It was actually my father who always made me wash my mouth out with soap and water.

But that was just to remove all traces of his DNA.

(Stolen from Bill Hicks or Doug Stanhope, I forget which!)

Maybe we need a poll to see who supports egalitarianism, and in which of the two forms? I hate the ridiculous arguments like, "If person X and Y were in a burning building and you could only save one..." We don't make laws or live our life based around extremely improbable and contrived events.

(May 27, 2015 at 9:19 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 9:04 am)LastPoet Wrote: Ah ben, he can't reply to you. He wanted a month ban and he got a little more than that.Kudos, for all it's worth.

Yeah, gutted. I'm at work and it took me ages to post my reply. By the time it was up, he was gone! How about a game instead: let's reconstruct what his answer would have been! I'll go first:

"I would trust that my God would provide me with whatever I need to thrive in that society so I wouldn't need to design it. God's already done all the hard work for me!"

Next!

So no-one wants to play my game?


I'll get my coat...

That just means you won by forfeit!

(May 28, 2015 at 5:38 am)robvalue Wrote: We don't make laws or live our life based around extremely improbable and contrived events.

^This^

This is the problem with objective/externalist morality. I object to the notion that one should prepare a long list of hypothetical situations and then, when faced with a moral choice, carefully examine them all for a response. This is a degrading suggestion. It is also impractical.

So, from what I gathered in the OP, it's a stretch to say that nature created all beings equivalent (which I would assume Heywood thinks is the handiwork of God, so what difference it makes with respect to nature idk), but it may be rational for society to treat everyone as equals...

So... What's the problem?

(May 28, 2015 at 7:47 am)Exian Wrote: That just means you won by forfeit!

But I'm not interested in winning, I want to play the game!









*sudden insight regarding my atheism

I've got no clue what Heywood may have been driving at.

I wonder, this second more extreme definition for eagle vision or whatever it's called: it sounds to me pretty much like socialism/communism? I'm no expert on these things though. What would be the difference?

I believe in removing prejudice as much as possible: not discriminating solely on the basis of anything not relevant to the matter at hand. So basically the logical extension of not being racist, sexist, homophobic etc. Would this be classed as (the first definition) of egalitarianism? Or does it suggest more than that? It's a bit vague.

(May 28, 2015 at 10:01 am)robvalue Wrote: I've got no clue what Heywood may have been driving at.

I wonder, this second more extreme definition for eagle vision or whatever it's called: it sounds to me pretty much like socialism/communism? I'm no expert on these things though. What would be the difference?

I believe in removing prejudice as much as possible: not discriminating solely on the basis of anything not relevant to the matter at hand. So basically the logical extension of not being racist, sexist, homophobic etc. Would this be classed as (the first definition) of egalitarianism? Or does it suggest more than that? It's a bit vague.

sometimes crazy is just crazy.  

(May 28, 2015 at 10:01 am)robvalue Wrote: I've got no clue what Heywood may have been driving at.

The point of the game was to do your best Heywood impersonation for the lulz. I fail as a gamesmaster...

Quote:I wonder, this second more extreme definition for eagle vision or whatever it's called: it sounds to me pretty much like socialism/communism? I'm no expert on these things though. What would be the difference?

The first definition involves intervening in the existing range of social environments to drive equal opportunities however some see those environments as inherently unfair thus designed to drive inequality rather than equality. Consequently some people hold the position that it's easier to achieve equal opportunities if we change society and strive for greater uniformity of circumstance; thus equal opportunity occurs as an emergent property of social constructs rather than as an intervention. This can manifest as many different types of political position, usually towards the far sides of the political spectrum: anti-capitalism, socialism, communism, some have even derived genocidal and eugenic ideals from the position. Simply put, the first definition regards coping with the status quo and allowing change to occur organically whilst the second uses social engineering to drive change.

Quote:I believe in removing prejudice as much as possible: not discriminating solely on the basis of anything not relevant to the matter at hand. So basically the logical extension of not being racist, sexist, homophobic etc. Would this be classed as (the first definition) of egalitarianism? Or does it suggest more than that? It's a bit vague.

The first definition. You may also hold some political views that border on the second but you seem too even-minded to me.

I see, thanks a lot