EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 229
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
AmorphousPhoenix
107 Posts
| ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
On May 09 2013 15:47 AmorphousPhoenix wrote: You can't deny that liberals far more often than conservatives resort to smug quips to disarm arguments. I am not sure whether that is due to the majority which they obviously enjoy on sites such as these, or just a general feeling of intellectual superiority. Probably a combination of the two. You probably should not call this condescension, because if I am challenged sufficiently, I could likely provide multiple examples in the last several pages of smug liberal quips against conservative arguments. Hell, I'm a liberal myself, but I think we should stick to well-articulated critiques instead of dismissive condescension, and criticizing a misquoted figure of speech is precisely that, as is the statement that the poster in question should be working in a mine... I honestly can deny that liberals do it somehow more often than conservatives. Maybe if your talking about specifically this thread, there happens to be slightly more liberals on TL than conservatives, although there are some conservatives that post a lot that kind of counteract that. I think both sides post smug quips, but maybe I'm blinded by my liberal smugness and blindess. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18865 Posts
On May 09 2013 15:47 AmorphousPhoenix wrote: You can't deny that liberals far more often than conservatives resort to smug quips to disarm arguments. I am not sure whether that is due to the majority which they obviously enjoy on sites such as these, or just a general feeling of intellectual superiority. Probably a combination of the two. You probably should not call this condescension, because if I am challenged sufficiently, I could likely provide multiple examples in the last several pages of smug liberal quips against conservative arguments. Hell, I'm a liberal myself, but I think we should stick to well-articulated critiques instead of dismissive condescension, and criticizing a misquoted figure of speech is precisely that, as is the statement that the poster in question should be working in a mine... It is fine and dandy to be offended by such a thing, but do not be surprised when told that the suggestion that we need more child labor with less regulation and that poor people need to basically suck it up and own their poverty are incredibly offensive as well. | ||
|
AmorphousPhoenix
107 Posts
On May 09 2013 15:54 farvacola wrote: It is fine and dandy to be offended by such a thing, but do not be surprised when told that the suggestion that we need more child labor with less regulation and that poor people need to basically suck it up and own their poverty are incredibly offensive as well. Saying "I disagree with this policy or attitude" is not inherently condescending. Saying "lol this guy used the wrong word" or "you should be working in a mine" is. Hopefully we can make such distinctions. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18865 Posts
On May 09 2013 16:06 AmorphousPhoenix wrote: Saying "I disagree with this policy or attitude" is not inherently condescending. Saying "lol this guy used the wrong word" or "you should be working in a mine" is. Hopefully we can make such distinctions. Dictating what is and isn't offensive in the eyes of others is not an intelligent means of guiding a discussion. Just because you don't consider the statement "Sorry, that's just how life works" offensive does not preclude others from seeing it as such. | ||
|
AmorphousPhoenix
107 Posts
On May 09 2013 16:13 farvacola wrote: Dictating what is and isn't offensive in the eyes of others is not an intelligent means of guiding a discussion. Just because you don't consider the statement "Sorry, that's just how life works" offensive does not preclude others from seeing it as such. Offensive is just vague and broad enough to apply to any political statement, which is why you keep repeating it, despite the fact that I keep using the word "condescending" and talk specifically about posters on this forum. You could literally state that any position which disagrees with your perfectly moral perspective on life is "offensive." What I am talking about is how you are responding specifically to people who are posting in this thread and can actually read what you are saying about them. You are the OP after all, you should try to stick to the standards you are demanding of others. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18865 Posts
On May 09 2013 16:20 AmorphousPhoenix wrote: Offensive is just vague and broad enough to apply to any political statement, which is why you keep repeating it, despite the fact that I keep using the word "condescending" and talk specifically about posters on this forum. You could literally state that any position which disagrees with your perfectly moral perspective on life is "offensive." What I am talking about is how you are responding specifically to people who are posting in this thread and can actually read what you are saying about them. You are the OP after all, you should try to stick to the standards you demanding of others. Dictating what is and isn't condescending in the eyes of others is not an intelligent means of guiding a discussion. Just because you don't consider the statement "Sorry, that's just how life works" condescending does not preclude others from seeing it as such. The two exchange here perfectly. Generalized pleas towards how life works and "how things are" are condescending, no matter how pedantic you'd like to get. When one puts forth such a statement, it comes with the assertion that the receiving party is somehow less affiliated or less concerned with reality, when nothing could be further from the truth. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On May 09 2013 16:13 farvacola wrote: Dictating what is and isn't offensive in the eyes of others is not an intelligent means of guiding a discussion. Just because you don't consider the statement "Sorry, that's just how life works" offensive does not preclude others from seeing it as such. Aloysius Collins Walsingham IV sneers in your general direction. The only difference I see between conservatives and liberals on TL is that the liberals tend to make more generalized statements about how conservatives are dumb racist gayhaters and the conservatives are more directly personal sarcastic like sorry how that's life works and that's reality and you're a stupid commie pinko red. Of course at the national level everybody just snarks and bitches on everybody. | ||
|
AmorphousPhoenix
107 Posts
Just admit that you violated your own "argument in absentia" and "be evocative, not mean" rules, since you were in generally welcoming company. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18865 Posts
On May 09 2013 16:29 AmorphousPhoenix wrote: So we really aren't going to distinguish between saying "I believe child labor laws should be repealed" and "I believe you should be working in a mine"? Are you actually going to try and justify this comparison? Tell me you aren't serious, please... Just admit that you violated your own "argument in absentia" and "be evocative, not mean" rules, since you were in generally welcoming company. That isn't the comparison I've been justifying, so in the words of famous and esteemed TL'ers throughout general, "Strawman More". My joke as to the propriety of Kimaker's working in a mine was predicated on the total package of his message, with the child labor part taking a backseat to his assertion that anyone who seeks to better the lives of the poor or lower classes is somehow unaware of some fundamental truth of reality that only he is privy to. His comical mistake in speech is only icing on the cake of "might is right". | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Children shouldn't be working, we live in a class society between the college-educated and the non-college-educated. Children should be in school doing their best to get to college and get a job in adolescence. They don't need to be learning job skills at age 11. | ||
|
AmorphousPhoenix
107 Posts
| ||
|
jellyjello
Korea (South)664 Posts
On May 09 2013 16:46 DeepElemBlues wrote: Most of the jobs that children could do that wouldn't be labor-intensive have been rendered obsolete by modern technology. Children shouldn't be working, we live in a class society between the college-educated and the non-college-educated. Children should be in school doing their best to get to college and get a job in adolescence. They don't need to be learning job skills at age 11. College and education are important, but they are, by far, not the most important aspect in your life. Oddly enough, I learned that lesson after moving to Korea. Children should be focused on freely expanding their ideas, minds, and most importantly, just play. Let them go out and use their abundant energy in positive ways. And doing so, they are being educated. School is important but there are a lot of kids here in Korea who have absolutely no clue on how to live, yet they can solve the most sophisticated math problems. | ||
|
AmorphousPhoenix
107 Posts
On May 09 2013 17:24 jellyjello wrote: College and education are important, but they are, by far, not the most important aspect in your life. Oddly enough, I learned that lesson after moving to Korea. Children should be focused on freely expanding their ideas, minds, and most importantly, just play. Let them go out and use their abundant energy in positive ways. And doing so, they are being educated. School is important but there are a lot of kids here in Korea who have absolutely no clue on how to live, yet they can solve the most sophisticated math problems. Could you elaborate on what "no clue how to live" actually means? Obviously they are not dying in the streets, they are managing to get by in life, and one of the most important keys to getting by in life is having marketable skills provided to you through an education. If society allowed me to "just play" I probably would have spent most of my time as a child playing starcraft or something. School certainly helped me learn how to live, in both a social and an academic sense. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On May 09 2013 15:47 AmorphousPhoenix wrote: You can't deny that liberals far more often than conservatives resort to smug quips to disarm arguments. I am not sure whether that is due to the majority which they obviously enjoy on sites such as these, or just a general feeling of intellectual superiority. Probably a combination of the two. You probably should not call this condescension, because if I am challenged sufficiently, I could likely provide multiple examples in the last several pages of smug liberal quips against conservative arguments. Hell, I'm a liberal myself, but I think we should stick to well-articulated critiques instead of dismissive condescension, and criticizing a misquoted figure of speech is precisely that, as is the statement that the poster in question should be working in a mine... It's pretty justified to be smug when somebody says something as dumb as suggesting bringing back unregulated child labor. It would frankly be more patronizing and condescending to assume that a significant number of people reading this thread are so stupid they need it explained to them why that's bad idea than it is to mock it. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
aid which should be going to the poorest students is in many cases going to some of the richest. ... There is compelling evidence to suggest that many schools are engaged in an elaborate shell game: using Pell Grants to supplant institutional aid they would have provided to financially needy students otherwise, and then shifting these funds to help recruit wealthier students. Why? Mo money: it’s more profitable for schools to provide four scholarships of $5,000 each to induce affluent students who will be able to pay the balance than it is to provide a single $20,000 grant to one low-income student. So the system is broken. Great. At least I can still crow over W. Mass superiority: There are exceptions, foremost among them Amherst College Article link | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
MINNEAPOLIS, May 9 (Reuters) - The Democratic-led state Legislature in Minnesota is expected to begin a final push on Thursday toward making it the 12th U.S. state to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples and the third this month after Delaware and Rhode Island. Leaders in Minnesota's state House of Representatives have scheduled a vote for Thursday to advance a bill recognizing same-sex marriage, which would be followed by a vote in the state Senate on Monday, party spokesmen have said. Democratic Governor Mark Dayton has indicated that he supports making same-sex marriage legal in the state and has been pressing lawmakers for their backing. House Speaker Paul Thissen had said he would not put the measure to the full House if leaders did not believe it had the support to pass. It is unclear if any Republicans will support the bill, but Democrats hold a 73-61 majority. Opponents of the proposal have questioned whether the rights of religious groups and individuals who believe that marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman would be protected under the bill. Supporters have said they would be. Source | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On May 09 2013 21:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Well this is lovely - Pell grant money being used to attract wealthy students: Why? Mo money: So the system is broken. Great. At least I can still crow over W. Mass superiority: Article link On second glance I'm not surprised. There are loopholes in almost everything. The only difference is, Americans are like vultures when it comes to furthering their individual profits. Not only is it an institutional problem, but a societal problem as well. Granted, the former's a million times easier to fix than the latter (theoretically), but the latter is often a cause of the former, and the former can cause the latter, which just creates dem ridiculous cycles Americans love so much. Nevertheless, this issue needs to be addressed either way. I would like to think that the UC schools don't do this, considering the amount of low-income students there are throughout the system (a TON). But, who knows, maybe they've been dabbling a bit considering their financial situation. I want to wag my superiority around too, though. >=F | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 09 2013 14:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Cause Corporations now abide by rules and labor standards.... That and those "unskilled" workers should really just agree to accept living below normal standards of living unlike those "skilled" classes. Serfdom and a Caste System all around! You act like you're not already a financial serf. I suppose it just comes down to what sort of serf you're willing to be. Standards of living are subjective, there is no teleological end or goal for what constitutes a "high standard of life". As such, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this assessment. I guess it's clever pathos. Unless you were agreeing...in which case...ugh...I can't really tell. xD | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On May 10 2013 00:15 Kimaker wrote: You act like you're not already a financial serf. I suppose it just comes down to what sort of serf you're willing to be. Standards of living are subjective, there is no teleological end or goal for what constitutes a "high standard of life". As such, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this assessment. I guess it's clever pathos. Unless you were agreeing...in which case...ugh...I can't really tell. xD Actually modern psychology and sociology make it pretty easy to construct a fairly impartial standard of living that would result in contentment for most people insofar as they wouldn't be struggling. People who work every day and barely make ends meet are not in an enviable position. The fact is that our society can do a lot better, therefore it should. | ||
| ||
