|
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 06 2017 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
I have no idea what this means, so I highly doubt that this is what I'm saying.
Aren't universal human rights listen by the UN something we've come up with after WW II? Isn't the way the world economy functions deeply rooted in Western developments? Haven't most of the countries in a globalized world adopted these values, even if they're superficial to fool other nations?
This is not only speculative, but it is demonstrably untrue. As just one example, mainstream Muslim philosophers explicitly rejected the very conclusions that contemporary Christian philosophers made that ultimate led to the Enlightenment. You're clearly out of your depth, here.
Oh shit, religious ideologues clashing with each other? It's almost like certain civilization have their fundamentals in religion or something.. The enlightenment was part of a complex emergence of prosperity for Europe, where we gained a vast upper hand on technology and other core principles to strong arm the rest of the known world with.
However, being in constant battles in Jerusalem, parts of Northern Africa or Spain depending where Muslims were set back to we've had our clear cultural nemesis. We weren't stupid enough to start shit with China, right?
Why would Muslim philosophers be the only ones to be considered here? What about America, India, China or whatever. If we didn't have the impact we had, a vastly different take on society or how the world would function today could've presented itself. That you can't see that, is because you don't understand what the implications are of being innovative.
Again, you're demonstrating zero understanding of how this stuff works. I don't believe that Western culture is superior because Western culture established a "rulebook" that is now "more or less followed by the world." Western culture is superior because it adheres to and promotes critically important values of individual liberty and freedom that are expressly rejected by every other culture around the world. You need to demonstrate the slightest aptitude for understanding what the argument even is before you engage in it.
Every other culture? Are you kidding me? The only reason we have the luxury of being "free" and parading it everywhere else and tryint to shove it down everyone's throat is because we've basically created an Utopia when it related to the rest of the World. We're stable and we have all the resources. Do you honestly think, though, that middle class people in China or India are less free than us? Your idea of freedom and the promotion thereof are a fantasy. You've just become one of the characters in a satire.
|
On December 06 2017 03:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that?
It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. Seriously, what a construction! My bad behavior is justified because they started it! On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:
Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter. Liquid'Drone and Falling are useful examples of the reverse. You see, for example, Drone engaging on a stance he thinks is immoral, or an argument unfair, without dipping into unfair backlashes, flippant comments, and paragraphs of pure insults. NewSunshine deserves credit for owning up to doing himself exactly what he likes to insult others for doing, even if he thinks he has more cause for the misbehavior than others. If you weren't trying to read what you want into what he said, you would know that he doesn't believe that his bad behavior is justified, he believes that he doesn't have bad behavior on this topic. However, props to you for doing exactly what you give props to NewSunshine for owning up to doing without owning up to it yourself. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [ they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech. "I'm guilty as charged" doesn't mean that he accepts his own hypocrysy "because you provoked him", it means that he views the accusation that was made against him as futile and he dismisses it. "If you call people who don't accept your bullshit "polarizing" because they don't accept your bullshit, then I'm guilty". It's pretty clear. This comes back to my original critic to Sermo. You're never polarizing for having extreme views, we're polarizing for not compromising with you. In your case at least I'm pretty sure you know this is a rhetorical trick but I wasn't sure when it comes to Sermo (and I'm still not, cause his answers are generally weird). My answer is yes? You're inherently labeling their views as extreme and refusing to compromise thats as polarizing as you can get. Nothing good has come from anything without compromise. Its the definitive good answer to any argument or situation you can be in. You shouldn't compromise your limits of compromise for the sake of compromising but thats you compromising with how much you should compromise.
Reality is labeling their views as extreme, so I am too. I like reality. I guess I could compromise and pretend that they're not extreme, is that what you want me to do? Not a big fan of those compromises between being factually correct and being factually incorrect.
|
@plabsix: Everyone should just stop with bullshit like this again. Why on earth is this tweet post worthy?
Edit: this moved quick
|
On December 06 2017 03:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:55 Logo wrote:It's nice to see the lawyers bringing up actual relevant cases ( not like the examples brought up here yesterday)
For support, [ACLU Lawyer Mr. Cole] turns to the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 opinion rejecting a claim that members of the Native American Church could not be penalized because they used peyote, a sacrament in their faith that nevertheless was illegal under state law.
Justice Scalia’s reasoning followed Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 case rejecting a Mormon’s claim that his religious faith exempted him from bigamy laws. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances," the court said then
Show nested quote +Ms. Waggoner tries to march through three points she has prepared in rebuttal. She argues that, 1) the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was biased because it did not cite bakers who refused to bake cakes denigrating same-sex marriage; 2) that Mr. Phillips is entitled to “dignity” under the law for his “honorable and decent beliefs about marriage,” and 3) that public opinion about same-sex marriage is moving already in Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins’s direction. Kristen K Waggoner, lawyer for Masterpiece Cakeshop arguing for the baker, brought identical examples to what I brought up yesterday. Logo, here's your chance to tell me that she's also a dummy for bringing them up before the highest court in the land when her client stands liable to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. Specifically, do you walk back "that's not a thing" and "It's not that hard and it's not some weird moral quandary," given that it's among several questions from at least 4 justices of the supreme court that find moral dilemmas? I'm very interested, Logo, if you want to dismiss it for the third time, or if your understanding of the issues at stake have changed or become more nuanced? Show nested quote +Chief Justice Roberts returns to an earlier hypothetical: must, say, a nonprofit like Catholic Legal Services, affiliated with a church that views same-sex marriage as sinful, agree to represent a gay couple suing Masterpiece Cakeshop, simply because they offer other legal services to the public? Not exactly a line I thought would come up...
I've said I think 3 times now that it's not hard and it's not a moral quandary that sexual orientation should be a protected class.
Yet you continue to both fight me on the issue and apparently not agree. Your effort to dodge out of the simple idea is to pretend it's some grander statement that you can poke holes in. It's not.
(And yes I obviously think the examples brought up by Ms. Waggoner are less relevant than the example brought up by Mr. Cole and the associated words of Anton Scalia).
|
On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment.
yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic
RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism
i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production.
|
On December 06 2017 03:41 Velr wrote:
@plabsix: Everyone should just stop with bullshit like this again. Why on earth is this tweet post worthy?
Edit: this moved quick
Millennial is a shitty term that has becomes a pejorative because of the way online magazines have been covering that age group. I think it is post worthy when one of the three major news papers in the bans the term because they are holding their writers to a higher standard.
|
On December 06 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:41 Velr wrote:
@plabsix: Everyone should just stop with bullshit like this again. Why on earth is this tweet post worthy?
Edit: this moved quick Millennial is a shitty term that has becomes a pejorative because of the way online magazines have been covering that age group. I think it is post worthy when one of the three major news papers in the bans the term because they are holding their writers to a higher standard.
So... what you're saying is Millennials killed the word Millennials. Typical Millennial behavior.
|
On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production.
I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century.
|
On December 06 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 03:41 Velr wrote:
@plabsix: Everyone should just stop with bullshit like this again. Why on earth is this tweet post worthy?
Edit: this moved quick Millennial is a shitty term that has becomes a pejorative because of the way online magazines have been covering that age group. I think it is post worthy when one of the three major news papers in the bans the term because they are holding their writers to a higher standard. So... what you're saying is Millennials killed the word Millennials. Typical Millennial behavior.
I heard they are killing Chilies, TGI Fridays, AppleBee's, Napkins, the Diamond Industry and traditional dating. Now they are killing bad writing. So they might be the Greatest Generation. I also read two articles, one that said Millennials don't eat out and the other that said Millennials don't cook. I must assume that Millennials do not require food to survive.
|
FYI in another brazen act of stupidity, Trump just announced he is going forward with moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
It's a win win for him. He gets to throw some meat to his base and donors while creating a distraction in the news from the Mueller investigation by further destabilizing the middle east! Nice!
|
On December 06 2017 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:35 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing?
I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. Seriously, what a construction! My bad behavior is justified because they started it! On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:
Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter. Liquid'Drone and Falling are useful examples of the reverse. You see, for example, Drone engaging on a stance he thinks is immoral, or an argument unfair, without dipping into unfair backlashes, flippant comments, and paragraphs of pure insults. NewSunshine deserves credit for owning up to doing himself exactly what he likes to insult others for doing, even if he thinks he has more cause for the misbehavior than others. If you weren't trying to read what you want into what he said, you would know that he doesn't believe that his bad behavior is justified, he believes that he doesn't have bad behavior on this topic. However, props to you for doing exactly what you give props to NewSunshine for owning up to doing without owning up to it yourself. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [ they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech. "I'm guilty as charged" doesn't mean that he accepts his own hypocrysy "because you provoked him", it means that he views the accusation that was made against him as futile and he dismisses it. "If you call people who don't accept your bullshit "polarizing" because they don't accept your bullshit, then I'm guilty". It's pretty clear. This comes back to my original critic to Sermo. You're never polarizing for having extreme views, we're polarizing for not compromising with you. In your case at least I'm pretty sure you know this is a rhetorical trick but I wasn't sure when it comes to Sermo (and I'm still not, cause his answers are generally weird). My answer is yes? You're inherently labeling their views as extreme and refusing to compromise thats as polarizing as you can get. Nothing good has come from anything without compromise. Its the definitive good answer to any argument or situation you can be in. You shouldn't compromise your limits of compromise for the sake of compromising but thats you compromising with how much you should compromise. Reality is labeling their views as extreme, so I am too. I like reality. I guess I could compromise and pretend that they're not extreme, is that what you want me to do? Not a big fan of those compromises between being factually correct and being factually incorrect.
Is this the part where you say reality has a liberal bias like a smug hipster? Your insistence on being right doesn't make reality bend to your will.
People are asking you to not be a dick. Your response is saying you have no choice but to be a dick because those people are forcing you to be a dick. You have the personal agency to not let the other define you.
|
On December 06 2017 03:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:On December 06 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 03:41 Velr wrote:
@plabsix: Everyone should just stop with bullshit like this again. Why on earth is this tweet post worthy?
Edit: this moved quick Millennial is a shitty term that has becomes a pejorative because of the way online magazines have been covering that age group. I think it is post worthy when one of the three major news papers in the bans the term because they are holding their writers to a higher standard. So... what you're saying is Millennials killed the word Millennials. Typical Millennial behavior. I heard they are killing Chilies, TGI Fridays, AppleBee's, Napkins, the Diamond Industry and traditional dating. Now they are killing bad writing. So they might be the Greatest Generation. I also read two articles, one that said Millennials don't eat out and the other that said Millennials don't cook. I must assume that Millennials do not require food to survive.
You're short by at least like 50 things they've killed: http://mashable.com/2017/07/31/things-millennials-have-killed/#EhfM6cZKRZq0
|
On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century.
"emerged?" no
"thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago
|
On December 06 2017 03:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that?
It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. Seriously, what a construction! My bad behavior is justified because they started it! On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:
Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter. Liquid'Drone and Falling are useful examples of the reverse. You see, for example, Drone engaging on a stance he thinks is immoral, or an argument unfair, without dipping into unfair backlashes, flippant comments, and paragraphs of pure insults. NewSunshine deserves credit for owning up to doing himself exactly what he likes to insult others for doing, even if he thinks he has more cause for the misbehavior than others. If you weren't trying to read what you want into what he said, you would know that he doesn't believe that his bad behavior is justified, he believes that he doesn't have bad behavior on this topic. However, props to you for doing exactly what you give props to NewSunshine for owning up to doing without owning up to it yourself. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [ they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech. "I'm guilty as charged" doesn't mean that he accepts his own hypocrysy "because you provoked him", it means that he views the accusation that was made against him as futile and he dismisses it. "If you call people who don't accept your bullshit "polarizing" because they don't accept your bullshit, then I'm guilty". It's pretty clear. This comes back to my original critic to Sermo. You're never polarizing for having extreme views, we're polarizing for not compromising with you. In your case at least I'm pretty sure you know this is a rhetorical trick but I wasn't sure when it comes to Sermo (and I'm still not, cause his answers are generally weird). My answer is yes? You're inherently labeling their views as extreme and refusing to compromise thats as polarizing as you can get. Nothing good has come from anything without compromise. Its the definitive good answer to any argument or situation you can be in. You shouldn't compromise your limits of compromise for the sake of compromising but thats you compromising with how much you should compromise.
My suggestion for first compromise would be: "Extend to your debating opponent the benefit of the doubt that he argues for his position based on his stated merits of the position." If you can't compromise with that on a poster, cease responding to that poster.
On December 06 2017 03:35 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:29 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 03:25 Nyxisto wrote:On December 06 2017 03:21 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 03:17 ThaddeusK wrote:
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.> I learned long ago that people think you leave your free speech and free expression rights when you go into business. If free speech rights aren't weighed in the margins and conflicts, then you simply don't have them. If you stop a second to examine the topic, you'll probably find you agree with the preservation of certain rights, but would weigh things like public accommodation higher than I do. There's a pretty strong distinction between a public business, which is subject to plenty of customs, norms and laws and free speech in the absolutist, private sense. Businesses follow plenty of rules that private individuals don't have to and they serve the role of exchanging goods in a marketplace. The idea that moral values (in case of homophobia a really bad one) should be expressed in a marketplace is really bad and paternalistic. It's the same kind of reasoning that employers want to use to pull abortion or contraception off their employees insurance. If you want to preach do it in a church but I think it's in everybody's interest if it's kept out of everyday business. As long as there's people in businesses, the free speech and free exercise rights of the individuals must be balanced against other rights and laws. Otherwise, you're paying lip service to free speech, and don't really believe in the right at all. Where do you land on the balance? I personally probably don't fall on the free speech side in general, but I think it's not legitimate to equal the individual right to speech with the right as an employee or employer. Take the Google memo for example. I think it's totally legitimate for the guy to post this stuff on the internet as a private citizen, but if he works for Google he has a job as a software developer, not as the in house biologist who can start a culture war. Laws should reflect that in the market people should act professionally and without discrimination. It's not the place to have a political debate or to express your beliefs. We're much better off if we keep this to the political or cutltural spaces. In many ways this discrimination through business has always happened when someone finds themselves on the loosing side of a culture war. If you can't convince them privately, boycott their business or don't sell to xy. It's nasty and undemocratic in a sense.
You're weighing considerations without detailing what you're doing. An individual with rights does not cease to be an individual with rights just by nature of being an employee or employer. It's just a different weighting process, because other parties have interests on your time (since they pay you a wage, for instance) and includes the government (for example, the various titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
I think the useful look is not whether it "is or isn't the place" but more "what legal protections do you preserve and which are restricted and how much at work." We have discrimination law and long case histories on the Supreme Court's treatment of employment law. Societally, of course you can tell me that x, y, or z, is not the place for a political or religious statement. Legally, I'm interested in what crossed lines give my employer the right to fire me for that behavior. Like if he tolerates speech in the lunchroom, but if you mention the prophet Muhammed or pray, you're demoted or fired. I don't really care if in Nyxisto's mind, the prayer would be better done at home, I'm interested if the law protects or does not protect you in that case. So yeah ... useful restrictions and very heavy restrictions ... seen as "legitimate restrictions on first amendment rights in the workplace" (particularly in public workplaces).
|
On December 06 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:54 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:On December 06 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 03:41 Velr wrote:
@plabsix: Everyone should just stop with bullshit like this again. Why on earth is this tweet post worthy?
Edit: this moved quick Millennial is a shitty term that has becomes a pejorative because of the way online magazines have been covering that age group. I think it is post worthy when one of the three major news papers in the bans the term because they are holding their writers to a higher standard. So... what you're saying is Millennials killed the word Millennials. Typical Millennial behavior. I heard they are killing Chilies, TGI Fridays, AppleBee's, Napkins, the Diamond Industry and traditional dating. Now they are killing bad writing. So they might be the Greatest Generation. I also read two articles, one that said Millennials don't eat out and the other that said Millennials don't cook. I must assume that Millennials do not require food to survive. You're short by at least like 50 things they've killed: http://mashable.com/2017/07/31/things-millennials-have-killed/#EhfM6cZKRZq0
I like that they killed the European Union, Light yogurt and the 9-5 work day. At the rate we are going, they might accomplish all of this before having to fight the second coming of the Nazis, surpassing the Greatest Generation.
|
On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century.
Capitalism began with the emergence of basic market theory in the 18th century as philosophers like Smith and Hume began questioning mercantilism. The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776. It was shortly after that the Industrial Revolution began. None of this would have happened without the enshrinement of Western philosophical theory into contemporary legal norms. Concepts of individual liberty and property rights are preconditions to a capitalist system.
|
On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago
But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values.
|
On December 06 2017 03:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:On December 06 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 03:41 Velr wrote:
@plabsix: Everyone should just stop with bullshit like this again. Why on earth is this tweet post worthy?
Edit: this moved quick Millennial is a shitty term that has becomes a pejorative because of the way online magazines have been covering that age group. I think it is post worthy when one of the three major news papers in the bans the term because they are holding their writers to a higher standard. So... what you're saying is Millennials killed the word Millennials. Typical Millennial behavior. I heard they are killing Chilies, TGI Fridays, AppleBee's, Napkins, the Diamond Industry and traditional dating. Now they are killing bad writing. So they might be the Greatest Generation. I also read two articles, one that said Millennials don't eat out and the other that said Millennials don't cook. I must assume that Millennials do not require food to survive.
We get our food couriered to us. It's part of the reason why Millennials are also always poor.
|
On December 06 2017 03:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. Capitalism began with the emergence of basic market theory in the 18th century as philosophers like Smith and Hume began questioning mercantilism. The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776. It was shortly after that the Industrial Revolution began. None of this would have happened without the enshrinement of Western philosophical theory into contemporary legal norms. Concepts of individual liberty and property rights are preconditions to a capitalist system.
This isn't true, and I'm not sure what I can do to convince you otherwise.
|
On December 06 2017 03:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:35 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. Seriously, what a construction! My bad behavior is justified because they started it! On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:
Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter. Liquid'Drone and Falling are useful examples of the reverse. You see, for example, Drone engaging on a stance he thinks is immoral, or an argument unfair, without dipping into unfair backlashes, flippant comments, and paragraphs of pure insults. NewSunshine deserves credit for owning up to doing himself exactly what he likes to insult others for doing, even if he thinks he has more cause for the misbehavior than others. If you weren't trying to read what you want into what he said, you would know that he doesn't believe that his bad behavior is justified, he believes that he doesn't have bad behavior on this topic. However, props to you for doing exactly what you give props to NewSunshine for owning up to doing without owning up to it yourself. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [ they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech. "I'm guilty as charged" doesn't mean that he accepts his own hypocrysy "because you provoked him", it means that he views the accusation that was made against him as futile and he dismisses it. "If you call people who don't accept your bullshit "polarizing" because they don't accept your bullshit, then I'm guilty". It's pretty clear. This comes back to my original critic to Sermo. You're never polarizing for having extreme views, we're polarizing for not compromising with you. In your case at least I'm pretty sure you know this is a rhetorical trick but I wasn't sure when it comes to Sermo (and I'm still not, cause his answers are generally weird). My answer is yes? You're inherently labeling their views as extreme and refusing to compromise thats as polarizing as you can get. Nothing good has come from anything without compromise. Its the definitive good answer to any argument or situation you can be in. You shouldn't compromise your limits of compromise for the sake of compromising but thats you compromising with how much you should compromise. Reality is labeling their views as extreme, so I am too. I like reality. I guess I could compromise and pretend that they're not extreme, is that what you want me to do? Not a big fan of those compromises between being factually correct and being factually incorrect. Is this the part where you say reality has a liberal bias like a smug hipster? Your insistence on being right doesn't make reality bend to your will. People are asking you to not be a dick. Your response is saying you have no choice but to be a dick because those people are forcing you to be a dick. You have the personal agency to not let the other define you.
Well, we appear to have a disagreement on whether republican views are extreme or not.
Tell you what, I'll stick to my position, and you're going to show that you're superior by attempting to find a compromise. Hope you're fine with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
