Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 81314151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 474
  1. #341  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Because when making an academic argument I use abstractions?
    Rather because you made an academic argument out of context of what was really being discussed, and still continue at one in spite of being told otherwise.
    To claim such is to lump all social science and humanities scholars in the world into the "insane" column.
    I've met a lot of social science and humanities scholars. Many of them are.
    You really want to label every person who argues from abstraction as insane? [...]
    No, only the ones who don't realize when it's not warranted, and really doesn't fit.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2.    #342  
    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]Rather because you made an academic argument out of context of what was really being discussed, and still continue at one in spite of being told otherwise.[B]I've met a lot of social science and humanities scholars. Many of them are.No, only the ones who don't realize when it's not warranted, and really doesn't fit.
    Seems to me like back in the 50's you would have said there was no use in a civil rights movement because it isn't the way things are, and despite the nobleness of hte cause, since it's not going to happen, there is no use in trying. Afterall, that is what the reality was. People arguing from abstraction and a vision of a better tomorrow drove those changes, over the objections of people who said it couldn't be done. It's a lesson we all can learn.
  3. #343  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Wow, so when I said "Newton did live in a theoretical world, simplified of the concepts of relativity." you thought I was claiming he didn't reside on earth, obey the laws of physics and such?
    LOL...no, but to assume that your trying to force a square framework into a round discussion is comparable to Newton does seem to be a delusion of grandeur.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #344  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Seems to me like back in the 50's you would have said there was no use in a civil rights movement because it isn't the way things are, and despite the nobleness of hte cause, since it's not going to happen, there is no use in trying.
    Then you do seem to have trouble understanding what I'm saying.
    Afterall, that is what the reality was. People arguing from abstraction and a vision of a better tomorrow drove those changes, over the objections of people who said it couldn't be done. It's a lesson we all can learn.
    People arguing from abstraction didn't change a damned thing about civil rights. People marching in the streets and getting arrested or getting their skulls bashed in on TV did.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5.    #345  
    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]Then you do seem to have trouble understanding what I'm saying.People arguing from abstraction didn't change a damned thing about civil rights. People marching in the streets and getting arrested or getting their skulls bashed in on TV did.
    But if, like you do they don't march because they have no vision, nothing is done. Arguments from extraction were made, and were then mobilized into demonstrations to reach that abstraction. Without the abstract thought, an image of how life could be, there is no reason to march. You seem to be arguing against any vision of how life can be because we aren't there already.
  6. #346  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    [...] You seem to be arguing against any vision of how life can be because we aren't there already.
    You've obviously been reading something other than what I've been typing.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #347  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    [Band (saying this in as nice a way possible) it shouldn't offend you if I were to make such a conclusion (of course I think it's a stupid conclusion based on the facts, but hey, pretend I did). If someone were to make that conclusion who thinks everyone who votes for whatserface is an *****, you should be offended (prepare to slap in 5...4....3...2...1...)! That is the distinction I'm making. [/B]
    I understand that--but I disagree that the well-meaning intention of you in assuming that I automatically would vote for her makes it okay. I might legitimately get upset that you would assume that b/c I am female I would be stupid enough to support her. NOTICE: You wouldn't be, in your KRamsauer brain, be thinking I was stupid. But the EFFECT on me of your assumption is no less valid b/c you didn't mean to offend.
  8. #348  
    Earlier KRamsauer wrote:
    So is it wrong for a judge to enter an innocent plea on the part of a defendent? Afterall, that's a belief.
    HUH? That isn't a belief of the judge. It's a fact that the the defendant or his representative pled (i.e. verbalized) "Not Guilty." The judge doesn't get to assume that all defendants of X religion believe they are innocent and all defendants of Y religion believe themselves to be guilty.
  9.    #349  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    I understand that--but I disagree that the well-meaning intention of you in assuming that I automatically would vote for her makes it okay. I might legitimately get upset that you would assume that b/c I am female I would be stupid enough to support her. NOTICE: You wouldn't be, in your KRamsauer brain, be thinking I was stupid. But the EFFECT on me of your assumption is no less valid b/c you didn't mean to offend.
    And in my proposed framework, you'd realize said evaluations carry no moral weight. It is the same as you being offended by my red sneakers. It just shouldn't be. And before Toby jumps down my throat, I don't claim this is how things work, I'm saying if things worked this way, the world would be a better place.
  10.    #350  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    HUH? That isn't a belief of the judge. It's a fact that the the defendant or his representative pled (i.e. verbalized) "Not Guilty." The judge doesn't get to assume that all defendants of X religion believe they are innocent and all defendants of Y religion believe themselves to be guilty.
    I never said as much. I was demonstrating that the labelling of all inferences regarding beliefs as morally wrong is itself wrong. A more precise scheme is need. My proposal is one attempt at such greater precision.
  11. #351  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    And in my proposed framework, you'd realize said evaluations carry no moral weight. It is the same as you being offended by my red sneakers. It just shouldn't be. And before Toby jumps down my throat, I don't claim this is how things work, I'm saying if things worked this way, the world would be a better place.
    It isn't the color of your sneakers, so much as the smell!


    "I'm saying if things worked this way, the world would be a better place"
    I do not disagree that if everyone were so even-keeled on everything and value judgements were never based on non-neutral things, this might be a better world.

    The problem with your theory is--who decides what is truly neutral or not? You say the erroneous evaluation of me as someone who supported Ferraro is the same as what color your Nikes are. I just do not agree. I think it would be silly for me to be offended by the color of your shoes, but I don't think it is silly for someone to be offended by erroneous assumptions made about them.

    Honestly, I would be (slightly mind you, very very slightly) offended if someone thought I supported Ferraro just b/c I am female. and you saying "It just shouldn't be that way" does nothing to alter the way I react. Feelings, unfortunately, can't be manipulated--or else there would be a lot less divorces.
  12.    #352  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    It isn't the color of your sneakers, so much as the smell!
    Funny you mention that. I just took off my shoes (which are not red) and you're right. I need to shower. I know, I know, you don't really want to know that. Too bad!

    The problem with your theory is--who decides what is truly neutral or not?
    The person forming the judgement. There are issues which we use to judge the worth of another person. There are issues which we do not use. Assuming the former is wrong and prejudicial (because we judge people on those bases). Assuming the latter is not wrong and not prejudicial (because we do not judge people on those bases). I'm calling the approach "rational liberalism." It allows for the recognition of traits our society says we should ignore while preserving the equality that is the aim of said ignorance.
    Last edited by KRamsauer; 10/18/2002 at 03:49 PM.
  13. #353  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I never said as much. I was demonstrating that the labelling of all inferences regarding beliefs as morally wrong is itself wrong.
    I am sorry (it is late friday afternoon, after all) but I do not understand what you are trying to say with this.

    You said "So it is wrong for a judge to enter a guilty plea on behalf of a defendant. That's a belief."

    and I said that the judge's entry of the plea isn't based on his assumption of what the defendant thinks, but on what the defendant says. There is no inference. The Court Reporter can't take down inferences. I don't get how you are using this analogy.

    I think you say this: Assuming stuff about others based on random factors is okay, as long as what I assume doesn't change my opinion about them.

    I say: The fact that you assumed something is sometimes enough to injure/annoy/hurt/p.o. the other person because that other person doesn't necessarily know that you have super-human strength of neutrality

    You will respond: I'm saying it oughta be that way, not that's how it is.

    And I say: Fine, but if that's the way it is now, then that's the way it was yesterday (or whenever) when the assumption that all Jewish folks favor war with Iraq was made.
  14. #354  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    There are issues which we use to judge the worth of another person. There are ussies which we do not use.
    Typically, I try not to judge others on their ussies. I think judging another by their ussies is morally wrong.

    Sorry--getting geared up for happy hour...

    I'm calling the approach "rational liberalism." It allows for the recognition of traits our society says we should ignore while preserving the equality that is the aim of said ignorance.
    Well, good luck with that. Just don't be confused when others respond to your assumption-type statements based on the way it is!

    Okay--I'm checking out and leaving this flogged horse for now. Have a good weekend you two! (And any other poor soul who has made it this far!)
    Kelley
  15.    #355  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    I am sorry (it is late friday afternoon, after all) but I do not understand what you are trying to say with this.

    You said "So it is wrong for a judge to enter a guilty plea on behalf of a defendant. That's a belief."

    and I said that the judge's entry of the plea isn't based on his assumption of what the defendant thinks, but on what the defendant says. There is no inference. The Court Reporter can't take down inferences. I don't get how you are using this analogy.
    I'm simply stating that many opinions are such that they don't weigh on people's interpretations of the holders of those opinions. Such opinions cannot lead to prejudice because they are not used to judge the holder. That is all. Nothing grand.

    It's been claimed here that it is morally wrong to assume anyone holds any belief. The judge example is that we assume people hold "not guilty" beliefs all the time. That doesn't make our criminal justice system flawed.
  16. #356  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    It's been claimed here that it is morally wrong to assume anyone holds any belief. The judge example is that we assume people hold "not guilty" beliefs all the time. That doesn't make our criminal justice system flawed.
    Oh--I get you. Well, the difference is that we assume people hold "not guilty" beliefs b/c they stand up at arraignment and say "I'm plead not guilty." The other involves an assumption w/o the person telling us anything, other than what religion they are.
  17.    #357  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Typically, I try not to judge others on their ussies. I think judging another by their ussies is morally wrong.

    Sorry--getting geared up for happy hour...
    Stupid keys, being too close together. If only manual typewriters weren't invented until after computers we'd all have a good keyboard layout.


    (And any other poor soul who has made it this far!)
    Kelley
    If I weren't so poor, I'd bet $5 there is no one pursuing this any further. Probably including me.
  18. #358  
    yep, too bad you didn't make any dough off of Toby on that coin-flipping scheme you had going!

    Talk at ya later.
    KC
  19.    #359  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Oh--I get you. Well, the difference is that we assume people hold "not guilty" beliefs b/c they stand up at arraignment and say "I'm plead not guilty."
    My example would be in a case where they don't say anything, either because of ideology, sickness, muteness, whatever. We enter in a not guilty please because we believe that is what they should do/what they want to do. This isn't a problem and isn't prejudice, showing that not all assuming of belief is prejudice.
  20. #360  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    [...] And before Toby jumps down my throat, I don't claim this is how things work, I'm saying if things worked this way, the world would be a better place.
    Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try...
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions