The 'third way' experience in political debates

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Fri Jul 04, 2014 7:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Crissa wrote:Getting stuff for free as wrong? That's the worst possible choice. That path leads to death for many people, and no, you won't convince me otherwise.
Oh? Regardless of facts? Any time that, at the outset, you have decided that there is no possible way you will change your views, you...well, aren't going to learn much from that conversation.

Additionally, people's views on right and wrong have changed quite a lot, and we mostly are moving away from the whole "death for many people" sorts of morals. In fits and starts, I'll grant you, but I do not think most people of ANY persuasion want that. Libertarian or otherwise. The results are usually less dramatic, and are along the lines of "well, this political program is now inefficient as shit because of blindly following this ideology". Failure, even within government, does not always translate to piles of corpses.

Regardless of facts? You have no facts. Those aren't facts.

People choosing not to accept help results in dead people. Period. I don't need to study it anymore than I need to study that the sky is blue. I know why, it's been studied. Hobbyists can study it. There is no doubt to be sown in big solutions.

Your argument doesn't follow at all. We shouldn't continue investigations which cause harm - it's not ethical. Period.

Just because you want skulls on your lapel does not mean I will stand for it.

-Crissa
Last edited by Crissa on Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:07 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Brace » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:42 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:19 pm UTC

Crissa, I noticed how you have yet to answer my question. How do you have a criminal justice system in an anarchy where no one has "power"?

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:08 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Crissa, I noticed how you have yet to answer my question. How do you have a criminal justice system in an anarchy where no one has "power"?

You don't. Well, you do, but it's no longer anarchy.

Why are you asking me this? This is why I stated that anarchy isn't a valid governmental system.

-Crissa

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Jul 05, 2014 1:09 pm UTC

Except you've spent the thread supporting anarchy. Sorry, people are such that it can't possibly work on any but the smallest of scales made up of pre-selected individuals, and even then it will eventually collapse because the children of those pre-selected individuals won't be select themselves.

That's the problem Utopians/Idealists have; they shove their fingers in your ears and say 'la la la not listening' and still insist that everyone else conform to their little fantasies, killing those who oppose them since the 'only reason' someone wouldn't share their fantasy is that the others actively want to 'live in sin' or have a 'false consciousness' or something. And as the world turns to shit around them, rather than growing some balls and admitting they are wrong, they keep blaming everyone else.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:13 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Except you've spent the thread supporting anarchy.

I cannot imagine how you came to that conclusion. The lack of quotes makes it even more difficult to reconcile that reading. I often write in an opaque manner without meaning to, but that's seriously orthogonal to anything I recall saying.

-Crissa

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:15 am UTC

I've found that conservatives like to talk about how right they are, while liberals like to talk about how wrong you are.

Liberal values rule society. Disputing them is light heresy. There are, for instance, more people who think homophobes are terrible people than there are homophobes who think gays are terrible people.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:17 am UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:Liberal values rule society. Disputing them is light heresy. There are, for instance, more people who think homophobes are terrible people than there are homophobes who think gays are terrible people.


And there are more people who think racists are terrible people than there are racists who think other races are terrible people.

What's your point?

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:37 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:Liberal values rule society. Disputing them is light heresy. There are, for instance, more people who think homophobes are terrible people than there are homophobes who think gays are terrible people.


And there are more people who think racists are terrible people than there are racists who think other races are terrible people.

What's your point?


That the more-popular opinion is the one people are most censured for disbelieving.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:13 am UTC

Are you actually complaining that you aren't allowed to harm gay people for being gay?

"Help help, my right to oppress others is being oppressed!"

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Sun Jul 06, 2014 6:38 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Are you actually complaining that you aren't allowed to harm gay people for being gay?

"Help help, my right to oppress others is being oppressed!"


You just demonstrated my point exactly.

When I said that Homophobes are censured because they're unpopular, you didn't suggest that Homophobes are instead censured because they're wrong. You started censuring them. You attacked the thing and not the argument.

You will have a hard time pinning me as a homophobe. I'm thoroughly gay. Not that that affects my argument. I'm capable of making the same argument straight. But maybe you'll stop calling me a homophobe.

This is the problem the thread is describing. I questioned a liberal position and you criticized me for it. I've had this same conversation with many conservatives, and none of them felt so insecure in their own position that they called me a homophobe. They're more interested in proving their opinion right. It's why I said that in my experience, conservatives are interested in proving themselves right; liberals in proving you wrong.

If I had to hypothesize why, it's because liberals generally have the dominant position. Liberal values rule society. Conservatives are already used to empathizing with different opinions. Disputing conservative values is not heresy -- they're already heretics.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:25 am UTC

Freedom of speech comes with freedom to disagree, and freedom to be disapproved of. That's fine.

But there's some relationships shouldn't have this enter: Employers and businesses can't just expect society to protect their interests if they're picking and choosing which part of society they will allow into their premises.

On the other hand, being a bigot isn't a protected class. Why should it be? Very few religions require it. And if you have it, you can totally make your way in the world without ever being an employer or discriminating against customers. There's no right to employ people or right to open a public accommodation. There just isn't.

Yeah, we get to cluck our tongues at people who disapprove of atheists or gays or whatever bigotry they have, whether or not we manage to get our legal system to recognize it.

-Crissa

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Brace » Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:02 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:02 am UTC

Anyways, I want to clarify that by "liberal" I mean something like "Progressive" or "Whig" -- Whig values dominate society. (More Democracy is good, Discrimination is bad, People are created equal, etc.) These beliefs would have wide acceptance everywhere American today -- there are few bigots around. Republicans, however, are (generally) marginally more willing to disagree with part/all of these ideas than Democrats.

Crissa wrote:But there's some relationships shouldn't have this enter: Employers and businesses can't just expect society to protect their interests if they're picking and choosing which part of society they will allow into their premises.


Without saying I like or dislike this idea (I don't like or dislike it, it's fine), it's not the only one. Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 American businesses and employers could expect this of society. (Society ran fine, even if it's not a society we'd like to live in.) Many civilizations (the French Empire, Polish Kingdoms, Medieval Fiefs, etc.) would have avoided discrimination practices by being relatively homogeneous. India ran, for thousands of years, and still runs, a strict caste system that says exactly which parts of society can expect to enjoy which parts of society. When I was in China, the idea that discrimination was verboten in the US was bizarre (though they will treat you royally if you are white, blond, ginger, or black).

Yeah, we get to cluck our tongues at people who disapprove of atheists or gays or whatever bigotry they have, whether or not we manage to get our legal system to recognize it.


A hundred years ago, this might have read: "We get to cluck our tongues at people who approve of athieths or gays or whatever perversion they have". I think you can replace the idea with its opposite without changing the meaning.

Brace wrote:You're getting dangerously close to "silent majority" rhetoric.


Maybe, but I think of it a little differently. The people who don't care enough to share their opinion generally don't have an opinion that different from the people who do.

Almost switching topics: I can get Conservatives and Liberals to yell loudly about how much they disagree and how the other is destroying the country. But both would probably say they like what we have (well enough): A mixed free market with a democratic government. This is the moderate position we'd mostly agree to.

Go to 1700's Europe and argue for mixed free market with democracy and you will be very radical indeed. Racists occupy about the position we would if we teleported to the 1700's. Liberal values rule our society.

Being a conservative who wants a bit more free market and a bit less mixed is not disputing those ruling values. Being a monarchist is.

Liberals love telling people they're wrong because they think they're the vanguard of the future, socially engineering out all the bad traits of society. Conservatives love being told they're wrong because it reinforces their view that western society has reached a nadir, as well as their persecution complex. Being told to check their privilege on the internet and college campuses makes them feel like they're in Rome being fed to lions. Whenever an LGBT anti-discrimination bill passes, or a public school penalizes a student for expressing their deeply held religious belief that queers are going to hell, conservatives shake their heads and wonder where the world has gone, but they also salivate a bit. Like communism, fundamentalist christianity is a tradition that holds that paradise will be found on the other side of a nightmare, so when the John Birch level conservatives see things they dislike they view them as signs that we're moving forward towards a cleansing fire. There are secular versions of this attitude also, like the stormfront crowd waiting for the great race riot that finally convinces americans that minorities are hazardous to their health.


This is a little stronger than I'd put it, but basically, yeah.

Oh, when I said that conservatives prove themselves right and liberals prove others wrong, I didn't mean that one behavior was better. It is easier to listen to the former, which probably somehow relates to the original topic, maybe.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:55 am UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:
Yeah, we get to cluck our tongues at people who disapprove of atheists or gays or whatever bigotry they have, whether or not we manage to get our legal system to recognize it.


A hundred years ago, this might have read: "We get to cluck our tongues at people who approve of athieths or gays or whatever perversion they have". I think you can replace the idea with its opposite without changing the meaning.

That's a good way of informing me that you personally have no ethics beyond authority, and that I would not wish to do business with you. Because neither my argument - nor Brace's, no matter how much we disagree - were made from positions of authority, or citing authority.

Yours was. Which is why you are wrong.

-Crissa

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:08 am UTC

What are yours based on and how would you enforce them?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:57 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:
Yeah, we get to cluck our tongues at people who disapprove of atheists or gays or whatever bigotry they have, whether or not we manage to get our legal system to recognize it.


A hundred years ago, this might have read: "We get to cluck our tongues at people who approve of athieths or gays or whatever perversion they have". I think you can replace the idea with its opposite without changing the meaning.

That's a good way of informing me that you personally have no ethics beyond authority, and that I would not wish to do business with you. Because neither my argument - nor Brace's, no matter how much we disagree - were made from positions of authority, or citing authority.

Yours was. Which is why you are wrong.

-Crissa


No...you essentially based your reasoning(so far as it was explained) on popularity. It is trivial to observe that what is popular changes.

It is not necessary to cite authority whatsoever to observe that you have not given a terribly consistent explanation for what is right or wrong.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:10 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:No...you essentially based your reasoning(so far as it was explained) on popularity.

No, you are mistaken.

morriswalters wrote:What are yours based on and how would you enforce them?

Ethical constructions. Some people call them 'morals' but they are not 1:1 correlation, since one infers an actual structure designed to get an output while the other is a system of state rules.

Enforcement is completely a different issue. We live in a democracy, so convincing others that of our positions and solutions - and of the facts that support our arguments - is a bit of a popularity contest.

But no, it's not about popularity. We support the right to protest things one doesn't like in a way that doesn't violate individual rights. (Collectives such as companies and corporations less so).

-Crissa

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:13 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
morriswalters wrote:What are yours based on and how would you enforce them?

Ethical constructions. (irrelevancies trimmed)


*sigh* WHAT ethical constructions?

Ethical constructions/morals are not universally agreed upon. Your response is essentially "because...reasons". Great. List them.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:40 pm UTC

Yes, they're 'because reasons' and not 'because authority'. That is, in fact, the different.

-Crissa

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Fri Jul 11, 2014 9:10 pm UTC

Where did I say I believe the things I do (which I haven't shared) because of authority?

100 years ago homosexuality was scorned. Now it's celebrated. This observation goes against using authority as a basis for ethics.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:45 am UTC

Crissa wrote:Yes, they're 'because reasons' and not 'because authority'. That is, in fact, the different.

-Crissa


Ah, well, I think you are wrong. Because reasons.

Which, obviously, are entirely unnecessary to explain or list. Because EVERYONE knows what that means.

Nah. You still haven't justified any reason. Communicating badly and acting smug when you are misunderstood is not cleverness.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:54 am UTC

So now you're tantrumming because I pointed out that an ethical construct is different than a moral authority?

That's just silly.

It's totally inappropriate to this thread for me to list the entirety of an ethical construct.

-Crissa

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Brace » Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:27 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:19 pm UTC

It's an entire field of study. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=difference+between ... +authority will get a few essays on ethics of the self. If you're really curious about it, there are very good books and college courses on this subject, probably at your local community college as well.

Like I said, it's probably not appropriate to dominate a thread with a discussion of the underpinnings and difference between authority and self, or ethics vs authority. It was just an observation: If you say 'X is true' and cite authority, that's authority. If you say, 'I've come to the conclusion X is true' that usually means you're citing your own ethics, which may be complex, and worthy of discussion.

But they weren't part of the topic. I wouldn't go into distracting from political debate by excoriating libertarians to explain their ethical systems. It would be a really long explanation and probably should be in its own thread.

-Crissa

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Brace » Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:23 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:42 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:23 am UTC

Crissa wrote:Ethical constructions. Some people call them 'morals' but they are not 1:1 correlation, since one infers an actual structure designed to get an output while the other is a system of state rules.

Enforcement is completely a different issue. We live in a democracy, so convincing others that of our positions and solutions - and of the facts that support our arguments - is a bit of a popularity contest.

But no, it's not about popularity. We support the right to protest things one doesn't like in a way that doesn't violate individual rights. (Collectives such as companies and corporations less so).
If you aren't prepared to explain what you mean when you say ethical construct, than I will assume that what you mean is the framework that you act within to make decisions about supporting those things that you find important. Also the use of the imperial "we" isn't useful, it adds ambiguity. We who? It is always a popularity contest, the trick involved is to know how to affect opinion, to turn a net negative into a net positive. In other words how to be popular. The bulk of the population couldn't put together a cogent explanation of any ethical construct, if they tried. What they can do is to see themselves in you.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:15 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:If you aren't prepared to explain...

This has already occurred. There's alot of reading there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Democracy's output is a popularity contest, but that doesn't change whether something is right or wrong. Abolitionists said slavery was wrong, even though it was not seen as wrong by the majority; even today there are people who argue various things are right or wrong without agreement of the majority.

Saying that some group is allowed - in our definition of freedom - to protest is <i>not</i> arguing from a position of popularity. The ACLU's position that all are allowed to speak and protest is not always a popular one. But my ethics say it is the right one.

-Crissa

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:11 am UTC

Crissa wrote:
morriswalters wrote:If you aren't prepared to explain...

This has already occurred. There's alot of reading there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Democracy's output is a popularity contest, but that doesn't change whether something is right or wrong. Abolitionists said slavery was wrong, even though it was not seen as wrong by the majority; even today there are people who argue various things are right or wrong without agreement of the majority.

Saying that some group is allowed - in our definition of freedom - to protest is <i>not</i> arguing from a position of popularity. The ACLU's position that all are allowed to speak and protest is not always a popular one. But my ethics say it is the right one.

-Crissa


This is all fine, but: most people tend to believe what most other people tend to believe. We all believe that our beliefs are the most ethical, well-reasoned beliefs. Nevertheless, most of us believe similar things. What most people believe affects everything. (This is true sans democracy.) It's bad to be a bigot today, not only because you personally think it's wrong, but because most people agree with you. Of course, 100 years ago, the idea of 'bigot' would be completely different. If any of us went 100 years back in time saying today's reasonable things, we'd be radicals.

We'd all suppose that our opinions are ethically-derived. I will trust your assertions that your opinions are ethically-derived. And yet, they are very different from a Roman's; something must have much altered in the minds of men or with the nature of the universe.

And I'm back to: many arguments are not censured because they're wrong, but because they're unpopular. Many bigots you'll see dragged in TV news stories are not really bigots -- they just said something unpopular. I provide an example:

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/18/paul_kr ... ishonesty/

When you’ve spent an entire book arguing that blacks and Latinos have lower IQs, more out-of-wedlock babies and higher reliance on welfare, it’s clear who “the wrong women” are. Oh, and the book also argued for limiting immigration, because unlike earlier waves of immigrants, today’s are coming from countries with a lower national IQ. In what world are those arguments not racist?


The author is quite upset by the idea that blacks and Latinos have lower IQs on average. She never contends the point -- she simply calls it racist. There is no debate about what the truth is, but only that we all obviously know the truth, and Charles Murray isn't telling it, which makes him morally repugnant and racist.

Of course, if Blacks and Latinos have lower IQs than Whites and Asians, Blacks and Latinos have lower IQs than Whites and Asians. This observation/theory in no way suggests anything about what we ought, least that we ought to consider Blacks and Latinos to be inferior.

100 years ago Charles Murray's argument would have exactly the same merits and problems without being called 'racist'.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:35 am UTC

Crissa wrote:
morriswalters wrote:If you aren't prepared to explain...

This has already occurred. There's alot of reading there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Democracy's output is a popularity contest, but that doesn't change whether something is right or wrong. Abolitionists said slavery was wrong, even though it was not seen as wrong by the majority; even today there are people who argue various things are right or wrong without agreement of the majority.

Saying that some group is allowed - in our definition of freedom - to protest is <i>not</i> arguing from a position of popularity. The ACLU's position that all are allowed to speak and protest is not always a popular one. But my ethics say it is the right one.

-Crissa
And I've been reading. I understand ethics, I just don't understand the basis of yours. If you pull them out of thin air, that is fine, since it is what everyone else seems to do.

It is an argument from tradition, which is a form of authority. The right exists, because it was important enough to be enshrined in our social fabric in an era when it could be done. You believe it to be "right" ethically because in your world it always has been. But it isn't ironclad or universal. Woodrow Wilson used citizens committees and social controls to stifle protest during WW1. And in societies without that tradition you can end up with a situation like Egypt.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:19 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:It's an entire field of study. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=difference+between ... +authority will get a few essays on ethics of the self. If you're really curious about it, there are very good books and college courses on this subject, probably at your local community college as well.

Like I said, it's probably not appropriate to dominate a thread with a discussion of the underpinnings and difference between authority and self, or ethics vs authority. It was just an observation: If you say 'X is true' and cite authority, that's authority. If you say, 'I've come to the conclusion X is true' that usually means you're citing your own ethics, which may be complex, and worthy of discussion.

But they weren't part of the topic. I wouldn't go into distracting from political debate by excoriating libertarians to explain their ethical systems. It would be a really long explanation and probably should be in its own thread.

-Crissa


We are aware that there is a difference. Obviously.

But when your arguments rest on ethical systems, and you refuse to give even the barest explanation of those systems, your argument is unsupported and worthless.

Like I said, it's probably not appropriate to dominate a thread with a discussion of the underpinnings and difference between authority and self, or ethics vs authority. It was just an observation: If you say 'X is true' and cite authority, that's authority. If you say, 'I've come to the conclusion X is true' that usually means you're citing your own ethics, which may be complex, and worthy of discussion.


Nah. They are identical, but in the second, you didn't bother to cite any sources. This makes that argument inferior. Now, which sources to cite and why, we can have an interesting discussion about, but merely not bothering to cite any does not make your argument complex, worthy of discussion, or anything else.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:06 pm UTC

There is no scientific reasoning that says 'race X has a lower IQ'. There isn't. We can observe lower test scores, but since the tests are highly variable based upon culture and experience, what exactly are you testing? It's not really IQ then, is it? Statements made that cannot be supported are also not scientific. So stating the non-scientific result 'race has lower IQs' is racist and non-scientific.

-Crissa

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:41 am UTC

Crissa wrote:There is no scientific reasoning that says 'race X has a lower IQ'. There isn't.
Incorrect. People disagree with the book, myself included. Its premise may be flawed, it may be racist BS, but that hasn't been shown conclusively. And isn't likely to be any time soon. So instead it becomes attack the man. Discredit him and you discredit his work. He may have discovered an unpopular truth, or not. But calling him a racist is a straw man that doesn't attack the science.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:30 am UTC

I always find it odd that people will claim that different breeds of dogs have different temperaments, different intelligences, different strengths and weaknesses, but it is impossible the same could apply to humans...

The problem is that 9 times out of 10, the person claiming that the same applies to humans tends to 1) want to eliminate the "inferior" humans, 2) never adequately explain what makes a human "better", 3) never considers that they themself might be "inferior".

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:41 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Incorrect. People disagree with the book, myself included. Its premise may be flawed, it may be racist BS, but that hasn't been shown conclusively. And isn't likely to be any time soon. So instead it becomes attack the man. Discredit him and you discredit his work. He may have discovered an unpopular truth, or not. But calling him a racist is a straw man that doesn't attack the science.

Gibberish.

Do you know what a straw man is? Pretty much what you did.

-Crissa

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5448
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:54 am UTC

As someone who has known a lot of dogs, I've noticed if anything less correlation of behavior between breeds than I have of behavior between human ethnicities, and most of the differences between human ethnicities are more obviously chalked up to culture than to genetics (seeing how often e.g. a white guy who grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood behaves more like the blacks who grew up in that same neighborhood than the more-closely-related whites who grew up in predominantly white neighborhoods). When people have panics about one breed of dog being inherently dangerous or something, it honestly strikes me as just as ridiculous as racism. Every animal is an individual, just as much as every person is.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:55 am UTC

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[4][5]

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Brace » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:47 am UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:42 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:43 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I always find it odd that people will claim that different breeds of dogs have different temperaments, different intelligences, different strengths and weaknesses, but it is impossible the same could apply to humans...

The problem is that 9 times out of 10, the person claiming that the same applies to humans tends to 1) want to eliminate the "inferior" humans, 2) never adequately explain what makes a human "better", 3) never considers that they themself might be "inferior".


1. Dogs were specifically bred over many generations to exhibit this.

2. Even with that, training/ownership is a vastly larger factor. Sufficiently so that when someone complains of a "bad dog", my first suspicion is that the dog has a bad owner.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:04 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[4][5]

Interesting that you can quote something and manage to completely miss the meaning.

-Crissa


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests