Edinburgh University renames David Hume Tower

[Angra Mainyu]

You are mistaken.

On the second one, no, it's not a matter of opinion, as moral matters are not a matter of opinion. Someone is mistaken.

There are people who claim moral matters are a matter of opinion. But whether a tower's name should be changed hardly seems a moral matter to me.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion whether the stated reasons are bad, but no one is required to accept your analysis/opinion as valid.

It is a moral matter since the people who removed it believe it was morally right (permissible or obligatory), whereas those who oppose it believe it was morally wrong, so someone is mistaken (and no, I'm not mistaken about your assessment that people "would think that a structure's name should never change"; there is no evidence in this thread to even suspect that).

 

[Bronzeage]

I read that Martin Luther king was a serial adulterer, and possibly worse. Down with Martin Luther King and all his statues! Rename all 1000 streets in the US named after him! Cleanse and purify!

Fortunately for Dr. King, society's attitude toward adultery and adulterers has softened significantly. It is within living memory that it was believed a divorced man could never be elected President of the United States.

 

[Gospel]

I read that Martin Luther king was a serial adulterer, and possibly worse. Down with Martin Luther King and all his statues! Rename all 1000 streets in the US named after him! Cleanse and purify!

His time will come too granted the empire sticks around to see it.

 

[laughing dog]

You are mistaken.

On the second one, no, it's not a matter of opinion, as moral matters are not a matter of opinion. Someone is mistaken.

There are people who claim moral matters are a matter of opinion. But whether a tower's name should be changed hardly seems a moral matter to me.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion whether the stated reasons are bad, but no one is required to accept your analysis/opinion as valid.

It is a moral matter since the people who removed it believe it was morally right (permissible or obligatory), whereas those who oppose it believe it was morally wrong, so someone is mistaken (and no, I'm not mistaken about your assessment that people "would think that a structure's name should never change"; there is no evidence in this thread to even suspect that).

You are mistaken about not being mistaken - I used history and my moral intuition.

 

[Trausti]

I read that Martin Luther king was a serial adulterer, and possibly worse. Down with Martin Luther King and all his statues! Rename all 1000 streets in the US named after him! Cleanse and purify!

Fortunately for Dr. King, society's attitude toward adultery and adulterers has softened significantly. It is within living memory that it was believed a divorced man could never be elected President of the United States.

But did he say something that would get him cancelled in 2024?

 

[bilby]

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel

This sounds like the first half of a funny quatrain.

ETA:

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel;
He could pound an ox and still eat lox
Spread lavishly on a bagel.

And/or it might be the bones of a good limerick.

It's a much loved classic.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SqQNgDrgg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ruby sparks]

.... moral matters are not a matter of opinion.

Good to see the full extent of this claim being stated.

 

[J842P]

I read that Martin Luther king was a serial adulterer, and possibly worse. Down with Martin Luther King and all his statues! Rename all 1000 streets in the US named after him! Cleanse and purify!

Fortunately for Dr. King, society's attitude toward adultery and adulterers has softened significantly. It is within living memory that it was believed a divorced man could never be elected President of the United States.

Mmmm it's a bit more than adultery, I'm afraid. Apparently, him and a bunch of his fellow preachers would take advantage of parishioners. The worst allegation from the secret FBI files, of which transcripts but not the original audio have been released, is that King looked on and laughed and offered advice as one of these parishioners was forcibly raped by pastor Logan Kearse after she said she didn't approve.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/martin-luther-king-laughed-rape-friend-fbi-documents-145714868.html

Sooo not great.

 

[WAB]

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel

This sounds like the first half of a funny quatrain.

ETA:

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel;
He could pound an ox and still eat lox
Spread lavishly on a bagel.

And/or it might be the bones of a good limerick.

Good God, it's from Python, and I dont remember it. And I love the Bruces. For shame. But I must admit, I like my quatrain better.

 

[WAB]

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel

This sounds like the first half of a funny quatrain.

ETA:

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel;
He could pound an ox and still eat lox
Spread lavishly on a bagel.

And/or it might be the bones of a good limerick.

It's a much loved classic.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SqQNgDrgg[/YOUTUBE]

Yes, I just noticed. And I love this sketch. Didn't recall the lyric though.

 

[ronburgundy]

"I am apt to suspect the negroes to be naturally inferior to the whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation."

Where is the lie?

Wow. That's next level white supremacy, right there. You are agreeing with a claim that there isn't a single black person worthy of respect in their actions or ideas.

 

[ruby sparks]

"I am apt to suspect the negroes to be naturally inferior to the whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation."

Where is the lie?

I bolded it for you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is a moral matter since the people who removed it believe it was morally right (permissible or obligatory), whereas those who oppose it believe it was morally wrong, so someone is mistaken (and no, I'm not mistaken about your assessment that people "would think that a structure's name should never change"; there is no evidence in this thread to even suspect that).

You are mistaken about not being mistaken - I used history and my moral intuition.

And you got that wrong, as you usually do (I'm also using history) when you attribute to your opponents beliefs and intentions that they do not have and/or that you have no good reason to believe they have.

 

[Rhea]

It’s an interesting converstation to watch when someone complains that the name of a building is critical for the knowledge of history.

How many building names do many of us even know? Is that how we learned about Hume? How does a buiding name teach about the complex topics Hume was said to have pioneered? How is someone “canceled” if they suddenly no longer have a building named after them? Why do we name buildings after people anyway? (Or post offices, or highways, or library stacks rooms, or bar stools?)

And what does “cancel culture” even mean? I sense that it’s some rally cry for fragility, but not positive?

 

[laughing dog]

It is a moral matter since the people who removed it believe it was morally right (permissible or obligatory), whereas those who oppose it believe it was morally wrong, so someone is mistaken (and no, I'm not mistaken about your assessment that people "would think that a structure's name should never change"; there is no evidence in this thread to even suspect that).

You are mistaken about not being mistaken - I used history and my moral intuition.

And you got that wrong, as you usually do (I'm also using history) when you attribute to your opponents beliefs and intentions that they do not have and/or that you have no good reason to believe they have.

I am sure the irony of your response is lost on you. You cannot possibly know what all I have read or seen at this forum. Or know how my moral intuition works. Your faith in your omniscience is unfounded.

It is possible my observation about building name changes is wrong but that does not mean I have no basis for it. As usual, your position is poorly reasoned.

 

[Arctish]

"I am apt to suspect the negroes to be naturally inferior to the whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation."

Where is the lie?

It's not necessarily a lie. It might just be ignorance. Or it could be a No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Jayjay]

Is it reasonable to revert the building to "40 George Square", as if kings George I-IV were some sort of paragons of humanism and anti-racism?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And you got that wrong, as you usually do (I'm also using history) when you attribute to your opponents beliefs and intentions that they do not have and/or that you have no good reason to believe they have.

I am sure the irony of your response is lost on you. You cannot possibly know what all I have read or seen at this forum. Or know how my moral intuition works. Your faith in your omniscience is unfounded.

It is possible my observation about building name changes is wrong but that does not mean I have no basis for it. As usual, your position is poorly reasoned.

I have read this forum long enough to tell that:

1. You regularly make assessments about your opponent's beliefs and/or intentions that their posts do not indicate, and further, even when they provided evidence of just the opposite. You do that persistently, over many years.
2. Your moral assessments are often wrong because of the above.

 

[laughing dog]

And you got that wrong, as you usually do (I'm also using history) when you attribute to your opponents beliefs and intentions that they do not have and/or that you have no good reason to believe they have.

I am sure the irony of your response is lost on you. You cannot possibly know what all I have read or seen at this forum. Or know how my moral intuition works. Your faith in your omniscience is unfounded.

It is possible my observation about building name changes is wrong but that does not mean I have no basis for it. As usual, your position is poorly reasoned.

I have read this forum long enough to tell that:

1. You regularly make assessments about your opponent's beliefs and/or intentions that their posts do not indicate, and further, even when they provided evidence of just the opposite. You do that persistently, over many years.
2. Your moral assessments are often wrong because of the above.

The irony of your responses is clearly lost on you. You regularly appear to believe your opinions or assessments are infallible when they are clearly wrong (like the two above).

Whether or not an observation or conclusion is accurate/correct or not is immaterial to the issue of whether or not someone has a basis for making such an observation or drawing a conclusion. Your claim that I had no basis is arrogant epistemlogical irrationality.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I have read this forum long enough to tell that:

1. You regularly make assessments about your opponent's beliefs and/or intentions that their posts do not indicate, and further, even when they provided evidence of just the opposite. You do that persistently, over many years.
2. Your moral assessments are often wrong because of the above.

The irony of your responses is clearly lost on you. You regularly appear to believe your opinions or assessments are infallible when they are clearly wrong (like the two above).

Whether or not an observation or conclusion is accurate/correct or not is immaterial to the issue of whether or not someone has a basis for making such an observation or drawing a conclusion. Your claim that I had no basis is arrogant epistemlogical irrationality.

No, I'm familiar enough with the posts of the regular in this forum and with yours to know you had no basis (and I don't mean you don't have beliefs in your head that you think provide a basis; I'm saying you have no basis considering what the people you accuse actually say).