Split Thread DEI in the US

[Trausti]

Rape is completely natural and is found throughout nature. Lots of species do it.

The defining feature of humans is that civilisation frees us from the tyranny of nature.

Well, yes. I agree with that. Rape/murder/slavery - all the stuff we in the West today consider bad are part of the human condition. As an example, when Islamic fundamentalists takeover an area (Syria/Libya/etc.), often their first priorities are opening slave markets and raping kafir women.

 

[arthwollipot]

I am saying that people are not equal...

Some of us hold these truths to be self-evident.

That you don't says a lot.

If all people are not equal, if some people are of less worth than others, that justifies the most horrific of atrocities.

Rape and murder and worse are okay because it happens to those non-people.

 

[Trausti]

Some of us hold these truths to be self-evident.

That statement was about natural rights given by God, not abilities. Siblings raised in the same household with the same parents are not equal in ability or outcome. That's not a value judgement. That's just reality.

 

[arthwollipot]

And therefore discriminating against them is totally okay. Gotcha.

 

[Darat]

That statement was about
natural rights given by God, not abilities. Siblings raised in the same household with the same parents are not equal in ability or outcome. That's not a value judgement. That's just reality.

Is this god fella in the room with us now? Can you tell me where I can find the rights God gave us?

 

[Darat]

Some of us hold these truths to be self-evident.

That you don't says a lot.

If all people are not equal, if some people are of less worth than others, that justifies the most horrific of atrocities.

Rape and murder and worse are okay because it happens to those non-people.

I do think some folk are mixing up different uses of "equal".

Not all people have the same skills or abilities, in that sense folk aren't equal. All folks should have equal rights, in that sense all folk are equal.

Same word - different usages.

 

[d4m10n]

Can you tell me where I can find the rights God gave us?

I needed a good laugh this morning; arguments from theology on a skeptic board really hits the spot.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I needed a good laugh this morning; arguments from theology on a skeptic board really hits the spot.

That statement was about natural rights given by God, not abilities. Siblings raised in the same household with the same parents are not equal in ability or outcome. That's not a value judgement. That's just reality.

@Trausti wasn't arguing from theology. He was distinguishing his usage of the word equal (having to do with abilities) from @arthwollipot's reference to a 250-year-old Declaration of Independence, whose second paragraph begins with these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.​

Most of those who signed that document really believed this Creator stuff, while others did not, but all of them signed onto the self-evident truths that all [men] are created equal in the sense of having certain inalienable rights, including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The very next sentence says governments exist to secure those rights.

Governments do not exist to secure equality of abilities. Governments exist to secure equality of rights.

@arthwollipot's quotation from that Declaration of Independence was entirely on-topic, did not appeal to theology, and was entirely appropriate as counter to what @Trausti was saying. @Trausti responded helpfully, by saying what he cares about is the inequality of abilities, for which governments are not responsible. It seems @arthwollipot is more concerned with equal rights, which are the responsibility of governments.

 

[d4m10n]

@arthwollipot's quotation from that Declaration of Independence was entirely on-topic, did not appeal to theology

Seems to me that if you quote someone else's argument from (deistic) theology then you've brought that theology into the discussion.

It's cool that those guys believed in the sort of creator who would invest all human beings with divine moral worth, but given how hard that would be to demonstrate we probably need something stronger to ground our moral scaffolding these days. We cannot rely on deistic or theistic assumptions being broadly shared amongst skeptics.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And therefore discriminating against them is totally okay. Gotcha.

He's taking us down this rabbit hole of nonsense because he can't answer the question I asked earlier which is "without DEI policy, how do you prevent discrimination of protected classes in hiring practices?" He's essentially saying, "you can't prevent it, it's human nature so we may as well not try." I guess we shouldn't have any laws, then, because it is human nature to rape, kill and steal.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Seems to me that if you quote someone else's argument from (deistic) theology then you've brought that theology into the discussion.

It's cool that those guys believed in the sort of creator who would invest all human beings with divine moral worth, but given how hard that would be to demonstrate we probably need something stronger to ground our moral scaffolding these days. We cannot rely on deistic or theistic assumptions being broadly shared amongst skeptics.

Seems to me you're rejecting the ideals set forth within the US Declaration of Independence because a majority of those who signed it believed in a Creator and referred once to Nature's God, once to a Creator, once to the Supreme Judge of the world, and finally to divine Providence.

I endorse the ideals set forth within the US Declaration of Independence despite its signers' religious beliefs and animus toward "the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

 

[Trausti]

Is this god fella in the room with us now? Can you tell me where I can find the rights God gave us?

It's a political document. Hello? But a fundamental tenet of Christianity, the tenet that led the West to champion slavery abolition, is that the all are created by God and can enter heaven. The new covenant. If you were somehow unaware that the founders were Christians, you should demand a refund from your university.

 

[d4m10n]

Seems to me you're rejecting the ideals set forth within the US Declaration of Independence because a majority of those who signed it believed in a Creator and referred once to Nature's God, once to a Creator, once to the Supreme Judge of the world, and finally to divine Providence.

One can endorse a conclusion without believing that the chain of reasoning to get there was valid.

If we want to make the case that all men humans are equal in some important moral sense (even merciless savages) we can probably do that without invoking theology.

Even assuming we pull that off, I cannot now think of any way to tie this back to DEI. Good evening.

 

[arthwollipot]

If we want to make the case that all men humans are equal in some important moral sense (even merciless savages) we can probably do that without invoking theology.

We can, yes. But could the founders in 1776 do that?

 

[dirtywick]

Melania Trump makes history presiding over UN Security Council — remarking on Iran war deaths

“You are in my thoughts and prayers during these challenging times,” Melania Trump said.

nypost.com

The Pentagon says it’s ‘lethalitymaxxing’. Why has ‘incel’ slang crossed into the mainstream?

With the rise of influencer Clavicular and ‘looksmaxxers’, sexist language from niche memes has infiltrated official government accounts and NYT headlines

www.theguardian.com

US hockey was bathed in a golden Olympic glow. Then Donald Trump and Kash Patel stepped in | Beau Dure

The US men’s and women’s teams claimed titles at the Winter Games this past week. The warm fuzzy feelings didn’t last long

www.theguardian.com

now that we’ve gotten rid of the dei hires, we see a drunken pete hesgeth promotes lethalitymaxxing in leading the new war with iran, a drunken kash patel taking a break from the epstein cover up to slam beers with the men’s hockey team while making fun of the women’s team, and melania trump presides over her first un security council meeting. but at least she wasn’t drunk

 

[Darat]

It's a political document. Hello? But a fundamental tenet of Christianity, the t
enet that led the West to champion slavery abolition, is that the all are created by God and can enter heaven. The new covenant. If you were somehow unaware that the founders were Christians, you should demand a refund from your university.

I think you need to check your history - Christians were more than OK with slavery (to be fair they are only doing what god told them they could do in the bible) when the USA was formed, you may not know but you had a little fracas about it - and both sides were mainly Christians.

 

[d4m10n]

Even assuming we pull that off, I cannot now think of any way to tie this back to DEI.

Wait, wait, wait I've got it. In 1777 Vermonters became some the first people anywhere in Christendom to (even partially) abolish slavery, noting that “all men are born equally free and independent . . . therefore, no male person ought to be holden by law, to serve any person as a…slave.” Thus we can draw a line from the principles of the Declaration of Independence directly to the earliest DEI initiative in the 250 year history of the former British colonies in North America.

...could the founders in 1776 do that?

Likely not, which was sort of my point.

Why should skeptics rely on moral principles grounded in mysticism?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, yes. I agree with that. Rape/murder/slavery - all the stuff we in the West today consider bad are part of the human condition. As an example, when Islamic fundamentalists takeover an area (Syria/Libya/etc.), often their first priorities are opening slave markets and raping kafir women.

Thats ok its just their culture and you can't blame them for it any more than you can blame the founding fathers for owning and raping slaves.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you need to check your history - Christians were more than OK with slavery (to be fair they are only doing what god told them they could do in the bible) when the USA was formed, you may not know but you had a little fracas about it - and both sides were mainly Christians.

Jesus does openly endorse slavery so who are we to argue with the son of god?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Wait, wait, wait I've got it. In 1777 Vermonters became some the first people anywhere in Christendom to (even partially) abolish slavery, noting that “all men are born equally free and independent . . . therefore, no male person ought to be holden by law, to serve any person as a…slave.” Thus we can draw a line from the principles of the Declaration of Independence directly to the earliest DEI initiative in the 250 year history of the former British colonies in North America.

Likely not, which was sort of my point.

Why should skeptics rely on moral principles grounded in mysticism?

Looks as though @d4m10n could use a review of how this all came up in this thread.

It was @Trausti who, motivated by his anti-DEI zeal, tried to discredit the colonies' 1776 Declaration of Independence by bringing God into the discussion. The person to whom he was responding had not done so:

That statement was about natural rights given by God, not abilities. Siblings raised in the same household with the same parents are not equal in ability or outcome. That's not a value judgement. That's just reality.

@Darat challenged the relevance of @Trausti's introduction of God into this thread:

Is this god fella in the room with us now? Can you tell me where I can find the rights God gave us?

In his response to @Darat, @d4m10n laughed at @Trausti's argument but pretended he was laughing at @Darat:

I needed a good laugh this morning; arguments from theology on a skeptic board really hits the spot.

I tried to straighten @d4m10n out on this:

@Trausti wasn't arguing from theology. He was distinguishing his usage of the word equal (having to do with abilities) from @arthwollipot's reference to a 250-year-old Declaration of Independence, whose second paragraph begins with these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.​

Most of those who signed that document really believed this Creator stuff, while others did not, but all of them signed onto the self-evident truths that all [men] are created equal in the sense of having certain inalienable rights, including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The very next sentence says governments exist to secure those rights.

Governments do not exist to secure equality of abilities. Governments exist to secure equality of rights.

@arthwollipot's quotation from that Declaration of Independence was entirely on-topic, did not appeal to theology, and was entirely appropriate as counter to what @Trausti was saying. @Trausti responded helpfully, by saying what he cares about is the inequality of abilities, for which governments are not responsible. It seems @arthwollipot is more concerned with equal rights, which are the responsibility of governments.

@d4m10n then pretended that any quotation from the US Declaration of Independence brings theology into the discussion:

Seems to me that if you quote someone else's argument from (deistic) theology then you've brought that theology into the discussion.

It's cool that those guys believed in the sort of creator who would invest all human beings with divine moral worth, but given how hard that would be to demonstrate we probably need something stronger to ground our moral scaffolding these days. We cannot rely on deistic or theistic assumptions being broadly shared amongst skeptics.

I pointed out that @d4m10n's argument against the Declaration's fundamental principle was motivated by his apparent bias against all those who moral values might conceivably be influenced by their religious or spiritual beliefs:

Seems to me you're rejecting the ideals set forth within the US Declaration of Independence because a majority of those who signed it believed in a Creator and referred once to Nature's God, once to a Creator, once to the Supreme Judge of the world, and finally to divine Providence.

I endorse the ideals set forth within the US Declaration of Independence despite its signers' religious beliefs and animus toward "the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

@d4m10n finally said something reasonable:

One can endorse a conclusion without believing that the chain of reasoning to get there was valid.

If we want to make the case that all men humans are equal in some important moral sense (even merciless savages) we can probably do that without invoking theology.

Even assuming we pull that off, I cannot now think of any way to tie this back to DEI. Good evening.

Let's remember that the Declaration of Independence was indeed quoted without invoking theology. It was @Trausti who tried to discredit that quotation by invoking theology.

@d4m10n then asserted that Vermont's abolition of slavery was "the earliest DEI initiative in the 250 year history of the former British colonies in North America:

Wait, wait, wait I've got it. In 1777 Vermonters became some the first people anywhere in Christendom to (even partially) abolish slavery, noting that “all men are born equally free and independent . . . therefore, no male person ought to be holden by law, to serve any person as a…slave.” Thus we can draw a line from the principles of the Declaration of Independence directly to the earliest DEI initiative in the 250 year history of the former British colonies in North America.

Likely not, which was sort of my point.

Why should skeptics rely on moral principles grounded in mysticism?

For that last question to be relevant to our discussion, @d4m10n must believe the Declaration of Independence's moral principles are inevitably grounded in mysticism, even today, when many of us accept those moral principles without relying upon mysticism.