Double standards modern values

A "good human" is subjective.

Admit it, we are cruel, and rightfully so, especially to the uglies, chavs and other ne'er do wells in life.

It is not. morality may be subjective, but the idea some are beneath others is not.

How so? good-looking is above ugly. rich above poor. normal person above chav.

You get plenty of people these days saying "oh racism is evil!!!" or "sexism is wrong!!!" or "homophobes GTFO!!"

but be honest now, prejudice is the norm and is right, no?

As an example, you see a chav in the street, you immediately think "low class scum lol". or see an ugly person and have immediate scorn for them for being so aesthetically unappealing. admit, most people do. i reckon people who say no are liars, or aren't honest people in general.

i guess humans are complex and pretentious, but i think normal service will be resumed soon. in past ages, people rightfully saw that prejudice is the norm and the right path. i bet in 100 years time, we'd think the non-discriminatory attitude of the early 21st century was nonsense and silliness.

Some forms of prejudice are acceptable, for example classism with respect to the low class chavs. Other forms, such as racial, sexual or otherwise, are not.

it's perfectly right.

No.no it's not right.

Just because it's the norm doesn't mean it's right.

The Nazi's killed **** loads of jews, it was normal everyone was doing it, was it right? hell no.

There are so many other examples.

Albinos get killed in africa to be used in witch doctor remedies etc, it is normal over there, most people don't care but it aint right.


Right is not what the majority does it's what the moral do.

No.no it's not right.

Just because it's the norm doesn't mean it's right.

The Nazi's killed **** loads of jews, it was normal everyone was doing it, was it right? hell no.

There are so many other examples.

Albinos get killed in africa to be used in witch doctor remedies etc, it is normal over there, most people don't care but it aint right.


Right is not what the majority does it's what the moral do.

Some forms of prejudice are acceptable, for example classism with respect to the low class chavs. Other forms, such as racial, sexual or otherwise, are not.

How the hell do you justify that?

Chavs cause disruption and attempts to overthrow our way of life as civilised beings, whereas other categories (e.g. sex, race, etc.) do not disrupt society in general. The latter may have different values, but they let us get on with our lives.

That's not the point. The distinction is in the implication that lower class people are chavs, which is just like, for example, calling black people thugs. Everyone knows that thugs are "disruptive", but that's hardly the point.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/low-class

I know there are two definitions as above - I wasn't using low in the sense of socio-economic status but to describe vulgar behaviour. I'm sure there are middle class chavs, I don't like them any more than chavs with a low socio-economic class, for that matter. Though 'rich' chavs are rarer and unlikely to cause problems.

I think you've missed the point that morality is subjective.

Who chooses those criteria? What if I think that it should be based on who can jump the highest and who has the best eyesight?

they are the people near the bottom of consideration.

who doesn't think like hitting a chav when you see one? Or shouting "oi you ugly ****!!" at an ugly person?

We all know that morality is relative, so really anything goes.