| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/20/2010 12:40:48 AM · #301 |
| Actually, what's amazing is that a sound argument is called "demeaning" when someone doesn't have the capacity to refute it (much less recognize a typical dialectical or logical fallacy). |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 12:47:00 AM · #302 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Actually, what's amazing is that a sound argument is called "demeaning" when someone doesn't have the capacity to refute it (much less recognize a typical dialectical or logical fallacy). |
I'm not calling the argument demeaning, and you know it. I'm saying it's demeaning for Shannon to tell people who disagree with him that they haven't been following the argument. And I notice he's had second thoughts and removed the phrase from his expanded reply/challenge.
R. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 01:22:12 AM · #303 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But you ignore the fact we also have a sense of domination. |
Sense of domination?!?! Like a "sense of torture" or a "sense of owning pets"? What we have (this is the third time I'm writing it) is a natural desire to improve one's own situation- personal survival- and that leads to justification for subjugating others. Greed, selfishness, and lust for power all come down to the desire for a better life for ourselves and our children... even if it's at the expense of others. Thus, even actions we might otherwise agree to be moral are often contingent upon not making our own situations worse, and we rationalize "reasons" to justify the oppression. Hence, some Americans justify torture if it stops a terrorist attack and plantation owners justified slavery to ensure their livelihood.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If your explanation of things is correct, that would also tell us that a given action is good. |
Despite all that, you're still going with the naturalistic fallacy? Things are NOT necessarily good or bad just because they're natural. Having a sense of empathy enables us to judge what's good just as a sense of humor enables us to judge what's funny. The sense of humor itself is no more "good" than a sense of fairness is funny.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How about our innate hardwiring to lie? Does this sense tell us that an action (saying you didn't chop down the cherry tree) is also good? |
Same naturalistic fallacy. Lying is also an element of self-presevation. We lie to avoid negative consequences (see first response above) that might make our own situations worse. The will to live itself is neither right nor wrong. |
I'm being no more naturalistic than you are. Apparently (according to your argument) we have a key on the typewriter called "fairness". We have another key on the typewriter called "subjugation". I understand that neither of these are "good" or "bad" in themselves, but what we do with them makes them "good" or "bad". But, you have not described why we should listen to "fairness" rather than "subjugation" in the example of the burqas. You instruct us to employ our instinct to fairness to pass judgement on the burqa situation, but you don't tell us why? Why not employ our instinct to subjugation? Your answer, I believe, is ultimately going to be tautology in a similar manner as you defined the religious defense of burqas.
Message edited by author 2010-09-20 01:23:08. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 01:54:12 AM · #304 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Put up or shut up: show me where I've ever said our sense of fairness is a good thing. |
I'm not saying you did. I'm saying these issues are irrelevant to the core structure of the argument. I'm saying you use a certain logical structure to support your strongly held beliefs, but when someone else uses the exact same structure to support beliefs with which you do not agree, you debunk the argument by saying the logic is faulty. |
I said our natural sense of fairness tells us that a particular scenario is good, and Jason is suggesting that because that sense is natural, other natural impulses must be good, too. It is not the same structure, and the example I gave demonstrates why the logic is faulty:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Having a sense of empathy enables us to judge what's good just as a sense of humor enables us to judge what's funny. The sense of humor itself is no more "good" than a sense of fairness is funny. |
|
|
|
|
09/20/2010 02:08:23 AM · #305 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm being no more naturalistic than you are. Apparently (according to your argument) we have a key on the typewriter called "fairness". We have another key on the typewriter called "subjugation". I understand that neither of these are "good" or "bad" in themselves, but what we do with them makes them "good" or "bad". But, you have not described why we should listen to "fairness" rather than "subjugation" in the example of the burqas. You instruct us to employ our instinct to fairness to pass judgement on the burqa situation, but you don't tell us why? Why not employ our instinct to subjugation? |
You're pretending the act of subjugation is a sense. I could just as easily ask why we don't listen to our "sense of throwing tomatoes" instead of finding a joke funny. As I've already posted (4 times now), we employ subjugation as part of a drive to improve our lives. There is "no sense of domination" or "sense of greed." Those are all the effects of a desire to improve our lot in life. I've also already answered multiple times why I believe modern societies are starting to favor fairness stemming from our natural empathy for others over that natural drive to get ahead at all costs: as our personal interests and survival are secured by industrialization and the support of others, we have less reason to rationalize others as less worthy to justify their subjugation. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 03:30:25 AM · #306 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not calling the argument demeaning, and you know it. I'm saying it's demeaning for Shannon to tell people who disagree with him that they haven't been following the argument. |
I've lost count in the number of times this has been done by both sides in rant. The fact that you're bringing this up now as demeaning says to me that your letting your long standing frustration with Shannon cloud your judgement. Of course that's just my view from the cheap seats.
Message edited by author 2010-09-20 03:31:21.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2010 09:12:48 AM · #307 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
Actually, what's amazing is that a sound argument is called "demeaning" when someone doesn't have the capacity to refute it (much less recognize a typical dialectical or logical fallacy). |
I'm not calling the argument demeaning, and you know it. I'm saying it's demeaning for Shannon to tell people who disagree with him that they haven't been following the argument. |
Sure, ok, however you'd like to put it. His "put up or shut up" comment is either a vernacular demand for a sound refutation of his argument, or a base insult against your character.
It's amazing anyone could confuse the two.
Message edited by author 2010-09-20 09:21:19. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 10:05:16 AM · #308 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
Actually, what's amazing is that a sound argument is called "demeaning" when someone doesn't have the capacity to refute it (much less recognize a typical dialectical or logical fallacy). |
I'm not calling the argument demeaning, and you know it. I'm saying it's demeaning for Shannon to tell people who disagree with him that they haven't been following the argument. |
Sure, ok, however you'd like to put it. His "put up or shut up" comment is either a vernacular demand for a sound refutation of his argument, or a base insult against your character.
It's amazing anyone could confuse the two. |
Louis, he *modified his post* while I was responding. The insult, which I quoted, is no longer there, the put up or shut up replaces it. I responded to the put up or shut up as well, in my next post.
R. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 01:30:02 PM · #309 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Thanks for the links Bear. Those were two good articles. A bit to chew on all sides.
I'd like to present a piece of parody:
Shane: We should ban brussel sprouts because nobody in their right mind likes brussel sprouts. I hate them.
Abby: I like brussel sprouts.
Shane: No, you don't. You only say that because your parents brainwashed you by making you eat them and telling you it was good for you.
Abby: No, really. I like them. Here, let me show you. (eats brussel sprout)
Shane: Good gracious! Your case is worse than I feared. Now you have really shown you cannot make sound judgements for yourself!
Abby: Why? I like them. Here, you try one...
Shane (in horror): Get away! I feel so sorry for you. Your mind has been so warped that you feel compelled to share your delusions with others!
Abby: What can I say to prove I like brussel sprouts?
Shane: Nothing. I already know you don't like them.
Abby: Whatever... |
LOL I actually had a discussion with my son, who was then about 8, regarding brussel sprouts. We were at the market, he wanted to buy some. I refused, stating that he wouldn't eat them. He insisted he would. So i bought a box, and told him he'd have to eat them all. He did - even cooked them himself. He still loves them, and i can't stand them. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 01:37:32 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
LOL I actually had a discussion with my son, who was then about 8, regarding brussel sprouts. We were at the market, he wanted to buy some. I refused, stating that he wouldn't eat them. He insisted he would. So i bought a box, and told him he'd have to eat them all. He did - even cooked them himself. He still loves them, and i can't stand them. |
Kids will eat almost anything if you let them help prepare it. Brussels sprouts are really good if not too old and not over-cooked. Try microwaving them until barely softened (a little firmer than al dente pasta) or stir-frying for a few minutes with some carrots and garlic - cut in half if they are large. As members of the cruciferous vegetable group they are a good source of anti-oxidants and some B vitamins. |
|
|
|
09/20/2010 02:50:48 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm being no more naturalistic than you are. Apparently (according to your argument) we have a key on the typewriter called "fairness". We have another key on the typewriter called "subjugation". I understand that neither of these are "good" or "bad" in themselves, but what we do with them makes them "good" or "bad". But, you have not described why we should listen to "fairness" rather than "subjugation" in the example of the burqas. You instruct us to employ our instinct to fairness to pass judgement on the burqa situation, but you don't tell us why? Why not employ our instinct to subjugation? |
You're pretending the act of subjugation is a sense. I could just as easily ask why we don't listen to our "sense of throwing tomatoes" instead of finding a joke funny. As I've already posted (4 times now), we employ subjugation as part of a drive to improve our lives. There is "no sense of domination" or "sense of greed." Those are all the effects of a desire to improve our lot in life. I've also already answered multiple times why I believe modern societies are starting to favor fairness stemming from our natural empathy for others over that natural drive to get ahead at all costs: as our personal interests and survival are secured by industrialization and the support of others, we have less reason to rationalize others as less worthy to justify their subjugation. |
Total BS. There is every bit as much an instinct to domination as there is an instinct to fairness (if that even exists). It's exhibited in many social animals including dogs, wolves, monkeys and humans (or any species which demonstrates "alpha" members. You can't seriously be defending your argument by saying "my guide (fairness) is a biological instinct while your alternative guide (domination) isn't"! LOL. In fact, it would be FAR easier to demonstrate such an instinct over one of fairness.
Message edited by author 2010-09-20 14:53:50. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 03:15:51 AM · #312 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Total BS. There is every bit as much an instinct to domination as there is an instinct to fairness (if that even exists). It's exhibited in many social animals including dogs, wolves, monkeys and humans (or any species which demonstrates "alpha" members. |
Domination by "alpha" members of other members in a pack/herd/tribe is a reproductive [evolutionarily stable] strategy driven by the instinct to, well, produce healthy and fit offsprings. Humans' acts of domination/subjugation for the purposes of enslaving/exploting/plundering/etc. other humans and their resources is a survival strategy that involves in-group vs out-group morality (Which has eventually led to the absurd notion of "nation state", and then to the even more absurd institution called "United Nations", but I digress.) Human males' subjugation of the females is, again, a reproductive strategy devised -particularly in sedentary societies- to deal with the issue of "confidence in paternity", which arises from the female trait known as "concealed ovulation". "Nice" traits and acts such as inequity aversion and reciprocal altruism, which is actually a bit of an oxymoron and should be replaced by something like "reciprocal selfishness", are evolutionarily stable strategies too. All these strategies can be said to be "innate" in the sense that they may be connected to genes which, directly or through their [extended] phenotypic effects, play a role in encouriging behaviour patterns that lead to the said strategy. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 05:53:56 AM · #313 |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 08:11:51 AM · #314 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can't seriously be defending your argument by saying "my guide (fairness) is a biological instinct while your alternative guide (domination) isn't"! |
Regardless of whether domination itself is a "sense" (which I still doubt), the fact that two traits are biological has nothing whatsoever to do with their "goodness" (a naturalistic fallacy, again). |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 10:39:25 AM · #315 |
I understand Shannonâs frustration at DrAchooâs comparison: in terms of defining whether something is fair or not, it is not reasonable suggest that a sense of fairness and a sense of domination are equally good tools for determining what is fair.
Shannonâs logical argument does start to fray to the extent that he concludes that the determination is subjective: reliance upon an individualâs sense of fairness does not permit a totally logical conclusion. Nonetheless, it is probably true that morality is personal (witness the number of personal moralities) influenced primarily by human nature but then by its combination with society and personal experience.
Accordingly, there is no strict ârightâ or âwrongâ in relation to banning burqas. It is morally defensible (correcting the oppression of some women can outweigh the limitation on personal expression of others) but in American society where freedom of expression is more ingrained and the resulting inequities are tolerated, banning Burqas may be considered less favourably.
Having said all this, and getting back to the OP, Iâve read and heard various comparisons between the US and proto-fascist Weimar Germany in which the similarities are considered âstrikingâ. Noam Chomsky has made the point in some interviews (probably sparking the recent radio 4 debate I heard about it). Glen Beck and Sarah Palin make incredibly ignorant comments with seeming impunity from their supporters. Iâd be interested in getting some American views on how seriously their threat should be taken? Rather than debating the acceptability of burqas in US society, is there a rather more pointed threat aimed at the burqa wearers?
|
|
|
|
09/21/2010 11:17:00 AM · #316 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Having said all this, and getting back to the OP, Iâve read and heard various comparisons between the US and proto-fascist Weimar Germany in which the similarities are considered âstrikingâ. |
I've been thinking of this for some time, but have only talked about it privately for fear of seeming shrill. This is a particularly intriguing parallel. I'm happy not to be the only one thinking of this. With all the comparisons to Hitler thrown about hither and yon by both parties, one speaks of such things only with reticence. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 11:38:29 AM · #317 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can't seriously be defending your argument by saying "my guide (fairness) is a biological instinct while your alternative guide (domination) isn't"! |
Regardless of whether domination itself is a "sense" (which I still doubt), the fact that two traits are biological has nothing whatsoever to do with their "goodness" (a naturalistic fallacy, again). |
I understand your position on this. But I then go back simply and asky why we should listen to our "instinct of fairness" when considering Burqas? It is merely one instinct among many competing instincts. What directs us to favor this instinct over the others in this situation? You tell us this is what we should do, but you fail to say why. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 12:54:11 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
[...] getting back to the OP, Iâve read and heard various comparisons between the US and proto-fascist Weimar Germany in which the similarities are considered âstrikingâ. Noam Chomsky has made the point in some interviews (probably sparking the recent radio 4 debate I heard about it). Glen Beck and Sarah Palin make incredibly ignorant comments with seeming impunity from their supporters. Iâd be interested in getting some American views on how seriously their threat should be taken? Rather than debating the acceptability of burqas in US society, is there a rather more pointed threat aimed at the burqa wearers? |
Now that you raise this point, it's clarified for me that I've been looking at this burqa controversy in the context of what's happening politically here in the U.S. You can also add Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh to the list of "leaders" of this "movement" (embodied in the Tea Party) who make outrageous claims with virtually no response from the opposition. I tuned in to a forum broadcast on CNBC yesterday where Obama was answering questions from a live audience about the economy and his economic policies. A gentleman raised the issue of Obama and his administration having lost control of "the narrative," and I was truly shocked at the non-response, the seeming incomprehension coming from Obama. Can he really be so naive as to honestly believe that ignoring what's happening now, the terribly destructive messages that people are hearing every day and the reactionary beliefs that have been gaining traction for the last two years, that ignoring all of that is okay? I thought he was smarter than that. The Democrats, as usual, are running scared. They have no united front, no unified and unifying message. The "establishment" Republicans have cooperated in their own undoing. I recently heard Jimmy Carter say that the fringe element, the people who honestly believe the extremist rhetoric, used to account for perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the U.S. population, but that number has now ballooned to at least 20 percent. The situation is frightening and very distressing... |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 01:59:54 PM · #319 |
Whatever social comparisons we want to make between Tea Party politics and Weimar Germany, one distinction, I believe, is we do not seem to be going down the road to fascism. The libertarian bent of the discourse today probably keeps that from the realm of possibility.
What other "striking" similarities are being drawn? Our xenophobia? I would say that is actually on the decline compared to a decade ago. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 02:44:21 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Whatever social comparisons we want to make between Tea Party politics and Weimar Germany, one distinction, I believe, is we do not seem to be going down the road to fascism. The libertarian bent of the discourse today probably keeps that from the realm of possibility. |
I think the most prominent "voice" is only "libertarian" when, as their name says, it comes to taxes. I sincerely doubt most Tea Partyers are supporting the California initiative to legalize marijuana or the decision (by a Republican Governor and a Democratic Attorney General) to not contest the overturn of Prop. 8.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What other "striking" similarities are being drawn? Our xenophobia? I would say that is actually on the decline compared to a decade ago. |
Arizona. National Guard mobilized to patrol the border. "No mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero!" Etc.
Message edited by author 2010-09-21 14:45:56. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 02:55:19 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Whatever social comparisons we want to make between Tea Party politics and Weimar Germany, one distinction, I believe, is we do not seem to be going down the road to fascism. The libertarian bent of the discourse today probably keeps that from the realm of possibility. |
I think the most prominent "voice" is only "libertarian" when, as their name says, it comes to taxes. I sincerely doubt most Tea Partyers are supporting the California initiative to legalize marijuana or the decision (by a Republican Governor and a Democratic Attorney General) to not contest the overturn of Prop. 8.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What other "striking" similarities are being drawn? Our xenophobia? I would say that is actually on the decline compared to a decade ago. |
Arizona. National Guard mobilized to patrol the border. "No mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero!" Etc. |
Actually there was a piece this morning on NPR that would disagree with you and would consider the Tea Party to be libertarian on many social issues. In his view, "don't ask, don't tell" for example isn't a particular hot-button topic for these people. Maybe he's wrong. You can listen to it here. Certainly the Tea Party is NOT a social movement. It is a fiscal movement. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 03:04:12 PM · #322 |
I guess I see the strategy of the social conservatives as using the TPers as a wedge to break apart the current government structure and to creep into power on their coattails. I see considerable overlap ...
That must be the only NPR piece I haven't heard about three times ... ;-)
Interesting that they profess a philosophy of not having any "leaders" -- in the old days, anarchists were pretty well reviled by the establishment on both the right and the left. I've worked in a collectivist organization for several years, and it takes active participation by a large number of people to make direct democracy work -- I somehow don't see us emutlating the ancient Greeks and getting a majority of the voting population to a "city council" meeting at the local football stadium ebery week. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 03:21:03 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What other "striking" similarities are being drawn? |
Elements in the Weimar Republic were pro-authoritarian and enabled the decline of parliamentary government by not adding, or actively discouraging, dissent. Other elements in society outside the government did the same. There was an inevitable road to fascism that the country seemed bent on damning itself to, and for me, that is the seminal resemblance to American politics irrespective of the course along the spectrum. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 04:19:47 PM · #324 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What other "striking" similarities are being drawn? |
Elements in the Weimar Republic were pro-authoritarian and enabled the decline of parliamentary government by not adding, or actively discouraging, dissent. Other elements in society outside the government did the same. There was an inevitable road to fascism that the country seemed bent on damning itself to, and for me, that is the seminal resemblance to American politics irrespective of the course along the spectrum. |
I guess I would just politely disagree. I don't see signs of this at all. I don't have a lot of respect for the Tea Party, but they are not proto-Nazis in any way I can see.
Message edited by author 2010-09-21 16:22:08. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 04:27:23 PM · #325 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What other "striking" similarities are being drawn? |
Elements in the Weimar Republic were pro-authoritarian and enabled the decline of parliamentary government by not adding, or actively discouraging, dissent. Other elements in society outside the government did the same. There was an inevitable road to fascism that the country seemed bent on damning itself to, and for me, that is the seminal resemblance to American politics irrespective of the course along the spectrum. |
I guess I would just politely disagree. I don't see signs of this at all. I don't have a lot of respect for the Tea Party, but they are not proto-Nazis in any way I can see. |
I'm sorry, but you've missed the point. There was no suggestion by anyone that any of those involved was a proto-Nazi. The parallels drawn were not that gross.
Message edited by author 2010-09-21 16:27:47. |
|
