Unwarn me, I was falsely warned for no reason.

[WendyDarling]

Categorizing those two, murder and racism, the same, as abhorrent, seems fallaciously misleading. To me, you minimize murder, minimize real tragedy, when you add every two bit prejudice in the abhorrent category, that's all I'm saying. True, anybody can put anything under the sun in the abhorrent category relating it by one degree (Spitting is abhorrent. Ignorance is abhorrent.), but that would not legitimize the use of such a strong word, it only weakens it.

[phyllo]

You all have prejudices and you all have abhorrent opinions.

Those are going to come out in the posts.

The only issue is what kind of effect that has on the effectiveness of the forum. Ought a philosophy forum protect the members from abhorrent opinions? Is a philosophy forum effective if it censors those opinions? I don't think so.

[Carleas]

Categorizing those two, murder and racism, the same, as abhorrent, seems fallaciously misleading.

I don't see how it's misleading to say that both murder and racism inspire disgust and loathing and/or are repugnant. It's no more leading than to say that they are both "bad", "harmful", "undesirable", etc. etc. There are a ton of adjectives that describe both murder and racism, none of which is diminished when accurately applied to them, "abhorrent" is one of them.

Or, take it the other way. You seem to be OK describing murder as abhorrent. But is it as abhorrent as a gruesome genocide of all children and adorable animals? I think not. And yet you use the same word for both! How misleading...

Ought a philosophy forum protect the members from abhorrent opinions? Is a philosophy forum effective if it censors those opinions? I don't think so.

First, to be a bit pedantic, we're not here for opinions, we're here for philosophy. "I just don't like X" is a shite piece of philosophy, whether X is "jelly beans" or "black people".

But I agree that abhorrent ideas, abhorrent reasoning, and arguments for abhorrent conclusions should not be censored when they're presented in good faith as a subject of philosophical inquiry and analysis.

[WendyDarling]

Genocide is murder. Murder is at the top of the list for all things abhorrent. I don't throw the word abhorrent around lightly, applying it to things that are undesirable in minor ways. Hate is a strong word and an even stronger idea, make sure it's used effectively, don't waste it's power on numerous ideas that are not hate worthy.

Philosophy is opinions that mirror reality or don't. I will agree that the why's of our opinions matter in philosophy so those must be included with our dislikes of X, to provide an argument to support our opinions of how one ought to live. I think more abstract philosophy lays beyond my interest for it's harder to rectify and apply, it diverges from reality.

[iambiguous]

Some abhorrent ideas, like racism, sexism, and antisemitism, tend to make certain groups feel unwelcome.

Since when are prejudices worthy of qualifying as abhorrent, as abhorrent as rape, murder, and unmitigated violence? Give me a break.

Prejudices will always exist. But there are more or less "civil and intelligent" ways in which to discuss them.

After all, serious scholastic research into race, gender and religion is there to be found.

For example, just Google "race and intelligence research": https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ra ... 4QgQMIJDAA

These folks may or may not have a political axe to grind, but discussions of this sort can unfold in a more or less civil and intelligent manner.

Or begin the exploration at wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Instead, the KT crowd [and their ilk] are more likely to come here with guns blazing. The N word this, the C word that. Huffing and puffing and heaping scorn on all the liberal "retards" and the "morons" who don't think about race and gender and religion and sexual orientation in exactly the same way that they do.

In fact, I have a word for that.

[phyllo]

First, to be a bit pedantic, we're not here for opinions, we're here for philosophy. "I just don't like X" is a shite piece of philosophy, whether X is "jelly beans" or "black people".

"Remember that all is opinion" - Marcus Aurelius

[James S Saint]

I would have to disagree that "abhorrent ideas" should be disallowed. But then again, if an idea is not being supported through philosophical discourse, then it doesn't really have any good reason to be posted here. If ideas are merely to be condemned by judgement of good or evil, there is no point in having philosophical discourse. There can't be both.

[iambiguous]

First, to be a bit pedantic, we're not here for opinions, we're here for philosophy. "I just don't like X" is a shite piece of philosophy, whether X is "jelly beans" or "black people".

"Remember that all is opinion" - Marcus Aurelius

Of course that's just his opinion.

Though in fact he did say this.

If, in fact, he did say that.

There just seem to be things that we can in fact establish as true for all of us; and other things that we cannot.

For example, to the best of my knowledge, Joan Armatrading is in fact...

1] black
2] a woman
3] a lesbian

Now, what in fact can we conclude about her for being these things? As opposed to all of the various conflicting political prejudices regarding what it means to be black, to be female and to be gay?

[WendyDarling]

Is it enough that she says she is a woman? Is she in fact a biological woman or a woman in ideology? Perhaps she only identifies with being a woman, who can say anymore what gender another is, since they can identify as hermaphrodite, both, if they so choose. So you may need to go over your list of what is in fact true, iambiguous. She may not be black either...you'd have to read her DnA results to settle that one too.

[iambiguous]

Is it enough that she says she is a woman? Is she in fact a biological woman or a woman in ideology? Perhaps she only identifies with being a woman, who can say anymore what gender another is, since they can identify as hermaphrodite, both, if they so choose. So you may need to go over your list of what is in fact true, iambiguous. She may not be black either...you'd have to read her DnA results to settle that one too.

Like I said, to the best of my knowledge.

But surely there are ways in which to determine if, here and now, she either is or is not black, a woman and gay.

But, in my view, any number of the KT crowd and their ilk here may well argue in turn that she is a "nigger", a "cunt" and a "fag".

And they encompass what it means to be these things in language [and in arguments] that bear little resemblance to a "civil and intelligent" exchange.

Some may well, in turn, express these extreme opinions without breaking any of the rules here.

But, as some have noted above, while recognizing the right of folks to express even extreme opinions, we can't lose sight of the fact that particular folks of color, particular women, particular Jews, Moslems and Christians and particular practitioners of unconventional sexual behaviors, are going to be offended by the language that they use in fulminating against those who do not more or less look like them, think like them and feel like them.

Again, personally, I believe that what we need here is the equivalent of the dungeon. One would have to be a member of ILP to go there. And no one who did not want to would ever have to.

But that's just me.

[phyllo]

But surely there are ways in which to determine if, here and now, she either is or is not black, a woman and gay.

It is opinion whether those classifications exist and how the classification is determined.

For example, there are those who argue that there are no races ... that there is only the human race. In their opinion, the distinguishing characteristics used to separate people into races either don't exist or are not significant.

Another example is the current challenge to the definition of man and woman. It is proposed that it not be based on the genitalia between your legs but instead it ought to be based on if you "feel" like a man or woman. The definition based on genitalia was in itself problematic because a surprisingly large number of people are born with ambiguous parts. Maybe the separation into two genders is not appropriate. Just an opinion, of course.

The same sort of questions arise with respect to homosexuality. How many heterosexual encounters could you have before you stop being gay? Can you be gay or straight without having sex? Can you decide one day that you are no longer gay or straight? ... Are you not gay that same day?
I saw a movie with a long discussion resulting from one of the characters claiming that he is pansexual. Lots of opinions on what that means.

[Carleas]

Are math and logic also opinion? I agree we can have different opinions about the meaning of words or the scope of concepts, but I don't agree that the application of a well defined concept is a matter of opinion. If I say, "She's pansexual", and you say, "No she isn't", one possibility is that we mean different things by 'pansexual', but another possibility is that one of us is drawing improper inferences from an agreed set of facts.

[WendyDarling]

I thought that there have been debates about maths and what constitutes logic. I seem to remember the 1=.9999999. As far as logic goes, the consistency of the language used seems up for debate when it is applied to actual objects and systems found in reality. Logic kept as an abstract referent works better than once it is applied to an ever changing reality, an actual physical object or system. Are the words used what's becoming inconsistent with people unable to agree what exists in reality?

[phyllo]

Are math and logic also opinion?

Yes.

One can develop many different maths depending on which axioms are used. Which math is applicable in a particular situation is disputable. We commonly use Euclidean geometry although the universe is non-Euclidean. Some maths do not reflect the physical world.

Humans use multi-valued logic. It would be impossible to function in the real world of ambiguity, uncertainly and error if we adopted the two-valued logic of the Greeks. The results of infinite-valued logic depend on degrees of truth.

If I say, "She's pansexual", and you say, "No she isn't", one possibility is that we mean different things by 'pansexual', but another possibility is that one of us is drawing improper inferences from an agreed set of facts.

Sure, it's possible to have errors in an opinion. Opinions are not automatically right.

[James S Saint]

Are the words used what's becoming inconsistent with people unable to agree what exists in reality?

Yes.

One can develop many different maths depending on which axioms are used. Which math is applicable in a particular situation is disputable. We commonly use Euclidean geometry although the universe is non-Euclidean. Some maths do not reflect the physical world.

You are talking about having options, not opinions.

[iambiguous]

But surely there are ways in which to determine if, here and now, she either is or is not black, a woman and gay.

It is opinion whether those classifications exist and how the classification is determined.

But it would not seem to be just an opinion that biologically those creatures that we call "men" have penises and those creatures we call "women" have vaginas. Or "hermaphrodites" for those born with both.

And, sure, operations are now available to change all of that.

Sort of.

But only women are able to become pregnant.

Given that:

...if there is a fully functioning uterus and ovaries, then it's theoretically possible to get pregnant and have a baby. However, most if not all true hermaphrodites have incomplete reproductive organs and a pregnancy would be extremely rare.

And yet, who knows, maybe someday medical science will have discovered a way in which men can become impregnated.

But there will still be things that can be established as facts. Things that either are or are not true. But, in my view, the political prejudices embraced by those at both ends of the theological/ideological/deontological spectrum regarding what it means to be a "man" or a "woman" [naturally or otherwise], still seem to be hopelessly entangled in both genes and memes. Particularly when the discussion shifts to what a "real man" or a "real woman" ought to think or feel or do.

For example, there are those who argue that there are no races ... that there is only the human race. In their opinion, the distinguishing characteristics used to separate people into races either don't exist or are not significant.

Again, we can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(hum ... gorization)

But you tell me: where does race derived from genetic distinctions end and race as a "social construct" begin?

And can the discussion be sustained here without devolving into objectivists taunts, declamatory huffing and puffing and personal attacks?

As a polemicist, I can go both ways. But, when it is understood by both parties that polemics are being exchanged, that is very different from the sort of specious bullshit [dripping with contemptuous ad homs] we get from some of the objectivists here.

Another example is the current challenge to the definition of man and woman. It is proposed that it not be based on the genitalia between your legs but instead it ought to be based on if you "feel" like a man or woman. The definition based on genitalia was in itself problematic because a surprisingly large number of people are born with ambiguous parts. Maybe the separation into two genders is not appropriate. Just an opinion, of course.

Me, I'm more intent on exploring the extent to which the definitions used in any particular arguments are effectively integrated into actual existential contexts that many of us will be familiar with.

We think things. We feel things. We do things.

Okay, but what in particular? And, in particular, when conflicts occur because the meaning that we give to words like race and gender must be integrated into our actual social, political and economic interactions with others.

The same sort of questions arise with respect to homosexuality. How many heterosexual encounters could you have before you stop being gay? Can you be gay or straight without having sex? Can you decide one day that you are no longer gay or straight? ... Are you not gay that same day?

Exactly! There so many different contexts [and points of view] in which human sexuality can be described and/or engaged in and/or grappled with morally and politically. Either here with others or out in the world with others. It is only the objectivists, however, who insist that you can either be "one of us" and share our values or "one of them" and reject them. But we all know what being "one of them" entails for those who are "one of us".

It's just that some will even take this as far as the Holocaust.

[phyllo]

But it would not seem to be just an opinion that biologically those creatures that we call "men" have penises and those creatures we call "women" have vaginas. Or "hermaphrodites" for those born with both.

So you are saying that these are words which are dependent on the meaning of other words which are dependent on the meaning of still more words which ...

One of the standard objections you pull out in a discussion, can be used here as well.

It's still a matter of opinion whether male, female or other are meaningful, legitimate or useful categories. Imagine a world without gender distinctions ... I wonder if you can.

But there will still be things that can be established as facts. Things that either are or are not true.

If you accept/adopt a conceptual framework, then you can say things are true or false within the framework.

Unfortunately, one forgets that he is using a framework and he comes to believe that there is only one possible way to see things.

In this case, you think there is a division between what is fact and what is not fact.

Again, we can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(hum ... gorization)

But you tell me: where does race derived from genetic distinctions end and race as a "social construct" begin?

And can the discussion be sustained here without devolving into objectivists taunts, declamatory huffing and puffing and personal attacks?

As a polemicist, I can go both ways. But, when it is understood by both parties that polemics are being exchanged, that is very different from the sort of specious bullshit [dripping with contemptuous ad homs] we get from some of the objectivists here.

A few posts ago, you were saying that it was a fact that someone is black. Have you changed your mind?

Exactly! There so many different contexts [and points of view] in which human sexuality can be described and/or engaged in and/or grappled with morally and politically. Either here with others or out in the world with others. It is only the objectivists, however, who insist that you can either be "one of us" and share our values or "one of them" and reject them. But we all know what being "one of them" entails for those who are "one of us".

A few posts ago, you were saying that it was a fact that someone is gay. Have you changed your mind?

It's just that some will even take this as far as the Holocaust.

One can look at it in a number of ways. One way is that the Holocaust does not exist in the present. It doesn't matter who died or even if they did die. Nobody is being brought back to life. If you dwell on it or seek revenge or seek justice or use it in any way, then you are applying a particular point of view to the present. It is a matter of opinion how the Holocaust ought to be "used".

One can cling to the past or let go of it.

[Carleas]

Phyllo, when you first posted that Marcus Aurelius quote, I scoffed to myself, "Postmodern nonsense!" But here, I think you make some good points, and I reluctantly acknowledge that my position has shifted to scoffing, "Postmodern ... maybesense."

I think you're right that there's some degree of opinion about whether categories are "meaningful" or "legitimate", but "useful" seems objectively bound. To anticipate an objection, my uses and yours might differ, but whether and how well x achieves y is empirically verifiable.

Don't you agree that there is an external world that isn't generated by my mind, and though my categorizations are somewhat subjective, isn't there a world behind them that is not? My references may be meanings dependent on meanings dependent on meanings, etc., but isn't there a non-opinion world to which they refer, albeit imperfectly?

[EDIT: words]

[iambiguous]

But it would not seem to be just an opinion that biologically those creatures that we call "men" have penises and those creatures we call "women" have vaginas. Or "hermaphrodites" for those born with both.

So you are saying that these are words which are dependent on the meaning of other words which are dependent on the meaning of still more words which ...

Come on, you can do better than this.

Here all we have at our disposal are words. But our words are either in sync with the world around us or they are not. Men have penises, women have vaginas. Or particular folks born as men or women choose to have sex change operations. But this is not derived from the meaning that we give to words. On the contrary, the meaning that we give to words here is derived from the empirical, biological reality.

Facts can be established. Instead, my point revolves more around how different folks react to these facts in such a manner that the either/or world and the is/ought world become virtually interchangeable. Thus, for some, if you are a man or a woman then it is said to be natural to think and to feel and to behave in a particular manner. Otherwise you are not a real man or a real woman. Then it's just a matter of how far [re a political agenda] they take this.

And, in turn, the manner in which they react to those who do not share their own political agenda.

It's still a matter of opinion whether male, female or other are meaningful, legitimate or useful categories. Imagine a world without gender distinctions ... I wonder if you can.

Clearly, there are disagreements regarding where to draw the line -- establish the proper "divisions" -- between an opinion and a fact. But the disagreements can become considerably more ferocious when the arguments shift from "what is a man?" to "if someone is a man how is he obligated to think and feel and behave?"

With respect to, say, guns, hunting, sex, parenting, politics, abortion...

A few posts ago, you were saying that it was a fact that someone is gay. Have you changed your mind?

No, I noted that "to the best of my knowledge" Joan Armatrading is gay. Based on, for example, this from the website afterellen:

Congratulations to British singer-songwriter Joan Armatrading, who is getting married to longtime partner Maggie Butler (Butler designed the artwork for Armatrading’s 1979 live album Steppin’ Out) in a civil partnership. The private ceremony will take place on May 2 in Shetland, UK.

Is she in fact still gay now? I don't know. But most of us will concur that there are still ways to establish this.

As for whether or not she is black, again, that depends on where one draws the line between biological distinctions and social constructs. Between genes and memes.

But, for some here, she is thought to be a "nigger", a "cunt" and a "fag". And they will engage in mocking you disdainfully here if you don't agree.

And -- in fact? -- they are the ones by and large that have been banned.

[Meno_]

Unfortunately the changing winds of where political correctness really derives its motive, -expediency , shapes public opinion and sorrily, at times , self valuing.

But it's really evident where reality is really shaped, as a practical matter. It is what it is.

[iambiguous]

But it's really evident where reality is really shaped, as a practical matter. It is what it is.

That seems reasonable.

But do any of us really have any understanding of what that really means?

Is it what it is because God willed it to be that way? Is it is what it is because here and now that is what any particular mere mortal wills it to be? Or thinks it is. Or believes it is. Or feels it is. Is it what it is because it could never have been anything other than that?

It seems real to me that some get banned here at ILP. It seems real to others too. It seems real in turn that there are conflicting reactions to that. And it seems real [to me] that there is no frame of mind that is able to establish if this was the right thing to do.

There is only the extent to which we can point to actual rules here and argue whether or not the rules were broken.

Or argue that the rules should be changed.

[Meno_]

But it's really evident where reality is really shaped, as a practical matter. It is what it is.

That seems reasonable.

But do any of us really have any understanding of what that really means?

Is it what it is because God willed it to be that way? Is it is what it is because here and now that is what any particular mere mortal wills it to be? Or thinks it is. Or believes it is. Or feels it is. Is it what it is because it could never have been anything other than that?

It seems real to me that some get banned here at ILP. It seems real to others too. It seems real in turn that there are conflicting reactions to that. And it seems real [to me] that there is no frame of mind that is able to establish if this was the right thing to do.

There is only the extent to which we can point to actual rules here and argue whether or not the rules were broken.

Or argue that the rules should be .

[phyllo]

Don't you agree that there is an external world that isn't generated by my mind, and though my categorizations are somewhat subjective, isn't there a world behind them that is not? My references may be meanings dependent on meanings dependent on meanings, etc., but isn't there a non-opinion world to which they refer, albeit imperfectly?

There is an external world but it is wordless and conceptless. As soon as we think, then we are imposing our ideas on the external world.

That's not a bad thing ... it's how complex organisms interact with the world. It's useful for survival. It's useful for living.

One just has to remember that there is not only one way to conceptualize and think about the world. Even if one way seems to be the natural or obvious way, there may be others which are more appropriate.

Ask yourself what is natural or obvious about a particular way of thinking here and now. You can probably several other ways which are ... reasonable, adequate, acceptable, sane, innovative, etc.

I think you're right that there's some degree of opinion about whether categories are "meaningful" or "legitimate", but "useful" seems objectively bound. To anticipate an objection, my uses and yours might differ, but whether and how well x achieves y is empirically verifiable.

Sure. But it's important not to lose sight of the fact that it's usually difficult to isolate x and y. Therefore y may be achieved because of a,b,c as well as by x (or even exclusive of x ). And achieving y will almost certainly have consequences i, j, k which influence how one evaluates the achievement of y.
As a result, it seems impossible to get rid of "opinion" entirely.

[Only_Humean]

iambiguous, please stop polluting every board and thread with your hobby-horse abortion discussion.

[iambiguous]

iambiguous, please stop polluting every board and thread with your hobby-horse abortion discussion.

Note to others:

Where did this come from?