CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Judgement and discrimination are not interchangeable. The latter is an iteration of the former, characterized by its translation of judgement into action.
Virtually any action could be said to serve a social function under some circumstances but that does not mean we permit it categorically. Killing can serve a social function (e.g. self-defense, social retribution, war, etc.) but we still restrict its practice when its costs begin to outweigh its benefits. The same is true of discrimination, which has consistently been found by multiple legal systems and research to be more a social ill than a social benefit. This makes sense - while judgement is important, it is also important for members of any given society to be able to live and operate without the concern of being refused basic services in their day to day life.
Judgement and discrimination are not interchangeable. The latter is an iteration of the former, characterized by its translation of judgement into action.
Ok. Clarification.
Judgement = prejudice. Actions based on judgement = ok, discrimination (actions based on prejudice) = not ok. This is what you are saying?
Judgement is little more than an opinion or belief, generally informed but not necessarily (source).
Prejudice is a form of negative judgement about others, qualified as being formed illegitimately and without sufficient knowledge (source).
Discrimination is an action informed by judgement, generally of the prejudicial variety, which treats an individual or group negatively and differently from others (source).
Argument
Judgement takes many forms, and while some are functional others are dysfunctional. Prejudice is one form of judgement which is generally more dysfunctional, particularly when it is acted upon in the form of discrimination.
Judgement is little more than an opinion or belief, generally informed but not necessarily
Prejudice is a form of negative judgement about others, qualified as being formed illegitimately and without sufficient knowledge
Those two definitions are so close. The only striking difference seems to be that prejudice is negative while judgement is neutral.
So who decides what is a negative judgement and what is a positive judgement? Have those lines changed? If it does change and some future standard deems a current prejudice as informed (based on unknown future knowledge), does that make it right in the present? What about the opposite case?
That is a difference between the two, but it is not the only difference. The caveat that prejudice is uninformed is also important, and can be helpful in distinguishing prejudice from judgement generally.
I think it also worth noting that "negative/positive" does not describe the judgement itself but rather the nature which the judgement projects onto another (e.g. a negative judgement, or prejudice, is negative because it ascribes a negative attribute to another). In terms of functionality, a judgement might be weighed by many variables but I personally opt for an objective, utilitarian approach which hold any judgement which renders more objectively verifiable harm than benefit to be a dysfunctional judgement (regardless of whether it is a positive or negative judgement).
Regarding retroactive knowledge, I would say that we can understand prior prejudices to have been ultimately valid but at the time they were held absent knowledge they would still be prejudicial by nature of having been held absent knowledge. The difference to me between a prejudice and judgement general lies primarily in how it is formed - independent from objective observation or informed by the same.
The caveat that prejudice is uninformed is also important, and can be helpful in distinguishing prejudice from judgement generally.
In terms of functionality, a judgement might be weighed by many variables but I personally opt for an objective, utilitarian approach which hold any judgement which renders more objectively verifiable harm than benefit to be a dysfunctional judgement (regardless of whether it is a positive or negative judgement).
Most judgements are made uninformed. Humans are limited by perspective.
I think it also worth noting that "negative/positive" does not describe the judgement itself but rather the nature which the judgement projects onto another (e.g. a negative judgement, or prejudice, is negative because it ascribes a negative attribute to another).
There are also positive stereotypes that are still considered racist. All Chinese people are good at math, kung-fu, and musical instruments. Mexicans will work hard for very low wages.
I am just saying that judging other people is a part of society. Humans rely on it. When the society as a whole (or through majority) deems a specific type of action/judgement as immoral, then it becomes so. There is no utilitarian approach that would not be somewhat subjective. After all, even benefit and harm are qualified subjectively.
Most judgements are made uninformed. Humans are limited by perspective.
As a jaded cynic I am inclined to agree, yet I do not think this undermines my point since the semantic differentiation between judgement and prejudice is not only about how informed an opinion is but also pertains to the nature of the judgement being cast.
There are also positive stereotypes [...] qualified subjectively.
A stereotype is also distinct from judgement, but I understand your point well enough to move beyond that technicality and address your intent.
I have already acknowledged that judgement can serve a social function, and have never remotely indicated that I think we are non-reliant upon it as a species. I also recognize the limits of my own approach; my personal view is that nothing can be known with pure objectivity but this nuance seemed unnecessarily tangential to the subject at hand so I opted not to delve so deeply into it.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. My original point was that while some forms of judgement can fulfill a social function, discrimination is generally produces more social dysfunction than otherwise because it necessarily treats one of group of people differently without any accompanying rationale or basis. The result is social tension at the very least, if not unrest and and riot/revolt at the other end of potential consequences.
As a jaded cynic I am inclined to agree, yet I do not think this undermines my point since the semantic differentiation between judgement and prejudice is not only about how informed an opinion is but also pertains to the nature of the judgement being cast.
I am suggesting that the difference between accepted judgement and prejudice is subjective and therefore irrelevant.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. My original point was that while some forms of judgement can fulfill a social function, discrimination is generally produces more social dysfunction than otherwise because it necessarily treats one of group of people differently without any accompanying rationale or basis. The result is social tension at the very least, if not unrest and and riot/revolt at the other end of potential consequences.
I am suggesting that discrimination still serves a useful function. In the end, we are paranoid creatures who must rely on one another in a societ. Even if the judgement was uninformed, it still helps us discern, at first glance, friend from foe.
I have no idea whether or not this is actually beneficial towards society or the individuals.
I am suggesting that the difference between accepted judgement and prejudice is subjective and therefore irrelevant.
Language is inherently subjective, and while that ought to qualify its usage that hardly renders it irrelevant. If you are going to make that claim you need to substantiate it.
I am suggesting that discrimination still serves a useful function. In the end, we are paranoid creatures who must rely on one another in a societ. Even if the judgement was uninformed, it still helps us discern, at first glance, friend from foe. I have no idea whether or not this is actually beneficial towards society or the individuals.
And I am presenting a more nuanced version of your claim, namely that while judgement may afford varying degrees of positive function the harms which discrimination incurs as an actionable judgment far outweigh its benefits. The point you continue to miss is that discrimination is not a thought process but an action, therefore not a matter of discernment but of active segregation of society upon uninformed prejudice. I have presented some of the harms of this, though you have presented nothing of substance regarding its benefits.
Unless you proffer some new analysis and address my specific points I am disinclined to continue this exchange.
Judgement leads to actions, regardless of whether or not they are informed. In addition, no judgement is fully informed, at least not for social interactions.
The label of discrimination and action based on "informed" judgement depends on the majority opinion. It is subjective.
Informed judgement also segregates society. We just deem the segregation as rational/positive/informed/whatever. We arbitrarily segregate "adults" and "teenagers". This line differs by society. Does that mean young people are being discriminated against? Discrimination does not even have to segregate. Just basic stereotypes are still considered discrimination. Society, at the moment, has no problem making jokes about people getting raped in prison, but have a lot of problems with people getting raped outside of prison. "Don't drop the soap" is even used ~PG (ratings vary by region) programs. Does that mean society is discriminating against criminals and think they deserve to be raped because the entire group is bad? Your personal views will obviously differ case by case, but what you consider informed will be considered uninformed by another.
The line between prejudice (by proxy, discrimination) and informed judgement is arbitrary. It is entirely dependent on the social majority.
Liberals are idiots. They claim to support gays yet they support the biggest threat to us; Muslims. It is stupid to support both gay rights and Muslim rights.
I am proud to be fascist. I am proud to be greedy, it is human nature. I'm proud to be against helping the inferior underclass of society. However I agree that disabled people deserve help.
You've made no attempt to refute what I actually said in my previous argument. Disappointing but expected.
I have done nothing wrong. If you want to start drama because I stand up to conservative bigotry. You are the one who said that you're proud to be a fascist. There is going to be disagreement on a debate site, get over it.
The poor haven't really been helped by the left or the right. Neither side has adequately alleviated the difficulties the lower class have faced since the United States has really had to start dealing with the effects of globalization.
Do you really think that the way to help poor people is to give them money? Because if you believe that, then I'm poor and I would like for you to help me and give me money. If you won't give me money, then you're as bad as the conservatives you denounce.
