Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate • Hacker News Board

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#171

Post by mariusor » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #152

mariusor wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not arguing about something that is true or not. I am arguing that someone that supports an objectively immoral act is objectively immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.

Let's talk about the word "objective" here. It means outside of any person's perspective, the same for everyone. Like the laws of physics for instance. "objective" and "moral" are contradictory, considering that "morals" are defined by individual perspectives. Even murder and child molestation were considered normal in some cultures historically (e.g. classical Greece). There is no such thing as objective morals, whi…

Let's not argue semantics, please. I am pretty sure you understood what I meant.

Persecuting a group of people for various criteria is unethical, immoral, evil, whatever you want to call it. I also claim that it is objectively so, and I would like you to argue in good faith how I am wrong about these two facts, instead of - like you accused grand-parent - moving the goal posts.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#172

Post by colordrops » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 8:50 PM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #165

colordrops wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong about that because it's not possible to know if something is true with certainty. Hearing about things in the news and social media doesn't make it true. See: Iraq WMD.

I feel that is a really bad example. I was an adult at the time and it was really clear back at the time that the Iraqi wmd was made up allegations, or at least the evidence we got to see was not worth anything.

It's pretty clear to me that Xinjiang is not as bad as the US is making it in their propaganda war. I haven't seen any concrete evidence of genocide.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#173

Post by colordrops » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 8:53 PM UTC

mariusor wrote: post #171

colordrops wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's talk about the word "objective" here. It means outside of any person's perspective, the same for everyone. Like the laws of physics for instance. "objective" and "moral" are contradictory, considering that "morals" are defined by individual perspectives. Even murder and child molestation were considered normal in some cultures historically (e.g. classical Greece). There is no such thing as objective morals, whi…

Let's not argue semantics, please. I am pretty sure you understood what I meant. Persecuting a group of people for various criteria is unethical, immoral, evil, whatever you want to call it. I also claim that it is objectively so, and I would like you to argue in good faith how I am wrong about these two facts, instead of - like you accused grand-parent - moving the goal posts.

No, it's not semantics. You can't say something that is not logical then argue that it's semantics when someone points that out. I don't know what you mean. There really isn't any situation that has an objective moral grounding. Just look at abortion. Both sides have pretty strong and reasonable narratives why their stance makes sense, and they both believe themselves to be objectively morally in the right. What is really happening is that both sides are small minded, thinking the other side is blind and nuts, and making the same mistake that you are.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#174

Post by the_only_law » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

deltaonefour wrote: post #163

the_only_law wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or china in response to a terrorist massacre, wages a campaign to assimilate, brainwash and sterilize an entire culture without any intention to start an actual military war. Which results in detainment and people losing their freedoms all in the name of preventing terrorism. It's hard to attract sympathy towards your argument when you straight up admit that sterilization of an entire culture is going on, which yes…

Attracting sympathy is the wrong word. Understanding is a better word. Understanding the psychology of why sterilization and genocide takes place. To you it seems horrid. But to a chinese person the perspective is completely opposite. Why? This failure to understand leads to brain dead responses. I use the war in afghanstan and 9/11 for comparison because Americans actively promoted and encouraged mass slaughter duri…

Apologies, misread the intent.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#175

Post by davorak » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 11:10 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #173

mariusor wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not argue semantics, please. I am pretty sure you understood what I meant. Persecuting a group of people for various criteria is unethical, immoral, evil, whatever you want to call it. I also claim that it is objectively so, and I would like you to argue in good faith how I am wrong about these two facts, instead of - like you accused grand-parent - moving the goal posts.

No, it's not semantics. You can't say something that is not logical then argue that it's semantics when someone points that out. I don't know what you mean. There really isn't any situation that has an objective moral grounding. Just look at abortion. Both sides have pretty strong and reasonable narratives why their stance makes sense, and they both believe themselves to be objectively morally in the right. What is r…

> No, it's not semantics.

It is easy to interrupt you argument as semantics, because you can remove 'objectively' from mariusor's statement and the intended meaning does not seem to change much:

'I am arguing that someone that supports an immoral act is immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.'

The main point of the statement does not seem to revolve around or or depend on 'objectively', so your argument can come off as arguing over an irreverent detail, which is one definition arguing over semantics.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#176

Post by colordrops » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 11:56 PM UTC

davorak wrote: post #175

colordrops wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not semantics. You can't say something that is not logical then argue that it's semantics when someone points that out. I don't know what you mean. There really isn't any situation that has an objective moral grounding. Just look at abortion. Both sides have pretty strong and reasonable narratives why their stance makes sense, and they both believe themselves to be objectively morally in the right. What is r…

> No, it's not semantics. It is easy to interrupt you argument as semantics, because you can remove 'objectively' from mariusor's statement and the intended meaning does not seem to change much: 'I am arguing that someone that supports an immoral act is immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.' The main point of…

It wouldn't have been confusing if not for them changing the subject and move the goalposts from their original statement, where the use of "objective" was absolutely material to their meaning, which was that the act is unquestionably immoral:

>> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits

> I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#177

Post by chillacy » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:28 AM UTC

the_biot wrote: post #169

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of Am…

It's not a shibboleth when some considerable portion of the population, including judges, regard it as an inviolate document of absolute truth.

The justices on the Supreme Court all have pretty different* interpetations of this absolute truth, so I do kind of get OP’s point.

* different enough that it matters to people who care about modern day politics

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#178

Post by davorak » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 2:20 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #176

davorak wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it's not semantics. It is easy to interrupt you argument as semantics, because you can remove 'objectively' from mariusor's statement and the intended meaning does not seem to change much: 'I am arguing that someone that supports an immoral act is immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.' The main point of…

It wouldn't have been confusing if not for them changing the subject and move the goalposts from their original statement, where the use of "objective" was absolutely material to their meaning, which was that the act is unquestionably immoral: >> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits > I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things wh…

It looks like mariusor gave you a statement, with no direct connection to a real group of people, that is almost tautologically true.

> Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.

To reword a little bit, it is immoral to persecute(or support the act) a group for arbitrary and trivial detail(s).

So if you agree with that then you and mariusor would have some common ground and could build from there.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#179

Post by colordrops » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 2:36 AM UTC

davorak wrote: post #178

colordrops wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't have been confusing if not for them changing the subject and move the goalposts from their original statement, where the use of "objective" was absolutely material to their meaning, which was that the act is unquestionably immoral: >> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits > I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things wh…

It looks like mariusor gave you a statement, with no direct connection to a real group of people, that is almost tautologically true. > Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that. To reword a little bit, it is immoral to persecute(or support the act) a group for arbitrary and trivial detail(s). So if…

I don't agree with the characterization that there's no direct connection to a real group of people with this statement, as it would be a non sequitur at best, and an intentional misdirection at worst. I, and probably most people reading this thread, are under the impression that we are talking about the Uyghurs of Xinjiang considering the topic of the post, and it's kind of absurd to assume otherwise.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#180

Post by effingwewt » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 4:22 AM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #140

Dracophoenix wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. From a legal viewpoint, even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another. I have a hard time seeing that most would accept hitting a person as…

Even if someone is hurling a monstrous slew of verbal insults at you, hitting them is both morally wrong and illegal. Today's awareness of mental trauma and triggers is a good thing, but it blurs the line a bit between physical and verbal attacks. Personally, I strongly believe that words should be treated fundamentally differently than physical violence. Sticks and stones, etc. That said, if you're the one hurling i…

I think it's more about it making you choose your words carefully.

For the record I'm very against what will smith did (posters above mentioned it), but I'd have felt differently if it hadn't been a comedian telling jokes, but say someone got in will's face and called him the N word with malice. I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to knock someone out over that. If the other person knows this is a good possibility, they may only use those words if they mean them enoughto accept the consequences.

I'm not saying my way is right, I'm just saying how it was growing up, and how that's shaped me.

In another thread I mentioned a friend of mine getting hurled insults at her abortion appointment. Had any of them been a man I'd have definitely gotten in some trouble that day. My belief is they have the right to say it, not protection from the consequences. But I'm also very against cancel culture. Am I weird for all of this? Alone in these beliefs? Totally wrong? Quite possibly, I know the world now confuses the shit out of me, and sometimes I feel like I am the only sane one for seeing some things (ie- trading our lives to the rich for a pittance, rules for thee but not for me, etc). Truly I could be very wrong, and if so I will accept that and try and change my views. I do try and live by the scientific method.