🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@johnabs

So the main purpose of morality is to encourage behaviors that make society the most fit society possible? (fit as in having the ability to thrive)

@bii

@Foxmonsieur

Legal judgements asidem, as its only an analogy and not the useful... the way i see it she basically said "I intend to cross this picket line in about a month".. then a week later said "I will not"

In the end all i care about is that she didnt cross it. It seems silly to me to hold her to something she never did... but you are welcome to your opinion of course. Like i said, I dont really think the strike is justified at all, so we are both biased fromt he get go anyway.

@Bradcopter @georgetakei

@Foxmonsieur

Criminal intent is an element of law, but not itself a charge.

Attempt Charge is the charge (or one example of a charge) and one of the requirements to be guilty of an Attempt Charge is that criminal intent must be shown. We are splitting hairs here now, point is we were both right but talking about different things and the important part is I now know what you meant when you said "thats why they call it intent", I thought you meant that intent is a criminal charge, which its not, you just meant intent is an aspect of the law, and yea.

> Now, it's not up to the public to decide anything about this matter. It's a negociation and a battle between unions, their members and the companies. She's in an actors guild acting openly in solidarity with the writers guild, it's up to them.

Yea I agree with this, its between them to negotiate so its between them to decide how or if it effects that. sure. So if you are saying we shouldnt form opinions about her in regard to this and neither attack nor absolve her.. thens ure, ill go with that.

@Bradcopter @georgetakei

@voidabyss

> I don’t agree with that assessment, nor the examples your mentioned as “self-harm”.

Ok sure lets go through it then.

> Here are some examples of self-harm and people engaging in those should seek help.

We are trying to figure out the rules, so jumping to examples is great, but that doesnt help unless you can tell me the rules that determine if an example qualifies. In this case you are trying to define what self-harm is, but the examples dont get us there... even if i use them they contradict. for example....

> Self-harm: This refers to intentionally causing harm to oneself, such as cutting, burning, or hitting oneself.

Ok so just this example alone agrees with most of my examples.

Eating extremely unhealthy food causes harm, I think thats pretty undeniable. Also when we eat extremely unhealthy food it is intentional. So it meets your two criteria for what is self harm in this example, being that it is harmful and intention to one's self.

Same thing for my other examples, tattoos, scarification, literally everything i listed qualifies under your statement of what self harm is above.. yet you claim it isnt... why?

For me the examples you are giving feel alot more like "things that are not good to do" and a lot less like "things that are immoral to do". Making bad decisions isnt the same as making immoral decisions.

@AGTMADCAT

> Do you have any concrete examples of strikes being used for bad causes and having any success?

None that were large enough to make the news or have citeable sources, and that i can actually remember the name of, just the ones ive seen personally, and certainly not all of them. That said i dont exactly stay up to date on all the strikes around the world either.

That said I am sure there are plenty examples of strikers asking for unreasonable demands.

> I'm not aware of any significant or successful labor actions which have been used to increase oppression.

While I cant tell you any specific strikes, I certainly know of the general case where this happens all the time. It is a very common practice among unions, particularly labour unions, to force negotiatiosn in their favor that oppresses the non-union workers in the work place. For example when unions strike it is not uncommon to use as their demand a contractual requirement that they are only allowed to hire union members. This oppresses the right for employees to choose for themselves which union they wish to support, or form opposing unions that might fix issues the employee has with current unions. Taking away all current and future employees rights to choosing a union (or to choose not to be in one) is absolutely a very common example of strikes resulting in oppression.

> I would argue, though, that in the current world people are generally feeling disenfranchised and powerless, and that any kind of successful organized action shows people that they can stand up for themselves against the rich and powerful.

I'd say quite the opposite. People are feeling arogant and self-entitled. Anything right now that adds fuel to the fire and reinforces the bad behavior (like rioting, violence, etc) is the last thing we need. But I also think this is a really bad reason to support a strike, any strike.

@georgetakei

@Foxmonsieur

I think we agree that the writers, her staff, and anyone involved with her have the right to have any opinion they want of her actions, and act on it.

But your statement doesnt seem to account for how the public can determine if the writers are the ones int he wrong (not saying they are)... but seems your suggesting the public should defer to the writers to decide how to respond to her actions... But if the general public always followed that game plan it seems like there would be no protection against protecting against strikes where the strikers demands are unreasonable.

@Bradcopter @georgetakei

@bii I mean i agree with your definition. erotica is "lighter" than porn sure.

@Foxmonsieur

> Nothing there happened by accident, she didn't do it unknowingly.

In my analogy I am not claiming she did it by accident or unknowingly.. Even if intentional, someone puts something in their pocket with every intention of stealing it. As long as if in the end they dont actually steal it. That they realize on their way to walk out that the consequences are too high and the last minute changes their mind and pays for it... guess what, they wont be arrested. Even though it wasnt by accident, it was intentional and theft was the intention, it still wouldnt get them in jail if in the end they didnt follow through and paid.

> Reasonable doubt is also not applicable here, wanting and planning to do wrong/illegal things is legally called an intent for this very reason.

Well its a bit more complicated than all that. First off "intent" is not the legal term. I think you re confusing it with "attempt". There are two criminal terms relevant to what we are discutting "Attempt Charges" and "Conspiracy Charges". Attempt charges is what we are talking about not "intent", easy mistake to make.

Anyway the thing about Attempt Charges is simply planning the crime in and of itself is not, usually, considered enough to get Attempt Charges. As a general rule you have to do more than just make plans, usually you have to at least show you made some attempt to carry out those plans. Like if you planned a robbery on paper, that isnt enough, but if you actually went out and got the floor plans and bought a crow bar AND had the plans, then you would probably get stuck with Attempt Charges.

All thats a bit moot, but worth touching on. With that said im not really sure if she would get Attempt charges or not in this analogy. But it plays to my point, if she had actually started paying for and preparing the neccesary elements to start the show, then yes, that would be enough. But if all she did was talk about her intent to start the show and then literally 2 days later changes her mind, no I doubt that would work.

> She didn't forget some chewing gums in her pockets, she took action to come back with her show. She openly spoke about coming back and announced it, knowing she'd break the pickets lines.

I mean i never claimed she forgot something or made a mistake. She intended to reopen the show, 2 days later she decided not to. It was literally a decision she made, did nothing to carry it out, and decided it was a bad idea 2 days later.

Honestly nothing against you, but this is the very reason the left has been struggling lately. Because even when people ultimately do whats right (even if they had a momentary lapse of judgement) that is never enough. We attack even the people who ultimately choose to be our allys till there are no allys left. This has to stop.
@Bradcopter @georgetakei

@voidabyss

> Someone engaging in self-harm is an indication of underlying emotional distress or mental health issue.

This statement isnt true all the time. Obviously some people who engage in self-harm sure, that is true. But the vast majority of self-harm this isnt true.

When you eat a burger instead of a salad, that is harmful. Its self harm, we just accept it. You arent mentally ill for it.

When someone gets a tattoo, or more to the point, scarification work, it isnt due to a mental illness, its due to wanting a particular aesthetic.

So no this fundemental statement isnt automatically true. Is self harm only immoral when its due to underlying mental health or distress? Or is it always immoral?

> Morality stems from your belief system

I mean this is true for literally everything you believe, the things you believe are part of your system of believing. I dont think this statement is adding anything. You still need to have reasoning for why you beleive a thing however if it is to have any merit as an idea.

> ...and your ability to feel compassion.

This feels like the closest we have gotten to an answer that seems to have some substance to it.

Would you agree with me to say compassion is basically saying you dont like to see people suffering, it makes you feel bad, and thus compassion compels us to try to prevent things that cause suffering?

> If you don’t feel any compassion toward someone engaging in self-harm nor your belief system don’t condone it, that might be an indication of a psychopathic tendencies.

It might be, but whether im psychopathic or not im not sure is all that relevant tot he question of how to check if something is moral or not.

But as per the above, I hope we agree not **all** self harm is due to underlying suffering or mental illness. So even if i am quite compassionate I should only feel bad for people where self-harm is using in a way that causes them to suffer (or is due to them suffering) no?

@voidabyss To be clear i am not asking you to explain it because i disagree or am saying it is or isnt... I am asking because just because something feels true and obvious, doesnt mean it is. As humans we have instincts that tells us things are right because we had to evolve to think that simply because in the past it was needed for survival.

Humans can get obvious common sense thigns wrong all the time.

So even though it may "feel" obvious to you and me that self-harm is wrong, how can we actually check our own feelings to see if they are right or not?

@voidabyss We arent agreeing or disagreeing. If it is self-evident then it should be very easy to explain why its morally wrong. I'd be interesting to hear that argument.

@bii I am using porn in the normal way here... Lets just say the majority of normal stuff youd find on pornhub... Or to put it another way... naked people engaging in sexual activity with the explicit intent to arouse the viewer and includes penetration and full nudity in graphic detail for that purpose.

@AGTMADCAT

> I think if she'd crossed not one but two picket lines to put on her show that definitely would have been doing something wrong.

I personally disagree it would be wrong, but only because I have not been convinced that the things the strike is fighting for is justified. But that is a tangent I didnt intend to get into with this question.

> Strikes only work when everyone stands unified.

I think that is a valid and correct statement.

> And strikes working is inherently good for society in a multitude of ways.

Depends on the strike. I would hope we agree that we only want strikes to work for good causes... strikes for causes that harm society we want to be unsuccessful no?

While we disagree on if this particular strike is a good one or not I would hope we at least agree we would only want strikes to "work" when they are a morally good demand. Like if a bunch of people went on strike to protest hiring a black person at their work place... I think we can all agree we **dont** want that strike to work right?

So yea id say no, strikes should not always work, and if they did that wouldnt be good for society. We want them to work when we all agree their for a good cause and we explicitly want them to fail when they dont.

@georgetakei

@voidabyss

No im not assuming anything. You are the one claiming self-harm is wrong, I am notasserting it either way. You are the one who is obligated to explain why logically self-harm is immoral.

@Foxmonsieur

> If you try to steal something and get caught, it's an attempt and under the law, an attempt is considered "the intent to commit an offense/crime".

Sure but thats not the anaology that is accurate to the situation.

If i take something off a shelf and put it in my pocket, no that wont get you arrested. It is only once you actually walk out with the item you get arrested.

The reason for that is there is reasonable doubt. You may or may not have been considering stealing it, but since we dont know there needs to be solid proof you had every intention of following through.

I mean just think about it, you put something in your pocket, start to walk to the door. You see a sign that says "you will go to jail if you steal" when you see it your change your mind and pay for the item... Even if you tell the judge "yea i was going to steal it but i changed my mind last minute and didnt" you wont go to jail

Thats closer to what we have here... she never followed through, she never even attempted to other than stating her intent (in the sense that no one was brought back, no show filmed no work done... nothign she did was a violation).

> She was willing to break the strike and she backed off because she's been caught and forced to back off.

Caught? Forced? What are you on about... She **anounced** her intention, she wasnt "caught"... then when she hears the opinions of the people she announced it to she changed her mind.. She wasnt forced, she could have still filmed, she could have done whatever she wanted, no one forced her hand. Hearing peoples opinions and changing your mind as a result is **not** being forced. It is realizing a bad decision and choosing of your own free will not to follow through.

> The writers she's working with are on strike, she's a SAG-ATRA member and she wanted to break both pickets lines, so yeah, it's an offense she needs to atone for and no, "sorry" is not enough.

If she would have done it then i would have agreed. But **wanting** to do a thing that is wrong, and then not doing it, is hardly a reason to still find her guilty.

One final comment though, I hope you realize that this mentality is counter productive. If you really get to the point where you treat someone as guilty simply for wanting to do a think and not doing it, all you are going to do is cause people to refuse to change their mind. I mean if someone wants to be a scab, even for an instant, why would they not be a scab if they cant take it back even if they want to.. it encoruages people to commit to hurtful choices since learning your choices are wrong wont matter since onlyt he act of considering it is enough to make you guilty.

@Bradcopter @georgetakei

@mnutty

Im a bit reluctant to answer this... reason being my expiernce is if you are a republican then you will deny every example i give of republicans doing it no matter what mental gymnastics one needs to do to get there.

Similarly if you are a democrat and I give examples you would do the same, and perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to deny it, and claiming its all the other side.

The irony will be that my very response to yoru comment to answer it will have you behave in a way that demonstrates the very fact that democrats do the same, it will be QED... but even then, if youare a democrat you still wont see it.

My hope is despite this it will be respectful, but 90% of the time in my off the cuff estimation the result will instead be that you throw insults at me, probably personal ones, and then rage quit.... but hey here goes, ill answer.

Just earlier today we have been discussing Biden's extremely racist history. He started his career trying to keep segregation alive and that was his focus for a better part of a decade.. never apologized for this or anything.. more recently he has demonstrated he still is just as racist but at least now he knows that will loose him an election, so at least he is trying to hide it. Now its still obvious but not as direct... stuff like how he exploits minorities to win the election by hiring only and exlusively minorities to every single position, sometimes with some abysmal credentials. Its so exagerated I think most of us can see its pretty obvious he is just exploiting them to try mask his racist past and change his image. Even if you fell for it he says things like "If you dont vote for me you aint black" which has two problems.. One he things as a white man he knows better for the black community then they do (since they are wrong if they dont agree to make him the guy in charge). But also there is the fact that he felt when he addressed the black community he should use broken and improper english words like "ain't" so it would be more relatable, a word he almost never uses. He literally talks down to them.

@voidabyss

> Porn lead to sex addiction which lead to diminishing productivity and unhappy relationships making it the cancer of society.

I am going to take this as an axiom and assume its correct for this discussion. Its not, its completely wrong im sure, but to save time lets just assume it is right for the sake of argument.

> Smoking lead to cancer which lead to early death making smoking morally wrong.

Smoking isnt morally wrong, nor is early death. Why would something automatically be morally wrong simply because it results in a earlier death for you, thats your choice, its your life. It may be a bad decision, but that doesnt make it an immoral one.

@AGTMADCAT

I thinkt hat is a fair perspective.

While I myself dont think she did anything wrong even if she did host the show. I do understand you dont agree on that and I think your reasoned approach, given you perspective, is a fair one.

@georgetakei

@ambihelical @kryptec

> You haven’t presented any thing other than your subjective and biased evaluation of Biden’s more recent career.

Huh? Nothing in this post or the thread is related to his recent career other than one or two minor comments when addressing people claiming he changed.

> Where are the facts you are using to decide this?

Well this thread is about his past, not his present... The facts? I've so far presented quite a few cited sources for various points. But fundementally I provided a transcript of congress from 1977 showing him using extremely racist language, proposing extremely racist policy, and explaining it as non-racist with nonsensical claims that dont add up and is not reflected by his stance at the time.

I'd say thats pretty solid facts that even the most biased person in his favor should be able to see (though apparently not)

> You base everything on his early career and your entirely biased impression of his behavior.

The whole thread is about his past behavior. I mean clearly you dont like my interpritation of him in the present.. but what does that have to do the the thread or the debate where apparently we disagree about that past. Sounds like you are disagreeing on my opinion about him in the present, and for some very strange reason using that to justify you disagreeing with me on a debate specifically about how he acted int he past....

That said, no, its also based on his behavior in the present.. which I have explained multiple times how it is clear his actions are racially motivated.

One such fact is his exploiting minorities to advance his own carrer.. this is probably the hardest one to deny. He has almost exclusively hired only minorities, often unqualified. The skew is so over the top and so often with people who are just abysmal on paper, that I think its clear to anyone who is even remotely objective he is intentionally doing it to exploit them for his own image. If it were actually to help the minority community we would see a stronger focus on representation and qualifications rather than just trying to hire any minority who is willing to.

> What the fuck is this “daddy biden” bullshit? This is not a fact, this is something you made up.

Nope didnt make it up at all... It is directly from his actions and quotes that demonstrates this.. I didnt make it up and pull it out of my ass. I provided facts that demonstrated it. You are welcome to disagree of course, but to suggest its just something i fabricated, rather than being directly describing something he said, is an important distinction.

While most of what he says is carefully rehearsed to make sure his racism doesnt show through, he constantly slips up and shows very clearly his racist mindset, part of that is his superiority complex (what im refering to when I say he sees himself as a daddy figure). There are so many examples of this I wont go into all of it. But one thing I pointed out is his language when talking to minorites... where he clearly sees himself as the superior and often uses language treats them as lesser... "If you dont vote for me you aint black" is a perfect example of that, and something he said, what like a year ago? He thinks of himself as superior to blacks... clearly if they dont agree with him, and support him, they arent black, cause he knows more about what it means to be black than a black person apparently and they should defer to him or else they cant possibly be black...

If you cant see the racist, and father complex nonsense in that.. in a white person telling a black person if they dont agree with their decisions they aint black.... well then there is no hope for you to see it I guess...

Also its important to note he almost never uses the improper english word "aint" except the one time he addressed blacks. You dont think it shows a racist mindset that he feels when he talks to blacks he has to use broken and incorrect grammar to be relatable?

> You can decide a lot of things about a person if you assume, it doesn’t make them correct or even reasonable. In fact you are not using reason at all.

I mean I literally led you through the reasoning step by step... his choice of language exclusive to talking to black people, his phrasing that black people arent black if they dont agree with him, etc... id say if anything the fact that I've explained this to you once already and your pretending like there is no reasoning at all simply because you may not agree with the interptiation I think shows that you are far far more bias than me. You literally blanked on a whole conversation as if it didnt happen to justify your bias... While I may (or may not) be wrong, my bias has never caused me to blank on a whole opinion and just assume it was fabricated ignoring the reasoning explained to me as if it never existed....

> However, objectively, he has demonstrated that indeed he is not a “raging racist” as you insist, but a pragmatic politician who supports social programs that would actually make a difference in society.

I mean if thats what you want to call segregation... Funny thing is we have history to know without a doubt this is flat out wrong. Bussing went through without out him... and guess what, it was a success as is obvious by the fact that now all schools have been integrated.

> Measured against some in the right who actively work to destroy such programs, I think it’s not hard to see where the racism lies.

Ahh now your bias really shows. The fact that you think talking about some other group of people being racists somehow belongs in argument about Biden's racism is extremely telling that you are seeking nonsensical scapecoats. Anyone with a lick of reason in this would know that another group or persons racism in no way effects if Biden is racist or not... that fact you tried to play that card shows you, far more than me, have abandoned reason and instead are just grasping at straws.

> I’m saying this as someone who would prefer someone else, didn’t vote for him in the primary, and thought he was not the best candidate by far. But “raging racist”? That’s a bit rich considering what actual raging racists do.

I think you are confusing a raging racist who goes out of their way to hide it, vs slightly less raging racists who go out of their way **not** to hide it.

Trump obviously has some racism of his own, for example... yet I cant think of anythign he has done that actually holds a candle to spending the better part of a decade trying to keep black kids out of white schools, and vice versa.

Look he is a liar and has exploited black people. He did it so people would defend him when called a racist and ultimately win the election. The exploitation and manipulation has worked on you, exactly the way he has wanted it, despite the obvious **facts** staring you int he face.. It is what it is.

@unabomber

@voidabyss Cancer isnt exactly the same as being morally wrong. But feel free to elaborate why if you want to discuss it.