural hubris.
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with her self-identifying and being identified as "French Moroccan". It means she has not been assimilated, but she may well be successfully integrated.

However, even well-integrated minorities may create serious problems down the line. Latest case in point: Spain.

Of course, this would all be irrelevant to the French, if they were "totally inclusive", as you described in your OP.
That literally means not caring at all about biological ancestry or culture of future children born in France. They would be "their own" regardless.

I think you really overstate the extent to which that is that case. I, for example, am half Irish. This pretty much consists of telling people I'm Irish and having corned beef and cabbage on St Patrick's Day. I don't speak Irish, I haven't been to Ireland, and I can't name a single Irish custom other than corned beef, cabbage, and heavy drinking.

This is the norm, 2-3 generations out, for immigrants that don't face some form of discrimination or segregation. They, at most, maintain some superficial trappings of their cultural heritage. But the substance of it is almost entirely lost. This has been universal in the American experience where segregation and discrimination is not in play.

So the core of your argument seems to be that preserving the lives of human beings is more important than preserving values. I disagree with that as a black-and-white issue. It's cruel to the individual, but human lives and human values must be measured against each other. If I were of the opinion that helping refugees would destroy western values, I would do what I can for us to stop offering help.

In the United States today there are at least 100million native born Americans who do not hold 'Western values' than there are immigrants to the US who do not hold Western values. The people who voted for Trump do not hold Western values. The people who want nativism at the expense of globalism do not hold Western values. The problems the West faces is the native born who do not hold Western values, not the immigrants. All of the European nations have been battling far right political groups in recent years, people who do not hold Western values.


The threat to Western values is from within, not from immigrants.

And based on what you have been writing on this forum, I find it hard to believe that you follow Western values yourself.

 

[Synobun]

Moderator Action: Let's steer away from the slippery slope of targeting other members, please.

 

[Yeekim]

it just shows that people are generally not consistent with their morals.

Which was kind of the whole point of the OP - that you were trying to argue against for some reason?

I think you really overstate the extent to which that is that case. I, for example, am half Irish. This pretty much consists of telling people I'm Irish and having corned beef and cabbage on St Patrick's Day. I don't speak Irish, I haven't been to Ireland, and I can't name a single Irish custom other than corned beef, cabbage, and heavy drinking.

This is the norm, 2-3 generations out, for immigrants that don't face some form of discrimination or segregation. They, at most, maintain some superficial trappings of their cultural heritage. But the substance of it is almost entirely lost. This has been universal in the American experience where segregation and discrimination is not in play.

I never said anyhing about the extent, so I find it hard to believe I'm overstating it.
You are the one who speaks about an "universal (American) experience", even though you actually admitted it is not quite 100% universal even in America.
And even if it were, I still think one ought to be careful before extrapolating that experience to the rest of the world.

Anyway, I primarily wished to point out that if one was completely "inclusive" as described in the OP, one shouldn't even care whether and how any of that integration happens.
That you saw a need to argue it absolutely does happen kind of hints you don't think it can be realistically expected from people to become quite that inclusive. I certainly think it can't.
We're, after all, rather tribal creatures.

 

[Ryika]

Which was kind of the whole point of the OP - that you were trying to argue against for some reason?

No, the notion that people are not consistent with their morals is merely an observation he makes, one that I agree with.

He then goes on to conclude that we should just treat everybody as our children, which is really dumb, as again we don't treat "our children" as we should treat everybody, they have preferred treatment, and we are often willing to do immoral things to make sure they're safe. Surely treating everybody like that is not a solution, and pretending that consequences don't exist, just for a false sense of morality, is not the solution either.

In the United States today there are at least 100million native born Americans who do not hold 'Western values' than there are immigrants to the US who do not hold Western values. The people who voted for Trump do not hold Western values. The people who want nativism at the expense of globalism do not hold Western values. The problems the West faces is the native born who do not hold Western values, not the immigrants. All of the European nations have been battling far right political groups in recent years, people who do not hold Western values.


The threat to Western values is from within, not from immigrants.

No dude, you don't get to now make this into a concrete example about the United States after your OP was a generalized mess full of wishy-washy nonsense and then tell me that that's what I believe or have claimed.
I objected to your overly broad, emotionally charged nonsense about how we just need to treat every individual with the uttermost respect and then everything would be fine. That's not how the world works.

Having read and accepted Vanessa's wisdom I now believe we're all morally obligated to stop him or her now before he or she murders his or her children real or otherwise.

I already did murder my child, but it wasn't born yet, so it's okay.

 

[Masada]

I already did murder my child, but it wasn't born yet, so it's okay.

You're clearly planning to murder children. It'd be immoral to let you run around. You need to be stopped. Eexactly like that rapist on the island.

 

[Crezth]

He then goes on to conclude that we should just treat everybody as our children, which is really dumb, as again we don't treat "our children" as we should treat everybody, they have preferred treatment, and we are often willing to do immoral things to make sure they're safe.

Preferred treatment like burning them at the stake for the honor of "western values?"

 

[Ryika]

You're clearly planning to murder children. It'd be immoral to let you run around - exactly like how that rapist on the island has to be stopped.

I mean let's stop joking here for a moment: If I were actually on the internet, advocating for the murder of children, or even spreading information about how I'll murder children, then surely you agree that the officials should be informed so they can stop me before I do it, right?

So I think you're not actually arguing for what you think you're arguing for...

Preferred treatment like burning them at the stake for the honor of "western values?"

How many parents do you know who would do that? Now compare that number to the number of parents you know who would likely be willing to let two strangers die so their child gets to live.

 

[Masada]

I mean let's stop joking here for a moment: If I were actually on the internet, advocating for the murder of children, or even spreading information about how I'll murder children, then surely you agree that the officials should be informed so they can stop me before I do it, right?

Absolutely. You're ticking a whole lot of extremist boxes. If I knew who you were, I'd have reported you already.

 

[Ryika]

Absolutely. You're ticking a whole lot of extremist boxes. If I knew who you were, I'd have reported you already.

That's off topic. What about the man on the boat? Would you let him die so he doesn't hurt the people on the island?

 

[Crezth]

How many parents do you know who would do that? Now compare that number to the number of parents you know who would likely be willing to let two strangers die so their child gets to live.

Nonono, you misunderstand me. I'm saying your values are monstrous.

Yes, burn them alive.

Protecting your own children isn't monstrous. Most of the times it's understandable. Still doesn't have anything to do with whether it's moral to let strangers die.

 

[Masada]

That's off topic. What about the man on the boat? Would you let him die so he doesn't hurt the people on the island?

Who the hell cares about that. You've repeatedly stated you'd murder your own damned kids for a political purpose. That's the textbook definition of terrorism. I strongly suggest you get help and swing by the local police office before you act out your "hypotheticals".

EDIT: I don't know if you have kids or not. Frankly, that's irrelevant. The fact that you're saying that is alarming. I'm not joking when I say you're ticking a whole lot of extremist boxes.

 

[Ryika]

Nonono, you misunderstand me. I'm saying your values are monstrous.

Well that was obviously a joke based on the fact that I do not have any children, as you would know, had you read the followup-post:

Of course I don't have and don't want children, so that possibly had some influence on my answer. If I had children, my response would probably be different.

So I'm glad that's now cleared up!

Protecting your own children isn't monstrous. Most of the times it's understandable. Still doesn't have anything to do with whether it's moral to let strangers die.

Yes, it's totally understandable, and no, it's not monstrous. But it's also not the standard by which we should treat everybody. Ideally, we would not treat anybody like that and instead treat everybody like we would treat a "friend of the family" (as I already said in a previous post), because that's what I think is about as close to "empathetic, but no preferred treatment" as you get. We'd still be willing to let them drown if the alternative would be to let them rape and enslave a bunch of innocent people!

Who the hell cares about that. You've repeatedly stated you'd murder your own damned kids for a political purpose. That's the textbook definition of terrorism. I strongly suggest you get help and swing by the local police office before you act your "hypotheticals".

It's amazing how me saying that I would let my non-existent children die if it was required to make sure western values would continue to exist has now been twisted not only into an active act of murder, it's also something that apparently I have said "repeatedly". Are you sure I'm the one who has the problems?

/edit: And you have also changed the hypothetical "if it were required to ensure the survival of western values" to "for political reasons".