Political Whores posted:It's more this that people have a problem with. Yeah that's a pretty odd statement, although apparently he thinks it's true of himself. I've already mentioned ITT that Dawkins is problematic about this stuff. Political Whores posted:Turns out that they're all in Westminster and Whitehall. Oh, and the BBC. Though the amount of ink spilled on the subject before anyone found out about any of that is quite remarkable and out of proportion to the scale of even the worst problem imagineable. Literally this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts-NTTeEoA0 Let's not pretend hundreds of Daily Mail articles about paedophiles lurking around every corner were, in retrospect, worthy and well-founded works of journalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
Political Whores posted:
I really do hate this line of thinking. We absolutely can, and should, condemn earlier eras by our own standards. That's why we have better standards in the first place, by looking at the past and saying, "that stuff was wrong and neither they then or we now should ever have done or do it". I can understand why people were racist in the past and I can understand why people are racist now too and they're both equally awful and deserving of condemnation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:32
|
|
Who What Now posted:I really do hate this line of thinking. We absolutely can, and should, condemn earlier eras by our own standards. That's why we have better standards in the first place, by looking at the past and saying, "that stuff was wrong and neither they then or we now should ever have done or do it". I can understand why people were racist in the past and I can understand why people are racist now too and they're both equally awful and deserving of condemnation. I think this is stupid and fails to achieve its own stated objective. The [simple] real question was - was there a good reason to believe this at the time? In this case, no. People have known rape and unsolicited sexual touching, particularly of children, is wrong for a long time - the difference from now is how much and how loudly we talk about it compared to when Dawkins was a boy.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I really do hate this line of thinking. We absolutely can, and should, condemn earlier eras by our own standards. That's why we have better standards in the first place, by looking at the past and saying, "that stuff was wrong and neither they then or we now should ever have done or do it". I can understand why people were racist in the past and I can understand why people are racist now too and they're both equally awful and deserving of condemnation. I agree, I personally condemn slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt and this is worth saying because slavery is bad. Dawkins failure here isn't the entirely sensible argument condemning past societies is facile, but that his experience as a child counts as a distinct enough past society simple because he grew older and stopped being the one molested. The failure here isn't one in judging history, it's blindness to any problem that no longer is personally experienced by him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:44
|
|
farraday posted:Dawkins failure here isn't the entirely sensible argument condemning past societies is facile, but that his experience as a child counts as a distinct enough past society simple because he grew older and stopped being the one molested. The failure here isn't one in judging history, it's blindness to any problem that no longer is personally experienced by him. Also this. But I would like to know more about how the Indus Valley Civilization should be roundly condemned for its oppressive social practices. Haven't they read On Liberty?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Also because some of you are walking around it, It is perfectly acceptable to call Tom Jefferson a slave holding bigoted rapist , and Dick Dorkins is wrong about how one approaches history, Period.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Did Dorkins really write the phrase "mild pedophilia"? What like a fingerbang? Groping? loving British public schools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:56
|
|
SedanChair posted:Did Dorkins really write the phrase "mild pedophilia"? As Christopher Hitchens once said of public school - don't believe everything you hear, but don't disbelieve it either.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Also because some of you are walking around it, It is perfectly acceptable to call Tom Jefferson a slave holding bigoted rapist , and Dick Dorkins is wrong about how one approaches history, Period. You have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean saying so is an intelligent or worthwhile thing to say. Instead it's just a bit of mindless provocation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
It is not at all that, and freedom of speech goes without saying in civilized societies. Antebellum America barely qualified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Also Dawkins hasn't done anything remotely academic in the last 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:10
|
|
Nonsense posted:Also Dawkins hasn't done anything remotely academic in the last 10 years. He's basically on a retirement cruise of trolling and insane twitter hackery.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think this is stupid and fails to achieve its own stated objective. The [simple] real question was - was there a good reason to believe this at the time? In this case, no. People have known rape and unsolicited sexual touching, particularly of children, is wrong for a long time - the difference from now is how much and how loudly we talk about it compared to when Dawkins was a boy. There simply was never a good reason to believe most of the things that we condemn at the time. Again, that's why we don't believe them anymore, because the reasons were bad. I'm not saying past civilizations should have known better but their ignorance doesn't excuse what they did. But it's largely an academic point because we don't have time machines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:21
|
|
Who What Now posted:There simply was never a good reason to believe most of the things that we condemn at the time. Again, that's why we don't believe them anymore, because the reasons were bad. I'm not saying past civilizations should have known better but their ignorance doesn't excuse what they did. But it's largely an academic point because we don't have time machines. I too believe in stupid ideas of linear progress. quote:There simply was never a good reason to believe most of the things that we condemn at the time. This is just trivially not the case. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
History is not cyclical either if that's where your going.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I too believe in stupid ideas of linear progress. So what's a good reason for slavery? Or torture? Or genocide? Because it was easy or convenient?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
I agree we should condemn them. But not necessarily equally. We need to appreciate just how powerful groupthink and social norms have on our thinking. To be anti-racism in 1800 (or even 1900) was to be against the status quo. In every society there's ever been, there are always punishments for being against the status quo and privileges for going along with it. So while I agree they're still equally wrong, they're not necessarily equally bad from the point of view of the individual. From the point of view of the individual, in one context it just means you've got a hideous worldview. In the other context it likely means you just don't have the psychological strength and social position to challenge the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Absoloote posted:I agree we should condemn them. But not necessarily equally. We need to appreciate just how powerful groupthink and social norms have on our thinking. To be anti-racism in 1800 (or even 1900) was to be against the status quo. In every society there's ever been, there are always punishments for being against the status quo and privileges for going along with it. So while I agree they're still equally wrong, they're not necessarily equally bad from the point of view of the individual. From the point of view of the individual, in one context it just means you've got a hideous worldview. In the other context it likely means you just don't have the psychological strength and social position to challenge the status quo. You realize this argument applies equally to supporters of Nazi Germany right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
fascism had clear contemporary critics who saw and said what was wrong with it if you're, let's say, a ninth century arab or whatever, there is no way you're getting exposed to notions like slavery being bad or christians not being unwashed savages or whatever, so it's much less unacceptable to hold those beliefs. obviously we should commend those who, even in those situations, didn't think slavery was ok, but i feel it's unfair to condemn them for it
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Judging past by our current standards is very me Me MEEEE-centric. 21st century will not the peak of ethic standards. Every one of you is a horrible piece of poo poo, by the more enlightened standards of the 25th century. What are those much better standards? I have no idea, because I'm not a time-traveler. Maybe it is the animal or plant rights. Maybe Racial purity (of people of Micronesian descent) is the gold standard of ethics. Or more likely something that we haven't even considered yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:51
|
|
Nonsense posted:History is not cyclical either if that's where your going. I don't even see how you could expect that from what I wrote. Who What Now posted:So what's a good reason for slavery? Or torture? Or genocide? Because it was easy or convenient? I don't think people living 3000 years ago who kept slaves were uniformly 'evil', or that word has become dulled by that usage. Nor do I think it gets you anywhere to call them that, even if they were; you will certainly fail to understand them that way. SedanChair posted:You realize this argument applies equally to supporters of Nazi Germany right? This is stupid for reasons Lenin has already covered above. Nazi pseudoscientific racial claims, for example, were batshit even by the standards of racial science decades earlier. There was wide opposition to fascism within Germany, as well as outside of it. If you want to draw a modern example North Korea is closer because information has been controlled there much more completely and much longer, but still not entirely successfully; unlike in, say, the 10th century BC, where information that could be usefully used to form a lot of moral judgements may have been harder to come by.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:fascism had clear contemporary critics who saw and said what was wrong with it I'll agree it's unfair, but life itself is unfair. Also it's not necessarily the individual we should condemn, but the society and the actions themselves. Again, I'm not saying they should be expected to have had all the knowledge that we do today, but ignorance is not a sufficient excuse. And you can condemn a society while still acknowledging their ignorance of why what they did was wrong, they aren't mutually exclusive positions to take. So I have no problems saying that the slave owners of the Civil War and the slave owners of 9th century Iran are equally immoral in their actions. Plus it's not like morally condemning a society that is centuries gone is going to hurt their feelings or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Did you seriously just compare chattel slavery with persian household slavery? 'cos those were seriously different beasts e. The point is, that kind of retroactive condemnation isn't productive. It doesn't help you realise anything about anything. If you accept that a view that was not at all in the public discourse at the time (in any discourse!) is impossible to follow without being a literal intellectual revolutionary, which is a completely unreasonable standard of moral action. Plus, we are at the present no doubt doing things that are going to be seen as completely monstrous in a few hundred years' time. A "house friend of the family" is not as morally deficient as even the most benign southern slave owner, even though both perpetuate the hideous system of chattel slavery V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
^^^^^^^ I compared owning a person as property to owning a person as property, yes. adhuin posted:Judging past by our current standards is very me Me MEEEE-centric. 21st century will not the peak of ethic standards. You're absolutely right, we are horrible pieces of poo poo by whatever the best standards are, no question there. Which is why we should still be trying to better ourselves. But it's a fallacy to say that civilizations of the past aren't bad because we're also bad in our own ways. Disinterested posted:I don't think people living 3000 years ago who kept slaves were uniformly 'evil', or that word has become dulled by that usage. Nor do I think it gets you anywhere to call them that, even if they were; you will certainly fail to understand them that way. You said that the statement "There simply was never a good reason to believe most of the things that we condemn at the time." was trivially not the case, so I want you to actually demonstrate that it isn't the case. So please, what's a good reason to own slaves?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Also: Morality is a fairy tale, down with it
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Seeing as how all the people are dead and the societies themselves are gone, condemning the past is more a rhetorical tool for criticizing the present than anything else. Like, Jefferson and the Founding Fathers are still powerful cultural icons today, so criticizing them and undermining the hagiographic way people talk about them is more important than condemning Rome for not believing in the universal brotherhood of mankind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Also: Morality is a fairy tale, down with it You mean I'm free to murder?  Political Whores posted:Seeing as how all the people are dead and the societies themselves are gone, condemning the past is more a rhetorical tool for criticizing the present than anything else. Like, Jefferson and the Founding Fathers are still powerful cultural icons today, so criticizing them and undermining the hagiographic way people talk about them is more important than condemning Rome for not believing in the universal brotherhood of mankind. This is quite literally what Georgia is in the middle of arguing about AP History: Criticism of the Past is UnAmerican 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You mean I'm free to murder? no because that has been collectively defined as an unacceptable thing to do, and every society ever existing has laws or taboos against it that morality is not a Thing does not make all actions acceptable or cool
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:06
|
|
Who What Now posted:You said that the statement "There simply was never a good reason to believe most of the things that we condemn at the time." was trivially not the case, so I want you to actually demonstrate that it isn't the case. So please, what's a good reason to own slaves? The idea of making slavery a form of legal punishment in Ancient Rome made total sense in the context of its time (a concept apparently so resilient, if stupid, that it lasted until the context of the 13th amendment's time).
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:no because that has been collectively defined as an unacceptable thing to do, and every society ever existing has laws or taboos against it 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
people make that argument in earnest all the time and you're not a good enough poster that i trust you not to
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:people make that argument in earnest all the time and you're not a good enough poster that i trust you not to I just spent an entire thread arguing that morality is a sociological force external to divine sources. So, give me some slack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The idea of making slavery a form of legal punishment in Ancient Rome made total sense in the context of its time (a concept apparently so resilient, if stupid, that it lasted until the context of the 13th amendment's time). I said good, as in morally justifiable, not practical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I said good, as in morally justifiable, not practical. Criminals have given up their right to freedom by making war against society. - Locke
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
This thread isn't about Chapel Hill anymore. PM me if something pertinent to the case happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:16
|
|
