[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
- I’m not sure I’ve voiced my support for the NYT editorial standards anywhere.[/quote]
That isn’t the point - the point is people can have informed discourse without the standard of proof you prefer. People still understand meanings and learn things, even if editorials aren’t begun with treatises outlining evidence for certain political assumptions (which no one would bother reading anyway, including you).
The editorial was pretty darn deliberative and pretty heady. It isn’t “pontificating” just because you happen to disagree.
You mean other than Liberals themselves agreeing with this basic principle as part of their Liberalism? If he’s wrong, no problem, explain why.
But this is apples and oranges. I get a suspicion that if your political inclinations were with the assumptions and ideas of the piece, we wouldn’t be hearing such a fuss over it from you. I could be wrong about that, but I’d surmise if it were an article that assumed the corporations owed duties to society and then used that point as a jumping off point to talk about other things (minus the annotated “proof” of the original assumption), I doubt we’d be hearing you demanding “some fucking research” or else the guy would be “spitting into the wind.”
You also said this:
So, okay - challenge it vigorously then.[/quote]
Ah yes… I see you are in fact so enamored with his style that you choose it for yourself, again 
I have this same problem with a wide variety of pundits from both sides of the aisle.
The more you assume about me, the less likely you are to ever gain anything of value from our discourse.
Incidentally, it’s convenient that my style and presentation are suddenly “apples and oranges” to his, when their usefulness as an argument for you diminishes.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Ah yes… I see you are in fact so enamored with his style that you choose it for yourself, again :)[/quote]
Uh, not really.
[quote]I have this same problem with a wide variety of pundits from both sides of the aisle.
The more you assume about me, the less likely you are to ever gain anything of value from our discourse. [/quote]
I surmised that largely because, for example, when Sloth stated that, yes, he thought corporations had social responsibilities outside of satisfying shareholders, instead of demanding stacks of proof, you simply agreed with him and said “Word”. I just would have expected someone with such high expectations for substantiation with “proof” to put his hands on his hips and demand a little more. But, as it is.
Uh, no - it is “apples and oranges” because on one hand we are talking about the framework, assumptions and proof required to prove a scientific theory and on the other we are talking about what’s needed for a political editorial (which is categorically not a white paper).
Apples and oranges. Nothing “convenient” about it, just different applications based on context and function.
Oh, and any point, anyone who disagrees with the point of the editorial feel free to actually address it on the merits - vigorously.
cool topic. This have potential to become a good discussion.
First I have a question. Is the author a communtarianist? ( its possible I wrote that wrong, but you get what I mean )
second: Is he saying that liberalism in all its forms is destructive to all culture or just on spesific culture?
third: What does he mean with culture?
[quote]florelius wrote:
third: What does he mean with culture?
[/quote]
Did you read the article?
“It is on the idea and meaning of the word and concept â??cultureâ?? that we will devote our attention during this short but vital weekend.”
…further down:
“So, what do I mean by culture?”