I am tired of this trendy smashing of the weak

Page 3 of 9 [ 130 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

10 Jan 2014, 5:24 pm

From that article:

Quote:

For people who find themselves on the more-privileged side in any particular interaction, rather than asking your interlocutor to be more civil, you should question why they might be speaking in a way that seems angry or hostile to you, and attempt to ignore their tone and focus on the content of what they are saying. Are they angry because they intend to hurt, or because they are frustrated about having their voices and those of others like them unheard and their perspectives repeatedly erased, possibly over many years by many different people? In the latter case, discussions are usually more productive when the offended party forgives apparent insults and treats the other party with the respect they wish to see, rather than derailing the conversation by changing the subject to the particulars of the other's etiquette.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

10 Jan 2014, 5:26 pm

Some more things about the tone argument:

Quote:

The tone argument presents one end of a common double bind that members of marginalized groups face. If they speak out in a measured or deferential way about oppressive behaviours, their concerns are often ignored. Should they raise their concerns in a more pointed or incisive manner, they are berated for being "incivil".

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

10 Jan 2014, 5:30 pm

beneficii wrote:

It looks like you've got a tone argument going. You say you didn't like my tone, so you, a privileged person, are considering withdrawing your support for a highly marginalized group.

That's problematic, as shown here:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

No, the "tone argument" described in that article suggests that it means that I'm attempting to use your tone as a argument against your conclusion. This is not what I'm doing. I'm explaining why I have negative feelings toward people who have a certain attitude, as anecdotal evidence related to the trend described in the original post.

When I speak of sympathy to your cause, I'm making no claim to the validity of your cause. I'm stating that my desire to help you has been reduced, which may manifest itself as a reduction in the amount that I may contribute voluntarily.

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

10 Jan 2014, 5:35 pm

adb wrote:

beneficii wrote:

Thanks.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

10 Jan 2014, 5:36 pm

beneficii wrote:

adb wrote:

If I'm dependent on help, then I'll die.

This statement makes no sense. It does not follow that if you are dependent on help, then you will die. Of course, everyone will die, but the implication here is that the death is caused by the dependence on help. That does not follow.

That's not the implication. My statement was in the context of "What if nobody wants to help you?".

I'm dependent on help.
Nobody will help me.
Therefore, I'll die.

There is nothing wrong with this. Please don't ignore context.

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

10 Jan 2014, 5:41 pm

adb wrote:

beneficii wrote:

adb wrote:

If I'm dependent on help, then I'll die.

Thanks. Generally, it is important that that situation does not occur where help can be provided. No one should have to suffer such deprivation because they don't have the right connections or enough money.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

10 Jan 2014, 5:42 pm

beneficii wrote:

Oh, again, you focus on the attitude of the needy. How does their attitude have anything to do with you?

The context of the original post was describing a trend in attitude toward those who are needy. I put forth that the attitude from the needy was a point of consideration. If the attitude toward the needy is of concern, then isn't the attitude of the needy toward me a reasonable topic of discussion?

Quote:

And no, this is a republic, not a democracy. (In America, at least.) You must comply with the law, however.

Yes, I'm familiar with our political system. It doesn't change my point.

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

10 Jan 2014, 5:51 pm

adb wrote:

Nope. It's a deflection. The general population's attitude toward the needy, an attitude held by very influential people, has demonstrably resulted in policy changes in at least the U.K. where as I understand it the eligibility process for getting on disability has been made much more difficult, and liable to produce false negatives, all to stem supposed abuse which research has shown is comparably very rare.

On the other hand, the attitude of the needy, that they need this care and so are entitled to it, has little effect on policy if any, and in some cases if they are needy then that might actually be the right attitude for them to have, as it ensures they will fight for their rights.

So, it's a deflection, not a valid counterpoint. The purpose of this discussion was to examine the trend of this attitude toward the needy, which has had major effects on policy.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

10 Jan 2014, 5:52 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

I suppose I have a hard time seeing the flaw in feeling entitled to support....I mean I think someone who is unable to make ends meet is being reasonable if they feel entitled to some support from the system. After all this is not a third world nation and we have programs to help the poor.......why shouldn't they feel entitled to use those programs?

I don't think it's ever reasonable to feel entitled to take from someone else without their consent.

Quote:

Also there are those individuals who have worked and payed taxes and then still end up on the street.....shouldn't they feel entitled to recieve some of the help they paid into with their taxes?

Yes. They should get all of what they paid. Or better, they shouldn't have paid in the first place.

Quote:

Also I will admit I cannot say with full certainty that there would not be enough private chairity....but from what I've seen and read and such it appears there is a necessity for a government funded welfare system, though it could certainly be improved.

I have a lot of experience with government programs and they are, invariably, less efficient than private charities. Private charity is clearly more effective in providing services to those in need. Without real data, however, I can't make a claim either way on whether private charity would fully cover everyone who needs assistance.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

10 Jan 2014, 5:57 pm

beneficii wrote:

I agree!

But it's a value argument. I'll help someone as best I can, but I'm not willing to force other people to do so. To me, helping that person has less value than not plundering from others.

It's the same with LGBT issues. I fully support equal treatment under the law and contribute to organizations that pursue it. But I'm not willing to force other people to contribute to the cause.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

10 Jan 2014, 6:16 pm

beneficii wrote:

adb wrote:

What do you consider "examining the trend of this attitude"? Does it consist of listing examples to support that there is a trend? Does it mean we list effects that this trend has had on policy? Does it include considering factors that influence that trend?

I'm trying to offer insight into the situation. I don't care whether or not you agree with my perspective. I'm offering my perspective because it might provide information that's useful. If it's not, then don't consider it. There's a significant difference between arguing a point and providing perspective. Nowhere here have I claimed that there is not a trend or related policies. I'm not deflecting or making a counterpoint to this issue.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

10 Jan 2014, 7:04 pm

beneficii wrote:

If you don't want to pay taxes for things, then go to Somalia, a veritable libertarian paradise.

Please don't be a moron.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

10 Jan 2014, 7:12 pm

Dox47 wrote:

beneficii wrote:

If you don't want to pay taxes for things, then go to Somalia, a veritable libertarian paradise.

Please don't be a moron.

Taxes are a part of modern society. Deal with it.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

10 Jan 2014, 7:33 pm

It's not a matter of taxation itself being the problem. It's our thinking, our mindset that's the problem. This paradigm we have created where people pay taxes and government provides services with them isn't working. It is aggravating people and is an excuse to inspire fear through debt manipulation of the masses giving people tremendous stress about their future and that's everybody.
This entire system is warped and designed to inflict as much psychological anguish on as many people as it possibly can yet no one has the guts to try a paradigm shift which is obviously needed. We need to acknowledge services are necessary for everyone in society, acknowledge this first and figure out ways to solve these problems. I question the entire monetary system that's in place at the moment.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran