• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I Discriminate

Fair enough, please explain.



Given your contributions elsewhere I'm hardly inclined to believe that you're prepared to engage in a substantive conversation about this, thus your drive-by comment.

But if you want to discuss political philosophy I'm certainly willing to do so.

Clearly my position sides, you'll agree, more with Nietzschean anti-egalitarianism and equality being more of a useful value rather than an inherent value and as such it might be in disagreement with the overly broad concept of fundamental equality espoused by the Declaration, but you'll also agree that the Declaration isn't law and has no real bearing on the United States or how its governed beyond being an interesting and important, though essentially impotent, historic document.

So, no, I'm not going to post a new OP.

I'm going to stick with Nietzsche and the U.S. Constitution and argue for the acceptability and even the desirability of inequality.

What???

Well, number one: your quote of the declaration and saying a blind man is not equal is horribly out of context. Secondly, Nietzsche may have written that egalitarianism is mediocre and has no draw, but such a mundane idea is the bedrock of our foundation in the US. We believe it to BE an inherent value and thus a given society based on democratic principles opens up an equal footing. Anti-egalitarianism if found in Objectivism and Darwinism; while Darwin's principle of survival of the fittest is the natural state, Objectivism is a social construct not necessarily base on discrimination.

Society is based on shared value, and thus discrimination goes from a natural phenomena to a social one as Nietzsche also points out which is where anti egalitarianism creeps in and creates social distemper. Now if you are strictly an anarchist, then you live in lonely world, or perhaps you should buy your own country. "Discrimination" as you are describing it however is a personal philosophy and has nothing to do with the declaration.
 
I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

As much as anything I guess, or at least this is, in my opinion, the best sub-forum for it.

Anyhow, I just read it and I thought, "Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense".



I certainly think that there are grounds upon which it is asinine to discriminate, I have my definition of what those criteria might be and you have yours.

But to argue that "all men are equal" is ridiculous.

I would even go so far as to say that the notion that "all men are created equal" is ridiculous if interpreted broadly enough.

A man who is born blind, for instance, isn't equal to a man with perfect vision, under all and any circumstances.

For certain purposes it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against that blind man.

Anyhow, the article certainly places a particular, I guess you'd call it "conservative" slant on the topic, but I would think that you could put a "liberal" slant on it as well.

It's not only perfectly normal to discriminate, but perfectly acceptable, and the idea that all of society should be perfectly nondiscriminatory is fallacious on its face.

I'm going to take a little more pride in my discriminatory nature.


Discrimination is nothing more that using your instincts and past experience to judge the possibility of negative consequence. Discrimination is the process of measuring the probability of positive or negative outcome of a situation.
Where discrimination becomes a problem is when it is based on illogical assumptions. Illogical assumptions will cause the entire process of discrimination to become skewed and based on uneducated criteria.

To say that discrimination in itself is somehow morally wrong is as ignorant as discrimination based on illogical assumptions.
 
Discrimination is nothing more that using your instincts and past experience to judge the possibility of negative consequence. Discrimination is the process of measuring the probability of positive or negative outcome of a situation.
Where discrimination becomes a problem is when it is based on illogical assumptions. Illogical assumptions will cause the entire process of discrimination to become skewed and based on uneducated criteria.

To say that discrimination in itself is somehow morally wrong is as ignorant as discrimination based on illogical assumptions.

Well said!
 
The meaning behind men being created equal is that no man is created to be another mans master or another mans slave. Other than that, I agree with your post.

This is correct. All men were born with equal natural rights. That in no way means we all have the same capabilities.
 
This is correct. All men were born with equal natural rights. That in no way means we all have the same capabilities.

THere are no such thing as 'natural rights'. That is merely a metaphysical concept that is conceptual.

What is also conceptual , but has a theoretical objective basis is all people are born in our socieity with equal legal rights, In practice, it is the golden rule tho (he who has the gold makes the rules)
 
I find it interesting that many "smart" apps/software are almost universally designed to collect data about people and groups and filter [everything] based on that data. No surprise, discrimination is an evolutionary survival adaptation.

Discrimination in the general sense is not what usually is an issue when it comes to discrimination laws. It's usually related to freedom to engage the economy without race, gender, religious etc. being used to refuse service or employment.
 
I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

As much as anything I guess, or at least this is, in my opinion, the best sub-forum for it.

Anyhow, I just read it and I thought, "Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense".



I certainly think that there are grounds upon which it is asinine to discriminate, I have my definition of what those criteria might be and you have yours.

But to argue that "all men are equal" is ridiculous.

I would even go so far as to say that the notion that "all men are created equal" is ridiculous if interpreted broadly enough.

A man who is born blind, for instance, isn't equal to a man with perfect vision, under all and any circumstances.

For certain purposes it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against that blind man.

Anyhow, the article certainly places a particular, I guess you'd call it "conservative" slant on the topic, but I would think that you could put a "liberal" slant on it as well.

It's not only perfectly normal to discriminate, but perfectly acceptable, and the idea that all of society should be perfectly nondiscriminatory is fallacious on its face.

I'm going to take a little more pride in my discriminatory nature.

I think youve demonstrated a complete inability to discriminate between Absolute and Literal Equality and Equality in Rights
 
THere are no such thing as 'natural rights'. That is merely a metaphysical concept that is conceptual.

What is also conceptual , but has a theoretical objective basis is all people are born in our socieity with equal legal rights, In practice, it is the golden rule tho (he who has the gold makes the rules)

Idiotic statement... Of course there is no such thing as natural rights, natural rights are not a thing, it is a concept. That is not to say concepts are not real, if you maintain concepts are not real then there is no such thing a freedom, love, justice, marriage, or any social construct. To deny that mans social constructs are real is simply refusing to accept reality.
 
Idiotic statement... Of course there is no such thing as natural rights, natural rights are not a thing, it is a concept. That is not to say concepts are not real, if you maintain concepts are not real then there is no such thing a freedom, love, justice, marriage, or any social construct. To deny that mans social constructs are real is simply refusing to accept reality.

It also makes it subjective, not objective, so there are people who could say that 'The category called natural rights are not really rights are all'.
 
It also makes it subjective, not objective, so there are people who could say that 'The category called natural rights are not really rights are all'.

Those people would be morons....
 
I find it interesting that many "smart" apps/software are almost universally designed to collect data about people and groups and filter [everything] based on that data. No surprise, discrimination is an evolutionary survival adaptation.

Interesting, but totally irrelevant. An app has no ability to do anything beyond making calculations.
 
Those people would be morons....

Can you back that up with , you know, something other than rhetoric and opinion?
 
Those people would be morons....

Point me towards an innately 'objective set of rights'. By that I mean that they are not a set of rights that might have been arrived at objectively or a set of rights that have been subjectively adopted as objective including rights that have been prescribed by a supernatural entity.
 
Can you back that up with , you know, something other than rhetoric and opinion?

At the point a human being "declares" something, that declaration becomes reality until it can be refuted. At the beginning of this country the Americans "declared" their freedom from the King of England. That freedom contained within it certain natural rights which when combined created freedom. If you do not understand that concept you are poorly educated and need to do something to offset the years of counterproductive public education...

In case you are interested some of those "natural rights" include the right to life, the right to self protection, the right to free speech, the right to keep what you have earned, the right to reproduction, the right to pursue ones path to happiness, and the right to do as one pleases so long as your actions do not impose on the right of anyone else to do likewise.
 
At the point a human being "declares" something, that declaration becomes reality until it can be refuted. At the beginning of this country the Americans "declared" their freedom from the King of England. That freedom contained within it certain natural rights which when combined created freedom. If you do not understand that concept you are poorly educated and need to do something to offset the years of counterproductive public education...

In case you are interested some of those "natural rights" include the right to life, the right to self protection, the right to free speech, the right to keep what you have earned, the right to reproduction, the right to pursue ones path to happiness, and the right to do as one pleases so long as your actions do not impose on the right of anyone else to do likewise.

Well, that seems to be opinion and rhetoric to me. I guess that you can't, since making an opinion is not the same as supporting it.
 
Well, that seems to be opinion and rhetoric to me. I guess that you can't, since making an opinion is not the same as supporting it.

I am not sure what it is you do not understand, it is fairly elementary, but comprehension is something you cannot expect from anyone educated by our public school system.
 
I am not sure what it is you do not understand, it is fairly elementary, but comprehension is something you cannot expect from anyone educated by our public school system.

Very odd.. you do not seem to understand the differnce between a claim, and evidence for a claim.. yet, you talk about 'comprehension'.. How quite strange. Do you not comprehend that there is a difference between rhetoric and evidence?? You provided rhetoric, but no evidence. "Because I said so" is not supporting a claim.

You have not shown that natural rights are anything more than 'Because I said so'. Repeating a claim does not make the claim true.
 
Very odd.. you do not seem to understand the differnce between a claim, and evidence for a claim.. yet, you talk about 'comprehension'.. How quite strange. Do you not comprehend that there is a difference between rhetoric and evidence?? You provided rhetoric, but no evidence. "Because I said so" is not supporting a claim.

You have not shown that natural rights are anything more than 'Because I said so'. Repeating a claim does not make the claim true.

Do you believe you are free?
 
Back
Top Bottom