So emotional…
This seems to be correct, yes.
Than why is it such a disaster if someone says ‘I consider poverty to be a problem’ and get’s blasted for it.
Jesus.That’s one of the most disgusting examples of attempted thin libertarianism.
When you are ready to analyse and criticise in a substantive way let me know. Until such a time, I will indulge my morally unimpeachable rights to discriminate against you as a potential partner to valuable discussions. If you wish merely to share generously your opinions of what is pretty or ugly, perhaps another forum would be more appropriate
I’m not sure what’s so wrong with Walter Block’s article, really.
I’m not sure what’s so wrong with Walter Block’s article, really.
He uses the term “discriminate” without adding “boo!”
I quite like the article.
He conflations the case for discrimination in a rights sense(i.e. being compatible with the NAP) which I agree with into a moral defense of discrimination based on strawmen and misrepresentations and throughout the piece forgets the difference.
If you define rational as basically any action (even one’s taken by rabbits)… I guess it makes sense for one to think of racism or bigotry as rational.
Than why is it such a disaster if someone says ‘I consider poverty to be a problem’ and get’s blasted for it.
It would become a problem, to me anyway, when it seems to be an aesthetic taxonomy trying to assert itself in as some logical universal principle, because there is no way to deal with it in any coherent sense.
It ought be noted that liberal philosophy is inherently and at it’s core “pro-civilization”, I would say that the number 1 and uncontestable building block of being “pro-civilization” would be getting rid of back breaking marginally productive poverty. In fact if liberal philosophy did not do that, if markets did not do that, the social science is wrong and the philosophy is defunct. There is no reason for one liberal to divide political positions, outside of scientfic error, due to someone not accenting their concerns for poverty in an adequate acceptable manner.
He conflations the case for discrimination in a rights sense(i.e. being compatible with the NAP) which I agree with into a moral defense of discrimination based on strawmen and misrepresentations and throughout the piece forgets the difference.
What strawmen and misrepresentations?
“In the days of yore, to say that a man was discriminating was to pay him a compliment”
not understanding that these are two different uses of the word .
" in our politically correct times, discrimination implies racial and/or sexual hatred"
Conflating political correctness with concern for the latter.
“Well, male heterosexuals despicably discriminate against half the human race as bed/sex/marriage partners: all other men.”
Weird argument based on his early misunderstanding.If discrimination meant what he thought it did here he’d be right.
I’ve also read the longer book and with it’s repetitions it’s like this too.
Say why he is wrong about what discrimination means and why the discrimination that upsets you so as being ugly (and immoral?) is different from the gender discrimination in the search for sexual partners. if you can.
not understanding that these are two different uses of the word .
How do you know he doesn’t understand that there are two different uses? Perhaps his focus is only on one use of the term.
Conflating political correctness with concern for the latter.
He isn’t conflating a thing. He’s only addressing one issue.
Weird argument based on his early misunderstanding.If discrimination meant what he thought it did here he’d be right.
Perhaps you are purposefully using “discrimination” differently than Block then (trying to) conflate the two in an attempt to feign moral outrage. Is a new thread needed for defining and explaining “discrimination?”
And where are the strawmen?
Well, the all-important question is what comes first. Are people unable to reason because they are mentally incapable of nailing down concepts, or are they incapable of nailing down concepts because they are stupid? The latter would be good news because people could be fixed. But hasn’t that always been the assumption of Marxist and other utopian social engineers, that you can fix people with enough education? I’m not that optimistic.
Nailing down concepts (definitions) isn’t really hard, you just have to do it. It takes discipline, so most people simply don’t bother.