Sure, call him out for them. I’ve happily done the same.
But debating the motherfucker? Trying to argue him around or appeal to his non-existent morality? Naah. That’s a mug’s game, I’ve realized. A little late, but better late than never.
There are valid reasons for dispassionately arguing base principles even some find the conclusions immoral or distasteful. One, people actually have to make decisions in the real world that require difficult choices where someone is sure to be harmed while others benefit. Two, at some point we will be training AIs and/or robots with sets of principles that will govern their behavior. Of course we will mess #2 up in a catastrophic manner…
I get that’s what you meant. Can you elaborate? I mean, everything originated within and is associated with a racist culture, because that’s the culture that has always existed. Is there something about the history of the scientific / medical approach to sickle cell that is particularly troubling, rather than just imperfect/inaccurate?
There are absolutely situations where one has to make decisions along formulaic or non-altruistic lines, but usually even that is in the context of serving some higher good. For example the general that orders men into certain death to achieve an overall war aim. However as I said–there is no point in debating morality with someone who lacks empathy, morality is intrinsically linked to human empathy.
Just because I do not read the 14th Amendment as broadly as you or most others, does not mean I think it doesn’t exist. It’s not like my narrow interpretation of any clause is completely unprecedented. 
~Max
I disagree with that because I don’t find words on paper to be binding and in general there is no guarantee that any set of laws is congruent with my sense of fairness or what is just. In other words, my sense of morality doesn’t include a blind obedience.
No, Whiteness is only a few hundred years old.
Yes, Feel free to google “sickle cell racism” for more…
Nor does mine - as I wrote, if I find a law to be immoral then I have to weigh my obligation to follow the laws in general against my moral scruples with following this particular one. It would only be blind obedience if I skipped that step.
~Max
He’s making octopus look principled and reasonable here, I’m really becoming swayed by your argument.
Octopus has always been principled and reasonable with me.
~Max
Nailed it. This is a common subject of discussion with my 11-year-old son, who happens to have loads of empathy (just by chance — I’m not boasting), but has encounters with a schoolmate and a family member who lack it.
I guess if you feel it’s important to nitpick the technical imprecision of my wording here in saying “always” you’re just not interested in having a good faith discussion.
Hey, Max, any chance you can break away from this and respond to my PM? Thanks!
Secrets don’t make friends!
Yeah, I’ve been wondering if he’s a sociopath or just playing at being one.
Actually, in time, it won’t be a secret…
(he sez all mysteriously and shit…)
Well maybe, just maybe he’ll read up more on the Fugitive Slave Act and come to an epiphany of how evil it was.
Or maybe he is trolling us all.
It’s also the forum for overt trolling … up to a point.
No it’s not. That’s explicitly against the rules.
No trolling
By trolling, we mean posting of inflammatory comments solely to get a rise out of people. If we feel your primary goal as a poster is to make people mad, you’ll quickly find yourself on the road to banning. On the flip side, the fact that a poster consistently makes you mad doesn’t automatically make them a troll
You can argue that the rule isn’t enforced, but no, this is not the forum for overt trolling. There is no forum for overt trolling.