Jump to content

What does Freedom mean?


philthygeezer

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

This is definitely interesting stuff, though I don't agree with all of it.


The "Noble Savage" is exactly what I'm trying to argue against here - people simply have tendancies towards certain behaviours and personal responsibility isn't going to cut it, to keep society stable. I'm not sure how he resolves this, but I'll keep reading.

 

 

This is why I can't convey the subtlety of his book. Many of the criticisms show how reacting either way to ideology can lead to pitfalls despite apparent benefit. He displays this wonderfully, keeping you balanced on the fence with sophisticated reasoning, whenever you totter one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

This is definitely interesting stuff, though I don't agree with all of it.


The "Noble Savage" is exactly what I'm trying to argue against here - people simply have tendancies towards certain behaviours and personal responsibility isn't going to cut it, to keep society stable. I'm not sure how he resolves this, but I'll keep reading.


The main thing I disagree with is that there isn't a "Ghost in the Machine", obviously something more people on the Right would agree with, but not exactly in an intellectual way but a religious way, so it doesn't really count.


Neuroscientists always stick to thoughts, emotions, things we've known happen in the brain for hundreds of years. But what is the final receptor of all of this? Even if you can cut away parts of someone's brain, it's still the same train of thought, the same point of view viewing it. Two apparent consciousnesses by dividing the brain isn't the same as two actual consciousnesses, though who knows maybe it is. I think consciousnesses is an indivisible(after all it's always the same singular one point of view), inherent property of the universe, rather than anything mystical, that attaches itself to a sufficiently complex system. Maybe the idea of "thought" and "emotion" is actually a lot simpler and our brains mostly rationalise those ideas in terms of the physical world around us, so when a bit goes a bit daft, we'll no longer be able to do that, even if it's in inate property of a conscious entity. When we sleep, I think it's more our perception of time that changes - after all, our dreams don't happen at the same speed as real life.


That's not to say I know better than the Neuroscientist at Neuroscience and how my brain works, of course I don't. But there's something in there that's not quite in their field to begin with, as it stands.


Now that I think of it, I think I have heard of Pinker before. I remember reading an article that was partially a rebuttal, can matter be explained in terms of consciousness. Wish I still had that.

 

 

[YOUTUBE]UyyjU8fzEYU[/YOUTUBE]

 

This is an amazing testimonial by a neuroscientist who experienced a stroke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Anti-intellectual horse{censored}. Why exactly would you know how to raise a family better than someone who also most likely has raised a family, and actually understands how people work? Where do you get this knowledge from?




This happened to catch my eye in the wall of text. You totally just proved his point. It's too perfect. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
This happened to catch my eye in the wall of text. You totally just proved his point. It's too perfect.
:D



Would you care to elaborate? It sounds like you're just {censored}flinging from the sides.

This is an amazing testimonial by a neuroscientist who experienced a stroke



I can't watch youtube vids right now but I think you may have missed what I was trying to say. I'm talking about the final consciousness, like the actual experience of the neuroscientist. Parts of the brain working or not working are irrelevant since they govern thought, not the "point of view". When you see something - where does that information all feed back to? We react to it certainly, but something else is there actually "seeing" it in between. There is no part of our brain as such that tells us what "pink" is to the best of my knowledge - qualia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I can't watch youtube vids right now but I think you may have missed what I was trying to say. I'm talking about the final consciousness, like the actual experience of the neuroscientist. Parts of the brain working or not working are irrelevant since they govern thought, not the "point of view". When you see something - where does that information all feed back to? We react to it certainly, but something else is there actually "seeing" it in between. There is no part of our brain as such that tells us what "pink" is to the best of my knowledge - qualia.

 

 

It's too bad - Jill Bolte Taylor's experiences were exactly that - substantial changes in her experience of reality as part of her brain died off. Neuroplasticity coupled with genetics explains how we develop opinions, moralities and feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It's too bad - Jill Bolte Taylor's experiences were exactly that - substantial changes in her experience of reality as part of her brain died off. Neuroplasticity coupled with genetics explains how we develop opinions, moralities and feelings.

 

 

That's not quite what I mean. Changes in experience of reality are still just the information that's been sent into the ultimate observer. I'm unsure how to describe this.

 

 

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires that a moving elementary particle has no localized form until it impacts upon a receptor. And information is carried from the object to the observer by a series of sources, elementary particles (first photons, and then electrons), and receptors. Quantum mechanics also tells us that mass and energy exist only in multiples of minimum quantities (quanta). Since the physical structure of the brain is finite, the series of sources and receptors must end with a final receptor. But what is the final receptor? If it is a physical structure, it is by definition, made of elementary particles, quanta of matter and energy, and if the information of the incoming quanta is absorbed by physical particles, how can we account for the image of the object of observation that arises in consciousness? Is it composed of patterns of matter and energy formed by the information in the incoming quanta? If so, there is a minimum volume within which the image of an object can appear and be stored, since matter and energy can only occur in discrete, finite packets.
If the image is material, what is the consciousness, the final receptor, that perceives this image?
Is it also made up of quanta of matter and energy? If so, then the elementary particles of which it is composed also had no local physical form until they registered on a prior receptor. And that prior receptor, if it was composed of quanta of matter and energy, also had to have had a prior receptor, and so on. Thus the quest for the first receptor becomes an infinite regression in time and space. But quantum mechanics tells us that the time and space available in the universe and in the finite physical structure of the brain of a sentient being is limited. There is, therefore, a "bottom" to physical phenomena, the infinite regress or descent is impossible, and we have a logical contradiction. Conclusion: the first and final receptors cannot be composed of quanta of matter and energy.

 

 

http://www.transcendentalphysics.com/rw_ascent.html

 

There may a bit of new age craziness on that site, but the basic idea is definitely one I identify with.

 

One thing I dislike is how most atheists and neuroscientists equate consciousness to be thought process, feelings, and the brain's own self awareness, and not the point I'm getting at.

 

Unfortunately this is the infamous consciousness problem. Though what really gets me about many atheists and neuroscientists is that they refuse to even recognise this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It shouldn't matter one way or the other - a priori reasoning is still poor.

 

And you don't recognize that you're proceeding from an assumed premise as well? The only difference is that you agree with your own premise.

 

What you did there is bull{censored} relativism.

 

You really need to look up the definition of that word.

 

I want to hear your reply to this, since it sounds like you're getting very smug....


I don't think you're intelligent enough to understand the idea that all ethics aren't blankets you can throw over every situations.

 

You don't think I'm intelligent enough to understand your complex ideas...yet you want to hear my reply?

 

Interesting.

 

 

Let's just assume that you're correct, that I'm incapable of understanding the nuances of your argument, and that my disagreement stems not from a systemic fallacy in your logic, but from a lack of intellectual faculty.

 

Enjoy your stay at HCBF. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Let's just assume that you're correct, that I'm incapable of understanding the nuances of your argument, and that my disagreement stems not from a systemic fallacy in your logic, but from a lack of intellectual faculty.


Enjoy your stay at HCBF.
:thu:



You shouldn't call yourself stupid, Kashue. You made it through high school. Right?:D
C7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I think this thread can be summarised by left > right.



You actually extrapolated that from the preceding several pages?:confused:

If anything, it can be summarized by Gurren Lagann thinks that writing long, drawn out posts will convince people that he knows what he's talking about.

Baffle everyone with bull{censored}, and then start telling one of the smartest and most educated guys on the forum that he's not intelligent enough to understand him. Classic.:facepalm:
C7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Baffle everyone with bull{censored}, and then start telling one of the smartest and most educated guys on the forum that he's not intelligent enough to understand him. Classic.
:facepalm:
C7

 

Argument from authority, not exactly logically sound.

 

We can't just accept KK is right because he is clearly a smart guy (which he is). We need to look at the actual arguments and determine who is right based on that... Hmm. Appears as if KK is still the sound choice here.

 

Nevermind me, then. Just post-whoring. :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Argument from authority, not exactly logically sound.


We can't just accept KK is right because he is clearly a smart guy (which he is). We need to look at the actual arguments and determine who is right based on that... Hmm. Appears as if KK is still the sound choice here.


Nevermind me, then. Just post-whoring.
:wave:



KK wasn't the only person arguing the point with the guy, he just had the potato last.

When it comes to sheer intellect, I've got Kashue beat hands down. He's just more logical than me, and he communicates much more better. Plus he's far more likely to suffer a fool.:D
C7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
The main thing that people, mostly conservatives forget is that people tend to infringe on each others' freedom more than their government.



:confused:

Then why do we have so many laws, at the federal, state and municipal level? You've got it backwards, I think.

Conservatives (well, Republicanists at least) tend to favor less regulation and control.

"That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine

Too bad that concept hasn't been used vis-a-vis the business and finance sectors in recent years. We could have used a bit more regulating...:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Stats on this? Well it would kind of make sense - people drive a heck of a lot more than they walk around looking for a gunfight. It's not a great comparison.




Yet it's one that you made. I only extrapolated on it.

If the US does have a lot of car deaths, I'm pretty sure it's the same attitude you're displaying that leads to this - "expecting" people to be responsible, and not caring about the consequences.



Sure. It has nothing to do with the massive amount of cars on the road or poor driving skills.

Uhhh... you sort of need to do a driving test, and have a driving license.



Not to buy a car, you don't.

This is such a stupid mentality. What is the government for? If you end up saving "one" life, what's wrong with that? You're working backwards from the idea of noninterference being da best.



Infringing on 257,000,000 peoples rights to save one is not a good trade off. Period. You are working backwards from the idea that government knows what is best for you and that interference is best.

Conservatives are big on expecting responsibility - not creating more of it. Preaching it as an ideal is not the same thing as causing any level of it to increase.



That is quite simply because the liberals would rather subordinate personaly responsibility with entitlement programs and actually reward people for irresponsible behavior. That is why we have 3rd 4th and 5th generation welfare families. Conservatives would rather see people become productive members of society and contribute to it rather than take from it. Dependence=control.

But this, is, again, a level where expecting people to be responsible fails - there will always be people looking to abuse their rights. Do you not see that? No matter how much you emphasise personal responsibility, some people simply will not be responsible, and {censored} it up for everyone else. That's why you need stricter driving tests, and something similar for the ownership of firearms.



I personally feel that anyone who is not a convicted felon, mental patient, etc (thise restrictions are already in place) SHOULD be able to own a firearm. However, I also think that there needs to be mandatory training. I have no problem with that and have in fact advocated it many times. however, you will still have people that {censored} up. You can not legislate common sense. You can not legislate down to the lowest common denominator. And there will still be criminals that get hold of guns and committ crimes with them. That will never change an nothing anyone can say or do WILL ever change that. We have free will. To do good, and to do harm. no government will ever change that.



But is it just about agreement? If it's rallying people to a hatred cause, isn't that just one step away from inciting riot? You have to think why these laws exist to begin with.



No. it is not. Maybe you need to look up the law on that if you don' know the answer. Do you really think you can legislate hatred and bigotry out of people? Thought police?

" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Sound familliar?

The thing is, all of Robertsons views are easily debunked - but no, I do not have equal rights to refute it - I don't have religious organisations backing me, many millions of dollars and a popular network to broadcast upon.



You are confusing rights with access. You most certainly have the equal right to refute it. You also have the right to free speech. You dno't have the right to an audience. I think you need to look up the word "rights" as ewll as you don't seem to understand that word either.

It's irrelevant if I don't have to listen to him - the social effect of him espousing his views is what I care about - again what I dislike about conservatives, it always tries to cast people as childishly disagreeing and wanting moderation based on that - it's not that, it's that bigotry COMES from somewhere. While people may naturally fear difference - it takes someone to stand up and turn that discomfort into people voting against others' rights.



and you have the same right to speak out against hatred and bigotry and all of these things YOU dislike. Seems like you only want the right of free speech to apply to people you agree with.

For example of Pat Robertson and people like him were not in the airwaves, I can guarantee Proposition 8 may very well have gone quite differently.



How can you guarantee that? Do you have data to back that up? And how in the world do you guarantee that something may have gone differently. That's like me saying I guarantee that the Broncos may win the superbowl next year. I think you need to look up the difinition of guarantee while you are at it.


Again this is one thing I dislike about right wing economics - the presumption that anyone can "make it". Poor messageboard mods use this excuse too, you don't like it, set up your own board. It rarely works out like that.



oh the poor downtrodden disabused person who blames other people for what they don't accomplish. Anyone can make it. There are multimillionaires that have come from the deepest slums in this country. Glad you have a built in excuse though. keep rallying against "the man".


But it's not all relative. Many of his views are simply misinformed. Who is "pro abortion" exactly? It's pro-choice. The fact that he'd SAY pro-abortion and the like is what makes it hateful to begin with.



And many people would say that abortion is hateful and murder. Why is YOUR opinoin on it any more valid than theirs?


This is silly - this is a matter that's ongoing constant debate, amongst people who actually know what they're talking about - when does a fetus become truly "alive" and aware of itself, etc. whereas bigotry being bad isn't really something that you need to debunk.



In your opinion. Some people think an unborn child in the first trimester is not really a human being. Others think that a person of a different race or skin color is not really a himan being. I think they are both wrong. ;)

It's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination - those are two genuine opposing ideas, homophobia is very often founded in nothing but logical fallacy. You'll get smart people being against abortion from time to time, but you won't get near as many being homophobes.




Do you have any statistics to show the intelligence levels of people who are for and against gay rights? I doubt it, but if you do I would love to see them. You have no basis for that argument whatsoever do you?

Homophobia doesn't really exist, except maybe in very rare cases. Show me someone with an irrational fear of homosexuals. Terrified to death of gay people. Disapproving of something is not the same as an irrational fear. The people who are in favor of gay rights invented this word to put a spin on the people that don't agree with it. Personally, I don't care who sleeps with who. It doesn't affect me. 2 of my dearest friends are gay. So what? They are awesome people and that's all I care about. However, if someone finds it distasteful or immoral, I feel that is their choice to have that opinion and to state their opinion. It is my right to disagree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Where do you draw the line at "Personal responsibility" anyway? It's just a milder form of anarchy you're advocating here. At what point should we make a law, and should something be personal responsibiliy?



When the actions of one individual causes direct harm to another. When the actions of one individual infringes on the rights of another.

If I say "homosexuality is morally wrong" how does that do either of these things? It doesn't. If I say "I hate gays" how does that do either of these things? It doesn't. But, if I take it a step further and assault someone because they are gay, then I have most definitely crossed that line.



Yes, it does matter.


If someone is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be strung up and killed by the KKK, how are they equal? If you are more likely to be killed, then why should the government not protect you?



Really? How many blacks did the KKK kill last year in this country? how many whites were murdered by black gang members last year? do you know? Would you like to guess? Would you like to retract the "more likely" part of your argument? ;) Fact is the KKK and gangbangers are both pieces of {censored}. I don't think either one is any better than the other based o anything, especially their skin color.

I don't think you realise how bigotted what you just said is. The fact is - people are not all the same! They all have different circumstances that need to be taken into account.



You are right. I state all people are equal in the eyes of the law and I'm the bigot. What a joke! :D:D I judge people on their actions, not their race. The fact that you want to give people preferential treatment based on their race, gender, sexual orientation etc actually makes YOU the bigot. I feel they are all equal. you apprently don't. Maybe you should also look up the definition of Bigot. For someone with the obvious self-professed high level of inteeligence, you should really buy a dictionary. :lol:

When you smugly state that people should be all treated the same, PC is bull{censored}, etc. what you fail to realise that your society caters primarily to neurotypical straight white people. What you're basically saying is that a person coming from a different cultural background, that is treated differently to others by society, should be happy with only the same kind of protection as the average straight white male? How is that equality? Surely everyone should be treated according to who they are, and not the majority?



See above post. yes, all people should be protected equally. Absolutely. Failure to realize this is exactly what leads to discrimination. That is the definition of equality. Again get a dictionary.

The whole point of laws, and rights, is to try and ensure people don't rip each other apart and are on a fairly equal ground.



Yet you don't want the laws appolied equally to all. So who really has the problem here?

Maybe they don't work as well as they should, but they're not "ethically" wrong, just inefficient.



And that's the problem I have with most liberal thinkers. Theory and practice are two different things. The main difference to me between a conservative and a liberal is that a conservative demands equality of opportunity. A liberal demands an equality of outcome. That will never happen. Some people are smarter. Some are stronger. Some are better looking (like Lug). Some have talent in different areas.

Should I demand that I be able to play bass as well as Vic Wooten? And if I can't, then he should be made to play worse? Shoud I demand that I should be able to play QB in the NFL? And for me to get that outcome, everyone better at it than me should be required to play worse so that I have a shot?

That is the difference in thinking.

I am sorry, but this is one of the reasons I cannot respect the intelligence of the average conservative. I find it hard to respect you as a person if you think nothing should be done about the fact that someone is potentially many times more likely to be killed by a particular group than another.


Discrimination doesn't just get better if you pretend everyone the same. That's not diversity, that's homogeny, and creating a mould for the majority and expecting the minority to fit.



That's okay. The average conservatve doesn't respect your intelligence either. They find it hard to respect a person who feels that the solution to social problems is to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator as opposed to elevating everyone over the bar, and set the bar high.


I think you're confusing legal rights with philosophical rights, or rather thinking that I'm doing the same.



I don't think you understand the concept of inalienable rights whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Stats on this? Well it would kind of make sense - people drive a heck of a lot more than they walk around looking for a gunfight. It's not a great comparison.


If the US does have a lot of car deaths, I'm pretty sure it's the same attitude you're displaying that leads to this - "expecting" people to be responsible, and not caring about the consequences.




Uhhh... you sort of need to do a driving test, and have a driving license.




This is such a stupid mentality. What is the government for? If you end up saving "one" life, what's wrong with that? You're working backwards from the idea of noninterference being da best.




You'd be surprised. Whether you realise it or not, it's somewhat linked with what you're saying. When I read this article, it was posted on a forum and a lot of people thought he was in the right. People are insane - which is exactly my point. You can't trust people who thouht this was a good idea to make the smart choice.




Conservatives are big on expecting responsibility - not creating more of it. Preaching it as an ideal is not the same thing as causing any level of it to increase.




But this, is, again, a level where expecting people to be responsible fails - there will always be people looking to abuse their rights. Do you not see that? No matter how much you emphasise personal responsibility, some people simply will not be responsible, and {censored} it up for everyone else. That's why you need stricter driving tests, and something similar for the ownership of firearms.






But is it just about agreement? If it's rallying people to a hatred cause, isn't that just one step away from inciting riot? You have to think why these laws exist to begin with.


The thing is, all of Robertsons views are easily debunked - but no, I do not have equal rights to refute it - I don't have religious organisations backing me, many millions of dollars and a popular network to broadcast upon.


It's irrelevant if I don't have to listen to him - the social effect of him espousing his views is what I care about - again what I dislike about conservatives, it always tries to cast people as childishly disagreeing and wanting moderation based on that - it's not that, it's that bigotry COMES from somewhere. While people may naturally fear difference - it takes someone to stand up and turn that discomfort into people voting against others' rights.


For example of Pat Robertson and people like him were not in the airwaves, I can guarantee Proposition 8 may very well have gone quite differently.


Again this is one thing I dislike about right wing economics - the presumption that anyone can "make it". Poor messageboard mods use this excuse too, you don't like it, set up your own board. It rarely works out like that.




But it's not all relative. Many of his views are simply misinformed. Who is "pro abortion" exactly? It's pro-choice. The fact that he'd SAY pro-abortion and the like is what makes it hateful to begin with.




This is silly - this is a matter that's ongoing constant debate, amongst people who actually know what they're talking about - when does a fetus become truly "alive" and aware of itself, etc. whereas bigotry being bad isn't really something that you need to debunk.


It's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination - those are two genuine opposing ideas, homophobia is very often founded in nothing but logical fallacy. You'll get smart people being against abortion from time to time, but you won't get near as many being homophobes.




Or if he was, you know, helping to create an environment where abortion doctors were more likely to be killed or hated. I'm pretty sure someone tried that a week or two back.




(-_-)


If "Liberals" run your education system maybe you should try and take a look as to why that is. From outside of the US, we don't view your education system as particularly liberal which is why the whole thing seems so insane.




But some people, many people in fact you just cannot leave it up to!


Where do you draw the line at "Personal responsibility" anyway? It's just a milder form of anarchy you're advocating here. At what point should we make a law, and should something be personal responsibiliy?




Middle ground fallacy. Both sides are not inherently equal. Again, there's a reason why most educators tend to be "liberal" leaning in your scale(but still not so on a more general scale).




But they're not given the tools to do so. Heck, you're not thought critical thinking in schools, and most people show no signs of learning it afterwards. Does anyone really know what "fallacious reasoning" means?




God this point of view makes me happening.


Yes, it does matter.


If someone is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be strung up and killed by the KKK, how are they equal? If you are more likely to be killed, then why should the government not protect you?


I don't think you realise how bigotted what you just said is. The fact is - people are not all the same! They all have different circumstances that need to be taken into account.


When you smugly state that people should be all treated the same, PC is bull{censored}, etc. what you fail to realise that your society caters primarily to neurotypical straight white people. What you're basically saying is that a person coming from a different cultural background, that is treated differently to others by society, should be happy with only the same kind of protection as the average straight white male? How is that equality? Surely everyone should be treated according to who they are, and not the majority?


The whole point of laws, and rights, is to try and ensure people don't rip each other apart and are on a fairly equal ground.


Maybe they don't work as well as they should, but they're not "ethically" wrong, just inefficient.


I am sorry, but this is one of the reasons I cannot respect the intelligence of the average conservative. I find it hard to respect you as a person if you think nothing should be done about the fact that someone is potentially many times more likely to be killed by a particular group than another.


Discrimination doesn't just get better if you pretend everyone the same. That's not diversity, that's homogeny, and creating a mould for the majority and expecting the minority to fit.




I think you're confusing legal rights with philosophical rights, or rather thinking that I'm doing the same.

 

 

Your whole post is so full of crap I don't know where to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
You know, this is such bull{censored}, and this is exactly WHY. Most Liberals including myself simply fume at arrogant remarks like this - you meet "Intolerance" because you're practically asking for it.



Of course. If you disagree with a liberal, you are asking for it.

Conservatives are CERTAINLY not more tolerant than liberals. Liberals may be intolerant of poorly reasoned opinions - and rightly so. I don't believe I've ever met a genuinely, truly kind person that has also been conservative. After all - how's that going to work out? You get Liberals that even meet your ditzy standards for "tolerant", but you'll rarely get a conservative that will be 100% open to things like homosexuality, subcultures, etc.



this says it all. Liberals are intolerant of WHAT THE DEEM TO BE poorly reasoned opinions but in fact are intolerant of ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM OR HOLDS DIFFERENT VIEWS.

And you couldn't be more wrong about conservatives. I'm probably one of the more truly conservative members on this board and I'm 100% open to homosexuality (in others, not myself :D ) and subcultures, etc. Your pre-programmed knee-jerk stereotypes are the problem here, not conservatives. The fact that you state you have never met a truly kind person who is a conservative shows your bent. I would be willing to bet that I give more money to charity and do more charity work personally than 99% of the members here. I hosted and sponsored over a dozen charity events last year alone. Everything from Autism Speaks to a wheelchair for a friend in need to animal abuse charities to Ronald McDonald House, and on and on and on. I also give thousands and thousands of dollars to charities each year from the Jimmy Fund to Livestrong to the Wonmens Rape Crisis Center here in town along with many others. Quite simply, your prejudices get in the way of reality.


The problem is you only seem to care about opinions - not logic and reason. There is more to the world than opinions. America needs to learn this.



No. I care a lot about logic. Tell me where the logic is in creating an entire dependent class of people (low income minorities) by giving them money through entitlement programs, simply to creat a voting bloc? Not helping them actually get ahead.........


This is the problem - you are delusional. It is not about "agreement" again, I am telling you this. It is possible that a viewpoint is simply poorly backed up or reasoned, as tends to be the case more often with conservatives than "liberals". There is a reason most academics are liberal leaning.



True. Because they can't get a job being productive in the business world.
Thise who can, do. Those who don't, teach. :D


Anti-intellectual horse{censored}. Why exactly would you know how to raise a family better than someone who also most likely has raised a family, and actually understands how people work? Where do you get this knowledge from?



BWAHAHAHAA!!!! You're so right. People never raised children before Dr. Spock and all the headshrinkers started telling us the best way to raise children. And It's gotten so much better since the phychologists and sociologists and government got involved in child rearing. Look at the drastic drop since the 1950's in teenage suicide, drug abuse, pregnancy, etc. What did we ever do withough these experts? :D:D:D

I learned from.....get this......MY PARENTS. And my Grandparents. And my friends and family that raised children. And considering my son ende dup being an honors student, ROTC, never got in trouble with the law, graduated college in 2.5 years and is a wonderful human being, I think it worked pretty well. How about you, expert? :D:D


This is the problem - you are actually guilty of what you say. YOU think you know what's best. Liberals also think they know what's best - but more often than not, they have the qualifications, or side with the people that do. People who actually study the world for a living versus people who study the bible is what it tends to come down to in religious arguments - it's similar here. People only study their own ethics.



Again, what a joke. Tell me, what exact qualifications do these people have? have they raised a family? Ther is a big difference betewen theoretical and practical knowlege. something you seem to have very little grasp on.


Again, another reason why I cannot respect the intelligence of the average conservative. And I'm giving REASONS for it, good ones, so no it is not "hate speech".



Absolutely. i'm sure everyone else who participates in hate speech has good real reasons too. You just can't see that you are no different or better than them because you can't see past your own personal blinders. I'm sure their loevl of conviction is right around the same as yours.


Oh, but it's DIFFERENT with you, right? :lol: Pathetic.



It's alright to hate someone or a group or people if you have an actual good, defined reason, usually being that they hate someone for a reason that is not very good or well defined.



God, the hypocrisy of this statement alone is enough to show how ridiculous you are.


Honestly, "hate" is not always a bad thing. It's not so much "Hate" against minorities as bigotry and ignorance and a will to homogenise everything in sight. Hate can be healthy - you hate, it you change it. But if you hate something for an illogical reason you end up trying to change something, that does not need to be changed.



And you are the arbiter of a logical reason? Please. You have completely disproven that hypothesis 20 times over in this thread alone. It's only okay to hate if it's for the reasons YOU hate? Is that your "logic"? :D:D


Answer me this exactly, how is it fair that you get to be a "Normal" guy who isn't very likely to be strung up by the KKK? This is where "Liberal" and "Conservative" fail to be equal viewpoints.



How do you even know that? That's an assumption on your part. But even assuming you are correct, explain to me how "fair" it is that if I walk down the street in Compton, CA, or East Saint Louis, I stand a really good chance of being assaulted or murdered BECAUSE I'm a "normal" guy. How is that ANY DIFFERENT?

You are like MTV. Some people just don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You don't think I'm intelligent enough to understand your complex ideas...yet you want to hear my reply?


Let's just assume that you're correct, that I'm incapable of understanding the nuances of your argument, and that my disagreement stems not from a systemic fallacy in your logic, but from a lack of intellectual faculty.



But you have like...4 or 5 PhD's right...or something like that. I heard that you did.

Or did I dream that. Not that I'd admit dreaming about you Kashue...

<_>




Once again, I have nothing of substance to add. But it's fun watching! :snax:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And you don't recognize that you're proceeding from an assumed premise as well? The only difference is that you agree with your own premise.

 

No, I'm reasoning to demonstrate my claims, rather than making the presumption they're probably true to begin and working from that.

 

If you didn't even read my post properly, then please don't comment.

 

 

Let's just assume that you're correct, that I'm incapable of understanding the nuances of your argument, and that my disagreement stems not from a systemic fallacy in your logic, but from a lack of intellectual faculty.


Enjoy your stay at HCBF.
:thu:

 

If this was so untrue, then I imagine you would have actually debunked my post point by point instead of hiding behind fancy concepts you don't fully understand. Regardless of academic achievement, it doesn't mean you're going to understand every point everyone is going to make, or even have a good understanding of the world in general, or debate, and your attitude in this thread doesn't seem to suggest you'd like to learn either. It definitely isn't the practice of an intellectual to skim a debate, pick a bit he doesn't like, bitch about it, get all smug, then act all defensive when you had nothing interesting to say to begin with.

 

The irony is that I'm against the "right wing" opinion in this thread based muchly on fallacious reasoning to begin with - yet when I have a problem with you calling me out on doing this, my reasoning is invalid? Please explain to me how this works.

 

Of course. If you disagree with a liberal, you are asking for it.

 

I honestly stopped reading here. Even after I lectured you on it you are unable to work past the basic concept that "agreement" and "disagreement" are not what absolutely everything.

 

This is the issue - you've never stopped to think why tolerant people come off as intolerant to you. Typical conservative backwards ass logic, you take the argument that most likely applies to you, and find some way of applying it to your opponent. In reality, it is not that "Liberals" are intolerant of you for who you are, how you were born, how you dress, it's that they are intolerant of poorly reasoned viewpoints that don't stack with modern psychology, sociology, and importantly as someone brought up, neuroscience.

 

It's not that your argument is flawed, it's simply that I disagree. It's a get out of jail free card many conservatives use - and yet you still claim to be on "equal footing". It's far too convenient - at no point do you entertain the idea of actually being wrong, nor do you offer any decent evidence as to why our opponent many be, merely arguing the semantics. As for the rest of your argument, making a general prediction, I'd recommend reading that article I was shown on "The Noble Savage" - which is the ideology you cling to, which simply does not hold.

 

Opinions are not all automatically equal - some have more factual or logical basis than others.

 

Even for this reason alone, your ideology is inferior. And personal responsibility cannot be assumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You actually extrapolated that from the preceding several pages?
:confused:

If anything, it can be summarized by Gurren Lagann thinks that writing long, drawn out posts will convince people that he knows what he's talking about.


Baffle everyone with bull{censored}, and then start telling one of the smartest and most educated guys on the forum that he's not intelligent enough to understand him. Classic.
:facepalm:
C7

 

Excuse me, but regardless of how educated someone is, does not mean they can waltz into an argument, pick and choose and basically appeal to "common sense", which is fallacious reasoning whether Fred Phelps or Richard Dawkins is doing it. Actually, you came into this thread on perhaps the most smug, vile, condescending post in this thread. It's not that I dislike you because of your "Opinion", I dislike you because you're a goddamn {censored}ty poster.

 

Academic does not always equate to truly intelligent or intellectual, it merely means that this person is an expert on certain subjects. I wouldn't ask an economist about cognitive theory.

 

The level of smugness in this thread is amazing - your first post was talking down to me and not giving me a chance in the slightest, automatically writing me off for being left wing whereas I at least had the courtesy to reply, point by point, to right wing reasoning, yet you accuse me of being high and mighty? There is no way in hell you're the good one here.

 

I have no idea why "rock" musicians tend to be some of the more conservative posters in general online, it's not very rock'n'roll that's for sure. I blame Dave Mustaine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Argument from authority, not exactly logically sound.


We can't just accept KK is right because he is clearly a smart guy (which he is). We need to look at the actual arguments and determine who is right based on that... Hmm. Appears as if KK is still the sound choice here.


Nevermind me, then. Just post-whoring.
:wave:

 

What, so you know it's an appeal to authority, and you don't give a {censored}? Popular member automatically wins out?

 

I do not give a {censored} if this guy has in excess of 23 PHDs. In general experts are the people to listen to, but this guy appears to be no expert at debating in a decent matter.

 

This is a {censored}ty post:

 

He's claiming only that he knows what's best for himself. He makes no claim regarding others.


Do you really think the best form of life is if your choices are dictated to you by experts? Where your self-determination is overriden because someone else declares "I know what's best for you"?



As for qualifications, I can only assume you don't personally know many professional academics/scholars...if you did, I imagine your opinion of their suitability to run the lives of others would be somewhat different...


Also:

 

First off, he said I was criticising someone on whether he knew best for himself(which wouldn't be an invalid point of view anyway - if he knew anything of the psychology/neuroscience being discussed, he wouldn't put me down automatically for claiming someone may not know how to run aspects of their own life, obviously people like alcoholics do not), when I pointed out it was with regards other(his family). He did not even reply to me correcting him on this, I believe.

 

Also, his initial posts in this thread were pretty poor - all he did was say that if X is defiled than all freedom will be lost, and drop quotes. Honestly, I can see the appeal, but I outgrew that when I was 17, and he could well be twice my current age. There was no real reasoning. You can dress a rat up in a cloak and Mortar board but it's still a rat.

 

Ah, very clear...It's okay when you hate someone, because you have an "actual good, defined reason". ("good", of course, being a subjective term that you are leaving undefined)


But when others do it, and you don't like their reason (and have decided it is thus "not very good"), then it's not okay to hate...

 

This is of course a flat out strawman. Instead of bothering to actually read my post and the reasoning I've given, he ignores it for a bull{censored} feel good HURR JUST CAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM.

 

This is the biggest dip{censored} of an academic I've ever come across. You still think given his posts which barely actually deal with anything I'm saying to begin with, he's still the sound choice? Then you're delusional, or just sticking with the well known, popular member, even if he's unbearably obnoxious. He's just a jerk with a few PhDs, there are plenty of nutjob rightwingers who have qualifications too - it doesn't mean that in general, that position is much less backed by people who are experts in relevant fields. What are his PhDs even in? Trollan gaems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...