Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 74 of 74
  1. #61
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,746
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why would homosexuals not be able to procreate?
    Ummm....


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    A more interesting question is what would happen if that technology was available in our current society and people were choosing to edit out the gay.
    While I agree that is a very interesting question, it gets off the topic of this thread. Let's say there was a large enough groundswell of people doing that editing for religious or social or whatever reasons and they got together and voted a resolution mandating the edit going forward. Would you have an issue with that expression of majority power?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    The question would be should the state be involved in maybe guiding their decision - a minimum IQ for example. Would the state have an interest in increasing overall intelligence?
    Well it wouldn't be the first time we've seen the government do so in the US, right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ummm....
    Yes?

    ---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    While I agree that is a very interesting question, it gets off the topic of this thread. Let's say there was a large enough groundswell of people doing that editing for religious or social or whatever reasons and they got together and voted a resolution mandating the edit going forward. Would you have an issue with that expression of majority power?
    Yes, I think that's been my point in comparing current eugenics, made with personal decisions, and those that were advocated as state sanctions.

    ---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well it wouldn't be the first time we've seen the government do so in the US, right?
    What would you be referring to?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #63
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,746
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Yes, I think that's been my point in comparing current eugenics, made with personal decisions, and those that were advocated as state sanctions.
    Ok, buy why? Why do you say that this expression of majoritarian power is wrong, but another is correct (or at least allowable)?


    Fun time side questions, what about for those who are dependent on state support, like in an institution such as prison?

    Part II: What if the state offerred significant benefits if you complied, but didn't make it mandatory? Sort of China one child policy, you simply can't get a government job or government support unless you comply. But if you do, free college for the kid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    What would you be referring to?
    That was, quite literally, the point of Margeret Sanger's work. She wanted to increase the overall IQ of the population by eliminating those whose genes, science told us, precluded them from contributing to that increased IQ goal. IE blacks, jews, and homosexuals all of whom at the time were thought to be genetically incapable of producing above 100 average IQ offspring. The US government adopted that in the late teens early twenties and funded Sanger's work (the first planned parenthood funding btw) under that goal.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, buy why? Why do you say that this expression of majoritarian power is wrong, but another is correct (or at least allowable)?
    Because it's subjective and apt to change. Blues eyes might be all the rage, but what happens when everyone has blue eyes? And because there's nothing wrong with the alternative. There's plenty of examples of people breaking class distinctions coming from the most horrendous beginnings. So we're talking about people choosing to go through whatever process to give their children a better chance. Sort of like we give everyone a base education (that's the theory at least) and a parent choosing to send their kid to Exeter Prep.

    ---------- Post added at 11:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Fun time side questions, what about for those who are dependent on state support, like in an institution such as prison?

    Part II: What if the state offerred significant benefits if you complied, but didn't make it mandatory? Sort of China one child policy, you simply can't get a government job or government support unless you comply. But if you do, free college for the kid.
    I think with the state as guide is about as far as it should go. I was watching a documentary on extreme pedophiles and one of the inmates mentioned how he had chosen to be sterilized. He wasn't forced, mind you, it was suggested as part of his possible therapy and he was told it would make his eventual release a little more easy. I think the word was "certain" he used.

    Can you think of an appropriate reward for the type of eugenics we're talking about? And for what type of affliction? Maybe you get cheaper life insurance because you've been modified to never develop diabetes? Kind of like saving for not being a smoker?

    ---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That was, quite literally, the point of Margeret Sanger's work. She wanted to increase the overall IQ of the population by eliminating those whose genes, science told us, precluded them from contributing to that increased IQ goal. IE blacks, jews, and homosexuals all of whom at the time were thought to be genetically incapable of producing above 100 average IQ offspring. The US government adopted that in the late teens early twenties and funded Sanger's work (the first planned parenthood funding btw) under that goal.
    Are you asking whether we should be operating on 1920's ideas about genetics and human development?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #65
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,746
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Because it's subjective and apt to change.
    So are values on free speech, gun ownership, religious expression, education, healthcare, and a host of other topics. Is the fact that those views are subjective mean that they are off-limits for majoritarian decision making?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Can you think of an appropriate reward for the type of eugenics we're talking about?
    Well, that is a bit more your question than mine, I'm trying to explore the edge of the limiting principle you seem to have that limits your normal acceptance of majority rule. You seem uneasy with majorities mandating eugenics, so I'm trying to understand if you think it is ok for majorities to nudge, as it were, people towards that eugenic outcome. IE is your problem with the tool of power (mandating vs incentivizing) or is it solely driven by your preference for the outcome?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So are values on free speech, gun ownership, religious expression, education, healthcare, and a host of other topics. Is the fact that those views are subjective mean that they are off-limits for majoritarian decision making?
    Whether you have access to them or not? Yes. How an individual engages with each item, no.

    ---------- Post added at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, that is a bit more your question than mine, I'm trying to explore the edge of the limiting principle you seem to have that limits your normal acceptance of majority rule. You seem uneasy with majorities mandating eugenics, so I'm trying to understand if you think it is ok for majorities to nudge, as it were, people towards that eugenic outcome. IE is your problem with the tool of power (mandating vs incentivizing) or is it solely driven by your preference for the outcome?
    Yes, with mandating. Either way.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #67
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,746
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Whether you have access to them or not? Yes.
    So it is out of limits for a majority to eliminate someone's access to firearms?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Yes, with mandating. Either way.
    If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that you don't like the mandating of activity. That that is the basis of your objection. So in that case, it should be consistent to say that you mandating of wage rates, right? That is certainly a subjective issue (what is a "fair" wage is certainly subjective) so majorities shouldn't mandate how those are handled, right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So it is out of limits for a majority to eliminate someone's access to firearms?
    For no reason? Yes. For an irrational reason, definitely yes. For example, white people can have firearms but black people can't.

    ---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that you don't like the mandating of activity. That that is the basis of your objection. So in that case, it should be consistent to say that you mandating of wage rates, right? That is certainly a subjective issue (what is a "fair" wage is certainly subjective) so majorities shouldn't mandate how those are handled, right?
    Depends on how you define "fair wage" I suppose. Is that different from a living wage or what used to be called a "family wage"?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #69
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,746
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    For no reason? Yes. For an irrational reason, definitely yes. For example, white people can have firearms but black people can't.
    Ahh, so let's return that new clarification to our original example.

    It would be ok for the majority to mandate eugenic procedures as long as they had a "good reason?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Depends on how you define "fair wage" I suppose. Is that different from a living wage or what used to be called a "family wage"?
    Well, all of those terms are subjective. What is "fair" or "livable" for one person is different for another. So, if majorities aren't supposed to create mandates based on subjective tastes, they shouldn't be legislating wage rates according to your argument it would seem.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #70
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ahh, so let's return that new clarification to our original example.

    It would be ok for the majority to mandate eugenic procedures as long as they had a "good reason?"
    Yes. I can't really think of one. Let's say a genetic disease develops that spreads cancer in a contagious fashion but doesn't harm the host. A "Cancer Charlie" and we have the eugenic means to make Charlie not contagious. I suppose we could also force him to live a life of seclusion.

    ---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, all of those terms are subjective. What is "fair" or "livable" for one person is different for another. So, if majorities aren't supposed to create mandates based on subjective tastes, they shouldn't be legislating wage rates according to your argument it would seem.
    I'm not so sure about the subjective part. There are necessities to life and the price of those are set by the market, no?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #71
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,746
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Yes.
    And that is where this reasoning inevitably goes. Its ok to have mandatory eugenics program as long as the reason is "good enough." And of course, what is "good enough" is pretty subjective. It doesn't take a lot to move from your scenario to solving "climate change" with a proposal on limiting the birth rate through eugenics (there are already a half dozen examples of that). How far is it from that to saying that it would be great if it focused on making people smarter (heck you made such a proposal yourself)? Really those ideas aren't that far from the ideas of the 1930s. Once you allow for mandatory eugenic programs there isn't a natural intellectual backstop from ending in concentration camps. They aren't one offs, they are the natural conclusion of that kind of policy.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  13. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Once you allow for mandatory eugenic programs there isn't a natural intellectual backstop from ending in concentration camps. They aren't one offs, they are the natural conclusion of that kind of policy.
    How is that not a slippery slope?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #73
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,746
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    [Opens Facebook PM log where you already made this objection and I responded to it.]

    Cowboy- Slippery slope fallacy.

    Squatch - Ahhhh. Well no. It is only a slippery slope if no argument for why it evolves is presented. I did present an argument for that. The subjectivity of the measure and the historical example of literally this exact thing happening. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html

    [Now, to move us forward a bit I'll also go through the rest of the argument.]

    Cowboy- Your position is there is no possible good reason then?

    Squatch- My position is that the evaluation of good, in your system, is by definition subjective. Thus there is no way to really argue that any reason at all isn't "good"

    Cowboy- I don't see how. Stopping typhoid Mary from working in kitchens is a good even though her ability to make a living was taken away.

    Squatch- Yes. You are using an example that you and I both subjectively agree on. That isn't a good argument though. A good argument tests the boundary conditions of your principle to see if it holds. For example. Would it be a good reason to mandate eugenics to prevent homosexuality? You would clearly say no. The westboro guys would clearly say yes. You've presented no coherent principle to argue that their reason isn't "good." Until you can do that you don't have an argument you are only arguing your personal preference.

    Cowboy- Right, because there is no reason involved in that example...just bigotry, which is not good.

    Squatch- Just emotion. Just as you invoked.
    You have to offer something objective or you've offered nothing at all

    Cowboy- Right, not reason
    A contagious disease is objective
    It's verifiable, no?

    Squatch- It's existence is objective, what our reaction to it should be is not.
    You are talking about reaction not the disease.

    Cowboy- Of course it is. Should people with HIV be donating blood?

    Squatch- Once you use the word should in your world view you are, by definition, invoking subjectivity.

    Cowboy-Right, because of course they can donate blood. Mary was supposedly a fine cook.

    Squatch- Why shouldn't they?

    Cowboy- Because it is dangerous to others. Really all. Being a homosexual isn't dangerous to anyone.

    Squatch- Why is being dangerous to others a bad thing?

    Cowboy- Because being sick is objectively worse than being not sick.

    Squatch- No it isn't. You just added the word objective in their without considering its meaning. How is it objectively worse? And why would it being worse for those people make it objectively bad? It would seem like just a bad thing for them. Which is clearly subjective.

    Cowboy- I don't get how you're saying it's not objective. We're talking about a preventable transmission here. You're saying people choose to be sick?
    Or would choose? "I hope I get typhus next week" ???

    Squatch- No. I'm not sure what you think is objective about it. Even if noone ever wanted to be sick (and we know that isn't the case) it still wouldn't be objective. Objective means a condition whose truth value is unrelated to human perception or interpretation.
    Even if humans all agree that vanilla is better than chocolate it is still a subjective taste value.

    Cowboy-Who wants to be sick?
    That is who actively seeks to make themselves sick?

    Squatch- Besides those with munchausen syndrome? That isn't the point though. Even if no one wanted to be sick it wouldn't be objective. Even if humans all agree that vanilla is better than chocolate it is still a subjective taste value.

    Cowboy- Ok, that's a mental illness and you're using that as a type of overwhelming example. We are talking about decisions predicated upon health concerning the public good.

    Squatch- Even if humans all agree that vanilla is better than chocolate it is still a subjective taste value.

    Cowboy- In that there are objective measures.

    Squatch- They aren't objective, widely agreed upon does not mean objective.

    Cowboy- If I'm serving ice cream at a convention of people who are allergic to chocolate, vanilla is objectively better.

    Squatch- No. It's subjectively better because it is their preference. Even if it is the preference of 100 percent of them it is still a preference. "you should serve vanilla" that statements truth value depends on the taste preference of people. That is literally the definition of subjective. It doesn't get its truth value from some underlying physical law or tautology or anything like that but from your value about pleasing their tastes. If you were, say, a jerk you might say serving them chocolate is a good idea because you like their reaction. If the statement were objectively true no such hypothetical would be possible. You being a jerk or a bad chef or a nice guy is completely irrelevant to 1+1 equalling 2. That is what is meant by objective.

    Cowboy- But its not "taste". I'm there to satisfy an agreed upon predicate...not to make people sick. Knowing they are all allergic to chocolate there is only one solution, serve vanilla.

    Squatch- You are still missing the distinction between subjective and objective. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com...ary-philosophy

    I think once you grasp that you'll see that anything that is "agreed upon" is by definition subjective (you don't agree to objective facts). Looking forward to your response on ODN when your infraction expires.

    Cowboy- Typhus is a dangerous disease isnt a fact?

    Squatch- Please read the link

    Cowboy- I read some of it. True, it's not dangerous to the carrier. But we're talking about public health decisions. You're saying those decisions aren't objectively possible. Right?

    Squatch- Once you can explain why the decision to serve vanilla rather than chocolate is subjective, not objective. Or, more broadly, why any sentence with the term "should" in it is subjective you'll be able to make an argument here.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #74
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Cowboy- If I'm serving ice cream at a convention of people who are allergic to chocolate, vanilla is objectively better.

    Squatch- No. It's subjectively better because it is their preference.

    How is it preference if you can't eat chocolate?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Has technology improved our lives?
    By ArieMangat in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 19th, 2014, 12:52 PM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: September 11th, 2013, 02:35 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2013, 05:46 AM
  4. Replies: 61
    Last Post: January 9th, 2012, 05:37 AM
  5. Valid Forms of Evidence (new improved)
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2006, 06:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •