How do you know murder is wrong?

[moralist]

8 hours ago, jts said:

About radical Muslims vs moderate Muslims.

 

Excellent video, Jerry.

The only long term resolution is for a reformation of Islam. But until then they're an enemy... but not the only one.

Their secular liberal politically correct allies are just as dangerous because they enable Islamic terrorism.

 

Greg

[moralist]

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 11:09 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Greg,

This is not quite accurate. We discussed this somewhere on OL several years ago...

I understand.

 “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I don't regard Judeo Christian values as posing any threat to me personally or to my loved ones, nor to this nation for that matter. Because America was established with them as its moral foundation.

Greg

[Robert_Bumbalough]

On 3/26/2017 at 7:40 PM, anthony said:

\\  Prager asks a legitimate question, \\

Hello Anthony.  Thank you for opportunity to comment regarding the quoted portion of your remark.

Sir. The OP question is not legitimate. Legitimate means the question occurs in an objective context. Prager, being a religious organization, operates in the context of superstitious mythology, yet the staff and associates of Prager understand by direct perception without having to perform deductive reasoning that their religious god is not real. They know their god is a mere fantasy because they directly experience the primacy of existence. Since the primacy of existence versus primacy of consciousness forms a valid dichotomy, to know the former is valid and sound is to know the later is false. To know existence has primacy over consciousness is to know consciousness does not and cannot make reality. Since the Christian "God" is alleged to be a ruling consciousness that makes reality, they, and all beings capable of conceptual reasoning, know "God" does not exist.   Hence they know that religious divine command theory cannot be a valid moral system regardless of whatever god is imagined by a religious adherent. Consequently, the question "If there is no God, murder isn't wrong?" occurs in a subjective context which eliminates it from the category of legitimate. 

 

primacy of existence vs primacy of consciousness  http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/primacy_of_existence_vs_primacy_of_consciousness.html

 

objectivity  http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html

vs

subjectivism  http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html

 

Thank you for allowing me to comment and best wishes to you and yours.

 

[anthony]

Robert, The question is legitimate (I've argued) whomever it comes from. It just requires an objective reply. The objective answer, the standard of the value is man's life, is clear - to Objectivists. We are not however in an O'ist world and religions will always be with us, and you and I are not able to change that fact.

Christians "know" and act on their knowledge: murder is evil. They have a standard of life as being precious (or "sacred", etc.), a standard which many atheists/agnostics have no rational equivalent for. In that sense, in the real and practical consequences of their respect for others' lives, they possess what secular, philosophical skeptics (they are subjectivists too, don't forget) who lack a metaphysics or such commitment, don't. The latter have no other means but 'moral relativism' to turn to. I.e., there is no standard - whatever you wish, goes.

I don't follow you: I certainly can't see that Christians/Jews "know God does not exist" . As totally Primacy of Consciousness as you and I know that is, God exists - to them. One may often accuse the religious of hypocrisy, but not at that level, I think.

Ultimately then, considering the mix of people around one in society, what is preferable? Subjectivists who are morally convinced of why murder is wrong - or, subjectivists who merely - amorally - obey the laws against murder(the penalties for which some might think they could flout, sometimes)? Conviction (plus the Law) wins, imo.

Rand, you will know, considered religion a "primitive philosophy". She allowed: "And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and on a very--how should I say it?--dangerous and malevolent base". [The Playboy Interview]

In short, religion may have good principles, *although* - based on mysticism, which will be mutable and arbitrary (and with no church/state separation and full individual rights, "dangerous").

As opposed to no "proper principles" at all - in secular society?

You are welcome.

[jts]

3 hours ago, moralist said:

The only long term resolution is for a reformation of Islam.

Islam is the religion invented by Muhammad, as given mainly by the Koran. It is evil. Reforming it is not enough. Would you merely reform Marxism, Stalinism, Satanism? Islam must be destroyed, not reformed.

I don't believe in multiculturalism and cultural diversity and political correctness and all that stuff. Some cultures are evil. If they must be preserved, let them be preserved in the history books and in the museums.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, anthony said:

 

'Running on facts and logic', but without the motive to evaluate or conceptualize those facts, is why you haven't been able to establish any moral reason for murder to be wrong.

A "delusion" [of mind] could not have made your above statement ; your stance on "empirical evidence" was made originally by the act of a volitional consciousness of course. You could not have absorbed this (philosophical) stance out of thin air. You use your mind to negate the mind. But you haven't admitted to your fundamental self-contradiction before, and won't, I expect.

 

I am a professional problem solver.  I am highly motivated to think and conceptualize.  I am probably better at it than you are. 

I perceive, I feel, I think, I problem solved so clearly I am conscious.   Consciousness is a process,  not an object.   So I don't -have- consciousness (some weird non-material object which is not visible or detectable to any known device).  I have instead a brain that does a lot of things.  

[Peter]

jts wrote: I don't believe in multiculturalism and cultural diversity and political correctness and all that stuff. Some cultures are evil. If they must be preserved, let them be preserved in the history books and in the museums. end quote

I agree. Do the 'open border advocates' have any idea who and what they are dealing with? President Trump, Not one more Muslim should be allowed into our country. Extreme vetting should have a “giant vicious hyena test” because Islam is a religion of monsters.

Peter

4. Islam is not content to be practiced as a personal religion; its goal is to create...  a. The ideal ummah (Muslim community)  b. Political states with all citizens required to submit to Shari'ia (Islamic law) -- It is this aspect of Islam that creates the potential for great conflict among nations.

II. THE CONCEPT OF JIHAD A. AS REVEALED IN THE QUR'AN... 1. The term "jihad", often translated holy war, literally means Struggle  2. When studied chronologically, the Qur'an concept of war appears to evolve: a. Stage one:  no retaliation (in Mecca) b. Stage two:  defensive fighting permitted (first instruction in Medina) c. Stage three:  defensive fighting commanded (revised instruction in Medina) d. Stage four:  offensive war commanded to kill pagans and humble Christians and Jews (after conquering Mecca) -- cf. Richard P. Bailey, Jihad: The Teaching of Islam From Its Primary Sources - The Qur'an and Hadith

      3. This may help us understand why there is diversity of opinions among Muslims as to the meaning and application of jihad today; especially when the Qur'an contains words as these:

         a. "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (Qur'an 4:74,76)

         b. "The believers who stay at home -- apart from those that suffer a grave impediment -- are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (Qur'an 4:95,96)

         c. "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ...lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (Qur'an 9:5)

         d. "Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (Qur'an 5:34, 35)

         e. "Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme" (Qur'an 8:39)

         f. "Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (Qur'an 8:65)

         g. "Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given...and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)

[moralist]

5 hours ago, jts said:

Would you merely reform Marxism, Stalinism, Satanism?

If people changed their behavior as a result of that reform... yes. Heck, I wouldn't even care if a person was a Satanist as long as they lived by Judeo Christian values.

A friend of mine is bad Muslim.

He's a good man.  

 

Greg

[moralist]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Do the 'open border advocates' have any idea who and what they are dealing with?

Yes.

More Democrat voters.

 

Greg

[moralist]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am a professional problem solver.  I am highly motivated to think and conceptualize.  I am probably better at it than you are.   

That's quite a boast coming from a government dependent, Bob. For all you only think you can do, there's one thing you can't do. You can't create. And that's because you can't think outside the box... your brain. That requires self arareness of which you have none.

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am a professional problem solver.  I am highly motivated to think and conceptualize.  I am probably better at it than you are. 

I perceive, I feel, I think, I problem solved so clearly I am conscious.   Consciousness is a process,  not an object.   So I don't -have- consciousness (some weird non-material object which is not visible or detectable to any known device).  I have instead a brain that does a lot of things.  

An appeal to authority?

Are you as good at thinking as hiding it from us?

Now you want to have your consciousness and eat it too.

Everything is in motion. No one has claimed consciousness is an object, which strongly implies lack of motion.

Everyone has an acting brain doing "a lot of things."

You are completely trapped in your physical reductionism--and can't/won't get out. Greg has the same problem with "God" except it's semantical. Just strike "God" and substitute "Reality" and he makes the sense you do not.

--Brant

I don't pity you your state of happiness but it's human deficient

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

Extreme vetting should have a “giant vicious hyena test” because Islam is a religion of monsters.

Peter,

This is not precise.

There is a contingency within Islam that is like that.

But making a wholesale characterization is like claiming all Christians are KKK white supremacists.

Some are. Not the majority.

Ditto for Islam, except currently there are proportionally more Islamistsin Islam than there are KKK members in Christianity. Oddly enough, in the past, this proportionality was inverted. There used to be far more KKK members in Christianity (in the US) than Islamists in Islam.

The pendulum of history constantly swings and it never favors bigotry or the crazies for too long.

Michael

[jts]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

But making a wholesale characterization is like claiming all Christians are KKK white supremacists.

 

The Bible does not teach white supremacy. The Koran teaches violence.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

An appeal to authority?

Are you as good at thinking as hiding it from us?

 To the first question No. A statement of fact

To the second:  I hide nothing.  What you see is what is there. 

I am genetically incapable of fooling myself or anyone else.  That is because I am literal minded.  Completely.  It is one of the defining factors of my condition.

Autistic and Proud of it.  

Look up "Aspberger's Syndrome"  when you get a chance.  

 

Ba'al Chatzaf --- Proud Aspie

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, jts said:

The Bible does not teach white supremacy. The Koran teaches violence.

 

Jerry,

(sigh)

Enough.

The Qu'ran teaches submission to Allah most of all--on pain of burning in hell. Over and over and over. There is violence and peace in it, and tolerance and intolerance and many other inconsistencies. Like all sacred scriptures, it is full of contradictions. I've read the entire thing and studied a lot of interpretations.

Ditto for the Bible. Take a look at the Pentateuch (or the Law in The Holy Scriptures for Jews--the translation I have is the Masoretic text). It forbids the Hebrews that Moses brought out of Egypt to intermarry with other cultures and God punished them dearly for not committing genocide in Canaan when they first went in.

Notice that Hebrews did (and do) intermarry and Jews don't commit genocide. Yet the text says... (blah blah blah)

You know exactly what you are doing and I just don't want it on OL. If you want to scapegoat one of the major cultures of the world (about 23% of the world's population) and preach bigotry against them, you have the entire Internet to do it.

There is serious work that needs to be done about defanging Islamic religious fanatics (and developing a public appetite for punishing them or even killing them off for the violence they practice), but it just can't happen when there is a lot of brainless paranoia making people say stupid, spiteful and inaccurate things on such a giant scale all the time. 

This is a site for discussing philosophy. People use their brains here. When someone is preaching religious hatred or trying to wage a religious war, it's irritating. It's like the idiot who puts rap music on at a high volume in a library. Hate and preach hatred if you want, but do it elsewhere.

Michael

[anthony]

20 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am a professional problem solver.  I am highly motivated to think and conceptualize.  I am probably better at it than you are. 

I perceive, I feel, I think, I problem solved so clearly I am conscious.   Consciousness is a process,  not an object.   So I don't -have- consciousness (some weird non-material object which is not visible or detectable to any known device).  I have instead a brain that does a lot of things.  

Yeah, I get it - you think, therefore you are. (Who designated you the role of "problem solver"?) But you "don't -have- consciousness", although you say you conceptualize. Both can't be true. :>)

If you've been so successful as you claim at conceptualizing you'd have direct experience with your consciousness vis-a-vis reality, and be able to derive rational morality from reality ('Ought from Is', you are commonly contrary to) and I'd not regularly hear these skeptical statements about "a delusion", "wet matter", and "brain". Consciousness is a faculty. Like any existent, it has an identity.

I came across some "literalism" the other day. We were discussing sharia law, this young woman and me. I went into the necessity of the separation of Church and State, but could see I was drawing a blank with her. She broke in: "That's rubbish! Everybody knows that Muslims have mosques, so what have 'churches' to do with it?"

;) That's also known as anti-conceptualism.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Yeah, I get it - you think, therefore you are. And who designated you the role of "problem solver"? But you "don't -have- consciousness", although you say you conceptualize. Both can't be true.

The difficult technical problems I solved did the appointing.  And I got paid a bundle for the results I produced.  Consciousness is  NOT an object so I cannot possess it.   I   ----do--- the sort of tasks that you Normal Folk(*) attribute to a think embedded in my brain  but which is by no objective means  observable.

How do you know that  a person other than yourself  has a mind (spoken of as an object)  or a consciousness (spoken of as an object)?   All you can observe objectively  are utterances,  acts  and detected processes  and body parts in another person.  No one has  direct perceptual first person access  to the inner brain functioning of another person or animal.  This is a well know epistemological problem.  Please see. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds

I claim no private access to the inner workings of any other person.   I don't know any intentions other than my own  and the closest I get to the thoughts of others (assuming for the moment that other people think)  is their public acts,  observable doings,  utterances of tongue or pen.  In short I do NOT  have mental telepathy. 

 

* Normal Folk.  Humans who present few or none of the observable manifestations  of autism. 

[anthony]

"The problem of other minds has traditionally been regarded as an epistemological challenge raised by the skeptic. The challenge may be expressed as follows: given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds?[1] The thought behind the question is that no matter how sophisticated someone's behavior is, behavior on its own is not sufficient to guarantee the presence of mentality. It is a central tenet of the philosophical idea known as solipsism; the notion that for any person only one's own mind is known to exist".

Bob, that's about as extreme Primacy of Consciousness as it can get. Descartes himself would laugh. You can't see a mind, therefore you may doubt it exists - in effect. You note "raised by the skeptic" - and solipsism?

Consciousness is a faculty with an identity, to reiterate. That means yours and everyone's.

[BaalChatzaf]

39 minutes ago, anthony said:

"The problem of other minds has traditionally been regarded as an epistemological challenge raised by the skeptic. The challenge may be expressed as follows: given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds?[1] The thought behind the question is that no matter how sophisticated someone's behavior is, behavior on its own is not sufficient to guarantee the presence of mentality. It is a central tenet of the philosophical idea known as solipsism; the notion that for any person only one's own mind is known to exist".

Bob, that's about as extreme Primacy of Consciousness as it can get. Descartes himself would laugh. You can't see a mind, therefore you may doubt it exists - in effect. You note "raised by the skeptic" - and solipsism?

Consciousness is a faculty with an identity, to reiterate. That means yours and everyone's.

I know the identity of my consciousness.  I do not know the identity of yours.  Nature has not seen fit to give me access to anyone's innermost workings other than their own.  Let me know when humans have evolved to the point where they have mental telepathy.  I will be all Eyes and Ears. 

I am convinced that the vast majority of humans  have brains in their head.  It is a rare human that has had their skull opened only to find no brain.  So inductively I feel justified in assuming you too have a brain.  I have no evidence that you have a -mind-.   I have investigate my inner doings and I find no evidence for the existence of an immaterial mind  interacting with my brain.  I deny Cartesian dualism on epistemological grounds.

At no point to I deny the existence of other people.  But all I know about the others  are externalities plus some instrument based knowledge of their physiology.  The knowledge exists.  Which is why we have doctors. 

You seem to be annoyed that I make no claims for what I -know-  (as oppose to believe, hope for, expect)  beyond that which is given to me through my senses and processed by my brain.  You appear to be annoyed because I am modest.  Why?

[anthony]

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

This is not precise.

There is a contingency within Islam that is like that.

But making a wholesale characterization is like claiming all Christians are KKK white supremacists.

Some are. Not the majority.

Ditto for Islam, except currently there are proportionally more Islamistsin Islam than there are KKK members in Christianity. Oddly enough, in the past, this proportionality was inverted. There used to be far more KKK members in Christianity (in the US) than Islamists in Islam.

The pendulum of history constantly swings and it never favors bigotry or the crazies for too long.

Michael

Michael, I think the crazies and Jihadists are the least of the problem. The preference of many, if not a majority of Muslims, globally (it would appear from polls) is 'the good' of spreading Islam and Sharia to all nations. Makes a subjective kind of sense. If one thinks that one's philosophy is superior and the only True one, one would want to share it, for others' 'good', too. So it matters to mentally isolate the larger and later problem of 'moderates' in Islam and their (altruist) desire to bring a majority influence to the West -- from a murderous minority in Islam (who are after the same) and are, for the purpose of discussion, a red herring, I think.

I think a tell-tale sign of the rationality of a person is to ask him/her whether their ideology should be brought to others by reason/persuasion alone - or by any other means. Failing the former, that one would agree to disagree, and part on good terms. But if he is at all ambiguous, say, invokes their growing numbers, or perhaps some form of - "regrettable", but necessary - 'actions', or any other deterministic outcome ("it will happen anyway, like it or not") I have little time for them. A pity, but I think that is where many of the Muslim 'moderates' would turn, eventually. "If not by peaceable methods, you still need Islam and will be thankful to us one day".

It is the sort of Muslim who counts on the once-dependable, uncompromising Western standards of civilisation, I completely relate to. The man in the early article who decried all that smarmily Liberal-leftist glorification and appeasement of Islam - which is impeding the cause of reform, and aiding Islamists - does not want moral relativism. He believes his religion has to become civilised like other ones, and it won't happen without increasing, rational criticism. He's asking for a firm Western moral opposition to the wholesale growth, power and influence of his religion and its laws, and I imagine would be exactly the individual who'd live and let live among other believers of other faiths and cultures. In justice, he deserves intellectual support and encouragement, also to the silent many who look to the West as their saviour . Without support, he is left out alone on a limb.

[moralist]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

* Normal Folk.  Humans who present few or none of the observable manifestations  of autism. 

Bob offers a good example of the politically correct liberal value of taking pride in being crippled. In his case, his mental illness. Liberal Democrats promote this value by teaching it in government schools so as to train students to become bureaucratic employees.

Is I see it there is a causal connection for Autism...

Liberal government educated intellectuals mindfuck their offspring.

Bob's parents did a real job on him.

 

Greg

[anthony]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I know the identity of my consciousness.  I do not know the identity of yours.  Nature has not seen fit to give me access to anyone's innermost workings other than their own.  Let me know when humans have evolved to the point where they have mental telepathy.  I will be all Eyes and Ears. 

 

You are mixing up *identity* (of man's consciousness) and *contents* (of an individual's). As you have said, you haven't much time for metaphysics.

Have a look at the Wikipedia article you posted.

Metaphysical Zombies. Metaphysical Issues. Metaphysical Solipsism. Etc.

[Peter]

But Tony! You’re not being PC!

Tony wrote: It is the sort of Muslim who counts on the once-dependable, uncompromising Western standards of civilisation, I completely relate to. The man in the early article who decried all that viciously Liberal-leftist glorification and appeasement of Islam - which is impeding the cause of reform, and aiding Islamists - does not want moral relativism. He believes his religion has to become civilised like other ones, and it won't happen without growing criticism. He's asking for a firm Western moral opposition to the wholesale growth, power and influence of his religion and its laws, and I imagine would be exactly the one who'd live and let live among other believers of other faiths and cultures. In justice, he deserves intellectual support and encouragement, also to the silent others who look to the West as their saviour. Without support, he is left out alone on a limb. end quote

Well stated. It is not racists or pro KKK or anti-religious to NOT WANT undesirables from immigrating to your (or my) country, and Trump’s “vetting” should not be the final form of assuring good associations from people who will gratefully assimilate. I vote that they be kept out along with all illegals. We must limit immigration. We must stop dangerous people from entering. We should stop those from entering who are least likely to assimilate. And keep out the creeps I don't like. Why not? 

Has Michael parted from President Trump? Michael disagrees with calling a Muslim what they are, which is code words X, Y, and Z. And who can dispute the earlier days of Christianity when the old gods were forcefully ejected from thought? I won’t, but as far as organized, American racists are concerned, I remember even during the filming of, “A Birth of a Nation,” the KKK was depicted as a spectacle and a small splinter of America. Nor did Americans ever shout out, “Seig Heil,” though a few of our hero’s like aviator Lucky Lindey were Nazi sympathizers.

Official segregation should never have happened under our Constitution but even Ayn Rand stated that people should be within their rights to associate with whoever they wished and store owners had a right to refuse service for the most trivial of reasons . . . even racist reasons. Freedom means we are free and not to be dictated to by anyone.

Of course, there are Muslims who are good people, but why in the hell take the chance? If they are TRULY religious Muslims they are not good people, just as the practice of any religion that denies individual rights is not to be tolerated by rational people. How many of them encourage and support Sharia law? Good Muslims do. How many support terrorism? 10 percent? 20? 50 percent?     

Gotta go. I need to destroy some natural habitat, the gladiators are about to battle in the Coliseum, and I need to deny service to a bunch of wogs. (joke to all East Indians. Do they still say wog?)

Peter

From Wikipedia: Charles Augustus Lindbergh (February 4, 1902 – August 26, 1974), nicknamed Slim, Lucky Lindy, and The Lone Eagle, was an American aviator, military officer . . . . 

[BaalChatzaf]

27 minutes ago, anthony said:

You are mixing up *identity* (of man's consciousness) and *contents* (of an individual's). As you have said, you haven't much time for metaphysics.

Have a look at the Wikipedia article you posted.

Metaphysical Zombies. Metaphysical Issues. Metaphysical Solipsism. Etc.

What is "identity"?  The sum total of all predicates that uniquely define an individual.  Let A be an individual  and let   Pr(A) = {properties p |  p(a) is true}

If Pr(A) = Pr(B)  then A is identical to B because there is no property p such that p(A) and p(B)  do not have the same truth value. 

And I have no absolute proof that you are not a zombie  or that I am not a zombie.  It is logically possible that we are all finite-state automata  with a very large number of states.  

Think about it.  We are all made of the same stuff  --- atoms of visible matter.   We are all physical entities right down to the ground floor. Democratus,  Lukipus  were write and Lucretius in his poem  The Nature of Things was essentially correct.  The is no empirical evidence that we are moving shells carrying an immaterial entity withing ourselves. The main difference between rocks and ourselves is that we talk, move and replicate.  On a flat surface rocks will just sit there and not say a word  nor will a rock reproduce itself.  It is moving, talking and replicating that make us living things. 

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

But Tony! You’re not being PC!

 

Peter, You are joshing I know, but it's not in me to be "PC", just like it's not in me to hurt anyone just for the hell of it, either. In normal discourse I keep some opinions to myself (not trying to appear morally righteous). I do think that much honesty has gone out of our dealings and relationships with others because of invasive, collective concern for what anyone (supposedly) has, or may have, or had, or will have - privately, in one's mind. The eventual damage to people's grasp on reality and freedom to think and speak without constraint, has to be much more dangerous than any possible hurt to someone's feelings. And nobody needs to be mean and gratuitously nasty either, so there's a false dichotomy lurking here. But no one has the right to not have their feelings hurt, I maintain, as much when it has happened to me! That's where many, especially the new left, have bottomed out now, to making judgments on people by "primacy of emotion".