University students demand philosophers such as Plato and Kant are removed from syllabus because the

[MindWars]

University students demand philosophers such as Plato and Kant are removed from syllabus because they are white

They are said to be the founding fathers of Western philosophy, whose ideas underpin civilised society.


But students at a prestigious London university are demanding that figures such as Plato, Descartes and Immanuel Kant should be largely dropped from the curriculum because they are white.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like it's being said snowflakes are getting way out of hand on their idiotic bs reasons to take parts of our history away,, and some things should just be left alone.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So much for western civilization.

*****SAD SMILE*****

 

[ScienceRocks]

These idiots don't realize that there wouldn't even college without great men like Plato and Kant. It is sickening to see this shit.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

These idiots don't realize that there wouldn't even college without great men like Plato and Kant. It is sickening to see this shit.

You really expect something more substantial, like a totally revolutionary scientific principle, to come out of your great progressive universities other than allowing cross dressers to use the women's room or finding everything about a Aryan culture revolting?

*****SMILE******

 

[Lewdog]

I've had to study a lot of Kant the last couple semesters... and I have to say that I don't agree with his position. I don't think that people should always do the things that follow the rules despite what the results might be. I'm more of a Utilitarian as I believe a person should make the decision that benefits the larger number of people.

 

[Picaro]

Kant should be removed because he was an idiot and his philosophy blown apart before his body went cold. The only reason he's still being touted is because a bunch of stoners and hippies think he was 'great'.

But yeah, Snowflakes are indeed too stupid to be allowed to decide their own curriculum.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Kant should be removed because he was an idiot and his philosophy blown apart before his body went cold. The only reason he's still being touted is because a bunch of stoners and hippies think he was 'great'.

Kant was a kunt.

The distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal is entirely bogus.

 

[MindWars]

A nation which suffers from :

 

[Votto]

I've had to study a lot of Kant the last couple semesters... and I have to say that I don't agree with his position. I don't think that people should always do the things that follow the rules despite what the results might be. I'm more of a Utilitarian as I believe a person should make the decision that benefits the larger number of people.

What about forcing others to benefit the larger number of people? Are you good with that?

 

[Lewdog]

I've had to study a lot of Kant the last couple semesters... and I have to say that I don't agree with his position. I don't think that people should always do the things that follow the rules despite what the results might be. I'm more of a Utilitarian as I believe a person should make the decision that benefits the larger number of people.

What about forcing others to benefit the larger number of people? Are you good with that?

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

 

[Darkwind]

I've had to study a lot of Kant the last couple semesters... and I have to say that I don't agree with his position. I don't think that people should always do the things that follow the rules despite what the results might be. I'm more of a Utilitarian as I believe a person should make the decision that benefits the larger number of people.

What about forcing others to benefit the larger number of people? Are you good with that?

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So, you're against allowing people who identify as the opposite sex the use of the bathrooms they identify with? Consider this. Transgendered individuals born male who identify female are a significant minority in this country and to allow them to use the women's restroom does harm to a larger segment of the population than holding them to their born gender. You don't open women to sexual predators to allow a tiny minority a minor convenience.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We are entering a new Dark Ages where intelligence is despised. It is ironic that the left should so accuse the right of being anti education when it is the left that is incrementally removing and limiting education winnowing it down to a handful of items supported by dogma.

 

[Lewdog]

I've had to study a lot of Kant the last couple semesters... and I have to say that I don't agree with his position. I don't think that people should always do the things that follow the rules despite what the results might be. I'm more of a Utilitarian as I believe a person should make the decision that benefits the larger number of people.

What about forcing others to benefit the larger number of people? Are you good with that?

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So, you're against allowing people who identify as the opposite sex the use of the bathrooms they identify with? Consider this. Transgendered individuals born male who identify female are a significant minority in this country and to allow them to use the women's restroom does harm to a larger segment of the population than holding them to their born gender. You don't open women to sexual predators to allow a tiny minority a minor convenience.

No, because there is no sense of the larger masses getting a greater good in that notion. What is letting transgendered people use to the bathroom of their identified gender going to do to hurt the other people? In Europe there is unisex bathrooms all over the place. Hell in college, for me back in the 90's at a public university, we had unisex bathrooms. So your argument doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Darkwind]

I've had to study a lot of Kant the last couple semesters... and I have to say that I don't agree with his position. I don't think that people should always do the things that follow the rules despite what the results might be. I'm more of a Utilitarian as I believe a person should make the decision that benefits the larger number of people.

What about forcing others to benefit the larger number of people? Are you good with that?

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So, you're against allowing people who identify as the opposite sex the use of the bathrooms they identify with? Consider this. Transgendered individuals born male who identify female are a significant minority in this country and to allow them to use the women's restroom does harm to a larger segment of the population than holding them to their born gender. You don't open women to sexual predators to allow a tiny minority a minor convenience.

No, because there is no sense of the larger masses getting a greater good in that notion. What is letting transgendered people use to the bathroom of their identified gender going to do to hurt the other people? In Europe there is unisex bathrooms all over the place. Hell in college, for me back in the 90's at a public university, we had unisex bathrooms. So your argument doesn't fit the narrative.

For the idiots here, this particular discussion with Lewdog, we are talking a philosophical concept as it pertains to the individual (namely Lewdog) and this is NOT an invitation to rehash the open restroom issue.

It in fact does. University life is not life in America. When there has been significant pushback against allowing transgendered to use the restroom they identify with as opposed to the restroom of their actual gender, you are in fact, appeasing a small group over the larger. That is directly opposed to what you stated. Particularly given the fact that transgendered were already using restrooms of their identified sex with none the wiser. This speaks of an agenda to subvert the great good.

Information has been provided (I don't have it offhand, and if you followed the debate you'd know that) which shows many instances of harm to young women, and others, by allowing this to go forward and/or to codify it in law. Never mind whether or not you agree with the information. The fact remains, that the greater good (as identified by Kant) is not served by supporting unisex restrooms.

 

[Lewdog]

I've had to study a lot of Kant the last couple semesters... and I have to say that I don't agree with his position. I don't think that people should always do the things that follow the rules despite what the results might be. I'm more of a Utilitarian as I believe a person should make the decision that benefits the larger number of people.

What about forcing others to benefit the larger number of people? Are you good with that?

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So, you're against allowing people who identify as the opposite sex the use of the bathrooms they identify with? Consider this. Transgendered individuals born male who identify female are a significant minority in this country and to allow them to use the women's restroom does harm to a larger segment of the population than holding them to their born gender. You don't open women to sexual predators to allow a tiny minority a minor convenience.

No, because there is no sense of the larger masses getting a greater good in that notion. What is letting transgendered people use to the bathroom of their identified gender going to do to hurt the other people? In Europe there is unisex bathrooms all over the place. Hell in college, for me back in the 90's at a public university, we had unisex bathrooms. So your argument doesn't fit the narrative.

For the idiots here, this particular discussion with Lewdog, we are talking a philosophical concept as it pertains to the individual (namely Lewdog) and this is NOT an invitation to rehash the open restroom issue.

It in fact does. University life is not life in America. When there has been significant pushback against allowing transgendered to use the restroom they identify with as opposed to the restroom of their actual gender, you are in fact, appeasing a small group over the larger. That is directly opposed to what you stated. Particularly given the fact that transgendered were already using restrooms of their identified sex with none the wiser. This speaks of an agenda to subvert the great good.

Information has been provided (I don't have it offhand, and if you followed the debate you'd know that) which shows many instances of harm to young women, and others, by allowing this to go forward and/or to codify it in law. Never mind whether or not you agree with the information. The fact remains, that the greater good (as identified by Kant) is not served by supporting unisex restrooms.

No, you are placing that there is a good that comes from transgendered people NOT being allowed to use the bathroom of their identified gender and that is not correct. What "harm" is being caused against you that a woman is allowed to use the same bathroom as you? Or vice versa. Europe, and colleges like I stated, has shown that your fear that there is a problem is only in your head and not real. Therefor it is more of a benefit to the smaller number because it creates the greater good.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one?...

...In which case you believe that democracy should be the rule?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Lewdog]

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one?...

...In which case you believe that democracy should be the rule?

*****SMILE*****

As I said... the best philosophy is a mix of the two... BUT if I had to chose between Kant or Utilitarianism I would chose Utilitarianism. Why is that so hard for people to understand? The topic is that the two philosophies are to be removed from the colleges... that's the only reason I brought up that point.

 

[Darkwind]

What about forcing others to benefit the larger number of people? Are you good with that?

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So, you're against allowing people who identify as the opposite sex the use of the bathrooms they identify with? Consider this. Transgendered individuals born male who identify female are a significant minority in this country and to allow them to use the women's restroom does harm to a larger segment of the population than holding them to their born gender. You don't open women to sexual predators to allow a tiny minority a minor convenience.

No, because there is no sense of the larger masses getting a greater good in that notion. What is letting transgendered people use to the bathroom of their identified gender going to do to hurt the other people? In Europe there is unisex bathrooms all over the place. Hell in college, for me back in the 90's at a public university, we had unisex bathrooms. So your argument doesn't fit the narrative.

For the idiots here, this particular discussion with Lewdog, we are talking a philosophical concept as it pertains to the individual (namely Lewdog) and this is NOT an invitation to rehash the open restroom issue.

It in fact does. University life is not life in America. When there has been significant pushback against allowing transgendered to use the restroom they identify with as opposed to the restroom of their actual gender, you are in fact, appeasing a small group over the larger. That is directly opposed to what you stated. Particularly given the fact that transgendered were already using restrooms of their identified sex with none the wiser. This speaks of an agenda to subvert the great good.

Information has been provided (I don't have it offhand, and if you followed the debate you'd know that) which shows many instances of harm to young women, and others, by allowing this to go forward and/or to codify it in law. Never mind whether or not you agree with the information. The fact remains, that the greater good (as identified by Kant) is not served by supporting unisex restrooms.

No, you are placing that there is a good that comes from transgendered people NOT being allowed to use the bathroom of their identified gender and that is not correct. What "harm" is being caused against you that a woman is allowed to use the same bathroom as you? Or vice versa. Europe, and colleges like I stated, has shown that your fear that there is a problem is only in your head and not real. Therefor it is more of a benefit to the smaller number because it creates the greater good.

The harm has been articulated, as I've said. You can disagree with what harm can or is committed by allowing it or not. The discussion is in regards to being utilitarian, meaning doing what is best for the greatest number of people. The greatest number of people have determined that violation of privacy for the sake of a very tiny minority constitutes harm. Examples of other nations or a intentional select subset to prove a point with regard to the larger whole does not negate the concept of untilitarianism.

What I am really after is how, you can state you are Utilitarian and espouse the greater good in the face of the greater number of people saying no.

I'd like to continue this, but I've made My point I think and there is a snow storm heading My way so I have to leave early for work.

Take care.

 

[Darkwind]

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one?...

...In which case you believe that democracy should be the rule?

*****SMILE*****

As I said... the best philosophy is a mix of the two... BUT if I had to chose between Kant or Utilitarianism I would chose Utilitarianism. Why is that so hard for people to understand? The topic is that the two philosophies are to be removed from the colleges... that's the only reason I brought up that point.

I personally don't think that the student body should have a say over the curriculum.

 

[Lewdog]

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So, you're against allowing people who identify as the opposite sex the use of the bathrooms they identify with? Consider this. Transgendered individuals born male who identify female are a significant minority in this country and to allow them to use the women's restroom does harm to a larger segment of the population than holding them to their born gender. You don't open women to sexual predators to allow a tiny minority a minor convenience.

No, because there is no sense of the larger masses getting a greater good in that notion. What is letting transgendered people use to the bathroom of their identified gender going to do to hurt the other people? In Europe there is unisex bathrooms all over the place. Hell in college, for me back in the 90's at a public university, we had unisex bathrooms. So your argument doesn't fit the narrative.

For the idiots here, this particular discussion with Lewdog, we are talking a philosophical concept as it pertains to the individual (namely Lewdog) and this is NOT an invitation to rehash the open restroom issue.

It in fact does. University life is not life in America. When there has been significant pushback against allowing transgendered to use the restroom they identify with as opposed to the restroom of their actual gender, you are in fact, appeasing a small group over the larger. That is directly opposed to what you stated. Particularly given the fact that transgendered were already using restrooms of their identified sex with none the wiser. This speaks of an agenda to subvert the great good.

Information has been provided (I don't have it offhand, and if you followed the debate you'd know that) which shows many instances of harm to young women, and others, by allowing this to go forward and/or to codify it in law. Never mind whether or not you agree with the information. The fact remains, that the greater good (as identified by Kant) is not served by supporting unisex restrooms.

No, you are placing that there is a good that comes from transgendered people NOT being allowed to use the bathroom of their identified gender and that is not correct. What "harm" is being caused against you that a woman is allowed to use the same bathroom as you? Or vice versa. Europe, and colleges like I stated, has shown that your fear that there is a problem is only in your head and not real. Therefor it is more of a benefit to the smaller number because it creates the greater good.

The harm has been articulated, as I've said. You can disagree with what harm can or is committed by allowing it or not. The discussion is in regards to being utilitarian, meaning doing what is best for the greatest number of people. The greatest number of people have determined that violation of privacy for the sake of a very tiny minority constitutes harm. Examples of other nations or a intentional select subset to prove a point with regard to the larger whole does not negate the concept of untilitarianism.

What I am really after is how, you can state you are Utilitarian and espouse the greater good in the face of the greater number of people saying no.

I'd like to continue this, but I've made My point I think and there is a snow storm heading My way so I have to leave early for work.

Take care.

No, your American view of the problem is not a valid one. It's been PROVEN not to be a harm in action. I've said this several times now and you keep arguing about it. It's one thing to have a problem with something in concept, it's another that it has been PROVEN not to be a harm in action. Do you understand?