Why are "refugees" still having children?

[Angra Mainyu]

laughing dog,

True. Notice how easy it is without all that intervening, mind-numbing word salad you are so fond of.

No, it's your condescention combined with the basic logic error you haven't yet acknowledged. Plus the misrepresentations, etc.

But okay, whatever, so how do you go about making moral assessments, if you don't use moral intuitions?

 

[laughing dog]

No, it's your condescention combined with the basic logic error you haven't yet acknowledged. Plus the misrepresentations, etc.

No, you confuse your responses with mine.

But okay, whatever, so how do you go about making moral assessments, if you don't use moral intuitions?

I never said anything about using or not using moral intuition because it is irrelevant. As I wrote, the issue is whether or not there is agreement with the results of your moral intuition. Not whether you have any moral intuition or not whether you use your moral intuition but your claimed results from using your alleged moral intuition. And there is not agreement. So, in essence, when you use your "moral intuition" as an authoritative reason, it has the same compelling force in an argument as 'Cuz I said so". Which is why you having such difficulty convincing others of the validity of your "rationales".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, you confuse your responses with mine.

No, but you will never realize that.
Have you even realized you made elementary logical error, and you behave in a condescending fashion against me as if you were right?

I never said anything about using or not using moral intuition because it is irrelevant. As I wrote, the issue is whether or not there is agreement with the results of your moral intuition. Not whether you have any moral intuition or not whether you use your moral intuition but your claimed results from using your alleged moral intuition. And there is not agreement. So, in essence, when you use your "moral intuition" as an authoritative reason, it has the same compelling force in an argument as 'Cuz I said so". Which is why you having such difficulty convincing others of the validity of your "rationales".

No, you made a number of claims about moral intuitions.
But regardless, as I already said, if my opponents were to simply say that they do not share my intuitions, that would be a relevant reply, and we would have to think about how to elicit other,
stronger intuitions, to see perhaps if the intuitions of one or more participants after deliberation are different from the prima facie intuitions.
That would be alright.
However, that is not how my opponents seem to reply. Instead, they engage in things like invalid reasoning, false and unwarranted attributions of belief to me, and generally gross misrepresentation of what I'm saying. That is not at all a rational way to discuss, and gives me reason to suspect (apart from other reasons, more generally applicable to humans) that the persistence of the disagreement might not be due to disagreement at a most basic level of moral intuitions, but rather, they're being confused by their irrational thinking on the matter (which might be the result some ideology/religion - leftist or rightist - and/or that they're too angry with me to think clearly, and/or that they're engaging in group thinking and are signaling to their ingroup that they're one of them - not deliberately, but instinctively -, or whatever the cause of their not rational replies).

 

[laughing dog]

No, but you will never realize that.
Have you even realized you made elementary logical error, and you behave in a condescending fashion against me as if you were right?

Please stop confusing your posts with mine. I find that insulting to me and to you.

No, you made a number of claims about moral intuitions.

Nope.

But regardless, as I already said, if my opponents were to simply say that they do not share my intuitions, that would be a relevant reply, and we would have to think about how to elicit other, .......

You are completely tone deaf to the actual contents of posts. It should be obvious that your "opponents" do not share your "intuitions". Perhaps that is the problem - you cannot see the forest because you are concentrating on the imaginary bark on imaginary trees.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

laughing dog,

Okay, I've had enough. Congratulations. You get the last word.

 

[angelo]

What the question really boils down to is the fact that people like fucking, and damn the consequences! Of course there are cultures where the more children one has the better, or so they think. Perhaps governments of these cultures should perhaps copy China by making it illegal to have more than one child. This would not be possible in most Islamic cultures where church and state are inseparable.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I made it perfectly clear, but I'll ask you plainly: do you believe forcing a captive to conceive a child for the purpose of blackmail is morally acceptable if the probability of harm is low?

In fact, I have already refuted your view that only intent makes actions immoral, by means of pointing to celebratory gunfire...

Which is, actually, a very good example: it is BOB'S actions that are causing harm, not the manufacturer of the gun, not the person who GAVE him the gun, and not even the person who gave him cause to celebrate by firing into the air. Nor is buying the gun, loading the gun, or even aiming the gun into the sky an immoral action on Bob's part; only his decision to actually pull the trigger (assuming, of course, he has good reason to believe his bullet is going to kill someone and does it anyway).

Do you believe that creating handguns for Bob to use in the first place would be immoral under these conditions?

I left for a day and came back but this seems like a critical thought with two critical questions. I have no idea why after these questions Angra gave up talking to you. Can someone explain this?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Indeed. Even Derec does not agree with Angra's zombie apocalypse conclusion.

I do not believe Derec and I have discussed the matter. Who knows whether we would agree?

If Person#1 answers a+b=6 but Person#2 answers a+b !=6, then they've disagreed with each other's conclusion.

You both answered the question contrary to one another whether or not you particularly communicated with one another.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I made it perfectly clear, but I'll ask you plainly: do you believe forcing a captive to conceive a child for the purpose of blackmail is morally acceptable if the probability of harm is low?


Which is, actually, a very good example: it is BOB'S actions that are causing harm, not the manufacturer of the gun, not the person who GAVE him the gun, and not even the person who gave him cause to celebrate by firing into the air. Nor is buying the gun, loading the gun, or even aiming the gun into the sky an immoral action on Bob's part; only his decision to actually pull the trigger (assuming, of course, he has good reason to believe his bullet is going to kill someone and does it anyway).

Do you believe that creating handguns for Bob to use in the first place would be immoral under these conditions?

I left for a day and came back but this seems like a critical thought with two critical questions. I have no idea why after these questions Angra gave up talking to you. Can someone explain this?

It's all of the post.
For example, he asks those questions in reply to my refutation of his claims about morality (and I did refute them, even by his own moral intuitions). The questions come with a failure to acknowledge that I refuted his claims about morality, and with a large displacement of the goal posts.
Additionally, he asks questions like "I made it perfectly clear, but I'll ask you plainly: do you believe forcing a captive to conceive a child for the purpose of blackmail is morally acceptable if the probability of harm is low?", as if I hadn't made it absolutely clear that I think sometimes motives make actions immoral regardless of probability of harm, and as if the question were relevant. Of course it's immoral. But I still refuted his points. Etc.

In other words, it's the gross misconstruction of my words, the attribution to me of beliefs I don't have, with no good reason to suspect that I have them, and even with beyond-a-reasonable doubt evidence to conclude that I don't have them. It's the failure to acknowledge my refutation of his claim (claim on the basis of which he treated me badly), even by the lights of his own moral intuitions. Etc, etc..

None of those actions is done deliberately. He does not even realize he's doing any of that. But what's the point?

Now you say

I left for a day and came back but this seems like a critical thought with two critical questions.

The questions are not only not critical, but not even remotely connected to the matter under discussion. Which is why I'm now very strongly inclined to give up talking to you as well. Could you please try to follow my exchange with Crazy Eddie, or at least - if, say, you don't have the time to dedicate to the exchange to understand it - refrain from comment on something you've not read carefully enough to understand? You even side with him!

Still, I might be able to talk to Derec about Maggie and Glenn, if he chooses to reply...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I do not believe Derec and I have discussed the matter. Who knows whether we would agree?

If Person#1 answers a+b=6 but Person#2 answers a+b !=6, then they've disagreed with each other's conclusion.

You both answered the question contrary to one another whether or not you particularly communicated with one another.

I already said we may distinguish between prima facie moral intuitions, and the intuitions that result after discussion, further consideration, etc., and which often result from triggering other also prima facie but more basic and stronger moral intuitions.
Disagreement based on different prima-facie moral intuitions might be overcome later (again, if people taking part in the discussion were being rational, etc.).
If the disagreement persists (but for a seriously long time), I think (this is epistimic intuitions after consideration at work) one would have to look for other causes before giving substantial weight to the idea (suggested by laughing dog) that the meaning of the words is different (which would lead to a moral error theory, which you have proposed by would be self-defeating in your case, since you've been making moral judgements).

My point is that Derec has only used his prima facie intuitions in the case of Maggie and Glenn. It is not clear whether we would agree if we discuss the matter. There are several factors regarding the situation that he has not considered, but I have. That's why I'm trying to talk to him, to see whether I can persuade him. Maybe I can. Maybe not. Who knows? Maybe we'll get to find out (if he chooses to talk to me), or maybe we won't get to find out.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If Person#1 answers a+b=6 but Person#2 answers a+b !=6, then they've disagreed with each other's conclusion.

You both answered the question contrary to one another whether or not you particularly communicated with one another.

I already said we may distinguish between prima facie moral intuitions, and the intuitions that result after discussion, further consideration, etc., and which often result from triggering other also prima facie but more basic and stronger moral intuitions.
Disagreement based on different prima-facie moral intuitions might be overcome later (again, if people taking part in the discussion were being rational, etc.).
If the disagreement persists (but for a seriously long time), I think (this is epistimic intuitions after consideration at work) one would have to look for other causes before giving substantial weight to the idea (suggested by laughing dog) that the meaning of the words is different (which would lead to a moral error theory, which you have proposed by would be self-defeating in your case, since you've been making moral judgements).

My point is that Derec has only used his prima facie intuitions in the case of Maggie and Glenn. It is not clear whether we would agree if we discuss the matter. There are several factors regarding the situation that he has not considered, but I have. That's why I'm trying to talk to him, to see whether I can persuade him. Maybe I can. Maybe not. Who knows? Maybe we'll get to find out (if he chooses to talk to me), or maybe we won't get to find out.

Derec's explanation as to why he put "refugees" in quotes in his op title should tell you everything you need to know. He believes that the mother in the op is possibly an Islamist who wants to spread Islamism. He believes that the people in the camp most often operate from a different set of values than we do and that is why they want to have children for the most part.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I already said we may distinguish between prima facie moral intuitions, and the intuitions that result after discussion, further consideration, etc., and which often result from triggering other also prima facie but more basic and stronger moral intuitions.
Disagreement based on different prima-facie moral intuitions might be overcome later (again, if people taking part in the discussion were being rational, etc.).
If the disagreement persists (but for a seriously long time), I think (this is epistimic intuitions after consideration at work) one would have to look for other causes before giving substantial weight to the idea (suggested by laughing dog) that the meaning of the words is different (which would lead to a moral error theory, which you have proposed by would be self-defeating in your case, since you've been making moral judgements).

My point is that Derec has only used his prima facie intuitions in the case of Maggie and Glenn. It is not clear whether we would agree if we discuss the matter. There are several factors regarding the situation that he has not considered, but I have. That's why I'm trying to talk to him, to see whether I can persuade him. Maybe I can. Maybe not. Who knows? Maybe we'll get to find out (if he chooses to talk to me), or maybe we won't get to find out.

Derec's explanation as to why he put "refugees" in quotes in his op title should tell you everything you need to know. He believes that the mother in the op is possibly an Islamist who wants to spread Islamism. He believes that the people in the camp most often operate from a different set of values than we do and that is why they want to have children for the most part.

First, that is unrelated to the matter under discussion (in re, moral intuitions).
Second, you believed that he believed that refugees were mostly Islamists or terrorists. I explained that he believes they're mostly economic migrants. That's the reason for the quotation marks, as you should know.
Third, of course she is "possibly" an Islamists, if by "possibly" you mean metaphysical possibility, or a non-zero probability. But unless you're - once again - improperly suggesting that he considers that probable, the inclusion of that "possibly" in your reply is out of place, beyond the already out-of-placeness of the reply itself, which is unrelated to my reply.
Fourth, obviously, it is not the case that Derec's explanation tells me everything I need to know about his moral intuitions regarding Glenn and Maggie.
Fifth, if Derec's disagreement with me with the result of a disagreement about the what values the people in the camp have, that would not be a significant disagreement about moral intuitions. Rather, the moral assessments would be the same due to a disagreement on a non-moral fact (namely, a disagreement about what the people in the camp value), which might trigger different prima facie moral intuitions about the actions of the people in the camp, but after a very brief rational exchange, we would be able to sort out that the source of our disagreement isn't about basic moral intuitions, but about a non-moral fact.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Derec's explanation as to why he put "refugees" in quotes in his op title should tell you everything you need to know. He believes that the mother in the op is possibly an Islamist who wants to spread Islamism. He believes that the people in the camp most often operate from a different set of values than we do and that is why they want to have children for the most part.

First, that is unrelated to the matter under discussion (in re, moral intuitions).

Why do you think the op is unrelated to the discussion you ought to have? Moreover, why would you think Derec would want to put sufficient energy into this tangent, i.e. that his op was not quite this point? That is to say, the "everything you need to know" is that he's not going to want to go on for 20 pages about such tangent and he has even broken his silence recently to chime in about Islamists.

Second, you believed that he believed that refugees were mostly Islamists or terrorists. I explained that he believes they're mostly economic migrants. That's the reason for the quotation marks, as you should know.

Millions of people have been displaced from Syria due to the war. If you believe Derec thinks most of them are economic migrants as opposed to refugees, then you'll have to demonstrate this.

Third, of course she is "possibly" an Islamists, if by "possibly" you mean metaphysical possibility, or a non-zero probability. But unless you're - once again - improperly suggesting that he considers that probable, the inclusion of that "possibly" in your reply is out of place, beyond the already out-of-placeness of the reply itself, which is unrelated to my reply.

No, it's not out of place at all.

Fourth, obviously, it is not the case that Derec's explanation tells me everything I need to know about his moral intuitions regarding Glenn and Maggie.

What is that you think you "need" to know? He already expressed that he has a different operating value than the outcome "substantial risk" to producing "an unhappy life" since he values the continuation of the human species. That is he was thinking that even if there would be substantial risks to the newborn, it's still worth it to continue the human species. So he doesn't believe the standard you've repeated from B#20.

Fifth, if Derec's disagreement with me with the result of a disagreement about the what values the people in the camp have, that would not be a significant disagreement about moral intuitions. Rather, the moral assessments would be the same due to a disagreement on a non-moral fact (namely, a disagreement about what the people in the camp value), which might trigger different prima facie moral intuitions about the actions of the people in the camp, but after a very brief rational exchange, we would be able to sort out that the source of our disagreement isn't about basic moral intuitions, but about a non-moral fact.

While I admit that your non-moral "fact" were so messed up that most people (such as Derec) would disagree with them, as I stated above, it's actually the "standard" that he'd disagree with, not because it's the worst thing since ever, but instead because he has implicitly agreed that there are other things to consider and place value upon than "substantial risk" to "an unhappy life."

 

[angelo]

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."?
Gaddafi.

 

[angelo]

The above quotation explains why refugees keep having children.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Thank you angelo. I think your view has sufficiently enough in common with Derec's view on the matter, that perhaps Angra will wake up to the meaning of the op--to include the intention of the word "refugees."

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The above quotation explains why refugees keep having children.

And here I thought it was because people like to fuck.

 

[angelo]

That is first reason, second reason is them doing Allah's work in spreading Islam.

 

[Bomb#20]

Islamic invaders into Europe a definitely a demographic threat
Afghan couple who have nine children and receive £5,000 a month in benefits have asked for free IVF treatment after arriving in Austria (and the wife is 44)

And the #opentheborders and #refugeeswelcome idiots and fifth columnists want to bring millions more in! It's suicide!

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."?
Gaddafi.

Guys, that stuff pertains to whether it's ethical for European countries' government leaders to let the refugees into their countries, not to whether it's ethical for the refugees to keep making babies while they're still trying to get let in somewhere. Take it to the "Europe submits voluntarily" thread.

That is first reason, second reason is them doing Allah's work in spreading Islam.

Just because that was Gaddafi's grand plan doesn't mean it's on the minds of the refugees. All indications are they're still having children because sex is fun and in their situation not much else is. Unless you have evidence that any of them really are having children strategically, doing Allah's work in spreading Islam is off-topic here.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That is first reason, second reason is them doing Allah's work in spreading Islam.

TERROR BABIES!