Liberals Discover the Limits of Rationality- They Should Be Worried.

[Jim Bob]

So can I politely ask why you responded? I named a certain kind of conservative. You're a man right? But if I addressed something to "murdering bisexual pedophile man" you wouldn't respond, because you're not that kind of man.

Why do we no longer do this in politics and political discussions? It really isn't just conservative/liberal the same way it isn't simply man/woman, black/white.

Honestly not trying to be a dick I just genuinely want someone to see what I'm seeing.

I responded because your statement was of condescension to Christian conservatives. Don't paint us all with the same brush.

 

[CargoKing]

It reads more like a strawman. If I would ask, "when are nihilistic liberals who love criminals entering illegally going to stop hating America?" I would be sure to get a response or two.

I don't care how well you read, the point remains. If you aren't that kind of person, you aren't being addressed, and there's no need to respond.

I responded because your statement was of condescension to Christian conservatives. Don't paint us all with the same brush.

No I didn't, I specifically said "who hate immigrants". If you don't hate immigrants, I wasn't talking to you. Here I'll show you.

"All men named Jim who rape dogs are bad people."

Is what I just said a condemnation of all people named Jim?

 

[panamaican]

The entire post is good but I want to highlight something that I find myself frequently arguing about on this board:

Alistair MacIntyre's entire thesis is essentially that morality and ethics are socially derived and therefore not universal but rather irrational and normative to the community that produced them.

I wholeheartedly agree with the above and find myself more frequently abandoning arguments these days because the other person's position is predicated on the idea of a universal set of morals and ethics that frankly never existed in the 1st place.

As for the larger point in the OP, I think this is how it has always been and why we have a representative democracy instead of a direct one. On a national scale, the community morals and ethics are constantly in flux and the rational arguments that are derived them are constantly in flux as well.

When you look in a history book and they can cover 50 years of social, moral and ethical change in 2-3 pages, it's easy to think that these things happen quickly and painlessly. In reality, these changes are often long and drawn out with a majority position rarely apparent to the people living through the time period.

I think our current era is going through a significant reconsideration of our social, moral and ethical positions. It's driven by changes in demographics and changes in technology. The demographic changes mean that new S/M/E positions are entering the public discussion with greater weight. The technological changes mean S/M/E considerations must be filtered through a new lens.

The 2nd Amendment is an easy example. When the S/M/E arguments behind the 2nd Amendment were being considered the technological capabilities of armaments, both for the nation and the individual, were very different from what they are now. As destructive capability increased, it's natural that the 2nd Amendment's S/M/E considerations be revisited.

In the end, I subscribe to a simple philosophy. Society shapes itself then it shapes government. Accordingly, there can never be a permanently defensible moral or ethical argument in politics. And to this end, the Constitution takes on greater significance. It acts as a bulwark against changing moral and ethical arguments significantly dictating the boundaries of the government that must govern numerous competing S/M/E positions.

 

[Metusalemi]

Good OP, but I didn't understand "vis a vis".

 

[dontsnitch]

I don't care how well you read, the point remains. If you aren't that kind of person, you aren't being addressed, and there's no need to respond.

The point that you've made a strawman remains, indeed.

Of those who oppose unfettered immigration, what percent do you think feel this was because they, as you so eloquently put it- "hate immigrants"? It's the equivalent of suggesting that those who are in favor of European-style immigration do so because they "love criminals", and that they are significant enough for me to mention it.

I don't want to derail Denter's thread, he put a lot of effort into the TS. Start an immigration thread if you want to discuss it, I promise I'll contribute.

 

[eworden78]

I don't care how well you read, the point remains. If you aren't that kind of person, you aren't being addressed, and there's no need to respond.



No I didn't, I specifically said "who hate immigrants". If you don't hate immigrants, I wasn't talking to you. Here I'll show you.

"All men named Jim who rape dogs are bad people."

Is what I just said a condemnation of all people named Jim?

I don't get what you are trying to do here. I'm a liberal, but I'm not following your argumentation.

Your initial statement certainly appeared to be a strawman, or an over-generalization. I think almost any rational person would take it that way.
So when #Jim Bob responded, he was responding as someone who belonged to a general category of people who your statement was inaccurately representing.

It would certainly appear your are being intentionally abstruse, and it's hard to buy your very literal explanations.

I'd like to know what your goal is with this though experiment.

 

[CargoKing]

The point that you've made a strawman remains, indeed.

Of those who oppose unfettered immigration, what percent do you think feel this was because they, as you so eloquently put it- "hate immigrants"? It's the equivalent of suggesting that those who are in favor of European-style immigration do so because they "love criminals", and that they are significant enough for me to mention it.

I don't want to derail Denter's thread, he put a lot of effort into the TS. Start an immigration thread if you want to discuss it, I promise I'll contribute.

Why would I make a thread just so you can post more? You can't even grasp the simple concept that a blue murdering butterfly and a blue reading butterfly are two different things. You're sitting here telling me they're both just blue butterflies.

 

[CargoKing]

I don't get what you are trying to do here. I'm a liberal, but I'm not following your argumentation.

Your initial statement certainly appeared to be a strawman, or an over-generalization. I think almost any rational person would take it that way.
So when #Jim Bob responded, he was responding as someone who belonged to a general category of people who your statement was inaccurately representing.

It would certainly appear your are being intentionally abstruse, and it's hard to buy your very literal explanations.

I'd like to know what your goal is with this though experiment.

My goal is to know why a man who doesn't hate immigrants thought he was addressed in a characterization of someone who hates immigrants.

If I say something to everyone named John who's 6 feet tall with red hair, and you're a 6' tall John with blonde hair, should you respond?

 

[dontsnitch]

My goal is to know why a man who doesn't hate immigrants thought he was addressed in a characterization of someone who hates immigrants.

If I say something to everyone named John who's 6 feet tall with red hair, and you're a 6' tall John with blonde hair, should you respond?

When you have several people telling you the same thing, it's often good to take a step back and see if maybe they have a valid point.

 

[CargoKing]

When you have several people telling you the same thing, it's often good to take a step back and see if maybe they have a valid point.

Wanna pull the internet debate dictionary back out and share the definition of "desperate appeal to others" for us? I'm sure it's somewhere by "straw man"

 

[dontsnitch]

Wanna pull the internet debate dictionary back out and share the definition of "desperate appeal to others" for us? I'm sure it's somewhere by "straw man"

Given that I didn't make an argument, I couldn't have made a fallacy. I said that you should step back and reconsider your perspective because you have several people telling you the same thing.

Had I said that you're wrong and the proof is that many of us disagree with you, that would be a fallacy. What I said is just common sense.

 

[CargoKing]

Given that I didn't make an argument, I couldn't have made a fallacy. I said that you should step back and reconsider your perspective because you have several people telling you the same thing.

Had I said that you're wrong and the proof is that many of us disagree with you, that would be a fallacy. What I said is just common sense.

Common sense is looking at your inability to directly address the questions in my posts and knowing it's because you find it easier to just say "look other people disagree too, so I don't have to explain.why you're wrong".

But yeah, straw man, fallacy, other debate words, whatever you gotta do to make that shit look shiny....

 

[eworden78]

My goal is to know why a man who doesn't hate immigrants thought he was addressed in a characterization of someone who hates immigrants.

If I say something to everyone named John who's 6 feet tall with red hair, and you're a 6' tall John with blonde hair, should you respond?

I think I explained that in my post. So I guess you are done here?

 

[unimackpass]

So when are bible-toting conservatives who hate immigrants going to discover reason? How long after will they discover the limits of it?

If all one has is straw man arguments their only proving the point. Once again, how about legal and vetted.

 

[CargoKing]

If all one has is straw man arguments their only proving the point. Once again, how about legal and vetted.

Did I say anything about illegal or legal immigrants?

If you guys don't hate immigrants, why are you responding? Hmmmm.....

 

[CargoKing]

I think I explained that in my post. So I guess you are done here?

You didn't even answer the question I asked, so how did you address anything ?

 

[unimackpass]

Did I say anything about illegal or legal immigrants?

If you guys don't hate immigrants, why are you responding? Hmmmm.....

Who hates or is against legal immigrants?

 

[CargoKing]

Who hates or is against legal immigrants?

Apparently everyone who's responding to a post I made that said "who hate immigrants". Was like an accidental bat signal that's actually just a flashlight.

 

[eworden78]

You didn't even answer the question I asked, so how did you address anything ?

I told you why I thought people were responding to your post. I think you understand this, but you're trying to make some kind of point, which is going over everyone's head, including me.

Why don't you just enlighten us? What is your point here?

 

[Bald1]

Apparently everyone who's responding to a post I made that said "who hate immigrants". Was like an accidental bat signal that's actually just a flashlight.

If your post was meant to be directed only towards those who hate immigrants, then you should have left the rest out. Unless, of course your intent was to try to smear by association. But, of course, you wouldn't do that, now would you?