White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo was paid 70 percent more than a black woman for the same job

[laughing dog]

Where do we have a resume study that used names of the same educational level?

Do you mean "names perceived by bigots to have the same educational level"?

The data on names vs educational level is solid. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it go away.

Your double standard is showing - uncritically accepting the results of social science that are consistent with your beliefs while hand waving the results that do not.

More importantly, your point is irrelevant to the discussion about the cv study since the educational levels were identical - only the names were different.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People will still have their response to the name even when it disagrees with the resume.

Loren, I'm going to be absolutely level with you: this is absolutely racism. Not a little bit either. It's like when someone says "I'm not racist, but...".

It's not ambiguous or even unclear. It's just right out there, implying that someone having a response to someone's NAME could ever be a justifiable thing to allow of anyone for whom anyone would hold enduring respect for.

It creates a sort of economic predestination, a generational curse, that you tacitly accept, without objection, remedy, or redress.

This is one of those moments, and I say this honestly and without malice or hate or derision, but rather because I find myself actually caring about your well-being and integrity, that you need to read this post of yours a number of times and figure out why it is bad, and why you should feel bad for having thought it, let alone having said it.

I know you are capable of this introspection. I say this as someone who would see you one day as a friend. Please.

Since the study that used names of similar educational levels did not find the discrimination it's clear it's about names, not about race. If people really were discriminating against black names that other study would have found the same pattern, but it didn't. Once again race turns out merely to be a proxy.

When again and again evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny one should be very skeptical of more of the same.

 

[Trausti]

The data on names vs educational level is solid. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it go away.

Your double standard is showing - uncritically accepting the results of social science that are consistent with your beliefs while hand waving the results that do not.

More importantly, your point is irrelevant to the discussion about the cv study since the educational levels were identical - only the names were different.

But has that study been replicated since 2004?

 

[Metaphor]

Thoughts are not immoral, you woke puritan.

Immoral simply means not conforming to norms of morality, so thoughts can be moral or immoral. Your claim is absurd.

Thoughts are beyond the scope of morality. Calling thoughts moral or immoral is like saying differential equations do not conform to French table manners.

What is immoral is pretending thoughts are immoral just to argue with me. I think you should convert to Roman Catholicism, laughing dog. They love pretending thoughts can be immoral, too.

 

[Metaphor]

Thoughts are not immoral, you woke puritan.

Immoral simply means not conforming to norms of morality, so thoughts can be moral or immoral. Your claim is absurd.

Like seriously, if I think the "N-Word" in an invasive response to a person of color being obnoxious, loud, and imposing, I have a couple different internal responses available, the most significant of which being to ignore it, or self-chastise. If I ignore it, that signals that this is a fine way for me to be thinking. Assuming you don't want to be having that though pop up, having some response that makes having such thoughts onerous to have will be the prescription.

This implies that the thought itself can absolutely be immoral (that which you as a person do not wish to be).

What a thought cannot be is unethical (that which you ought not impose on others unilaterally), mostly because a thought unsaid doesn't actually impose on others.

I don't think norms enter into it, and will not accept such an imposition of "norms", as that is patently unethical to expect of me.

I expect people to be ethical. I respect people who are moral.

Metaphor frequently demonstrates an intractability when asked to do either thing, though.

Jarhyn has used his personal philosophical language to redefine 'moral'. By his reasoning, obsessive compulsive thoughts are immoral. I hope Jarhyn isn't a therapist of any kind.

But then, I don't expect Jarhyn to be coherent. He's never demonstrated it before.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm just saying it's discrimination based on low-education names rather than on race. Once again, race turns out to simply be a proxy for socioeconomic status.

There is literally so much evidence of racism being at least a factor, from a whole raft of studies of different types made over time, much of it that you have been shown previously, that it's just embarrassing to read your incessant nonsense.

Granted, the amount may be less than some assert, but that's all. Less than some claim. Not by any means a non-existent factor, or explained away by socio-economics instead, which are inter-related in any case.

 

[ZiprHead]

Thoughts are beyond the scope of morality.

What? You have not heard that the law takes intent very seriously?

I guess the concept of mens rea doesn't really exist in law.

 

[ruby sparks]

Thoughts are beyond the scope of morality.

What? You have not heard that the law takes intent very seriously?

I guess the concept of mens rea doesn't really exist in law.

Indeed. Sorry, I deleted my post because....I couldn't be bothered having a discussion about it.

 

[laughing dog]

Thoughts are not immoral, you woke puritan.

Immoral simply means not conforming to norms of morality, so thoughts can be moral or immoral. Your claim is absurd.

Thoughts are beyond the scope of morality.

In your universe, what is the scope of morality? In this one, thoughts are clearly within the scope of morality. As others have pointed out, intent (i.e. thought) is part of the law.

 

[Metaphor]

Thoughts are beyond the scope of morality.

In your universe, what is the scope of morality? In this one, thoughts are clearly within the scope of morality. As others have pointed out, intent (i.e. thought) is part of the law.

In this universe, laughing dog. Morality is about behaviour and conduct, not the involuntary firing of synapses in your brain. But hey, why not break bread with religionists and the Inner Party? Remember, thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death.

 

[laughing dog]

Thoughts are beyond the scope of morality.

In your universe, what is the scope of morality? In this one, thoughts are clearly within the scope of morality. As others have pointed out, intent (i.e. thought) is part of the law.

In this universe, laughing dog. Morality is about behaviour and conduct, not the involuntary firing of synapses in your brain.

You live in a different universe, because in this one, intent (which is thought) is part of judging the morality of an action.

But hey, why not break bread with religionists and the Inner Party? Remember, thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death.

Perhaps in your universe that incoherence makes sense, but not in this one.

 

[Metaphor]

You live in a different universe, because in this one, intent (which is thought) is part of judging the morality of an action.

Intent is part of the judging of an action because actions need to be wilful to be immoral. However, intent being a necessary component of judging an action's morality does not mean thoughts are moral or immoral. That is a fallacy of composition.

 

[Jarhyn]

In this universe, laughing dog. Morality is about behaviour and conduct, not the involuntary firing of synapses in your brain.

You live in a different universe, because in this one, intent (which is thought) is part of judging the morality of an action.

But hey, why not break bread with religionists and the Inner Party? Remember, thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death.

Perhaps in your universe that incoherence makes sense, but not in this one.

Like, I don't get how he doesn't understand that punishing yourself for a thought (having morals) vs being punished for something you actually did (having ethics expected of you), are very different things.

 

[laughing dog]

You live in a different universe, because in this one, intent (which is thought) is part of judging the morality of an action.

Intent is part of the judging of an action because actions need to be wilful to be immoral. However, intent being a necessary component of judging an action's morality does not mean thoughts are moral or immoral. That is a fallacy of composition.

Since the intent is what makes the action moral or immoral so of course the thought is moral or immoral.

Anyway, I am not going to waste my time or derail this thread with another pointless interchange. I started a thread in Morals and Philosophy about this.

 

[Metaphor]

Since the intent is what makes the action moral or immoral so of course the thought is moral or immoral.

Um, no.

An oven was necessary to make cake batter into delicious cake, so an oven is delicious cake.

Iodine tablets makes creek water drinkable, so iodine tablets are drinkable.

A driving test is required to get a driving license, so a driving test is a driving license.

Blue paint is what makes yellow paint turn green, so blue paint is green.

 

[Metaphor]

You live in a different universe, because in this one, intent (which is thought) is part of judging the morality of an action.
Perhaps in your universe that incoherence makes sense, but not in this one.

Like, I don't get how he doesn't understand that punishing yourself for a thought (having morals) vs being punished for something you actually did (having ethics expected of you), are very different things.

Punishing yourself for having a thought is the mindset of a depraved religious zealot. Have fun pumpkin.

 

[laughing dog]

Thoughts are not immoral, you woke puritan.

Immoral simply means not conforming to norms of morality, so thoughts can be moral or immoral. Your claim is absurd.

Thoughts are beyond the scope of morality. Calling thoughts moral or immoral is like saying differential equations do not conform to French table manners.

What is immoral is pretending thoughts are immoral just to argue with me. I think you should convert to Roman Catholicism, laughing dog. They love pretending thoughts can be immoral, too.

Since the intent is what makes the action moral or immoral so of course the thought is moral or immoral.

Um, no.

An oven was necessary to make cake batter into delicious cake, so an oven is delicious cake.

Iodine tablets makes creek water drinkable, so iodine tablets are drinkable.

A driving test is required to get a driving license, so a driving test is a driving license.

Blue paint is what makes yellow paint turn green, so blue paint is green.

Moronic analogies ate a sign of desperation.. not an argument.

 

[Metaphor]

Thoughts are beyond the scope of morality. Calling thoughts moral or immoral is like saying differential equations do not conform to French table manners.

What is immoral is pretending thoughts are immoral just to argue with me. I think you should convert to Roman Catholicism, laughing dog. They love pretending thoughts can be immoral, too.

Since the intent is what makes the action moral or immoral so of course the thought is moral or immoral.

Um, no.

An oven was necessary to make cake batter into delicious cake, so an oven is delicious cake.

Iodine tablets makes creek water drinkable, so iodine tablets are drinkable.

A driving test is required to get a driving license, so a driving test is a driving license.

Blue paint is what makes yellow paint turn green, so blue paint is green.

Moronic analogies ate a sign of desperation.. not an argument.

The fact that the analogies seem absurd things to say speaks to how absurd your idea was, and the fact that you cannot see how it immediately disproves your conjecture is a sign that you are unwilling to let go of faulty ideas.

'X' (intent) is necessary to make 'Y' (an action) be called 'Z' (immoral). Therefore, 'X' is 'Z'.

Since the intent is what makes the action moral or immoral so of course the thought is moral or immoral.

 

[laughing dog]

Since the intent is what makes the action moral or immoral so of course the thought is moral or immoral.

Um, no.

An oven was necessary to make cake batter into delicious cake, so an oven is delicious cake.

Iodine tablets makes creek water drinkable, so iodine tablets are drinkable.

A driving test is required to get a driving license, so a driving test is a driving license.

Blue paint is what makes yellow paint turn green, so blue paint is green.

Moronic analogies ate a sign of desperation.. not an argument.

The fact that the analogies seem absurd things to say speaks to how absurd your idea was, and the fact that you cannot see how it immediately disproves your conjecture is a sign that you are unwilling to let go of faulty ideas.

I did not say the analogies were absurd, I said they were moronic. Making that correction, your argument is valid only under the false assumption your analogies are not moronic. Each one of your analogies is a form of "X means Y and Y means Z, so X=Z" which is not even close to my argument.

 

[Metaphor]

Um, no.

An oven was necessary to make cake batter into delicious cake, so an oven is delicious cake.

Iodine tablets makes creek water drinkable, so iodine tablets are drinkable.

A driving test is required to get a driving license, so a driving test is a driving license.

Blue paint is what makes yellow paint turn green, so blue paint is green.

Moronic analogies ate a sign of desperation.. not an argument.

The fact that the analogies seem absurd things to say speaks to how absurd your idea was, and the fact that you cannot see how it immediately disproves your conjecture is a sign that you are unwilling to let go of faulty ideas.

I did not say the analogies were absurd, I said they were moronic. Making that correction, your argument is valid only under the false assumption your analogies are not moronic. Each one of your analogies is a form of "X means Y and Y means Z, so X=Z" which is not even close to my argument.

Not one of my analogies was of that form. Like, not a single one.

Iodine tablets makes (not is or means) creek water drinkable, so iodine tablets are drinkable.

You said that thoughts are what makes an action moral or immoral, and then you made the moronic conclusion that this means thoughts must be moral or immoral.

It doesn't follow laughing dog, any more than iodine tablets making creek water (an action or behavioural event) drinkable (moral) means that iodine tablets have the same property 'drinkable'. Causing a property to exist in another object doesn't mean the cause must contain the property itself. It just does not follow. It does not follow. It does not follow.

Yeast is necessary to make bread fluffy, but yeast is not fluffy. Yeast does not have the property that it caused bread to have.