An intuition with which I might sometimes agree; I'm not convinced that "...is good" works a predicate, at least not in the way "...is round" does. But there is much work to be done here, too. — Banno
SO you would say the argument is valid, but relies on a false premise - that there is a god - and so is not cogent. — Banno
But the thing about Plato's dialogues is that it is not about providing answers to simple questions. As Banno noted the dialogue ends in aporia. Most of them do. — Fooloso4
This is a philosophy discussion forum. Read with precision.
I asked you about the conman, not about the religious conman, as the issue was the contrast between a person's thought expression and their behavior. I said nothing about the religious conman. — baker
I wouldn’t rule out either as an explanation. There are many reasons. Also Cognitive dissonance is observable, primarily through the contrast between a persons thought expression and their behaviour.
That’s a lot clearer than the basis of your view which is based on your own rigid definition of belief. You entitled to that rigid definition but I see no compelling reason to adopt it myself. — DingoJones
So you think that a conman "has" cognitive dissonance? — baker
You and your damned reasonableness. Would you please stop it!!!
I've been in quite a few exchanges like this one, both as a participant and a bystander. In those situations, censorship by bullying is a common tactic. Moderators sometimes are part of that, although others certainly participate too. When a moderator does it it can be a lot more intimidating. — T Clark
The general argument concerning free speech of course has nothing to do with the argument concerning moderation on any particular forum any more than an argument for free food choices obliges an Italian restaurant to serve hamburgers. And yet posters consistently conflate these debates. There’s no inconsistency whatsoever between supporting free speech and running a moderated forum. — Baden
It isn't necessary for valid speech to be actively censored in order for it to be attacked. Threats, intimidation, insults, dismissal, and bullying can be effectively used to get you to just shut up. Cases in point: — T Clark
It is noteworthy that these quotes are all from moderators. — T Clark
What does “wokeness” even mean? Is it just “not being a dick”? — Michael
It's not clear that in the case of the religious not living up to what they profess this is really due to cognitive dissonance. You'd need to rule out deliberate duplicity. Religion's bloody history warrants such scrutiny. — baker
To which I replied affirmatively. But see my above post: Some beliefs are inactionable, at least for some people. So one has to wonder why would anyone profess those beliefs? Because of their metavalue? (Ie. because professing such beliefs spares one from being prosecuted by other people?)
Compare: You and I believe that radium-226 has a half-life of 1600 years; I assume neither of us works in the nuclear industry, so we can't act on this belief. We also don't make a point of telling anyone that we believe that radium-226 has a half-life of 1600 years. So what gives? — baker
No. They threaten with eternal damnation anyone who doesn't believe like they do. Because of this, they do not deserve the kind of lenience that you describe above and which would apply in other situations, for other beliefs (inlcuding flatearthing and antivaxxing). — baker
It's the religious who primarily see belief in such binary terms! — baker
Well I'll press you a little there. Imagine the same social worker applies the same fallacious reasoning in choosing a life partner. It seems to me that this is something one might remonstrate about if one cared for the social worker as a friend, but not something socially unacceptable in the way that it would be applied to professional life, and that because the social worker has power qua social worker as distinct from the privilege of personal foibles in private life. Liberty requires us to accept the one and find the other unacceptable. — unenlightened
I like the 'when' in the title. A stereotype is unacceptable when the (pre)judgement is acted on, and is directly proportional to the power and authority of the actor. — unenlightened
I don't know if it is accurate on average. It might be misleading anyway, because stereotypically, unhealthy people have less energy and tend to do less and so run to fat because of illness rather than laziness. The stereotype becomes toxic though when it is applied by - say - social workers to separate the deserving from the undeserving poor, because even if it were usually true, if it is not universally true it must result in injustice. — unenlightened
I think that prejudice and stereotypes do relate to one because when people think in stereotypes, which are like caricatures, it often leads to judgements about people in a negative way. For example, a few people who are struggle with weight issues have told me that they do feel that people make assumptions about them being lazy and a few other things. — Jack Cummins
And I doubt such is necessarily always the case. — baker
Because I've seen religion and religiosity from the inside. Like I said, I know many religious people, but I yet have to meet one who would actually believe what they say.
I've seen Catholics go to church, there chant "I'm so sorry I offended thee, God", then go home and get drunk and curse God, Jesus, Mary, and the Holy Roman Church, and continue in that vein until next Sunday, when it is again "I'm so sorry I offended thee, God", and so on. — baker
Probably not, and it's not relevant for the most part anyway. — baker