Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People

Page 2 of 4 [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 May 2013, 4:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

:shrug: I'll still put more faith in the Dems, for all their faults, than I ever will in the Repubs who seem to take delight in working against those in need.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Who is producing what jobs there are? It is capitalists. The politicians can have their programs only by looting the producers.

ruveyn


But it does no one any good to purposely hurt the people who work in factories and other businesses. And who says all businessmen are Republicans?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



boywonder
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114

05 May 2013, 6:42 pm

The left and right are constructs of duality meant to divide and obscure the middle path. Those who follow either lose balance amongst the side taking jostling. Only a few can manage balance, positioned equidistant from influential winds.

Many are out of balance and alienation could be considered good, though I prefer sturdy legs and riding the maelstrom like an amusement park



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 May 2013, 8:40 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

But it does no one any good to purposely hurt the people who work in factories and other businesses. And who says all businessmen are Republicans?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The pursuit of profit runs contrary to the Liberal canon. Democrats believe that helping the needy should be our first priority. They even believe that the purpose of a business firm is to provide jobs. In reality, the purpose of a firm is to produce goods or services.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

05 May 2013, 9:31 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
:shrug: I'll still put more faith in the Dems, for all their faults, than I ever will in the Repubs who seem to take delight in working against those in need.

The problem here is the word 'seem'. I think there is a real psychological difference between conservatives and liberals, to some extent at least, and that liberals are more concerned with warm, fuzzy emotions and that conservatives are more concerned with cold, hard facts. That makes conservatives seem cold-hearted to liberals, and liberals seem empty-headed to conservatives.

That's an annoying characterization of liberals. Conservative beliefs are based on emotions too. Reacting with fear to the idea of government telling people what to do is also based on emotion, and can even be irrational. Also, conservatives are too quick to dismiss nuances or degrees of things and prefer black-and-white answers to everything. You guys don't ever like things that can't be strictly defined. This doesn't exactly conform to the "cold hard facts" of the real world which is complicated.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

05 May 2013, 9:39 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But it does no one any good to purposely hurt the people who work in factories and other businesses. And who says all businessmen are Republicans?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The pursuit of profit runs contrary to the Liberal canon. Democrats believe that helping the needy should be our first priority. They even believe that the purpose of a business firm is to provide jobs. In reality, the purpose of a firm is to produce goods or services.

ruveyn

Actually, what you believe liberals think is idiotic. We don't believe the purpose of business is to provide jobs. We believe if private business, as a collective whole, is unwilling or unable provide an adequate minimum level of compensation to all individuals within a society, something else must take up the slack. Otherwise society cannot function. That's something people like you cannot get through your thick skull.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

05 May 2013, 10:06 pm

Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I definitely agree. The problem is I think right-wing neoliberal economic policy will only continue to shrink the middle class while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, that this will lead to increasing crime, demonstrations, and social unrest, and this in turn will lead to more extreme policing measures and restrictions on freedom. I realize libertarians and conservatives don't want this outcome, I just haven't seen convincing logical support for the argument that economic liberalization helps everyone.


Sticking with the theme of the thread, I have no problem with this statement, even though I might feel differently policy wise. From my perspective, any number of progressive policies give way too much power to the state and inch us ever closer to an authoritarian dystopia, but I'm not going to accuse progressives of wanting that outcome, I'm just going to accuse them of being wrong; I think the distinction is supremely important. It's when the part I emphasized gets lost that I go from disagreement to exasperation, as the idea that anyone is actually trying to destroy society IMHO fits the bill of an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, which is most often not forthcoming. Without support, the accusation becomes an ad hominem, and a particularly galling one at that.

However, if the guy making the argument that you think will lead to societal unrest is wearing grotesque clown makeup and a dirty purple suit, you're probably safe in assuming that he does mean for that to happen, but that's a pretty rare situation.


I don't usually accuse anyone of explicitly "wanting" that outcome, but I often get the impression from a lot of libertarians (definitely NOT you in particular) that MANY of them simply wouldn't CARE if their proposed policies lead to extreme inequality and a desperate suffering underclass. This is because whenever I argue with them, rather than giving good logical explanations for HOW an extreme minimum state will benefit everyone and provide for everyone's needs, they tend to change the entire direction of the discussion. Instead of explaining how their economic ideas will work for the benefit of all in the real world, they start hammering me over the head with their subjective opinions on "rights" and "liberty". This kills the debate since I don't agree with their notion of absolute rights and there's nothing left to discuss.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 May 2013, 10:08 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But it does no one any good to purposely hurt the people who work in factories and other businesses. And who says all businessmen are Republicans?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The pursuit of profit runs contrary to the Liberal canon. Democrats believe that helping the needy should be our first priority. They even believe that the purpose of a business firm is to provide jobs. In reality, the purpose of a firm is to produce goods or services.

ruveyn


I think a lot of Democratic businessmen would be surprised to hear that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

05 May 2013, 10:57 pm

marshall wrote:
This is because whenever I argue with them, rather than giving good logical explanations for HOW an extreme minimum state will benefit everyone and provide for everyone's needs, they tend to change the entire direction of the discussion.

I'm not a libertarian, but my understanding is that they don't think that providing for everyone's needs is the government's job. Asking them to provide a logical explanation for how their ideas will accomplish a goal that they don't have is asking the wrong question.

And no, this does not mean that they're horrible meanies. It means they disagree with you.

Quote:
Instead of explaining how their economic ideas will work for the benefit of all in the real world, they start hammering me over the head with their subjective opinions on "rights" and "liberty". This kills the debate since I don't agree with their notion of absolute rights and there's nothing left to discuss.

You're presuming that their fundamental assumptions are mere subjective opinions that are not worth discussing. Of course it kills the debate.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

05 May 2013, 11:08 pm

marshall wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
:shrug: I'll still put more faith in the Dems, for all their faults, than I ever will in the Repubs who seem to take delight in working against those in need.

The problem here is the word 'seem'. I think there is a real psychological difference between conservatives and liberals, to some extent at least, and that liberals are more concerned with warm, fuzzy emotions and that conservatives are more concerned with cold, hard facts. That makes conservatives seem cold-hearted to liberals, and liberals seem empty-headed to conservatives.

That's an annoying characterization of liberals.

It was meant to be a counter to Kraichgauer's annoying characterization of conservatives, showing it to be more about his point of view than reality. I tried to keep the spin out, so it would be a fair characterization of both sides, but if it's really just an annoying characterization of liberals, it does still counter what I wanted it to.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 May 2013, 12:07 am

Ancalagon wrote:
marshall wrote:
This is because whenever I argue with them, rather than giving good logical explanations for HOW an extreme minimum state will benefit everyone and provide for everyone's needs, they tend to change the entire direction of the discussion.

I'm not a libertarian, but my understanding is that they don't think that providing for everyone's needs is the government's job. Asking them to provide a logical explanation for how their ideas will accomplish a goal that they don't have is asking the wrong question.

And no, this does not mean that they're horrible meanies. It means they disagree with you.

The issue is if people's needs aren't provided for in a society you start to have BIG problems. People will end up having to fight and breaking the law if that is what is required just to survive. What is the use of having an orderly society with laws if it is impossible for some to live under them? To not have people needs provided is the path towards anarchy. To make sure people's needs are met is the reason human beings created collectives in the first place. Humans are social animals. We are not like lions or wolves. We cannot survive on our own. We have to cooperate. It's not optional. I'm talking pragmatics here, not values.

Quote:
Quote:
Instead of explaining how their economic ideas will work for the benefit of all in the real world, they start hammering me over the head with their subjective opinions on "rights" and "liberty". This kills the debate since I don't agree with their notion of absolute rights and there's nothing left to discuss.

You're presuming that their fundamental assumptions are mere subjective opinions that are not worth discussing. Of course it kills the debate.

The point is I already know their opinion. Telling me what I have already heard for the umpteenth time leads absolutely nowhere. I'd suggest the reasons our opinions differ in the first place is due to personality or psychological differences. If there is no common ground there really is nothing to argue about.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 May 2013, 1:14 am

Ancalagon wrote:
marshall wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
:shrug: I'll still put more faith in the Dems, for all their faults, than I ever will in the Repubs who seem to take delight in working against those in need.

The problem here is the word 'seem'. I think there is a real psychological difference between conservatives and liberals, to some extent at least, and that liberals are more concerned with warm, fuzzy emotions and that conservatives are more concerned with cold, hard facts. That makes conservatives seem cold-hearted to liberals, and liberals seem empty-headed to conservatives.

That's an annoying characterization of liberals.

It was meant to be a counter to Kraichgauer's annoying characterization of conservatives, showing it to be more about his point of view than reality. I tried to keep the spin out, so it would be a fair characterization of both sides, but if it's really just an annoying characterization of liberals, it does still counter what I wanted it to.


Annoying I may be, but I bet you still love me! :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 May 2013, 1:56 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But it does no one any good to purposely hurt the people who work in factories and other businesses. And who says all businessmen are Republicans?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The pursuit of profit runs contrary to the Liberal canon. Democrats believe that helping the needy should be our first priority. They even believe that the purpose of a business firm is to provide jobs. In reality, the purpose of a firm is to produce goods or services.

ruveyn

No. The purpose of a firm, absent moderating forces, is to produce maximum profit at minimum loss.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

06 May 2013, 2:21 am

marshall wrote:
The issue is if people's needs aren't provided for in a society you start to have BIG problems. People will end up having to fight and breaking the law if that is what is required just to survive.

I'm not arguing with your point, I'm pointing out that this is no reason to suspect the motives of people who disagree. Even if we assume you're just plain right and they're just plain wrong, it's no reason to suspect their motives. Just because someone is wrong about something doesn't mean they came to their opinion dishonestly or from bad motives.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


boywonder
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114

06 May 2013, 2:44 am

white rabbits are associated with deception and illusion, hmmm



Spiderpig
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,893

06 May 2013, 6:27 am

marshall wrote:
The issue is if people's needs aren't provided for in a society you start to have BIG problems. People will end up having to fight and breaking the law if that is what is required just to survive. What is the use of having an orderly society with laws if it is impossible for some to live under them? To not have people needs provided is the path towards anarchy.


Not necessarily. As long as you manage to provide for your own needs, it’s all a matter of defending your life and property. Don’t hesitate to shoot dead any trespasser. Eventually, most of that desperate underclass will either starve to death or be killed when they try to steal something. Afterwards, the underclass will stay at a minimum, composed only of the few individuals coming from regular society who, for some reason or other, fail to make an honest living. Nearly everybody will agree they deserve their fate, and, in any event, it’s nobody else’s business.



PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

06 May 2013, 9:06 am

Spiderpig wrote:
marshall wrote:
The issue is if people's needs aren't provided for in a society you start to have BIG problems. People will end up having to fight and breaking the law if that is what is required just to survive. What is the use of having an orderly society with laws if it is impossible for some to live under them? To not have people needs provided is the path towards anarchy.


Not necessarily. As long as you manage to provide for your own needs, it’s all a matter of defending your life and property. Don’t hesitate to shoot dead any trespasser. Eventually, most of that desperate underclass will either starve to death or be killed when they try to steal something. Afterwards, the underclass will stay at a minimum, composed only of the few individuals coming from regular society who, for some reason or other, fail to make an honest living. Nearly everybody will agree they deserve their fate, and, in any event, it’s nobody else’s business.


Many people who cannot provide for themselves have mental illness. The medications to treat them are too expensive, so they end up on the street. Does a schizophrenic person who cannot afford the medication to treat their illness deserve their fate? This is a common bias called "the just world phenominon". As a result of being told that "what goes around comes around", people tend to assumen that unfortunate people deserve their misfortune.