physeter

@Enco

States with weaker gun laws have higher rates of firearm related homicides and suicides, study finds

In short, where gun control is weak, there are more gun-related homicides. Look at the map in the article.

But you’ve done that classic tactic of distracting rather than answering. You’ve also moved the goal post from the end of the field…[Read more]

Autumn, Davis, Jake, and Fellow Unbelievers,

I recently read in Prepper Magazine something that has some bearing here:

Don’t teach children about “stranger danger.” Most people only have a circle of relatives, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances that doesn’t exceed 150, so teaching them to automatically fear strangers is no way to live on…[Read more]

Defensive gun use statistics vary considerably study to study. It’s not necessarily the fault of researchers—it’s a difficult thing to quantify. Issues like selection bias, poor sampling, underreporting, false positives can all potentially swing numbers way up and way down.

False positives tend to be a major concern of mine. For instance, if I g…[Read more]

Simon,

Deontological theories of ethics such as Kant’s never satisfied me. After all, humans are beings in a Natural Universe with Cause and Effect and are living beings whose acts have consequences and who act upon potential gains and harms to their own life and flourishing and that of others. It is ridiculous to insist that humans disregard…[Read more]

Unseen,

One of the big reasons given to justify people having guns is for self protection.

Where is the statistic showing that a significant number of those killed and wounded by guns became statistics due to some gun owner protecting him/herself?

If there is one, I believe you’ll find it’s somewhere in the single digits painfully close to 0%.…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
we should be concerned about acting rationally and in accordance with duty to moral principles.

Think about it: It also presupposes a preexisting moral sense.

Kant’s rational moral principles are his Categorical Imperatives.  I think he presupposes desirable goals or goods.

You question asked if my defence would be the same if the target were child molesters as if who the target was had some bearing on the bigotry in question. Why would it change? Why would who the target is matter? If it doesn’t matter, then what’s the point of the question? If you understood the argument I was putting forward then the question had…[Read more]

Autumn i do not follow your comment.

If not, then pedophiles have no relevance. The recipient of the bigotry doesn’t salvage bigotry or reframe it.

Autumn wrote, ” You are conflating whether people deserve criticism with whether or not they deserve bigotry.”

Not so.

Davis i am not comparing the two. I was curious to see whether Autumn was more an apologist for Islam/Muslims or had principles that would carry over. The answer was as i expected.

@Simon

(Kant’s) theory proposes that it is not consequences that should guide our actions; rather, we should be concerned about acting rationally and in accordance with duty to moral principles.

Think about it: It also presupposes a preexisting moral sense. And I think a moral sense usually implies a belief in generalizability. (“Is this sort of…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
Autumn would your defense of the term be the same if the target were child molesters? Pedophilphobia?

In principle, yes. I feel no need to defend irrational, prejudicial bias. There are rational reasons to be critical of pedophilia. We don’t also need irrational reasons. We don’t need additional hate and fear-mongering. We don’t…[Read more]

Jake, are you comparing being a Muslim with being a Pedophile?

Autumn would your defense of the term be the same if the target were child molesters? Pedophilphobia? So instead of a significant minority group of the entire population and its abhorrent institution we were considering irrational bigotry/antipathy towards molesters.

In the former we have an institution and its followers who “are bigots (and…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
i think the concept has to be about individual Muslims as opposed to ideas.

It doesn’t. Islamophobia targets Muslims and Islam, but it isn’t about Muslims or Islam. It’s about bigots, cultural norms and systems of belief that promote and sustain irrational, prejudicial bias.

If you’re talking about rational criticism then there…[Read more]

Autumn, i see where you are coming from. Strong case you’ve made. I am not really sure what i think after reflecting. On the one hand it seems ideas and people have to be separated. It is too sloppy to leave a term like Islamophobia an amorphous concept. On other hand i think human nature is such that ideas and humans espousing those ideas are…[Read more]

But according to Kant, moral decisions are rational based on the principle of universalisation.  If this provides a world where the maxim is possible without the world breaking down in some way – it’s a good decision.

I think it’s intended that if universalisation leads to a contradiction, it’s a rational-morally false move.

However, I see what…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
…if everyone were to universalize the maxim of borrowing money without intending to repay it, the concept of borrowing itself would become meaningless, as no one would be willing to lend money.

Ironically, one has to have a sense of morality prior to applying the categorical imperative. Where does that come from?

Unseen wrote:
While Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a powerful and influential ethical framework, some critics have pointed out potential challenges and situations where its application can lead to what may seem like absurd or counterintuitive conclusions.

It’s an example of something that is logical but not accurate.  It doesn’t ma…[Read more]