User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 39

  1. #21
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    Would it be wrong to vote for programs that help you get a job and being paid? Or is that part of voting yourself goodies and being TRULY greedy and wrong?
    It is wrong to vote for someone who is going to GUARANTEE you a job (no matter if it's BS or not). That is demagoguery, pure and simple. It is not wrong to vote for someone you genuinely believe will implement policies aimed at improving the economic conditions that make it easier for you to find a job.


    I'm talking about voting for policies that cause structural violence against oppressed groups whether or not one belongs to that group.
    And I am sure you have a very convenient definition of "structural violence."


    It is significant when people are manipulated into voting for programs that will cut off access to medical help, education, employment, etc
    What if I vote to cut defense spending? That would lower employment in that sector. By your definition, I am fighting structural violence (the military-industrial complex) WITH structural violence (public sector unemployment).


    When we vote in favor of our own interests we vote in favor of our children, our mothers, our grandparents and neighbors.
    At the expense of other people's children, mothers, grandparents, and neighbors. Public expenditures necessarily come from everyone else. You are espousing the kind of "Fuck everyone else; I'm gonna get mine" mentality you are decrying in the private sector. Isn't it wrong for the upper classes to vote for politicians who are out to game the system for crony capitalists? I sure think so. You're trying to pick and choose without a principle in place that goes for everyone in society. Either your enthusiasm for self-interest in the political realm is unfounded, or you're discriminating against people on account of their socioeconomic class.


    Someone voting in favor of medical care or sustenance is not truly greedy and wrong but is someone who comprehends their own human rights.
    Free medical care and food are not human rights.


    It is helpful to research structural violence and the results of extreme imbalances in wealth distribution.
    Already read that in the other thread, thanks. That doesn't help your case.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #22
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    Pure Mercury, your references to demagoguery don't make any sense to me. I think you are projecting some black-and-white thinking and quite a lot of other assumptions into my posts to a degree that communication is pretty blocked. Structural violence is not a term I invented and it is not something I "have a convenient definition for". It is an established issue directly related to the imbalances of power and wealth.

    You are correct that voting in favor of one program can take resources away from another program and that the issues are complex. But there is also a lot of research and statistics available that demonstrate the effects of different policies.

    Being "right" is not the most important thing, but rather comprehending the larger issues of humanity and what causes suffering. Being placed in a protective bubble away from the results of choices that favor elitism and imbalances of power and wealth does not negate those consequences. You mention that the studies on structural violence "don't help my case". It isn't my case I care to help, but those who face the consequences of that violence.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  3. #23
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    Pure Mercury, your references to demagoguery don't make any sense to me. I think you are projecting some black-and-white thinking and quite a lot of other assumptions into my posts to a degree that communication is pretty blocked. Structural violence is not a term I invented and it is not something I "have a convenient definition for". It is an established issue directly related to the imbalances of power and wealth.
    OK, first off, the reference to demagoguery is pretty straightforward. Voting for someone who promises you concrete things like jobs or money or food at the expense of other people is supporitng demagoguery. Your posting thus far has posited that it's perfectly OK (maybe even ethically required) to vote for people who promise things for you and your kin. I think that's an awful reason to vote for someone, as it's an example of craven self-interest at the expense of others.

    As for "structural violence," it is a concept that people you cite defined to their own specifications. The fact that someone published work about it doesn't make it reality. It doesn't even make it a valid premise.


    You are correct that voting in favor of one program can take resources away from another program and that the issues are complex. But there is also a lot of research and statistics available that demonstrate the effects of different policies.
    Yes, and much of that research demonstrates that these programs are ineffective, even counterproductive. I would mention right off Cole and Ohanian's research which led them to conclude that the New Deal lengthened the Great Depression by seven years. I am getting the feeling that you are not exposed to much in the way of countervailing evidence.


    Being "right" is not the most important thing, but rather comprehending the larger issues of humanity and what causes suffering. Being placed in a protective bubble away from the results of choices that favor elitism and imbalances of power and wealth does not negate those consequences. You mention that the studies on structural violence "don't help my case". It isn't my case I care to help, but those who face the consequences of that violence.
    That is a spectacular non-response. First of all, who said being right is the most important thing? Secondly, who is "placed in a protective bubble," exactly? And thirdly, as I mentioned, citing a scholar's concept of structural violence doesn't automatically validate the premise.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #24
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It is wrong to vote for someone who is going to GUARANTEE you a job (no matter if it's BS or not). That is demagoguery, pure and simple.
    I think you're confused about the meaning of that word (among other things.)

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    As for "structural violence," it is a concept that people you cite defined to their own specifications.
    So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The fact that someone published work about it doesn't make it reality. It doesn't even make it a valid premise.
    Neither does the fact that you dispute it mean that it's NOT reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I would mention right off Cole and Ohanian's research which led them to conclude that the New Deal lengthened the Great Depression by seven years.
    There are perhaps more that can be mentioned who say the exact opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I am getting the feeling that you are not exposed to much in the way of countervailing evidence.
    Yes, because then she'd obviously change her opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    And thirdly, as I mentioned, citing a scholar's concept of structural violence doesn't automatically validate the premise.
    And obliquely criticizing what she said by making a trivial comment about how the word was defined by some people - as if that in and of itself invalidates the concept - is stupid.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  5. #25
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Free medical care and food are not human rights.
    And they're not truly free either. There are no free lunches, as Milton Friedman said. Everything costs somebody something.
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz

  6. #26
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SD45T-2 View Post
    And they're not truly free either. There are no free lunches, as Milton Friedman said. Everything costs somebody something.
    Well now we have a Nobel worthy discovery here, folks!
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #27
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Free medical care and food are not human rights.
    This is the core of the dispute. That you place an ideology as more important than essential human rights for all people is the main issue. It is that adherence to ideology over the basic human rights of some individuals that has formed the basis for all politically based atrocities. Until humanity can get past this thinking and get past internalizing it as ego identity, we will likely repeat these errors. Ideologies are self-justifying and because of this are worth questioning in and of themselves. They can be internally coherent, but their mapping to reality results in great suffering because they do not take into account all factors, which is why they are capable of excluding the basic human rights of some individuals or groups. That thinking was the primary mistake of the twentieth century and persists today for many in power.

    Supporting or enabling the ability for some individuals to dominate, control, or oppress other individuals is not the same thing as supporting the basic rights of all individuals that enable survival. I am against the first and in favor of the second.

    Thank you for explaining your demagoguery comment. It never occurred to me to vote for a person based on their promises. I was talking about voting in terms of policies, and to the extent that involves supporting an individual politician, then it is their past record, not their promises that should be examined. I can see why you made that assumption now because it is the way ideas are often marketed.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  8. #28
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I think you're confused about the meaning of that word (among other things.)
    Am I? Here is one definition: "impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace." I would say that an appeal to the populace that promised jobs and/or money (to be paid for by unspecified, presumably wealthier, others) would be an impassioned appeal to their prejudices and emotions. You wouldn't agree?


    So what?
    So it's not making even a desultory attempt at objectivity. It's trying to cloak an inherently loaded political idea in the language of academic standing. Academic-level spin, basically.


    Neither does the fact that you dispute it mean that it's NOT reality.
    This is the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?" I am not saying that something like "structural violence" doesn't exist. I am saying that this definition is inherently biased, enough so that it colors the entire discussion.


    There are perhaps more that can be mentioned who say the exact opposite.
    Yes, I think there are. Who is right? We must look at the data and interpret.


    Yes, because then she'd obviously change her opinion.
    She might come up with better arguments than simply citing one academic's work and behaving as if the mere existence of a concept makes it valid. That is the underlying premise of the "if you research. . ." comment. It implies that, if I were exposed to the concept of "structural violence," I'd clearly agree with her opinion. I have been, and I don't.


    And obliquely criticizing what she said by making a trivial comment about how the word was defined by some people - as if that in and of itself invalidates the concept - is stupid.
    No, it's not. See above. Inherently loaded concept/definition + internal bias that the concept accurately explains the world = "If you research it, you will see. . ." If I did the same with, say, "Constitution in exile" as a concept, that wouldn't be an argument at all.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #29
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    This is the core of the dispute. That you place an ideology as more important than essential human rights for all people is the main issue.
    This is nonsense. It is not placing ideology over "basic human rights." I do not believe those ARE rights. Do you not understand this? Do you not get that many people do not believe what you believe? It is NOT self-evident that free health care and food are human rights. That isn't my being mean or avaricious. It's like you cannot comprehend that your position may not be as popular or righteous as you think.


    It is that adherence to ideology over the basic human rights of some individuals that has formed the basis for all politically based atrocities.
    The Soviet Union guaranteed free health care and food, and it engaged in politically-based atrocities on a daily basis. Ideology can include what you consider to be "basic human rights" and still be atrocious. More importantly, an ideology can choose not to include those "rights" and NOT be atrocious.


    Until humanity can get past this thinking and get past internalizing it as ego identity, we will likely repeat these errors. Ideologies are self-justifying and because of this are worth questioning in and of themselves.
    Like your ideology that free medical care and food are rights. That is an ideology. You're stepping dangerously close into "If only everyone could be enlightened like I am" territory.


    They can be internally coherent, but their mapping to reality results in great suffering because they do not take into account all factors, which is why they are capable of excluding the basic human rights of some individuals or groups. That thinking was the primary mistake of the twentieth century and persists today for many in power.
    Anddddddddddd, you've crossed the line into that territory. Bravo. It's hilarious that you were the one who brought up ego, because this whole line of reasoning smacks of intellectual egotism at its road-to-Hell-pavingest.


    Supporting or enabling the ability for some individuals to dominate, control, or oppress other individuals is not the same thing as supporting the basic rights of all individuals that enable survival. I am against the first and in favor of the second.
    And we disagree fundamentally on what those rights are. That is OK in a free society. What is not OK is suggesting that my concept of rights (which are shared by many, many people, including intellectuals of high standing and moral character) is somehow invalid without any real explanation why. Believing that our rights do not include free stuff is not wrong prima facie.


    Thank you for explaining your demagoguery comment. It never occurred to me to vote for a person based on their promises. I was talking about voting in terms of policies, and to the extent that involves supporting an individual politician, then it is their past record, not their promises that should be examined. I can see why you made that assumption now because it is the way ideas are often marketed.
    Do you think most people even KNOW what politicians have supported in the past?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #30
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    That article is stupid beyond measure. Inequality caused the financial crisis? Give me a break. Next week we'll find out how racism, Republicans, religion, and pollution also caused the financial crisis, because why not? Bad stuff makes bad stuff happen right? Ergo, QED.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

Similar Threads

  1. The Power of Huh?
    By CaptainDDC in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-08-2010, 04:29 PM
  2. [MBTItm] The Power of Fifi
    By entropie in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 03:47 PM
  3. I can control the world with the power of my mind...
    By The Ü™ in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:07 PM
  4. The Power of an Illusion
    By persianeyes in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-24-2008, 03:19 PM
  5. The Power of "Free"
    By Totenkindly in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-05-2008, 06:40 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