Unwarn me, I was falsely warned for no reason.

Again: if someone were to ask me explain why, here and now, I think about abortion as I do [embedded in my dilemma], I explain it thusly:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

In other words, I note the extent to which my current ambiguous/ambivalent narrative is derived from:

1] grappling with the issue intellectually, philosophically, politically etc., and…
2] embedded in actual experiences [out in a particular world] that tugged me in different directions existentially

From my frame of mind then, it is always the manner in which value judgments are intertwined – given both approaches– that render them only more or less intelligible. Then it comes down to those things that we believe are true “in our head” that we can in turn convince others to believe are true. And then empirically, scientifically establishing it one way or another.

That is where AutSider, in my opinion, refuses to go. Unless of course he can convince you and others that he has in fact gone there.

After all, you and I have gone down this particular path ourselves, haven’t we?

True. But, in my view, there is an important distinction to be made between identity in the either/or world and identity in the is/ought world.

There are facts about me that are true for everyone. “I” on the other hand, in expressing value judgments [embedded in both moral and political narratives], seems far more an “existential contraption” to me.

Unless of course I’m wrong. Yet how would we go about establishing that [objectively] in turn? I don’t think that this is possible in a world sans God.

But then isn’t this conjecture just one more “existential contraption” in turn?

And here [I suspect] your guess is as good as mine.

A brony is like an ubermench…just a think a person can get all crazy about. They’re equally philosophical concepts.

Discuss the double standard.

Since when are prejudices worthy of qualifying as abhorrent, as abhorrent as rape, murder, and unmitigated violence? Give me a break.

Prejudices very easily lead to rape, murder, and unmitigated violence.

Thanks for agreeing with me Blurry that prejudice and violence are not the same, not all abhorrent. If I were to prefer white people over black people, that’s not the same as murder, it is not abhorrent as say gutting someone. A bias is not abhorrent, murder is.

Or you might say, both are abhorrent, to different degrees.

Something does not need to be The Most Abhorrent Thing Possible to be abhorrent. Racism is gross, I abhor it, it’s abhorrent.

EDIT:

Beat me to it.

Prejudice = Weakness, cowardice, braindamage.

Prejudice’s are also positive evaluations, people, and you all practice them, both types, the positive and the negative, so whatever liberal delusions float your boat. I’m out.

Wendy, I’m not really sure who you’re disagreeing with, but it doesn’t seem like it’s anyone in this thread. The claim, “Racism is abhorrent” is not inconsistent with the claim, “Murder is more abhorrent than racism”, nor with many other claims about other types of prejudice.

Categorizing those two, murder and racism, the same, as abhorrent, seems fallaciously misleading. To me, you minimize murder, minimize real tragedy, when you add every two bit prejudice in the abhorrent category, that’s all I’m saying. True, anybody can put anything under the sun in the abhorrent category relating it by one degree (Spitting is abhorrent. Ignorance is abhorrent.), but that would not legitimize the use of such a strong word, it only weakens it.

You all have prejudices and you all have abhorrent opinions.

Those are going to come out in the posts.

The only issue is what kind of effect that has on the effectiveness of the forum. Ought a philosophy forum protect the members from abhorrent opinions? Is a philosophy forum effective if it censors those opinions? I don’t think so.

I don’t see how it’s misleading to say that both murder and racism inspire disgust and loathing and/or are repugnant. It’s no more leading than to say that they are both “bad”, “harmful”, “undesirable”, etc. etc. There are a ton of adjectives that describe both murder and racism, none of which is diminished when accurately applied to them, “abhorrent” is one of them.

Or, take it the other way. You seem to be OK describing murder as abhorrent. But is it as abhorrent as a gruesome genocide of all children and adorable animals? I think not. And yet you use the same word for both! How misleading…

First, to be a bit pedantic, we’re not here for opinions, we’re here for philosophy. “I just don’t like X” is a shite piece of philosophy, whether X is “jelly beans” or “black people”.

But I agree that abhorrent ideas, abhorrent reasoning, and arguments for abhorrent conclusions should not be censored when they’re presented in good faith as a subject of philosophical inquiry and analysis.

Genocide is murder. Murder is at the top of the list for all things abhorrent. I don’t throw the word abhorrent around lightly, applying it to things that are undesirable in minor ways. Hate is a strong word and an even stronger idea, make sure it’s used effectively, don’t waste it’s power on numerous ideas that are not hate worthy.

Philosophy is opinions that mirror reality or don’t. I will agree that the why’s of our opinions matter in philosophy so those must be included with our dislikes of X, to provide an argument to support our opinions of how one ought to live. I think more abstract philosophy lays beyond my interest for it’s harder to rectify and apply, it diverges from reality.

Prejudices will always exist. But there are more or less “civil and intelligent” ways in which to discuss them.

After all, serious scholastic research into race, gender and religion is there to be found.

For example, just Google “race and intelligence research”: scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ra … 4QgQMIJDAA

These folks may or may not have a political axe to grind, but discussions of this sort can unfold in a more or less civil and intelligent manner.

Or begin the exploration at wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Instead, the KT crowd [and their ilk] are more likely to come here with guns blazing. The N word this, the C word that. Huffing and puffing and heaping scorn on all the liberal “retards” and the “morons” who don’t think about race and gender and religion and sexual orientation in exactly the same way that they do.

In fact, I have a word for that. :wink:

“Remember that all is opinion” - Marcus Aurelius

I would have to disagree that “abhorrent ideas” should be disallowed. But then again, if an idea is not being supported through philosophical discourse, then it doesn’t really have any good reason to be posted here. If ideas are merely to be condemned by judgement of good or evil, there is no point in having philosophical discourse. There can’t be both.

Of course that’s just his opinion.

Though in fact he did say this.

If, in fact, he did say that.

There just seem to be things that we can in fact establish as true for all of us; and other things that we cannot.

For example, to the best of my knowledge, Joan Armatrading is in fact

1] black
2] a woman
3] a lesbian

Now, what in fact can we conclude about her for being these things? As opposed to all of the various conflicting political prejudices regarding what it means to be black, to be female and to be gay?

Is it enough that she says she is a woman? Is she in fact a biological woman or a woman in ideology? Perhaps she only identifies with being a woman, who can say anymore what gender another is, since they can identify as hermaphrodite, both, if they so choose. So you may need to go over your list of what is in fact true, iambiguous. She may not be black either…you’d have to read her DnA results to settle that one too.