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

[Crezth]

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!

As I said I don't think it makes any difference. You are on record in this thread advocating the slaughter of innocents in the name of political ideals. I think that's about as low as it gets.

You also completely ignored my point about why your hypothetical was inane, but I guess you're on the warpath to explain to everyone why foreigners deserve to die before they've committed any crimes. Thank you for contributing to Off Topic and this community, we're all much richer and morally wiser for it.

e: Even if you were on that raft, I'd still save you even though I have reasonable cause to believe you'd kill the islanders if they didn't enshrine western civilization. It's blood on your hands, not mine.

 

[Ryika]

As I said I don't think it makes any difference. You are on record in this thread advocating the slaughter of innocents in the name of political ideals. I think that's about as low as it gets.

You also completely ignored my point about why your hypothetical was inane, but I guess you're on the warpath to explain to everyone why foreigners deserve to die before they've committed any crimes. Thank you for contributing to Off Topic and this community, we're all much richer and morally wiser for it.

I do think it makes a difference, and a very significant one, too. As I explained already, we grant to our own children a level of protection that is not justified by any moral system. We kind of glance over it, because "It's understandable", but that does not make it moral. For a moral framework, we should surely start from a moral(ly neutral) position, not treat everybody with unjustified "above morale"-status. The reason for that is part of the hypothetical, and your continued refusal to respond to it directly shows exactly why I'm right - you do not have the ability to make the decision that is required to save the three people on the island from the things that will inevitably happen to them.

And let me repeat, just because you seem to have forgotten again: This is just a hypothetical to show to you your inability to act in reality if you focus purely on moral absolutes. It is not meant to be a parallel to the refugee crises, it's is not meant to show how taking refugees is wrong, and generally I am very much on board with taking in refugees.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This hypothetical has been the subject of the thread for the last three pages and appears to have no relevance to the original post. Change the subject.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Yeekim]

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

Good.

He then goes on to conclude that we should just treat everybody as our children.

Does he?

The difference between most liberals and most conservatives on these issues is whether or not we take an inclusive, or an exclusive, view of who is 'our children'./.../In the end, that's what it always comes down to. Our children versus their children. And who you are willing to consider as ours. That's the core truth of the human condition.

First, it is claimed that liberals are generally more "inclusive" than conservatives. This is quite self-evident, I think.
To me, it also appears he accepts that being "totally inclusive" is not realistic and that the line eventually gets to be drawn somewhere.
But maybe Cutlass will clarify that part himself.

 

[Ryika]

Does he?

Yeah, I think he does. Because while it is true that he makes an example specifically about the dreamers, he also writes:

The more inclusive you are concerning who can be considered our children, the more you favor acting in a moral and ethical fashion towards those children, and the children of others. And the more exclusive you are concerning who can be considered our children, the more you favor rules and policies that prevent the children of others from prospering. Or of living at all.

That's him generalizing that thinking about more people as "our children" is something that is good, and the opposite as something that is bad. So the logical conclusion of that is that we should ideally treat everybody as our children. He does acknowledge that that's not really possible, but it's the ideal he is pushing.

I say that's a bad ideal, as it still lacks the depth required to make decisions that fit the situation. Because again, while I think that it's good that we take refugees who are in need of help, it's good that we are in favor of not deporting the Dreamers who have been here for most of their lives, and are very much infused with Western values.

But why would you take tons of people who just want to immigrate for economic reasons from a country where the generally accepted thing is for women to be treated as second-class citizens? I would very much prefer them to stay where they are, thank you very much. Building a moral compass where we have to take all kind of immigrants because they're "our children", and that we can't pick the immigrants we allow and the ones we don't, is silly.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, I think he does. Because while it is true that he makes an example specifically about the dreamers, he also writes:



That's him generalizing that thinking about more people as "our children" is something that is good, and the opposite as something that is bad. So the logical conclusion of that is that we should ideally treat everybody as our children. He does acknowledge that that's not really possible, but it's the ideal he is pushing.

I say that's a bad ideal, as it still lacks the depth required to make decisions that fit the situation. Because again, while I think that it's good that we take refugees who are in need of help, it's good that we are in favor of not deporting the Dreamers who have been here for most of their lives, and are very much infused with Western values.

But why would you take tons of people who just want to immigrate for economic reasons from a country where the generally accepted thing is for women to be treated as second-class citizens? I would very much prefer them to stay where they are, thank you very much. Building a moral compass where we have to take all kind of immigrants because they're "our children", and that we can't pick the immigrants we allow and the ones we don't, is silly.

You somehow remain under the delusion that taking in immigrants is in some way a threat to 'Western values'. Which makes me wonder just what you think 'Western values' means. Being white is not a Western value. Obama, who is not white, is a person who respects Western values. Trump, who is white, is at war to destroy Western values. Nor is being Christian a Western value. Christianity not only has at least as much blood on it's hands as Islam does, if not more, but a goodly chunk of Evangelical Christianity as it is practiced in the US today is no more in tune with Western values than the Taliban is. They are more constrained by law, but they are not more constrained by what they think is right and wrong.

And your strawman of rapists certainly doesn't support your case, as those very same white Christians have elected a rapist to be president of the US.

 

[Ryika]

You somehow remain under the delusion that taking in immigrants is in some way a threat to 'Western values'. Which makes me wonder just what you think 'Western values' means. Being white is not a Western value. Obama, who is not white, is a person who respects Western values. Trump, who is white, is at war to destroy Western values. Nor is being Christian a Western value. Christianity not only has at least as much blood on it's hands as Islam does, if not more, but a goodly chunk of Evangelical Christianity as it is practiced in the US today is no more in tune with Western values than the Taliban is. They are more constrained by law, but they are not more constrained by what they think is right and wrong.

You just went full regressive. Never go full regressive.

/edit: I would answer properly, but I really don't know what to say to this. You went from 0 to posting a selection of utter non-arguments and things that are utterly irrelevant to the argument. There's nothing of value here.

And your strawman of rapists certainly doesn't support your case, as those very same white Christians have elected a rapist to be president of the US.

I mean if you had called him a sexual harasser, then I would agree that you have a case, but rapist? Do you have any proof of that?

Oh crap, I just realized that you're talking about Bill Clinton, not Trump. My bad. My bad!

 

[Traitorfish]

People are very concerned about "Western values", until it turns out one of those values is universalism. Then they go all blood-and-soil about it.

 

[Ryika]

People are very concerned about "Western values", until it turns out one of those values is universalism. Then they go all blood-and-soil about it.

I can't think of a version of universalism that would prevent you from looking at another country and go like: No, that stuff that they're doing over there? Don't want to import that.

Of course even then, people do not have to to agree with your set of western morals to be allowed to be against importing hordes and hordes of immigrants from less well-off, less progressive countries. They could be baby-eating Atheists ( ✝ ✝ ✝ Bwuah! Atheists! ✝ ✝ ✝ ) who hate western values and only live here because our countries are economic power houses and still be against immigration from one of the Great Christian nations because their morals and culture are just too different.

Perfectly fine.

 

[Traitorfish]

I can't think of a version of universalism that would prevent you from looking at another country and go like: No, that stuff that they're doing over there? Don't want to import that.

No, but it does require that you at least try to imagine this "they" as human beings, and that is a duty I think you may be taking less than entirely seriously.

 

[Ryika]

No, but it does require that you at least try to imagine this "they" as human beings, and that is a duty I think you may be taking less than entirely seriously.

I think I'm doing a pretty good job with that.

I do agree it's a problem that is prevalent on the right though. But the solution is not to pretend as if differences in Culture and Ethics don't exist.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think I'm doing a pretty good job with that.

I mean, you constructed an elaborate metaphor about drowning refugees where a normal person might have said something about civil society or political norms, so I wouldn't toot my own horn.

 

[Ryika]

I mean, you constructed an elaborate metaphor about drowning refugees where a normal person might have said something about civil society or political norms, so I wouldn't toot my own horn.

My hypothetical had nothing to do with refugees. I am in favor of taking them in.

 

[Traitorfish]

So we're just drowning people for fun?

 

[Ryika]

No, we were drowning people to prove that there can be cases where just taking in all the immigrants is not the right choice, because another poster had said that putting restrictions on immigration of any type is immoral, and that the only moral choice is to have borders that are open to everybody who wants to come in. My point was to show that actions have consequences, and while I disagree with the consequences that anti-refugee folks predict, it is clearly our response to convince them that they're wrong about the consequences (and maybe help them develop more empathy towards the refugees), not to just hammer them with a universal "Being against immigration is wrong!" and feeling morally superior, as that is just a void position that has no validity or persuasive power.

But a moderator has said that this hypothetical is too far off topic a page ago or so, so I don't think we can discuss it in great detail here.

Moderator Action: It was twelve posts ago, on the same page, and this is PDMA, which is always forbidden. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Traitorfish]

You say that, but we are actually drowning people, in Europe, by the hundred.

It's not a hypothetical when your lungs are filling with picturesque Mediterranean azure because some pork-faced Austrian decided there were too many Muzzies as it was.

 

[Ryika]

Oh, I misunderstood you. Hardly surprising, given that we're not actually drowning people.

 

[Traitorfish]

Philosophise as you please, the drowned remain drowned.

Cold comfort, to the survivors, that "Western values" survived the ordeal intact.

 

[Ryika]

It's a bit unfair to accuse me of philosophizing when you phrase your post in a biased and unrealistic way, eh? It was completely unnecessary to do that, and has only endangered our conversation on an issue we agree upon.

Not sure if we agree on the solution though, does yours include atomic bombs, too?

 

[Cutlass]

I can't think of a version of universalism that would prevent you from looking at another country and go like: No, that stuff that they're doing over there? Don't want to import that.

Of course even then, people do not have to to agree with your set of western morals to be allowed to be against importing hordes and hordes of immigrants from less well-off, less progressive countries. They could be baby-eating Atheists ( ✝ ✝ ✝ Bwuah! Atheists! ✝ ✝ ✝ ) who hate western values and only live here because our countries are economic power houses and still be against immigration from one of the Great Christian nations because their morals and culture are just too different.

Perfectly fine.

You seem to think that no one coming from such a country is incapable of living by the norms of the country they immigrate to. That's never been the case in the past. Individuals who won't can be excluded. But excluding whole peoples because some of their members might be trouble isn't protecting Western values. It's just racism. Which means the people making the argument that you are making are not part of Western values in the first place.

As Masada pointed out, for much of American history Catholics were the group your argument would apply to. Jews were always a group that your argument applied to, up until WWII. Japanese and Chinese were groups that your argument applied to, until less than 50 years ago.

Your argument has always been wrong in the past. Why should it not be wrong now?