Episodes

[justme]

Hey, there's nothing wrong with embracing ethical relatavism.

And the problem with the test for categorical imperative is that it fails to give any kind of guidance as to how general the generalization need be.

Anyways, I know we're pretty much in agreement with most of the core issues here*. I was just picking the nit regarding meta-ethics.


* - I would never go to episodes (or any establishment that I knew had overwhelmingly racist policies) myself, but I'm not going to call you a Nazi for being Switzerland.

 

[nycstripclubs]

Rufus, do you really think that some guy "nuking" Episode would somehow topple the cheap prostitution industry in this city? You know that the day after it's shut down the girls will all be distributed among the the hundreds of houses in the 5 boroughs and the surrounding suburbs. Some of which are probably owned by that fat hillbilly bitch. How do you think she rotates the girls from week to week?

I think that the oppostiton on this board to shutting down a clearly racist establishment, stems more from the loss of convenience for a cheap fuck than any "ethical issue" diming out that racist bitch may pose.

 

[RufusMoses]

I was definitely too loose at best in using the metaethics term. I feel like I have a specific kind of thing in mind without a word for it. I'll definitely be thinking more about this...thanks for that (really!).

And the more I hear about the Swiss during the war the less I'd like to be thought of as like them.

I've made a commitment here to talk to the Mgmt there about the problems they are likely bringing on themselves.

But I won't be talking about it here!

(Yeah right...I've posted more in this thread in the last few days than all my other posts combined...)

OK...I can't resist....

If you found out a specific girl wouldn't take on guys of a certain race, would you boycott her?

 

[RufusMoses]

Nycstripclubs, I really think individuals shouldn't claim for themselves the power to act as judge, jury, and executioner unless they are willing to be subjected the same exercise of power by their own enemies.

 

[justme]

RM

I'd like to think I wouldn't continue to see one, but I have been known to bend my ethical standards.

 

[nycstripclubs]

Originally posted by RufusMoses
Nycstripclubs, I really think individuals shouldn't claim for themselves the power to act as judge, jury, and executioner unless they are willing to be subjected the same exercise of power by their own enemies.

Rufus, I really don't see it in that light. It's more viceral than that.

For me, it's more like if you slap someone in the face, I'd have no problem with them kicking you in the balls. It's a debilitating blow, but you'll eventually get up again.

 

[Intown]

JJCOCKSUCKER, you keep trying to get me to suck your ass, so there's only one explanation left: you're a flaming homosexual. So I guess I AM pronouncing your handle correctly. And your gay lover is probably nycstripclubs who thinks that every paid sexual encounter ends on unfriendly terms and that no such encounters ever go any further than just a business transaction.

I couldn't care less about your insults, but your utter disregard for the plight of innocent sufferers and your fellow African American brothers is appalling. You are right about one thing though, you WILL be in hell at the end of your sorry uncompassionate life; unless the equitable reincarnation rules take over and you come back as a piece of shit. Oh wait, you're that already.

 

[nycstripclubs]

Originally posted by RufusMoses
I was definitely too loose at best in using the metaethics term. I feel like I have a specific kind of thing in mind without a word for it. I'll definitely be thinking more about this...thanks for that (really!).

And the more I hear about the Swiss during the war the less I'd like to be thought of as like them.

Funny, you don't look Swiss.

I've made a commitment here to talk to the Mgmt there about the problems they are likely bringing on themselves.

But I won't be talking about it here!

(Yeah right...I've posted more in this thread in the last few days than all my other posts combined...)

And I appreciate the effort that entails.

OK...I can't resist....

If you found out a specific girl wouldn't take on guys of a certain race, would you boycott her?

You know the venues I hang out in, mosta those girls are interested in one color only - GREEN.

But there is a provider, who unaware of my ethnic background, made a racist comment that pertained to me. And even though she she gave me several of the best BBBJ's I've ever recieved, she hasn't seen a penny from me since.

 

[RufusMoses]

nycstripclubs...actually my loaded question was pointed at JM...but it's good to know you walk the walk...

Intown...implicit verbal gay bashing in service to the fight against racism?

 

[Intown]

Gay bashing? JJCOCKSUCKER keeps flaming me and asking me to suck his ass, so the "flaming homosexual" composite description is accurate and should not be taken as offensive by any other homosexuals in the audience who I may have inadvertently offended. I'm just calling a spade a spade. And since he's a homosexual, stating that he has a gay lover is an accurate expression also, unless he's celebate which is not likely due to his obsession with trying to get me to suck his ass. For the record, I have no ill feelings toward gay people other than JJCOCKSUCKER. They have just as much right to be happy as I do.

 

[nycstripclubs]

Intown, your hood is showing.

Fuck You,
Valjean

 

[redleg609]

Well, one thing seems to be settled. We're not doing meta-ethics. Whoopie.

It looks like, at least, a few of us are also agreed that as you look at the continuum of actions that might be taken in this case it is better to start with a "proportional response" than to jump right in with "weapons of mass destruction".

Of course that leaves Intown and JJhunsecker. Oh well, they can have each other. They seem well suited.

 

[justme]

Indeed.

(Although it's always been my experience that if you're going to hit, you hit quickly, direct, and with such force that the target never thinks of doing anything to you again. So I don't know about proportional address.)

 

[Intown]

I'm surprised at you, Redleg. I'm in the same class as JJ? I defend innocent people I happen to know against someone who took great glee in their troubles, and you lump me in the same category?

And for nycstripclubs, so typical; when all else fails, play the race card. I denounced and despised the KKK in a previous post, and you say that my "hood is showing"? I should sue you for slander. I bet you were at Crown Heights a few years ago stirring up trouble.

That's all. I wasted enough time here. Say what you want; there won't be another reply. Any reasonable person reading this thread knows who the assholes are. Go on with your sorry life, JJCOCKSUCKER. But remember, Karma is waiting around the corner.

 

[justme]

Intown, let me do for you what I wish someone had done for me a few weeks back.

You may be the most compassionate, intelligent, and well meaning person in the world. But in this thread, you're comming off like a rabid idiot.

(and that goes for jj, too)

 

[RufusMoses]

Its not that there is no metaethics here, but just that (1) there is (always) entanglement between issues of ethcis and metaethics and (2) the point I was making is not really metaethics per se but it also has both metaethical and ethical implications.

I still think there should be a word for the study of minimal ethical systems that create a context for the coexistance of more complete but conflicting ethical systems. I'd again toss out hyperethics (as in a layer of ethics above the rest of ethics) but I've not done any looking into whether that term is also already claimed.

 

[justme]

(annoyingly I repeat)

Social contract?

 

[RufusMoses]

It's a good point...and a phrase I used as well. I'll have to think about it. Over time a lot of meaning has become attached to the phrase, and I am not sure all of it applies to what I have in mind. For example, isn't a social contract something that binds the members of a single society, i.e. culture? And doesn't it usually include much more than a minimal set of ethical axioms needed to prevent chaos?

 

[redleg609]

Originally posted by justme
Indeed.

(Although it's always been my experience that if you're going to hit, you hit quickly, direct, and with such force that the target never thinks of doing anything to you again. So I don't know about proportional address.)

I agree with your sentiments about proportional response when the subject is violent behavior. If someone (or group or country...) opens the door of violence, they have no right to complain about the degree of violence in the response.

In the context of this discussion, there is, or at least I believe there to be, a continuum of responses measured by potential for harm to innocent bystanders. And, further the response, in this context, should start at lower end of that continuum.

 

[justme]

If you're saying that we have an ethical obgligation to minimize 'collateral damage' I agree with you.

If you're saying that such 'collateral damage' amounts to no less than an ethical breach on our part, than I agree with you, too.