| 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. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23460 Posts
On September 16 2017 15:00 Aquanim wrote: I think this is only true for a careful definition of the word "owe". It is not as though he had his slaves ghostwrite the Declaration of Independence. He wouldn't have been writing much of anything without them is the point. So I don't think we need to be too careful. But yeah, they didn't write it. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On September 16 2017 14:51 Aquanim wrote: I don't think you've yet made the point that Wulfey_LA's post is "doing everything you accuse people you disagree with" in a way that convinces me. What exactly are you saying Wulfey is accusing other people of that you think his post is itself doing? Being intolerant of other people's opinions, or something else? edit: Also, what is the nature of your disagreement with the statement that "conservatives place value on the tradition of respecting historical figures, as opposed to being open to reconsidering the merits of those historical figures"? So his post basically accuses conservatives of not thinking, then really just mutters on until I guess the main point of being that conservatives might somehow provide bad faith arguments, a slippery slope argument, and then ,oddly decides to force everyone to google a word in order to just get back to, appealing to the hipocracy of the other sides arguments. So first the not thinking. he makes no examples no points and no arguments. Theres no thinking involved in the post other then to repeat thoughts he had. That the post lacks any elaboration or change to these ideas shows there was no thinking involved in the post. It was just repeating what was in his head. "proposing to question" is just nonsense. Bad faith is obvious from the generalization of everyone who disagrees with him and the dismissal of any possible argument that they might have yet at the same time not think of. Slippery slope comes from him connecting "conservatives think everything will be better if people listen to tradition" to an elimination of any thought or argument about the monuments contradicting that people should listen to tradition instead of blindly following tradition. This is the appeal to hipocracy that he acuses conservatives of. The bulk of his post is him supporting his argument with an appeal to conservatives hippoocracy on the issue. the nature of my argument is that the value of the tradition of respecting historical figures is core to learning from them and understanding history better. Even at the least learning on what not to do. "those that don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" basically. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
And your attitude is awful Sermokala. How did you get so triggered by a rhetorical flourish? I used the ~"the conservative doesn't think. Traditions decides" line to focus the distinction between lib historical analysis. You just fly off the handle cause of one point. Further, what am I accusing people of that I don't have explicit backup on? You leapt up to attacking me as a speaker the moment my flourish triggered you. You never even tried to dispute my characterization of the lib/con divide here. EDIT: I am making a descriptive argument here, not a normative one. Have some facts: Conservatives make slippery slope arguments: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-first-they-tore-down-confederate-monuments-next-theyll-come-for-the-founders/ Libs making arguments with a whole lot of factual details that cons ignore: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/statues-washington-jefferson-aren-t-next-it-s-complicated-historians-n793971 And of course you are great example of attacking a speaker instead of trying to dispute any of my assertions. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On September 16 2017 15:21 Sermokala wrote:... the nature of my argument is that the value of >the tradition of respecting historical figures< is core to >learning from them and understanding history better<. Even at the least learning on what not to do. "those that don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" basically. I don't really see how the first and the second are related. I think it's entirely possible to learn from historical figures without respecting them, or having a tradition of respecting them. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On September 16 2017 18:14 Aquanim wrote: I don't really see how the first and the second are related. I think it's entirely possible to learn from historical figures without respecting them, or having a tradition of respecting them. Its possible but it's much less likely and I would say much harder to justify anyone's attention. Looking at a statue implies the kind of credibility that's at the core of why the Confederate statues are being removed instead of ignored. Also there's I belive a difference between respecting the person for what he's done in history and respecting a person for his place in history. The magna Carta was ground breaking but only for the nobles as was "all men are created equal" wasn't meaning even all white men. We still respect those events as much as we should respect the people's place in history that were there. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On September 16 2017 15:35 Wulfey_LA wrote: I am not trying to argue on the merits. I am trying to describe the arguments being made by the arguing groups, and point out how the groups are arguing on utterly skew points. If you listen to people at the rallies or conservatives being interviewed on the street, they stand by the traditional value of the statues and all the lib concerns about the facts of the lives behind the statutes never comes up. For the statue argument to progress past yelling past each other, then both sides to settle on what axis to argue. And your attitude is awful Sermokala. How did you get so triggered by a rhetorical flourish? I used the ~"the conservative doesn't think. Traditions decides" line to focus the distinction between lib historical analysis. You just fly off the handle cause of one point. Further, what am I accusing people of that I don't have explicit backup on? You leapt up to attacking me as a speaker the moment my flourish triggered you. You never even tried to dispute my characterization of the lib/con divide here. EDIT: I am making a descriptive argument here, not a normative one. Have some facts: Conservatives make slippery slope arguments: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-first-they-tore-down-confederate-monuments-next-theyll-come-for-the-founders/ Libs making arguments with a whole lot of factual details that cons ignore: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/statues-washington-jefferson-aren-t-next-it-s-complicated-historians-n793971 And of course you are great example of attacking a speaker instead of trying to dispute any of my assertions. You don't need to add in an edit to all your posts. Let's begin on this, I don't think the words you are using mean what what you think they mean. Saying that you arn't arguing the merits of an argument is a baffling start to any post but yours is much worse in that your whole post is arguing the merits of each argument. You arn't making detailed points or showing examples of things you're just making judgements on things and expecting people to agree with you beacuse you compare the blaze to msnbc. I don't think you understand that the msnbc article wasn't an opinion piece but was just reporting on an issue. The author just links events to people's responses to those events in a way to inform the reader. It at least appeals to tradition and makes the issue about why the statues were made and nothing about the statues or the people depicted. You talk about people being interviewed at protests and the arguments they make. Do you think the people at these events care about exchanging ideas or aren't emotionally involved? I'm not saying their opinions arn't indicative but they're hardly the first place I'd go to show honest examples of real arguments. You come very near making sense on the idea that neither party is arguing on the same axis but you never describe how both sides skew past eachother other then your snide insistence that one side is entirely based on the facts and that the other side somehow doesn't. I don't know what's worse that you're accusing me of being triggered by my obvious baffle ment at your post or that you think that " people who don't think like me don't think" is a rhetorical flourish. You start your post by using my name and saying how my attitude is awful and then end your paragraph with the words "you leapt to attacking me as a speaker the moment my statement triggered you". That's exactly the thing I said that you were doing in your last two posts. I mean Jesus I go on about how you don't make arguments and you don't make examples and then you reinforce this by not making arguments and then you ask what exactly you are accusing people up without "explicit backup". Nothing there is what's being argued. In saying you arn't making acusations and you have no facts. You make a series of statements and never went anywhere past the things you where thinking of. Finally the edit. Are you just making the descriptive argument for the portion of the edit or is this a retroactive statement? You can't link to news reporting and say that they are facts that's not how any of this works. You take a quote from said article set the person up as the other I mean a conservative or liberal and then make an argument from that example. The lack of effort to even fully type out conservative or liberal next to an lack of context and engagement baffles and intrigues me. | ||
|
Schmobutzen
Germany284 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 16 2017 14:34 Sermokala wrote: But thats wrong. He advocated for the ending of the slave trade and freed a few of this slaves. That he wanted a slower more pragmatic freeing of slaves rather then setting them all free and hoping for the best means that hes bad enough to be ignored in history? Abolitionists were fringe people at the time and the southern states wouldn't have gone into a new nation if slavery was banned from the start. Should we really be punishing the people who wanted the nation to be whole and not segmented? What I'm trying to say isn't that Jefferson was one of the enlightened slave owners. I'm trying to say in context he wasn't as shitty of a person as he by all rights should be expected he should have been. For the sake of recognizing progress allowances have to be made for where we were before we made said progress. I was trying to get us all to agree that he was better then king Leopold in Belgium and that they seem to be fine with the contextualization that they've put him in. The Jefferson plan of setting slaves free slowly always rang hollow, since he never did it himself. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 16 2017 09:37 Plansix wrote: I borrowed my attorney's copy for a couple lunch breaks and got that impression myself. Her editor might have helped her punch it up a bit. That person in the book is a far better candidate than the one she and her team constructed. but also, look much of the candidate hillary people knew came from 30 second tweets, breaking news headlines and the like. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
Equifax on Friday said that Susan Mauldin, chief security officer, and David Webb, chief information officer, were retiring. Equifax two top technology executives leave company 'effective immediately' Naturally, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" only applies to people who don't happen to be corporate officers employed by a company that should not exist in the first place; a cushy retirement following one of the largest breaches ever...yeah, fuck that. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 17 2017 01:33 farvacola wrote: Hey, y'all remember when I pointed out that Equifax employed a Music MFA as chief security officer? They just forced her out lol. Equifax two top technology executives leave company 'effective immediately' Naturally, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" only applies to people who don't happen to be corporate officers employed by a company that should not exist in the first place; a cushy retirement following one of the largest breaches ever...yeah, fuck that. Hey, you don't know. Maybe she was a programming wiz with a lot of practical experience. You know, after she discovered her MFA was "worthless" in the STEM economy. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
 That said, I think the real offense comes from the fact that she will likely face no real punishment, you're right that we can't really know how she came into that job. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
taking a quick look, the equifax CSO was an exec at first data corp and suntrust before. that's a solid resume. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35162 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28706 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
________ On September 16 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote: So marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society, that you must vehemently argue against because it is a slippery slope. Ok...y'all.There's a certain pain involved when someone can't distinguish between what you have the right to do and what's a good idea in society. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
This is a GOP state rep talking about dealing with protestors in St. louis | ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
OSC
Kung Fu Cup
Classic vs Solar
herO vs Cure
Reynor vs GuMiho
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Solar vs Zoun
MaxPax vs Bunny
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
PiGosaur Monday
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
