User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 125

  1. #61
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    That's not a definition, but ok . . . how does this mean that society victimizes people by not providing for every need?
    You wanted me to copy and paste a dictionary definiton of society? How unoriginal. Are you being mentally and physically lazy and trying to get me to do the work?

    Try again?

  2. #62
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    First you tell me what you think the role of society is to the people within it. Tit for tat, m'dear.
    How are my entire politics relevant? On your very sparse description, you haven't created a case for why failure to help everyone's every need victimizes people.




    Given that we're CHOOSING which groups to help (more or less) versus others...yes, then it slides more into societal hegemonic norms and thus, the field of 'moral' and 'logic' better meet.
    Why is it victimization to choose to help some but not others?
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #63
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    You wanted me to copy and paste a dictionary definiton of society? How unoriginal. Are you being mentally and physically lazy and trying to get me to do the work?

    Try again?
    I am sorry, I think I must not have been sufficiently clear for you. My question is not what the dictionary definition of society is, but where you get the idea that it is such that failure to assist with one set of problems where "society" assists with another set of problems is equivalent to society's "victimization" of the unassisted set. You said there was a logical reason for it but you have not given it. Instead you have danced around it and resorted to desperate accusations.
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  4. #64
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    How are my entire politics relevant?
    Your entire politics? Again, why are you assuming this is what I'm asking? Can you quote where I'm asking this of you, please?

    I just want to know what you see the role of society to be because it hinges on our discussion as if I cannot understand your position, I thus, cannot comment on any ideas spurring from that position. Hence, my wanting to know.

    Example:
    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    It's not mutually exclusive if society actually drove the insane to mental illness (e.g. terrorizing a person into PTSD). But that's not the sense indicated there.
    You see culpability of society only if it DROVE to inducing mental illness. I thus, want to know more about what exactly you see society as.

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    You think of society as your parent? Have you reworked the meaning of victim, too?
    By this quote, it really makes me wonder, if you can assume me to think society as a parent, what your take on it is?


    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    Is declining to nurture or help victimizing? If you pass a man on the street who could use help and do not offer it, have you victimized him?
    Again, is this how you see society? As a random man passing another on the street without any further association? Unlike you, I don't want to assume dichotomy in extremes in your thought, hence, me asking you to clarify.


    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    What kind of obligation do you assume is at work here, such that a failure to provide all medicine to all ill people is society's victimization of the people?
    What kind of obligation do you assume should NOT be at work here?

    Again....to better understand your ideas, I want to figure out your position for terms that are revelant to our discussion: what you think the role of society is.

    Why don't you want to answer?


    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    On your very sparse description, you haven't created a case for why failure to help everyone's every need victimizes people.
    Again, why are you assuming everyone? Everyone means at a very individual basis, you'd probably be more accurate in how you assume your position about me, if you talked in terms of groups. Not every Tom, Dick and, Sally with Sx, but, Sx as a group...yes.

    And, every need, again...please quote me on exactly where you're getting these conclusions about my argument. Please.

    And, like I responded to AJ, it's not about failure to help everyone, but, the justification of that failure is relevant, it's practically impossible to target everyone, but, it is not practically impossible to explain why some are left behind while some others are chosen. And, within that critique of said justification, sides can claim 'fair'/'unfair'


    Why is it victimization to choose to help some but not others?
    Answered this already, at least three times.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    I am sorry, I think I must not have been sufficiently clear for you. My question is not what the dictionary definition of society is, but where you get the idea that it is such that failure to assist with one set of problems where "society" assists with another set of problems is equivalent to society's "victimization" of the unassisted set.
    It's victimization if there's no logical justification of why ONE set is chosen OVER the other set...not only logical, but, morality and hegemonic norms, and stigma attitudes of society, and the whole shebang then comes into play.

    You said there was a logical reason for it but you have not given it.
    That's not what I said, actually. See above of when I said logic and morality intersects in this discussion.


    Instead you have danced around it and resorted to desperate accusations.
    It sucks eh, having one's position so blatantly and juvenilely twisted? I emphathize

  6. #66
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    You see culpability of society only if it DROVE to inducing mental illness. I thus, want to know more about what exactly you see society as.
    And this is the crux of the problem. In assessing victimization, I am actually interested in what it means to victimize. I try to see if society victimized people first by . . . wait for it . . . seeing if someone has been victimized before finding out "whodunnit."

    Again, is this how you see society? As a random man passing another on the street without any further association? Unlike you, I don't want to assume dichotomy in extremes in your thought, hence, me asking you to clarify.
    I'm not sure you understand the meaning of dichotomy here. Or else there's been a failure of comprehension. I should have spelled this out for you. This is about the concept of what constitutes victimization. You seem to want to have very little to do with the concept while accusing ephemeral society of it.


    What kind of obligation do you assume should NOT be at work here?
    I don't assume that society has a duty to take care of all needs or that a ranking of priorities that leaves some needs unfulfilled while others are fulfilled is the equivalent of victimization. The hierarchies should be logical, but if they are not, it's at worst unfortunate, not an instance of victimization.


    And, like I responded to AJ, it's not about failure to help everyone, but, the justification of that failure is relevant, it's practically impossible to target everyone, but, it is not practically impossible to explain why some are left behind while some others are chosen. And, within that critique of said justification, sides can claim 'fair'/'unfair'
    Sides can claim anything, including fair and unfair. However many claims are meritless, and even if they have merit unfairness is not a synonym for victimization.


    Answered this already, at least three times.
    In that case, I'm afraid your answer is that you have no answer, as it has not accomplished what you set out to do . . . If it's that you deem a setting of priorities/recognizing hierarchies of needs as = victimization, you haven't made the case for why that is. Maybe the priorities are logical. Maybe they are not. But that is beside the point.
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  7. #67
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    One pie, pieces get divided around the table, those that are ignored from a piece must be rationalized in terms of why: (1) they are not part of the table, and/or (2) why their piece is not important. Otherwise, the word 'unfair' could very well be applied...and from there, such words as boo-hoo victims.

    Can you justify either 1 and/or 2, or, counter why 'unfair' isn't relevant then?
    It's definitely not fair, but that alone is never enough of a reason to legislate fairness. There is an unlimited amount of unfair aspects to life, we can't mandate fairness for all of them.

    But we can take the logical argument that the healthiest nations in the world all have universal health care, with America being the last developed nation not to have it, and with other nations able to do so at half the price we currently spend for our public-private mess and our skyrocketing insurance costs. I like that argument better.

  8. #68
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InaF3157 View Post
    And this is the crux of the problem. In assessing victimization, I am actually interested in what it means to victimize. I try to see if society victimized people first by . . . wait for it . . . seeing if someone has been victimized before finding out "whodunnit."
    I don't understand how you can apply that to evaluating society's role. As victimizing can have more than one form, depending on the AGENT of victimization. By your line of thought, an example: It's all nice and sugary to find out that a person is dead before trying to see who murdered him, because well, murder of a human is a concretely physical thing, but, I don't understand how that logic applies to 'victimization' (marginalization, discrimination, hindrance in access to efficient health care, housing opportunities, employment opportunities, etc) by society?

    Unless you think there's is NO way society is capable of victimization, in any form? That'd be interesting to discuss.


    E.g., the form of 'victimization' - an individual victimizing another will look very different than a society victimizing an individual, as, well, you know, society isn't a human.

    For me, I see society's victimization as - an obligation that is unfulfilled without justification.

    What do you see as victimization by society? And, do you even believe society can ever victimize?

    I'm not sure you understand the meaning of dichotomy here. Or else there's been a failure of comprehension. I should have spelled this out for you. This is about the concept of what constitutes victimization. You seem to want to have very little to do with the concept while accusing ephemeral society of it.
    From YOUR end towards ME it may be about victimization (you just made that clear now in this post), from MY END towards YOU it was about finding out what you think the role of society is (which I asked you to clarify more than once - still no response).

    I answered yours (see above), you have yet to tell me what you see the role of society to be. Again, why are you not answering and deflecting?

    EDIT: I found a better way to put our different perspectives. I want to know who before I perscribe a what that is uniquely relevant to them. Hence, me wanting to know 'who' you think society is. You want to know 'what' is victimization where I argue that, in this case, 'what' is contingent on first outlining the boundaries of 'who' (their capacities), only then can we understand what they do/did or didn't do.

    I don't assume that society has a duty to take care of all needs or that a ranking of priorities that leave some needs unfulfilled while others are fulfilled is the equivalent of victimization.
    Do you assume that it's logically sound how that ranking of priorities is undertaken? Can you tell me how that ranking of priorities is done?

    Sides can claim anything, including fair and unfair. However many claims are meritless, and even if they have merit unfairness is not a synonym for victimization.
    It's only meritless of they're responding to something that has been thoroughly justified.

    Are you assuming that the ranking are thoroughly justified without any place/space for any commetary, criticisms?

    In that case, I'm afraid your answer is that you have no answer, as it has not accomplished what you set out to do . . . .
    Again, assuming my position, how about trying to assume your own position, this time around?


    Is it that you deem a setting of priorities/recognizing hierarchies of needs as = victimization
    Simply: no, this is not my position, at all. Never was.

    I'm not sure you understand my argument (said more than a few times already, tried again), I don't know how more clearly I can spell it out for you.

  9. #69
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    I don't understand how you can apply that to evaluating society's role. As victimizing can have more than one form, depending on the AGENT of victimization. It's all nice and sugary to find out that a person is dead before trying to see who murdered him, because well, murder of a human is a concretely physical thing, but, I don't understand how that logic applies to 'victimization' (marginalization, discrimination, hindrance in access to efficient health care, housing opportunities, employment opportunities, etc) by society?
    Finally! So your idea of societal victimization is (marginalization, discrimination, hindrance in access to efficient health care, housing opportunities, employment opportunities, etc). Even with your examples, do you not see how it makes sense to find out, first of all, if there's been discrimination and marginalization of purported victims (i.e. if there's been victimization) BEFORE you find out who's the person/entity who caused the sad state of affairs?

    Unless you think there's is NO way society is capable of victimization, in any form? That'd be interesting to discuss.
    Evidence number 99909 you're not really reading. I gave an example in my first response to you of how the mentally ill could be a victim of society.


    E.g., the form of 'victimization' - an individual victimizing another will look very different than a society victimizing an individual, as, well, you know, society isn't a human.
    For me, I see society's victimization as - an obligation that is unfulfilled without justification.
    This much is clear. I've only asked repeatedly HOW you came to think this and why you think keeping people sane is one of these obligations. This is another of the obligations you apparently have assumed just like that (along with housing and jobs, etc.).



    From YOUR end towards ME it may be about victimization (you just made that clear now in this post), from MY END towards YOU it was about finding out what you think the role of society is (which I asked you to clarify more than once - still no response).
    Well, I don't see how you can get away with ignoring the concept of victimization. As I clarified several posts ago

    I don't assume that society has a duty to take care of all needs or that a ranking of priorities that leaves some needs unfulfilled while others are fulfilled is the equivalent of victimization. The hierarchies should be logical, but if they are not, it's at worst unfortunate, not an instance of victimization.

    Do you assume that it's logically sound how that ranking of priorities is undertaken? Can you tell me how that ranking of priorities is done?
    I assume nothing of the sort; I prefer to look at each instance of hierarchy on a case by case basis. Do you purport to know how it is done? Nevertheless, again, to me it is irrelevant, because I don't think society has an obligation to keep me sane and healthy. It's what I would deem a privilege, not a right.



    It's only meritless of they're responding to something that has been thoroughly justified.
    Or if they have no claim to what they demanded in the first place.



    I'm not sure you understand my argument (said more than a few times already, tried again), I don't know how more clearly I can spell it out for you.
    Nope. I believe, as I wrote before -
    The hierarchies should be logical, but if they are not, it's at worst unfortunate, not an instance of victimization.
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #70
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    It's definitely not fair, but that alone is never enough of a reason to legislate fairness. There is an unlimited amount of unfair aspects to life, we can't mandate fairness for all of them.
    We cannot mandate fairness for all (it's not practical) but the very premise of unfairness means that it is a relevant AND real issue - victimization. What should be done about the victimization and to what degree, and if not, why not, can only then be addressed. If one doesn't address an issue, it cannot be aimed to be resolved. First is addressing. Hence me wanting to outline why I believe there *is* victimization by society. If you ask me, do you think we can eradicate all victimizations of society? I'd say, practically speaking? No...but it is a step if we can address its reality.

    There are many vicious cycles in pockets of American society. One extreme example are the ghettos and the lifestyles of generations and generations because of said cycle. Are they ONLY the victim of their circumstance? No.

    Nothing in society, is ever hardly linear with one cause and one effect.

    But we can take the logical argument that the healthiest nations in the world all have universal health care, with America being the last developed nation not to have it, and with other nations able to do so at half the price we currently spend for our public-private mess and our skyrocketing insurance costs. I like that argument better.
    Actually, there's some debate that two-tiered health care system may be most efficient than single-tiered universal health care.

    My main issue is with policy makers, and how public health policy gets determined...there's many shadiness embedded within that system, one of which is, paper to practice are not always upheld so whatever money is put in, is irrevelant if programs mandated by policies are not kept up. Another is the political climate of the moment and what the 'it' issues are of the times. Third is, knowledge mobilization which becomes more like knowledge (mis)translation.....the govt asks for research to make a case for a policy, but, often times, the policy aim dictates the slant of research, versus research dictating the direction of policy change. Agenda, agenda, agenda.

Similar Threads

  1. why does using computers make me dizzy/disoriented
    By Ulaes in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 06:27 AM
  2. How NFPs sometimes make me feel...
    By Athenian200 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-19-2009, 03:45 PM
  3. This makes me happy, very, very happy.
    By Atomic Fiend in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-30-2009, 05:57 PM
  4. What does it mean if this makes me want to hang myself?
    By swordpath in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 07-07-2008, 09:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO