0
   

Diversity of Everything but Thought

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 01:47 pm
Alternatively, I see it as fair to say, 'those who have the most luxury in our society, will pay a high price for that luxury in order to keep our society running.'

The fact is that we need the money far more than they do; we gave them the opportunity, the environment, and the ability to garner the money; and they OWE it back to society.

The OTHER question is this: Do you believe there exists a point in which someone has more money than they possibly need? I do.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 01:53 pm
And Lola and Cyclop have just eloquently, without intending to I think, illustrated the ideology of the left on this point:
1) the playing field has to be level
2) equality of result is the only ethical result
3) prosperity cannot be achieved ethically on your
own
4) If some are prosperous, it means that some are
disadvantaged by that prosperity.

Later I'll formulate the right wing view on all these points unless somebody else who will no doubt do it much better beats me to it.

Right now I have to take my Sis to the doctor. Back later.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 01:57 pm
Get your straw man out of here, Fox!

Quote:
And Lola and Cyclop have just eloquently, without intending to I think, illustrated the ideology of the left on this point:
1) the playing field has to be level


We just think it should be MORE level than it is today.

Quote:
2) equality of result is the only ethical result


Noone ever said, this, straw man.
Quote:
3) prosperity cannot be achieved ethically on your
own


Noone ever said this, straw man. It CAN but RARELY is, is what I and Lola have said.
Quote:
4) If some are prosperous, it means that some are
disadvantaged by that prosperity.


Noone ever said this, another straw man proposed by ya, Fox.

You are Appealing to Extremes, which is a logical fallacy, as you well know, Fox.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 02:10 pm
If you don't like my list, Cyclop prepare your own. The assignment for this thread was not to attack the others for their point of view but to give your definition of the ideological position of the left and right. Whehter you agree that you did or not, I see that both you and Lola supported my definition of how the left views taxes. I will show you how I came to that conclusion when I get back.

Meanwhile you can say 'straw man' a dozen more times and it will won't change a thing.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 02:16 pm
You can't claim our argument is something different from what we actually said without creating straw men, Fox.

For example,

Quote:
2) equality of result is the only ethical result


This was no part of any Liberal argument other than the percieved one in your mind that you have a conveinent counter-argument for.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 02:22 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Alternatively, I see it as fair to say, 'those who have the most luxury in our society, will pay a high price for that luxury in order to keep our society running.'

We agree!
Joe's Uncle's tax of $3,636,360 is an infinite times greater than Joe's tax of $0.00, while Joe's Uncle's income of $28 million is only 1,000 times greater than Joe's income of $28 thousand.

On the other hand,
Joe's Uncle's tax of $3,636,360 is 999 times greater than Able's tax of $3,640, while Joe's Uncle's income of $28 million is only 500 times greater than Joe's income of $56 thousand.


The fact is that we need the money far more than they do; we gave them the opportunity, the environment, and the ability to garner the money; and they OWE it back to society.
That opportunity was given everyone. Some took more advantage of that opportunity than others. In particular, they took more advantage of that opportunity than I did. Good for them!

The OTHER question is this: Do you believe there exists a point in which someone has more money than they possibly need? I do.
We agree again. I have more money than I need. I bet you have more money than you need.

What amount of money does one need? I think its enough to pay each month for the minimum shelter, clothing, food, transportation, and medical care one requires to survive to say 80.

But isn't your concept of need, the same concept that governs castroism? I believe it goes: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

I prefer to live in a country where I have and enjoy what I have in the good old USA, while suffering the inequity of wealth that comes with it. I'd hate to live in a castroist country like Cuba where I would enjoy much less, including less suffering of the inequity of wealth that comes with that.



Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 02:35 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
... Later I'll formulate the right wing view on all these points unless somebody else who will no doubt do it much better beats me to it. ...

Well here some food for thought.

Here's my view of what I call the adamist view (maybe that's a synonym for the "right wing view"). You decide. Smile

the same rules for everyone.


Here's my view of what I call the castroist view (maybe that's a synonym for the "left wing view"). Please, somebody decide! Confused

different rules for different people.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 07:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Get your straw man out of here, Fox! ...
Cycloptichorn


Whaaa Question Rolling Eyes
www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Main Entry: in·fer·ence
Pronunciation: 'in-f(&-)r&n(t)s, -f&rn(t)s
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of inferring : as a : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former b : the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty
2 : something that is inferred; especially : a proposition arrived at by inference
3 : the premises and conclusion of a process of inferring


Main Entry: in·fer
Pronunciation: in-'f&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·ferred; in·fer·ring
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French inferer, from Latin inferre, literally, to carry or bring into, from in- + ferre to carry -- more at BEAR
transitive senses
1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire -- L. A. White> -- compare IMPLY
2 : GUESS, SURMISE <your letter... allows me to infer that you are as well as ever -- O. W. Holmes died 1935>
3 a : to involve as a normal outcome of thought b : to point out : INDICATE <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him -- Shakespeare> <another survey... infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves -- H. R. Chellman>
4 : SUGGEST, HINT <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>
intransitive senses : to draw inferences <men... have observed, inferred, and reasoned... to all kinds of results -- John Dewey>
- in·fer·able also in·fer·ri·ble /in-'f&r-&-b&l/ adjective
- in·fer·rer /-'f&r-&r/ noun
synonyms INFER, DEDUCE, CONCLUDE, JUDGE, GATHER mean to arrive at a mental conclusion. INFER implies arriving at a conclusion by reasoning from evidence; if the evidence is slight, the term comes close to surmise <from that remark, I inferred that they knew each other>. DEDUCE often adds to INFER the special implication of drawing a particular inference from a generalization <denied we could deduce anything important from human mortality>. CONCLUDE implies arriving at a necessary inference at the end of a chain of reasoning <concluded that only the accused could be guilty>. JUDGE stresses a weighing of the evidence on which a conclusion is based <judge people by their actions>. GATHER suggests an intuitive forming of a conclusion from implications <gathered their desire to be alone without a word>.
usage Sir Thomas More is the first writer known to have used both infer and imply in their approved senses (1528). He is also the first to have used infer in a sense close in meaning to imply (1533). Both of these uses of infer coexisted without comment until some time around the end of World War I. Since then, senses 3 and 4 of infer have been frequently condemned as an undesirable blurring of a useful distinction. The actual blurring has been done by the commentators. Sense 3, descended from More's use of 1533, does not occur with a personal subject. When objections arose, they were to a use with a personal subject (now sense 4). Since dictionaries did not recognize this use specifically, the objectors assumed that sense 3 was the one they found illogical, even though it had been in respectable use for four centuries. The actual usage condemned was a spoken one never used in logical discourse. At present sense 4 is found in print chiefly in letters to the editor and other informal prose, not in serious intellectual writing. The controversy over sense 4 has apparently reduced the frequency of use of sense 3.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 07:08 pm
Pssh, I don't need you to tell me what a straw man is, Ican...


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Quote:
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.


Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 10:39 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ps Horowitz is nothing but a politically motivated, right-wing hack. He hasn't done anything but criticize the Left for twenty years, and this latest attack is no different.

I've heard this at least five times from two different sources... that must mean that it's true!


And I've heard, at least five times, from multiple sources, that the US never landed on the moon. Unfortunately, I've never had the cognitive ability of DrewDad that might enable me to understand that volume equals truth.

And the reference went right over your head. Not surprising, considering the orifice your head habitually occupies.


How eviscerating DD. I am now so less
likely to call you to task.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 10:39 pm
ican wrote:
Quote:
We agree!
Joe's Uncle's tax of $3,636,360 is an infinite times greater than Joe's tax of $0.00, while Joe's Uncle's income of $28 million is only 1,000 times greater than Joe's income of $28 thousand.

On the other hand,
Joe's Uncle's tax of $3,636,360 is 999 times greater than Able's tax of $3,640, while Joe's Uncle's income of $28 million is only 500 times greater than Joe's income of $56 thousand.


What does all this have to do with anything? $28,000,000. minus $3,636,360 equals $25,363,640 per year. Poor Joe's Uncle. $28,000. minus zero equals $28,000. per year. Lucky Joe, he got off scot free in the income tax department. No taxes paid. Lucky him. Have you ever tried to live on $28,000 a year, ican, Foxfyre? I mean ever tried to live on that adjusted for inflation? It is very difficult, and even more so if Joe has a family or is getting older. What happens when Joe or one of his family gets sick? Do you suppose his $28,000. a year comes with any benefits like health or life insurance? If he's lucky enough to have a full time job rather than one defined as part time in order to avoid the employer providing benefits, he may. What kind of car can he drive, how old a car and what kind of housing can he afford? Have you ever tried to raise kids on this kind of income? And what about retirement.....oh yeah, social security will take care of that. Right? And if Joe loses his job, but while he had a job he has tried to make it by borrowing money, for his house or other needs, he can always declare bankruptcy and get relief from the debt he owes other multi-billionaire folks at CitiCorp or some similar poor Mom and Pop banking institution. And what about higher education for Joe's children? How well educated do you think they will be even before they get to college level on $28,000.? What kind of personal and social difficulties do Joe's children have, living in the slum they have to live in since they can't afford good housing where there are no gangs and such? Oh well, when they get in trouble with the law, let's give them the ole three stikes and you're out treatment. That'll teach em. And let's make sure none of them get an abortion, certainly be sure taxpayers don't have to pay for it......

You can see how mute a point it is for Joe and his family whether there is diversity of thought encouraged in universities or not. Maybe some of Joe's uncle's taxes will help subsidize the education of Joe's children or others like them. Those who manage to make it, in spite of all these problems.

Meantime, Joe's uncle has to scrape by with his piddly little 25 and a half mil....... Wow. We're not talking about level, we're talking about a drop off a high cliff. Do you suppose Joe's uncle's children are at Yale or Harvard? I'm sure they're hard workers like their father. Poor things, they have to put up with liberals for professors......heaven forbid the little darlings should have to learn to tolerate anyone who disagrees with them.

Quote:
And Lola and Cyclop have just eloquently, without intending to I think, illustrated the ideology of the left on this point:
1) the playing field has to be level
2) equality of result is the only ethical result
3) prosperity cannot be achieved ethically on your
own
4) If some are prosperous, it means that some are
disadvantaged by that prosperity.


Now I didn't say any of this, Foxmyre........you've ignored what Cyclo and I did say and have formulated a...........oh my God! a straw man. Big surprise. Thank you for that demonstration of contemporary conservative spin. Like we haven't gotten our fill of it already.

It is hard to have a respectful conversation when what a person says is so badly distorted.

Quote:
If you don't like my list, Cyclop prepare your own. The assignment for this thread was not to attack the others for their point of view but to give your definition of the ideological position of the left and right. Whehter you agree that you did or not, I see that both you and Lola supported my definition of how the left views taxes.


If you want to know what our ideological positions of the left and right are, read back and try to make a list of what we did say. Or shall we draw you another picture for you to distort. I doubt you are unable to read and decipher what we have said, so why do you keep doing it?

But if you can't get it, I'm not sure I have the energy or the interest to try again. Maybe tomorrow......but I doubt it.

Good night.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 10:41 pm
blatham wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
EXACTLY the book you three need. And by all means, continue to stay away from anything remotely scientific or academic (obviously). Life is a complicated thing and there is no sense at all in doing anything which might further discomfit.


There you go again.

"You three."

I have no real problem with being cast within the same "ilk" as foxfyre, but I'm afraid that mysteryman and I are not on the same wavelength.

Nevertheless, "you three" is a rhetorical device of dismissiveness which I've already called you on, and yet you seem to return to it as the babe returns to his mother's teat.

Now we know! It is a scientific and/or academic theorem that there is not a material Liberal bias in today's US Academia. Thank you Prof. Blatham.


Ought to target my insults with more care. Collateral damage everywhere. It's getting just like a US military operation when I post. Possibly I'm keeping the wrong company. "You three" meant the three who went "Yippee!" at finding a source which agreed with them...fox, lash, jw...demonstrating the intellectual stretch these three can manage.


I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean someone isn't following me.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 11:00 pm
Quote:
I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean someone isn't following me.



Someone is following you Finn, but that doesn't mean you aren't paranoid.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 11:09 pm
blatham wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
blatham wrote:
The first target of the autocrat or tyrant is, almost always, the universities.

Tyrants: Foxfyre, mysteyman, finn

Tools of Tyrants: Fox, MMan, finn.

Just when I thought I could not wince more (see "Sigh") I find myself confronted with this ridiculous rhetoric.

It simply will not do, in the view of such political animals, to have ideas running about or discourse engaged in which might work at odds to their political power. It is a pretty sure way to spot the bad guys (along with their desire to control, through intimidation or ownership, the news media, and with their desire to wrestle independent institutions such as the courts under their thumb). Singularity of viewpoint - with authority vested only the themselves - is the goal.


But what is ridiculous?

Premise: tyrannical governments will, predictably, attack universities

It is ridiculous to have your romantic regard for universities. Your comment,s so obviously, suggest that universities are uniformly the opponents of tyrants. Pure nonsense.

Universities and their students played no role in the anti-intellectual Chinese Cultural Revolution...yeah, right.

German universities rejected the study of eugenics during the Third Reich...yeah, right.

In blatham's world view, Academics somehow equate with Arthurian knights in search of the Holy Grail.

Pure and unadulterated bullshit.


Premise: such attacks on universities ("their politics are WRONG and UNPATRIOTIC!", "they fight against the state!", "they are corrupting our young!", etc) have as a goal the dismantling of ideas and speech which do not conform with the desires of those who hold power.

Unfortunately you do equate criticism of universities with heavy handed ideology. Do you really mean to suggest that there are institutions, of any sort, that are incapable of group-think and the intimidation of contrarian thought?

But of course, scholastic institutions of Western society have reliably embraced ideas that fly in the face of accepted thought..


Therefore: a fine tool to establish who in the community has tyrannical propensities/goals is to check who is attacking independent (from state control and state ideology) universities. (side note: they'll almost universally be attacking independent media too).

The lack of sophistication of thought revealed in this comment is disturbing when viewed in the light of its source.

Or perhaps you are just protesting my suggestion that jw, lash, and fox are 'tools' of such a dynamic. Well, how might that be established?

We could predict, if the thesis holds water, that the three of them draw frequently, if not nearly absolutely, from ideological sources which are predominantly, if not nearly absolutely, pro-government. Check.

First of all, the thesis doesn't hold water.

Secondly you are drawing a generalized conclusion about three individuals that you are unable (within this thread) to prove. It will be boring, indeed, for you to provide citations that support your claim, but in order for your broad claim to be validated, you are compelled to engage in the boring exercise.


That their utterances can will be predominantly, if not nearly absolutely, in alignment with the utterances of government officials. Check.

Ditto

That their indictments of other viewpoints will very often suggest that opponents to their position (the government position) are unpatriotic. Check.

Ditto


So let me know precisely where I have it wrong, finn.

I hope I have done so.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 11:11 pm
Lola wrote:
Quote:
I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean someone isn't following me.



Someone is following you Finn, but that doesn't mean you aren't paranoid.


Huhh?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 07:53 am
finn
Quote:
It is ridiculous to have your romantic regard for universities. Your comment,s so obviously, suggest that universities are uniformly the opponents of tyrants. Pure nonsense.

Universities and their students played no role in the anti-intellectual Chinese Cultural Revolution...yeah, right.

German universities rejected the study of eugenics during the Third Reich...yeah, right.

In blatham's world view, Academics somehow equate with Arthurian knights in search of the Holy Grail.

Pure and unadulterated bullshit.


All the above would be bullshit. If I said it. Or if I even suggested it. Which I didn't.

What I did say was that tyrants always go after universities. Tyrants go after any voice or institution which might act in opposition to their controls or their desired portrayals of reality. In this situation, universities are no different than an institutionalized court system, or an independent press, or a resident religious community, etc. The goal of a tyrant is totalitarian control, or as much as they can manage in any case.

A church community, or a court system, or a university, or a military, or a press, etc, who stand actually or potentially in opposition to a tyrant will have to be removed or altered for totalitarian goals to be achieved. Simple point. Where they can be altered to fall into line and support the totalitarian, then so much the better, as that strengthens totalitarian control.

Members of the judiciary, members of faith communities, members of the press and members of universities and members of trade unions may well, and often have, allowed themselves to align with totalitarian leaders or forces. Membership in none of these groups necessarily entails saintliness, heroism, selflessness, nor knighthood.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 08:50 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ps Horowitz is nothing but a politically motivated, right-wing hack. He hasn't done anything but criticize the Left for twenty years, and this latest attack is no different.

I've heard this at least five times from two different sources... that must mean that it's true!


And I've heard, at least five times, from multiple sources, that the US never landed on the moon. Unfortunately, I've never had the cognitive ability of DrewDad that might enable me to understand that volume equals truth.

And the reference went right over your head. Not surprising, considering the orifice your head habitually occupies.


How eviscerating DD. I am now so less likely to call you to task.

Finn, you responded to a light-hearted jab (which wasn't even directed at you) with petulance and an insult. I'm more than happy to continue this if you wish, but I'll give you a chance to back off since you're handicapped by that foot in your mouth.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 10:34 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Lola wrote:
Quote:
I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean someone isn't following me.



Someone is following you Finn, but that doesn't mean you aren't paranoid.


Huhh?


Didn't get it? Oh well, try again next time. Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 11:59 am
I'll continue with a post I began earlier stemming from the Karl Rove statement (from a week or two past) that "the press is not so much liberal as it is oppositional" and continuing into some thoughts on 'groupthink' and the sixties.

So let's start by defining 'groupthink'. From American Heritage:
Quote:
The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view.


From Wordnet (Princeton U):
Quote:
decision making by a group (especially in a manner that discourages creativity or individual responsibility)


Seems clear...something like
- falling into agreement with a popular notion but without critical investigation or thought

- AND where any such critical investigation of the notion is held as negative or mainly negative

- AND where individuals holding the notion are discouraged from altering or re-evaluating or improving the notion on their own - "don't think for yourself" and even "don't get the notion you have any responsibility to think for yourself, we've done the thinking for you already, and if you try you'll just mess up what's already correct"

We'll all agree that sounds pretty oppressive. Do we have some examples?

I had a discussion some years back with a young lady who was speaking about the evils of clearcuts. When I asked her whether a clearcut that was forty feet by forty feet might be ok, she said all clearcuts were destructive. She wasn't able to critically think through or past the idea.

Bloom gives a wonderful example too. He mentioned that his students commonly could not get past a dogmatic moral relativism and when he would bring up a problem such as "When the Brits were in control of India, they passed a law banning the stoning of women who brought an insufficient dowry into the new husbands family. Was such a law not a moral improvement?" The responses, Bloom said, tended to be of the dilemma-evasive sort, "Well, the Brits shouldn't have been there in the first place"

But another example would be, "My nation right or wrong". Nationalist sentiment, if we look closely at those definitions again, can fit them in a most uncomfortable way. "Our country is right and critical investigation is not appreciated, thank you very much. Keep your nose out of what your betters already have in hand. Go watch a football game."

Another example would be certain sorts of religious belief, the more fundamentalist or literalist sort, the sort that holds itself to be in exclusive possession of the 'truth'. Creative interpretation of - or personal responsibility to understand the scriptures or tenets for oneself - become not an example of faith or spirituality but an example of heresy.

Partisan political membership can be another obvious example of groupthink (as defined above). "Don't question, don't complain, don't second guess...that will only hurt our enterprise...trust us always. You say anything different than we tell you to say and you are OUT!"

(more later)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 06:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Pssh, I don't need you to tell me what a straw man is, Ican...

Oh, yes you do! It's obvious you did not understand your own reference. Foxfyre did not attack your position by attacking a false inference made from your position. She didn't attack your position at all. She simply stated what she inferred your statement meant. All you had to do was identify her error (if any) and provide her the correct inference. Instead you pulled the old straw man dodge again, and rather than clarify your position you falsely accused her of doing what you did: provide the old straw man dodge as a your straw man.

Foxfyre has repeatedly stated in this forum that her objective is not to debate positions. It is simply to learn and understand what the several positions are and what their advocates think those positions mean. Rolling Eyes


Cycloptichorn
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/18/2025 at 02:12:22