If I push someone close to a well, gravity is a fact of nature that pulls them down and kills them. People need intact heads to survive, and that's just how it is, no fault of mine. That is what your argument sounds like. I know you separate verbal action from physical action, but at the same time you equate laws with guns, even though the laws are 'just information'.Steroid wrote:You are misunderstanding. That picture, or that text, or that speech, is information. There is a thought behind it. And if thoughts are sacred, how can I curtail them from roaming free and interacting with other thoughts? But a blow to the body is not a thought, nor is a jail cell. They are inferior entities to human thought. And as such I can, and I declare should, curtail their interference of thought.
What is enjoyment? How does it differ from thought? If less discrimination happens, the discriminator is not enjoying himself anymore. Here's the difference between discrimination and murder. Whichever party is favored, someone is not going to enjoy themselves, either the discriminator and the murderer, or the discriminatee and the murder-victim. But in the latter case, the murderer is the direct cause of the victim's non-enjoyment and suffering. In the former, the discrimination victim might lose out on money and have to forgo a luxury, or he may even freeze or starve. But the discriminator didn't set the rules that say one can't produce matter from nothing or that people must eat and keep warm to survive. Those are facts of nature and as such are amoral.
Discrimination costs lives, and if you make people not discriminate, they can find other forms of enjoyment. And actually, if less discrimination happens, the discriminator could be enjoying themselves just as much as before – discrimination is not enjoyment. More equality makes everybody more happy. If you can use the potential of previously discriminated-against groups, their employers will be more happy (better results than if you just pick the people conforming to what you think a good worker looks like), and the employees will be more happy (can afford central heating, going above the poverty-line, etc).
If one group is discriminated against, and they won't find work anywhere, that costs them lives. If no-one is discriminated against, people will find work eventually. Or maybe, it will be like what the Tea Partiers Want: the lazy, stupid people will become poor and dead. If you allow discrimination, there will be unfair distribution in work. Human life is necessary for human thought. Do you want to make human life unfairly distributed, causing people to unjustly die early, not being able to think anymore?
I'm not sure how this is a reply to what I said. I may be missing some vagaries, do explain more.Steroid wrote:Again, by arguing my thoughts I do no ill to anyone. If I killed or robbed to enforce these arguments, I would be hypocritical.kewangji wrote:I think human thought is wonderful, too, but you can't just zoom in on laws and declare that no-one should change them because that'll change people's thoughts. Everything does that, and if the thoughts are really 'morally neutral', it shouldn't matter to you. Unless you have a beef against going meta, in which case I'm not sure why you're debating things that are meta, if it's not just betraying your principles to spread them.
Through this thread, you have not specified, as far as I can tell, what it is you don't want other things to change human thought from. I think you're just a friend of the status quo, afraid of change, and these are excuses you built around that.