Zone1 The needs of the one or the needs of the many

[progressive hunter]

You said in effect, 'except for the fact that trannies might be a threat to children I'm for them 100 percent'.

still waitong for you to explain why you lied about what I said??

 

[Woodznutz]

still waitong for you to explain why you lied about what I said??

Maybe you should put yourself in my place when reading it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Maybe you should put yourself in my place when reading it.

I do everyday here on this forum,, and have never openly changed someones words and then acted like they never said them,, and if I accendentally did I would correct myself,, not dbl down and then run away,,

so just explain why you would do that,,

 

[Woodznutz]

I do everyday here on this forum,, and have never openly changed someones words and then acted like they never said them,, and if I accendentally did I would correct myself,, not dbl down and then run away,,

so just explain why you would do that,,

Here's what you said,

"I accept them 100%,, just not going to allow them to endanger other people especially children,,"

The term "just not" is an exception to the 100 percent. 100 percent means that you find acceptable the danger they pose to children.

 

[progressive hunter]

Here's what you said,

"I accept them 100%,, just not going to allow them to endanger other people especially children,,"

The term "just not" is an exception to the 100 percent. 100 percent means that you find acceptable the danger they pose to children.

see that wasnt so hard now was it,,

what does not allowing someone to harm others have to do with accepting them as a person??

in my mind nothing,,

 

[Woodznutz]

see that wasnt so hard now was it,,

what does not allowing someone to harm others have to do with accepting them as a person??

in my mind nothing,,

100 percent acceptance means the good, the bad, and the ugly. I accept them as well, but only to the extent that they act like responsible human beings.

 

[progressive hunter]

100 percent acceptance means the good, the bad, and the ugly. I accept them as well, but only to the extent that they act like responsible human beings.

that doesnt include harming other people,, thats an action apart from their existance,,

 

[Woodznutz]

that doesnt include harming other people,, thats an action apart from their existance,,

I would prefer that trannies didn't exist.

 

[progressive hunter]

I would prefer that trannies didn't exist.

noted,,

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay how about we drag the thread back onto topic and I will remind all that we are in Zone 1 so food fights are pretty much illegal here.

The whole concept of the needs of the one vs the needs of the many is labeled 'utilitarianism'. It theorizes that whether something is morally right or wrong depends on how beneficial or harmful it might be for the largest group of people.

Some judge via happiness and absence of suffering, i.e. to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for the most people is the proper goal.

Others go the Spock route, i.e. take emotions/feelings out of the equation and evaluate solely on the positive or negative consequences for the larger group of people.

The Founders rejected the concept of utilitarianism in favor of a concept of individual unalienable rights among which are the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. A good government will not violate such rights without utilizing due process to establish necessity of restricting or removing such rights.

But even there utilitarianism has to be a consideration. Recognition of and securing unalienable rights can put the needs of the one ahead of the needs of the many. Example: the right to expression for the artist's offensive work such as a crucifix upside down in a container of urine or the right of a baker to not provide services for an activity he cannot condone. Conversely it is for the good of the many that the serial killer or other repeat offender is deprived of liberty.

Ultimately it will be our own sense of morality and what is just and unjust that causes us to approve or disagree with how our society is ordered and managed.

 

[Vastator]

Okay how about we drag the thread back onto topic and I will remind all that we are in Zone 1 so food fights are pretty much illegal here.

The whole concept of the needs of the one vs the needs of the many is labeled 'utilitarianism'. It theorizes that whether something is morally right or wrong depends on how beneficial or harmful it might be for the largest group of people.

Some judge via happiness and absence of suffering, i.e. to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for the most people is the proper goal.

Others go the Spock route, i.e. take emotions/feelings out of the equation and evaluate solely on the positive or negative consequences for the larger group of people.

The Founders rejected the concept of utilitarianism in favor of a concept of individual unalienable rights among which are the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. A good government will not violate such rights without utilizing due process to establish necessity of restricting or removing such rights.

But even there utilitarianism has to be a consideration. Recognition of and securing unalienable rights can put the needs of the one ahead of the needs of the many. Example: the right to expression for the artist's offensive work such as a crucifix upside down in a container of urine or the right of a baker to not provide services for an activity he cannot condone. Conversely it is for the good of the many that the serial killer or other repeat offender is deprived of liberty.

Ultimately it will be our own sense of morality and what is just and unjust that causes us to approve or disagree with how our society is ordered and managed.

"The whole concept of the needs of the one vs the needs of the many is labeled 'utilitarianism'. It theorizes that whether something is morally right or wrong depends on how beneficial or harmful it might be for the largest group of people."

Not necessarily. It comes down to valuation. How the one, might be valued in comparison to the many is much more complex than a numbers on a scale game. That thinking is childishly simplistic.

Save a boatload of pedophiles, or your shitty alcoholic cousin? I'm sure the pedophiles would be greatful for being saved for no greater reason than numbers; but what good could that possibly be to you?