|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 19 2018 01:00 On_Slaught wrote:At least 8 dead and suspect in custody. Expect more political theater, thoughts and prayers, and little change. Sigh... Edit: Per BBC, it's up to 10 dead now. Not confirmed, but I read the shooter used a shotgun instead of a rifle.
Edit edit: Apparently there was an armed resource officer (sheriff) on site. The shooter shot him (tho seems he survived?).
Sheriff says 8-10 dead, most students.
Also, they claim to have found explosive devices on campus.
|
On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical...
on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things"
|
|
|
On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things"
Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature.
|
They refuse to hire more immigration judges and have taken away the ability for the judge to place specific cases on hold. This is all an effort to spread up the deportation process without adding staff for the increased case load.
For those who do not know, judges cases and docket are reviewed to assure that cases are not being left to fester without resolution. Sessions move means that the judge can not remove a case that is no ready for trial from that docket and must issue a rulings. Sessions is pushing the judges to rubber stamp decisions to clear the case load he and ICE are creating, while not appointing more judges.
|
On May 19 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/997531009779412993They refuse to hire more immigration judges and have taken away the ability for the judge to place specific cases on hold. This is all an effort to spread up the deportation process without adding staff for the increased case load. For those who do not know, judges cases and docket are reviewed to assure that cases are not being left to fester without resolution. Sessions move means that the judge can not remove a case that is no ready for trial from that docket and must issue a rulings. Sessions is pushing the judges to rubber stamp decisions to clear the case load he and ICE are creating, while not appointing more judges.
Couldn't the judges just as easily rule against the ICE by default if they don't have time to actually review the case?
|
On May 19 2018 03:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/997531009779412993They refuse to hire more immigration judges and have taken away the ability for the judge to place specific cases on hold. This is all an effort to spread up the deportation process without adding staff for the increased case load. For those who do not know, judges cases and docket are reviewed to assure that cases are not being left to fester without resolution. Sessions move means that the judge can not remove a case that is no ready for trial from that docket and must issue a rulings. Sessions is pushing the judges to rubber stamp decisions to clear the case load he and ICE are creating, while not appointing more judges. Couldn't the judges just as easily rule against the ICE by default if they don't have time to actually review the case?
The immigration court system is different from the regular court system, since immigration is covered by the civil code, rather than statutory law. But the end result would be ICE appealing their decisions and then having them overturned. If appeals court operates like most other appeals courts, they would order a retrial or just kick the case back down. So that might make it worse?
All that being said, that has never stopped a judge from issuing a bullshit ruling because they are understaffed for their case load. The Rhode Island court system specialized in it for 5 years until the legislature finally submitted and found money for more judges.
|
On May 19 2018 00:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On May 18 2018 23:17 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 22:57 brian wrote:On May 18 2018 22:53 Introvert wrote:
The label "animal" comes after judgment. It doesn't weaken anything. it hurts even the judgement itself, as we should hold people accountable as people and not as animals. as holding them accountable as animals is inherently to hold them less accountable. this isn’t to mention i think the more important argument already presented in our ability to treat people like people and not dehumanise them. Here's the way I think about it. Calling someone an "animal" is clearly not a literal assignment. We first recognize in our minds that the perpetrators are human. But, we say, your actions are heinous and barbaric, it is as though you were a lesser life form, without mind or "spirit." The thing is that we know you actual are a fully functioning human, but you act as though you were an uncaring, immoral brute. All thr important parts of our judgement and analysis have come before and they lead us to the label "animal." If they were not human, this wouldn't be an insult in the first place. This is still separate from the question "should the president speak this way" but in everyday speech I see nothing wrong with it. A logical follow up to the idea that those people are like a lesser life form, without mind or spirit, is that it's impossible to have any type of influence on their actions through policy. And this hinders the search for solutions significantly. I've given the example of the war on drugs. I can make a credible argument that legalizing drugs would limit the cartel's influence and the violence associated with it. I can't make that argument if they are animals, cause there's no reason why that would make them stop. We can also go to our pal Kim Jong-un. We're trying to negociate with him right now, but if he's an animal, is that really worth the effort? Maybe you would make that argument, I don't know. I don't think you would. Obviously some random person saying this isn't quite as important as the president, but the argument against it is the same in both cases as far as I'm concerned, even though the impact of the discussion would be lessened (and so would my interest in it). You are still missing the main point. "Animal" is a figure of speech. In the context of drug runners their humanity isn't literally being denied. They are being compared to animals because they act is they have no moral intuition. You and others say that it somehow reduces their agency, and now you say that it hinders the search for solution. But acting like an animal is a choice. We are acknowledging choices made. btw I will try to keep up this conversation although I am working so it could be hours between responses. I think as long as you don't lose track of the fact that they're humans your position is mostly fine. But the position in which that track is lost definitely exists. It exists in a "benign" context, where someone would like to feel better about humanity and so convinces themselves that humans who would do those things aren't human, and those are the people who I would address the argument of hindrance toward. And it exists in a much more dangerous context whenever it's used to justify actions that would make you look bad if you did them to humans (Duterte, Netanyahu, nazism and so on). Given that those other views exist I find the use of that terminology in conjonction with your position to be kind of weird. But like I said, I would still conclude it's mostly fine.
I agree in many ways. Saying some people are less than human can be used to excuse bad behavior. In fact I'll give you another example: slavery. The obvious contradiction between Christian doctrine and the Founding principles with slavery required a change of language and thought process to justify evil actions. Maybe that is slightly different because to me the words had to be made to confirm to action and not the reverse. But I say this to acknowledge the power of words.
But in the case of a violent gang like MS-13, I think it's obvious that we have judged them by their actions.
All that to say that I agree that one shouldn't lose sight of the fsct that it's metaphorical. But I reject that it's a denial of their humanity. It's only in recognition of their humanity that the word "animal" has power.
|
Paul Ryan’s leadership continues its stead streak of unforced errors. The farm bill, which should be an easy sell to democrats, was loaded up with cuts to SNAP, food stamps and other government services. Thus assuring that Paul Ryan only passes bills without votes from Democrats, which has been his leadership style since he became speaker.
But it’s his own house of hardline conservatives who want to fight about immigration in an election year that killed the bill. They unwittingly joined with democrats to vote down the measure, proving that bipartisanship is the secret weapon of good governance. And now they have opened the house up to a free for all on immigration, DACA and any number of bills that could be brought to the floor.
The sooner we are free of this Republican leadership, the better off the country will be. But if this is a preview of Paul Ryan’s remaining months, this entertainment will be his greatest gift to me.
|
was watching a bit of cspan earlier; apparently it's national police week or something; so some of the early day 1-minute speeches were honoring various law enforcement folk. nice to honor people; but ofc they perpetuate the fiction of police putting their lives on the line moreso than a great many other people, which is irksome and a source of many other troubles.
|
Just when you thought he couldn't get any dumber. This could almost qualify as an Onion tweet.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 19 2018 04:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 00:07 Nebuchad wrote:On May 18 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On May 18 2018 23:17 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 22:57 brian wrote:On May 18 2018 22:53 Introvert wrote:
The label "animal" comes after judgment. It doesn't weaken anything. it hurts even the judgement itself, as we should hold people accountable as people and not as animals. as holding them accountable as animals is inherently to hold them less accountable. this isn’t to mention i think the more important argument already presented in our ability to treat people like people and not dehumanise them. Here's the way I think about it. Calling someone an "animal" is clearly not a literal assignment. We first recognize in our minds that the perpetrators are human. But, we say, your actions are heinous and barbaric, it is as though you were a lesser life form, without mind or "spirit." The thing is that we know you actual are a fully functioning human, but you act as though you were an uncaring, immoral brute. All thr important parts of our judgement and analysis have come before and they lead us to the label "animal." If they were not human, this wouldn't be an insult in the first place. This is still separate from the question "should the president speak this way" but in everyday speech I see nothing wrong with it. A logical follow up to the idea that those people are like a lesser life form, without mind or spirit, is that it's impossible to have any type of influence on their actions through policy. And this hinders the search for solutions significantly. I've given the example of the war on drugs. I can make a credible argument that legalizing drugs would limit the cartel's influence and the violence associated with it. I can't make that argument if they are animals, cause there's no reason why that would make them stop. We can also go to our pal Kim Jong-un. We're trying to negociate with him right now, but if he's an animal, is that really worth the effort? Maybe you would make that argument, I don't know. I don't think you would. Obviously some random person saying this isn't quite as important as the president, but the argument against it is the same in both cases as far as I'm concerned, even though the impact of the discussion would be lessened (and so would my interest in it). You are still missing the main point. "Animal" is a figure of speech. In the context of drug runners their humanity isn't literally being denied. They are being compared to animals because they act is they have no moral intuition. You and others say that it somehow reduces their agency, and now you say that it hinders the search for solution. But acting like an animal is a choice. We are acknowledging choices made. btw I will try to keep up this conversation although I am working so it could be hours between responses. I think as long as you don't lose track of the fact that they're humans your position is mostly fine. But the position in which that track is lost definitely exists. It exists in a "benign" context, where someone would like to feel better about humanity and so convinces themselves that humans who would do those things aren't human, and those are the people who I would address the argument of hindrance toward. And it exists in a much more dangerous context whenever it's used to justify actions that would make you look bad if you did them to humans (Duterte, Netanyahu, nazism and so on). Given that those other views exist I find the use of that terminology in conjonction with your position to be kind of weird. But like I said, I would still conclude it's mostly fine. I agree in many ways. Saying some people are less than human can be used to excuse bad behavior. In fact I'll give you another example: slavery. The obvious contradiction between Christian doctrine and the Founding principles with slavery required a change of language and thought process to justify evil actions. Maybe that is slightly different because to me the words had to be made to confirm to action and not the reverse. But I say this to acknowledge the power of words. But in the case of a violent gang like MS-13, I think it's obvious that we have judged them by their actions. All that to say that I agree that one shouldn't lose sight of the fsct that it's metaphorical. But I reject that it's a denial of their humanity. It's only in recognition of their humanity that the word "animal" has power.
Do you not recognise a problem, though, even in the case of MS-13, with using this language?
It's not like it's made up of people who are clinically insane. MS-13 generally recruits from the young, disenfranchised and hopeless. It's not unlike many other gangs. Even if the things MS-13 members do are almost inconceivably brutal, the people doing them mostly get to doing them for the classic reason: fitting in. Most members have no friends outside the gang, and after a certain point they either don't need or don't want them, or aren't allowed them.
It seems to me that gangs like MS-13 are symptoms of the failure of other systems, and in that regard are both entirely human and comprehensible.
|
On May 19 2018 20:37 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 04:04 Introvert wrote:On May 19 2018 00:07 Nebuchad wrote:On May 18 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On May 18 2018 23:17 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 22:57 brian wrote:On May 18 2018 22:53 Introvert wrote:
The label "animal" comes after judgment. It doesn't weaken anything. it hurts even the judgement itself, as we should hold people accountable as people and not as animals. as holding them accountable as animals is inherently to hold them less accountable. this isn’t to mention i think the more important argument already presented in our ability to treat people like people and not dehumanise them. Here's the way I think about it. Calling someone an "animal" is clearly not a literal assignment. We first recognize in our minds that the perpetrators are human. But, we say, your actions are heinous and barbaric, it is as though you were a lesser life form, without mind or "spirit." The thing is that we know you actual are a fully functioning human, but you act as though you were an uncaring, immoral brute. All thr important parts of our judgement and analysis have come before and they lead us to the label "animal." If they were not human, this wouldn't be an insult in the first place. This is still separate from the question "should the president speak this way" but in everyday speech I see nothing wrong with it. A logical follow up to the idea that those people are like a lesser life form, without mind or spirit, is that it's impossible to have any type of influence on their actions through policy. And this hinders the search for solutions significantly. I've given the example of the war on drugs. I can make a credible argument that legalizing drugs would limit the cartel's influence and the violence associated with it. I can't make that argument if they are animals, cause there's no reason why that would make them stop. We can also go to our pal Kim Jong-un. We're trying to negociate with him right now, but if he's an animal, is that really worth the effort? Maybe you would make that argument, I don't know. I don't think you would. Obviously some random person saying this isn't quite as important as the president, but the argument against it is the same in both cases as far as I'm concerned, even though the impact of the discussion would be lessened (and so would my interest in it). You are still missing the main point. "Animal" is a figure of speech. In the context of drug runners their humanity isn't literally being denied. They are being compared to animals because they act is they have no moral intuition. You and others say that it somehow reduces their agency, and now you say that it hinders the search for solution. But acting like an animal is a choice. We are acknowledging choices made. btw I will try to keep up this conversation although I am working so it could be hours between responses. I think as long as you don't lose track of the fact that they're humans your position is mostly fine. But the position in which that track is lost definitely exists. It exists in a "benign" context, where someone would like to feel better about humanity and so convinces themselves that humans who would do those things aren't human, and those are the people who I would address the argument of hindrance toward. And it exists in a much more dangerous context whenever it's used to justify actions that would make you look bad if you did them to humans (Duterte, Netanyahu, nazism and so on). Given that those other views exist I find the use of that terminology in conjonction with your position to be kind of weird. But like I said, I would still conclude it's mostly fine. I agree in many ways. Saying some people are less than human can be used to excuse bad behavior. In fact I'll give you another example: slavery. The obvious contradiction between Christian doctrine and the Founding principles with slavery required a change of language and thought process to justify evil actions. Maybe that is slightly different because to me the words had to be made to confirm to action and not the reverse. But I say this to acknowledge the power of words. But in the case of a violent gang like MS-13, I think it's obvious that we have judged them by their actions. All that to say that I agree that one shouldn't lose sight of the fsct that it's metaphorical. But I reject that it's a denial of their humanity. It's only in recognition of their humanity that the word "animal" has power. Do you not recognise a problem, though, even in the case of MS-13, with using this language? It's not like it's made up of people who are clinically insane. MS-13 generally recruits from the young, disenfranchised and hopeless. It's not unlike many other gangs. Even if the things MS-13 members do are almost inconceivably brutal, the people doing them mostly get to doing them for the classic reason: fitting in. Most members have no friends outside the gang, and after a certain point they either don't need or don't want them, or aren't allowed them. It seems to me that gangs like MS-13 are symptoms of the failure of other systems, and in that regard are both entirely human and comprehensible.
No, I don't. I'm not sure what more to say, they have taken certain actions of their own free will that are particularly awful. I think if you grant the idea that calling them "animals" could be ok, then it's a short step to saying what they do in these horrible cases would earn that label.
|
I guess the Catholic Church continues to be a charitable organization that is explicitly Catholic in nature. They are good at what they do & don't try to force people to quit church. That said, I guess Democrats in Philadelphia are now rallying to keep the Catholics in Philly. The Catholics continue to be the biggest religious organization in the world, notably in Brazil, for all their faults. I guess the Mid-Atlantic region of America has a lot of Catholics, so definitely numbers are on their side for sure. Politically, I like that Catholics don't try to involve themselves in government & instead try to remain a charity at heart. The strategy they use seems to work so they should keep doing that.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/catholic-social-services-lawsuit-over-foster-care-in-philadelphia/
|
How can you stand reading that shit?
In controversies where tolerance is invoked, the religion of secularism seems not to have a tolerance for traditional church teaching, values that even Democratic presidential candidates in quite recent history espoused."
How can anything following that be of any value whatsoever. That article clearly doesn't even try to be anything but a conservative christian circlejerk.
|
On May 20 2018 08:08 Simberto wrote:How can you stand reading that shit? Show nested quote +In controversies where tolerance is invoked, the religion of secularism seems not to have a tolerance for traditional church teaching, values that even Democratic presidential candidates in quite recent history espoused." How can anything following that be of any value whatsoever. That article clearly doesn't even try to be anything but a conservative christian circlejerk.
it's the national review; that's pretty much par for the course for them.
not sure if you really wnated an answer to the rest or were just reacting rhetorically. I could provide a bit of one if you're lookin for suhc.
|
On May 20 2018 01:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 20:37 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 04:04 Introvert wrote:On May 19 2018 00:07 Nebuchad wrote:On May 18 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On May 18 2018 23:17 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 22:57 brian wrote:On May 18 2018 22:53 Introvert wrote:
The label "animal" comes after judgment. It doesn't weaken anything. it hurts even the judgement itself, as we should hold people accountable as people and not as animals. as holding them accountable as animals is inherently to hold them less accountable. this isn’t to mention i think the more important argument already presented in our ability to treat people like people and not dehumanise them. Here's the way I think about it. Calling someone an "animal" is clearly not a literal assignment. We first recognize in our minds that the perpetrators are human. But, we say, your actions are heinous and barbaric, it is as though you were a lesser life form, without mind or "spirit." The thing is that we know you actual are a fully functioning human, but you act as though you were an uncaring, immoral brute. All thr important parts of our judgement and analysis have come before and they lead us to the label "animal." If they were not human, this wouldn't be an insult in the first place. This is still separate from the question "should the president speak this way" but in everyday speech I see nothing wrong with it. A logical follow up to the idea that those people are like a lesser life form, without mind or spirit, is that it's impossible to have any type of influence on their actions through policy. And this hinders the search for solutions significantly. I've given the example of the war on drugs. I can make a credible argument that legalizing drugs would limit the cartel's influence and the violence associated with it. I can't make that argument if they are animals, cause there's no reason why that would make them stop. We can also go to our pal Kim Jong-un. We're trying to negociate with him right now, but if he's an animal, is that really worth the effort? Maybe you would make that argument, I don't know. I don't think you would. Obviously some random person saying this isn't quite as important as the president, but the argument against it is the same in both cases as far as I'm concerned, even though the impact of the discussion would be lessened (and so would my interest in it). You are still missing the main point. "Animal" is a figure of speech. In the context of drug runners their humanity isn't literally being denied. They are being compared to animals because they act is they have no moral intuition. You and others say that it somehow reduces their agency, and now you say that it hinders the search for solution. But acting like an animal is a choice. We are acknowledging choices made. btw I will try to keep up this conversation although I am working so it could be hours between responses. I think as long as you don't lose track of the fact that they're humans your position is mostly fine. But the position in which that track is lost definitely exists. It exists in a "benign" context, where someone would like to feel better about humanity and so convinces themselves that humans who would do those things aren't human, and those are the people who I would address the argument of hindrance toward. And it exists in a much more dangerous context whenever it's used to justify actions that would make you look bad if you did them to humans (Duterte, Netanyahu, nazism and so on). Given that those other views exist I find the use of that terminology in conjonction with your position to be kind of weird. But like I said, I would still conclude it's mostly fine. I agree in many ways. Saying some people are less than human can be used to excuse bad behavior. In fact I'll give you another example: slavery. The obvious contradiction between Christian doctrine and the Founding principles with slavery required a change of language and thought process to justify evil actions. Maybe that is slightly different because to me the words had to be made to confirm to action and not the reverse. But I say this to acknowledge the power of words. But in the case of a violent gang like MS-13, I think it's obvious that we have judged them by their actions. All that to say that I agree that one shouldn't lose sight of the fsct that it's metaphorical. But I reject that it's a denial of their humanity. It's only in recognition of their humanity that the word "animal" has power. Do you not recognise a problem, though, even in the case of MS-13, with using this language? It's not like it's made up of people who are clinically insane. MS-13 generally recruits from the young, disenfranchised and hopeless. It's not unlike many other gangs. Even if the things MS-13 members do are almost inconceivably brutal, the people doing them mostly get to doing them for the classic reason: fitting in. Most members have no friends outside the gang, and after a certain point they either don't need or don't want them, or aren't allowed them. It seems to me that gangs like MS-13 are symptoms of the failure of other systems, and in that regard are both entirely human and comprehensible. No, I don't. I'm not sure what more to say, they have taken certain actions of their own free will that are particularly awful. I think if you grant the idea that calling them "animals" could be ok, then it's a short step to saying what they do in these horrible cases would earn that label.
I accept that the language is justified, but I personally feel it perpetuates the problem. I'm also a big believer in gazing into the abyss; I dislike the use of the language as a means to deflect from the innate humanity of their origins, motivations and the processes that perpetuate the cycle.
MS-13 seem to be a direct result of a) general youth disenfranchisement spiked with b) the US's uniquely toxic relationship with latin-American immigrants, legal or otherwise.
It's hard for me to disentangle the use of that language with the fact plenty of people refer to all immigrants with similar language.
|
On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature.
I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality.
|
On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality.
Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it?
|
United States43934 Posts
On May 21 2018 00:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality. Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it?
I don’t know, and that’s perfectly acceptable as answers go. Ignorance is far better than a bad answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
