RE: Copsuckers can be funny
The argument is that Rapist are bad people by extension of their bad acts and that's not subjective or interpretive, it's truth.
Can good people rape? Yes, but then they aren't good people anymore, the act of raping makes them a bad person. So yes, by extension of their actions, solely because of their actions that makes them bad people
Can bad people do good? Yes, but that doesn't mean they are good people because they have already been labeled bad and good acts no matter how grand or how many don't invalidate bad acts. People chose, they chose to redeem themselves, so by their actions they can become good people again, a rapist can redeem himself by seeking forgiveness. Without seeking forgiveness, it doesn't matter if they do good, by extension of their not seeking to correct their bad acts, they are bad. Because good actions don't need correcting, because they are correct to begin with good people are people that chose correct actions.
The purpose of putting these labels to people is to express that they chose to be bad. The purpose is to express their choices. If a person chooses to dig a trench he is a trench digger. If a person chose to cut a tree down he is a lumberjack, if a person chooses to build a wooden frame house he is a carpenter, should he chose to build a stone house he is a mason, a brick house makes him a brick layer, and a person that chose to rape other is labeled a rapist. Labels of all kinds come with the actions of the people, not their motivations, no label will exist to express motivations, or good intention, only outcome or actions. Should the trench digger chose to dig a trench that helps drain a flooded area for others, he's a good person, should he chose to dig a trench to flood an area that others live in, he is a bad person. Should he chose to dig a trench for himself he's simply a trench digger. Should a carpenter chose to skimp on material or labor while he's building a house for someone else, he chose to do bad because of negligence. He is a bad person. Should he chose to do the same when he's building a house for himself, he's simply a negligent person. Should other suffer because they visit his shoddy house and it collapses on them, he is a bad person. Should a lumberjack chose to cut a tree that destroys other's property or worse, he is a bad person. Should he destroy his own property or his own well being, he is a negligent person. Labels distinguish good from bad, negligent from diligent. That's why we label actions and people based on their actions, as there aren't actions without people, there's only nature. At the end, actions worthy of labels such as diligent, good, excellent, great, awesome, impressive, are labeled to express acceptance, approval and in turn inspire others to chose such things.
Equally bad actions and by extension bad people are necessary to express undesirable and shunned, behavior derision.
"Good people" and "bad people" are not objective concepts, so no argument built on them can be objectively decided.
I disagree. First actions define the character. Also, actions like truth are objective. The color black is black, because this helps us communicate ideas and facts, and so a good act is correct,a bad act is wrong, negligence is wrong, these things are agreed upon constructs and because of that they help us communicate objectively and express objective truth.
They themselves may be objective. What is subjective are our interpretations of actions and perspectives of truth. Therefore, any label applied to a person ("good" or "bad") is applied subjectively.
Labels are applied objectively because actions in their outcomes are objective and don't require interpretation, as such a good action denotes correct behavior, or ethical, moral behavior, and in contrast a bad action (lying, cheating, stealing, initiating violence, rape, murder) denotes wrong behavior. Where (why and how) does interpretation play a part in labeling people based on their behavior?
If they don't require interpretation, who's applying the label? Who's deciding what's "good" and what's "bad"? Who decides what is "correct" or "ethical" or "moral"? To act on these concepts, they must be interpreted.
Whoever does the labeling does the interpretation.
Nope, I don't need to interpret the color black. I don't need to interpret rape, or murder. I recognize. That is the difference, these things are RECOGNIZED. I have cogized and now I RECOGNIZED them. It's not INTERPRETATION.
Cognized: TO KNOW.
Interpretation: TO EXPLAIN.
Black doesn't need explanation, murder doesn't need explanation(huh!).
The label is applied by WHOEVER, that's who, it's IRRELEVANT actually in this sense who, what where and when the label is applied, only WHY and HOW.
But obviously it's all about the fallacy of moral subjectivity. Who decides?
It's been long decided by consensus of every living soul that murder, rape, lying, cheating, stealing is wrong. There are exceptions and these are RECOGNIZED by INFANTS EVEN.
To act on the concepts of wrong or right requires to recognize them, not to explain them. An infant, an ANIMAL knows fair, and unfair, wrong and right.
That's a moot point, what's the point that things can be interpreted and misconstrued in whichever direction? Is that why we should not label people? Because these things can be interpreted? That's hardly an argument, or refuting the logic of: Bad actions define Bad character.
I'm not speaking against the use of labels to communicate or conceptualize. I'm speaking against the dependency on labels. I actually just explained this in another thread on this post, so I'm kinda tired of talking about it. But basically, I'm just trying to encourage people to continue questioning their beliefs, even when it comes to their principles and their labels. When we get too sure of ourselves, our egos tend to take over and hijack our best intentions.
You're contradicting yourself:
vs
The dependency of labels to do what? It's a cryptic way to cut your foot off, did you or did you not speak against the dependency on labels to communicate or conceptualize or not? Labels are by function of the function of language (tool within a tool) there to communicate and conceptualize, at the end of the day you can speak about how and why the tool is used, but to say that the tool is making us dependent on the tool is a moot point, it's like saying "our ego hijacks us because we are so dependent on clothes and recognizing moral behavior and labeling a treat as not a puddle, yeah, no whatever".
It seems like you are trying to be right instead of trying to understand the perspective I'm offering. Sorry, but I do not have the energy to continue this conversation. You seem to be content with your current perspective and that's fine with me.
Why and how do I seem like I'm trying to be right? But, don't answer that rhetorical question because you didn't address anything about my argument in lieu of seems like, a phrase that evokes little meaning and plenty of flimsiness in your stance just as I will just disregard your response as you disregarded me, extending the same respect, so to speak, because I am only interested in being correct.
I point out that you've invalidated your first perspective of "I'm not speaking against the use of labels" with "I'm speaking against the DEPENDENCE of labels" The use(utility) and the prevalence of the use, are intertwined that when you're speaking about the prevalence of the use you're directly speaking on the use of it and hardly a distinction between the two as the later is all for interpretation while the former is instantly recognizable truth.
How and why do we "depend" on labels and not "use" labels (yes, it's the argument of the beard)?
You speak against the use of clothes and their dependence, you cannot exclude their use from their dependence and least of all you cannot exclude it by leaving it at the prevalence of their use, it's in the very definition of dependence. Labels are tools, like clothes, and they are required, and also like clothes, they are objective because they convey truths that aren't debatable, or require any interpretation, nobody needs to explain or explain to themselves that murder is bad, any more than they need to interpret a naked person as naked and a person with clothes as dressed, even more so, animals recognize immoral behavior like cheating, and children who barely grasp language can recognize lying, but more poignant to the moral relativism you're cloaking your flimsy "not against the use, just the prevalence of their use" argument in, everyone recognize assault, rape or murder, yet you speak of these things as if they need or require some kind of interpretation or as if moral relativism isn't a fallacious stance to begin with that allows and excuses all kinds of immoral behavior with the flick of the wrist "you're interpreting it as murder, it was a passionate expression of love by cuddling with a clenched knife and not a backstabbing", equally "clothes make our ego too big (open ended term used to mask lack of argument or stance/standing, aka EGO), we have become too dependent on tools, we are a slave to tools (tools have muh volition over us) and least of all big bad ego who controls us and we must watch out for...." No.
Don't get mad at me, I'm just recognizing your actions for what they are. (See what I did there?)
Actually, I was interpreting your actions and acting on my interpretation. Perhaps I was wrong. This is the point I'm trying to make.
By "interpret," I do not mean "explain." I mean "understand."
By "dependence" on labels, I mean "relying," not "using."
Does this make any more sense?
Explaining and understanding(-ing) are interchangeable, they mean exactly the same thing.
You don't need to understand murder, or rape, it's called banal.
Banal things don't need understanding, nor interpretation. Morality isn't interpretative, like I pointed out, animals recognize morality, they KNOW it.
You must be running out of energy trying to not defined clear terms and it falls back on the cloak of moral relativism which you so depend on (ditto).
Again, you're contradicting yourself, you speak against the "trust"(read rely, read dependence) placed behind labels, but not their use? You either speak of the trust placed behind labels as implying use, or you don't, you cannot exclude use from trust of their use, as utility is a prerequisite to forming trust. So the question remains, if you're not speaking on the use of labels (which you were as evident by the discussion, which went from labels are subjective, to labels aren't really subjective to we are depended on labels) but on their dependence, why and how is that dependence, (what dependence), wrong or detrimental or different from their use?