Total posts: 1,971
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
As a means of comparison, who do you believe makes good political arguments largely devoid of the issues you just listed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I believe Gov. Newsom at least proposed the idea of giving California residents a gasoline discount card at one point. He might even become president some day!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, I cannot say whether he was slyly pointing that at Pakman personally, but he appeared to be addressing the national conversation in general, and that we should seek to understand fully what opposing views are rather than simply dismissing them. I couldn’t agree more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
To his credit, Pakman conducted a civil interview where he allowed Ramaswamy ample time to speak and answer the questions he posed. Pakman even assured Vivek that his intention was to learn his position rather than spark a debate.
Apparently, Pakman’s fan base didn’t like the outcome of the interview at all. Pathetically, Pakman was compelled to make a follow up episode where he admits to being ill prepared and accuses Ramaswamy of being very talented at “filibustering” (to me, he is describing “Gish galloping”). He rebuts Ramaswamy’s claims while Ramaswamy is conveniently absent, as if to say “See? I can refute everything he says given enough time.” So much for the “interview rather than a debate.”
What a weenie move…
Apparently, Pakman’s fan base didn’t like the outcome of the interview at all. Pathetically, Pakman was compelled to make a follow up episode where he admits to being ill prepared and accuses Ramaswamy of being very talented at “filibustering” (to me, he is describing “Gish galloping”). He rebuts Ramaswamy’s claims while Ramaswamy is conveniently absent, as if to say “See? I can refute everything he says given enough time.” So much for the “interview rather than a debate.”
What a weenie move…
Created:
The difference is that you feel you can insult other countries without being labeled a bigot by the left. Thing is, perhaps you are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Seeing as how both debt and inflation were rising for a period of time, I don’t interpret it that way. That would be extremely flawed reasoning.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Now they are a shit show.
You mean they are shithole countries?
Created:
Yet people keep flocking to Florida anyway. Weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don’t think he’s claiming that increasing debt causes inflation to decrease (that would be even more flawed), but he is arguing that debt and inflation are entirely unrelated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I saw this interview as well. America needs Vivek.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The smarter path would be to generate a surplus of energy before experimenting with a retooling of the production of energy so those people don't die every year.
This appears to align with candidate Ramaswamy’s strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Indeed. Remember the movie “Wargames”? It concluded that the only way to win a nuclear confrontation was not to start one. Attempting to “win” in the antiracism framework seems similarly futile…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The severity seems to be what is most difficult to predict. My issues with mitigation strategies are:
1. Be careful that the mitigation measures are worthwhile, and that they don’t end up being as consequential as the problem itself.
2. The human race has shown itself much more adept at adaptation rather than prevention.
3. The globe basically shut down for over a year, and it barely made a dent in mitigating climate change. If that didn’t do much, what will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I see what you’re saying, but the reality is that keeping proper inventories is an aspect of an economy. I know first hand that right now, brightly colored cars sell more cheaply than white or gray cars. Of course, racism has nothing to do with that (I think? These days, almost everything can be analyzed through the lens of race). If a store ended up with 20 dark skinned dolls and 5 light skinned dolls, it would be motivated to put the dark skinned dolls on sale, even if the manufacturer originally sold them at the same price wholesale.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, it appears to be real. Ideally, establishing and discussing the realness and severity of climate change would be reserved for the Science and Nature Forum. Discussions of policy would be in the Politics Forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Agreed— you bring up some thoughtful points. Even if dark skinned people were to prefer light skinned dolls though, that would still be seen by anti racists as an example of how entrenched white supremacy is— answer B.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
In the supply/demand model, supply and demand determine prices, not concepts of equality or fairness.
Created:
Posted in:
Say you are having a look around at a toy store in the USA. You see a certain doll selling for $20. Nearby, you see a dark skinned version of that doll selling for only $14. Is it:
A. Priced according to the law of supply and demand
B. Evidence of systemic racism
C. Both A and B
D. Some other explanation
Created:
“Federal law prohibits using one’s public position for personal gain. I can’t prove Kushner used his position to procure funding for Affinity Partners, but to believe otherwise would be ingenuous”
What a lovely double-edged sword this claim is! If this sets the bar for the acceptable standard of evidence required in the court of public opinion, this opens up a whole treasure trove of reasonable accusations against various public figures…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You know another famous leader who kept a copy of Mein Kampf?
Hitler. Actually, he might have had the original manuscript.
Created:
Posted in:
Too much of this thread’s argument is based upon an equivocation over the concept of inflation. The argument is “debt continues to go up yet inflation is going down.” Not exactly. The rate of inflation is going down, but prices are still increasing all the time. Prices going down would be deflation, which is not what is happening.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yep, ya got yer right facts, and then ya got what ya call yer wrong facts. Ya want to stick to the right ones…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A deeper understanding of the issue is always the goal.
Well, your posts fail to reflect that. I find that you often misunderstand my position with little need to better understand my position, which results in the creation of a strawman, whether intentional on your part or not. Even when you pose seemingly open ended, honest questions, you give the vibe that you already have “the one correct answer” in mind, and anything other than that will be strawmanned or simply discounted somehow. It is as if you hold the “correct” opinion, and all others are wrong or invalid.
If my argument is wrong or if there are other ways I should look at the issue, show me. If it's not wrong or if I am seeing it as clearly as I need to, that will become more apparent through the discussion as well as subsequent discussions with other people.
If you want to submit a specific argument for criticism from a standpoint of logic, I might suggest that you structure it in the form of a syllogism and create a thread offering it up for rigorous examination from the standpoint of logic. As things currently stand, it’s often your opinion against everyone else’s, with you assuming a posture of having a superior opinion to everyone else’s and little to desire to change that posture. Or you attempt to diminish other opinions without wanting to fully understand them first.
As I illustrated in my post 78, we don’t have enough frames of reference in common to have productive discussions. I cannot be bothered to spend a paragraph on each and every sentence of yours, explaining my various issues with it, only to have you dismiss, deny, or ignore what I just spent time and effort to say, while creating ever more aspects of disagreement that require more paragraphs to address.
Anyway, often a difference of opinion is just that. Not a competition to be won or lost, just an impasse.
I engage in every discussion as if the person at the other end shares that view. If they don't, then in my opinion, they're in the wrong place.
That is a problematic assumption. You are operating within the “right/wrong” binary. Opinions are neither right nor wrong. Formal arguments can be strong, weak, medium, valid, and invalid, but even they aren’t necessarily right or wrong.
As far as these forums being the wrong place for anyone, as long as members follow the Code of Conduct, it is neither the right nor wrong place for anyone to be.
I don't necessarily disagree with your characterization that I'm "going for the win", but that doesn't mean that's the point. That's just the means by which the goal is achieved. It's like training for a marathon. While the marathon may be the focal point and motivator, the real reason one might be doing it is because they want to get in shape and lose weight.
Ok, but prioritizing winning here often causes a hindrance to other priorities, such as listening, understanding, and learning. To use the marathon analogy, the motivation to win might tempt you to use performance drugs which hurt your health and reveal that you’re not above cheating.
In my opinion, the best way to understand an issue is to debate it. If you or others take that as a sign that I'm not intellectually curious or am unwilling to change my mind then there's little I can or care to do about it.
An unwillingness to change one’s mind isn’t a huge problem for me. An unwillingness to understand the opposition is. I argue things so that people can better understand opposing positions rather than assume those positions have no merit at all, and even that seems to be too high of an ideal to hold as I get older. I have a problem with “So, what you’re saying is [strawman]” and implications of “you believe that way out of stubbornness/ignorance/bigotry rather than rationality,” “your opinion is invalid,” “your opinion is inferior to mine,” etc. Oh, and the “if you are confident in your position, you should be able to effectively argue it against me” vibe. Hopefully, I have explained in enough detail here why I can’t be bothered to do that…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Douglas Murray observed that white is the one skin color that is studied from a perspective of negativity in universities.
A broken place of learning is where professors can't questioned.
Universities are one of those places where you can be wrong a lot and still keep your job.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I have acknowledged errors when I found legitimate points against my stated position. It's rare though, so I'm not about to dig through my posts looking for them, and I really couldn't care less about proving myself in that regard to anyone.What I take issue with is the presumption that because I hardly if ever tell someone they were right and I am wrong, that this somehow proves I'm not being intellectually honest or arguing in good faith. Intellectual honesty is reasonably judged by consistency, not 'argument loses'.The reason I hardly if ever say I'm wrong is because I think about the things I say before I say them. If I'm willing to admit my positions are wrong after posting them then of course I would be willing to do so before, so if I take the time to think about it first I would avoid that situation to begin with by adjusting my argument before hitting "create post".
Oh, boy… you aren’t getting what I’m saying. I am basically saying, “You are going for the win rather than being intellectually curious and being open to other points of view.” Your response amounts to “You want me to go for the loss? No, thanks!” That is binary thinking.
It has been said that there are those who listen to what is being said, and those who are thinking of what their rebuttal is going to be instead of listening. The latter describes your style of discussion. I rarely, if ever, find myself saying, “Well, we may disagree, but at least we now understand each other’s positions better!”
The other issue is that it seems most users think the bar for whether someone is worthy of their effort is whether they are likely to change their mind. Most people won't, and I couldn't care less if I change your mind. I'm not here for your benefit, I'm here to test my own positions (and because I'm bored). If there's something wrong with my argument, I figure someone here should be willing to show me.
Ok, but you also seem to make it your mission to invalidate other points of view, in addition to testing your own. Realistically, what outcome would you like to see from an argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Recently, I read somewhere the claim that “The concept of race didn’t cause racism; rather, racism preceded the concept of race.” In other words, the subordination of foreigners by colonizing nations preceded categorization according to physical traits. Here is a good Britannica article on “The history of the idea of race” if you’re interested, but it is quite lengthy:
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Even this is an example of what I’m talking about. I will unpack the assumptions and debatable implications nestled into your question below:
This is a debate site, if you aren’t willing to go back and forth with someone who makes their points intellectually why bother?
1. More specifically, this is the forum section of a debate site. I can agree to disagree on the importance of that distinction.
2. The someone who makes their points intellectually, has an impressive knowledge base, eschews sophistry and rhetorical trickery, shows genuine curiosity, and is looking to be informed as well as challenged instead of going for the win or just trolling… is a bit of a unicorn around here. Also, the sort of debate I find worthwhile requires that at least some frame or frames of reference be shared rather than every single phrase or utterance being a point of contention.
3. Who says I’m bothering? One need only look at my debate count (big fat 0) and post count over the length of my membership here. You posted to me unsolicited on this thread; remember?
Would you prefer I take the TWS approach and just start shouting insults at you in all caps?
Frankly, I would like to see the last time you said “That’s a fair point”, “I stand corrected”, “I never looked at it that way before” and responses of that nature…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Yep… well, whatever.
I am continually in amazement at your uncanny ability to naysay absolutely everything put to you while also giving it the illusion of intellectual rigor and honesty. Alas, this further exemplifies why I don’t believe in your purported willingness to be enlightened by me or anyone here, really…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
My post 16 response to you:
“The OP contains a brief quote lacking context. Care to provide any?”
Your post 44:
we don’t need some black professor to explain to us what it says or what the point is, it’s right there in plain English.
So, even when another poster directs you to the missing context, you refuse to give it any daylight… Surprise!
On a tangential note, I would advise that you say “we [or just “I” really, as you should speak for yourself] don’t need some professor who happens to be black [or just leave race out altogether] to explain to us what it says or what the point is…”
The way you wrote it, it just looks bad (as in bigoted).
Your initial post 14 to me:
… looking forward to being enlightened.
Here’s the thing: you have yet to give me any basis to believe that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
“Never let a good crisis go to waste” strategy, yes. It doesn’t so much require that a problem be created, but it does encourage that a problem be well publicized and exploited. I think this is why issues which should ideally be bipartisan are instead highly polarizing, such as the pandemic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ultimately, the only remotely coherent solution (and even that is giving it too much credit) is for government to put its thumb on the scales until the desired social outcomes occur— intersectionality based Marxism, in other words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
For a college level class titled "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Glossary ofTerms" sure. It's how racists can twist 'merit' to be anglocentric.
To clarify, this isn’t about a specific class; this glossary is for all teachers of all subjects in the California Community College system. A history teacher is currently suing the college over it.
If I was teaching basic English in high school, then no.
So, you realize the problem, then.
I believe what they are more accurately trying to describe is nepotism, under the guise of 'merit.'
If you mean an entrenched, irreparable, white supremacy based, global scale “nepotism”, then yes, that is what they’re describing. If you mean good old fashioned nepotism, then I disagree.
This actually reminds me of the common corruption/treason high up in the military. Having served in Iraq not long after the Dragon Skin body armor fiasco, I can fairly say the merit of the shit they forced us to use, was not in alignment with the reality of combat; rather it was in alignment with bribes from the makers of said garbage. I call it treason, because it gets people killed.This is more commonly seen with weapon systems, where the merits they are testing for is not which is the best weapon but rather which is the pre-selected weapon they'll be paid bribes to select. They also have a magical place to test said systems, free from dust, heat, cold, etc. So the shit the jams if not cleared obsessively frequently, passes muster because they had no way to know it would be used on planet earth.
When it comes to ideals, virtually none are fully realized, free from imperfections and hypocrisy. That doesn’t mean the ideal should be dismissed and replaced with something more cynical… or merely a completely different ideal.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The OP contains a brief quote lacking context. Care to provide any?
Created:
Progressives seem to believe that the only “skill” black people can truly learn is perpetual victimhood.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You sound like someone who is familiar with the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I remember that story. “Punctuality,” among other things, was claimed as an aspect of “Whiteness.” The fact that the museum pulled it when exposed aligns with what I see: most people aren’t eager to defend this agenda, and many don’t have the gumption to oppose it either— aka “groupthink.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
If you were or are an educator, would you be fine with working at a school which would expect you to align with that explanation of merit in your curriculum?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Funny thing is, I just recently heard from a coworker how the Norwegian government regularly takes children from perceived endangerment, particularly parents from other cultures…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
With parents raising kids, achievement should be based upon what instead, then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You believe that the state should raise children instead of their parents?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
So, merely misdirected sour grapes, rando-posting on your part?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Technically, there has been no time that you could not say that. But what purpose does it serve?
Created:
Posted in:
This is from a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility glossary from California Community Colleges:
“Merit: A concept that at face value appears to be a neutral measure of academic achievement and qualifications; however, merit is embedded in the ideology of Whiteness and upholds race-based structural inequality. Merit protects White privilege under the guise of standards (I.e., the use of standardized tests that are biased against racial minorities) and as highlighted by anti-affirmative action forces. Merit implies that White people are deemed better qualified and more worthy but are denied opportunities due to race-conscious policies. However this understanding of merit and worthiness fails to recognize systemic oppression, racism, and generational privilege afforded to Whites.”
So, does anyone stand by this definition, or is it civilization crushing inanity, or somewhere in between, and why?
Created:
There are two types of thinking:
1. Binary
2. Non binary
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I would choose option 2 out of those. I think Putin didn’t like a potential NATO ally bordering his country. I also don’t think he would have invaded if Ukraine had the nukes the West coaxed from them in the 90’s. We could go round and round with these Monday morning quarterbacking sessions.
But I’m not sure how this corresponds with what I said.
But I’m not sure how this corresponds with what I said.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
No fan of the Iraq invasion here— one of the nation’s greatest blunders IMO— and no fan of Cooper, but I believe the high Iraqi civilian death tolls are often aggregated together sloppily and without context. It is not as though US forces killed Iraqi civilians in question intentionally or indiscriminately, and it is not as though US forces directly killed the entirety of these Iraqi civilians. Many were what is euphemistically called “collateral damage,” as in unintended deaths, and many were caused by the ensuing civil war. What seemed underappreciated about Hussein’s regime is that his ruthless, iron fist methods kept two opposing factions (Shia and Sunni) in the country from each other’s throats. The US sparked a powder keg with Hussein’s removal and the subsequent highly misguided, clumsily executed deBaathification.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The materialistic view claims that all things in the universe are created from matter and energy, so what do you mean by you wouldn't go as far as to claim all things are empirically derived?
Well, first of all, I don’t know everything that has become known by the sum of human accomplishment, so I cannot make such a blanket statement about all of it. Isn’t mathematics an exception?
Second, here is what you quoted (emphasis added):
However, matter and energy are not empirical in the sense that they are not based on or derived from human observation or experience, but rather exist independently of human perception and cognition.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
However, if we do in fact agree that the world is materialistic, that would indicate all things are empirically derived.
I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that ALL things are empirically derived.
we could consider the knowledge of conceptual evidence as philosophy, which would be a broader category than science.
I agree.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You won’t find many misgendering comments in the video I linked, either. I think you just make shite up as you go. But, for what it’s worth, my money is on you in this debate!
Created: