Morality Is Often Harmful

[bigfield]

You say that evildoers are aincere in their belief that they are doing good.

Making excuses is not sincere.

Explain to me what you mean when you accuse people of being simultaneously sincere and insincere in how they justify their actions to themselves.

If you want a historical example, the Cherokee Trail of Tears. When the Cherokee were taken off of their land they were forced marched and many died. The primary reasons was because it was good for them, for the Cherokee to learn about what it is to be an American, and for the people who took their land, to do so.

...

And all these things are good things, according to the people who support them.

Your first example is a good example of the ambiguity in what you are claiming.

The primary reason that the Cherokee were forcibly removed to a reservation was to make way for the Gold Rush. The Europeans were not interested in the wellbeing of the Cherokee; they were interested in removing an inconvenience. According to the moral codes of European politicians, profit was good and the rights of natives were unimportant.

The claim that it was good for the Cherokee was bullshit: it was just an insincere excuse to appear virtuous and just. The Trail of Tears was not the result of some misguided attempt to help the savages; it was greed disguised as the White Man's Burden.

You are wrong to lump examples like this in with some of your other examples, such as hate speech and anti-discrimination laws, as these are based on a sincere desire to protect people's human rights. By making the comparison, you are accusing modern legislators of using minorities' rights as a mere pretence to achieve some other less noble objective.

Morality is neither good nor evil--it is simply the rules that govern a person's behaviour--and it makes no sense to hate morality or call it crap. You may not like what some people consider righteous but that does not mean that morals are categorically crap or hateworthy.

I also see a pattern in your examples: you have provided multiple instances where people in positions of power lie about their motives to justify their actions. If that is your beef, I totally understand it, but your are giving examples of people masquerading as righteous agents and erroneously blaming it on morality.

 

[Rayschism]

If you want a historical example, the Cherokee Trail of Tears. When the Cherokee were taken off of their land they were forced marched and many died. The primary reasons was because it was good for them, for the Cherokee to learn about what it is to be an American, and for the people who took their land, to do so.

...

And all these things are good things, according to the people who support them.

Your first example is a good example of the ambiguity in what you are claiming.

The primary reason that the Cherokee were forcibly removed to a reservation was to make way for the Gold Rush. The Europeans were not interested in the wellbeing of the Cherokee; they were interested in removing an inconvenience. According to the moral codes of European politicians, profit was good and the rights of natives were unimportant.

The claim that it was good for the Cherokee was bullshit: it was just an insincere excuse to appear virtuous and just. The Trail of Tears was not the result of some misguided attempt to help the savages; it was greed disguised as the White Man's Burden.

You are wrong to lump examples like this in with some of your other examples, such as hate speech and anti-discrimination laws, as these are based on a sincere desire to protect people's human rights. By making the comparison, you are accusing modern legislators of using minorities' rights as a mere pretence to achieve some other less noble objective.

Morality is neither good nor evil--it is simply the rules that govern a person's behaviour--and it makes no sense to hate morality or call it crap. You may not like what some people consider righteous but that does not mean that morals are categorically crap or hateworthy.

I also see a pattern in your examples: you have provided multiple instances where people in positions of power lie about their motives to justify their actions. If that is your beef, I totally understand it, but your are giving examples of people masquerading as righteous agents and erroneously blaming it on morality.

It is indeed those claims of morality that makes things very ambiguous for me.

I could give some personal examples if you like, but those would be anecdotal and therefore dismissed.

 

[bigfield]

It is indeed those claims of morality that makes things very ambiguous for me.

I could give some personal examples if you like, but those would be anecdotal and therefore dismissed.

The examples you've provided are fairly illustrative of your position.

However I want to understand your position with respect to some of the "modern" examples.

You cited Canada's Bill C-16 as an example of harm.

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

Who is being harmed by this bill?

What "excuse" is being given, and by whom?

What is their real motive, in your opinion?

 

[Rayschism]

The examples you've provided are fairly illustrative of your position.

However I want to understand your position with respect to some of the "modern" examples.

You cited Canada's Bill C-16 as an example of harm.

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

Who is being harmed by this bill?

What "excuse" is being given, and by whom?

What is their real motive, in your opinion?

It fines and imprisons people for speaking out against transgendered. How is that not harm? How does it not harm the society? It is a double standard as it protects one group of people over another. Why should one group of people be specially protected over another?

The excuse is that it is to include transgendered people into society. But is there any real truth to that claim? The underlying assumption is that transgendered people have been ostracized from society and need this bill.

And maybe, transgendered people don't want to be part of that society? Wouldn't this bill force them to be part of something they don't want and remove their choice? And would that not count as doing them harm in the name of doing good?

I don't know much about Canada, so I have no real answers for these. I am going by America values of constitutional rights and liberties, which is why I oppose it. Canada doesn't seem to have those same values, at least as far as I know.

Who is this bill really benefiting?

How does this really benefit society in the long run? When you unfairly target people and attempt to displace them, it can only go on for so long until those who are displaced wills tart to fight back.

It is my own personal opinion that this is actually communism. These are the same tactics that communists love to use.

 

[bigfield]

The examples you've provided are fairly illustrative of your position.

However I want to understand your position with respect to some of the "modern" examples.

You cited Canada's Bill C-16 as an example of harm.



Who is being harmed by this bill?

What "excuse" is being given, and by whom?

What is their real motive, in your opinion?

It fines and imprisons people for speaking out against transgendered. How is that not harm? How does it not harm the society? It is a double standard as it protects one group of people over another. Why should one group of people be specially protected over another?

The excuse is that it is to include transgendered people into society. But is there any real truth to that claim? The underlying assumption is that transgendered people have been ostracized from society and need this bill.

And maybe, transgendered people don't want to be part of that society? Wouldn't this bill force them to be part of something they don't want and remove their choice? And would that not count as doing them harm in the name of doing good?

I don't know much about Canada, so I have no real answers for these. I am going by America values of constitutional rights and liberties, which is why I oppose it. Canada doesn't seem to have those same values, at least as far as I know.

Who is this bill really benefiting?

How does this really benefit society in the long run? When you unfairly target people and attempt to displace them, it can only go on for so long until those who are displaced wills tart to fight back.

It is my own personal opinion that this is actually communism. These are the same tactics that communists love to use.

I'm not an American, and the Cold War ended before I learned how to tie my shoes, so I don't understand what you think it is that communists do. It would help if you could be more specific about what tactics you're talking about.

You've said that the excuse for C-16 is to "include transgendered people into society". How does their real motive differ from this?

 

[none]

Why should transgender folks be discriminated against harassed beaten and killed, what is the policy here

 

[Rayschism]

It fines and imprisons people for speaking out against transgendered. How is that not harm? How does it not harm the society? It is a double standard as it protects one group of people over another. Why should one group of people be specially protected over another?

The excuse is that it is to include transgendered people into society. But is there any real truth to that claim? The underlying assumption is that transgendered people have been ostracized from society and need this bill.

And maybe, transgendered people don't want to be part of that society? Wouldn't this bill force them to be part of something they don't want and remove their choice? And would that not count as doing them harm in the name of doing good?

I don't know much about Canada, so I have no real answers for these. I am going by America values of constitutional rights and liberties, which is why I oppose it. Canada doesn't seem to have those same values, at least as far as I know.

Who is this bill really benefiting?

How does this really benefit society in the long run? When you unfairly target people and attempt to displace them, it can only go on for so long until those who are displaced wills tart to fight back.

It is my own personal opinion that this is actually communism. These are the same tactics that communists love to use.

I'm not an American, and the Cold War ended before I learned how to tie my shoes, so I don't understand what you think it is that communists do. It would help if you could be more specific about what tactics you're talking about.

You've said that the excuse for C-16 is to "include transgendered people into society". How does their real motive differ from this?

One of the tactics that communists and others like them love to use is to make things up and lie, be very loud about it, and be very disruptive about it, and sometimes use violence and destroy property about it. Keep doing it until the powers that be pass legislation, which then begins to erode rights and liberty.

And another is to turn the country's disenfranchised and minority groups against the majority groups.

If you want a book on those tactics, one such book is Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinski.

The real motive to is to install some sort of tyranny with them in control, using transgendered people is this smokescreen, in my own personal opinion.

And as far as not discriminating against, them,why must their own pronouns be used if you won't use the words of non transgendered people, father, mother, he or she. That is not ending discrimination, that is a special privilege.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm not an American, and the Cold War ended before I learned how to tie my shoes, so I don't understand what you think it is that communists do. It would help if you could be more specific about what tactics you're talking about.

You've said that the excuse for C-16 is to "include transgendered people into society". How does their real motive differ from this?

One of the tactics that communists and others like them love to use is to make things up and lie, be very loud about it, and be very disruptive about it, and sometimes use violence and destroy property about it. Keep doing it until the powers that be pass legislation, which then begins to erode rights and liberty.

And another is to turn the country's disenfranchised and minority groups against the majority groups.

If you want a book on those tactics, one such book is Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinski.

The real motive to is to install some sort of tyranny with them in control, using transgendered people is this smokescreen, in my own personal opinion.

And as far as not discriminating against, them,why must their own pronouns be used if you won't use the words of non transgendered people, father, mother, he or she. That is not ending discrimination, that is a special privilege.

None of the communists I know do that sort of thing. Have you observed this kind of thing, yourself?

 

[Rayschism]

One of the tactics that communists and others like them love to use is to make things up and lie, be very loud about it, and be very disruptive about it, and sometimes use violence and destroy property about it. Keep doing it until the powers that be pass legislation, which then begins to erode rights and liberty.

And another is to turn the country's disenfranchised and minority groups against the majority groups.

If you want a book on those tactics, one such book is Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinski.

The real motive to is to install some sort of tyranny with them in control, using transgendered people is this smokescreen, in my own personal opinion.

And as far as not discriminating against, them,why must their own pronouns be used if you won't use the words of non transgendered people, father, mother, he or she. That is not ending discrimination, that is a special privilege.

None of the communists I know do that sort of thing. Have you observed this kind of thing, yourself?

It's happening all across America right now.

And of course they wouldn't claim do that. They never claim they do that, but will always use misleading language to hide it, like how torture becomes advanced interrogation techniques.

Now, I have no more to say on the matter. Thank you for the conservation.

 

[Bronzeage]

None of the communists I know do that sort of thing. Have you observed this kind of thing, yourself?

It's happening all across America right now.

And of course they wouldn't claim do that. They never claim they do that, but will always use misleading language to hide it, like how torture becomes advanced interrogation techniques.

Now, I have no more to say on the matter. Thank you for the conservation.

So, it appears you have no evidence of this and are relying on vague anecdotes. The question is, has a communist ever lied to you, or do you have some kind of documented evidence of one lying to someone else?

 

[Rayschism]

People need to stop asking for evidence when they know they will never accept it or spin when presented.

This thread is not about communism, I would appreciate it if we could get back to the original topic please.

Thanks.

 

[Keith&Co.]

People need to stop asking for evidence when they know they will never accept it or spin when presented.

This thread is not about communism, I would appreciate it if we could get back to the original topic please.

Thanks.

So, you're clearly unable to support your claim about what communists do.
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig surprise.

 

[Rayschism]

People need to stop asking for evidence when they know they will never accept it or spin when presented.

This thread is not about communism, I would appreciate it if we could get back to the original topic please.

Thanks.

So, you're clearly unable to support your claim about what communists do.
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig surprise.

<snip>

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, you're clearly unable to support your claim about what communists do.
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig surprise.

<snip>

odd that simply replying to you is stressing you out so very much.

Who was it that brought communism into this discussion?

 

[Rayschism]

<snip>

odd that simply replying to you is stressing you out so very much.

Who was it that brought communism into this discussion?

<snip>

 

[Keith&Co.]

odd that simply replying to you is stressing you out so very much.

Who was it that brought communism into this discussion?

<snip>

And apparently, by posting a reply, you're helpless but to heap even more invective upon me. Is that what you mean by 'controlling' you? That _I_ won't stop posting, so you can't?



Well, maybe I misspoke. It's not 'more' invective.

Just the same vulgarities over and over and over and over and over and over... Whoever told you that you have a 'way with words' was not your friend. I think they were making fun of you.

 

[Rayschism]

You're a fucking liar and a fucking piece of shit person.

And apparently, by posting a reply, you're helpless but to heap even more invective upon me. Is that what you mean by 'controlling' you? That _I_ won't stop posting, so you can't?



Well, maybe I misspoke. It's not 'more' invective.

Just the same vulgarities over and over and over and over and over and over... Whoever told you that you have a 'way with words' was not your friend. I think they were making fun of you.

<snip>

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think that's all i'm going to get out of you because that's all you've got: Name-calling.
It seems like whenever ANYONE asks you to support your claim, you fold like a ripe banana.

And i really love how asking you to support your name-calling is repeating a lie. That there's mature logic gold, Rayschism.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Wow. That was...interesting. Did someone use the wrong pronoun or something?

 

[Rayschism]

So, the anatomy of it:

Present something for discussion.

Asked to clarify
Present examples to the best of my ability, as well as to be fair

Question my examples without responding over and ove4r again.

Which of course is just to try to find a weakness in my discussion.
Then when I have no more to say.

It's "you can't provide evidence so you're a piece of shit."

Nope. You people were out to mess with me from the get go and were no interested in any kind of open and honest discussion.

Freethought, yeah, right.