UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Salandriagado]

I said that I'm being forced, since I'm a slave, you responded "Only if you don't have the ability to object and then not be forced" - that's a difficult sentence to parse for me, but it seems like a non sequitur now. Do you agree that I'm being forced to go the beach, despite the fact I don't have an objection to going, in this scenario?

This is irrelevant semantics that doesn't matter to the actual point. But yes.

No I haven't. If you don't object, it's not force, providing that if you do object, your objection will be respected. If such an objection is made and isn't respected, that's the point at which it becomes a problem. This is literally precisely the thing that I've been saying this entire time. Try reading it this time.

Sure, young children do not, in most cases, have the ability to have their 'objection' to going to church be respected. Do you agree? This shouldn't be controversial. You understand the custody dynamic between the parent and their child, yes? Young children don't have too much free will on where they can go.

Yes, and if the parent forces them over such an objection as I have specified, that should be illegal. Just as much as if the parent forced them to have a circumcision over such an objection.

[Salandriagado]

Forced by the government, not by random citizens.



Your right to not do this is literally enshrined in law.



You aren't forced to do either of these at all: you just have to deal with the natural consequences if you don't.

Children are not considered capable of informed consent.
Their objections to things carry less weight because of this.

And? I see no relevance of this to the discussion.

Have you ever heard a toddler screaming about something not being fair?
I suppose we just have to stay at the park literally all day and night because billies moral compass is perturbed at the prospect of going home, or do we just abandon the child?

What is it with people not reading my fucking posts today? I've said it twice now, and you quoted one of them, but I'll repeat it again, in nice big letters this time, and maybe, just maybe, this time, somebody will fucking read it rather than jumping to ill-informed assumptions about what my posts say without actually fucking reading them:

Depending on what you mean by "don't want to go", yes.

Can you phrase your objection in a way that doesn't single out religion, but specifically outlines the behavior you object to and want to stop?

Like;
"No religious rants on homophobia." (Unacceptable, unsecular) -> "No rants on homophobia." (Secular.)

Just like "Religion" isn't an excuse for bad behavior (or shouldn't be) "It's not religious tho" shouldn't be an excuse either. The behavior is either wrong, or it isn't.

Sure: no forcing people to do things that they express significant moral objections to.

[Ostroeuropa]

Question; if you consider children capable of ethical decisions, do you think they should be tried as adults?
And if not, how do you reconcile these two beliefs?

[Ostroeuropa]

Children are not considered capable of informed consent.
Their objections to things carry less weight because of this.

And? I see no relevance of this to the discussion.

Have you ever heard a toddler screaming about something not being fair?
I suppose we just have to stay at the park literally all day and night because billies moral compass is perturbed at the prospect of going home, or do we just abandon the child?

What is it with people not reading my fucking posts today? I've said it twice now, and you quoted one of them, but I'll repeat it again, in nice big letters this time, and maybe, just maybe, this time, somebody will fucking read it rather than jumping to ill-informed assumptions about what my posts say without actually fucking reading them:

Can you phrase your objection in a way that doesn't single out religion, but specifically outlines the behavior you object to and want to stop?

Like;
"No religious rants on homophobia." (Unacceptable, unsecular) -> "No rants on homophobia." (Secular.)

Just like "Religion" isn't an excuse for bad behavior (or shouldn't be) "It's not religious tho" shouldn't be an excuse either. The behavior is either wrong, or it isn't.

Sure: no forcing people to do things that they express significant moral objections to.

Ahhh, the old arbitrary and impossible to define "MUH AUTHORITARIAN FOIBLES THO" ploy.

What do you mean, significant, or is this as I suspected, just a stand in for "Shit I Don't Like."

I wager to the Toddler, the park example is fairly significant.
Which moral objections are significant? By whose standards?

Possibly...
Social consensus?
Dun dun duuuuun.

In which case I have to say, irritating as it is, I don't particularly think much harm is done by having to listen to some waffle about Jesus and being asked to ponder the mystical and truly awe inspiring moral insights of basic shit like the good samaritan can be applied to every day life, count as significant enough to waste tax payer money and government resources, nor significant enough to break up families.

[Salandriagado]

And? I see no relevance of this to the discussion.



What is it with people not reading my fucking posts today? I've said it twice now, and you quoted one of them, but I'll repeat it again, in nice big letters this time, and maybe, just maybe, this time, somebody will fucking read it rather than jumping to ill-informed assumptions about what my posts say without actually fucking reading them:



Sure: no forcing people to do things that they express significant moral objections to.

Ahhh, the old arbitrary and impossible to define "MUH AUTHORITARIAN FOIBLES THO" ploy.

What do you mean, significant, or is this as I suspected, just a stand in for "Shit I Don't Like."

I wager to the Toddler, the park example is fairly significant.
Which moral objections are significant? By whose standards?

Possibly...
Social consensus?
Dun dun duuuuun.

Ah, so you've entirely ignored the key word. It's the middle one of the three. "I don't wanna" isn't a moral position. "I think that this thing that I am being forced to do is fundamentally evil" is a moral position.

[Hydesland]

Yes, and if the parent forces them over such an objection as I have specified, that should be illegal. Just as much as if the parent forced them to have a circumcision over such an objection.

But if you're only specifying certain kinds of 'significant' 'moral' objections, you now can no longer rely on "forcing your religion on people" to be a universal principle, because force is a much broader term than 'forcing someone against their moral convictions'. And we're also back to square one, as babies probably do not have the ability to significantly morally object to circumcision.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ahhh, the old arbitrary and impossible to define "MUH AUTHORITARIAN FOIBLES THO" ploy.

What do you mean, significant, or is this as I suspected, just a stand in for "Shit I Don't Like."

I wager to the Toddler, the park example is fairly significant.
Which moral objections are significant? By whose standards?

Possibly...
Social consensus?
Dun dun duuuuun.

Ah, so you've entirely ignored the key word. It's the middle one of the three. "I don't wanna" isn't a moral position. "I think that this thing that I am being forced to do is fundamentally evil" is a moral position.

And you ignored my point that Toddlers regularly scream about things being unfair.
Children do not possess the ability to make ethical evaluations to the extent we consider necessary to try them as adults. That's the point.
To the toddler, shit they don't like is a great evil. They're dictatorial little bastards.

It's only after they cotton on to the idea that other people have feelings and priorities seperate from theirs and practice remembering that shit that they grow up a bit.

Fundamentally that's what it comes down to.
"This is a great evil because it causes suffering." says the toddler, suddenly possessed of larger vocabulary.
And they believe it.

The problem is, they haven't learned to keep in mind that Mommy and Daddy are also capable of suffering and don't want to stay at the park for 48 hours, and learned to weigh all those competing interests against their own and come to a conclusion on the best course of action for the group.

[Salandriagado]

Yes, and if the parent forces them over such an objection as I have specified, that should be illegal. Just as much as if the parent forced them to have a circumcision over such an objection.

But if you're only specifying certain kinds of 'significant' 'moral' objections, you now can no longer rely on "forcing your religion on people" to be a universal principle, because force is a much broader term than 'forcing someone against their moral convictions'. And we're also back to square one, as babies probably do not have the ability to significantly morally object to circumcision.

I, you will note, didn't claim that this particular position addressed circumcision in any way (it doesn't). Note, however, that there are religions that routinely force circumcision at puberty or somewhere around there. Circumcisions are covered by the principle of "don't force unnecessary medical procedures on people".

[Salandriagado]

Ah, so you've entirely ignored the key word. It's the middle one of the three. "I don't wanna" isn't a moral position. "I think that this thing that I am being forced to do is fundamentally evil" is a moral position.

And you ignored my point that Toddlers regularly scream about things being unfair.

No I didn't: "this is unfair" isn't a moral position. "I think that this thing that I am being forced to do is immoral" is a moral position. I think you'll find exceedingly few children who consider "walking home" to be immoral.

Children do not possess the ability to make ethical evaluations to the extent we consider necessary to try them as adults. That's the point.

Some do, some don't. This is irrelevant.

To the toddler, shit they don't like is a great evil. They're dictatorial little bastards.

Ah, here we come to the misunderstanding: it's not "I think what you are doing is evil". It's "I think that what you want me to do is evil".

[Ostroeuropa]

If you prefer, the disenfranchisement of children is a lesson in power.
They have to do what we say because they're too useless to society to be able to impact most people by doing shit like having a strike, though they surely try with the whole "Well ima stop breathing." stuff.
They don't get a vote because there's nothing they can do to irritate us enough to force us to give them one. Society will continue whether or not they stay sulking in their rooms, and they're too disorganized and small to practice widespread violence.

It's an 18 year crash course in democracy and how it really works.

[Ostroeuropa]

And you ignored my point that Toddlers regularly scream about things being unfair.

No I didn't: "this is unfair" isn't a moral position. "I think that this thing that I am being forced to do is immoral" is a moral position. I think you'll find exceedingly few children who consider "walking home" to be immoral.

Children do not possess the ability to make ethical evaluations to the extent we consider necessary to try them as adults. That's the point.

Some do, some don't. This is irrelevant.

To the toddler, shit they don't like is a great evil. They're dictatorial little bastards.

Ah, here we come to the misunderstanding: it's not "I think what you are doing is evil". It's "I think that what you want me to do is evil".

"This is unfair" is a moral position whether you want to admit it or not, vocabulary aside, it's fundamentally the same objection.

It isn't irrelevant. If you think children are capable of moral decisions, then you should want to try them as adults. If you don;t think that, then their objections don't need to be considered.

It's not a misunderstanding.
"You want ME to go home, instead of staying here."
Fundamentally the examples are the same.

[Ostroeuropa]

On the other hand, I would be perfectly content with agreeing that a child who makes a positive affirmation of a particular faith or lack thereof should not be forced to attend services they disagree with, and this can be phrased in secular terms.

"I am An Atheist, and do not wish to go to church."
"I am A Muslim, and do not wish to go to the synagogue", etc.

That suggests a level of awareness beyond just up and declaring they don't like something, think its unfair, or evil.

[Eibenland]

If you prefer, the disenfranchisement of children is a lesson in power.
They have to do what we say because they're too useless to society to be able to impact most people by doing shit like having a strike, though they surely try with the whole "Well ima stop breathing." stuff.
They don't get a vote because there's nothing they can do to irritate us enough to force us to give them one. Society will continue whether or not they stay sulking in their rooms, and they're too disorganized and small to practice widespread violence.

It's an 18 year crash course in democracy and how it really works.

Children aren't disenfranchised just because adults are power-hungry. They're disenfranchised because they're still in the training phase and not considered ready to take control of making major decisions yet.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you prefer, the disenfranchisement of children is a lesson in power.
They have to do what we say because they're too useless to society to be able to impact most people by doing shit like having a strike, though they surely try with the whole "Well ima stop breathing." stuff.
They don't get a vote because there's nothing they can do to irritate us enough to force us to give them one. Society will continue whether or not they stay sulking in their rooms, and they're too disorganized and small to practice widespread violence.

It's an 18 year crash course in democracy and how it really works.

Children aren't disenfranchised just because adults are power-hungry. They're disenfranchised because they're still in the training phase and not considered ready to take control of making major decisions yet.

It's not power-hungry. It's just an evaluation on the history of the franchise and how its been expanded.
"You're too incompetent" has always been the excuse to deny the vote to literally every group denied it in history.
The way they contested that notion was showing society couldn't function without their cooperation, thereby either forcing us to include that group in the process, or forcing us to concede that they had some form of competence necessary for society to function.

Children are often uncooperative.
Shit still gets done.

Regardless of what you think of children and their competence, if Children organized a strike or mass riots and suddenly nothing fucking worked properly, we'd include them in the vote, and you're probably able to realize that's the case. Even if we thought they were thick as shit, we'd do it.

The competence is a separate issue.
Democracy is a pragmatic ideology, and the franchise has always been based in pragmatism, not ethics, those are a smokescreen.

[Hydesland]

I, you will note, didn't claim that this particular position addressed circumcision in any way (it doesn't). Note, however, that there are religions that routinely force circumcision at puberty or somewhere around there. Circumcisions are covered by the principle of "don't force unnecessary medical procedures on people".

You brought it up here when I was talking to Ostro about circumcision, so it's only reasonable I'd assume that's what you were trying to do.

Anyway, I think "freedom of religion" covers things like circumcision, and I think "don't force unnecessary medical procedures on people" is also a good principle to follow. Those two principles conflict with each other, and I don't think it's immediately obvious which principle should take priority in this instance.

[Ostroeuropa]

I, you will note, didn't claim that this particular position addressed circumcision in any way (it doesn't). Note, however, that there are religions that routinely force circumcision at puberty or somewhere around there. Circumcisions are covered by the principle of "don't force unnecessary medical procedures on people".

You brought it up here when I was talking to Ostro about circumcision, so it's only reasonable I'd assume that's what you were trying to do.

Anyway, I think "freedom of religion" covers things like circumcision, and I think "don't force unnecessary medical procedures on people" is also a good principle to follow. Those two principles conflict with each other, and I don't think it's immediately obvious which principle should take priority in this instance.

Gender equality tips the scale imo, unless milder forms of female genital mutilation are unbanned.

For MGM, major forms are banned. For FGM, all forms are banned, including some less invasive than circumcision.

Citizens should receive equal protections.

[Salandriagado]

No I didn't: "this is unfair" isn't a moral position. "I think that this thing that I am being forced to do is immoral" is a moral position. I think you'll find exceedingly few children who consider "walking home" to be immoral.



Some do, some don't. This is irrelevant.



Ah, here we come to the misunderstanding: it's not "I think what you are doing is evil". It's "I think that what you want me to do is evil".

"This is unfair" is a moral position whether you want to admit it or not, vocabulary aside, it's fundamentally the same objection.

See the last line: it's a fundamentally different statement.

It isn't irrelevant. If you think children are capable of moral decisions, then you should want to try them as adults. If you don;t think that, then their objections don't need to be considered.

Nope: "possibly capable of having a moral opinion" and "necessarily having the full sense of responsibility of an adult" are not the same thing. There's a vast swathe of space in the middle of that.

It's not a misunderstanding.
"You want ME to go home, instead of staying here."
Fundamentally the examples are the same.

Nope: again, the child doesn't think that "going home" is an immoral action. I've said this already. You are, once again, responding to my posts without reading them.

[Mujahidah]

On the other hand, I would be perfectly content with agreeing that a child who makes a positive affirmation of a particular faith or lack thereof should not be forced to attend services they disagree with, and this can be phrased in secular terms.

"I am An Atheist, and do not wish to go to church."
"I am A Muslim, and do not wish to go to the synagogue", etc.

That suggests a level of awareness beyond just up and declaring they don't like something, think its unfair, or evil.

Why should that be any different, though? If children cannot be trusted to decide who should lead a country, how can you expect them to make grown decisions over matters of faith? Regardless of whether you think a parent should respect such a request, which is a different argument, why should parents rights be limited in that realm of their child's decision making process but no other? That seems rather inconsistent.

[Eastfield Lodge]

"This is unfair" is a moral position whether you want to admit it or not, vocabulary aside, it's fundamentally the same objection.

See the last line: it's a fundamentally different statement.

It isn't irrelevant. If you think children are capable of moral decisions, then you should want to try them as adults. If you don;t think that, then their objections don't need to be considered.

Nope: "possibly capable of having a moral opinion" and "necessarily having the full sense of responsibility of an adult" are not the same thing. There's a vast swathe of space in the middle of that.

It's not a misunderstanding.
"You want ME to go home, instead of staying here."
Fundamentally the examples are the same.

Nope: again, the child doesn't think that "going home" is an immoral action. I've said this already. You are, once again, responding to my posts without reading them.

And what if the child thinks that it's morally wrong to be forced to go home?

[Salandriagado]

I, you will note, didn't claim that this particular position addressed circumcision in any way (it doesn't). Note, however, that there are religions that routinely force circumcision at puberty or somewhere around there. Circumcisions are covered by the principle of "don't force unnecessary medical procedures on people".

You brought it up here when I was talking to Ostro about circumcision, so it's only reasonable I'd assume that's what you were trying to do.

No I didn't. I brought up an entirely different position there. If you want to argue that forcing children to be circumcised is A-OK, I'll be happy to tell you all the ways that's bullshit, but this particular argument I brought up explicitly in response to you asking if the government should prevent parents from forcing their children to go to church.

Anyway, I think "freedom of religion" covers things like circumcision, and I think "don't force unnecessary medical procedures on people" is also a good principle to follow. Those two principles conflict with each other, and I don't think it's immediately obvious which principle should take priority in this instance.

Yes, it is: freedom of religion does not cover freedom to force unnecessary medical procedures on other people, any more than it covers offering other people up as human sacrifices to your god. The difference between the two is one of degree, not of kind.

[Salandriagado]

See the last line: it's a fundamentally different statement.



Nope: "possibly capable of having a moral opinion" and "necessarily having the full sense of responsibility of an adult" are not the same thing. There's a vast swathe of space in the middle of that.



Nope: again, the child doesn't think that "going home" is an immoral action. I've said this already. You are, once again, responding to my posts without reading them.

And what if the child thinks that it's morally wrong to be forced to go home?

Then the child thinks that their parent is doing something morally wrong. That, as an opinion, is irrelevant. They don't think that the thing that they are being forced to do is inherently morally wrong. I don't know how many fucking times I need to say this before people fucking read it, but that's at least six now.

[Hydesland]

Yes, it is: freedom of religion does not cover freedom to force unnecessary medical procedures on other people, any more than it covers offering other people up as human sacrifices to your god. The difference between the two is one of degree, not of kind.

Freedom of religion is just a general principle of allowing people to engage in religious practices they choose to - it's up to us to decide what happens when this principle conflicts with other freedoms. You can't just make some positive deceleration that "freedom of religion only extends to x", you can't analyse normative issues in a positivist manner like this.

[Eastfield Lodge]

And what if the child thinks that it's morally wrong to be forced to go home?

Then the child thinks that their parent is doing something morally wrong. That, as an opinion, is irrelevant. They don't think that the thing that they are being forced to do is inherently morally wrong. I don't know how many fucking times I need to say this before people fucking read it, but that's at least six now.

And what if the child thinks that it's morally wrong to be forced to go home?

They don't think that the thing that they are being forced to do is inherently morally wrong

What?

[Vassenor]

Theresa May rules out City firms 'passporting' after Brexit

So there we are, we can stop pretending that this won't fuck over the square mile now.

[Imperializt Russia]

Then the child thinks that their parent is doing something morally wrong. That, as an opinion, is irrelevant. They don't think that the thing that they are being forced to do is inherently morally wrong. I don't know how many fucking times I need to say this before people fucking read it, but that's at least six now.

And what if the child thinks that it's morally wrong to be forced to go home?

They don't think that the thing that they are being forced to do is inherently morally wrong

What?

A child not wanting to go home and a person believing an action to be "morally wrong" are two very different things. While we may consider children of 8 or 10 to have reached the "age of reason", I don't expect them to be able to frame a legitimate argument on the morality of not going home.