What philosophy offends you most?

[Pattern-chaser]

"What philosophy offends you most?"

Intolerance, distorting the views of others using straw man and ad hominem attacks, and petty bickering. Even since I have been here, this forum has noticeably moved in that direction. Just look at the posts preceding this one. Shame on us all for doing that, or for allowing it to happen.

[chewybrian]

"What philosophy offends you most?"

Intolerance, distorting the views of others using straw man and ad hominem attacks, and petty bickering. Even since I have been here, this forum has noticeably moved in that direction. Just look at the posts preceding this one. Shame on us all for doing that, or for allowing it to happen.

Your observation is certainly correct, and it is sad. We can do better (sometimes we do) and we should be here just for the purpose of having discussions that rise above that level. Why come here otherwise? Why do some posters (seemingly) have an agenda? The only agenda for a philosopher should be the truth. He should eagerly expect his opinions to change over time, rather than trying to build trenches around them and fire volleys at the 'enemy'. Gaslighting is very effective, but terribly unethical. It has no place in a just society, and much less in a serious discussion of philosophy.

I understand the forum rule against accusations of trolling, as it is only fuel for the fire. The one doing the trolling will turn and play the victim card and spin the argument into whether they are being treated fairly or not to distract from the fact that they have been called out for doing what they are obviously doing. I don't know what might resolve the problem, which seems to come up as soon as any topic touches on politics or economics in the slightest. Some other conversations remain worthy of philosophy because they don't seem to attack someone's fortress of couch cushions.

[Sculptor1]

Both the left and the right believe that morality is objective, and that they are keepers of The Truth, and they assume that the other extreme is too ignorant and/or wicked to accept their "truth".

That is quite a bold and unverifiable statement.

It is palpably wrong. It's just prejudicial . What is "the left" who belongs to it. Who comprises "the right" and what are they sypposed to think?

[GE Morton]

Make up your mind do animals "claim" a right or not? I've never heard one do that.

I've never said they CLAIMED them. I said they HAVE them. They don't claim to have eyes, either, but they have them.

You absolutely did, quite literally.
You ought to take more care with your words.

Ok. Please quote, and cite the post, where I said that.

Yes, fake like other religious beliefs. Natural Rights requires a divine hand.

Well, you're obviously choosing to ignore the definition I gave, in favor of some mystical one you prefer because it can be easily dismissed. But to criticize my comments concerning "rights" you have to use my definition. Otherwise your objections will be to an irrelevant straw man.

To refresh your memory, a right is a pseudo-property we impute to persons or other sentient creatures to denote a particular historical fact about that person. Rights are always to something, either "things" (tangible or intangible), or to act in certain ways ( property rights and liberty rights, respectively). Propositions in the form, "P has a right X," are true IFF P was the first possessor of X, or P acquired X via a "chain of consent" from the first possessor.

Property rights can also be classified as "natural" or "common;" natural rights being rights to things with which one was born (and thus was the first possessor of), such as one's life, body, natural talents and abilities, etc. I.e., one's natural possessions. Common rights are rights to things acquired after arriving in the world, also per the first possession rule.

There is clearly no mention or implication of any "divinities" there.

So you might go back and re-frame your objections assuming the above definitions.

[GE Morton]

To refresh your memory, a right is a pseudo-property we impute to persons or other sentient creatures to denote a particular historical fact about that person.

PS: A "pseudo-property" is a property imputed to something to denote some external fact about that thing. Unlike "real" properties, which we verify by observing the things alleged to have them, to verify pseudo-properties we have to observe something else, something external to the thing. For example, we can't tell whether a person is s doctor, or is married, by observing the person; we'll have to examine some school records or marriage license records instead. Those are pseudo-properties.

[Sculptor1]

Make up your mind do animals "claim" a right or not? I've never heard one do that.

I've never said they CLAIMED them. I said they HAVE them. They don't claim to have eyes, either, but they have them.

You absolutely did, quite literally.
You ought to take more care with your words.

Ok. Please quote, and cite the post, where I said that.

Yes, fake like other religious beliefs. Natural Rights requires a divine hand.

Well, you're obviously choosing to ignore the definition I gave, in favor of some mystical one you prefer because it can be easily dismissed. But to criticize my comments concerning "rights" you have to use my definition. Otherwise your objections will be to an irrelevant straw man.

Sorry buddy, but you do not get to define philosophical concepts yourself. They exist with a long history behind them which predate your personal idiosyncrasies.

To refresh your memory, a right is a pseudo-property we impute to persons or other sentient creatures to denote a particular historical fact about that person. Rights are always to something, either "things" (tangible or intangible), or to act in certain ways ( property rights and liberty rights, respectively). Propositions in the form, "P has a right X," are true IFF P was the first possessor of X, or P acquired X via a "chain of consent" from the first possessor.

Not especially relevant since animals do not own property.

Property rights can also be classified as "natural" or "common;" natural rights being rights to things with which one was born (and thus was the first possessor of), such as one's life, body, natural talents and abilities, etc. I.e., one's natural possessions. Common rights are rights to things acquired after arriving in the world, also per the first possession rule.

There is clearly no mention or implication of any "divinities" there.

So you might go back and re-frame your objections assuming the above definitions.

You are making claims about "Natural RIghts" if you cannot be bothered to understand the concept it is pointless continuing.

And no - I am not going to trawl back to show you when you said that animals claim natural rights.
You can do that for yourself

[Sy Borg]

"What philosophy offends you most?"

Intolerance, distorting the views of others using straw man and ad hominem attacks, and petty bickering. Even since I have been here, this forum has noticeably moved in that direction. Just look at the posts preceding this one. Shame on us all for doing that, or for allowing it to happen.

Sorry for the problems. While I find peace vastly preferable, I sometimes choose to challenge those who unfairly misrepresent or even openly denigrate the vulnerable.

I understand the wish to ignore the issues for the sake of equanimity. That is my preference too, but imagine if your child was trans and how those comments would impact them. If the comments on this thread remained unchallenged, I would not like a vulnerable young person reading them.

I like to think of a philosophy forum as a space where reason can be relied upon to be spoken, at least most - well, a fair bit - of the time. However, the divisive zeitgeist has made its mark, and that's an issue for the whole internet.

In the end, if one starts a thread called "What philosophy offends you most?", one should not be surprised and disappointed when opinions are sharply divided

[GE Morton]

Sorry buddy, but you do not get to define philosophical concepts yourself. They exist with a long history behind them which predate your personal idiosyncrasies.

Indeed it does have a long history, and that definition was not created by me --- which you would know had you read the Lueck link I posted.

Not especially relevant since animals do not own property.

Yes, they do. They own their bodies, for example, and birds their nests, wolves their dens, nearly all carnivores the prey they have taken, and will defend them, as well as they are able.

You are making claims about "Natural RIghts" if you cannot be bothered to understand the concept it is pointless continuing.

It is you who not only don't understand the concept, but who refuses to learn it.

And no - I am not going to trawl back to show you when you said that animals claim natural rights.
You can do that for yourself

That claim was yours. The obligation to substantiate it rests with you --- an obligation you're obviously unable to meet.

[Gertie]

Sy

Both the left and the right believe that morality is objective

,

I doubt there's much correlation between believing morality is objective and political moderate v extreme political beliefs. I'd expect it's more a case of how much thought someone has given to the nature of morality.

and that they are keepers of The Truth

,

ditto. Moderates tend to think of themselves as realists, and extremists are daft kids or nutters lacking their experience and pragmatism.

Basically everybody thinks they're right, no matter what their position is.

and they assume that the other extreme is too ignorant and/or wicked to accept their "truth". In truth, each side is too ignorant, blinkered or deranged to understand their delusions. Many extremists tend to be young people, with a lack of life experience coupled with a lack of humility. For many, life will beat sense into them in time, and their children will be largely left to carry the flag of unrealistic idealism.

Some people are naturally moderate or extreme about things generally, but which is the correct approach depends on the situation. If you think the world or your society is generally hunky dory, just needs some tinkering around the edges, you'll be a moderate. That might be because in your own experience things are going pretty well for you, or you think any radical alternatives are likely to be worse, or some other reason.

If you think radical change is needed, that there are better ways of doing things, that's what being an extremist is.

There's nothing intrinsically good or right about being moderate, or extreme.

I'm a Lefty who finally hoped we could really change the UK for the better when Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party. But he was labelled extreme, unpragmatic, too idealistic, or a dangerous threat (take your pick) by moderates (in his own party) and the vested interests who control our media and like things just how they are.

That critique is rarely applied to the Right, because their interests ally with those who own the media, our source of information, as we veer ever rightwards. What do moderates and centrists do - follow the centre rightwards. Which is what the new moderate leadership of the UK Labour Party is doing, in the hope of getting elected by not rocking the boat, or being seen as a threat by those same vested interests who tell us what to think.

Meanwhile the Right somehow also manages to present itself as the radical alternative by waging culture wars.

It's an appalling, depressing mess.

[Sy Borg]

Sy

Both the left and the right believe that morality is objective

,

I doubt there's much correlation between believing morality is objective and political moderate v extreme political beliefs. I'd expect it's more a case of how much thought someone has given to the nature of morality.

If that quote is complete then that's missing the adjective "extreme". My point was that extremists on the left and right consider their views to be The Truth. I think it should have been clear, given that a claim that 90% of the world's population believes in objective reality doesn't make sense.

Have you ever heard of an extremist who ever entertained the possibility of being wrong - on anything? Moderates do not have that same level of certainty and they are prepared to change their views if given sufficient evidence. That was my point.

[GE Morton]

Have you ever heard of an extremist who ever entertained the possibility of being wrong - on anything? Moderates do not have that same level of certainty and they are prepared to change their views if given sufficient evidence. That was my point.

There is a difference between believing one's views are objective (or true), and their being objective (or true).

[Sy Borg]

Have you ever heard of an extremist who ever entertained the possibility of being wrong - on anything? Moderates do not have that same level of certainty and they are prepared to change their views if given sufficient evidence. That was my point.

There is a difference between believing one's views are objective (or true), and their being objective (or true).

An issue lost on those whose ideologies blind them from the rest of reality.

[Sculptor1]

Sorry buddy, but you do not get to define philosophical concepts yourself. They exist with a long history behind them which predate your personal idiosyncrasies.

Indeed it does have a long history, and that definition was not created by me --- which you would know had you read the Lueck link I posted.

Not especially relevant since animals do not own property.

Yes, they do. They own their bodies, for example, and birds their nests, wolves their dens, nearly all carnivores the prey they have taken, and will defend them, as well as they are able.

You are making claims about "Natural RIghts" if you cannot be bothered to understand the concept it is pointless continuing.

It is you who not only don't understand the concept, but who refuses to learn it.

And no - I am not going to trawl back to show you when you said that animals claim natural rights.
You can do that for yourself

That claim was yours. The obligation to substantiate it rests with you --- an obligation you're obviously unable to meet.

Property is a human concept And only absurdly attributable to animals.
I have no more time for such silliness

[Sculptor1]

Here's an example of an offensive philosophy:
One that thinks animals have property rights.

[GE Morton]

I have no more time for such silliness

What you have no more of, is arguments supporting your views.