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

[Darkwind]

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?

It's not been proven, that's the problem. You only accept a version that you agree with. have a nice day.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Beethoven, Bach, Motzart and Chopin were all white. Their music should no longer be played.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

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.

What they mean when they call us 'anti-education' is that we are anti-leftist indoctrination.

They're not educated, they're indoctrinated and THINK they're educated.

 

[Manonthestreet]

They had their say in choice of institution to study at..I would expel them with full refund

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

They had their say in choice of institution to study at..I would expel them with full refund

Yep.

 

[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*****

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.

So your really want is not utilitarianism or democracy but to create a tyranny that conforms to your beliefs and desires even if the majority rejects the laws you enact... Do you hold some divine power?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Lewdog]

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?

It's not been proven, that's the problem. You only accept a version that you agree with. have a nice day.

Millions of people using unisex bathrooms without these major rape and sexual assault problems that you fear of is PROOF of concept. Your problem is fear of concept... do you recognize how problem solving actually works? Action > concept every time.

 

[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.

So your really want is not utilitarianism or democracy but to create a tyranny that conforms to your beliefs and desires even if the majority rejects the laws you enact... Do you hold some divine power?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, nice strawman. Why are you confusing the idea of Utilitarianism philosophy with some sort of government?

 

[Manonthestreet]

So slavery benefitted the majority.....Kkk .....Mask off

 

[JimBowie1958]

So slavery benefitted the majority.....Kkk .....Mask off

Well, I'm shocked, just shocked!

roflmao

 

[Lewdog]

So slavery benefitted the majority.....Kkk .....Mask off

No, it didn't because it was morally wrong for everyone involved.

And as I said, the BEST IS A MIX OF THE TWO... WTF is wrong with you trolls? You can't have a fucking adult discussion about a single subject on this forum.

 

[Moonglow]

I can see where the concern is since it is a college of African, Asian and Middle Eastern studies..

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

So slavery benefitted the majority.....Kkk .....Mask off

No, it didn't because it was morally wrong for everyone involved.

And as I said, the BEST IS A MIX OF THE TWO... WTF is wrong with you trolls? You can't have a fucking adult discussion about a single subject on this forum.

The majority sure didn't think it was morally wrong to enslave people at the time.

 

[Moonglow]

Beethoven, Bach, Motzart and Chopin were all white. Their music should no longer be played.

that is not the issue..

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No, nice strawman. Why are you confusing the idea of Utilitarianism philosophy with some sort of government?

Which strawman would that be?

The one where what you're saying doesn't coincide with what you support?

When your philosophy is used to enact laws that run contrary to the utilitarianism you say you support then you have no more leg to stand on than those you accuse enacting laws that follow their religious beliefs/philosophy.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Manonthestreet]

So slavery benefitted the majority.....Kkk .....Mask off

No, it didn't because it was morally wrong for everyone involved.

And as I said, the BEST IS A MIX OF THE TWO... WTF is wrong with you trolls? You can't have a fucking adult discussion about a single subject on this forum.

Morality?????? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth

 

[Moonglow]

No, nice strawman. Why are you confusing the idea of Utilitarianism philosophy with some sort of government?

Which strawman would that be?

The one where what you're saying doesn't coincide with what you support?

When your philosophy is used to enact laws that run contrary to the utilitarianism you say you support then you have no more leg to stand on than those you accuse enacting laws that follow their religious beliefs/philosophy.

*****SMILE*****

Yet Plato and Socrates did just that...Socrates lost his life over it...

 

[Lewdog]

So slavery benefitted the majority.....Kkk .....Mask off

No, it didn't because it was morally wrong for everyone involved.

And as I said, the BEST IS A MIX OF THE TWO... WTF is wrong with you trolls? You can't have a fucking adult discussion about a single subject on this forum.

The majority sure didn't think it was morally wrong to enslave people at the time.

They didn't think it was wrong, but it was morally wrong. And it also depends on whom you asked whether it was wrong. All of Europe had long decided slavery was barbaric before the U.S. outlawed it. That's part of why the North won the war, the blockade put on by the North and the trade embargo placed on it with Europe who no longer was trading arms and supplies for cotton.

 

[Lewdog]

So slavery benefitted the majority.....Kkk .....Mask off

No, it didn't because it was morally wrong for everyone involved.

And as I said, the BEST IS A MIX OF THE TWO... WTF is wrong with you trolls? You can't have a fucking adult discussion about a single subject on this forum.

Morality?????? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth

Morality is PART of the assessment of what is the greater good.

 

[Lewdog]

No, nice strawman. Why are you confusing the idea of Utilitarianism philosophy with some sort of government?

Which strawman would that be?

The one where what you're saying doesn't coincide with what you support?

When your philosophy is used to enact laws that run contrary to the utilitarianism you say you support then you have no more leg to stand on than those you accuse enacting laws that follow their religious beliefs/philosophy.

*****SMILE*****

No, you are equating a type of philosophy directly with a type of government... and the two aren't synonymous.