Thoughts on Collective Guilt

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
I’m quite painfully aware that your average person relies on emotion and self interest far more then logic in their “reasoning”. [/quote]

By the way, if this is the case, it’s imperative to consider the emotional response. Like, say, resentment. After all, you’ve admitted emotional reaction is abundant enough with the average human being. So, now take those average human beings, and try to shove collective guilt down their throats. Speaking of resentment, you seem awfully resentful of the common, average, human being.

182

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Besides, to be honest, i’m waiting to see if ANYONE here can defend their claims against rigorous analysis. So far, all that has happened is people complain that i’m calling them out when they say something silly. I never thought i’d be called a troll for giving valid arguments and objectively analyzing others.[/quote]

You haven’t given any arguments - which is my point. You regurgitate from a text book when ever you think someone is presenting a fallacy. That’s all fine and good - but please don’t mistake that for making an argument.

How does one use reason when discussing a moral?

When do you graduate?

183

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, are you denying that pushing collective guilt won’t foster resentment? I mean, what exactly is so hard to believe?

The welfare state and AA already cause a considerable amount of resentment. And they rely on a collective guilt trip for their existence. Imagine if you took it even further than that. How much resentment then? [/quote]

No, i certainly don’t deny that it MIGHT. This is quite possibly true.

As i said at the beginning of this thread though, before making any claims about “collective guilt”, one must first specify just what they mean by “collective guilt”. Depending on what you mean by it, i would agree, yes, it sure seems like it might cause resentment. But then again, there are many favors of collective guilt, and very few people involved in social action call for the extreme views that would seem to foster resentment. This is not a “black” and “white” issue, which most people seem to turn it into.

Further, while what you claim might be a fact, I’ve yet to be convinced either sound argument that supports the causal inferences you make or physical evidence supporting the fact (say like sociological studies). You rely far to much on “common sense” and intuition for me–both of which are things that depend on your background (ie, what might be common sense and intuitive for you is not for me, and might be wrong).

184

[quote]rainjack wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Besides, to be honest, i’m waiting to see if ANYONE here can defend their claims against rigorous analysis. So far, all that has happened is people complain that i’m calling them out when they say something silly. I never thought i’d be called a troll for giving valid arguments and objectively analyzing others.

You haven’t given any arguments - which is my point. You regurgitate from a text book when ever you think someone is presenting a fallacy. That’s all fine and good - but please don’t mistake that for making an argument.

oh, since “classes mean dick” and this “if-then” reasoning is silly, please kindly explain to me what sort of reasoning better captures the way things really work? i surely hope you don’t mean these fallacious arguments.

How does one use reason when discussing a moral?

When do you graduate?
[/quote]

First of all, it is not that i use textbooks to examine the arguments given here, its that the mistakes made on this form are so damn basic as to be “text book” fallacies. Perhaps people should be better arguers.

So, please stop with the “text book” shit. I haven’t used a text book for formal logic since intro. You know of any textbooks that do second order metatheory of modal lower predicate calculus? i sure don’t.

Next, i have given arguments. As you point out, i do call people out on really blatant fallacies without saying much more (because, they are so blatant, what more needs to be said?) But, i do more then that… In this thread alone i’ve taken several arguments given and either used the same arguments to show results that the original poster did not want, shown the premises to be highly questionable, or given counterexamples against strong claims. Where in there did i not “argue”?

And about morality, its funny you should ask. If you want a really formal answer, typically the modal system S4 is used if one wants to formalize a normative argument. Being less formal though, there are many ways to argue for one normative claim over another without employing fallacies… This is what, oh, i dont know, people who study ethics do? The more interesting approaches can be characterized by Aristotle, Kant, and mill. Since you seem to have an obsession with text books, there are many on the topic. (see, i can employ fallacies too…)

would you like to say something else really stupid?

185

[quote]rainjack wrote:
When do you graduate?
[/quote]

Ad Hominem.

As Socrates says, one should care about the argument, not the person giving it.

:wink:

186

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
You rely far to much on “common sense” and intuition for me–both of which are things that depend on your background (ie, what might be common sense and intuitive for you is not for me, and might be wrong).
[/quote]

You can’t strip away background, intuition, or “common sense” in a debate centering around an emotional issue.

You want everything to be clinical - life is never that simple.

The title of the thread is “Thoughts on Collective Guilt”. I highlighted the operative word just in case you might have missed it.

Things aren’t wrong just because they don’t fit your criteria of proper reasoning.

I’ll take common sense all day, every day. It’s what keeps most people in out of the rain.

187

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When do you graduate?

Ad Hominem.

As Socrates says, one should care about the argument, not the person giving it.

:wink:

[/quote]

When you make an argument - maybe Socrates will be correct. I don’t care about you. But your disdain for common sense and life experience tells me that you are arguing from a clinical, textbook (yeah, I said it again) POV.

If academia wasn’t the ones naming fallacies, there would be one called the Academic Fallacy.

188

[quote]rainjack wrote:
When do you graduate?
[/quote]

He’s 20, so probably two years.

And hey, the quality of posting has gone up since he started here (at what, age 15?).

189

[quote]nephorm wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When do you graduate?

He’s 20, so probably two years.

And hey, the quality of posting has gone up since he started here (at what, age 15?).[/quote]

1 year, but who’s counting. started school at 16.

190

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
nephorm wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When do you graduate?

He’s 20, so probably two years.

And hey, the quality of posting has gone up since he started here (at what, age 15?).

1 year, but who’s counting. started school at 16. [/quote]

What you’re saying here, is that you could have saved me a post. Two, actually.

191

[quote]nephorm wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
nephorm wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When do you graduate?

He’s 20, so probably two years.

And hey, the quality of posting has gone up since he started here (at what, age 15?).

1 year, but who’s counting. started school at 16.

What you’re saying here, is that you could have saved me a post. Two, actually.[/quote]

I can smell college punks from a mile away.

Their odor is like a mix of daddy’s money and professor’s ass.

192

[quote]rainjack wrote:
nephorm wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
nephorm wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When do you graduate?

He’s 20, so probably two years.

And hey, the quality of posting has gone up since he started here (at what, age 15?).

1 year, but who’s counting. started school at 16.

What you’re saying here, is that you could have saved me a post. Two, actually.

I can smell college punks from a mile away.

Their odor is like a mix of daddy’s money and professor’s ass. [/quote]

rolls eyes

well, it should be easy then to refute what i imagine you take to be my sophistic bullshit. i await refutation that doesn’t involve ad hominem attacks or appeals to the obviousness of fallacious arguments.

193

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
rainjack wrote:
nephorm wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
nephorm wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When do you graduate?

He’s 20, so probably two years.

And hey, the quality of posting has gone up since he started here (at what, age 15?).

1 year, but who’s counting. started school at 16.

What you’re saying here, is that you could have saved me a post. Two, actually.

I can smell college punks from a mile away.

Their odor is like a mix of daddy’s money and professor’s ass.

rolls eyes

well, it should be easy then to refute what i imagine you take to be my sophistic bullshit. i await refutation that doesn’t involve ad hominem attacks or appeals to the obviousness of fallacious arguments. [/quote]

“Refutation” of what? You have to hold a position before it can be refuted. All you have done is listed fallacies of other posters. Do you want me to refute that others use fallacies?

You get to “imagine”, but everyone else must use reason? When did you get to make the rules?

And here is some free advice: If you want to be taken seriously, try using proper grammar.

194

ha, you are the second one to say something about my grammar. I will give you the same challenge… i realize some of my letters are not capitalized, but hey, this is the internet… and of course everyone is going to have a spelling mistake here or there. But… i do not make GRAMMAR mistakes. if you think i do, please point them out to me with a reference to what the grammar mistake actually is, for example “verb tense change”, “improper prepositional phrase placement”, “adverb/adjective usage”, “split infinitive”, etc…

Next, i find it funny that you constantly accuse me of having my head in books and not knowing anything about “the real world”, yet it is you who cannot see anything beyond black and white. I’ve already explained to you how arguments work… and how i’ve given many counter-arguments against stupid things said here. (opps, here’s a grammatical mistake for you, can you name it?) Yet, despite this, you still think that i must give a positive answer of my own in order to be giving an argument?

I am not “imagining” anything… I am using reason to analyze poor arguments given here. Thus, i’m awaiting for you to refute my faulty analysis, and to show me how i’ve only misunderstand the arguments i’ve been attacking.(that doesn’t involve ad hominem attacks or appeals to the obviouslness of fallacious arguments).

Lastly, i find it funny that while you don’t object to my abilities in formal logic (that you haven’t even seen), which is the science of REASONING, you still try to tell me that i don’t know how to REASON.

one would think it foolish to tell a doctor they know nothing about medicine, and likewise, foolish to tell a logician they know nothing about reason.

195

[quote]rainjack wrote:
“Refutation” of what? You have to hold a position before it can be refuted. All you have done is listed fallacies of other posters. Do you want me to refute that others use fallacies?

You get to “imagine”, but everyone else must use reason? When did you get to make the rules?

And here is some free advice: If you want to be taken seriously, try using proper grammar.

[/quote]

oh, before you object to having to give examples of my grammatical mistakes, i’ll list one of yours. “‘Refutation’” of what?" is a fragment. Thats the only one i saw though in this post.

196

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
one would think it foolish to tell a doctor they know nothing about medicine, and likewise, foolish to tell a logician they know nothing about reason. [/quote]

Thanks for playing.

197

Well, I think thought this thread had gone out of control and become, as usual, useless to the topic.

Then it dawned on me. This answers the question perfectly!

You see, we started with a serious question about what collective guilt is, since that concept lies at the heart of an awful lot of major issues in this day and age. Low and behold, it turned into name calling, grandstanding, harangues and generally being pissy. Which is exactly why none of the major issues that derive from this are ever going to get settled.

So I gather that actually trying to understand a serious issue won’t happen. It would rely on too much introspection and distance from the topic to occur and where’s the fun in that?

So is that answer that we’re all too small minded to actually discuss an issue like grownups? Is that, perchance, the reason we have these problems in the first place?

And you’ll all tell me if I’m full of shit. Won’t you? I knew I could count on you!

– jj

198

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Well, I think thought this thread had gone out of control and become, as usual, useless to the topic.

Then it dawned on me. This answers the question perfectly!

You see, we started with a serious question about what collective guilt is, since that concept lies at the heart of an awful lot of major issues in this day and age. Low and behold, it turned into name calling, grandstanding, harangues and generally being pissy. Which is exactly why none of the major issues that derive from this are ever going to get settled.

So I gather that actually trying to understand a serious issue won’t happen. It would rely on too much introspection and distance from the topic to occur and where’s the fun in that?

So is that answer that we’re all too small minded to actually discuss an issue like grownups? Is that, perchance, the reason we have these problems in the first place?

And you’ll all tell me if I’m full of shit. Won’t you? I knew I could count on you!

– jj

[/quote]

You’re not full of shit. That was one of the more intelligent posts in this thread…if not THE most.

No side is listening to the other so nothing will be accomplished here…much like every other thread. Even when I was debating with Boston, nothing was accomplished even though I think I only called him really tiny negative names…like “lawyer”.

199

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Yeah right…thats the very least of the things you’ve posted. Now according to you many young black men dress like WILD ANIMALS…I would love to HEAR you say that. Along with your constant babbling about how black people name their kids. You’re sitting all high and mighty looking down on us…only because you’re sitting high on a pile of shit. You have a reputation as a troll for a reason.

Also,to add…I don’t share this perceived agreement that white people are at fault for anything in the black community…and I don’t agree with collective guilt either.

I have said exactly the things mentioned and to black people. Granted, the black people I associate with are highly educated (one is a colleague of my wife, who teaches at a university) and they agree: To be black in America means that you have to overcome all these negative statistics and images about black people whites see in the media.

Here’s a clue: get a degree (Masters or higher preferably), marry the mother of your children, go to a REAL church (unlike Obama), don’t give your children bizarre names, and don’t dress like a former convict with his pants below his ass…and you’ll encounter very little prejudice. You’ll get a good job and have a nice home. How fucking hard is that???

Everyone else has spoken for me,no point in saying anything to that…except that I’ve passed your qualifications for not being a “wild animal.” Yet look at what I just faced…ignorance from you…which is racism in its most basic form.

Guess you missed it, above:

“Far too many black people don’t feel good about themselves, and are constantly looking for answers from somebody else. That quest for the impossible has been turned into an accusation against the invisible but all-powerful white racist establishment. Michelle and Barack Obama were indoctrinated with those toxic beliefs at Princeton and Harvard, so that they are now making more than a million bucks a year, living in a mansion in Chicago while still feeling sorry for themselves. Give me a break. (Michelle Obama’s salary increased by almost 200,000 dollars in one year at the University of Chicago. How many people get that kind of raise?)”

[/quote]

You mean the way whites call it “punishment” or “collective guilt” when the prospect of giving up unfair advantages comes up? That kind of feeling sorry for themselves?

200

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

Well, I think thought this thread had gone out of control and become, as usual, useless to the topic.

Then it dawned on me. This answers the question perfectly!

You see, we started with a serious question about what collective guilt is, since that concept lies at the heart of an awful lot of major issues in this day and age. Low and behold, it turned into name calling, grandstanding, harangues and generally being pissy. Which is exactly why none of the major issues that derive from this are ever going to get settled.

So I gather that actually trying to understand a serious issue won’t happen. It would rely on too much introspection and distance from the topic to occur and where’s the fun in that?

So is that answer that we’re all too small minded to actually discuss an issue like grownups? Is that, perchance, the reason we have these problems in the first place?

And you’ll all tell me if I’m full of shit. Won’t you? I knew I could count on you!

– jj[/quote]

I am coming back to this once promising thread after being slammed with work, and it’s a shame - what started as a a deep discussion about collective guilt and its merits became an episode of Ricki Lake about the adolescent angst of not being able to dress any way you want.

A legitimate discussion about the issue of collective guilt, I think, will require a blunt, honest exchange on the merits without caring whose ox is gored - but I think the chances are slim.

And I think you are exactly right - it would require too much introspection. Introspection is not a popular concept these days - rather, it is far better to whistle past a a hard look at one’s self and wallow in victimization, or at a minimum, scapegoating.

We started in this thread with an idea that “collective guilt” - whatever its worth - must be premised on the idea of causation, that some collective action is directly attributable to the cause of harm of some other collective group. We may all fight over whether there is even such things as these “collective actions” or “collective groups” - but one thing we have to agree on is that there has to be causation. That was Nephorm’s original point, and it drives the entire discussion, for if you can’t find any meaningful causation, or find alternative explanations that undermine initial claims of causation, then collective guilt doesn’t mean anything.

You’re not full of shit for bringing it up, far from it - but a discussion on collective guilt will have to include a tangent labeled “maybe all the bad things in my life are actually my own fault, not the work of exterior, impersonal forces keeping me down”, and, well, to be frank, our generation isn’t prepared to answer such tough questions.