Boyle5150 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Just now, SFLUFAN said: DEFINITELY not white people, probably not even human. I want to hug you so hard right now but be honest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted December 20, 2018 Author Share Posted December 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said: do you have anything other than ad hominem attacks? Join the discussion with your understanding of the argument at hand. Try not to just label someone... no one cares about logical fallacies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said: no one cares about logical fallacies then change your user name engage with your argument or step aside and let the adults have a conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 I'm wondering if we will ever treat people as individuals as apposed to race/tribe? This is truly the biggest plight of humanity. (says the white man) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said: I'm wondering if we will ever treat people as individuals as apposed to race/tribe? This is truly the biggest plight of humanity. (says the white man) The individual is nothing. The collective is everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said: The individual is nothing. The collective is everything. Tribalism at its finest. Aka “white power” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted December 20, 2018 Author Share Posted December 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said: I'm wondering if we will ever treat people as individuals as apposed to race/tribe? This is truly the biggest plight of humanity. (says the white man) do you weep for the individual? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 The amount of hypocrisy itt is truly astounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said: do you weep for the individual? Always infact studdies show that when you show the negative effects toward an individual, you are far more likely to “give a shit” as apposed to caring about what happens to dozens of people. Its human nature Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted December 20, 2018 Author Share Posted December 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said: Always infact studdies show that when you show the effects toward an individual, you are far more likely to “give a shit” as apposed to dozens. Its human nature 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said: The amount of hypocrisy itt is truly astounding. I see nothing wrong with hypocrisy. In fact, I consider it to be a higher level of intellectual conceptualization as it discards the servile, childish notion of "moral consistency". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Just now, RedSoxFan9 said: You really can’t think for yourself, can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: I see nothing wrong with hypocrisy. In fact, I consider it to be a higher level of intellectual conceptualization as it discards the servile, childish notion of "consistency". I would expect nothing less, subjectively speaking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 The bourgeois liberal needs the picture of the starving, crying child trapped in poverty to prick their conscience because they lack the capacity to grasp the collective "greater good". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said: The bourgeois liberal needs the picture of the starving, crying child trapped in poverty to prick their conscience because they lack the capacity to grasp the collective "greater good". I don’t disagree with this notion its truly a sad state of the human condition... just kidding, I meant the white mans condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 Just to touch on comments from a couple pages back, my parents definitely get pissed if you call them racist. Despite the fact they say racist shit all the time and harbor nasty views about blacks and other minorities, they don't think of themselves as racist. They "just call it like they see it," which is especially stupid since they live in a town with hardly any racial or ethnic minorities and they rarely venture out into places with actual diversity. Last time I visited my family, even my brother made some comment about not wanting to live in a city like me, because he doesn't want to live around a bunch of blacks. He didn't see a thing in the world wrong with saying something like that, even though I've never heard him use any of the rhetoric my parents use. He's just been warped by the culture he grew up in and hasn't had any experiences outside it. So, yeah, there are definitely racist white people who get more angry at the suggestion they're racist over actual racism. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 2 hours ago, SFLUFAN said: You had your time to be heard, now it's the time for "the others". I'm more willing to entertain restriction of free speech than a lot of people are, but when exactly did I have my turn in this exchange of speaking? I think there's a meaningful point about being mindful of how your comments will be interpreted given context, and to avoid saying things that are likely to be interpreted differently than you intend or cause negative consequences that weren't your original goal. But we can make that point without assigning credit to individuals for things they didn't do and then holding them accountable for it in some game of "fairness." Identify what is you're actually trying to achieve, and describe how certain behaviors are useful or not to those ends. Assigning "blame" to entire populations that they all must account for because I guess things need to be "fair" on a tribal level is a level of nonsense ethical reasoning that is surprising to see from someone who often characterizes almost any form of ethics as nonsense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 13 minutes ago, legend said: I'm more willing to entertain restriction of free speech than a lot of people are, but when exactly did I have my turn in this exchange of speaking? Didn't Wade say something earlier in the thread to the effect of "who cares about the individual, it's about the collective." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 16 minutes ago, legend said: I'm more willing to entertain restriction of free speech than a lot of people are, but when exactly did I have my turn in this exchange of speaking? Simply put, our very existence as members of the dominant societal group means that we had/are having our "collective" turn, even if we didn't have our "individual" turns, with all those attendant ethical issues which are largely irrelevant to me because as you correctly pointed out that I'm largely unconcerned with ethics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said: Didn't Wade say something earlier in the thread to the effect of "who cares about the individual, it's about the collective." I do think he may have, but my question was more rhetorical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said: Didn't Wade say something earlier in the thread to the effect of "who cares about the individual, it's about the collective." 2 minutes ago, legend said: I do think he may have, but my question was more rhetorical Yeah, he kinda did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 I mean, I agree that heterosexual white males have had pretty much all of history to be heard. I'm willing to defer more to the rest of the human race now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 14 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: Simply put, our very existence as members of the dominant societal group means that we had/are having our "collective" turn, even if we didn't have our "individual" turns, with all the ethical issues that encapsulates and which are largely irrelevant to me because as you correctly pointed out that I'm largely unconcerned with ethics. Now you're over generalizing and equivocating. I do not for a moment doubt that I've benefited quite a bit from being white--that's not what I asked because that is not the same as me speaking and consequently needing to be quiet to let others have a "turn." But this generalization you're making is quite a bit worse along the dimension I criticized earlier. It's reasoning by ethical "fairness" as if my letting minorities speak (without any response from me) will some how balance things even slightly back to account for the benefits I've had. It won't. And even if it did bring my and others net advantage down, bringing others down in the name of fairness is insane. What you want to do is make things better for other people. If to make things betters for others you need to bring others down, we can consider that trade off, and it might be worth it! But that's why you need to argue what your policy actually achieves. Not argue by "fairness" or reasoning by "you had your chance." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 I'll add that i realize I'm being a harsh in my response, but it's disappointing to see someone who used to laugh at some of the insane ethical reasoning out there start embracing some of the worst most nonsense forms of it. Please do snap out of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 1 hour ago, legend said: Now you're over generalizing and equivocating. I do not for a moment doubt that I've benefited quite a bit from being white--that's not what I asked because that is not the same as me speaking and consequently needing to be quiet to let others have a "turn." But this generalization you're making is quite a bit worse. It's reasoning by ethical "fairness" as if my letting minorities speak will some how balance things even slightly back to account for the benefits I've had. It won't. And even if I did bring my and others net advantage down, bringing others down in the name of fairness is insane. What you want to do is make things better for other people. If to make things betters for others you need to bring others down, we can consider that trade off, and it might be worth it! But that's why you need to argue what your policy actually achieves. Not argue by "fairness" or reasoning by "you had your chance." You asked "when exactly did I have my turn in this exchange of speaking" and I provided an answer consistent with my original premise. This society brings others down in the name of fairness all the time, especially in the realm of economics. For example, the estate tax system is based on the principle of "bringing others down" to prevent the creation of economic oligarchies. This is also why the non-existently enforced anti-trust laws exist. There is nothing "insane" about it as when you strip away all the economic arguments that support these policies, they really do ultimately boil down to "fairness". And I fundamentally disagree with the notion that there isn't at least some -- no matter how minuscule -- balancing of the scales by allowing marginalized groups to express themselves without our interjection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, legend said: I'll add that i realize I'm being a harsh in my response, but it's disappointing to see someone who used to laugh at some of the insane ethical reasoning out there start embracing some of the worst most nonsense forms of it. Please do snap out of it I decided that if I think all of it is largely silly anyway, why should I bother attempting to parse the "good" from the "bad". I might as well just roll my intellectual dice, see what comes up, and run with it until it bores me! Because in the long-run, we're all dead anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said: You asked "when exactly did I have my turn in this exchange of speaking" and I provided an answer consistent with my original premise. This society brings others down in the name of fairness all the time, especially in the realm of economics. I'm well aware that people often engage in really awful unproductive "ethical" thinking. Please don't join them. Quote For example, the estate tax system is based on the principle of "bringing others down" to prevent the creation of economic oligarchies. There's a critical addition you've added here. "To prevent the creation of economic oligarchies." You've just stated an objective of the policy. It's not a great objective, because it's still pretty indirect, but I think we could make some compelling arguments about why that state of affairs is not desirable. And if we establish that, we now have a purpose that has no need of ever invoking "fairness." Quote This is also why the non-existently enforced anti-trust laws exist. There is nothing "insane" about it as when you strip away all the economic arguments that support these policies, they really do ultimately boil down to "fairness". Tell me, which is more real, "fairness" or "rights"? Quote And I fundamentally disagree with the notion that there isn't at least some -- no matter how minuscule -- balancing of the scales by allowing marginalized groups to express themselves without our interjection. Racists refraining from responding would probably result in a small net win. But it's not like racists are the easiest ones to stop and it's fair (in this context, meaning worth the cost) to capture everyone up in it. It also not a policy that you can either enforce in a sweeping way or nothing at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: I decided that if I think all of it is largely silly anyway, why should I bother attempting to parse the "good" from the "bad". I might as well just roll my intellectual dice, see what comes up, and run with it until it bores me! Because in the long-run, we're all dead anyway. Okay, well then next time you laugh at someone for caring about social wellbeing or talking about rights, I'm going to laugh at you for caring about something as nebulous as "fairness." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperclyp Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 2 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said: no one cares about logical fallacies People who have poor arguments don’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 53 minutes ago, Paperclyp said: People who have poor arguments don’t. Yeah but RedSox got dat 🌌🧠 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 1 hour ago, legend said: Tell me, which is more real, "fairness" or "rights"? Because the existence of both of them is largely in the "eye of the beholder", neither can make a claim to being "real" in any objective sense (not that such a thing even exists to begin with ) Having said that, I subjectively consider "fairness" to be "more real" than "rights" because the correction of a real or perceived disparity represents a more "tangible" notion (such as it is) than what I consider to be the quasi-metaphysical concept of rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted December 21, 2018 Author Share Posted December 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Paperclyp said: People who have poor arguments don’t. Online pedants and debate team nerds are the only people in the world who care about that shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperclyp Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 Just now, RedSoxFan9 said: Online pedants and debate team nerds are the only people in the world who care about that shit That’s what someone without a leg to stand on would say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 I'm just letting everyone know that in any discussion with me that I will NEVER call you out on any of that "logical fallacy" stuff because I seriously don't give a damn about it. In fact, if you DON'T use it on me, I'm gonna wonder exactly what the hell is wrong with you! If it advances your case and maneuvers you into a "win", knock yourself out, dawg! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperclyp Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 19 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: I'm just letting everyone know that in any discussion with me that I will NEVER call you out on any of that "logical fallacy" stuff because I seriously don't give a damn about it. In fact, if you DON'T use it on me, I'm gonna wonder exactly what the hell is wrong with you! If it advances your case and maneuvers you into a "win", knock yourself out, dawg! You will also engage with people and answer honestly with reason when prompted. I'm not about to call people out on every single possible fallacy (I'm way out of my league there). But I want to converse with people, and I can't take a poster seriously if they won't even try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.