15-02-2004 04:37									#151
	Re: Re: Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia That's just it - it's not a free marketplace. Conservative groups are discriminated against by college administrators.

First: this thread is about professors, not college groups.

Secondly: the main reason college administrators (who are usually not faculty) discriminate against any group is that they are causing trouble. It's true that certain groups, such as gay rights groups, tend to able to get away with more than others due to the administration's fear of being labelled homophobic; but that doesn't mean that there is an anti-conservative agenda - it's just politics leading to ass covering for the most part.

An ex philosophy colleague of mine started his own anti-abortion group on campus and managed to make quite a success of it. Other student groups attempted to undermine it by devious means and it engaged in similar tricks against them AFAIK, but that's just student politics. In no way did the university attempt to shut it down or prevent it from putting forth its views. But on the other hand, they weren't posting pictures of dismembered fetuses all over campus.

Here at U of T there was a better case when a minister who thought homosexuality was a sin came to talk on campus last year. He was picketed by gay groups (even though the minister's position was that homosexuality was a sin on par with masturbation and should be treated the same way - in my view a victory for the gay community) and the talk was cancelled IIRC. Now there was some sort of public university meeting about this and some profs who were at that behaved disgracefully in my view, but if you looked at the academic community as a whole, opinion was divided, which is as it should be.

Politics is everywhere, and people are prepared to behave irrationally and deceitfully in support of their own views and ambitions. Universities are just the same. But this has nothing to do with my original claim.

	15-02-2004 04:43									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

And another thing: no one really cares about conservative groups on campus per se. No one cares about the young businesspeople or the Catholic students association or other religious groups. It's only when it comes to specific matters: namely gay rights, women's rights, the Middle East and abortion that the **** starts to fly.

I mean, I doubt that Hillel would have attracted so much attention at Concordia if they hadn't been effectively recruiting for the Israeli army in a university with a large proportion of Arab students.

	15-02-2004 05:00									#153
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: But on the other hand, they weren't posting pictures of dismembered fetuses all over campus.

Agathon, I remind you of Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.

"You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

"In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known.

Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation."

All of these conditions exist today, they exist on my campus, they exist on yours.

The pictures are horrifying not because we are trying to distort, or decieve, but rather they depict the truth, the sheer brutality of abortion, hidden behind closed doors and sanitised clinics.

To condemn a peaceful group for showing the truth, when the truth is brutal, is intellectual dishonesty.

The pictures are horrible because abortion is horrible. There are children today that are being dismembered, yet you condemn the groups for raising the issue in a provocative way.

	15-02-2004 05:25									#154
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: The pictures are horrifying not because we are trying to distort, or decieve, but rather they depict the truth, the sheer brutality of abortion, hidden behind closed doors and sanitised clinics. To condemn a peaceful group for showing the truth, when the truth is brutal, is intellectual dishonesty.

Your opinion, and it is fallacious to try to sell it as the truth when there are opposing views that show by that very conflict that your view isnt necessarily correct.

I suspect however that the piece was banned because of its offensive value, the same logic (flawed I might add but unrelated to this topic) that bans hardcore pornography from kids TV shows. If that piece was substituted by a piece of text, or perhaps something explaining the situation, in other words, with the same philosophical value, it would not have been taken down imo.

	15-02-2004 05:50									#155
	Got spare money?

Ben, don't get all heated on the abortion issue again. That's not what this thread is about.

	15-02-2004 06:06									#156
	Full PM-box? Change here!

To me, one the pillars of conservatism is the rule of law.

Do liberal professors seriously question this principle?

	15-02-2004 06:23									#157
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ben -

quote: 4. Protection of men from each other. The concept, that people can indeed harm themselves, and the rejection of a victimless crime. In one case, prostitution, is not a victimless crime, because of the effects that prostitution has on the indulger. 5. Rights are based on Natural Law, and not on edicts of society. Fundamental freedoms, such as speech, religion, and life are to be acknowledged rather than procured by the government.

This is where "conservatism" starts flopping around. We have natural rights and the state exists to prevent man from injuring man (which was Thomas Jefferson's words), but then we get into the socialistic nonsense than an activity can be made illegal - i.e., legalising man in the form of the state injuring others - in the name of "protecting" people from themselves just as the communists would make it illegal for man to exercise his freedom if the communists decide he is allowing others to exploit him. "Protection of men from each other" becomes protection of man from himself, e.g., your prostitution example. The communists share the belief that the state should protect us from ourselves too... Do you see the contradiction in 4)? You cannot argue that the state exists to prevent me from injuring you unless I decide you are injuring yourself first. Given that illogical loophole just about everyone can fabricate some nonsensical excuse to injure others in the name of preventing the victims from injuring themselves.

OB -

quote: Surely, most Uni professors are pro-life, pro death penalty, believe the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein removed, and believe that since all homosexuals will burn in Hell anyway, we might as well put them in jail right now to help them before it's too late.

Nope, "pro-choice" and opposed to the death penalty (kill 'em before they're out of the womb but don't after they grow up and slaughter others), complain about Saddam's mass murder of Kurds et al but whine like crazy when Bush takes the bastard out. And conservatives believe homosexuals should be jailed? Some do, most don't... And all liberals believe people shouldn't be treated the same wrt the laws because "the rich don't pay their fair share" yet complain about discrimination...

quote: Berzerker, determinism goes much further than genetically inherited behaviors.

How much further?

quote: And yes, it is a religious concept- a judeo-christian one, more precisely. The vast majority of polytheistic religions had people believe their lives were all traced.

So determinism was also a religious invention hence horoscopes et al? We have no proof free will was invented by Judaism or Christianity, the fact religious people write about a subject proves only that they wrote about that subject.

	15-02-2004 06:28									#158
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: To me, one the pillars of conservatism is the rule of law. Do liberal professors seriously question this principle?

I can only speak for myself, but firstly it doesnt seem to be a central pillar, but one can disagree where the law does not fit within a logical principle. For example, as a libertarian I disagree with and regularly flout the laws that prohibit cannabis.

quote: Nope, "pro-choice" and opposed to the death penalty (kill 'em before they're out of the womb but don't after they grow up and slaughter others), complain about Saddam's mass murder of Kurds et al but whine like crazy when Bush takes the bastard out. And conservatives believe homosexuals should be jailed? Some do, most don't... And all liberals believe people shouldn't be treated the same wrt the laws because "the rich don't pay their fair share" yet complain about discrimination...

A very flawed analogy. You apply your own notions that discriminate between aborted foetuses and victims of war to others whose arguments are based upon different premises. A strawman in other words. And for the record, I am pro-life, anti-abortion.

quote: How much further?

Ones own life, the events that make us a person. I use the analogy of a house. Genetics gives us the bricks, our upbringing is the architect.

	15-02-2004 06:36									#159
	Support Apolyton

quote: A very flawed analogy. You apply your own notions that discriminate between aborted foetuses and victims of war to others whose arguments are based upon different premises. A strawman in other words.

Victims of war? OB was comparing abortion to the death penalty, not war. So I compared abortion to the death penalty as well, not war.

quote: And for the record, I am pro-life, anti-abortion.

And for the record, I was responding to someone making generalisations about conservatives, hence my generalisations.

	15-02-2004 06:40									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Victims of war? OB was comparing abortion to the death penalty, not war. So I compared abortion to the death penalty as well, not war.

Sorry, was being brief, I thought you were attempting to show an inconsistency in the liberal hatred of slaughter on the battlefield and support of "slaughter in the womb". What I wrote still applies to your analogy to the death penalty too. Pro-abortionists rely on the assumption that the foetus is not a human being, and upon becoming a human, one is elligible to the right to life by others. There is a clear distinction between that and death-penalty victims. This is not my view of course, I am anti-killing anything more than plants.

quote: And for the record, I was responding to someone making generalisations about conservatives, hence my generalisations.

Groovy!

	15-02-2004 06:40									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Ones own life, the events that make us a person. I use the analogy of a house. Genetics gives us the bricks, our upbringing is the architect.

And what is "upbringing" based upon? Why do people react differently to identical situations? Like in a war, some run at the enemy, some run for the hills. Are there "bravery" and "cowardice" genes?

	15-02-2004 06:45									#162
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: And what is "upbringing" based upon? Why do people react differently to identical situations? Like in a war, some run at the enemy, some run for the hills. Are there "bravery" and "cowardice" genes?

No, that is silly. Genetics is the contents of the nucleii of my cells. Upbringing is everything after conception.

And attempting to apply political notions to genetics is idiocy! I could equally call that "stupidity" and "sensibility" genes respectively. You would call me a coward, so fine. The events of my life thus far have caused me to be a coward, if my life had been different I could have been a blood-thirsty trigger happy murderer that the US Marines would have been proud of . Yet "I" would not be I, though those two people would be genetically identical, what makes me the person I am now is a combination of genetics and upbringing. If I could go back into time and change my life somehow, I would be a different person today. Same genes, different identity.

	15-02-2004 06:48									#163
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I thought you were attempting to show an inconsistency in the liberal hatred of slaughter on the battlefield and support of "slaughter in the womb".

You might have seen my response to OB about Saddam.

quote: What I wrote still applies to your analogy to the death penalty too. Pro-abortionists rely on the assumption that the foetus is not a human being, and upon becoming a human, one is elligible to the right to life by others. There is a clear distinction between that and death-penalty victims. This is not my view of course, I am anti-killing anything more than plants.

But that argument requires us to believe a human being only comes into existence once it leaves the womb, and that leaves us asking what that human being was 5 minutes before leaving the womb. We can debate at which point during a pregnancy a fetus qualifies as human, brain wave activity etc,. but only "pro-choicers" who don't care would argue we are human only after exiting the womb.

	15-02-2004 06:55									#164
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: But that argument requires us to believe a human being only comes into existence once it leaves the womb, and that leaves us asking what that human being was 5 minutes before leaving the womb. We can debate at which point during a pregnancy a fetus qualifies as human, brain wave activity etc,. but only "pro-choicers" who don't care would argue we are human only after exiting the womb.

This is the reason I do not support it. That latter distinction is difficult. I see no conclusive evidence for one side or the other, and unless you can show unequivocable, absolutely and unquestionably that a foetus or anything else is conscious, a human or whatever, and not merely some subjective definition, then abortion is murder imo. Of course, this whole issue here is sidetracking, except to say that I don't see why it has to be split down liberal/conservative lines. I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about abortion because it has implications that run deep into my own philosophical system that is wholly irrelevant here.

	15-02-2004 07:04									#165
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: No, that is silly. Genetics is the contents of the nucleii of my cells. Upbringing is everything after conception.

Of course it's silly, determinism is silly.

quote: And attempting to apply political notions to genetics is idiocy! I could equally call that "stupidity" and "sensibility" genes respectively.

My questions expose the flaws in your arguments, but there was no politics involved in the quote you used, so why did you draw that conclusion?

quote: You would call me a coward, so fine. The events of my life thus far have caused me to be a coward, if my life had been different I could have been a blood-thirsty trigger happy murderer that the US Marines would have been proud of .

So what events in your life "caused" you to be a "coward"? Ever hear of Sgt York? He was a pacifist and a war hero, what events in his life prepared him for that path?

quote: Yet "I" would not be I, though those two people would be genetically identical, what makes me the person I am now is a combination of genetics and upbringing. If I could go back into time and change my life somehow, I would be a different person today. Same genes, different identity.

And what about the choices you made to help create your "upbringing"? Were those choices determined by genes?
If two children are beaten by their parents, will both those children grow up to beat their children? Why are 2 children who were raised ~equally behave differently?

	15-02-2004 07:08									#166
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: This is the reason I do not support it. That latter distinction is difficult. I see no conclusive evidence for one side or the other, and unless you can show unequivocable, absolutely and unquestionably that a foetus or anything else is conscious, a human or whatever, and not merely some subjective definition, then abortion is murder imo. Of course, this whole issue here is sidetracking, except to say that I don't see why it has to be split down liberal/conservative lines. I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about abortion because it has implications that run deep into my own philosophical system that is wholly irrelevant here.

If you didn't want to debate it, you shouldn't have jumped into a debate between me and OB about that subject.

	15-02-2004 07:40									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: That's not what this thread is about.

Not the issue. Should people be allowed to show pictures of dismembered children on campus if such images are true? That's the question.

I'd post the pictures in question, but I can't do that because of forum rules. It should not matter whether it is abortion, or the war in Iraq, people should be allowed to show these pictures, provided they are true.

That's the real issue, and I wanted to fire a shot at Agathon, for waffling.

	15-02-2004 07:49									#168
	Remove this text

Berz:

quote: We have natural rights and the state exists to prevent man from injuring man (which was Thomas Jefferson's words), but then we get into the socialistic nonsense than an activity can be made illegal - i.e., legalising man in the form of the state injuring others

I put that part in just for you. I agree, that there is conflict. Which is why you get into differences over how is it best to respect liberty, while at the same time protecting people? For this reason, they control certain substances, to which I am sure you will have plenty more to say about.

I would argue, that in some cases, it is best for the state not to intervene, or to pass a law, not because the action should be done, but because it is impossible to enforce. Sodomy restrictions fall under this category.

It is not a contradiction, but rather tension between competing responsibilities, that require creative solutions.

quote: e.g., your prostitution example.

Prostitution can be restrained in a variety of fashions, one approach which is to make it illegal. I think the first question we need to ask is whether or not such restriction can be enforced, to some significant degree, as well as some addressing of the causes. With prostitution, at least the visible portions, I think this can be done.

	15-02-2004 07:55									#169
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Whaleboy:

So conservatism, in your opinion is merely bullshit?

Gee, I wonder how long it took you to figure that out,



At least, by not addressing my arguments, you demonstrate the weakness of your own liberal convictions.

Surely, each liberal ought to be gaged by his familiarity with Conservatives, eh?

	15-02-2004 08:03									#170
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Funny thread, Agathon. First we have to prove why free will is a religious concept and, consequently, why is it that most conservatives are still upholding a religious ideology.

Then, we can't even define what is a "conservative", even less why is it that they are almost inevitably dumber than liberals.

High-quality troll, perhaps one of the best I've ever seen.

	15-02-2004 08:10									#171
	Got spare money?

quote: we can't even define what is a "conservative",

Berz is the only one to address my post which tries to make a definition.

Why don't you give it a shot, OB, if you don't like my definitione, eh?

	15-02-2004 09:17									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle Boris

No. Free will is about a human being making decision in a way that nothing was influenced by the laws of nature. Put Kant-like, it's the ability to become a 'legislator' yourself.[/q]

Uh, no, where did you get that idea? Free will is - get this - "freedom" of "will". Since I'm obviously not being mind-controlled or anything, my will is free (uncoerced).

quote: So, atomic determinism is not determinism? In any case, it does have some serious philosophical implications.

WTF is "atomic" determinism? Determinism means the universe operates according to certain unbreakable rules. Probabilism means that the universe operates based on chance, and the chances of various events may or may not be determined by certain unbreakable rules.

quote: I am scientifically illiterate, so I can't discuss this. Can you give an understandable link?

A link? Just google "quantum physics" or something.

quote: The point of free will, is that rules concerning your actions are made up by yourself.

No, the point of free will is that your actions are made up by yourself.

If my definition of free will is not used, then free will cannot exist, as the universe is either deterministic or probabilistic - there is nothing else.

quote: Plausible. Still, if none of these 'set of rules' come from the rational subject, it's not free will.

Yes it is - my mind OPERATES according to those rules. It uses them to come to a DECISION. It doesn't matter whether or not my mind decided on the rules it uses to make the decision.

	15-02-2004 09:17									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Skywalker: Since you asked, OB is right about the decision thing. Let me say again that you appear to be a compatibilist, so most of the arguments against free will are not aimed at you since they are aimed at the incompatibilist understanding of free will.

What is the difference between "compatabilist" and "incompataibilist"? I don't know all that much philosophical terminology

	15-02-2004 09:47									#174
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker What is the difference between "compatabilist" and "incompataibilist"? I don't know all that much philosophical terminology

Why don't you look it up?

	15-02-2004 10:16									#175
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker False. Very, very false. There is a qualitative difference between your mind and that of an ant (or a computer), and that is that your mind is self-aware. I obviously know that I am self-aware.

Quantative difference leads to qualitative difference. Consider fissible material. If the quantity present is under the critical mass. it just sits there emitting all sorts of interesting things. However, if you push the quantity to over critical mass, it goes boom.

Besides, just because you are self-aware does not mean you do not follow a very complex algorithm.

	15-02-2004 10:18									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Uh, no, where did you get that idea? Free will is - get this - "freedom" of "will". Since I'm obviously not being mind-controlled or anything, my will is free (uncoerced).

Consider a train running on a track. Is its movement coerced or not?

	15-02-2004 10:25									#177
	Inflate your Upload Space

Did the train make a decision?

quote: Quantative difference leads to qualitative difference. Consider fissible material. If the quantity present is under the critical mass. it just sits there emitting all sorts of interesting things. However, if you push the quantity to over critical mass, it goes boom. Besides, just because you are self-aware does not mean you do not follow a very complex algorithm.

So? Wouldn't you say that the distinction between "critical mass" and "not critical mass" would be useful logically (rather than some arbitrary number)? In the same way, the distinction between "self-aware" and "not self-aware" is also useful, and it exists (obviously).

	15-02-2004 22:00									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Uh, no, where did you get that idea? Free will is - get this - "freedom" of "will". Since I'm obviously not being mind-controlled or anything, my will is free (uncoerced).

I got this idea from Immanuel Kant, one of the most respected philospher the world has known. The problem of 'mind-control' is an interesting one- most would argue that since a natural inclination does not come from your will, but rather determines it from your birth, that's not 'free will'. The uncoercion idea shows, IMO, that you are confusing free will and liberty.

The principle of free will- (Agathon correct me if I'm wrong)- is that your reason can overcome natural desires and act on behalf of itself only, thus creating its own set of rules that have not been inherited. It's not about following your will- it's about CREATING it from the ground up, using the principles of logics.

quote: WTF is "atomic" determinism? Determinism means the universe operates according to certain unbreakable rules. Probabilism means that the universe operates based on chance, and the chances of various events may or may not be determined by certain unbreakable rules.

I think atomic determinism is related to my "separate big bangs" example. Bascially, it says that two universes, if they were identical at day 0, could only evolve in the exact same way. On the probabalistic issue, read on-


I talked to my friend about this, who is quite good in science. He told me that the universe is probabilistic, not because it really is random, but because of our own precision limits in describing it. So, if we had the ability to describe the universe with an infinite precision, we could end up with some deterministic rules.

quote: No, the point of free will is that your actions are made up by yourself.

As Agathon said, it looks like you are a compatibilist.

quote: If my definition of free will is not used, then free will cannot exist, as the universe is either deterministic or probabilistic - there is nothing else.

And since your definition is wrong, you are a compatibilist, which means you support only an half-assed version of free will.

	15-02-2004 22:11									#179
	Remove this text

quote: I got this idea from Immanuel Kant, one of the most respected philospher the world has known. The problem of 'mind-control' is an interesting one- most would argue that since a natural inclination does not come from your will, but rather determines it from your birth, that's not 'free will'. The uncoercion idea shows, IMO, that you are confusing free will and liberty. The principle of free will- (Agathon correct me if I'm wrong)- is that your reason can overcome natural desires and act on behalf of itself only, thus creating its own set of rules that have not been inherited. It's not about following your will- it's about CREATING it from the ground up, using the principles of logics.

I use logic in my decisions. So?

quote: I think atomic determinism is related to my "separate big bangs" example. Bascially, it says that two universes, if they were identical at day 0, could only evolve in the exact same way. On the probabalistic issue, read on-

You just mean determinism then. There's nothing particularly "atomic" about it

quote: I talked to my friend about this, who is quite good in science. He told me that the universe is probabilistic, not because it really is random, but because of our own precision limits in describing it. So, if we had the ability to describe the universe with an infinite precision, we could end up with some deterministic rules.

He's BSing you. It is possible that the universe is deterministic underneath, but so far all evidence points to it actually being random (not just our perceptions). Here's an example (a very famous quantum physics experiment):

Take an opaque sheet of some material, and poke a hole in it (a very, very small hole). Set up a screen behind it that measures the number of photons that impact each part of the screen (basically a photographic plate). One of the properties of a wave is that when it travels through a hole that has a width of a certain relation to its wavelength, it turns into a "new" wave - that is, it propogates from that point. If you shine a beam of light at the hole, it will do this and you will get an expected pattern on the photographic plate - a circle fading at the edges. Now, wouldn't you think that if you put a second hole, you'd get more light? Wrong! If you add a second hole, the waves end up cancelling each other out, and you get a patten of stripes. This happens even if you send the light one photon at a time. This means that each photon is actually going through both holes, and is interfering with itself.

quote: And since your definition is wrong, you are a compatibilist, which means you support only an half-assed version of free will.

How is my version of free will "half-assed"? It's the only one that can POSSIBLY exist.

	15-02-2004 22:14									#180
	Got spare money?

quote: My questions expose the flaws in your arguments, but there was no politics involved in the quote you used, so why did you draw that conclusion?

My arguments? I was saying how such things are most likely not genetic. Bricks and architecture. What flaws?

quote: So what events in your life "caused" you to be a "coward"? Ever hear of Sgt York? He was a pacifist and a war hero, what events in his life prepared him for that path?

I'm not going to divulge information about my past that is unnecessary, but lets say cause and consequence. Go back in time, change the cause, different consequence. And I dont know of Sgt York, I cannot comment. Our events in our lives are all different, one should not attempt to categorise them.

quote: And what about the choices you made to help create your "upbringing"? Were those choices determined by genes? If two children are beaten by their parents, will both those children grow up to beat their children? Why are 2 children who were raised ~equally behave differently?

I'm not saying that a cause will always lead to the same consequence because of various confounding factors, including genetics, or to use my analogy, the properties of the building material. You imply that it is knowable, whereas I state that is not the case, knowability is not a pre-requisite to any refutation of free-will.

quote: So conservatism, in your opinion is merely bullshit? Gee, I wonder how long it took you to figure that out,

It took years of intense philosophical inquiry...

quote: At least, by not addressing my arguments, you demonstrate the weakness of your own liberal convictions.

Ben: Please elaborate.