dfsdf

[von_Rivers]

@phyllo

Exactly. That’s a good thing.

Not it isn’t. You are giving potential legitimacy to every crackpot because they just might be ‘objectively’ correct.

If they are objectively correct, then they’re not a crackpot. And since I’m objectively correct, I’m not a crackpot. But you can only call someone a crackpot, in the first place, if there’s an objective truth that the person in question is wrong about. Guess what? You’re the crackpot, because you don’t have a way of telling the KKK they’re wrong. Do you think it would be hard to prove that people with different color of skin are human and feel pain and so on? Do you think the KKK come by their positions by science?

If morals are a cultural construct, the KKK could gain control in an area but as soon as you convince enough people that they are wrong then you can impose your own moral standards.

YOU DON’T HAVE A WAY OF CONVINCING ANYONE THAT THEY ARE WRONG, IF MORALS ARE A CULTURAL CONSTRUCT. That’s because their construct has already set up a moral, and you recognize it as legitimate—you are required to by your position.

If morals are objective, even a small lunatic group can claim to know the ‘objective’ truth.

IF THEY ARE LUNATICS, THEN IT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

[phyllo]

You’re the crackpot, because you don’t have a way of telling the KKK they’re wrong.

I can tell them that they are wrong as long as I have enough support. If I don’t have support then I need to get support before I can confront anyone.

Do you think the KKK come by their positions by science?

I’m sure that they can find enough scientific research to support their position or to cloud the issue.

Every one of your answers is dependent on you knowing the objectively correct moral position and being able to demonstrate it convincingly. If you can’t do it, then you concede that your opponent may be objectively correct (even if he is a crackpot).

[von_Rivers]

@phyllo

I can tell them that they are wrong as long as I have enough support. If I don’t have support then I need to get support before I can confront anyone.

NO YOU CANNOT. As soon as you admit that morality is whatever a culture/community decides, then you cannot go to another culture/community and tell them they are morally wrong because you disagree. THAT DOESN’T MATTER. You’ve just said “moral rightness” is whatever THEY decide.

I’m sure that they can find enough scientific research to support their position or to cloud the issue.

What a disgrace. If you think there’s good evidence for the notion that black people aren’t human or don’t feel pain… present it.

Every one of your answers is dependent on you knowing the objectively correct moral position and being able to demonstrate it convincingly. If you can’t do it, then you concede that your opponent may be objectively correct (even if he is a crackpot).

Get this through your skull: Nobody is a crackpot of what they are saying is OBJECTIVELY TRUE. There are only such things as crackpots, in the first place, if objective truth exists—because a crackpot is just someone who is wrong and thinks he’s right.

[Moreno]

I realized afterwards, Mo, that your perfect example - which I mainly ignored since it was not responding to the kinds of category I raised - was perfectly confused.

The capitalists in the US have not realized that freedom has some limit and have been heading towards equality. Sorry, but the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And this did not stop after the fall of USSR. Along with the rich getting richer, the rich have also gotten more powerful, and power is now concentrated in less hands than it was 20 years ago, and then it was less hands than 40 years ago. There were some trends earlier in the 20th century that fit your idea, but they are long in the past. I hesitate to even judge where Russia is on freedom and equality now. Sure, there is a leisure class that has more freedom, as long as they don’t get too uppity, but for the vast majority, I really can’t tell.

Besides, the citizens of the USSR did not decide they no longer like the balance of freedom and equality in their countries. The system fucked itself up and fell. The people in power under whom the system fell, never supported equality except in propaganda. They had more power, more priviledges and more money than everyone else. A gang of thugs with, sure, a propaganda machine. You’d have to look elsewhere for equality, hell, even Castro did better before the blockage did that economy in. Scandanavia, perhaps. When the USSR was falling apart the world’s monetary systems ran in and fucked them over. They made damn sure nothing like the mixed economies of Scandanavia could be set up. Naomi Klein goes into this well in Shock Doctrine.

But there was never some, oh, we need more freedom period of insight. The thugs overreached and it fell apart. Other thugs keep increasing their power.

And the rest of Europe is belatedly kissing Thatchers ass via Reagan and eliminating equality as fast as it can. (and the Democrats have been helping along this redistribution of power and wealth and a slower rate of change. Note the rate of change is slower, but they have enacted changes that kept this going. I love how conservatives think of Clinton as some, spit, liberal, while he continued the gutting of the social system and opened up more protected lands for the powers that be while allowing and contributing to concentrations of power, just not so proudly and fast as his rep forebears.

Gotta keep that good cop, bad cop thingy going.
Nixon was a communist compared to any recent democrat.

[von_Rivers]

@Moreno

I realized afterwards, Mo, that your perfect example - which I mainly ignored since it was not responding to the kinds of category I raised - was perfectly confused.

Thank you for admitting it. Anyways, as I said, “freedom” and “equality” are moral values, and they demonstrate well what I said. At least, so I think currently…

Sorry, but the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And this did not stop after the fall of USSR. Along with the rich getting richer, the rich have also gotten more powerful, and power is now concentrated in less hands than it was 20 years ago, and then it was less hands than 40 years ago. There were some trends earlier in the 20th century that fit your idea, but they are long in the past.

This is all wrong. Whether we’re talking about social programs like social security, medicare, higher income tax rates—but really, income tax rates at all, welfare, healthcare, or other social programs… what you’ve said is just wrong. Now, you can lament the rich getting richer and so on. That’s fine, I’m just not sure what you think it shows. I’ve never said that freedom is no longer an ideal—I’ve just suggested that it will be abandoned by degree to the extent that it infringes on other deeper values. (That’s the example).

Besides, the citizens of the USSR did not decide they no longer like the balance of freedom and equality in their countries. The system fucked itself up and fell.

AND THAT’S WHEN THEY DECIDED THAT EQUALITY WASN’T ALL TO VALUE. Dude, total poverty among everyone is perfect equality. You really can’t get more equal than that. But there are different DEEPER ideals—and they’re not different from ours.

I am not ignoring your example—I just don’t get what you think your example is an example of. Flesh it out. Conservatives vs progressives is not a value conflict. Those are just orientations to any given value or political position.

[lizbethrose]

Mo, what does dfsdf mean?

[von_Rivers]

@lizbethrose

Mo, what does dfsdf mean?

It doesn’t mean anything. I just mashed the keyboard with my left hand.

[lizbethrose]

@Mo_

@lizbethrose

Mo, what does dfsdf mean?

It doesn’t mean anything. I just mashed the keyboard with my left hand.

Thank you. Lizbeth sits back down at her desk, both confused and bemused by the conversation.