matt "ugh.. the operating system has rules"

lmfao

But if you merely consider *context*, the man did nothing wrong

Philosophers can be annoyingly collectivist at times

Yeah but shiv, you're missing a crucial point..

@NotQuiteHuman regarding your request for resources on the race and crime debate, the "cheet sheet" is to go to the wikipedia page, skim the page for what you are looking for, find out what their references are, look up the references they cite, and quote those for your report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

I mentioned Albert Fish earlier. He killed and ate over 30 children. Didn't see why people thought that was wrong.

You and I can both agree that's not moral.
He couldn't.

If morality is objective: he didn't understand the immorality of his actions.
If morality is subjective: he was acting under a different moral framework.

How can we ever know? How can objective morality ever be proven?

Unless we ignore such characters for the rare outliers they are.. which I suppose would be fair

This isn't an outlier.

Did Albert kill these children in self defense? Or for a similar reason?

Cause they tasted nice, I guess...

My point is that he never understood why it was considered taboo

Since he didn't, we can agree that what he did, was immoral

We can agree that. He never understood that argument

Immoral, because he had no actual reason to kill the children, other than his own twisted fascination

Yeah, but regardless, he never understood why it was considered immoral.

He's a low functioning psychopath, it seems

Have you considered he could have some sort of moral autism ?

He never understood, because to him, other people don't matter

All that matters, is himself

I have considered that zutt, hence my question before; it was a serious question:

Did he just not understand morality?

Or was his moral framework just different?

@zutt Not moral autism, he seems to have a lack of any sort of empathy

Well that would imply he had a moral sense and didnt care

He didn't understand morality. I can say this, because in a way, morality is heavily dependent on the concept of Empathy

From your sentence

Yeah I agree with you tbh shiv.

To understand how you can be hurt, is to understand how to hurt others. Then just don't do that, because empathy.

That's the basis for the objective morality argument I guess. .

But then, some people think differently. "Its a dog eat dog world".

Like, if I can fuck you over and make my life easier, I should be able to do so.

And you should be able to do the same to me. But I'll make it as hard as possible for you to do so out of self protection/self interest.

Not how I think, but genuinely how some people perceive the world. And if some people perceive the world that way, how can morality be objective across the board.

@Rils @Deleted User hey so I'm going to try and make the "why you do not see 'whites only' signs in the windows of American businesses anymore" short. So the people who lived in the 13 colonies that declared independence from King George III didn't want to live under a tyrant who could just tell them what to do, so they purposely made the governments ability to make laws hard.

So having a "whites only" sign in your business was legal, until the "Civil Rights Act of 1964" prohibited discrimination in "public accommodations" based on: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

Having a "whites only" sign was mandated by law under Segregation laws.

It gets a lot harder to sort out between Emancipation and Segregation how much discrimination there was

In that era, many businesses pushed back saying the federal government had no power to tell them how to run their businesses that were local, raised the chickens out back, customers were only from that town, etc.

But if we're talking about the Jim Crow era, segregation wasn't just legal, it was mandated.

Many businesses pushed back against the state laws saying they had to segregate too.

You don't correct government overreach with more government overreach.

And remember the part about "didn't want to live under a tyrant", the federal government had to find a way to prohibit discrimination, but do it in a way that I'm sure the local businesses considered tyranical

They fought tyranny with more tyranny, and it's had major consequences

So they went back to the constitution, and found a section called "the commerce clause" that regulated interstate business, and interpreted that to mean that discrimination in public accommodations was related to the trade between the sates

And of course, it was fought then, lots of people tried to make lots of arguments against it. But that's why you don't see those signs in the windows of American businesses today

The courts created a bad precedent for more tyranny.

@Rils yes they did

The courts had also previously found Separate but Equal to be constitutional

I don't like to rely on the courts for legislation

It's not a great system

It's just better than all the others

Judging by the reaction today to the power of SCOTUS, I'm not quite sure

Amend the Constitution if you want to clarify the powers of the Fed, don't have SCOTUS make up new definitions that aren't there.

I once heard my father (this was like 20 years ago) wonder aloud what would happen if the President directly acted against a ruling from SCOTUS. I want to say it's a constitutional question that's not come up in 200+ years

What would happen is impeachment.

But SCOTUS doesn't have the absolute power to order POTUS to do anything

@Rils you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but how old are you?

I'll be 30 in a month

Do you think the better system would be to put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a new constitutional amendment?

Also, Discord etiquette, you don't need to keep pinging me unless it looks like I've wandered away.

Oh sorry, today is literally the most time I've ever spent on Discord. I walked away from online chatting in 2003

I think for the most part, the Civil Rights Act was a step in the right direction

It was the means by which they enforced it that may have been a necessary evil, I'm not fully sure how I feel about that part.

Agreed

At this point, I feel like we could have an amendment like it to the constitution pass, and that would be for the best

I don't think it's necessary anymore

I don't think they can enforce morality forever.

I would like to see it done, just so we don't have to rely on the commerce clause anymore. And add "sexual orientation" while we are at it

Interesting, I hadn't considered morals

morality debate still

jeez

lets debate god or something fun

i need inspiration lmao

It's government enforcement of morals via the Civil Rights Act of 1964

I like to think of the laws as there to guarantee our freedoms, and a law that prohibits someone from discriminating against me for something I cannot control as a way to guarantee more freedoms for more people

My concern is, what about that someone's freedom to associate?

@kilo (twitter-imkilo) what about eye for an eye

You're taking away that person's freedoms to make you more comfortable.

so someone kills one of your people

so you kill one of their people

laws can beimmoral

An eye for an eye is not United States law, and I'm ill equipped to debate anything else

@kilo (twitter-imkilo) ok but the us law is based upon that

Of course, you can't control how you look, but that person's thoughts and heart can be changed, but not at the end of the barrel of a gun.

it goes back to ancient times the eye for an eye shit

While I think it's admirable to force people to not discriminate, I don't think it's ultimately a social good to force people to cooperate.

you are better off with out laws we have now , but a new system of rule inside the digital age

It might be based on that, but like Rils and I were saying earlier, it's better to go by whats in the law now, instead of trying to manipulate the law into what you think it should be

for example decentralized control, concensus, arbitors

And also I don't think an eye for eye is the correct way to go through life. Context matters after all

@kilo (twitter-imkilo) and the way the laws are made mostly is by corrupting vote rigging

so if that action is immoral

are the laws moral

we can do down lots of these slippery slopes

for example the law for marijauna prohibition

causes harm and damage to people and eocnomy as result to people

Discord Etiquette (again): It's unnecessary and sometimes seen as aggressive and rude to ping people when they're most likely still paying attention, you should save it for when you believe they've drifted away.

Hey gang, I'm being pulled away by real life.

Yes, legalize marijuanna, 100%

Mariijuanna*

@Rils ok but if im addressing you and not someone else?

however it's spelleed

I'm still reading, you can just type my name

and pereception. i dont look at it as agressive

ok its easier to type @ then up

lol

im lazy dont think its agressive

get us a hug bot or something

The whole yellow highlighting thing bugs me

damn dawg really

lmfao

seems a bit picky there rils

Dont tag fucking rils

I don't see it as aggressive (usually), I'm just passing along my experience with Discord.

I'm just more annoyed by it personally

But if it looks like I'm not here, ping away

it's annoying whne you have discord on your phone too

well discord should disable tags then

what the fuck is the use

if it annoys people

The point is to attract someone to the channel when they might be away

just kill that shit

fuck attention

thats for bitches

i was just using as a wy to address

Like how Imkilo tagged me and the other guy after a couple hours of silence

who i was speakking towards

but ya i think discord would have better retention without tags

and get better sounds

for notications

They do need to add changing the sounds

two things. make this shit go viral like FB to billion or two

get rid of gamer bullshit

Although I don't use the sounds

im not a gamer

"chat for gamers"

im not a fuckin gamer

lmfao

stop branding to kids

"chat for human"

simple fix

<:thonk:364328736499433482>

well its not for gamers anymore

just for

It's still primarily used by gamers

i mean

That's still their primary focus

we've kind of co-opted it to be fair

dude their is a pNd group with 100k ppl today.. scamming shit

mostly gamers use it for sure

The server I admin is for some LPers

also, this is basically just a modern IRC

So Gaming is still a big deal

irc is better

discord rapes u for data

and sells it

Oh, there's that one

☑

gaming is a big deal

but im in a lot of groups. none are gaming

20k is the biggest. i dont like pNd groups.. cuz they going to prison

I'm in a lot just for the emojis.

telegram adopted crypto

they branded towards it, have their own shitcoin ico

i dunno, i just think "chat for gamers" going to turn people away. like im not a gamer

chat for everyone really

long as you not scammer.. i hope ;P

Chat for Everyone, with a focus in Gaming

Which is their niche

with a focus in bots

fkin bots r fun

The bots are all user created.

yea i know, but thats key to discord

bots make discord fun

esp upvote bots 😉

cuz those one u get free money

Eh, I don't really care for the bots

if u made money from them u would love them

trust me

just a cool feeling knowing u can write a bit of python code and boom printing money with a bot via some crypto shit

😄

Sure

I'll throw that into my wallet next to my dogecoins

ya i like doges

the bots can have a bad side too

u know bitconnect

guy who is famous for that runs one.

so i dunno . i only upvote good content with mine. that isnt seen u know what i mean

me and the mods

not just self voting to print cash on shit content

like is done a lot. so i guess ppl will see that shit in the future lol. cant erase any of the history

how long before news in Mexico echos that of Venezuela

I'm wondering if AMLO's migrant rhetoric was serious or not. If he continues to advocate for open migration to the US will that increase support for the wall?

@Atkins did he make another claim recently? technically the actual context seemed more like he was suggesting being allowed in as a refugee is a human right. As the word "necessary" was stripped or lost in translation.

I still think he's making an argument for economic migrants. If people in Honduras, El Salvador, etc, are seeking asylum from criminal gangs, then they can and should apply for asylum in Mexico.

And Mexicans have no legitimate reason to apply for asylum.

Moreover, there are no refugees anywhere in Mexico or South America.

There is no war.

Asylum can be applied for if and only if there is reason to believe that the individual is being specifically targeted, or is being persecuted based on race/religion/politics, etc

i wouldn't say there is no legitimate reason to apply for asylum, unless the cartels level of violence is a myth. However, i don't think that is the current majority

"Less welcome to Mr Lopez Obrador’s team, perhaps, was the swift congratulations send by Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro – leader of a country which Mr Lopez Obrador’s critics said would be his model."

obviously it's his "critics" saying this but he does seem to align himself with Corbyn too

the cartels are not a legitimate reason to apply for asylum if i remember the catalogue of reasons correctly

really? a target for a criminal/terrorist organization does not count? Or from a government? i mean, lets face it, they are probably the government of parts of mexico

government yes, criminal organisation no (again: from memory)

They need to be a specific target.

Not merely being negatively affected by crime.

and yes... specifically targeted

Like if a cartel specifically has a hit out on them they can apply for asylum, but if they just live in a shithole with cartels it's not our problem.

does the cartel count?

well like i said, there is a legit reason to claim asylum, but that is not true of the majority of those people.

you said there is no legitimate reason coming from mexico

Dude, be realistic. 99.9999999% of people coming from Mexico are not coming because the cartel specifically wants them dead.

economic migrant is not a valid claim to asylum

like i said, the majority

Just turn the rest of the world into nuclear glass. Problem solved.

okay... the wording is "well-founded fear of being persecuted..." - sounds like government yes, cartel no to me?

In a society of 95% producers and 5% parasitic free-riders, is it morally justified for the producers to wield a level of coercive force over the free-riders?

I don't understand why more of them don't claim refugee status at the US Embassy first

Or maybe I do understand and don't want to say because it's a theory

@Atkins Yes. This is why Capitalism works. People who do work, specialize in needed fields, or take smart risks can and should earn more than others.

So only the producers earning more is justified? What about being able to wield some form of coercive power over non-producers?

Anyone who does any sort of work in exchange for money is a producer.

Yes.

But this *hypothetical* society has 5% who do nothing.

Parasitic free-riders.

I'd say it depends on what forms of coercion you're suggesting.

Gulags are out.

But one might say that the refusal of certain services due to a lack of money would be coercion alone.

I believe rock bottom should be survivable, but uncomfortable.

Also, depending on what portion of this 5% are invalid,

those who legitimately CANNOT work, especially those in that situation due to things beyond their control, should be given a bit more comfort.

Without getting into the specifics of precisely what type of coercive force or who comprises the 5%, you're still comfortable saying that the situation could be moral?

Like there exist some specific cases where it IS, even if there are some specific cases where it ISN'T

Absolutely. In the same way that I'm okay with people who perform higher in their job obtaining managerial positions as opposed to people who just show up for their shift.

OK, let me switch it up a little:

In a society of 5% producers and 95% parasitic free-riders, is it morally justified for the producers to wield a level of coercive force over the free-riders?

Absolutely.

The success of this society is dependent on the producers.

Remember: the 95% do absolutely zilch. Nada.

Exactly.

Beating off and eating cheetos.

mmhmm?

What are the producers working for, otherwise.

Who gets to vote?

As a producer in this society, I would like to leave.

I got a feeling of where that was going.

What, exactly, prevents a person from just becoming a non-producer, anyway?

I dunno. I've been thinking about this sort of thing for a while. Been reading books on AI and UBI.

what is UBI

Universal Basic Income.

I have a feeling that as more and more complex tasks become automated, that more and more people will find themselves unemployable, or else will find that their labor is worth less than the cost of living.

But conversely, those few highly intelligent and skilled individuals will find their labor in extremely high demand and will see their wages skyrocket.

I mean, the concept of a universal basic income only applies so long as there ARE producers. So long as there are things that people want.

And the owners of the automation technology will reap the majority of the economic surplus.