Come on mate . I am not that old .....
Izzy and the big philosophical questions...
- Thread starter MuzztheEagle
- Start date
Haha you are a spring chicken Bozo, I'm still waiting for you to 'mature' 🙂
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
Imagine that I tell people (who trust me) that Chinese people are evil and that they should stop eating at the local takeaway because they are supporting them. If the business looses business an I then accountable?
The sooner People understand that another persons view is not superior or inferior to ours . It is only different . The sooner there will be a lot less unnecessary drama
We have the TV that exposes vulnerabilty to people that are easily persuaded and if it is good enough for the tv people to have their way than it should be good enough for people to have their say
You also did not answer this question that will lead to the answer to your question
Please give me your interpretation of punishment and consequences for a person who just voices their belief .
I have to get up at 4am for a 12 hour shift . Thank you for expressing your views
Have a good night
Good night mate . I have to get up at 4am 🙂
Realistically, I doubt the business has any recourse at all. I wish I was wrong, interested to hear your view?
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
So are you suggesting that television is free from accountability when it presents certain views? If a tv show/personality did what I said in my past example would they be free from any accountability?
Punishment and consequences for expressing what sort of belief? That blue is the best colour? Or telling people that black people should be enslaved or exterminated which then results in race riots?
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
This is probably more of a legal question rather than a moral / philosophical one which is what I was aiming for.
In a legal sense it would most likely come down to the burden of proof.
Hey it's your thread! and it was your question! Your answer is um, well, you know, reminiscent of some politicians, which I'm sure was not your intent!
Actually I'll edit my answer (thanks Dan for that facility) but on this occasion I'll do it by adding to my earlier comment.
What on earth is a 'moral or philosophical' question?
And what relevance (if any) does such a question have to 'real life' (so to speak)?
What on earth is a 'moral or philosophical' question?
And what relevance (if any) does such a question have to 'real life' (so to speak)?
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
Hard to give an an answer when you've increased the complexity of the hypothetical without adding any specifics.
If I said something on national TV, then yes almost definately they would have a case. Privately, amongst friends - then it would be very unlikely.
Imo both would (probably) be morally wrong. But this is where things get complicated and I think, worth discussing in a philosophical sense.
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
What if, using the previous example, the person was spreading their message because it was what they genuinely believed? Say they had been in a cult for the past ten years which limited there exposure to external sources, fed them lies and prevented them from having logical thought. Are they accountable then or does the blame lie with those who instructed them?
What do we base the fundamentals of our legal system on if not morality and philosophy?
I have very little interest in blame.
I do have an interest in countering prejudice and bigotry (as do you, I take it)
Hence my question (roughly) what on earth is the point of asserting something as a 'moral' or 'philosophical' truth when there is no legal recourse?
You may as well assert we are all entitled to one unicorn on our 7th birthday, won't occur!
I do have an interest in countering prejudice and bigotry (as do you, I take it)
Hence my question (roughly) what on earth is the point of asserting something as a 'moral' or 'philosophical' truth when there is no legal recourse?
You may as well assert we are all entitled to one unicorn on our 7th birthday, won't occur!
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
I never said there was such a thing as moral or philosophical truth. For me, it's become more about the process you use to reach your conclusions on particular issues and it's why so many arguments result in simply butting heads rather than identifying which ideas are based on flawed logic as well as inaccurate and insufficient knowledge.
If you want to use the unicorn example; then what logic or philosophical methods did you use to arrive at that assertion? I like unicorns? Well that doesn't add up - I never got my unicorn, did you?
But what logic are people using to assert whether Izzy is morally wrong. Does that hold up to logic or are you just using bias and personal experience to make your decision? Would you like to test your beliefs on the subject?
No, but thanks.
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
I'm slowly accepting the idea that prejudice and bigotry are often born from ignorance and control and that shouting back similar ideas usually falls on deaf ears. So I'm trying some different ideas to get others and myself to listen more.
Some people are lost causes though, and highlighting their foolishness is probably the best way to reduce the number of young people following them down the same road.
Some people are lost causes though, and highlighting their foolishness is probably the best way to reduce the number of young people following them down the same road.
Foolishness is relative, to one's experience and education.
Prejudice and bigotry are born from power, and from efforts to control power. They proliferate in the fertile ground of ignorance and political naivety.
Prejudice and bigotry are born from power, and from efforts to control power. They proliferate in the fertile ground of ignorance and political naivety.
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
So what is the best method to counter prejudiced and bigotry? Remove the power - that may be seen as unjust. Cure people's ignorance - with what? Why are your facts and opinions more valid than what I have been taught?
I agree foolishness is entirely relative and is a measure of one's judgement based on the environment they exist in. It is not a measure of how well educated someone is. E.g. I was foolish to think my partner would be ok if I suggested she should lose a few pounds. In that sense it could be considered wrong to say Izzy was foolish to post what he did and continue to do so. Do we know enough about his situation and upbringing to make a judgment on his individual thought processes?
To me, this highlights some potential issues with how RA may have handled the whole situation.
I agree foolishness is entirely relative and is a measure of one's judgement based on the environment they exist in. It is not a measure of how well educated someone is. E.g. I was foolish to think my partner would be ok if I suggested she should lose a few pounds. In that sense it could be considered wrong to say Izzy was foolish to post what he did and continue to do so. Do we know enough about his situation and upbringing to make a judgment on his individual thought processes?
To me, this highlights some potential issues with how RA may have handled the whole situation.
Expose it, stamp it out, oppose and explain it.
The bloke who racially abused Archer is a pratt.
With any prejudice, it is not that complicated, really.
Just ask, who benefits from keeping the peoples on the planet suspicious of each other?
Well obviously, those who are prospering from the status quo.
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
I don't (entirely) disagree. But in today's day and age, with plenty of examples of people getting banned for life this dickhead still decided to yell out something racist. Will banning him teach him a lesson about right and wrong or will he just put the blame onto Archer and stick to his beliefs (potentially passing them onto his children as well)? What about everyone watching with similar beliefs? They may be persuaded to keep their mouths shut but will it change any beliefs or will they just blame the idea that PC and outrage culture that has taken over and vote for the next right winged loony that puts their hand up for parliament, because this does appear to be happening.
Explaining it is the hardest part, and it can't just be giving someone facts to think over. "these are your facts - not my facts"
You must work through your logic yourself and identify where you went wrong and getting people to do this is the real challenge.
Explaining it is the hardest part, and it can't just be giving someone facts to think over. "these are your facts - not my facts"
You must work through your logic yourself and identify where you went wrong and getting people to do this is the real challenge.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
