[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhypocrite wrote:
You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
See? Nice and simple. Common sense usually is.
Then practice what you preach…cause it doesn’t look good for you.
You keep changing your avatar…who’s next, Louis Farrakhan? You’re impressing me as being a chameleon.
[/quote]
You have a problem with Dave Chappelle?
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhypocrite wrote:
You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
See? Nice and simple. Common sense usually is.
Then practice what you preach…cause it doesn’t look good for you.
You keep changing your avatar…who’s next, Louis Farrakhan? You’re impressing me as being a chameleon.
I’m sorry…did you say something?
[/quote]
No, I wrote something. There IS a difference.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhypocrite wrote:
You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
See? Nice and simple. Common sense usually is.
Then practice what you preach…cause it doesn’t look good for you.
You keep changing your avatar…who’s next, Louis Farrakhan? You’re impressing me as being a chameleon.
You have a problem with Dave Chappelle?[/quote]
“Yes, it’s safe…its very safe.”
Christian Szell: Is it safe?.. Is it safe?
Babe: You’re talking to me?
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: Is what safe?
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: I don’t know what you mean. I can’t tell you something’s safe or not, unless I know specifically what you’re talking about.
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: Tell me what the “it” refers to.
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: Yes, it’s safe, it’s very safe, it’s so safe you wouldn’t believe it.
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: No. It’s not safe, it’s… very dangerous, be careful.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhypocrite wrote:
You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
See? Nice and simple. Common sense usually is.
Then practice what you preach…cause it doesn’t look good for you.
You keep changing your avatar…who’s next, Louis Farrakhan? You’re impressing me as being a chameleon.
I’m sorry…did you say something?
No, I wrote something. There IS a difference.
[/quote]
I see…but the real difference is that what YOU write,you would never say.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhypocrite wrote:
You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
See? Nice and simple. Common sense usually is.
Then practice what you preach…cause it doesn’t look good for you.
You keep changing your avatar…who’s next, Louis Farrakhan? You’re impressing me as being a chameleon.
I’m sorry…did you say something?
No, I wrote something. There IS a difference.
I see…but the real difference is that what YOU write,you would never say.[/quote]
Au Contraire…I say these things and write them. I would happily say to any black person who asked for my input: “Black people have 70 or 80% kids born out of wedlock, less than 50% of black people nationwide choose to even finish high school, many young black men dress like wild animals…and yet it’s whitey’s fault for lousy conditions in the black community. What an absolute crock of horse-fucking-shit! Yeah…we’re all racists…yeah…”
Wow, I left the site for a day or two and this thread turned into 6 pages about clothing. Anyway, I wanted to reply to LIFTICVSMAXIMVS.
“But what is will? I think this is just an other one of those philosophical conveniences to categorize unexplainable behavior. In general all action can be explained as the removal of dissatisfaction. I do X because it satisfies Y.”
Whatever will is doesn’t matter for my argument, as my argument runs purely from the form, i.e., its logical. Whatever will isn’t doesn’t matter, using the same argument one can deny that its possible for individuals to act.
“Could we not then just simplify the study of social interaction as group will? We could then simplify conflict as the result of the “clash of differing wills”. Case closed. You can look for this argument to be published in the European Journal of Social Theory.”
I’m not sure what your saying here, but, in your lose terms, one might say that the social sciences are the study of “group will”. They are clearly studying something different then simply individual action, there is a difference in the subject matter of sociology and psychology after all, isn’t there? Of course, calling it “group will” sounds somewhat silly, the sociologists would tell you that they are studying the interactions between groups, and that those interactions are driven by the interests and needs of interacting groups. So I suppose again in sloppy terms, you could say that group interaction is the result of the “clash of differing wills”.
The whole thing about “will” though is kinda silly, since what we originally were arguing over was group action. I merely pointed out your argument about will because while logically valid, that argument opens you up to denying individual action as well.
“Having a common motive is not enough to argue for the existence of a group reason.”
Why not? As in my explanation and examples, it seemed to be enough. You must provide reason why my analysis of the situation was flawed.
“Reason is purely subjective (at least to Kant whom I tend to agree with).”
As I said before, just because an attribute–say like action–is subjective does not exclude groups from having the attribute–they just end up having subjective reasons and interests and motives relative to other groups.
Also, I won’t debate Kant scholarship with you, though Kant is difficult to pin down–declaring to have the right interpretation of Kant is dangerous. There are many Kant scholars who would turn in their graves if they heard you say he thought reason was subjective. I tend to agree with those people too. It would be incoherent to think Kant thought this, seeing how Kant’s entire philosophical program was an attempt to refute Hume and pin down that reason was NOT subjective. But anyway… this is a bit off topic.
“Reason is the means by which concepts arise in the logical structure of our brain which is a requirement for all action.”
Kant would say the categories are the means by which concepts arise in our consciousness and are required for all experience. (I’m literally almost quoting from the Transcendental aesthetic here, and these differences are important).
“Even if I had some common motive there is no reason to believe that it was rationalized in the same manner. The best we could call any group action is cooperation. Everyone has their own “reason” for cooperating even if it is a “common reason”.”
Kant would deny this also, for all people the categories are the same, and thus we have every reason to think that the basis for our experience is the same as anyone else’s. Of course, there are many post modern philosophers who read into Kant like you are and give him this interpretation, though that’s a different battle.
But again, your fast and lose interpretation of Kant does not carry over will to this talk of group action and will, since Kant never talked about categories, consciousness, and experience.
Thus, I still stand by my first analysis, and I don’t see how you’ve answered any of it.
Collective guilt is a sure loser. Placing collective guilt onto an entire people, through laws, will do nothing but breed collective resentment. And maybe that resentment leads to backlash and revolt. It’s that simple.
Now if someone wants to go dig up great grand pappy sloth, and throw his bones in a cell for social ills he may or may not have committed, be my quest. But, I didn’t inherent anyone’s wrongs. Nor, their guilt.
What are we anyways? The Borg?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Collective guilt is a sure loser. Placing collective guilt onto an entire people, through laws, will do nothing but breed collective resentment. And maybe that resentment leads to backlash and revolt. It’s that simple.
[/quote]
This is what, in basic critical thinking classes, they call the “slippery slope” fallacy. Another fallacy this might commit would be called “begging the question”. If we’re counting, this might also qualify as “appeal to fear”.
Note to the attentive: in critical thinking classes, the examples given generally only exhibit one fallacy and are clear. In real life examples of fallacious reasoning, often many subtle fallacies are committed that are harder to spot. It’s that simple.
I just want to say the clothing argument reminds me of the movie Crash.
[quote]
Sloth wrote:
Collective guilt is a sure loser. Placing collective guilt onto an entire people, through laws, will do nothing but breed collective resentment. And maybe that resentment leads to backlash and revolt. It’s that simple.
stokedporcupine wrote:
This is what, in basic critical thinking classes, they call the “slippery slope” fallacy. Another fallacy this might commit would be called “begging the question”. If we’re counting, this might also qualify as “appeal to fear”.
Note to the attentive: in critical thinking classes, the examples given generally only exhibit one fallacy and are clear. In real life examples of fallacious reasoning, often many subtle fallacies are committed that are harder to spot. It’s that simple. [/quote]
Yes, though in real life we know that “logical fallacy” means that something isn’t proved, not that it’s necessarily wrong. Some fallacies are less likely to be wrong than are others - there’s a nasty tendency for things to fall down the slippery slope, particularly when you’re making a legal rule (or dealing with something else dependent on chain of reasoning): BEYOND THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhypocrite wrote:
You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
See? Nice and simple. Common sense usually is.
Then practice what you preach…cause it doesn’t look good for you.
You keep changing your avatar…who’s next, Louis Farrakhan? You’re impressing me as being a chameleon.
I’m sorry…did you say something?
No, I wrote something. There IS a difference.
I see…but the real difference is that what YOU write,you would never say.
Au Contraire…I say these things and write them. I would happily say to any black person who asked for my input: “Black people have 70 or 80% kids born out of wedlock, less than 50% of black people nationwide choose to even finish high school, many young black men dress like wild animals…and yet it’s whitey’s fault for lousy conditions in the black community. What an absolute crock of horse-fucking-shit! Yeah…we’re all racists…yeah…”
[/quote]
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.
[quote]
Headhunter wrote:
Au Contraire…I say these things and write them. I would happily say to any black person who asked for my input: “Black people have 70 or 80% kids born out of wedlock, less than 50% of black people nationwide choose to even finish high school, many young black men dress like wild animals…and yet it’s whitey’s fault for lousy conditions in the black community. What an absolute crock of horse-fucking-shit! Yeah…we’re all racists…yeah…”
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.[/quote]
HH, I don’t know whether it’s advertent, but you sound like a racist.
I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your absolutely ridiculous conspiracy crap. And I don’t believe racism is the cause of the large majority of problems that are experienced by poor blacks. But how do you think you can describe people as wild animals given the history here - particularly when even if there were no history it doesn’t make any sense. Wild animals don’t even get dressed. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot fathom how you could have come up with that phraseology without some generalized idea about people behaving like animals - whether it’s the young, or blacks, or both, it’s wrong.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Collective guilt is a sure loser. Placing collective guilt onto an entire people, through laws, will do nothing but breed collective resentment. And maybe that resentment leads to backlash and revolt. It’s that simple.
This is what, in basic critical thinking classes, they call the “slippery slope” fallacy. Another fallacy this might commit would be called “begging the question”. If we’re counting, this might also qualify as “appeal to fear”.
Note to the attentive: in critical thinking classes, the examples given generally only exhibit one fallacy and are clear. In real life examples of fallacious reasoning, often many subtle fallacies are committed that are harder to spot. It’s that simple. [/quote]
Cute. However, life isn’t a classroom. You start pushing the notion of collective guilt on people, and you get resentment. You start enacting policies to correct the object of said collective guilt, you get much more resentment. You don’t correct wrongs by accusing and punishing the innocent. And the inncoent will only tolerate so much finger pointing, and so much punishment, for the wrongs of another.
The welfare state and affirmative are good examples. Somebody has more. Or, somebody achieved more due to the color of their skin. Both attempt to make things more equitable. And, are sold to the people wrapped up in the rhetoric of collective guilt. However, you confiscate from the person who has more (punishment). Or, in AA’s case, overlook a more qualified white or asian applicant (who might even be poorer) for a black applicant. Either one is a subject often debated passionately. Resentment.
This notion of collective guilt has already gone too far. Much too far. Keep pushing individuals who are otherwise following the law, taking care of their families, and respecting the liberties of others, and you will get backlash. Not everything in life fits on a chalkboard or a slide presentation.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Au Contraire…I say these things and write them. I would happily say to any black person who asked for my input: “Black people have 70 or 80% kids born out of wedlock, less than 50% of black people nationwide choose to even finish high school, many young black men dress like wild animals…and yet it’s whitey’s fault for lousy conditions in the black community. What an absolute crock of horse-fucking-shit! Yeah…we’re all racists…yeah…”
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.
HH, I don’t know whether it’s advertent, but you sound like a racist.
I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your absolutely ridiculous conspiracy crap. And I don’t believe racism is the cause of the large majority of problems that are experienced by poor blacks. But how do you think you can describe people as wild animals given the history here - particularly when even if there were no history it doesn’t make any sense. Wild animals don’t even get dressed. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot fathom how you could have come up with that phraseology without some generalized idea about people behaving like animals - whether it’s the young, or blacks, or both, it’s wrong.[/quote]
Yet,he’s one of the main people starting all the hooplah about Obama’s pastor…and how he and Obama are such evil racists,blah blah. HYPOCRISY AT ITS FINEST. You know,I would go even as far to say that the few that make argument for Obama being racist have incriminated themselves by their own standards of what is racist. I know the majority here don’t like Obama for his politics…and not because they believe he’s racist.
Also,since he chooses to focus on those stats for black people…BB,what are those figures like when you add the percentage of white people and our country as a whole? I wonder if its something to be proud of.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
…
Also,since he chooses to focus on those stats for black people…BB,what are those figures like when you add the percentage of white people and our country as a whole? I wonder if its something to be proud of.[/quote]
They’re not good:
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23048/pub_detail.asp
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
…
Also,since he chooses to focus on those stats for black people…BB,what are those figures like when you add the percentage of white people and our country as a whole? I wonder if its something to be proud of.
They’re not good:
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23048/pub_detail.asp
[/quote]
Why is it that data such as :
[quote]The crisis in the white family has attracted curiously little attention from commentators and policymakers. Yet by many of the criteria of the Moynihan report, today’s white American family looks to be at least as troubled as the black family of the early 1960s.
[/quote]
…is never focused upon in majority? Every idiot has logged in over the past few weeks to inform us of every negative stat related to blacks that they can find while the houses of whites are burning down as well.
Don’t you at least find that odd? Whites make up the majority, but the problems are not described as a national problem with the AMERICAN FAMILY, but a problem with black families?
Is this like how you haven’t noticed missing white girls get more media coverage?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
…
Also,since he chooses to focus on those stats for black people…BB,what are those figures like when you add the percentage of white people and our country as a whole? I wonder if its something to be proud of.
They’re not good:
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23048/pub_detail.asp
[/quote]
Interesting…but not surprising. Thanks for that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
…
Also,since he chooses to focus on those stats for black people…BB,what are those figures like when you add the percentage of white people and our country as a whole? I wonder if its something to be proud of.
They’re not good:
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23048/pub_detail.asp
Why is it that data such as :
The crisis in the white family has attracted curiously little attention from commentators and policymakers. Yet by many of the criteria of the Moynihan report, today’s white American family looks to be at least as troubled as the black family of the early 1960s.
…is never focused upon in majority? Every idiot has logged in over the past few weeks to inform us of every negative stat related to blacks that they can find while the houses of whites are burning down as well.
Don’t you at least find that odd? Whites make up the majority, but the problems are not described as a national problem with the AMERICAN FAMILY, but a problem with black families?
Is this like how you haven’t noticed missing white girls get more media coverage?[/quote]
Amazing isn’t it??
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Collective guilt is a sure loser. Placing collective guilt onto an entire people, through laws, will do nothing but breed collective resentment. And maybe that resentment leads to backlash and revolt. It’s that simple.
stokedporcupine wrote:
This is what, in basic critical thinking classes, they call the “slippery slope” fallacy. Another fallacy this might commit would be called “begging the question”. If we’re counting, this might also qualify as “appeal to fear”.
Note to the attentive: in critical thinking classes, the examples given generally only exhibit one fallacy and are clear. In real life examples of fallacious reasoning, often many subtle fallacies are committed that are harder to spot. It’s that simple.
Yes, though in real life we know that “logical fallacy” means that something isn’t proved, not that it’s necessarily wrong. Some fallacies are less likely to be wrong than are others - there’s a nasty tendency for things to fall down the slippery slope, particularly when you’re making a legal rule (or dealing with something else dependent on chain of reasoning): BEYOND THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
[/quote]
“logical fallacy” means thats something is a fallacious argument. I.e., it means that the argument proves no good reasons to believe the consequence. Thus, the fact that the argument is fallacious obviously doesn’t imply that the thing to be argued for is wrong. It merely means that even if the thing being argued for is correct, the argument proves no reason to think so.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Collective guilt is a sure loser. Placing collective guilt onto an entire people, through laws, will do nothing but breed collective resentment. And maybe that resentment leads to backlash and revolt. It’s that simple.
This is what, in basic critical thinking classes, they call the “slippery slope” fallacy. Another fallacy this might commit would be called “begging the question”. If we’re counting, this might also qualify as “appeal to fear”.
Note to the attentive: in critical thinking classes, the examples given generally only exhibit one fallacy and are clear. In real life examples of fallacious reasoning, often many subtle fallacies are committed that are harder to spot. It’s that simple.
Cute. However, life isn’t a classroom. You start pushing the notion of collective guilt on people, and you get resentment. You start enacting policies to correct the object of said collective guilt, you get much more resentment. You don’t correct wrongs by accusing and punishing the innocent. And the inncoent will only tolerate so much finger pointing, and so much punishment, for the wrongs of another.
The welfare state and affirmative are good examples. Somebody has more. Or, somebody achieved more due to the color of their skin. Both attempt to make things more equitable. And, are sold to the people wrapped up in the rhetoric of collective guilt. However, you confiscate from the person who has more (punishment). Or, in AA’s case, overlook a more qualified white or asian applicant (who might even be poorer) for a black applicant. Either one is a subject often debated passionately. Resentment.
This notion of collective guilt has already gone too far. Much too far. Keep pushing individuals who are otherwise following the law, taking care of their families, and respecting the liberties of others, and you will get backlash. Not everything in life fits on a chalkboard or a slide presentation.[/quote]
There is no “real life” reasoning verse “class room” reasoning. the same logic applies to both the real world and to the class room. if you don’t believe me, just look at the computer sitting next to you… it’s proof of this. (its just that in real arguments about social facts, the premises are a bit more complicated then the logic of circuits. Nevertheless, as it is logic, the general forms of arguments still hold).
You missed my point, because you just merely provided yet another long fallacious argument to show how your last one wasn’t fallacious.