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

[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

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

Wasn't in your first few posts,.....Your position is you like it which ever you like and justify by switching back and forth.
Also unAmerican....Slavery was wrong not because it harmed the practitioners but because it harmed the minority enslaved

 

[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.

Wasn't in your first few posts,.....Your position is you like it which ever you like and justify by switching back and forth.
Also unAmerican....Slavery was wrong not because it harmed the practitioners but because it harmed the minority enslaved

Should I have to say morality should be considered as what makes something good? That's a pretty silly statement to make.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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

Philosophies are what people utilize to formulate decisions which in turn are used to make rules which is what any government requires to exist.

You're pathetic attempts to make it seem that the two are separate and shall never meet are inept at best.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[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

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

Wasn't in your first few posts,.....Your position is you like it which ever you like and justify by switching back and forth.
Also unAmerican....Slavery was wrong not because it harmed the practitioners but because it harmed the minority enslaved

Should I have to say morality should be considered as what makes something good? That's a pretty silly statement to make.

Not In today's society and libs....Morality never figured Into the equation unless it's to identify their current group to target

 

[MindWars]

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.

They started indoctrinated women via the TV awhile ago and the farthest back I can recall is that one commercial where the woman comes home and says " I can bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan"
that was part of the women don't need men brainwashing, it was part of the no father in the house era, and earlier than that destroy the family............

Here is an interesting article

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.

How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women

- See more at: How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women

 

[Lewdog]

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

View attachment 105977

Philosophies are what people utilize to formulate decisions which in turn are used to make rules which is what any government requires to exist.

You're pathetic attempts to make it seem that the two are separate and shall never meet are inept at best.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Again... you equated the two as equal in your first post, they are NOT equal. Now you are backtracking saying one is a tool to create the form of a government and at the same time chiding me for questioning your statement.

So you admit then that Utilitarianism isn't a form of government?

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Wasn't in your first few posts,.....Your position is you like it which ever you like and justify by switching back and forth.
Also unAmerican....Slavery was wrong not because it harmed the practitioners but because it harmed the minority enslaved

Should I have to say morality should be considered as what makes something good? That's a pretty silly statement to make.

Not In today's society and libs....Morality never figured Into the equation unless it's to identify their current group to target

This isn't a political discussion... so why are you bringing in your political beliefs and bias into it? Can we have a discussion based on this topic without all that shit?

 

[aris2chat]

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.

They should be mandatory prerequisites at university

What now? Only Blacks (or muslims & indian) should be studied and no one else not matter how wide spread their works should be worthy of mention any more?

This is nuts, totally nuts

Why are these people in white western nations if they don't think whites have anything to say or give to society?

Let them return to some "darker" nations of their choosing and study there and make those places better with their new found knowledge.

If they have a problem with whites, don't stay in northern/western countries.

What are they seeking, a genocide of all whites? Wipe them out of the world and history?

 

[Manonthestreet]

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

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

Wasn't in your first few posts,.....Your position is you like it which ever you like and justify by switching back and forth.
Also unAmerican....Slavery was wrong not because it harmed the practitioners but because it harmed the minority enslaved

Should I have to say morality should be considered as what makes something good? That's a pretty silly statement to make.

Not In today's society and libs....Morality never figured Into the equation unless it's to identify their current group to target

This isn't a political discussion... so why are you bringing in your political beliefs and bias into it? Can we have a discussion based on this topic without all that shit?

Don't step in shit and you won't have to deal with it

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Again... you equated the two as equal in your first post, they are NOT equal. Now you are backtracking saying one is a tool to create the form of a government and at the same time chiding me for questioning your statement.

So you admit then that Utilitarianism isn't a form of government?

I did no such thing in my very first post.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[MindWars]

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.

No there are bathroom issues , you hear nothing because MSM is told to shut up about it.

and if everyone jumped off the bridge would you do it too, would that make it right because " EVERYONE IS DOING IT" ................. there are morals and standards that should never be traded in based off a bunch of indoctrinated morons who don't even know who the hell the first president was.

 

[Lewdog]

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

Wasn't in your first few posts,.....Your position is you like it which ever you like and justify by switching back and forth.
Also unAmerican....Slavery was wrong not because it harmed the practitioners but because it harmed the minority enslaved

Should I have to say morality should be considered as what makes something good? That's a pretty silly statement to make.

Not In today's society and libs....Morality never figured Into the equation unless it's to identify their current group to target

This isn't a political discussion... so why are you bringing in your political beliefs and bias into it? Can we have a discussion based on this topic without all that shit?

Don't step in shit and you won't have to deal with it

No, I never brought up politics.

I love how some of you guys are having a circle jerk with each other with rep points in here... I hope you don't think that validates your point.

 

[Lewdog]

Again... you equated the two as equal in your first post, they are NOT equal. Now you are backtracking saying one is a tool to create the form of a government and at the same time chiding me for questioning your statement.

So you admit then that Utilitarianism isn't a form of government?

View attachment 105981

I did no such thing in my very first post.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You compared Utilitarianism with Democracy... directly. That's what led us to here.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

No there are bathroom issues , you hear nothing because MSM is told to shut up about it.

and if everyone jumped off the bridge would you do it too, would that make it right because " EVERYONE IS DOING IT" ................. there are morals and standards that should never be traded in based off a bunch of indoctrinated morons who don't even know who the hell the first president was.

First president of what?

 

[Lewdog]

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.

No there are bathroom issues , you hear nothing because MSM is told to shut up about it.

and if everyone jumped off the bridge would you do it too, would that make it right because " EVERYONE IS DOING IT" ................. there are morals and standards that should never be traded in based off a bunch of indoctrinated morons who don't even know who the hell the first president was.

No... again. Europe and colleges have had unisex bathrooms for YEARS without the wide spread problems many people in the U.S. fear. Again, there is a huge difference in proof of concept in practice verse proof of concept in theory.

Bathrooms can be a bad place even without other sexes in it. When I was around 8 years old I caught a guy trying to peek through the gap in the bathroom stall at me... it was an adult man in a mall bathroom. So does that mean we should make all bathrooms single bathrooms that only one person can use at a time?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No, I never brought up politics.

I love how some of you guys are having a circle jerk with each other with rep points in here... I hope you don't think that validates your point.

The politics of the situation presented itself with the OP for those to slow to understand that the philosophies the students are demanding to have tossed out, most especially Plato, are guiding principles of western civilization.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[MindWars]

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.

No there are bathroom issues , you hear nothing because MSM is told to shut up about it.

and if everyone jumped off the bridge would you do it too, would that make it right because " EVERYONE IS DOING IT" ................. there are morals and standards that should never be traded in based off a bunch of indoctrinated morons who don't even know who the hell the first president was.

First president of what?

The U.S. these dumb fks can't even tell you who the hell the VP is for Obama

 

[Lewdog]

No, I never brought up politics.

I love how some of you guys are having a circle jerk with each other with rep points in here... I hope you don't think that validates your point.

The politics of the situation presented itself with the OP for those to slow to understand that the philosophies the students are demanding to have tossed out, most especially Plato, are guiding principles of western civilization.

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, the OP never brought up different types of governments, you did. We were trying to have a discussion about philosophy but using examples to validate our points... you made it political and compared a philosophy directly with a form of government. Why can't we discuss the issue without muddying it up?

 

[OnePercenter]

'The student union at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) insists that when studying philosophy “the majority of philosophers on our courses” should be from Africa and Asia.'

What's wrong with that?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No, the OP never brought up different types of governments, you did. We were trying to have a discussion about philosophy but using examples to validate our points... you made it political and compared a philosophy directly with a form of government. Why can't we discuss the issue without muddying it up?

Plato works cover the founding idea of the republic. If you don't understand that then perhaps you should reread Plato or go back to a college willing to teach Plato. You can attempt to say that philosophy is a separate identity but it still comprises the foundation of the government that built up from it.

Do you wish us to study Egyptian philosophy and thereby have a more African orientation to what we believe so we can enslave the minorities while we build godlike dynasties and pyramids? How about we base our beliefs on the teachings of Sun Tzu instead so we can become more a martial nation? I would mention Nietzsche but he's white and we've already had one white society push a few of his beliefs. Then there is always those semantic whites with their teachings of Muhammad. One should choose carefully what one wishes to throw out because one might get exactly what one wishes for and doesn't desire.

*****CHUCKLE*****