|
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. |
On December 04 2012 07:41 silynxer wrote:
If you read anthropological literature about shell money and bead money you would realize that the people who used it didn't use it as money in the sense we do (universal measure of value). What you can buy with these kind of "currencies" and what you cannot buy is pretty specific, for example most of the time you cannot buy food. If you want me to be more specific you can give me a specific example.
It's not a simple medium of exchange but a universal one. We might be talking past each other and if you feel that way you can define money in any other way you want and I'll start from there (you may even be right under your definition). Probably defining value would also be good.
This reasoning seems like a real stretch to me. If the shells had value to people then they could have been traded for food easily, but the specifics don't really matter here anyway... We could talk about gold or a dozen other examples. Are you really claiming there has never been a form of currency or money before governments created them? Just want to make sure I understand your argument here.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On December 04 2012 07:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:33 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 07:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 07:18 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 07:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 07:04 Souma wrote:On December 04 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not discussing what is fair or just, I'm simply asking the question of how one can equate the lack of funding as spending. if I work for K-Mart (I don't) and they decide to pay me $100,000/yr instead of $200,000/yr, I haven't spent 100K, nor have I given K-Mart 100K. likewise, if the government passes a 10% tax cut, they haven't spent 10% more, they've just taken 10% less.
as for it being "fair", that isn't the point. further, it wasn't the government that created any of the various things that helped me (roads, planes, hospitals, etc.) that was all built and funded by tax-payers. the government doesn't spend or build anything without the money (and labor) they receive from the tax-payers. That's a terrible statement. That's like saying an employee didn't do anything because he is paid by his boss and the place he works in was created by construction workers paid by his boss. The government is the employee of the people. Their labor is equivalent to any other employee's labor. the employee was already paid for his work, he doesn't deserve anything more. further, the government is not an employee, but is a body composed of employees. and those employees fund nothing on their own, and produce nothing on their own. the government can't go looking for recognition from tax-payers for approving the building of a road using other people's labor and other people's money. so actually, it's the government that should be thanking me (and every other tax-payer) for the roads. not the other way around. No. No one is "already" paid for their work. They are paid to do the work. An employee does not fund anything on their own either. An employee at KFC does not fund the chicken, the building, the cash registers. The only funding that goes on is the boss funding the employee and everything else. The government is the same. They are an employee (or a conglomerate of employees) and we are their bosses. We give them money and they get stuff done and we pay them for it. If an employee at KFC can get recognition for the fruits of their labor, surely the government can as well. we give them money, and they decide to approve the use of that money. that's all. they don't build the actual roads (that's construction workers), fight the wars (soldiers), or cure the sick (doctors). and any employee of KFC that literally takes a part of his KFC paycheck to pay another person to do all of his work does not deserve recognition of anything, nor does he deserve a raise. at least the KFC employee actually does the work, and doesn't just pay someone else to do it. the government isn't even comparable to the manager of the KFC, because they don't even write the goddamn bills. they pay staffers and aids and lawyers to write the bills. The KFC example was just me showing you that just because someone does not fund something and instead receives funding for their work, it does not nullify the fruits of their labor. I suppose the more precise analogy here would be that we, the people, their bosses, are the board of directors. We hire/fire/give bonuses and or raises/etc. to the chief executives of the company and expect them to do a good job. The CEO is paid by the company/stockholders and hires people (who hire other people) to do the rest of the work. The CEO does not write the contracts, he does not sell the products, he does not build the stores. Are you still going to tell him that his job amounts to nothing, or that he does not deserve recognition? the problem here is that this CEO cannot be fired (can't get rid of the government), can arbitrarily raise his own wage (tax-hikes), determines what his scope of responsibility is (legislation), and enforces all of this with an iron-fist (federal policing). at that point, I would say that the CEO doesn't deserve much recognition from the people who only tolerate him because they have no other choice. I can give recognition to a governor or legislator who governs wisely. I cannot give recognition for someone doing a job they've chosen to do when that job is 1) easy as 123 ABC, and 2) they get paid well above their worth, and 3) they do a terrible job of it.
CEO can be fired (think of government as a bunch of CEOs, because well, there are a bunch of branches of government, and while you cannot get rid of government, you can get rid of those in charge), government cannot "arbitrarily" raise his own wage (hi, we vote for people to do that, and it's not a wage - tax hikes are raising funding for the company), does not determine what the scope of his responsibility is (we determine what kinds of legislation we want through voting and we have the Supreme Court for checks), and federal policing is also a job that society necessitated.
And really, since when is governing as easy as 123 ABC? You think being the President, governor, Senator etc. is easy? lol. And you think being paid $400,000 to be the President is being paid "well above their worth"? You're insane. Legislators are often people who would be making tons more money out in the private sector.
|
i guess it's all abstract though, because the fact is that the government is going to do what it's going to do, and cost-benefit analysis will lead me to pay what they tell me to pay, and register when they tell me to register. the alternatives remain impractical for the foreseeable future (though secession does sound more attractive day by day).
what I was originally trying to get at was the idea that Barack's proposal was anything but a compromise, and couldn't possibly be serious as a starting point for negotiation. basically, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. he says in one breath that we (Republicans) need to compromise and work with him, but then he refuses to do anything but suggest the most radical measures he could possibly come up with.
even if you think his ideas are great (how the fuq?), you have to understand that any GOP member who votes yes on it might as well commit seppuku now before the voters do it for him/her. in what way is that practical or pragmatic?
|
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:your WSJ articles are only for subscribers, but I've got one of my own that addresses this exact topic: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE89201220121003Show nested quote +Officials familiar with them said they contained evidence that members of a militant faction, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, were involved in the assaults.
The report did not allege the attacks were a reaction to the anti-Muslim film, but acknowledged it was possible that the attackers sought to use an outbreak of violence in Cairo over the film, which insulted the Prophet Mohammad, as a pretext for attacks.
One official said initial reporting suggested militants had begun planning attacks on U.S. targets in Benghazi before September 11, but may well have decided to use the protests as a pretext for moving forward that day.
Reuters reported on September 12, citing U.S. government officials, that the attacks may have been planned and organized in advance, and that members of Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM may have been involved.
Yet on September 15, administration officials, relying upon what they said was other information from intelligence agencies, circulated to members of Congress a set of talking points prepared by the CIA that purported to summarize what U.S. intelligence knew.
Ok, apparently you did not pay attention when reading my post because I already addressed this point: "it being a terrorist attack and it being a response to the video (even among other reasons) are obviously not antithetical propositions". How exactly was it impossible that extremists belonging to Al-Qaeda-related cells decided to launch an attack in response to the video, or using protests against the video for their attack? Again, and as is clearly highlighted in the links I gave you (only one of which is for subscribers only, and you can still read the abstract, the intelligence community GENUINELY THOUGHT that the attack had evolved from the protests at the time Susan Rice appeared on television. The first serious doubts came on September 15th-September 16th, but were not voiced to Susan Rice and the Obama administration until after Rice appeared on-air. Now, this does not mean that the intelligence community did not consider that terrorist elements had participated in or directed the attacks - in fact, I already gave you a link explaining why the term "extremists" was used by the intelligence community in the talking points that were sent to Rice, instead of direct references to Al-Qaeda/Ansar al-Shariah members.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
you are flat out wrong. there was an initial report which was edited, and this occurred about four-five days before Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows.
Do show me this report that excludes any possibility of there having been a protest and that was supposedly released "four-five days before Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows".
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
if she actually believed her own story, which is far-fetched to say the least,
It's not far-fetched. I just explained to you why it happened like it happened.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
there still is no reason why she didn't review the actual report instead of just repeating the edited talking points.
There was no such definitive and clear report that excluded the possibility of protests "four-five days" before she went on air. Again, the intelligence community legitimately did believe, based on the available intelligence at the time, that the attack had evolved from protests. There were conflicting reports, and the first serious doubts arised right before Susan Rice went on air and she was not warned of this.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
as for there being no cover-up.... well, since her and Obama were spinning a lie
Not true. The early assessment that the attack had evolved from a protest was wrong, but it wasn't a lie, which supposes intent to deceive.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obama knowingly,
Not true.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
her allegedly unknowingly, that is good evidence there is a cover-up.
Still not true.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
especially considering the fact that the CIA had already reported facts to the contrary of what the administration was telling the American people,
Not true. Rice never said that the attack had not been carried by militants. Again, she specifically used the term "extremists" to refer to them, as instructed by the intelligence community. Let me repeat this one more time: the term "extremists" was used to refer to the militants.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
they absolutely must have known that what they were saying was untrue.
The only thing that they said that was not true was that the attack had evolved from a protest. And they did not know it was untrue at the time, and they said that new information might prove this early assessment wrong - basically, they said exactly what they should have said when commenting based on information subject to change.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it is ludicrous that they shouldn't be held responsible for lying because they happened to comment that the investigation might turn up evidence that they were lying.
Again, to lie implies an intent to deceive. There was no such intent to deceive here. They provided the public with what the intelligence community thought at the time, phrased like the intelligence community thought the information should be phrased.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +You are wrong. Again, on September 16, when she went on-air, the intelligence community's investigation results at that point were what was she was provided with and what she said. To assert that "everyone knew it was untrue" is simply false. I somehow knew it was untrue,
No you didn't. Especially since you still don't seem to understand the only thing that was not true was what they said about there being a protest at the site.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
along with Fox News,
Nope. And in fact, like I said, Fox News' reporting seems to have been wrong regarding the role of the video.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
pretty much most Republicans, a lot of Democrats, and the CIA and anyone else who read their unedited report, which you straight up ignored.
Nope, nope, and nope. And show me the report.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the report was not edited on September 15th, but days before that. but Susan Rice, alone in all the world, seemed to think (with no evidence) that there was a protest, that it wasn't premeditated, and that it was all about the video. despite a CIA report telling her otherwise (which had then been edited by.... we don't know yet). you can keep shouting "talking points" all day but that doesn't change her responsibility to review the talking points with the actual intelligence, which would have told her that there was no protest, the attacks were premeditated, and that the video was just a red herring.
I have provided you with several sources that dealt specifically, and with much more detail and accuracy than your outdated October 3 article, with what the intelligence was at the time. This was corroborated by Petraeus' testimony. The intelligence available at the time mostly pointed to exactly what Susan Rice said. The first serious doubts appeared just before she spoke and she was not notified of them.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +You seem to have been influenced by Fox talking points and to be unaware of the information available on the matter - several reports have actually indicated that the attack may very well have been launched because of the video, regardless of the apparent absence of protests beforehand. except they had been targeting Steven's and the consulate for months now. and you definitely need to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._diplomatic_mission_in_Benghazi#Investigation_timelinethis puts a damper on that. we knew well before Sept. 16 that this was almost certainly not about any video. the fighters "declaring" that it was is the most laughable thing I've ever heard. I guess it's impossible for terrorists to lie about why they're attacking something... who knew?
Your wikipedia link shows nothing but that there has been speculation by various actors about the motives behind the attack. Meanwhile, some of the people who participated in it and locals who spoke to some of the people who participated in it say many were acting in reaction to the video. I'm not saying there's definitive evidence one way or the other, but it remains very possible that the video played a role, for example by leading the group to decide to execute on that day an attack that they were potentially ready for.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote + it takes some time to establish exactly what happened, if it's possible at all. funny how my first assessments were pretty spot on, and how Fox News was pretty spot on, and how Democrats have been pretty spot-off every time. this is irrelevant anyway, because we're not talking about it taking forever for Obama to get his story straight, we're talking about him and his administration directly ignoring or editing reports which contradicted his chosen story for what happened. the information was already out there, so this criticism of my point makes no sense.
I've addressed all of this. My criticism of your point makes perfect sense.
On December 04 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +The intelligence community genuinely believed there had been protests in Benghazi like in Cairo, and that the attack had evolved from these protests. lol, no they didn't. the report that they sent out proves that, along with the eye-witness testimony of everyone on the ground, and even the Libyan President knew that that was bullshit. this is you making things up out of thin air.
YES THEY DID. I provided you with recent and detailed sources supporting that they initially did, although more serious doubts started appearing on September 15-16. You haven't addressed any of those sources. Feel free to call the intelligence community incompetent or slow to react to contradicting evidence, but Rice and the Obama administration spoke based on what their own intelligence community told them, as is the case in any state.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
@sc2: Everything you say ignores the fact that this government was voted in by the majority of the people. So if you're going to say stuff like, "we build the roads, infrastructure, etc." then you should also be saying, "we are the ones who raise taxes."
|
On December 02 2012 16:30 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 15:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 02 2012 14:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:
so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt. Tell me, what's so ridiculous about it? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/30/the-best-idea-in-american-politics-kill-the-debt-ceiling/The idea comes from a most unlikely source: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), who proposed in July 2011 to permit the president to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling unless Congress affirmatively voted to stop him. And even if Congress did vote to stop him, the president could veto, and then Congress would need to overturn his veto. that is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard suggested, in my life, from a United States President. I don't care if the idea did come from Mitch McConnell (even though his version was wildly different), it's still the stupidest thing I've ever seen. yeah, we'll just turn over the constitutional power of the Congress to the President real quick. good idea. it's so offensive I'm not surprised you didn't include it in your description. + Show Spoiler +It's weighted towards tax increases on the rich, instead of spending cuts, because according to the CBO's recent report on the fiscal cliff, that's what's least contractionary to the economy per dollar of deficit reduction. It includes stimulus, because in the short run, spending cuts are contractionary (which is why we want to avoid the fiscal cliff). And it's been compared to Obama's old proposal. So what? Obama won the election, his proposal has been endorsed by the American electorate. it spends more money when we already spend too much, it extends tax hikes to the American people when we have a problem with growth, and it really shines where it "cuts" a fraction of what we need to cut. the best part? it's political suicide for a Republican to even come close to thinking about touching it. the thing is so toxic that we would be better served in flying right off the cliff. Also, extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class right away is Obama's plan. As he said, he has the pen to sign that into law right now. awesome, the President and I finally agree on something. I pray to God that Republicans see the light and decide to see if he'll actually walk the walk, instead of just talking. When did the right start quoting Ezra Klein? The debt ceiling is a completely arbitrary and pointless limitation. The article you've quoted already gives heaps of reasons why it's economically bad. But here's a few more. Firstly,while debt can decrease as a % of GDP, it will virtually always increase in nominal terms, so even if we are being fiscally responsible and shrinking debt to GDP, the debt ceiling will still need to be continuously raised. Secondly, removing the debt ceiling isn't taking away any powers from Congress, because Congress approves spending. So it makes no sense for Congress to simultaneously approve spending while threatening that the US will default because of the spending it already approved. Lastly, no other country that I'm aware of has this artificial limitation and no economic theory says that it is good policy to have a debt ceiling. You say that Obama's proposal adds to much spending. But the spending it adds, which is for infrastructure, is a tiny fraction to the overall deficit reduction of the plan. For example, there's $50 billion in infrastructure spending, but compare this to extending the Bush tax cuts for families over 250K which will cost $1 trillion according to the CBO. There's so much hypocrisy against increasing spending, when it's actually the cuts to spending through the fiscal cliff that's part of what's going to put the economy back into recession. Then there's the utter hypocrisy of extending $1 trillion of tax cuts to the rich, people who would likely save most of that money, while talking about the deficit as if it is apocalyptic for the economy. You've dismissed raising taxes on the rich, because of it's growth effects in a weak economy. What about the growth effects of the proposed infrastructure spending? For some numbers, the CBO estimates that extending the middle class Bush cuts will add $0.5 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit over the next 2 years. Also extending them for the rich will add an additional $0.1 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit. Compare this to cuts on the spending side of the fiscal cliff: the defense spending as part of the sequester would add $1.2 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit, and the nondefense spending with the medicare cuts would add $0.9 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit. Extending unemployment benefits (which I believe is also in Obama's proposal) would add $1.1 to GDP per $1 increase in the deficit for 2013 according to this very recent report.
Off course america can spend more.
Due to a certain piece of technology america has unlimited monney as Ben Bernanke explained, a concept that manny people here still dont get when talking about the debt celing.
To finance this extra spending america has to lend monney (Aka monney printing).
Despite its massive debt the usa has no problem whatsoever in atracting monney on the financial markets and you may wonder why.
One of the parties on the monney market is the fed, now when america wants to lend monney at a certain rate and noone wants to lend the fed steps in to buy the bunds.
The fed has not a huge pot of gold but it has a printing press wich is capable of printing fresh dollar notes, and to pay for these purchases they simply turn it on. (yes this is realy the way it works)
The amount of dollars is growing and the dollar is devaluating.
The devaluation is kept somewhat in control by making all this new monney debt monney, it has to be repaid and the monney can and will be taken out of the system again at one point in the future (to be replaced by an even bigger amount of newly created monney off course)
The fed manages the monney amount and with that how much america can spend.
Productivity is always growing, so the monney amount should grow slowly overtime going in waves.
Sometimes a bit faster growth when the economy is in a slump, sometimes a bit slower when the economy is overheating.
Never can the fed deviate to much from the rise in production without sersiously devaluating the dollar wich will have massive negative impact for the usa.
From 2000 on and later america has been loosing the competition battle with asia and to a lesser extend even europe
Main reason for this i think are the verry high war costs the usa had to make in the past 10 years, dont think there is annything wrong with the usa economy fundamentally.
The dollar has fallen from like 1.20 euro for a dollar to now like 0.80 euro for a dollar.
The fed and america is at the end of its options with monetary expansion, there production is not keeping up and more monetary expansion will lead to a massive fall of the dollar, wich will lead to a huge drop in purchasing power for the american consumers.
In dollars counted they might have become more rich, but counted in purchase power they have lost wealth.
Americas monetary expansion has to keep pace with the expansions in asia and europe, it can not deviate to much from that.
|
On December 04 2012 07:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:41 silynxer wrote:
If you read anthropological literature about shell money and bead money you would realize that the people who used it didn't use it as money in the sense we do (universal measure of value). What you can buy with these kind of "currencies" and what you cannot buy is pretty specific, for example most of the time you cannot buy food. If you want me to be more specific you can give me a specific example.
It's not a simple medium of exchange but a universal one. We might be talking past each other and if you feel that way you can define money in any other way you want and I'll start from there (you may even be right under your definition). Probably defining value would also be good. This reasoning seems like a real stretch to me. If the shells had value to people then they could have been traded for food easily, but the specifics don't really matter here anyway...
This is a side-note and I'm hardly an expert, but you might be surprised. The idea of a universal sphere of exchange in which all things of value can be exchanged for all other things of value (universal commensurability) is a fairly modern idea. A lot of primitive societies have/had "spheres of exchange" (I forget the term) in which certain kinds of things are not allowed to be traded for other kinds of things.
|
On December 04 2012 07:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 07:41 silynxer wrote:
If you read anthropological literature about shell money and bead money you would realize that the people who used it didn't use it as money in the sense we do (universal measure of value). What you can buy with these kind of "currencies" and what you cannot buy is pretty specific, for example most of the time you cannot buy food. If you want me to be more specific you can give me a specific example.
It's not a simple medium of exchange but a universal one. We might be talking past each other and if you feel that way you can define money in any other way you want and I'll start from there (you may even be right under your definition). Probably defining value would also be good. This reasoning seems like a real stretch to me. If the shells had value to people then they could have been traded for food easily, but the specifics don't really matter here anyway... We could talk about gold or a dozen other examples. Are you really claiming there has never been a form of currency or money before governments created them? Just want to make sure I understand your argument here.
For the most part yes that's what I'm arguing and it's not even controversial in anthropological research (at this point I should mention David Graeber, especially Debt and more relevant to our discussion "Toward an anthropological theory of value: the false coin of our own dreams"). If you have some time to burn it could be an enlightening read (even if you disagree with everything that might be seen as political commentary), the latter book is a bit heavy in the terminology and language, though.
The specifics matter, especially what value means to different people in different societies is important in this discussion. The simplistic view of value as "everything that is desirable" would not do the topic justice. For example shell money in Hawaii had value in form of prestige and was important in certain rituals, the ways of exchange being highly ritualistic as well. To conflate this with our money would make the term money pretty useless in this discussion.
There have been times where money was still used shortly after a government collapsed (unsurprising), that much I can give you but the value of gold has always had a rather obvious connection to governments (using gold to back their currency, using gold coins as their currency, allowing taxes being paid in gold, that kind of stuff).
[EDIT]: By all means don't trust Graeber and read any other anthropological literature on that topic (he is just pretty accessible and "hip" right now).
|
@ kwizach
(every one of the WSJ articles said: "Subscriber only")
I have, multiple times, brought up the classified report that was edited. you have continued to ignore it. Susan Rice's talking points came off of an edited report which said that the attack was most likely preplanned. tell me, how do "extremists" plan an attack in response to a video when they haven't even heard of the video yet? if you will not address the (acknowledged) existence of the original report, then I will not, and cannot continue discussing this with you. ignorance is one thing. willful ignorance is something else entirely.
now, onto your other (mostly irrelevant) points:
the intelligence community GENUINELY THOUGHT that the attack had evolved from the protests at the time Susan Rice appeared on television.
there was literally no evidence of a protest, and there was never any indication, from any source, that a protest existed. the media and the Libyan government, and even (some) intelligence representatives had already discounted the existence of a protest prior to the attack. from the article that I posted (and you ignored):
The report did not allege the attacks were a reaction to the anti-Muslim film, but acknowledged it was possible that the attackers sought to use an outbreak of violence in Cairo over the film, which insulted the Prophet Mohammad, as a pretext for attacks.
the initial intelligence suggested that the video had nothing to do with the attack. that report was edited. do not keep telling me that she was going off of the best intelligence at the time when Patraeus testified that the talking points she received did not reflect their assessments (hence, the edited talking points). as for me showing you that report, perhaps you haven't heard but it's classified. which means I don't have access to it. get a grip.
Rice never said that the attack had not been carried by militants.
........... I never said she did. try to stay on-topic please.
Your wikipedia link shows nothing but that there has been speculation by various actors about the motives behind the attack.
it shows that the media, the Libyan government, and even the CIA believed that the attack was preplanned. as in: couldn't possibly be about a video they hadn't seen yet.
You haven't addressed any of those sources.
1) most of your sources are inaccessible, so I can't really address them directly.
2) I addressed all of your points
3) most of those sources "proved" things that I never contested.
it's like you're deliberately missing the point.
|
[EDIT]: By all means don't trust Graeber and read any other anthropological literature on that topic (he is just pretty accessible and "hip" right now).
Well I've never heard of the guy, but wikipedia says he is an anarchist, anti-capitalist, and involved in social and political activism including OWS. So maybe there is just a slight chance that his ideology is influencing his anthropology and not the other way around... lmao
|
On December 04 2012 08:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +[EDIT]: By all means don't trust Graeber and read any other anthropological literature on that topic (he is just pretty accessible and "hip" right now). Well I've never heard of the guy, but wikipedia says he is an anarchist, anti-capitalist, and involved in social and political activism including OWS. So maybe there is just a slight chance that his ideology is influencing his anthropology and not the other way around... lmao
Graeber is a leftist but the bit about spheres of exchange is noncontroversial
|
On December 04 2012 08:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +[EDIT]: By all means don't trust Graeber and read any other anthropological literature on that topic (he is just pretty accessible and "hip" right now). Well I've never heard of the guy, but wikipedia says he is an anarchist, anti-capitalist, and involved in social and political activism including OWS. So maybe there is just a slight chance that his ideology is influencing his anthropology and not the other way around... lmao
That's why I added the edit. I'm aware that the findings of a scientist with dissenting political opinions will always first be attacked based on his views. But like I said feel free to read books (or peer reviewed papers) from any other anthropologist about any culture that you think used money without a governing structure.
|
On December 04 2012 08:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +[EDIT]: By all means don't trust Graeber and read any other anthropological literature on that topic (he is just pretty accessible and "hip" right now). Well I've never heard of the guy, but wikipedia says he is an anarchist, anti-capitalist, and involved in social and political activism including OWS. So maybe there is just a slight chance that his ideology is influencing his anthropology and not the other way around... lmao
Or maybe once in your posting career you could show at least a passing interest in learning about a perspective that clashes with your own. Some posters who disagree with you have at least made an attempt to understand your viewpoint a la consuming the works of people like Hayek, and yet everytime someone recommends a potentially radical thinker like a Graeber or Arendt, you immediately make surface level indictments of their ideology without giving their actual thoughts an intellectually honest chance. Come on dude.
|
No, I simply understand that people often have a pre-existing ideology which they seek to justify or support with research or whatever. It's an extremely common occurrence, obviously. There is a reason you don't see me posting studies from places like Cato or Heritage, for example.
Please keep your condescending opinions about me to yourself from now on. If you think I haven't read any leftist authors you are deluding yourself. In fact it's almost certain I've read more left authors than you have read right. I've read tons of leftist authors, but I'm not going to read a "scientist" political activist who conveniently discovers the world fits perfectly into his ideology.
David Graeber attempts to outline areas of research that intellectuals might explore in creating a body of anarchist social theory.
Pretty much sums it up. Research not for the sake of truth but for the sake of political theory.
|
So long as you continue to post in threads intended to foster productive dialogue, I'm going to call out your impediments as such. By not even giving the actual words of the thinker provided by a fellow poster even a shred of credence, you are effectively breaking multiple rules of this thread. You've just written off an entire persons breadth of thought based on a cursory reading of a Wikipedia page, and that is intellectually dishonest.
|
Farv, you really need to chill the fuck out. Intellectually dishonest? If they are an outright political activist and state outright that they do research to support ideology then of course I can call into question the reliability of their research. I know you'd love to shut me up but try to practice a little tolerance and self-control please.
|
On December 04 2012 08:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:No, I simply understand that people often have a pre-existing ideology which they seek to justify or support with research or whatever. It's an extremely common occurrence, obviously. There is a reason you don't see me posting studies from places like Cato or Heritage, for example. Please keep your condescending opinions about me to yourself from now on. If you think I haven't read any leftist authors you are deluding yourself. In fact it's almost certain I've read more left authors than you have read right. I've read tons of leftist authors, but I'm not going to read a "scientist" political activist who conveniently discovers the world fits perfectly into his ideology. Show nested quote +David Graeber attempts to outline areas of research that intellectuals might explore in creating a body of anarchist social theory. Pretty much sums it up. Research not for the sake of truth but for the sake of political theory.
Trying to create an anarchist social theory is something anthropologists can very well want to do without being anarchists as many of their study subjects live without governments. I'm not sure why you take offense with this quote in particular.
But well I made my point with or without Graeber and the only thing I will say in his defense is that he is pretty well established in the scientific community and his books are accessible and well sourced. If you are interested in the subject and disregard him before reading any of his work you are doing yourself a disservice.
|
Actually, I have no interest in "shutting you up"; I actually think you bring an interesting and needed alternative opinion to these boards, I only wish you'd critique the actuality of the ideas presented rather than time and time again stopping at the ideological signpost and then closing your eyes and ears.
|
On December 04 2012 09:06 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 08:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:No, I simply understand that people often have a pre-existing ideology which they seek to justify or support with research or whatever. It's an extremely common occurrence, obviously. There is a reason you don't see me posting studies from places like Cato or Heritage, for example. Please keep your condescending opinions about me to yourself from now on. If you think I haven't read any leftist authors you are deluding yourself. In fact it's almost certain I've read more left authors than you have read right. I've read tons of leftist authors, but I'm not going to read a "scientist" political activist who conveniently discovers the world fits perfectly into his ideology. David Graeber attempts to outline areas of research that intellectuals might explore in creating a body of anarchist social theory. Pretty much sums it up. Research not for the sake of truth but for the sake of political theory. Trying to create an anarchist social theory is something anthropologists can very well want to do without being anarchists as many of their study subjects live without governments. I'm not sure why you take offense with this quote in particular. But well I made my point with or without Graeber and the only thing I will say in his defense is that he is pretty well established in the scientific community and his books are accessible and well sourced. If you are interested in the subject and disregard him before reading any of his work you are doing yourself a disservice.
Yeah, I didn't really argue the point you made, just gave a passing comment about Graeber and farv lost it.
I'm actually interested in anarchist theory so I might even give him a try. I just really dislike anyone who tries to turn science into a normative instrument.
On December 04 2012 08:53 farvacola wrote:
So long as you continue to post in threads intended to foster productive dialogue, I'm going to call out your impediments as such. By not even giving the actual words of the thinker provided by a fellow poster even a shred of credence, you are effectively breaking multiple rules of this thread. You've just written off an entire persons breadth of thought based on a cursory reading of a Wikipedia page, and that is intellectually dishonest.
When you suggest that someone is impeding discussion and is breaking the rules of the thread, it sounds to me like you are asking for moderation to shut me up. I will take your word for it if this is not what you want, but please be more careful saying these things because a mod might agree with these exaggerations.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the problem with your particular 'doubting' of graeber is that
1. you don't know anything about anthropology
2. you only go on his political affiliations
your charge seems to be that if a guy is a leftist then his academic work is biased because of it. this is just ridiculous for reasons that seem nonobvious to you.
there is no need to spend time defending your stance here since you could use that time to get properly informed.
of course, that might not help you when you think libertarianism is some great moral lighthouse
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
