Topic: Words that raise red flags.
started by: Darth Liberus
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 25 2002,00:34
since Politics is supposed to have a higher standard of argument than the other forums, this topic belongs here.Words and phrases that promote intellectual sloppiness:
rational / irrational - these words make sense when talking about mathematics. outside of that context, they are so overloaded that they're meaningless (see "objective.") when discussing the validity of an argument's structure, use sound and unsound/fallacious instead. when discussing whether something or someone is reasonable or unreasonable, use those words instead.
logical / illogical - overloaded. using "logic" as a noun is OK (i.e. "the logic of your argument is unsound"), but the adjective forms should be avoided. see "objective" and "rational/irrational."
objective - overloaded. often used to give (or take away) the appearence of being "scientific" when in fact the subject lies outside the realm of science. fair, factual, well-reasoned, and well-rounded are far more specific phrases.
biased / unbiased - meaningless in the case of biased; false in the case of unbiased. bias is present in every argument. the important thing isn't whether or not someone is biased, it's what the bias is. i.e. journalism is supposed to be biased towards stories and facts relevant to the community, but is often biased more towards ratings.
emotional argument - meaningless. outside of mathematics and science, all arguments are motivated by and appeal to emotions. generally used to undermine the validity of an opposing argument by implying that the arguer is somehow being "wimpy" or "overly emotional", which is an ad hominem attack and therefore fallacious. the question is not if emotions are present and appealed to in an argument, but which emotions.
impact - ugly and vague. learn the difference between effect ("a result" when used as a noun, "to bring into existence" when used as a verb) and affect (a verb meaning "to influence") and use them instead. Quick way to translate - when using impact as a verb ("how will this impact me?") use a-ffect; when using it as a noun ("what will the impact be?") use e-ffect.
thoughts? additions?
Posted by Mhoraigh on Jun. 25 2002,03:46
I think you covered the topic pretty well.....but on a side note - never apologize to Lykosis......she wouldn't apologize to you.
Posted by Forum Whore on Jun. 25 2002,03:48
IMHO, what you wrote is simple, fair and (logical) makes sense, but I wonder if anyone could remember it longer than a week...It would sure improve the quality of writing though, I'd have to clean up a little myself. Ok, maybe a lot.
I wonder if we should marry it to what BtC is writing so it's all in one place?
Are we getting carried away with the fine print?
Detnet has gotten along fine without.... hey, no it hasn't...
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 25 2002,07:06
they're not rules or guidelines, just words to watch for and suggestions for replacing them in your own writing. you can completely ignore my above post if you want, but I'm going to be attacking people on these kinds of things. I've seen an awful lot of deeply manipulative arguments lately and I'm sick of it.
Posted by Forum Whore on Jun. 25 2002,07:18
You never cease to be an interesting person.Nothing would make me happier than if everyone heeded your post! It would raise the bar for everyone and make posts more intelligent.
The feeling is that you have your work cut out for you.
Luck.
(whenever I see DL's nic I stop and see Detnet to see what he writes)
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 25 2002,10:11
/me bows 
ck, you should print that out and hang it on your wall as a reminder that a lot of "conservative" journalism is insanely manipulative. yeah, yeah, I know a lot of liberal/leftist journalism isn't exactly factual either, but the tricks they use are obvious rather than underhanded. leftists are stupid on the surface
i'm not trying to make you into a liberal or anything (like that would ever happen), just trying to help you become a better conservative. imagine being able to throw down *good* conservative arguments that make Bill O'Reilly look like a blathering idiot...
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 25 2002,15:00
Hey, everyone, it's the Fox News drinking game!Print out DL's first post and take a drink whenever one of those tactics is used.
Drink once if the banner ever says anything besides "war on terror."
Twice if Bill O' Riley doesn't interrupt a guest.
Twice if Hannity doesn't go completely offesive on his guest.
Four times every time Colmes agrees with Hannity.
The whole bottle if Ollie North implies that a military coup d'etat would have been a good idea.
Have fun!
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 25 2002,16:14
i'd rather just DRINK and read these websites...i'm not a big fan of the talking heads.www.ccops.com
www.corpwatch.org
www.debka.com
www.guerillanews.com
www.antiwar.com
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 25 2002,22:35
[EMAIL=lol@bozeman...]lol@bozeman...[/EMAIL] I'm not cool enough to read Lykosis' alternative news sites.
I, being brainwashed by the mainstream, still gain my news from such unreliable sources as
< CNN >
< The San Francisco Chronicle >
< The Associated Press >
< Reuters News Service >
< BBC >
and for some alternative but still highly-regarded journalism:
< Project Censored > - some of their stuff is really leftist, but they do a good job of keeping an eye on corporate media
< San Francisco Bay Guardian > - this paper generally sticks to local issues & entertainment. they've blown the doors off more than a few scandals around here. widely lauded by other journalists.
of course, the problem with ALL of these publications is that they expect that you are an intelligent person capable of thinking for yourself.
Posted by forumwhore on Jun. 26 2002,02:42
A few posts back, DL, you said, "ck, you should print that out and hang it on your wall as a reminder that a lot of "conservative" journalism is insanely manipulative. yeah, yeah, I know a lot of liberal/leftist journalism isn't exactly factual either, but the tricks they use are obvious rather than underhanded. leftists are stupid on the surface."
You know I have a couple theories about that.
What do you mean exactly? I can't stop thinking about it.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 26 2002,03:59
leftists are stupid on the surfacethey are stupid throughout their volume.
Anyway, you make the claim that outside of math, nothing can be rationalized? Are you trying to prevent me from winning future arguments by invalidating anything I say pre-emptively?
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 26 2002,05:49
nice funny, CK
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 26 2002,06:35
dumbass
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 26 2002,08:17
you mean you WEREN'T making a funny? that makes it even funnier.hint : "rationalize" describes your prime arguing technique.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 26 2002,10:58
| Quote (CatKnight @ 25 June 2002,22:35) |
| dumbass |
It's pronounced du-MA.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 26 2002,15:03
i just wnat to know where you copied that list from...
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 26 2002,15:05
some from memory, some from observation.not all of us are mere parrots.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 26 2002,16:26
you couldn't possibly be that stupid.well on second thought, you probably are DSL.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 26 2002,16:55
i only ask because it looks very familiar...who is "us"?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 26 2002,23:02
I assumed he was referring to himself, bozeman, necromancer, et al.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 26 2002,23:07
Yes, as in the entire forum...Read these websites that show I'm right!
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 27 2002,01:19
hmm.i read mainstream news, and draw my own conclusions from there.
lykosis & CK mostly read "alternative" news and parrot it because they know people are stupid and therefore the mainstream is never right.
i say the People aren't sheep. people have a natural tendency to question things. unfortunately, nobody can know everything, so they get lied to and mislead a lot by people who sound like they know what they're doing.
those people make the punishment for questioning swift and severe.
try questioning lykosis & CK sometime. see if they provide you an honest, well-thought-out answer... or if they just attack you for being "stupid."
Posted by Beastie Dr on Jun. 27 2002,02:34
ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THEY MIGHT NOT KNOW EVERYTHING? YOU'RE IN DEEP SHIT, PAL!
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 27 2002,04:11
Ck is just trying to stay on topic, by providing an example of how to sound like an idiot. Posting like CK raises red flags.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 27 2002,04:15
DSL, some thoughts:on the notion of "intellectual slopiness". It sounds like your main objection is the misuse of words, or possibly their misinterpretation, but not their actual use. There are many different words that have very similar meaningings, but the subtle distinctions sometimes have important impacts (lol, red flag?, read "effects" if you prefer) on the final meaning of the point. I'm not sure it's ever good to restrict the pool of communication, although certainly appropriate use helps (and I agree with you, sometimes people on detnet have a tendency to innapropriately use certain words).
on "rational / irrational". Here's a find example of where limiting use of these words would change the meaning of an argument. In the so you want to go to heaven debate, Wix and myself make a point that many terrorist perspectives are rational. Note, we are not suggesting that their reasons are sound per se, but that there is a reasoning process, wheras earlier posts had given us the impression that certain people's perspectives were more of the "crazy freedom-hating arab". Replacing rational with sound doesn't work here.
on "logic, objectivity". Before I start I should piont that I do see where you're coming here on this one. I disagree with your analysis, but people do have a tendency to severely misuse both of these words. However, the very point of logic is to create a common ground between people who disagree. I don't think claiming an argument to be fallacious is any less overloaded. As for objectivity, I have to disagree with you on it's lack of meaning outside of science. If person A goes out and kills someone with a rusty screwdriver (dangerous items) and he gets charged with it, there is objective truth. The objective truth is that he did indeed commit this action. Obviously the more abstract or moral you get the harder it is to find objective truth. But even in religion, there is an objective truth. Either the world was created by a single sentient being, it was created another way or it was not ever created at all. Only one of these can be the answer for the beginning of the universe (unless you get into "sum over histories" stuff, at which point physics becomes confusing as all hell) and the fact that we can't ever (theoretically) know whether or not God exists in no way eliminates or alters the objective truth of whether or not he does.
on "bias and emotional argumentation". I agree with you pretty much 101% (1% margin of error) on this one. There's always some bias and always some emotion and it would be fallacious to say to these elements invalidate an argument. I might have a huge bias toward a certain position, but if my reasoning is sound then it makes no difference.
I hope I didn't come off as too critical.., I understand where you're coming from, but I think I'd focus more on people using words correctly (not necessarily etymological correctness, but at least something commonly accepted) than eliminating them from detnet vocabulary.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 27 2002,10:01
the reason I call them "red flags" isn't that their usage invalidates an argument, but that when you stumble upon while you're reading it's time to stop for a second and think about what the author is really trying to say.doubly so when you're writing something.
in the thread you refer to, you can avoid rational by saying their arguments are reasonable or that they make sense. by using these words, you're not only being more specific, but you also deftly undermine a possible attack by your opponents. "rational" is so closely associated with "unemotional" that someone can say "but look how emotional their arguments are; they're irrational."
as for logic/objectivity - Reason is the proper name for the common rules, axioms, and protocols that lead to good debate. There are instances where the words logic and objectivity are appropriate, of course, but 99% of the time when someone uses those words they're trying to bring the factual certainty of mathematics and science into an area where factual certainty doesn't exist.
as for eliminating them, i have neither the power nor the desire to erase words from the detnet vocabulary; as for criticism, it's always welcome. I certainly don't know everything. I generally only get upset if the person criticizing me is doing so to stoke their own ego or reputation rather than trying to enlighten the debate. Or if I'm having a really horrible day
---
i just realized I didn't answer editor's question a few posts back... leftist propaganda is generally stupid on the surface because it's derived from strong emotions and generally not well thought-out... i.e. they see dolphins caught in a net (which IS a sad sight), so they sit down and write about how we should ban all fishing because they gotta protect the dolphins because dolphins are beautiful. they don't think it through beyond that. it's written from the heart and not the mind.
right-wing propaganda is derived from the needs of certain people to have unlimited power, authority, and control. but you can't just walk out and say "I WANT UNLIMITED POWER! I WILL CRUSH j00 ALL LIKE BUGS! HAHAHAHAHAHA!" - nobody in their right mind would ever trust anything you said ever again. People don't give away authority easily; you either have to earn it or trick them into giving it to you. Since people are (usually) smart enough to not put tyrants into power, the right wing and other power-hungry folk have to resort to trickery to get it.
Consider our friend Richard... he's not right-wing, but he would like nothing more than to be the #1 Man In Charge Of Everything. But no one is just going to up and give him that, and he certainly doesn't want to earn it. So instead he acts like he's a nice, reasonable, well-intentioned individual, while at the same time trying to very smoothly assassinate the character of anyone who might oppose him.
Those of us who are familiar with him get him to crack every time... good job, Detvets!
Posted by veistran on Jun. 27 2002,10:26
personally, a word that raises a big red flag for me is truth because there's a big difference between truth in general and truth in the more factual sense.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 27 2002,14:08
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 26 June 2002,17:19) |
| hmm. i read mainstream news, and draw my own conclusions from there. lykosis & CK mostly read "alternative" news and parrot it because they know people are stupid and therefore the mainstream is never right. i say the People aren't sheep. people have a natural tendency to question things. unfortunately, nobody can know everything, so they get lied to and mislead a lot by people who sound like they know what they're doing. those people make the punishment for questioning swift and severe. try questioning lykosis & CK sometime. see if they provide you an honest, well-thought-out answer... or if they just attack you for being "stupid." |
DL,
i don't mostly read alternative news. i post alternative news sources because i'm sure that by this point everyone has heard of the great CNN. i have never advocated anything as being 100% true or non-biased. EVERYTHING should be considered carefully before being swallowed...that goes for my posts, your posts, anything. i'm a little disapointed, but not surprised, that you would stoop to insulting me rather than try to engage in a conversation with me. Ck did the same thing to me on puce. perhaps that is just how things tend to go on detnet.
i've never attacked anyone for being "stupid". i would happily answer any question put forth to me, unfortunately, you don't seem interested in that at all. you seem more interested in being a complete prick, in taking a us vs them attitude, in drawing conclusions about how i think/feel without asking me. you've already decided that i'm the enemy, and you have absolutely no idea how i feel/think about most issues. that makes me sad.
oh, and if you are drawing conclusions about me from "you say you want to go to heaven" thread. you need to understand that i was really emotional when i originally wrote that...i wrote it on the 11th of sept....and added to it right after i talked to some people i know in palestine. i'm not the best person to debate on the middle east...i have a lot of emotional ties to that area, and emotions tend to cloud judgement/rationality. see palestine v israel as an example.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 27 2002,14:54
that was a very well-written reply; you defended yourself admirably.much of what I gleaned about you I got from your web site. but my impressions could well be wrong, and I jumped the gun on kicking your ass.
/me hates self for a couple seconds.
I quit Paxil a mere two weeks ago. That's my excuse.
I'm still dead-on about CK though, aren't I?
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 27 2002,17:50
your impression is more than likey wrong, since i don't have a website. sorry for the misunderstanding...as far as CK, i can't really comment on your opinion of him...he seems to be pretty intelligent, but perhaps a little too emotional about issues at times (we are all guilty of this). i have no quarrel with him, or anyone else here, and i think detnet is better off with his voice, as well as yours.
i hate paxil.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 27 2002,19:50
| Quote |
| right-wing propaganda is derived from the needs of certain people to have unlimited power, authority, and control. |
you just don't get it DSL. the more right-wing you get, the more libertarian you get, i.e. wanting the most freedom possible. you have this romanticized vision of republicans drinking blood in a transylvanian castle going "bwahahhaa how can we start as many wars as possible to make more oil money bwahahaha" and then make statements as if this were fact. you really need to get a grip on reality.
you got the liberal part right though, surprisingly.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 27 2002,23:38
sure enough, no website here or on puce either.hmm.
i'm an idiot sometimes.
i retract my statements about you. sorry. my bad.
if you saw the website I thought was yours, you'd understand... some stupid bitch's long-winded rants about how everyone in the world is inferior to her, and how much she hates them, and how much better the world would be if everyone else just went and killed themselves. and it wasn't one or two of these rants, it was several dozen of them, about 1000 words each... that sort of thing makes my trigger finger itch really, really badly.
i absolutely cannot remember the name of it =P
---
CK once again tries to claim that conservatives are about "freedom"... heh... look who bought the myth!
As for the leftists - while I often disagree that the things that they're upset about are problems, and even when I do I rarely agree with their solutions, their hearts are in the right place.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,00:01
Ok I'm convinced DSL is just trolling. Ha ha very funny, you got me.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,00:07
Oh, and in case you weren't joking;Why is it that whenever I tell you what liberals believe in, and point to their actions as examples, you say "No no! That's not what we are about! This is what we are about!", and point to some idealogical mission statement, yet when I tell you what conservatives are about, tell you what I and many of my CR friends believe in, and show you the actions of other conservatives, you say "No no! That's not what conservatives are about! This is what conservatives are about!" and make reference to the most left-wing maniacal trite propoganda ever? HMMM?
I will paypal you $20 if (edit: starting with) your first sentence of your next post you prove to me how conservatives are evil power-hungry fat-cats trying to take away everyone's freedom and become tyrants.
If you can not, you automatically lose the bet AND retroactively retract your previous statements.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 28 2002,00:39
| Quote (CatKnight @ 27 June 2002,20:07) |
| I will paypal you $20 if (edit: starting with) your first sentence of your next post you prove to me how conservatives are evil power-hungry fat-cats trying to take away everyone's freedom and become tyrants. If you can not, you automatically lose the bet AND retroactively retract your previous statements. |
That's fucking bullshit, CK. It's like me proposing that I will paypal someone $20 if they can prove that all corporations are nice, snuggly teddy bears, and if they can't do so in one post that they have to say that everything they've ever posted is wrong. No one agreed to your little bet, and even if someone won, you probably woudn't pay them. I seem to recall Veistran winning $5 from you in a previous thread, but you kept backpedalling untill he hadn't won at all.
There are exceptions to every rule. There are conservatives who are nice people (like my U.S. and Government professor, or Ben Stein) but a lot who are interested in things like school prayer, a flat tax, outlawing abortion, and corporate power. (see Enron or WorldCom)
Conservatives aren't evil power hungry fat cats, but evil power hungry fat cats are conservatives.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,01:16
jesse jackson is a conservative? bill clinton is a conservative? alan derschowitz is a conservative? hillary clinton is a conservative?| Quote |
| That's fucking bullshit, CK. |
why do you say CK? Don't you mean DSL? I was making a satiric point.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 28 2002,01:28
CK, you've argued yourself into irrelevance. any time a problem comes up, you throw down some asinine solution that would either result in anarchy (hey, let's deregulate and privatize everything! or totalitarian rule, and then insist that your way is the only way which is right and moral. You guys can circle-jerk to Ayn Rand and the Bible all you want, but don't expect me to take you seriously except as a very nasty and persistent enemy.there are plenty of decent conservatives out there, but you guys have co-opted the term "conservative" for yourselves and associated it with such horrible things that even they are uncomfortable with the word.
Notice, CK, how you get your ass kicked by Wiley, who is himself a proud Republican? It ain't because he's a liberal, son...
Some Things Sane Conservatives Believe In
- fairness and equality. everyone deserves a fair shot in life; everyone is equal under the law.
- personal responsibility. mostly liability and tort reform.
- fiscal responsibility. a lot of government accounting practices and regulations are archaic; the government needs to be streamlined to operate more like a private business. don't spend money on things that aren't beneficial to the public as a whole.
- economic responsibility. economic policies should be geared towards the creation of wealth.
Nowhere on that list does it say anything about abolishing the income tax, banning abortion, making the weapons market a free-for-all, dismantling the public school system, making the government as small as humanly possible, making this a Christian country, or worrying about the Reds.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 28 2002,02:11
| Quote (CatKnight @ 27 June 2002,21:16) | ||
jesse jackson is a conservative? bill clinton is a conservative? alan derschowitz is a conservative? hillary clinton is a conservative?
why do you say CK? Don't you mean DSL? I was making a satiric point. |
| Quote |
| There are exceptions to every rule. |
You've tried the whole "I'll paypal you $ if you prove..." thing before. I didn't think you were being satirical, I just though you were that stupid.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,03:18
| Quote |
| hey, let's deregulate and privatize everything! |
nothing was regulated until the 70's, and we were perfectly fine. i never learned about the country being in a state of anarchy for 170 years and then the government stepped in and "fixed" everything...
| Quote |
| but you guys have co-opted the term "conservative" for yourselves and associated it with such horrible things that even they are uncomfortable with the word. |
so, you are saying freedom is horrible? no wonder we can't agree on anything, you are a fascist!
| Quote |
| Notice, CK, how you get your ass kicked by Wiley, who is himself a proud Republican? |
are we imagining things again? helllooo reality check.
| Quote |
| Nowhere on that list does it say anything about abolishing the income tax, banning abortion, making the weapons market a free-for-all, dismantling the public school system, making the government as small as humanly possible, making this a Christian country, or worrying about the Reds. |
again, for an english major, you sure have trouble connecting the dots. we are against income tax because it does not treat everyone equally, it punishes the rich. we are against abortion because it is considered murder. the weapons market has always been free-for-all, as you put it, the problem is not the guns, but the lack of personal responsibility and maturity. we are not trying to make this a christian country, we are trying to make this a FREE country.
liberals like the income tax because it gives the poor a leg-up, and hey, the rich can afford it! liberals are for abortion because in their hedonistic approach to life, you should do whatever makes you happy without regard to the consequences. abortion should be legal because women should have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies, without taking responsbility for their actions. liberals are for gun control because hey, common sense says guns kill people, lets get rid of guns! the problem is that reasoning is obviously too simple. correct me if i'm wrong.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 28 2002,05:41
It strikes me as hypocritical that CK is offended when generalizations are made about conservatives, but then overgeneralizes liberals. He also claims liberals use reasoning that is "too simple," but then uses extaordinarily simple and sometimes off-base reasoning. Here is an example.| Quote |
(Quote by Darth Liberus) but you guys have co-opted the term "conservative" for yourselves and associated it with such horrible things that even they are uncomfortable with the word. (Response by Catknight) so, you are saying freedom is horrible? no wonder we can't agree on anything, you are a fascist! |
CK is using a very crude trick here. DL originally meant the quoted quote to say that certain people who are evil, and oppressive have ruined the term "conservative" for those who are actually for freedom. CK then implies that the staement means "Liberals think freedom is bad!" This conclusion seems to be pulled directly from CK's ass, but reads well when you take the above quoted quote out of context. Someone who is casually reading the thread may think CK knows what he is saying.
Edit: Still don't know how the quotation system works, had to slightly edit the above quote to avoid confusion.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,06:45
I tried to get my point across using sarcasm and wit. Unbenounced to me, you people have the capacity for neither.I did misquote that there though
Posted by kuru on Jun. 28 2002,15:05
The more right wing you get, the more freedom you want for everyone .....Unless that everyone is a woman whose birth control failed and seeks an abortion.
Unless that everyone is an atheist who doesn't want the government endorsing theism as the official religious stance of the country.
Unless that everyone is a gay person who wants to engage in all the legal responsibilities and privileges of marriage.
Unless that everyone is a gay person who wants to give a child a permanent parent instead of a temporary stopgap foster home or state run institution.
Maybe some day it'll be true.. 'with liberty and justice for all.'
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 28 2002,15:42
DL, the page you are reffering to is THE MISANTHROPIC BITCH...which isn't MY site, but a site that i find to be pretty funny...take it with a grain of salt. the only site i contribute to is tfk, it's not MY site, and my stuff is nothing but a poor attempt at humor, and i rarely get around to doing that lately.Bozeman, i can't figure out that quote stuff either...
CK, making abortion illegal doesn't solve the root problem, just like making guns illegal doesnt solve the root problem.
Posted by Crafty Butcher on Jun. 28 2002,16:36
| Quote (CatKnight @ 28 June 2002,03:18) | ||
|
i have very little to add to this debate, being, as i am, in such a foul mood, that any attempt by me at "well-rounded" discourse (hmmm...nope, still prefer rational) will inevitably lead to me getting drawn in to one of those 'all right-wingers are evil/all liberals are pussies' kind of arguments and i have neither the wit nor will for such a contest atm. those of you feeling more confident in your opinions and ideals please continue as most of you are making a certain amount of conflicting sense. i just wanted to say that CK was obviously living in a different seventies to the rest of us.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 28 2002,18:07
Crafty, you should be aware that CK, having been born in 1982, did not live through any kind of 'Seventies' at all.He has no firsthand experience of that decade of which to speak.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,20:06
I don't need first hand experience to grasp a concept or read a book. And I said UNTIL the 70's, crafty. Actually, it was the 30's that the regulation really began. It didn't get hard-core until the 70's though.| Quote |
Unless that everyone is a woman whose birth control failed and seeks an abortion. Unless that everyone is an atheist who doesn't want the government endorsing theism as the official religious stance of the country. Unless that everyone is a gay person who wants to engage in all the legal responsibilities and privileges of marriage. Unless that everyone is a gay person who wants to give a child a permanent parent instead of a temporary stopgap foster home or state run institution. |
1: libertarians are generally pro-choice.
2: libertarians don't believe in one nut in california having the power to force everyone else in the country to think his way.
3: libertarians are generally for gay whatever as long as you don't do it to them
4: it has been shown through several credible studies that children living with gay parents often become 'fucked up' and that it is worse then a foster home in the long run.
5: I'm not a libertarian, as you might have guessed.
| Quote |
| The more right wing you get, the more freedom you want for everyone ..... |
unless that freedom hurts another person, such as an unborn baby, or a kid who hasn't learned morals or social norms yet, etc.
Maybe some day it'll be true.. 'with liberty and justice for all (except babies)."
| Quote |
| It strikes me as hypocritical that CK is offended when generalizations are made about conservatives, but then overgeneralizes liberals. |
I get angry when people make rediculous, cartoonish generalizations of conservatives with top hats and tuxedos smoking cigars and burning piles of cash while the poor hungry workers freeze to death on the street, etc. I think DSL is the only one guilty of this, however.
| Quote |
| CK, making abortion illegal doesn't solve the root problem, just like making guns illegal doesnt solve the root problem. |
banning murder doesn't solve the root problem of people getting pissed off at each other either, whats the difference?
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 28 2002,20:20
the difference is...you can't get everyone to agree that a fetus is a life...and until you do that, passing laws ain't gonna do shit but create problems.i am a libertarian, and i think abortion is the single most debated issue inside our party. personally, i don't agree with abortion, but i don't see making it illegal as having any kind of positive affect on the situation. we have to convince people with wisdom, education, and intelligence...not laws.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 28 2002,22:36
fair enough. although I already tried arguing from that position and it didn't fly so well here.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 29 2002,00:28
| Quote |
| in the thread you refer to, you can avoid rational by saying their arguments are reasonable or that they make sense. by using these words, you're not only being more specific, but you also deftly undermine a possible attack by your opponents. "rational" is so closely associated with "unemotional" that someone can say "but look how emotional their arguments are; they're irrational." |
| Quote |
| 1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior> |
Dude, there's nothing there about emotion. I don't think rational at all implies a lack of emotion, there's certainly nothing in the etymological meaning of the word that does and quite frankly I don't think common usage does either (while the actual reasoning process, in it's abstract form might be unemotional, that doesn't mean the reasoning person is).
| Quote |
| as for logic/objectivity - Reason is the proper name for the common rules, axioms, and protocols that lead to good debate. There are instances where the words logic and objectivity are appropriate, of course, but 99% of the time when someone uses those words they're trying to bring the factual certainty of mathematics and science into an area where factual certainty doesn't exist. |
| Quote |
| 1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves 2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war> |
I don't think reason is the 'proper' term, i think logic is just as valid, based on above definition and what is typically taught in a critical thinking class. I do however, agree with you that the words logic and objective are frequently used to give the illusion of scientific accuracy when it doesn't exist. However, you imply that objective truth does not exist outside of science. See my previous post..., it does.
btw, on the side discussion...the terms liberal and conservative (their political meanings at least) are pretty worthless. You can take a group of ten 'liberals' and find massive dissagreements on a variety of issues. Same with 'conservatives'. The words only serve to polarize issues unnecessarily.