04 Aug 20
Actually, I gave some examples of how both the left & right tend to dehumanize others here:
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/empathy-and-morality.186411/page-9#post_4248813
If you think this doesn't happen at all, please, let me know. ^^
I just don't have the time to keep going back and forth like this when there has been so little fruit.
Come on, @FMF -- we can do better than this.
04 Aug 20
@fmf saidHaha, no! Of course not.
So you seek to remove - from the justification of one's action - the basis of there being a claim to universal moral principles?
People ought to take the actions they wish to based off of their values, but to not insist that they -- and only they -- adequately represent humanity in this regard.
04 Aug 20
@fmf saidOh, geez! FMF!
By accusing "the left" of "dehumanizing" their "domestic enemies", are you trying ~ with your rhetoric ~ to modify and/or inhibit the way "the left" tackles those it has disagreements with?
What happens if your rhetoric about "the left" leads to violence against them?
Can your smearing of them as "dehumanizers" be, in and of itself, you "dehumanizing" them?
You missed something!
I talked about how the Right also invokes humanity to demonize & dehumanize their enemies.
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/empathy-and-morality.186411/page-9#post_4248813
And you know that.
So why are you lying to us about what I am saying?
04 Aug 20
@philokalia saidNo. You just dropped a few names of controversial groups that you claim "the left" "dehumanizers" and then you copy-pasted some text that did not really explain anything, indeed it did not even use the world "dehumanize". That seems to be your trash-talk word.
Actually, I gave some examples of how both the left & right tend to dehumanize others here:
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/empathy-and-morality.186411/page-9#post_4248813
And you also said something about what "the right" thinks or does about Iran or Venezuela which I assumed you were deliberately unclear about.
What about the various 'stakeholders' in the U.S.'s southern border situation? Just brief thoughts; no need for an essay.
04 Aug 20
@philokalia saidDo you mean when "the Right's" dislike for their enemies leads to violence? Or are you you referring to how disgusted and outraged "the Right" can be about "their enemies"?
I talked about how the Right also invokes humanity to demonize & dehumanize their enemies.
04 Aug 20
@philokalia saidI am being absolutely straight with about what you seem to be saying and about how I don't think copy-pasting texts by "important" men or women provides me with nuts and bolts examples of what you are talking about when you use the term "dehumanization".
So why are you lying to us about what I am saying?
By accusing "the Reft" of "dehumanizing" their "domestic enemies" [as you choose to frame it], are you trying ~ with your rhetoric ~ to modify and/or inhibit the way "the Reft" tackles those it has disagreements with?
What happens if your rhetoric about "the Right" leads to violence against them?
Can your smearing of them as "dehumanizers" be, in and of itself, framed as you "dehumanizing" them?
04 Aug 20
@philokalia said@fmf said
Haha, no! Of course not.
People ought to take the actions they wish to based off of their values, but to not insist that they -- and only they -- adequately represent humanity in this regard.
So you seek to remove - from the justification of one's action - the basis of there being a claim to universal moral principles?
@philokalia said
Haha, no! Of course not.
So you disagree with Schmitt on this matter?
04 Aug 20
OK, @FMF.
I have explained my position and repeated myself needlessly many times, and what has this come down to? Lots of distortions, whining for more examples, and little to no attempts at actually discussing anything that I said meaningfully.
I think I am done with you & hope someone else can come and try to engage in fair discussion.
04 Aug 20
@philokalia saidI disagree. I think you are misrepresenting my side of this conversation.
I have explained my position and repeated myself needlessly many times, and what has this come down to? Lots of distortions, whining for more examples, and little to no attempts at actually discussing anything that I said meaningfully.
@philokalia saidThe reason I was interested in your take, here, on the Spirituality Forum ~ where the angle is empathy and morality ~ on the U.S. southern border controversy, was so that you could say something clear and unequivocal about the moral dimensions of that issue according to your way of thinking.
I think I am done with you & hope someone else can come and try to engage in fair discussion.
The reason for this is that I think ~ using YOUR nebulous/poison-the-well/ Appeal to Authority type definition of "dehumanization" ~ I perceive that you yourself have spent time on the Debates Forum "dehumanizing" migrants, "dehumanizing" parents, "dehumanizing" children, "dehumanizing" people who protest against government policy and actions, "dehumanizing" politicians with whom you disagree etc. etc.
Now, I am not going to go looking for the stuff that you wrote and that I have read over the last few years, and if people think I am misrepresenting you here, so be it. I am not going to search for examples. If people think I am lying about you, that's OK.
I think it would interesting for you to take your notion of "dehumanization" and demonstrate how it works - to your way of thinking - in the case study that the situation on the U.S. southern border provides.
04 Aug 20
@fmf saidWhat are some examples of so-called "misguided empathy"?
While most would agree that one's capacity for empathy is arguably an important basis for morally sound behaviour ~ and without forgetting that this is all in the realm of subjectivity ~ can empathy, in fact, lead to support for - or even participation in - morally unsound actions in certain situations, despite being virtuous in and of itself?
@fmf saidTaking things back to the opening post, perhaps...for myself, in my profession, one of the hardest things is when two moral imperatives seem to come into conflict with each other...one as seeking empathy for all parties involved in brutality upon vulnerable populations (ie. children)...and the other eschewing non-violence. In these instances, I feel overwhelmed and must draw on my own coping strategies to overcome secondary trauma. In most cases, I have to leave my sense of justice (or in worse case thoughts of revenge) to someone else and turn my focus to the most vulnerable in the circumstance.
While most would agree that one's capacity for empathy is arguably an important basis for morally sound behaviour ~ and without forgetting that this is all in the realm of subjectivity ~ can empathy, in fact, lead to support for - or even participation in - morally unsound actions in certain situations, despite being virtuous in and of itself?
@philokalia said*"Carl Schmitt (11 July 1888 – 7 April 1985) was a conservative German jurist, political theorist, and prominent member of the Nazi Party. Schmitt wrote extensively about the effective wielding of political power. He is noted as a critic of parliamentary democracy, liberalism, and cosmopolitanism, and his work has been a major influence on subsequent political theory, legal theory, continental philosophy, and political theology, but its value and significance are controversial, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with Nazism." [Wiki]*
I was thinking about Carl Schmitt and thought his take on this is unique and interesting, and also very topical.
I did not mention that I was inspired by Schmitt because that usually prompts vitriol from another user about why you talk about what you reading?!
@divegeester said[continued]
*"Carl Schmitt (11 July 1888 – 7 April 1985) was a conservative German jurist, political theorist, and prominent member of the Nazi Party. Schmitt wrote extensively about the effective wielding of political power. He is noted as a critic of parliamentary democracy, liberalism, and cosmopolitanism, and his work has been a major influence on subsequent political theory, leg ...[text shortened]... ntroversial, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with Nazism." [Wiki]*
"Schmitt's work has attracted the attention of numerous philosophers and political theorists, including Giorgio Agamben, Hannah Arendt, Walter Benjamin, Susan Buck-Morss, Jacques Derrida, Jürgen Habermas, Waldemar Gurian, Jaime Guzmán, Reinhart Koselleck, Friedrich Hayek,[7] Chantal Mouffe, Antonio Negri, Leo Strauss, Adrian Vermeule,[8] and Slavoj Žižek, among others."
The list includes at least three Marxists, a Libertarian, a catholic convert and prominent American jurist, and three Jewish thinkers, one of whom wrote extensively on the Nazi issue (Arrendt), and the other who is famous as a dynamic conservative thinker (Strauss).
Why?
Because they're vital and original ideas.
@philokalia saidWas he imprisoned or executed by the Nazis when they realized he was ~ as you would have us believe ~ opposed to the "dehumanization" of "enemies"?
Because they're vital and original ideas.