Why are antiracists so... racist?

[Ryika]

nobody wants to be murdered

Well, that statement is only correct on the technicality that if you "want" to be murdered, you cannot technically be "murdered".

There are cases of people who wanted others to kill them though, for example that guy who invited a cannibal to eat his genitals and kill him. Of course there are also tons of people with depressions, who think that being murdered and put out of their misery would be a blessing for example, or old people who ask for assisted suicide because all of the people who were close to them are already dead, or who feel like there's just nothing waiting for them in life anymore - there are many cases of that.

So really, the statement that nobody wants to be "murdered" is incorrect, the vast, vast majority does not want to be murdered, but there are people who want to be, and while most of them are clearly cases of severe mental problems, mental health itself is a subjective experience with guidelines that are mostly set relatively randomly based on the standards that societies deem "normal" or "abnormal", so there is nothing objective in that either.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Absolute morality stems from a universality of opinions, nobody wants to be murdered, therefore murder is immoral... We take care of all sorts of people who cant, from children to the elderly and infirm.

First of all, there are indeed people who have advertised a desire to be killed by others, which would classify as murder/assisted suicide/something depending on your definition.

Even ignoring that, only people seem to care about murdering people for the most part (advanced intelligence animals might dislike a particular person dying, depending, but we don't have any evidence that non-humans avoid murder on the whole). Rocks definitely don't care, nor do air particles or sponges.

Whenever humans want to allow killing people against their will, they change their definition of murder to avoid including that method of killing or to allow taking some lives. War is a good example, but not the only example. We have no evidence that support "universality of opinion" and a ton of counter-evidence for that...

 

[Lexicus]

Sounds like you want to decide who gets rather than other people...

I mean, he's saying that who gets should perhaps be determined by something other than the law of the jungle.

That's my line. You willing to actually participate in the discussion or not

If you insist on such absurd use of terms, "discussion" seems a rather unwarranted term...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I mean, he's saying that who gets should perhaps be determined by something other than the law of the jungle.

Forced distribution of assets by the tribe with the most power does not sound like a significant deviation from "laws of jungle" to me. Legal means is preferable to spear point at least, but that's not a ringing endorsement...especially when it CAN be at gunpoint.

If you insist on such absurd use of terms, "discussion" seems a rather unwarranted term...

Comical.

 

[Dachs]

Forced distribution of assets by the tribe with the most power does not sound like a significant deviation from "laws of jungle" to me. Legal means is preferable to spear point at least, but that's not a ringing endorsement...especially when it CAN be at gunpoint.

So, you're opposed to taxation in all its forms?

 

[inthesomeday]

Taxation is theft

 

[civver_764]

Taxation is theft

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Do you think it would be a good thing if America abolished the income tax?

 

[caketastydelish]

Taxation is theft

We have someone who used to frequent this forum who agrees with you. Although, that isn't a good thing.

 

[inthesomeday]

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Do you think it would be a good thing if America abolished the income tax?

Way past that. Ownership is also theft

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So, you're opposed to taxation in all its forms?

No, I'm not. I am opposed to taxation on the basis of "someone else wants your stuff and they have less so they get it", however...and reject the notion that such basis is different from "law of the jungle".

Government bloat into inefficient usage of taxes is bad enough already without that kind of extreme.

 

[inthesomeday]

If you more than you need of something that somebody else has none of, you have stolen it from them.

 

[caketastydelish]

Way past that. Ownership is also theft

Ownage and Pwnage are not theft. Rather, they demonstrate that they popped you and get to teabag you, followed with jokes about your mother.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, that statement is only correct on the technicality that if you "want" to be murdered, you cannot technically be "murdered".

There are cases of people who wanted others to kill them though, for example that guy who invited a cannibal to eat his genitals and kill him. Of course there are also tons of people with depressions, who think that being murdered and put out of their misery would be a blessing for example, or old people who ask for assisted suicide because all of the people who were close to them are already dead, or who feel like there's just nothing waiting for them in life anymore - there are many cases of that.

So really, the statement that nobody wants to be "murdered" is incorrect, the vast, vast majority does not want to be murdered, but there are people who want to be, and while most of them are clearly cases of severe mental problems, mental health itself is a subjective experience with guidelines that are mostly set relatively randomly based on the standards that societies deem "normal" or "abnormal", so there is nothing objective in that either.

First of all, there are indeed people who have advertised a desire to be killed by others, which would classify as murder/assisted suicide/something depending on your definition.

Even ignoring that, only people seem to care about murdering people for the most part (advanced intelligence animals might dislike a particular person dying, depending, but we don't have any evidence that non-humans avoid murder on the whole). Rocks definitely don't care, nor do air particles or sponges.

Whenever humans want to allow killing people against their will, they change their definition of murder to avoid including that method of killing or to allow taking some lives. War is a good example, but not the only example. We have no evidence that support "universality of opinion" and a ton of counter-evidence for that...

People in pain dont want to be murdered, they want to end the pain. If the latter aint happening some choose death. Has anyone in such a situation told their kin or doc to 'murder' them? Of course not, they know it aint murder - its suicide (assisted). The fact some people do commit murder doesn't mean they want to be murdered, it means they're hypocrites. And some guy who wants to die in his fantasy aint being murdered, he chose that for himself. If you're murdered you dont get to make the rules, the murderer makes the rules.

When I said nobody wants to be murdered, I wasn't suggesting you cant invent circumstances under which someone wants to be murdered, you just haven't done it yet if thats your goal. But arguing over universal and nearly universal seems rather pointless, it dont really matter to me if you can find some crazy guy who wants to be murdered. You say there's no evidence, ask everyone if they want to be murdered without inflicting pain or mental illness on them first and you'll see a universal response.

What better basis (objectively) for morality than the universality of opinion?

 

[Ryika]

I'm pretty sure you just quoted my post but didn't actually respond to anything I said.

People in pain dont want to be murdered, they want to end the pain. If the latter aint happening some choose death. Has anyone in such a situation told their kin or doc to 'murder' them? Of course not, they know it aint murder - its suicide (assisted).

[...]

And some guy who wants to die in his fantasy aint being murdered, he chose that for himself. If you're murdered you dont get to make the rules, the murderer makes the rules.

This is you playing around with words. Yes, if a person wants to be murdered, then they don't actually want to be murdered, they just want to be killed, because if they want to be killed, then it's not "murder" in the strictest definition. This is not a moral argument, this is a word game.

Imagine however a person in severe pain, they really want it to end and have already decided that death is the only way out of it, but have not yet found the "strength" to commit suicide, and assisted suicide is not available for them. Then a random mass murderer comes around and stabs them two-hundred-eighty-nine times in the chest. The stabbing was done for the expressed purpose of murdering a person, yet the last thought of the victim may be: "It's finally over."

Your gut reaction now is probably: "But they were in pain and suicidal!" ... yes, they were. So? If a "universal response" is not actually the response people give under certain circumstances, then it's not a "universal response", is it? "Mental illness!" is not an excuse either, because it's just how we've defined behavior that is not fit for society. How a person "should" work, or "should" think, and whether they "should" want to fit into society is inherently subjective in itself.

When I said nobody wants to be murdered, I wasn't suggesting you cant invent circumstances under which someone wants to be murdered, you just haven't done it yet if thats your goal. But arguing over universal and nearly universal seems rather pointless, it dont really matter to me if you can find some crazy guy who wants to be murdered.

The case of the cannibal I linked clearly wanted to be murdered, and not because his life was suffering, no, because the idea to die and be eaten stimulated him. He actively moved to a person for the expressed purpose to be killed and eaten, and five other people had replied to that invitation, and had met with the cannibal.

So your argument is again basically: "It's a universal response, except when in rare cases it's not." ...well again, then it's not a universal response. It's clear that these cases are very, very rare and exceptional, but a single case proves that there is nothing universal to it - it's subjective, but most of us agree about subjectively better state of being.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Taxation is theft

Meat is murder.

If you more than you need of something that somebody else has none of, you have stolen it from them.

Oh lordy. I think I'm leaning towards this being a Poe account now.

 

[Kyriakos]

I suppose this isn't real, but it is still somewhat funny:

 

[Lexicus]

So, you're opposed to taxation in all its forms?

It is a common thread among those who worship the market and oppose democracy to refer to democracy in such degrading terms. But there really isn't anything there of substance to respond to; I certainly never made any argument for "forced distribution of assets by the tribe with the most power." My argument would be more along the lines that the distribution of wealth should reflect the equal human dignity of all members of society, and that all humans have an unconditional right to the things that sustain life and make it worth living.

No, I'm not. I am opposed to taxation on the basis of "someone else wants your stuff and they have less so they get it", however...and reject the notion that such basis is different from "law of the jungle".

Ah, so you just reject progressive taxation? You prefer that the state not use taxation interfere with the sacred distribution of wealth granted to us by the market?

Government bloat into inefficient usage of taxes is bad enough already without that kind of extreme.

Government doesn't spend any more or less efficiently, on the whole, than private enterprise.

 

[stinkubus]

That the government is inefficient compared to private enterprise is axiomatic to those people. You're wasting your time arguing with them.

 

[Archon_Wing]

So your argument is again basically: "It's a universal response, except when in rare cases it's not." ...well again, then it's not a universal response. It's clear that these cases are very, very rare and exceptional, but a single case proves that there is nothing universal to it - it's subjective, but most of us agree about subjectively better state of being.

I think we can all agree that nothing is completely universal because someone can always disagree. In a sense universal morality simply cannot exist.

But the problem is that there's no practical use to this notion. Sure, conventional morality breaks down in extreme situations, yes, but when it comes to discussions about general situations involving more typical people, there's no real point discussing those beyond some philosophical navelgazing. It's unlike any jury is going to listen in on how murder is a play on words, for example. And sure, the courts are also entirely arbitrary and subject to who runs the government.

The argument becomes how widely held various notions are and even that is subject to a lot of people making it up.

Government doesn't spend any more or less efficiently, on the whole, than private enterprise.

That doesn't contradict what he said though.

 

[inthesomeday]

Like I said, Valessa doesn't believe in morality.