15
   

How do liberals guage success?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 10:00 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

But if you're writing about it, especially when you're writing for public consumption, you should translate the language into something that's easier to understand.

I doubt that one fifth of the population knows the word "quintile." Wink


I think that most of the people who read articles about politics, at sources like CSMonitor, know the term (I suspect it's much less than a quintile of the population - maybe a quintile of a quintile).
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 10:07 am
@Strauss,
Strauss wrote:
As people learn a new word, they grasp the concept behind it.

It's evolution and improvement..

Only if there's enough context to explain the term, or if the reader takes the time to look up the word.

If they'd said "the bottom two quintiles (40%)," then I really wouldn't have a problem.

Like I said, though, it's my opinion.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 10:09 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
I think that most of the people who read articles about politics, at sources like CSMonitor, know the term (I suspect it's much less than a quintile of the population - maybe a quintile of a quintile).

That's not a reason to use "quintile," though.

That's a reason not to use "quintile," so that the barrier to political participation is lower.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 10:52 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
I think that most of the people who read articles about politics, at sources like CSMonitor, know the term (I suspect it's much less than a quintile of the population - maybe a quintile of a quintile).

That's not a reason to use "quintile," though.

That's a reason not to use "quintile," so that the barrier to political participation is lower.



why dumb down the language for CS Monitor readers? it's not like the people who read US Today are going to rush to CS Monitor for more details
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 11:16 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
(I suspect it's much less than a quintile of the population - maybe a quintile of a quintile).


Now you are getting at that quantile that can do higher math.




Yes I intended to use the term quantile.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2012 09:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, you're clearly wrong here. It is both morally and ethically wrong to pursue a business model in which you screw over workers and taxpayers in order to create massive profits for yourself.


You are begging the question here by saying he "screw[ed] over workers". You merely parroting the claim a different way when substantiation for it was being requested.

Layoffs aren't inherently unethical. If the workers are needed for the business you are shooting yourself in the foot to let them go if not then there is no reason not to let them go. Businesses are not charities and have no obligation to be run as charities.

They bought distressed businesses and made layoffs to turn them around. What about this is unjustly screwing over the workers to you? Do you think companies are obligated to keep jobs that don't help them?

If they are letting people who help them and who they need go, then they aren't being unethical, just stupid. If they are letting people who they do not need go they they are doing the most ethical thing (they have fiduciary duty to their investors and have no such duty to keep people hired indefinitely).

Quote:
But, based on our previous conversations in which you've made it clear that you consider practically nothing a business or it's owners can do to be unethical, I'm not especially surprised.


I think it's unethical to be that untruthful about what your interlocutor's position is. I merely don't agree with your positions which in a similar caricature would be: "businesses is bad."

Quote:
Not looking to rehash old arguments with you on this matter;


Neither am I, just wanted to see if you actually had any specific claim to unethical to make or were merely parroting the mudslinging of Romney's political opponents. You've made plenty clear that you are just participating in the mindless mudslinging too and that you don't have any case for anything really unethical to make, just negative aspersions to cast. We don't need to rehash the entire body of our political differences for this much to be obvious, that you would rather not answer and would rather talk about me and my politics is answer enough.

Quote:
Suffice it to say that I don't have much respect for your viewpoint regarding proper ethical behavior and corporate governance - and I would bet that the average American viewpoint on this issue is far closer to mine than yours. After all, we are the ones being screwed over by this behavior.


You've wasted a lot more words telling me that than it would have taken to answer the question, but I understand that the words you chose are easier to write than answering the question would be.

It's always easier to merely spout fallacies. Say, disparaging your interlocutor's position (ad hominem), or making an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum), than answer a tough question but it's also fairly transparent a tactic and will only deflect the daft.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2012 09:41 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
But Americans prefer a President that will put America ahead of himself. It isn't the question of illegality but of emotional connection.


Which candidate most "puts America ahead of himself" is in the eye of the beholder. I subscribe to the view that politicians are highly sociopathic and that this is largely branding you buy, or not.

I think most politicians are looking out for themselves first and that people who buy the noble and lofty images of patriotic duty are being gullible.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2012 09:58 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I agree; that's the reason why people who run for office usually turn out tainted by the politics of it all! Romney is a good case in point; he'll say anything that he believes will win votes. That's the reason why he's not consistent in what he says, and actually contradicts himself - often. He's already known to be a liar, but that doesn't seem to phase the political right.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2012 12:25 am
@ehBeth,
"Dumbing down" has a nice rhetorical ring to it, but presenting the same information in a way that is more accessible is not "dumbing down."

Using elevated language, so that only the elite can understand it, is a way of maintaining control of information.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2012 08:40 am
@Robert Gentel,
I agree with you. Why would i want someone to be President that actually wants the job?

I was merely pointing out that most people make an emotional connection of some sort. Patriotism is an emotional appeal. It's hard to make an argument that someone that avoided military service and paying taxes is a patriot that puts his country ahead of his own safety or financial gain.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2012 08:46 am
@parados,
I just take a very dim view of that level of politics, though I completely agree that those kinds of attacks will be effective to a significant degree.

It's just that I don't find them very significant. It's like the questions about Obama's patriotism (and even birth certificate etc). There's no denying the appeal (and efficacy) of such political attacks but I think it's pretty clear that the arguments are largely vapid.

The "branding" side of politics (as opposed to the policy debate) tends to decide the elections but also tends to be a very superficial way to do so, in my opinion. It becomes about marketing. About form over function.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2012 08:50 am
@Robert Gentel,
It's human nature. Most people aren't going to make voting decisions based on looking at all the facts and deciding the best choice based on those facts.

I heard an interesting news story on what makes a charismatic leader. It's all about emotional appeal but it can be very calculating in achieving that appeal.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2012 09:04 am
@parados,
I agree that it's human nature, and while I don't think you are saying so I think we shouldn't accept an appeal to nature and leave it at that. Our behavior is not inflexible, and nature is not an inherent right, so as a society we should seek to rise above it (and, of course, we often do). Whatever our nature is can be argued endlessly, but more important is what our society should be.

And there will always be a chattering class that will never approach anything with any intellectual depth, but its relative size waxes and wanes upon input from factors like the cultural acceptance of such vapidity. As a matter of course, the more society speaks out against it the smaller the manifestation will be.

Not everyone can change the world, but anyone can try to change their corner of the world. Within your own microcosm you can elevate the intellectual level of debate dramatically.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 02:37:57