Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

If the establishment is justifying its behavior on an appeal to privacy rights, then why the hell not? It all seems equally as frivolous to me.

 

[Dak]

If you find an appeal to privacy rights untenable on the basis of a position of uniform and total non-exclusion, then why does the indignation not rise in all cases? Or are there acceptable reasons for exclusion, and if so what are they and what is the basis?

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't understand the first question. What indignation are you talking about?

As far as the second question goes, excluding people based on sexual orientation or disability has no rational basis other than bigotry. Those people cause no harm to others. Exclusion based on violence or dangerous behavior is obviously understandable; but not exclusion based purely on what we might call someone's interior identity or personal appearance (i.e. their "private" sense of self). It makes no sense, if we are appealing to privacy and/or other "rights."

There's nothing fundamentally logical about forcing the restaurant owner to allow gays, the disabled, etc. into his establishment. However, more measurable offense, psychological, and emotional damage arises out of exclusion. At this point, the more internally logical thing to do is to deny his personal bigotry and force him to serve those he would rather not.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

God, you two would be amazing characters together on a Lost or Walking Dead type scenario.

 

[Dak]

I don't understand the first question. What indignation are you talking about?

I don't know what else to call it when you speak of the reattaching of heads and the state of the world being improved by this persons demise. Disgust, indignation, etc. Synonym potahto.

As far as the second question goes, excluding people based on sexual orientation or disability has no rational basis other than bigotry. Those people cause no harm to others. Exclusion based on violence or dangerous behavior is obviously understandable; but not exclusion based purely on what we might call someone's interior identity or personal appearance (i.e. their "private" sense of self). It makes no sense, if we are appealing to privacy and/or other "rights."

We might call sexual preference a form of bigotry, or monogamy, or hell, refusing sex with anyone who asks at any given time a form of bigotry. Because feelings. What harm is this 2bit bartender causing that, again, isn't being caused at thousands of clubs across the world. But we love that sort of exclusion and bigotry. We allow and love and express all sorts of exclusion and bigotry, but only this guy and his sort/sort of bigotry are the untenable lot. Viewing this perspective from the outside leads me to the next part:

At this point, the more internally logical thing to do is to deny his personal bigotry and force him to serve those he would rather not.

Logic is certainly one thing I don't see making any appearance here at all.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know what else to call it when you speak of the reattaching of heads and the state of the world being improved by this persons demise. Disgust, indignation, etc. Synonym potahto.

Maybe you should specify whom you're talking about.

We might call sexual preference a form of bigotry, or monogamy, or hell, refusing sex with anyone who asks at any given time a form of bigotry. Because feelings. What harm is this 2bit bartender causing that, again, isn't being caused at thousands of clubs across the world. But we love that sort of exclusion and bigotry. We allow and love and express all sorts of exclusion and bigotry, but only this guy and his sort/sort of bigotry are the untenable lot. Viewing this perspective from the outside leads me to the next part:

No, sexual preference, monogamy, or refusing to have sex with someone don't count as forms of exclusion. That's your skewed semantic obsession running off the rails. The exclusion we're speaking of is not personal but systematic.

Logic is certainly one thing I don't see making any appearance here at all.

Logic is only ever a normative science. You just think your thought processes pursue logic because you're biased toward them.

It's possible to be critical of logic.

 

[Dak]

Maybe you should specify whom you're talking about.

That whole story just pisses me off...... They should have the opposing views forced down their throats. I will sit in at that bigot's restaurant and tell him he's a fucking idiot.

The world will be better off when people like him are gone.

He's a fucking idiot, and he needs to have his head reattached.

Looks like disgust, indignation, etc to me. Also, sorry I didn't see the edit about the other previous thing, will get back to that asap.

No, sexual preference, monogamy, or refusing to have sex with someone don't count as forms of exclusion. That's your skewed semantic obsession running off the rails. The exclusion we're speaking of is not personal but systematic.

So who gets to determine what counts and what doesn't? And how is monogamy not systemic? There is certainly anthropological evidence to the contrary.

Logic is only ever a normative science. You just think your thought processes pursue logic because you're biased toward them.

It's possible to be critical of logic.

Reason or logic? I'm not seeing any consistent chain of reasoning. You can have two radically different and opposing arguments that are both logical. I just want to see a more logical argument, with a substantial foundation/premises for why it makes sense to be mad at one sort of bigotry and exclusion versus another (or why/who gets to select what sort of exclusion is exclusion or whatever), and then contentment at whatever uncomfortable end that argument must be taken to.

Out of everything, this bit makes entirely no sense to me whatsoever:

here's the deal; he has some right to private ownership of a business to deny certain persons service? Fuck his ass, those persons also have individual rights to be served. The problem with appealing to privacy is that the patrons he's refusing can appeal to that same right.

How can I have a right to be served? This is an argument for involuntary servitude: slavery.

How is my right to privacy violated by exclusion from x establishment?

 

[Einherjar86]

The point is they are being excluded because of their private identity; who/what they are, and how they identify as a self, which apparently appeals to some notion of interiority. My point is that we're already embroiled in inconsistency. This restaurant owner is the very epitome of the contradictions of privacy; his privacy apparently trumps theirs. Private property is not merely land, but bodies; and he seems to feel that his land is more important than their bodies. Or, I should say, the privacy of his land is more important than the privacy of their bodies.

There's no logical argument to be made because this man has already blown up any claim to logic and rationality from within.

 

[Dak]

He isn't trying to insert his land into their bodies, he is resisting the insertion of their bodies onto his land. The logic or rationality of this rejection is irrelevant, and nothing about rejection of insertion violates any sort of privacy.

 

[Einherjar86]

He isn't trying to insert his land into their bodies, he is resisting the insertion of their bodies onto his land. The logic or rationality of this rejection is irrelevant, and nothing about rejection of insertion violates any sort of privacy.

Sure it does. It violates the private identity of an individual. I'm not trying to argue for identity politics here; all I'm saying is that validating property on the basis of privacy also means that individuals can validate their identity on the basis of privacy. What we have here is the admitted exclusion of groups of people based solely on the product of their private property.

It would be the same as saying that this business cannot participate in market exchange because it refuses gays and the disabled. Of course it can still participate in the market; but it must, in turn, allow its patrons to participate. Refusal is regulation, it's simply coming from a different source.

 

[Dak]

"Validating property on the basis of privacy"?

Ownership of the production of the individual proceeds from individual ownership of themselves. I own myself, I make a widget, I own the widget. Ownership entails exclusivity by definition. Part of ownership of myself is contracting and/or association. Part of ownership of my product is sharing or contracting.

As an owner/operator of a business, ownership of both his/herself and his product allow for refusing to contract, associate, or share with some other individual - regardless of reasoning. To suggest otherwise - that one does not possess the right to enter into contract, association, or share under their own volition,is to reduce the involuntary participant in the contract or association to a slave, and/or to steal the product of the individual, also rendering him or her a slave to the expropriator or "contractor". Privacy is a byproduct of certain choices available with self-ownership, not the reason for it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Privacy is a byproduct of certain choices available with self-ownership, not the reason for it.

Your problem is that you're smart, and you project your intellect into others who might behave similarly, but do so for different reasons.

Privacy is privileged by our society as a right, which means it exists not as a byproduct, but as an essence. The most fundamental form of privacy, in the liberal humanist mindset, is the self; this precedes all other forms of property. Of course, it's important to acknowledge that privacy doesn't actually exist as an essence; but it is appealed to as an essence in many forms of liberal humanist thought.

The private property of the self is also the source of the fundamental contradiction of private property in general, since the self inevitably intersects with other subjectively experienced selves.

The excuses you're making for the restaurant owner are not derived from logic, but are mere rationalizations of one specific site of private property. Private property as a whole is a paradoxical institution.

EDIT: my disgust for that man is purely emotional; but I tend to find that my emotions have the ability to point me in the right direction, even if they won't compensate for the lack of a critical argument.

 

[Einherjar86]

Important:

At this point in the chain of statements, the classical error of reductionism often makes its entrance, via the following argument: If our brain’s unique capacities arise from its material substrate, and if that substrate originated through ordinary evolutionary processes, then those unique capacities must be explainable by (reducible to) “biology” (or some other chosen category expressing standard scientific principles and procedures).

The primary fallacy of this argument has been recognized from the inception of this hoary debate. “Arising from” does not mean “reducible to,” for all the reasons embodied in the old cliche that a whole can be more than the sum of its parts. To employ the technical parlance of two fields, philosophy describes this principle by the concept of “emergence*,” while science speaks of “nonlinear” or “nonadditive” interaction. In terms of building materials, a new entity may contain nothing beyond its constituent parts, each one of fully known composition and operation. But if, in forming the new entity, these constituent parts interact in a “nonlinear” fashion—that is, if the combined action of any two parts in the new entity yields something other than the sum of the effect of part one acting alone plus the effect of part two acting alone—then the new entity exhibits “emergent” properties that cannot be explained by the simple summation of the parts in question. Any new entity that has emergent properties—and I can’t imagine anything very complex without such features—cannot, in principle, be explained by (reduced to) the structure and function of its building blocks.

...and...

Please note that this definition of “emergence” includes no statement about the mystical, the ineffable, the unknowable, the spiritual, or the like—although the confusion of such a humdrum concept as nonlinearity with this familiar hit parade has long acted as the chief impediment to scientific understanding and acceptance of such a straightforward and commonsensical phenomenon. When I argue that the behavior of a particular mammal can’t be explained by its genes, or even as the simple sum of its genes plus its environment of upbringing, I am not saying that behavior can’t be approached or understood scientifically. I am merely pointing out that any full understanding must consider the organism at its own level, as a product of massively nonlinear interaction among its genes and environments. (When you grasp this principle, you will immediately understand why such pseudosophisticated statements as the following are not even wrong, but merely nonsensical: “I’m not a naive biological determinist. I know that intelligence represents an interaction of genes and environment—and I hear that the relative weights are about 40 percent genes and 60 percent environment.&#8221

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Sum that up in two sentences, go! (please)

 

[Einherjar86]

Behavior and consciousness are not reducible to genetic factors, or even to a purely combinatory effect of genes and environment.

That said, scholars of emergence theory (which Gould is appealing to in order to offer an explanation for complex organisms) need not appeal to mysticism or spirituality in order to justify this approach once they conceptualize the organism as part of a nonlinear network of interactive forces and traits.

Allow me one more sentence: nonlinear systems do not satisfy the superposition principle, which means that their output - what they produce - cannot be directly correlated with what is put into them; cause and effect must be reevaluated.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Random question for Dakryn: how's psych study going?

 

[Dak]

And Dak, I don't see how you've countered my claim.

I was specifically countering that we aren't seeing anything new as it regards "interplay of value", unless you merely are referring to the scope as new, but I didn't get that from what you posted. Certainly we are seeing a broader scope than ever before, but that in itself isn't "revolutionary".

Your problem is that you're smart, and you project your intellect into others who might behave similarly, but do so for different reasons.

Privacy is privileged by our society as a right, which means it exists not as a byproduct, but as an essence. The most fundamental form of privacy, in the liberal humanist mindset, is the self; this precedes all other forms of property. Of course, it's important to acknowledge that privacy doesn't actually exist as an essence; but it is appealed to as an essence in many forms of liberal humanist thought.

The private property of the self is also the source of the fundamental contradiction of private property in general, since the self inevitably intersects with other subjectively experienced selves.

The excuses you're making for the restaurant owner are not derived from logic, but are mere rationalizations of one specific site of private property. Private property as a whole is a paradoxical institution.

I'm not projecting my argument on "society". "Society" changes it's mind about what is and isn't allowed and the reasons for these allowances or disallowances depending on the day, the second, the mile. I'm sure THAT guy certainly hasn't given it much thought past "dis HEER be PRIVAHT PROPERDY!". But that is irrelevant to my reasoning for letting it alone.

Under your proffered existing social conceptualization, I can see how private property is a gordian knot, so we may as well err on the side of yelling at people we don't like/disagree with (but making sure to serve them if we own a business).

EDIT: my disgust for that man is purely emotional; but I tend to find that my emotions have the ability to point me in the right direction, even if they won't compensate for the lack of a critical argument.

I'm sure Voltaire says something about this situation...

 

[Einherjar86]

I was specifically countering that we aren't seeing anything new as it regards "interplay of value", unless you merely are referring to the scope as new, but I didn't get that from what you posted. Certainly we are seeing a broader scope than ever before, but that in itself isn't "revolutionary".

I think it's grounded in revolution (nota bene: not Marxist revolution). We're witnessing the active shift and displacement in value itself.

I'm not projecting my argument on "society". "Society" changes it's mind about what is and isn't allowed and the reasons for these allowances or disallowances depending on the day, the second, the mile. I'm sure THAT guy certainly hasn't given it much thought past "dis HEER be PRIVAHT PROPERDY!". But that is irrelevant to my reasoning for letting it alone.

Under your proffered existing social conceptualization, I can see how private property is a gordian knot, so we may as well err on the side of yelling at people we don't like/disagree with (but making sure to serve them if we own a business).

Yes, absolutely; that's what the business is there for. It isn't there to reinforce its owner's bigotry.

I'm sure Voltaire says something about this situation...

So does Antonio Damasio; he claims that emotions don't hamper critical thought, but in fact enable and embolden it.

There's no reason not to feel passionately about the things you argue for.

 

[Dak]

I think it's grounded in revolution (nota bene: not Marxist revolution). We're witnessing the active shift and displacement in value itself.

There is no new shift in value. There is a shift in the number of people with extra resources. That "shift in value" has always been present for those with available resources.

Yes, absolutely; that's what the business is there for. It isn't there to reinforce its owner's bigotry.

The business is there to do what the businessman wants. Whether or not customers find it valuable will determine its success. Sam Walton wanted to do Walmart, Henry Ford wanted to make cars. But people have to buy. If enough people are disgusted with the that guy, he'll have to shut down anyway - or at least run on a severely crimped lifestyle. The regulatory effect of voluntary transactions. And no, I don't see this as paradoxical, or conflicting, etc.

So does Antonio Damasio; he claims that emotions don't hamper critical thought, but in fact enable and embolden it.

There's no reason not to feel passionately about the things you argue for.

Of course. Generally speaking, some level of emotional attachment is required to give something the requisite thought needed to form an informed opinion. I don't have a unified theory of baseball because I don't give a damn.

 

[Einherjar86]

There is no new shift in value. There is a shift in the number of people with extra resources. That "shift in value" has always been present for those with available resources.

Bah, yes there is. There have been shifts in the number of people and extra resources, but there is most certainly a shift in the location of value.

I'm not going to go through what I've already said again, but it's fairly obvious to me.

The business is there to do what the businessman wants. Whether or not customers find it valuable will determine its success. Sam Walton wanted to do Walmart, Henry Ford wanted to make cars. But people have to buy. If enough people are disgusted with the that guy, he'll have to shut down anyway - or at least run on a severely crimped lifestyle. The regulatory effect of voluntary transactions. And no, I don't see this as paradoxical, or conflicting, etc.

And what the businessman wants is to make and sell. If he's not doing it because of mere bigotry, then nothing positive is happening.

All of this completely ignores the potential mental damage done to those whom he dismisses on the basis of identity.