IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Omarosa Manigault , Trump appointees , Trump supporters

Reply
Old 20th August 2018, 06:20 AM   #281
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Sensational to see leftists straining for common ground!

Another great thread
You're not a Trump fan yourself, tho, right? You voted for him for the SCOTUS picks?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:22 AM   #282
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I think of it mostly as a mental "mark" on a human "mark", as in this:

http://www.goodmagic.com/carny/car_j-p.htm


Trump's a con artist who saw this demographic of hate radio listeners and infowars watchers and identified them, correctly, as marks.

Yep, for Trump, Trumpism is simply a means to his own end of creating a personality cult, but the reason we're having to deal with it is that the Republican establishment has coopted it for their own purposes. I think the way to attack it among the cult is to expose the phoniness of the pseudo-populism -- he's really not doing anything for them except throwing an occasional bone like a right-wing judge and trying to build a wall and ban Muslims -- things that don't interfere with the main agenda of helping the rich get richer, faster.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:24 AM   #283
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure, kellyb, sure.



Revealing, once again, that you don't understand what I'm saying. You're making multiple mistakes of logic here.

First, you think I'm arguing for inverse empathy, that is, if empathy favors a policy, then that means I should oppose it. But that's not the case at all. I'm arguing that you shouldn't use empathy. Using it in an inverse manner is still using it.

Second, even if you want to use empathy to guide your public policy choices, that doesn't uniquely determine what those policies will be. Different people have empathy for different other people, and while your empathy for A might lead you to favor policy X, someone else's empathy for B might lead them to favor conflicting policy Y. Empathy is subjective.

Third, I'm not arguing about specific policies, I'm arguing about the basis for evaluating policies. So in regard to the policy you referenced, bail money, I haven't taken a stand for or against it. It's an issue I'm unfamiliar with. I'm not saying you should oppose the proposed change, as you seem to think. I'm saying you should evaluate it on the basis of something other than empathy. A proper basis of consideration should include logical analysis, and it can include compassion as well (because once again, compassion isn't the same as empathy). It may well be that such an analysis will still favor this proposal. Because again, I'm not arguing for inverse empathy. Empathy is a bad basis for evaluating policy, because it's not reliable. And that means it's not reliably right or reliably wrong. If it was reliably wrong, then it would be incredibly useful for evaluating choices.
I am a liberal, yet I understand what you are saying about empathy versus other kinds of feelings(non-logical evaluation) and the combination with logic.
We disagree on the highlighted part.
It should always include compassion or some form of evaluation connected to some form of value. You can't do it based on logic alone.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:27 AM   #284
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Yep, for Trump, Trumpism is simply a means to his own end of creating a personality cult, but the reason we're having to deal with it is that the Republican establishment has coopted it for their own purposes. I think the way to attack it among the cult is to expose the phoniness of the pseudo-populism -- he's really not doing anything for them except throwing an occasional bone like a right-wing judge and trying to build a wall and ban Muslims -- things that don't interfere with the main agenda of helping the rich get richer, faster.
But they like helping the rich get richer, faster. That's what all these decades of hate radio and Fox have primed them to do. It's "the deep state" and immigrants who they see as the enemy now.

__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:32 AM   #285
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So basically everyone is agreement that we need to meet on common ground as long as they get to decide what the common ground is.

Glad we cleared that up. Next we can all agree that the other side needs to compromise with us on everything we're willing to compromise on.
Common ground is that we are all humans and worthy of consideration. The extreme ends of left-right don't consider the other side worthy of consideration.
But that doesn't mean that you have to go along with neither the extreme left nor right.
As a moderate there are subjects I won't compromise because it defeats the purpose of common ground.
And that has nothing to do with Trump in particular.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:35 AM   #286
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Empathy" meaning "It is, in general, just a good base idea to at least try to understand how other people are feeling" is good.

"Empathy" meaning "If you truly understood how I felt you'd agree with me" is bad.

I am no longer a Christian, but I still believe strongly in the moral principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." To do that, I have to at least try to put myself in their shoes, which is what empathy means to me.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:37 AM   #287
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,360
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I am a liberal, yet I understand what you are saying about empathy versus other kinds of feelings(non-logical evaluation) and the combination with logic.
We disagree on the highlighted part.
It should always include compassion or some form of evaluation connected to some form of value. You can't do it based on logic alone.
I think it depends on the issue. I don't see compassion having much to do with whether to set the speed limit at 60 mph or 65 mph, for example. But I'm definitely not trying to argue for being heartless.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:41 AM   #288
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
I am no longer a Christian, but I still believe strongly in the moral principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." To do that, I have to at least try to put myself in their shoes, which is what empathy means to me.
The point is that raw emotions can lead to bad decisions.
You need rationality and empathy.
Don't get bogged down in the definition game of what is the correct word.
Try to hold the point of what Ziggurat is saying. Raw emotions can lead to bad decisions.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:41 AM   #289
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,181
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Yep, for Trump, Trumpism is simply a means to his own end of creating a personality cult, but the reason we're having to deal with it is that the Republican establishment has coopted it for their own purposes. I think the way to attack it among the cult is to expose the phoniness of the pseudo-populism -- he's really not doing anything for them except throwing an occasional bone like a right-wing judge and trying to build a wall and ban Muslims -- things that don't interfere with the main agenda of helping the rich get richer, faster.
I don't think it would do any good. You can't "show" these people anything. You could provide solid evidence of Trump colluding with Russia and the best you could hope for is a "I'm glad he did". Most likely you would get outright denial of what's plainly in front of their eyes. We've seen plenty of examples of this already. Trumpists have elected to shut their eyes to reality and stick their fingers in their ears. They are unreachable, and we shouldn't waste time and effort trying to reach them.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:44 AM   #290
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
I am no longer a Christian, but I still believe strongly in the moral principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." To do that, I have to at least try to put myself in their shoes, which is what empathy means to me.
Right, and that has little to do with "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others", the dictionary definition of compassion.

Empathy simply is based on seeing (or trying your best to see) other humans as your "value equals" as a default.

I wonder if that's at the heart of the wealthy libertarian allergy to empathy?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 20th August 2018 at 06:46 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:44 AM   #291
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,360
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Empathy is not necessarily completely subjective. "Broad spectrum" empathy is possible.
No, it isn't. Whatever it is that you mean by that, it's not empathy.

Quote:
Where are you getting your definitions of empathy and compassion from?
Get them from the dictionary, if you like. They aren't the same.

Quote:
Pure rationality/computation without empathy is useless.
Of course pure logic doesn't suffice. Duh. You need a value system, and compassion (not empathy) should be built into your value system. Neither empathy nor logic provide a value system by themselves. But given a particular value system, you should use logic, not empathy, to compare options against your value system.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:44 AM   #292
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,417
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Common ground is that we are all humans and worthy of consideration. The extreme ends of left-right don't consider the other side worthy of consideration.
But that doesn't mean that you have to go along with neither the extreme left nor right.
As a moderate there are subjects I won't compromise because it defeats the purpose of common ground.
And that has nothing to do with Trump in particular.
My concern these days is that it's not just the extremes that are dehumanizing the opposition. Seems like a tendency that's spreading to the middle too.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:45 AM   #293
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I think it depends on the issue. I don't see compassion having much to do with whether to set the speed limit at 60 mph or 65 mph, for example. But I'm definitely not trying to argue for being heartless.

Actually, that seems like a case where you could have "empathy" for the people who have to drive on that road and live along it when you made the decision. In fact, I'm not sure what else you'd base it on.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:46 AM   #294
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I think it depends on the issue. I don't see compassion having much to do with whether to set the speed limit at 60 mph or 65 mph, for example. But I'm definitely not trying to argue for being heartless.
Well, no! That has to do with that some humans overestimate their own abilities and don't understand that even 5 mph can make a difference depending on the type of road and so on.
And thus we are back to being rational. Some humans are not rational when it comes to their understanding of how they feel. I.e. I am a good driver and don't you tell me otherwise.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:52 AM   #295
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,360
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Actually, that seems like a case where you could have "empathy" for the people who have to drive on that road and live along it when you made the decision. In fact, I'm not sure what else you'd base it on.
Really? You can't think of any other basis than empathy? A logical analysis of what speed limit actually maximizes safety seems a pretty obvious one. And no, lower speed limits are not always safer.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:53 AM   #296
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Really? You can't think of any other basis than empathy? A logical analysis of what speed limit actually maximizes safety seems a pretty obvious one. And no, lower speed limits are not always safer.

Why would you care about someone else's safety?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:53 AM   #297
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it isn't. Whatever it is that you mean by that, it's not empathy.
Empathy is just a mental thing that happens when "observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning are combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others". In neuroscience.

Quote:
Get them from the dictionary, if you like. They aren't the same.
I asked YOU where YOU were getting YOUR defintions of them from.



Quote:
Of course pure logic doesn't suffice. Duh. You need a value system, and compassion (not empathy) should be built into your value system. Neither empathy nor logic provide a value system by themselves. But given a particular value system, you should use logic, not empathy, to compare options against your value system.
So whatever you do, do not use observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others when building your value system?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 20th August 2018 at 06:55 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:57 AM   #298
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,721
So is there any chance of this not turning into another metaphysical wankwank "Prove to me why being a total douchebag for no reason is wrong using only my strawman idea of what I think rationality/logic/etc is" discussion?
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 20th August 2018 at 06:59 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 06:58 AM   #299
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,181
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So is there any chance of this not turning into another metaphysical wankwank "Prove to me why being a total douchebag for no reason is wrong using only my strawman idea of what I think rationality is" discussion?
Nope. No chance.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:04 AM   #300
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,360
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Why would you care about someone else's safety?
Lots of possible reasons. Compassion, for example. Self-preservation, if you like. Empathy isn't required. I need not know anything about another person in order to want them to be safe.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:06 AM   #301
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,432
I seem to recall:

The last democratic president repeatedly held a hand out to people in the other major political party, asking them to improve legislation, and sometimes outright stating that he would sign a proposal they made. In response, the opposition repeatedly abandoned their own proposals and declated them absolutely horrible.

And now, these same people outright refuse to even speak with their own opposition, hastily scribbling in the margins of their proposals, rushing headlong into votes without the slightest understanding of what they're actually voting on, and in many cases outright stating that they with to punish those who don't vote for them. And, again, they're led by a man who outright refuses to respect the most basic of constitutional rights to various minority groups.

Now, remind me, how is it that the former group "refuses to find common ground", when the latter outright runs away from any such attempt?
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:10 AM   #302
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,721
Well let's let the whole system burn to the ground to punish the other side for "being a hypocrite" then.

We can sit in the ashes and pat each other on the back about our moral highground.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:11 AM   #303
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,466
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
It seems to me that common ground can only be found with those who reject Trumpism. Trumpists who remain faithful are too far gone and must be made politically marginalized.
How do you marginalize 40% of the population?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:11 AM   #304
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So is there any chance of this not turning into another metaphysical wankwank "Prove to me why being a total douchebag for no reason is wrong using only my strawman idea of what I think rationality/logic/etc is" discussion?

I think you're missing a lot if you're distracted by that. Debate is useless without common definition of terms, so any common ground that's really common has to begin there. As we're seeing, there is a difference in definitions. For me, "empathy" might or might not trigger compassion and sympathy. For example, I do try to have empathy for trumpers to the extent that I try to see things from their perspective, and I do have some compassion for how Trumpism is actually hurting them, but I have no sympathy for them at all because they are a self-selected group attracted by abhorrent demagoguery. But that's using my definitions.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:13 AM   #305
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,721
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
How do you marginalize 40% of the population?
Women are 51% of the population and they are largely (and correctly) seen as marginalized.

I humbly await your answer to the version of that statement you are currently making up in your head to argue against.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:16 AM   #306
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
My concern these days is that it's not just the extremes that are dehumanizing the opposition. Seems like a tendency that's spreading to the middle too.
Well, it is a tricky question. Has the Overton window moved?

How you answer that, is a part of how you view the dehumanizing and what is the cause and what is the effect?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:17 AM   #307
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,721
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Debate is useless without common definition of terms.
Can we please stop hiding behind that? Every discussion winding up down an endless recursive rabbit hole of people arguing by purposely not being clear while, oddly, simultaneously never actually putting any effort into being any clearer is not needed.

The English language has nuance and inconsistency. Stop pretending like that's some new concept that just got dropped on us and we're not already used to.

But whatever. Let's keep having every argument here being between the man that says boats can't fly because they don't have wings against with the man who's arguing that boats don't have flies because they don't wear pants even though though it was clear to everybody but them which version of the word "fly" they were each using four pages ago.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:22 AM   #308
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Lots of possible reasons. Compassion, for example. Self-preservation, if you like. Empathy isn't required. I need not know anything about another person in order to want them to be safe.
Well, see? You're talking about a different definition of empathy than I was when I said social issues can be viewed along an "empathy-apathy spectrum." For me, compassion is a result of empathy, but only one possible one.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:26 AM   #309
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Can we please stop hiding behind that? Every discussion winding up down an endless recursive rabbit hole of people arguing by purposely not being clear while, oddly, simultaneously never actually putting any effort into being any clearer is not needed.

The English language has nuance and inconsistency. Stop pretending like that's some new concept that just got dropped on us and we're not already used to.

But whatever. Let's keep having every argument here being between the man that says boats can't fly because they don't have wings against with the man who's arguing that boats don't have flies because they don't wear pants even though though it was clear to everybody but them which version of the word "fly" they were each using four pages ago.

Yeah, we could skip all that and... what? Set us straight, Joe.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:35 AM   #310
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,721
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Yeah, we could skip all that and... what? Set us straight, Joe.
Here's a radical idea... communicating like human beings and reading/listening for context instead of dragging the discussion back down to the "LET'S STOP AND THROW DICTIONARIES AT EACH OTHER FOR 20 PAGE!" again and again.

We don't have to recreate the language for every discussion. Words already mean things. That's what a language is.

Jesus Christ how do you people think any discussion ever happens at all? Are you amazed when two people just walk up to each other and somehow manage to have a discussion without first laying out their entire linguistic history to each other?

Wait... how are we even having this discussion? It's madness!

You said "skip." Now how am I, without stopping the discussion to make you spell it out, supposed to know if you meant "skip" to mean "Not take a specific step in a series of actions" or "To locomate using a slight repetitive jumping motion." We simply must stop the conversation there and figure it out.

DARMOK AND JALAD AT TANAGRA!
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:37 AM   #311
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You're not a Trump fan yourself, tho, right? You voted for him for the SCOTUS picks?
tut tut tut, one does not use "Trump fan" one uses "unintelligent Hitlerite" when one is searching for common ground.

Do make a note of it.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:41 AM   #312
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, see? You're talking about a different definition of empathy than I was when I said social issues can be viewed along an "empathy-apathy spectrum." For me, compassion is a result of empathy, but only one possible one.
Well stated.

But I'm sensing that the argument will be that since people are biased in empathy's application sometimes, the whole thing is bad/dangerous/futile, or something.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:42 AM   #313
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,417
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Well, it is a tricky question. Has the Overton window moved?

How you answer that, is a part of how you view the dehumanizing and what is the cause and what is the effect?
It definitely has moved. Some for the good and some for the bad.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Can we please stop hiding behind that? Every discussion winding up down an endless recursive rabbit hole of people arguing by purposely not being clear while, oddly, simultaneously never actually putting any effort into being any clearer is not needed.

The English language has nuance and inconsistency. Stop pretending like that's some new concept that just got dropped on us and we're not already used to.

But whatever. Let's keep having every argument here being between the man that says boats can't fly because they don't have wings against with the man who's arguing that boats don't have flies because they don't wear pants even though though it was clear to everybody but them which version of the word "fly" they were each using four pages ago.
To be fair, agreeing on terms seems to be a bigger problem on the internet than in real life. I've seen threads go on for pages with folks arguing mostly because they didn't understand the what other person was saying. So, occasionally, its worth establishing definitions. Often it used to obfuscate though.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:43 AM   #314
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
tut tut tut, one does not use "Trump fan" one uses "unintelligent Hitlerite" when one is searching for common ground.

Do make a note of it.
It was a serious question. I'm getting the vibe that no, you're not an actual fan of Trump, you just think it's mean to publicly note that his fans are largely dupes, as well as being in conflict with what should be the spirit of this thread.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:43 AM   #315
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,721
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
To be fair, agreeing on terms seems to be a bigger problem on the internet than in real life. I've seen threads go on for pages with folks arguing mostly because they didn't understand the what other person was saying. So, occasionally, its worth establishing definitions. Often it used to obfuscate though.
When linguistic nuance is being used intentionally as an argumentative instead of arising naturally repeatedly stopping the conversation for clarification does not help, indeed it is counter productive.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:45 AM   #316
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Here's a radical idea... communicating like human beings and reading/listening for context instead of dragging the discussion back down to the "LET'S STOP AND THROW DICTIONARIES AT EACH OTHER FOR 20 PAGE!" again and again.

We don't have to recreate the language for every discussion. Words already mean things. That's what a language is.

Jesus Christ how do you people think any discussion ever happens at all? Are you amazed when two people just walk up to each other and somehow manage to have a discussion without first laying out their entire linguistic history to each other?

Wait... how are we even having this discussion? It's madness!

You said "skip." Now how am I, without stopping the discussion to make you spell it out, supposed to know if you meant "skip" to mean "Not take a specific step in a series of actions" or "To locomate using a slight repetitive jumping motion." We simply must stop the conversation there and figure it out.

DARMOK AND JALAD AT TANAGRA!
You know this whole empathy mini-discussion is a result of Zig using a very "unconventional", almost unique to him definition of the word in order to argue that empathy is a very bad thing, yes?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:47 AM   #317
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,721
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You know this whole empathy mini-discussion is a result of Zig using a very "unconventional", almost unique to him definition of the word in order to argue that empathy is a very bad thing, yes?
Are you new to the internet?

The reason the "I'm going to argue using my super special version of a word" tactic works is because we let it.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:52 AM   #318
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post

The reason the "I'm going to argue using my super special version of a word" tactic works is because we let it.
William and I are not letting it work, but you're complaining about us calling it out?

Here's the most recent development on the "what in the world is Zig pulling here" front:

Originally Posted by Zig
Originally Posted by me
Pure rationality/computation without empathy is useless.
Of course pure logic doesn't suffice. Duh. You need a value system, and compassion (not empathy) should be built into your value system.
What is that nonsense supposed to mean?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 20th August 2018 at 07:54 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:57 AM   #319
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,721
*Head desk*

A multi-page discussion arguing about his use of the word is what he wanted.

He wanted you to "call it out" because arguing about his word usage delays you from arguing his point. Forever. In perpetuity.

And he knew full well the discussion would generate a "But we have to clear!" argument from somebody else.

So now we are pages in a discussion still arguing the language and by the time, if ever, we get back to the discussion the language is going to be so muddled and over analyzed that nobody anybody says is going to mean anything. Just like he wanted.

The front flap of my trousers is buzzing around the garbage and Levis now have button up small insects.

Shaka. When the walls fell.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 20th August 2018 at 07:58 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 08:00 AM   #320
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Head desk*

A multi-page discussion arguing about his use of the word is what he wanted.

He wanted you to "call it out" because arguing about his word usage delays you from arguing his point. Forever. In perpetuity.

And he knew full well the discussion would generate a "But we have to clear!" argument from somebody else.

So now we are pages in a discussion still arguing the language and by the time, if ever, we get back to the discussion the language is going to be so muddled and over analyzed that nobody anybody says is going to mean anything. Just like he wanted.

The front flap of my trousers is buzzing around the garbage and Levis now have button up small insects.

Shaka. When the walls fell.
Or maybe he actually hates empathy.
That is an actual distinct possibility, too.
That stuff is kind of a thing with libertarians.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.