Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

You're fucking insane, Loki

Btw, McLesterolBeast = Abbadababba?

 

[Loki]

You're fucking insane, Loki

Btw, McLesterolBeast = Abbadababba?

Yes, he is. And no, I'm not.

 

[Zaptruder]

Loki, with regards to my earlier comments, my apologies that you took it in such a negative way, due to my lack of explanation.

The content you write is very worthwhile in reading... and the thought you put into these matters is a sterling example for the rest of us.

But I do feel that for the normal person (myself included) that, the language (pretty advanced) in combination with the length of the post is often quite intimidating. Most of the time, unfortunately, I do just skim through your posts and skim down hoping someone else has made sense of what you've said. You may see it as rude, but I think it's more a function of normal human behaviour.

My point is that... if you could find some way to include the points you do (or even leave out some of the more extraneous ones, or at least hold them in reserve for replies that direct at that specifically) in with brevity and conciseness, then everyone would benefit; the posts have a great deal of wisdom and content, and people would recieve a better understanding of your words and be able to reply better.

But if it can't be done; that you find it necessary to be so exacting and thorough with your posts, then just ignore me.


As for the general issue at hand...

Mclestrol beast echoes alot of my own sentiments; the value of culture artifacts is only passing, that there exists, sets of cultural beliefs that are just plain flat out better than other beliefs, and that we should focus towards moving towards it... by finding out and agreeing on what it is first... then putting to plan something that can topple the current evils of culture and replace them with the new enlightened values.

Also Loki states quite clearly what I believe should be part of that culture, somewhere in his posts; a culture that doesn't disallow and forcefully restrains evils and ills of society, but rather one that doesn't condone or encourage them in any way. Better yet, a culture that can promote positive living values while disregarding the negative but tempting parts, as we disregard (or at least should) the idea of blood sport (such as gladiators) as valid entertainment.

However, I'm definetly of the opinion that the relative reduction in education spending, the continued socio-economic polarization and the forceful and manipulative method (which doesn't encourage understanding) of reducing social evils is a definite step back from where I believe culture should be headed.

 

[way more]

My point is that... if you could find some way to include the points you do (or even leave out some of the more extraneous ones, or at least hold them in reserve for replies that direct at that specifically) in with brevity and conciseness, then everyone would benefit;

Yes like key words such as; first off, secondly, or other indicator words would help us greatly. I haven't even started to read your new post because I'm too tired

Spoiler

drunk

to reply.

 

[Loki]

Zaptruder:


Thanks for the kind words. I understand what you're saying (regarding my posts and general manner of discourse), but, unfortunately, I do find it necessary to be that thorough in my reasoning for a couple of reasons, both of which are very important to me personally:


One, I desire clarity and understanding between people; I detest sophistry and its attendant ambiguity. If I state things too broadly, then a captious, cavilling, querulous person will be left with an angle by which to attack my reasoning; if I am sufficiently precise, however, I leave them no such grounds for attack (or at least fewer such bases for criticism). And so this is a way to sidestep the incessant questioning of sophists and other equivocal thinkers. The rooting of my previous reasoning in empirically verifiable (beneficial) social phenomena, such as the incidence of drug use/teen pregnancy/obesity etc., springs from that very same desire to avoid the fretful protestations of such people by appealing to easily ascertained "good", rather than ultimately (and admittedly) unknowable philosophical "good". I feel that a mentality such as they are beholden to is poisonous-- not merely because it questions, since it is sound practice to question one's beliefs or society's praxis, but rather because it ceaselessly questions, never arriving at (relatively) firm conclusions which can provide a sound basis for action; as such, they stand inveterately opposed to social progress.


I loathe such people to the same degree that I desire social progress; that is to say, "quite a bit". I will brook no compromise with specious reasoners; to even entertain them is to inevitably succumb to their perpetual malcontent. And so we must remain vigilant, in that sense, against spurious reasoning and that which stands opposed to true social progress (which, as noted, is something that 99% of society agrees upon, as much as some may insist otherwise). Now that that's out of the way...



The other reason for my seemingly periphrastic tendencies is because I desire to do justice to the texture and nuance of my own thoughts. The same way that I would expect another to fully express themselves to the best of their abilities, so do I desire to do the same. I wouldn't want another to shortchange themselves in sharing their ideas, and neither will I shortchange myself. In light of this, I'm sure you can see why such a comment as you initially made (about skimming my posts), while understandable, irked me a bit. It troubled me both because someone merely skimming my posts would only be getting bits and pieces of my reasoning (and would thus possibly raise trivial objections that would have been easily answerable had they read the entire post), as well as the fact that they would not have a full understanding of the content of my thoughts. Believe it or not, I respect and admire people (such as -jinx- or Mandark, for instance) who can get their points across in a logical, (more) concise manner; I feel that, many times, this has a lot to do with the content of what they're discussing, though I'll readily admit that both of them (as well as others) are inherently more succinct than I am. I tend to delve a bit more into the philosophical side of things; Mandark's posts tend to be more politics-oriented, whereas -jinx-, though possessing a brilliant philosophical mind, tends to ground his posts more in the tangible than the ideal, unless the topic explicitly calls for more abstract reasoning (which he is eminently capable of). In other words, for whatever reasons, I have a heavy philosophical bent in terms of manner of expression, and this manifests itself in my posts. I just see it as us all being different people with different modes of expression and different styles of reasoning; I don't see it as a negative in any way, though it admittedly may turn a lot of people off from reading my posts-- there's really nothing I can do to change that, though. It's a part of who I am.



Also, a more general point: I want it to be known that, in all my previous posts, I was using the term "objective good" in a rather counterintuitive (or at least classically incorrect) sense. Generally, when one hears the phrase "objectively good", one automatically assumes that the person is speaking from an absolutist moral context-- something that is good (or holds true) for all people everywhere. Please realize that I am doing no such thing. I readily admit that, purely philosophically, relativism is a valid and strong critique of absolutism. Unfortunately for the relativist (and the sophist), however, people also admit of other "lines of evidence" as to what constitutes "the good" besides purely philosophical, abstract reasoning; this is as it should be, as we are both corporeal and rational beings. Both of these aspects of our constitution have needs which must be met-- rationality sustains itself through the exercise of the mind (i.e., philosophy, reason), and our fleshly nature through the continuance of our existence in as healthy a manner as possible (this is best accomplished through collectives such as society; thus, whatever factors tend to increase the health and sustainability of a society necessarily aid in the perpetuation of one's own continued existence in as pleasant and full a manner as possible-- though this assumed relationship between the individual and society would need much more time to flesh out fully, and so I ask that it be granted as true for argument's sake). Due to these two oftentimes competing "natures" or "aspects" of ourselves (which ideally would not stand opposed to one another; I feel that such a system as I am advocating would tend to bring their interests more in line with one another), we must sometimes choose between them depending on the context.


Seeing as how the purely philosophical debate will never be adequately resolved (the ultimate nature of "truth", or "goodness" etc.), I feel that it would behoove us to focus on that which can be easily ascertained and known with some degree of certainty: tangible, quantifiable states of affairs that correspond to a healthy, productive society. In focusing on these universally desirable conditions (such as less drug use, less crime, less teen pregnancy, less obesity/alcoholism etc.), we thus have our yardstick, our litmus test as to what values we should then be espousing as a society, even as we do not move to limit freedom of action (the two are entirely distinct). Those values that would help to engender those quantifiably good results are thus embraced, while the values that would steer us away from such universally acknowledged, fruitful states should be spurned, and the actions springing from them shunned rather than lauded (as they currently are-- both tacitly and explicitly-- in our culture). It is thus a way to avoid entirely the seeming conundrum posed by sophists and relativists, which is inherently unanswerable and thus opposed to any sort of social progress; their preferred paradigm resigns us to stagnation and eventual decay, and defends devolution at the expense of evolution just because our minds are capable of intellectually justifying the truth/falsity of either one. Surely, this is a spurious and pernicious "standard", and the confused jumble of ideas and praxis that stems from it is similarly noxious-- all stand opposed to progress, which is something easily seen and understood by common minds, as noted by the consensus regarding such conditions as I've mentioned.


Thus, my usance of the term "objectively good" refers to those conditions that correspond to universally beneficial, tangible and quantifiable states of affairs (less drug use is "objectively good", less obesity is "objectively good" etc.-- that is, can be agreed upon by most everybody as desirable for society). Accordingly, any values that would further those ends are to be championed rather than speculated about as to their "truth content"-- indeed, their absolute truth will never in fact be known. As a result, the choice before us is to either listen to such sophists, such malcontents, and resign ourselves to utter stagnation (and eventual decay-- you know, entropy and all ), or to embrace these self-evident empirical truths and the values that aid in their coming to fruition. Seeing as how we can almost all agree that the conditions I've mentioned (as well as dozens of others) are beneficial and desirable, I believe the choice we should make is startlingly clear. To do otherwise is to become directionless and lost, much as these specious reasoners would have you become, to your own detriment and the eventual decline of society's soundness and health. This is not a difficult decision, no matter how others may frame it.



I hope that you feel that my thoughts reasonably cohere, though obviously there is much more to be said regarding these matters; were this a formal essay or analysis, certain terms would have to be defined more precisely, and certain relationships would have to be explained in greater detail as to their origins and nature. But this should suffice.


Bah, and I didn't even get to Raoul's post. Maybe later this evening-- I've already wasted too much time here.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

What the fuck? I dont have time to read all that. Ill respond to a bit of it later today... :|

Before i do respond though, you should know that what i wrote wasn't in opposition to your viewpoints. So uhm, yeah.

 

[Loki]

What the fuck? I dont have time to read all that. Ill respond to a bit of it later today... :|

Before i do respond though, you should know that what i wrote wasn't in opposition to your viewpoints. So uhm, yeah.

Sorry about the length, but not only did I want to respond, I wanted to make certain things clear.


Actually, reading your post again, I can see how it wouldn't necessarily be against my reasoning-- I honestly don't know what the hell I was thinking, now that I view it in that light. It was 2 AM when I read it, after all; I guess the part about "changing the citizens' preferences" (which is not as accurate a statement of my stance as I'd like), as well as some of the more ambiguous statements (such as "the public curiosity") made me think that you were at odds with what I was saying, and thus colored my interpretation of the rest of your post. Your statement about "personal beliefs and upbringing" seemed, in that light, to be seizing upon a common angle of attack against such reforms: the subjectivity of the speaker's beliefs. In short, I felt that you were asserting that my beliefs were subjective, and thus "ought not be considered". Taken all together, it painted a very different picture than what I now see.


But yeah...reading it over now, I can see how you're basically agreeing with me. Man, what was wrong with me? :lol Anyway, my writing that post was still beneficial, because it more clearly expressed certain aspects of my beliefs. Sorry about the confusion.


And yes, I feel quite dumb at the moment. Geez...I really can't believe that I could misconstrue a post in such a manner based on a few superficial cues. I apologize. Though I will admit that your general tendency to be contrarian (which is well known, I might add ) influenced me in that regard; no offense, but when I read an Abbadabba post, I generally assume that it's going to contain criticism rather than agreement (it's just your general manner of reasoning/discourse, much like Border; this is not an insult in any way-- a certain measure of skepticism is healthy), though despite that fact, I was totally wrong in allowing that to color my judgment about the intent of your post. This is the part where I insert my foot into my mouth.


Again, my apologies.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Are certain states of affairs objectively desirable for the individual and society? Your usage of quotes for the word "objective" suggests that you do not believe that certain situations are, nearly without exception, detrimental to the overall well-being of the individual and the society of which they are a part. So I ask whether you believe that there exists certain objectively desirable conditions in general-- yes or no?

Yes, though i'd say there aren't more than a few that are truly universal.

Now, if you're alluding to a situation where the interests of the individual run counter to the interests of society, well, that's different.

That's not what im getting at.

Define "public curiosity".

It fits into the category of subjective interests. People want it because it's there, and they'd just as soon find something else to occupy that interest if it wasn't there.

While I certainly believe that the conditions that I posit as "objectively desirable" have quantifiable, beneficial results (lower incidence of crime, poverty, preventable illness and death etc.), you again lose me when you speak of "goods". These are not extrinsic commodities that can be bartered with, but rather intrinsically beneficial "states"; attempting to invoke a seemingly economic analogy is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole-- it's not going to work. Though if you'd care to elaborate a bit upon the metaphor, then I'm all ears.

Health can be quantified and wealth certainly can be quantified. The beneficial "states" are a means to an end, not good in and of themselves.

So its value doesn't lie solely in how it can improve the life of the citizenry, but that is a large component of its utility, yes.

The _entire_ component is utility. Sustainability isn't beyond the measure of social welfare. There is no consensus for how to measure intergenerational welfare, but it's possible.

 

[Loki]

Yes, though i'd say there aren't more than a few that are truly universal.

I feel that there are dozens that people would agree upon, along the lines of the ones I've mentioned. Besides which, even if there are only a handful, if you change those, then you'll necessarily have a more productive, healthy society, which is eminently desirable for all people.

Health can be quantified and wealth certainly can be quantified. The beneficial "states" are a means to an end, not good in and of themselves.

If the "end" is defined as a healthy, optimally functioning society, then I'd be inclined to agree.

The _entire_ component is utility. Sustainability isn't beyond the measure of social welfare.

Yes, a culture's entire value lies in its utility; I was just trying to point out that culture has utility (that is, serves a function) in many different ways, such as the transmission of values to the ensuing generations and also setting acceptable standards of conduct for the present generation. I agree that culture likely has little merit outside of its utility, though to absolutely state as much would require further thought.


In any event, see my above post. Man, I'm an idiot. lol : /

 

[McLesterolBeast]

 

[Mr. E. Yis]

Loki- I enjoy reading your posts, and 99% of the time agree with you. But I wanted to ask a question about this quote of yours in particular:

[ Therefore, any values which help to foster a change in society whereby these beneficial states increase in frequency cannot logically be opposed.

It stood out to me since it might be in conflict with your stance on not voting (if I change it around somewhat ) If one candidate tries to put a policy that would help one or two of these values grow in a society, better than another candidate, then wouldn't it be logical to vote for them? Even IF the system is broken (or especially if it is). Slow small change for a better society is better than none at all. Even if it's writing in your buddy Joe Schmoe on the ballot because you think he'd make a better president.

If you are still stern on your choice, I hope you use other ways to change society for the better, as Raoul Duke pointed out. Or maybe that's what your book will be for.....I'll buy it.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

That doesn't _do_ anything though. Except you get to feel smug with yourself thinking that you didnt do what 'the man' wanted you to. If you want to make the world a better place, there are more efficient ways to use your time and energy.

 

[Hitokage]

One thing I'll always admire about Loki is his ability to consistently spit out pages of text at a time, speaking as one who often has as much brevity as Loki verbosity. Another important contrast is that I'm highly pragmatic, so I find myself unable to agree with much of his idealism in this thread... paticularly regarding voting, but to him, ideals are most important so whatever. It's hardly something to fight to the death over.

It's not difficult at all; in fact, I've provided numerous, specific examples of such compelling interests. 99% of society would agree that less hard drug use is preferable to more drug use; 99% would agree that less obesity is preferable to more obesity; 99% of people would agree that fewer teen pregnancies and STD's is something to strive for; 99% of people would agree that less personal debt is preferable to the accumulation of more debt; 99% of people would agree that less corporate greed is preferable to more greed.

You give people way too much credit, especially on the last two.

There is zero social benefit to be found in eschewing good sense simply to appease some diseased contrarian strain of thought that incessantly argues against reason for its own sake. We must realize what values are conducive to a sound society-- which include many of the values I've listed as well as others-- and then embrace them and be adamant in our promotion of them as a society. If we are not resolute in this regard, then I feel it will ultimately be our undoing. Signs of decay and dissolution are all around us, and yet, instead of heeding sound doctrine, we insist on listening to the chatter of people who would tell us that there are no absolutely beneficial states of affairs; in essence, they would tell us that we're too stupid to articulate with our mouths what our eyes witness daily-- and that is that certain states and actions are conducive to the healthy functioning of society and some are not. Therefore, any values which help to foster a change in society whereby these beneficial states increase in frequency cannot logically be opposed.

Ok, I've already gone through three or four drafts of what I was going to say to this, but I'm tired from work and I've just given up. I'll just say that I quibble when you let your ego leak into your arguments, such as that last sentence.

 

[Loki]

I'll just say that I quibble when you let your ego leak into your arguments, such as that last sentence.

Because I said that they "logically cannot be opposed"? Why, is that excessively strong language in your opinion? I feel just as strongly about the logic and truth of what I'm saying as others may feel about other things. For instance, would you hold that civil rights cannot logically be opposed? If so, then why is that not likewise an instance of "ego leak"? I see people use similarly strong phrasing all the time (I don't like to name names, but look through any political thread and you'll find dozens), no matter the topic; so I don't think it's necessarily fair to single me out in that regard merely due to the vigor with which I express my convictions. Keep in mind, too, that the thing I stated that people cannot logically (or, rather, sanely) stand in opposition of is the lessening of drug use, teen pregnancy, obesity, crime, greed etc. Do you honestly know of anybody who'd in good conscience be against a reduction in those things? That's what I meant, just to clarify.


I'm just saying that I don't see the egotism in that last sentence, though I do tend to phrase things strongly at times-- but that's because I've considered them at length, and honestly feel that, if the premises are accepted, then these things cannot be argued against (again, in terms of their practical value, not in terms of their philosophical truth).


Also, though I am admittedly an idealist (as you noted), I'd say that, on sum, my posts in this thread have been concerned with pragmatism to one degree or another; in fact, I've purposely avoided the philosophical implications of these things in favor of settling upon a practical course of action that will be beneficial for all of society.


If you have anything else to say, I'm all ears. I respect your opinion a great deal.

 

[Hitokage]

Well, I've seen you do worse before, so since I gave up on posting something substantive regarding the argument in general, I decided to say what I didn't say before when it has happened. Besides, I have a really hard time agreeing with an argument which looks so much like "the ends justify the means". I think you're getting a little preoccupied in the goals without considering the process to be employed in getting there. Hence, idealism/pragmatism.

Edit: Sorry if I'm being edit-happy here.

 

[Mandark]

Loki: Many values that have consensus support among the public when expressed vaguely often contradict each other in practice, or conflict with perceived self-interest.

Examples on request.

 

[Loki]

Well, I've seen you do worse before, so since I gave up on posting something substantive regarding the argument in general, I decided to say what I didn't say before when it has happened. Besides, I have a really hard time agreeing with an argument which looks so much like "the ends justify the means". I think you're getting a little preoccupied in the goals without considering the process to be employed in getting there. Hence, idealism/pragmatism.

You've "seen me do worse"? I honestly have no idea where you're coming from, or why you're singling me out. I've already admitted that my manner of phrasing certain things can, in fact, be a bit strong at times. However, numerous other posters state things with the same amount of force, and are just as unapologetic about their beliefs as I am about mine. And yet I do not begrudge these posters-- who include many of the forum's most prominent members-- their manner of expression, because I usually agree with them; when I don't, I can at least appreciate the amount of thought and reason that went into shaping their stances. As such, these people generally are within their rights to state things somewhat imperiously or to be brusque at times. That aside...


As for your "ends versus means" comment, well, it's a legitimate concern, especially when my posts have not at all explained how we'd go about instilling those tried and true values. However, though doing so would require a couple of posts of similar length to my previous ones and so will not be done (yes, I'm sparing you ), I'd caution against assuming that what I'm advocating in any way entails a limitation on personal freedoms (speech, expression etc.). The same way that society has become more materialistic, licentious, and intemperate, it can just as easily go back the other way, to become more temperate, virtuous, and people-centered (as opposed to our object-centered materialism). Now, this has nothing at all to do with a curtailment of our rights, since those rights have always been the same (and will continue to be the same). All that's changed is society's emphasis on these ethical values, and the results of this neglect can be seen all around us.


Do you honestly mean to say that promoting temperance would not have a significant effect on several social ailments? I feel that a simple return to such a value would have a more marked effect than a dozen different specific band-aid policy initiatives. In instilling these values, you change people at the root; fewer people will see the need for alcohol, or crack, or gorging themselves with food, or accumulating absurd riches, or using sex as a substitute for self-respect (as happens all too often among teens). Will people still engage in those behaviors? Of course. But their numbers would be drastically lessened. Further, due to the broadness of these maxims, you are killing many birds with only a few stones, as opposed to the myriad policies and programs and laws you'd have to enact (and the money you'd have to spend) in order to adequately deal with the ever-increasing incidence of these harmful conditions. All those detrimental states of affairs are simply manifestations of the lack of a solid ethical core imo. It wouldn't be a panacea, but it'd have the broadest effect of anything we could do imo.

Loki: Many values that have consensus support among the public when expressed vaguely often contradict each other in practice, or conflict with perceived self-interest.

Examples on request.

You're right. However, it is the tendency towards self-interest itself that, over time, would be lessened by adhering to these maxims. It's not a matter of vagueness or explicitness; self-interest as a motivation for human actions will never disappear, but we must attempt to restrain it-- that is, make it unpalatable-- as opposed to reveling in it as we do currently (as evidenced by our "me first", "I gotta get mine" culture). Currently, many such values exist "without limits"-- our culture champions the unlimited acquisition of wealth, unencumbered self-interest, unlimited pursuit of pleasure etc. Every single one of these would be affected by a return to temperance. Over time, people would begin to see how base and lacking in substance their behavior has been (speaking not of specific behavioral acts, but rather their general method of behavior); this is because I firmly believe that properly habituated people reared in a sensible society do not behave in the manner that all too many people today do.


You are, as always, free to disagree. I do not see promoting excellence and self-mastery in society as some pointless or "simpleminded" endeavor, though. It should at least be tried, since what we're doing is clearly not working.


And yes, an example would be nice so I can get a better sense of what you're getting at.



I waste entirely too much time on this forum. : /


EDIT: Btw, nice tag Mandark. :lol I nearly spit out my drink just now.

 

[Mandark]

You are missing all the "core values" that the government is already promoting. That's what all those laws are about.

In order for society to have "declined," there must have been a previous high point without immorality and corporate greed. When was this?

Of course widespread temperence would involve restrained self-interest. That is a truism.

Your connection between liberal government policies and immorality is very tenuous, and the example you give of the crackhead parent is disingenuous, not to mention in the same family as Reagan's racebaiting "welfare queen."

What, exactly, would be a set of government policies that would encourage temperence, chastity, and limited self-interest without infringing on basic freedoms of choice?

PS One should not preach against hedonism in one place, and boast of sexual accomplishments in another. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

 

[Hitokage]

*wakes up from nap* I believe this is what I was referring to...

I stand on the side of reason, truth, justice, and law...if I may be so presumptuous.

At any rate, it's already been made a much bigger deal than I intended it to be, perhaps of my own doing. I just feel that generally when you think such things, it should be demonstrated not explicitly said, that's all. Sorry I couldn't get to the point earlier.

Moving on, while I admire self-discipline, I am of the belief that in the end people have been and will continue to be people. Improvements in society must be obtained by exploiting traits in human nature, not relying on changes in human nature itself.

 

[Loki]

You are missing all the "core values" that the government is already promoting. That's what all those laws are about.

Neither government nor our culture is promoting personal, secular ethics of the sort I've proposed. They have both failed in their obligation in that regard, and this has, in fact, led to an increase in many of the conditions I've noted. The "core values" that you're asserting the government is "promoting" largely deal with the proscription of certain actions. Nothing the government (nor other cultural agents) is doing presently helps to teach people how to master themselves. You may see such phraseology as odd (or as something of an anachronism), but I feel that it cuts to the heart of the matter-- people who are in control of themselves and lead lives of moderation simply do not excessively indulge in the sorts of vices we see all around us-- from sex, to spending, to drugs, to booze. I'm honestly flabbergasted that anybody is even debating this point.

In order for society to have "declined," there must have been a previous high point without immorality and corporate greed. When was this?

Come now. You well realize that I was not suggesting that there was a time "without immorality", so please don't put words in my mouth. Your paraphrasing of my argument is, in fact, mistaken: For society to have "declined" does not require there to have been a time of "no immorality" (as you state), but rather only a time of less immorality in the spheres I've mentioned (underlined because it's important to note). And there was, in fact, a time of less immorality ("immorality" is actually a loaded term that you're trying to introduce here; it's a word that I haven't used in any of my posts herein, and for good reason-- please don't try to reframe the argument I made, which was concerned with tangible results, by way of subtle linguistic shifts). "Immorality", if I am to use the term you've thrown out there, is here being defined as "undesirable social conditions" (i.e., drug use, teen pegnancies, rapes, obesity etc.).


The reason why I underlined that segment earlier and made note of it is because inevitably in these sorts of discussions, someone will point out that those seemingly halcyon days were not less immoral, but rather that their immorality was expressed in different ways-- namely institutionalized racism, lack of equal rights for women etc. Only a fool would deny that many features of today's society are, in fact, universally desirable, and a fool is something I'm not (yes, laugh it up ). Here's my point:


Are certain things about today's society much better (i.e., more "objectively good" as defined previously) than they were 40-50 years ago? Obviously. And kudos to us for those achievments that were gained after much struggle by many people. Yet there are also many things about the society back then which are still held to be objectively good, that they were more accomplished in-- namely less drug use, rape, crime, teen pregnancies, greater general civility in public and private discourse etc. In all these ways and others, that society is superior to ours. And in many other ways, ours is superior to theirs. My point is that we should be aiming for an optimally functioning society as far as possible; it makes no sense to "call it a wash" just because each society had features/states that were better than the other-- we should be trying to reasonably get the best of both those worlds, not implicitly assuming that it cannot be done. To that end, advocating the virtues and ethics I've mentioned would go a long way towards eliminating many of the social maladies that we can all agree deserve to be eliminated as much as possible.


I would ask you: if you believe that the values I'm advocating are either inapplicable or somehow hollow (and would thus be ineffectual), then why have these maxims been championed for thousands of years by the very best minds in every society? Why has every prosperous society that has sustained itself exhibited these traits to one degree or another, and tried as best they could to instill them in their populace via acculturation? Why are you acting like this is just some trivial point I'm making when I wholeheartedly feel that it is anything but. You want a point-blank analysis? Fine: I firmly believe that a grossly intemperate culture (which manifests itself in various spheres of activity) such as we currently have is unsustainable and doomed to decline and eventual collapse. Point blank-- I'm willing to lay my cards on the table honestly. Are you likewise being honest and fair in your reasoning about these things?

Of course widespread temperence would involve restrained self-interest. That is a truism.

A truism we should strive for, seeing that the harmful effects of unchecked self-interest are all around us, and are lamented by people of all political persuasions. And yet, for some reason, we are not advocating this value anywhere. Why is that?

Your connection between liberal government policies and immorality is very tenuous

First off, it is not as tenuous as you would suppose. These, however, were my exact words:

Obviously, when assessing the reasons for these occurrences, there are other contributory forces that fall just as heavily on the Republican side (most prominently, the need for two-income families, leaving children to be raised by TV and hooligans in their community; this was created by the stagnation of wages caused by corporate greed, furthered by Republicans), but to say that liberals had no hand in it?

please don't try to "convince me" that the liberal ideology (as espoused by politicians) has never done any sort of damage to this country, because it has, just as the conservative ideology has (and as both do currently in various spheres)....this would allow you to see why I feel that those obligations have been neglected on all sides of the political spectrum.

The original thrust of my "argument" was aimed at liberals merely because that was the quote of Zaptruder's that I was responding to (that liberals were far-sighted and hence prudent); had someone said that the "conservative agenda" has never done any harm to this society, then that would have been my jumping off point, and I would have then tempered it later with examples of liberal imprudence. The order and focus is simply reversed here.


As evidenced by the above quotes, I believe that both parties have been culpable to various degrees for various social disorders. And like I said, please do not try to convince me that the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country, because you're sorely mistaken if you believe that to be the case. In fact, I don't even have to defend the statements I've made-- it's clear to all that I am willing to place blame wherever I may find it, right or left. In contrast, by basically implying that the liberal agenda has been entirely benign over the decades, you expose yourself as a partisan, rather than showing me to be in error. Honestly, how can you believe that one of the two major parties in this country has had no hand at all in fostering and perpetuating certain deleterious social conditions? It's an entirely one-sided, ill-considered stance imo. I can't even wrap my mind around such a claim, really...

and the example you give of the crackhead parent is disingenuous

How so? Also, realize that it was just a hasty example; there are many such examples.

not to mention in the same family as Reagan's racebaiting "welfare queen."

Come now, Mandark-- surely you're better than this. There's no reason to insinuate that I in any way harbor latent racist sentiment just because I happened, in my haste, to select an example which just so happens to roughly coincide with a political faux pas from 20 years ago that I had no idea about in the first place. I could see if I had a history of racist posts (or even a racist post), but come on now...:lol

What, exactly, would be a set of government policies that would encourage temperence, chastity, and limited self-interest without infringing on basic freedoms of choice?

Here we get to the part that I told Hito that I would spare him the trouble of reading, because I honestly don't have the time to delve into it as deeply as it merits. Suffice it to say that I speak here not necessarily of policies, but of culture. I believe that our culture must change, not just our policies; in fact, when such broad cultural shifts are undertaken, there is much less need for policy, as fewer laws and regulations are needed to guide a virtuous, temperate populace. Don't believe me? Just ask Ben Franklin:

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt, they have more need of masters

...or James Madison:

To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea

...or Thomas Paine:

Whenever we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary

...or John Adams:

Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul.

...or Frederick Douglas:

The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful and virtuous

At any rate, you get the idea. My point in inundating you with such quotes (of which this is but a small sample) is to ask: what, precisely, is this "virtue" they all speak of? The answer is that they are speaking of the exact same virtues that you are insisting cannot or should not be espoused by our society-- tested, proven, immutable virtues of the sort that I have mentioned herein. And yet you would deny our nation the very thing which minds greater than you or I have deemed absolutely essential to the perpetuation of our free way of life: virtue. Without it, nations crumble. And these are secular virtues, too, else these same creators of our country that so vehemently fought for the separation of church and state would not have been advocating these virtues as indispensable to the health of our society. Temperance, civility, charity, and a shunning of materialism and licentiousness for their own sake-- the pillars of any sound society. More than religion (and I'm religious), more than education, more than even family, these virtues are what need to be maintained in order to have a sustainable society. And we're failing spectacularly to instill even a modicum of such worthy values in our populace.


Yet Mandark, with his skeptical ways, insists that somehow virtue-- the very same virtue that I have been advocating herein and which these great Americans quoted above held so dear-- is either not important enough to be embraced, or that it somehow is "against" our way of life to transmit these virtues. Mandark is somehow wiser than the founding fathers and literally hundreds of other eminent political scholars and philosophers throughout the ages. I like you, Mandark, but color me a bit skeptical on that count. I would not suppose myself wiser than these men, and neither should you. I realize that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy (not that it's ever stopped you, sir quote-a-lot ), but my aim in quoting these people was only to make you realize that, properly conceived, a functioning society and the espousal of virtue are not at odds with one another. Indeed, one cannot exist without the other, as much as you might believe otherwise. And if you can point me to a single cultural product or piece of legislation or judicial decree that will somehow "teach" children to be temperate and poised in the face of the vicissitudes of life, then there's a shiny nickel in it for you-- because as it stands, our children (and by extension, our entire society) simply are not being exposed to such virtues, unless their parents happen to be exceptionally well-bred people. And even then, two-income families and all....who knows how much of that rubs off on the kids? There is no harm in teaching and advocating these sound values to our society. Sure, you can always say that it might not make a difference (because, after all, we'll never know until we try, and then see if it bears quantifiable "fruit"), but it cannot in any possible universe do us any harm. The choice before us is clear.


A quick note on how, specifically, such values may begin to be disseminated throughout our society:

It can start with things as simple as peer mentoring programs, afterschool programs placing an increased emphasis on interpersonal decency and other such values, politicians giving speeches and setting up outreach programs in their communities that stress these values etc., and eventually work its way up to government-funded television programming highlighting the utility and excellence of these values (through various didactic methods, including normal TV shows; yes, this is an expense, but in the long-run, we'd save a hell of a lot more money than we'd spend imo), to it being explicitly taught in schools via immersive teaching methods that encourage student participation. And, before you say it, this has nothing to do with the separation of church and state because these values are all entirely secular-- they've existed, and their excellence and utility was recognized, well before religion's inception and, I'd wager, will exist long after religion is gone. Thus there is no legitimate reason for us to be at loggerheads on this issue. These are necessary, time-tested values, and it behooves all of society to get behind them and see to their transmission as best we can, as it will lead to a more optimally functioning, sustainable society (lower incidence of obesity, rape, unplanned pregnancy, debt, drug use, yadda yadda).


At any rate, the measures taken would be small at first, but would eventually snowball, leading to a more virtuous society in general. How so? Well, through the enactment of such things as noted above, eventually some small segment of the populace will themselves become more virtuous; this will necessarily influence all of their decisions in life, including their consumer decisions. Eventually-- and this would take many years, decades even-- those internalized notions of virtue would dictate that a person eschew certain forms of entertainment, making them less economically viable in the market; this would in turn lead to entertainment and other pop culture being put out which would reflect the "newly habituated" populace's tastes better. This will, of necessity, itself be more virtuous than our current pop culture fare, and so the cycle will perpetuate and reinforce itself. Note that this is not censorship-- in fact, it's precisely the sort of trend that we've witnessed in pop culture over the past several decades exactly reversed. If the process (popular values --> profitable entertainment --> reshaping and reinforcement of values due to that entertainment) is allowed to hold one way, it certainly must be allowed to hold in the other direction as well, if we are to be logically consistent (and, in fact, we have a much greater stake in ensuring that it holds in the other direction as a society). People would still be free to produce whatever they wished, but society just wouldn't be as interested anymore-- and this goes directly back to my previous posts where I spoke about disincentivizing (is that a word?) unvirtuous behavior. The same way that I could make a wholesome, virtuous piece of entertainment nowadays, but it'll at best only find a niche market; this situation would be reversed in such a society as I describe.



We have an obligation to the future generations to see to this-- I firmly believe that. If you do not believe we have an obligation to do everything in our power to try to perpetuate these values, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree, because there's no way you'll ever convince me that it either A) wouldn't be beneficial (even if only slightly, though I feel it would turn out to be quite significant), B) that it is somehow not in our purview (either the citizens' or government's) to effect this change, or C) that it is somehow not feasible (i.e., capable of being implemented, practically)-- hey, we don't know until we try, right?


The "system" we have now-- if you can even call it that-- is broken. Spurious values are being transmitted and nobody of sound mind is speaking up about it despite the fact that we can all agree that certain states of affairs are desirable and that certain values (virtues) are conducive to bringing about those desirable states of affairs. Yet still we pretend as if all this is some big riddle that can't even begin to be solved. It's incredible, really. Somehow the promotion of timeless virtue, excellence, and self-mastery and discipline is not self-evidently good for society. Can I switch planets?


Anyway, you're free to have the last word-- I've already blown nearly two days on this damned forum (this damned thread, actually ). I need to get some stuff done. Forgive me if I came of at all rude-- I just happen to feel incredibly strongly about these things (and justifiably so, I believe, as evidenced by my posts), and sometimes I get a bit carried away.

PS One should not preach against hedonism in one place, and boast of sexual accomplishments in another. Nudge nudge, wink wink

I've never bragged about my "sexual accomplishments" anywhere, largely because I don't have many, despite ample opportunities. If you mean that I've mentioned on OA (and only after being prodded by hecklers) that I've been propositioned quite a bit, well, that's true. I can't control other people's hedonism, you know, only my own. But yeah, I'm just that darn irresistable I guess.

 

[Loki]

Moving on, while I admire self-discipline, I am of the belief that in the end people have been and will continue to be people. Improvements in society must be obtained by exploiting traits in human nature, not relying on changes in human nature itself.

So we're somewhat on the same page, at least. But I do feel that you're making a somewhat artificial distinction here. You're correct in stating that people are, and will continue to be, people. Yet human nature hasn't changed in millenia, if ever. So what was qualitatively different about human beings 50 years ago that allowed them to exhibited these virtues to a greater extent than we do? The answer to this question is, I feel, contained in my (incredibly long-winded) posts. I just want it to be clear that I am not saying (either explicitly or implicitly) that the funadamental nature of human beings has to change in order for the plans and ideas I've mentioned to be implemented or those desirable goals realized (this is all if the "not relying on changes in human nature itself" comment was directed at me).

I just feel that generally when you think such things, it should be demonstrated not explicitly said, that's all

I feel I have amply demonstrated such things as far as they can be demonstrated (via reason) without actually implementing those values and seeing the empirical results in our society for ourselves (which was the standard I was adhering to as a burden of proof for the soundness of those beliefs, if you'll recall).


By the way, care to PM me the link to the topic I made that quote in? I recall saying it, but I don't recall the context (when you write 15K words per topic, things tend to get a bit jumbled in your head). I'd just like to read it and perhaps explain myself based on the context. I realize you're not making a ginormous deal out of it, but I'd appreciate it anyway.


Like I told Mandark, you're free to have the last word here-- I've honestly done all the explaining and elaboration I can for one weekend. I have lotsa work to do.

 

[Mandark]

I could see if I had a history of racist posts (or even a racist post), but come on now...

I post this so Azih doesn't have to.

 

[Loki]

I post this so Azih doesn't have to.

And your point is?


That's not racist by any stretch. It's a factual observation. Try again, please. No, don't-- save yourself the trouble. Judging from that link, I have a stalker on this forum. Lord knows why you'd go out of your way to either save that, or even just to catalogue it in memory, given that it is not racist in any way. Is it commentary that happens to mention certain ethnic groups? Yes. Does it assert that all members of said ethnic groups engage in said practices? No. As such, it is simply observation (of what I see around me living in Brooklyn and of what I read in various studies and articles), nothing more or less. Didn't know that constituted "racism".


I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I'm racist, everyone else in the world is too. My life was destroyed by racism, Mandark; my entire being irrevocably changed to its core. If you followed my posts as closely as your little catalogue clip above would seem to suggest, you'd realize that-- but yeah, I know, selective vision and all. Do a bit of thinking before you try to baselessly assail my character again, ok? I really don't appreciate it, and I honestly didn't think you were either so dumb (as to think that is racism) or petty (to have catalogued the event in memory or saved it to your HD, and to allow it to color your impression of me despite all the other anti-racist things I've said). Very sad, if you ask me...


I mean, shit, you remember THAT, but you don't recall the numerous drawn-out posts I made in the interracial dating topic in support of it? Should I search for the substantial anti-racist content that I've posted in order to satisfy your rush to judgment? :lol Christ, you even posted nearly right after me in that dating topic. Unreal-- I guess people see what they want to see.


EDIT: Why don't you post the url to that topic, so that people can see how I responded to Azih when he, like you, attempted to assert that I somehow "had it out" for immigrants on the basis of those comments and was thus somehow covertly "racist". I'm pretty sure my response had to do with my belief in the rule of law being flouted in those instances, and my intolerance of that. My vocal condemnation of it is no different than my vocal condemnation of 101 other things that I feel stand opposed to law and justice and good sense, which I tend to post about at length, as seen in this very topic. You're way out of line for even suggesting what you did about me. Seriously.

 

[Mike Works]

That doesn't make ANY sense when applied in the real world though, Loki.

You could attempt to elaborate, but I'm not optimistic that you could truthfully pad your moral thesis' (or whatever the plural of thesis is).

 

[Matlock]

That doesn't make ANY sense when applied in the real world though, Loki.

You could attempt to elaborate, but I'm not optimistic that you could truthfully pad your moral thesis' (or whatever the plural of thesis is).

theses

 

[Loki]

That doesn't make ANY sense when applied in the real world though, Loki.

You could attempt to elaborate, but I'm not optimistic that you could truthfully pad your moral thesis' (or whatever the plural of thesis is).

You mean my previous on-topic post, I assume? I feel that it makes perfect sense, and I've tried my best, within the confines of the topic, to get that across; just because you may disagree does not mean that it somehow "doesn't make sense"-- after all, I'm not a senseless person. Just because I may not agree with yours, or Hito's, or Mandark's reasoning does not make it senseless, it just means that I have reasons for disagreeing with it. Ditto for you with my posts.


And no, I won't elaborate. I'm officially done with this topic, particularly after that uncalled for attack by "sexy Mr. Mandark". I've said my piece, both on-topic and off.

 

[Fifty]

I bet it takes me 10 seconds on average for each posting. I bet it takes Loki 30 minutes :lol I can't get through it, it's so long. But it's always good to have something to say. :lol

 

[Ned Flanders]

Loki is the only forum member with posts longer than my cock. For those of you that don't know, its highly impressive*.





*Both the length of his posts and my cock. But thats neither here nor there.

 

[Fifty]

Somewhere out there is a very sophisticated automatic post generator that Loki is using. Otherwise I just can't fathom it.......Unless...he is getting paid to post. Hmmm.....No, that's stupid. *Runs off to the apathy thread*

 

[Mandark]

Cliff's Notes:

Cimarron: Some link that I haven't even clicked.

Zaptrudr: Liberals are more long-term thinkers than conservatives.

Raoul Duke: Haha, stupid Republicans. Nader'll learn em.

Loki: What about the liberals 40 years ago who set us on the path to hell with their dastardly moral relativism?

akaScream: Mmm, this is sure delicious paste.

Azih: Well, legislation doesn't affect culture all that much.

Loki: Liberals pushed the cultural slide through legislative and judicial decisions.

The whole second page: Boring stuff that Mandark didn't read.

Loki: Certain things are objectively bad and it's silly to argue against policies that would prevent these things.

Mandark: But sometimes those things run into each-other or self-interest.

Loki: But if someone has less self-interest, self-interest won't be a problem.

Mandark: You're pushing a connection between liberal public policy and the moral decline of culture that isn't there. What kind of policy do you want?

Loki: Well actually, I want a change in culture. And all these famous people are saying good things are good!

Ben Franklin: Virtue is important. Now I'm off to walk around my house naked, schtup a French chick, and drink this bottle of wine!

And now we've gotten to the point in a long thread where two posters are essentially talking past each other. Loki is arguing that certain values are universally beneficial, wihle I'm arguing that liberal social policy didn't create this situation, and that policy in general can't solve the situation. All those quotes from Loki are basically refuting something I never said, though he is good enough to substantially address my question (though I'd disagree on the potential impact of an American BBC).

Sorry if you think posting that quote is unfair, but I agree entirely with Azih's take on it, and you specifically asked for even a single post. My original point is not that you are racist, but that you were repeating an old meme with racist origins. It's not exactly a secret. I didn't quote the interracial dating thread because I didn't read it. I kinda suck as a stalker.

 

[Azih]

God dammit, Mandark had to drag me back into this.

Alright ARGH.

CHAPTER 1: 'What Drove me Back Here' OR 'I hate you forever Mandrak'
The fact that you railed against Russians in New York and illegal immigrant leeches in Califronia is freaking disturbing for reasons that are OBVIOUS. It unsettled me then and it unsettles me now, and if you say something even remotely like 'well it's true so it's not racism' again then I'll run out of my room screaming. I'm hanging on by a very thin thread here.

CHAPTER 2: 'The only kind of government that would be able to do what you want is Platonic in nature' OR 'Plato was fucking insane'

Alright, your plan to restore temprance to America would take decades to achieve.... how the hell would you achieve this in a democratic society? Even ASSUMING that a solid majority of elected politicians agreed with you for dozens of years(HAW), or powerful interests that think the status quo is just dandy won't mess around (hello Mr.Lobbyist what can I do for you today?), POLITICANS DON'T CONTROL THE MEDIA. You know... a factor that HAS WAY MORE OF AN EFFECT ON THE CHILDREN!. Not only would a group of right-thinking indviduals need to control the media and NOT CARE ABOUT MAXIMISING PROFIT, they'd need to control it for DECADES.

I could go on, but I can see how this supports your notion that 'the system is corrupt, so that's why I don't vote'. Suffice it to say that for any implementation of your plan to be even remotely successful it would have to be authoritairian and draconian in nature. The fact that you don't recognize this with your 'Now, this has nothing at all to do with a curtailment of our rights' leads me to believe that you're simply hopelessly idealistic and not at all pragmatic, or to put it another way, simply hopeless.

EXAMPLES.
The administration of the U.S would have had to be positively Chinese in their reaction to put down the free love hippies, gangsta rap, bling bling, sex and drugs and rock and roll, Beatle freaking mania, and these are all the kinds of influences that your Nancy Reagenesque 'Just say No to Drugs' kind of government funded TV programming would be completely pathetically useless against. ProTip: Flashing 'Winners Don't Excessively Indulge' in front of video games in the arcades won't. change. anything.

CHAPTER 3: 'One great Strawman' OR 'And you think OTHER people are misrepresenting what you say?'

And like I said, please do not try to convince me that the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country

Alright fine, Good thing I never tried or that NEITHER DID ANYBODY ELSE.

End of Chapter

CHAPTER 4: 'Prosperous societies of the best make us look Puritan' OR 'Ah nostalgia for the (Distant) Past'

Why has every prosperous society that has sustained itself exhibited these traits to one degree or another, and tried as best they could to instill them in their populace via acculturation?

First off, this statement is so vauge that it's useless. Hell EVERY society exhibits these traits to one degree or another.

Secondly:

* the Romans ate to the point of sickness, then SHOVED FINGERS DOWN THEIR THROAT to go the rest of the way so they could go back to the buffet and shovel more grease into their gaping maws (at least our tubbies are sane enough to stop at the point where they can't physically fit more food into their digestive systems)

* the Greeks saw nothing wrong with middle aged men porking young boys up the backside. In fact they ENCOURAGED it.

* the Kama Sutra was NOT written in a society that had any concept of temprance in sex (I mean have you SEEN 'The Stag'? IT'S GOT FIVE VARIATIONS! FIVE! And what kinda sick mind thought up THE KNOT?)

* one piece of popular ancient Japanese art depicts a fisherman's wife making love.. TO AN OCTOPUS. Tentacle Rape isn't a modern invention. It's a PART OF THEIR FUCKING HERTIAGE.

*You'd think Muslims, we of the Taliban, inventors of the burka would be immune to this yeah? HELL NO. Here's an excerpt from The Perfumed Garden describing the praiseworthy man(translated from the original Arabic.. of course):

When a meritorious man finds himself near to women, his member grows, gets strong, vigorous and hard; he is not quick to discharge, and after the trembling caused by the emission of the sperm, he is soon stiff again.

Such a man is liked and appreciated by women; this is because the woman loves the man only for the sake of coition. His member should, therefore, be of ample dimensions and length. Such a man ought to be broad in the chest, and heavy in the crupper; he should know how to regulate his emission, and be ready as to erection; his member should reach to the end of the canal of the female, and completely fill the same in all its parts. Such an one will be well beloved by women,

Shaykh Nefwazi goes on to spend quite a few words describing the pariseworthy woman, I can sum it up in three though. GOOD LOOKIN' SLUT. I tell you, Baghdad was one SWINGING TOWN.


The POINT of going into such lurid detail is to highlight the complete fallacy in your quote because it is PRECISELY the PROSPEROUS socieites that could afford to NOT BE TEMPERATE (Somalians don't get up to much in terms of not being temperate let me tell you) and took full advantage of the fact. And all of these socieites SUSTAINED themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have been PROSPEROUS, and if you take the view that since they eventually DIED they didn't sustain themselves enough then permit me to LMAO as then there are no socities to learn lessons from and you point is entirely moot. Hell to get all biblical Sodom and Gomorrah were ticking along just fine, it took THE FULL WRATH OF GOD to bring them down.

The only prosperous socities that I can think of that were very temperate that I can think of are the Victorians and the U.S in the 40's and 50's. Ignoring the fact that the Victorians ALSO didn't sustain themselves, they spawned Shakespeare, and he pandered VERY well to the Lowest Common Denominator... also they had PROBLEMS much like the 40s and 50s did. Which leads me to

Chapter 5: 'Ward might have been a repressed homo, June was sucidally depressed and Wally hid dirty postcards under his bed' OR 'Ah nostalgia for the (Recent) Past'

The problem isn't

that those seemingly halcyon days were not less immoral, but rather that their immorality was expressed in different ways

It is that they were immoral in EXACTLY the same ways as today. We just put down and villify different immoralities then they did. See Union-busting for an example of corporate-greed run amok. And how sexually temperate were these climes? Dunno, since any show of it was repressed and repressed hard. Back alley/coat-hanger abortions, and plenty of girls were shipped off to 'boarding schools' which were actually homes for unwed mothers.

And really do you think priests abusing choir boys is a recent phenomenon? It's merely impossible to hide in the current climate. Which leads to the point. Don't look to the past for inspiration for the temperate parts of your as-close-to-ideal-as-possible society. You won't find it.


CHAPTER 7: 'In conclusion' OR 'I still hate you forever Mandark'

I'm tired, I need sleep. GAF ruined my Sunday. Monday is so gonna suck.

 

[Boogie]

And no, I won't elaborate. I'm officially done with this topic,

That's a damn lie and you know it

 

[Cimarron]

Sweet are Jesus! I never knew that this damn link would provoke such a response on this board! What started out as post with a link to a bit of interesting information turned into this mess. Still boggles my mind how this election has gotten this nation or even perhaps the world so touchy.

 

[Incognito]

The Democrats finally woke the fuck up. Here's a good article about this...

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=zengerle110804

 

[cvxfreak]

I knew this years ago.

 

[Loki]

CHAPTER 1: 'What Drove me Back Here' OR 'I hate you forever Mandrak'
The fact that you railed against Russians in New York and illegal immigrant leeches in Califronia is freaking disturbing for reasons that are OBVIOUS. It unsettled me then and it unsettles me now, and if you say something even remotely like 'well it's true so it's not racism' again then I'll run out of my room screaming. I'm hanging on by a very thin thread here.

It's not racism. I'm sorry you disagree, but it's entirely true. Like I said, what would count as proof against my supposed "racist sentiment"? Clearly nothing, to your mind, as you feel that this single instance-- an instance that cannot in any way, shape, or form be construed as racism-- somehow makes me a member of the KKK. Right. Kindly take the bullshit elsewhere, or, better yet, run out of your room screaming like you said you'd do if I denied that it was racism.


Noting my own personal observations as well as a well-documented social problem (illegal immigration, and their abuse of our social service programs) that millions of people rightly see as a pressing issue is racism? Jesus...I'd like to know where you guys went to school. This coming from the same two people that constantly spout that anti-zionism is not anti-semitism (and it's not, but neither is this racism; does speaking in harsh tones about your observation about the actions of certain Jewish people make you an anti-semite? Hardly; this goes to my point-- the two of you are way out of line).

My posting about Russian immigrants abusing our social service systems is an observation of something that I see every day here in NY. Or am I either A) not supposed to think such a situation is wrong, or B) never even mention it or condemn it, since it'll be construed as racism by speciously reasoning people such as yourself? What kind of nonsense is that? I guess I'm just supposed to observe flagrant wrong occurring and file it away in my mind, lest people "get the wrong idea about me" and call me a racist. :lol It's totally bullshit, Azih, and, quite frankly, I honestly believed that you (and Mandark) were more intelligent than to construe such things as racism. Is the problem that I didn't use the more politically correct "people abuse welfare" as opposed to specifically mentioning Russians? Sorry, but I'm not a fan of PC; moreover, Russians are actually the only people that I've personally seen abusing our social services in such a manner, though obviously members of all groups do it. So the only images that pop up in my mind are of Russians doing this. Being based, as it is, in mere observation (numerous observations, I can assure you), am I somehow not allowed to state that fact? Do I have to make it more palatable by saying that I believe all types of people abuse social services? Yes, they do; no, I've never personally seen it. In light of this, when drawing examples off the top of my head, that's what will necessarily spring to mind most readily. Post the url to the entire thread-- I'm certain that I said these very things in that thread. And that's not because I was trying to "get out of it" then in the same manner I supposedly am now, but rather because I know myself, and I know that I harbor not a scintilla of racist sentiment, implicit or otherwise. You can't square that with your simplistic (and fallacious) reasoning? Oh well...


Further, my views on illegal immigration are more of the same. These are facts I am dealing with. Do you deny that it's a pressing social issue? If not, then why do you take issue with my mentioning of it? Again, is it because I didn't just say the more generic "people abuse our social services all the time"? Point #1: that may be the case, but illegal immigrants are here illegally, and are thus committing two crimes, whereas "normal" abusers of the system are committing only one; consequently, I take greater issue with it. Point #2: again, then what are the implications of this? That we're not allowed to mention illegal immigrants and point out the cost they exact on our society? Again, this is a bullshit mentality, and a third-grader can see through it. My feelings on illegal immigration (which are apparently "racist"; believing in the rule of law is "racist" :lol) were discussed at length in an illegal immigration thread here not too long ago; in it, numerous posters expressed support for my stance, including several black and latino posters. Does that make them racists, too? Is it my vehemence in condemning these things? Well, news flash: I speak out passionately against a lot of shit that I feel goes against either the rule of law or good sense. It's my general manner. Look at this very thread, for example. I'm opinionated-- it's not a sin.


As to why I brought up those two specific examples at all, as opposed to just talking about other things in society that cost money, it's because the poster was speaking about social security and government assistance for medical costs (i.e., social services), which is something every illegal immigrant in California gets (check the law), but which his friend's father could not. Shocking? Yes. Wrong? Yes. But I'm not allowed to talk about it without being vilified, because Azih and Mandark-- GA's thought police-- say that I can't. :lol If I do, they'll call me a racist. Real sensible standard, that.


I won't bring up the fact that my best friend of 20 years is a Russian, because I well realize that the first thing that true racists say when confronted about their racism is that they "have many black friends". :lol Instead, I will make my case by way of reason, as above.


Your demonstrably spurious charges of racism thus constitute a non-sequitur.

Alright, your plan to restore temprance to America would take decades to achieve.... how the hell would you achieve this in a democratic society? Even ASSUMING that a solid majority of elected politicians agreed with you for dozens of years(HAW), or powerful interests that think the status quo is just dandy won't mess around (hello Mr.Lobbyist what can I do for you today?), POLITICANS DON'T CONTROL THE MEDIA. You know... a factor that HAS WAY MORE OF AN EFFECT ON THE CHILDREN!. Not only would a group of right-thinking indviduals need to control the media and NOT CARE ABOUT MAXIMISING PROFIT, they'd need to control it for DECADES.

Did you even read my last substantial post above? Politicians don't control (and shouldn't control) the media. But they DO control policy and funding for certain programs. As a result of a reprioritization of the sorts of programs (mentoring, afterschool programs, immersive classes in schools on ethics, gov't funded tv programs etc.) that are pushed, a certain segment of society will become more virtuous, which will then, over the course of time, lead to certain types of entertainment/media becoming less appealing to the average person, and thus the production of such unvirtuous cultural products will become less economically justifiable (and this is why those same corporations that are so concerned with "maximizing profits", which would also be lessened in a temperate culture, would start to offer more palatable fare). And yes, this would take decades-- just as our society's marked descent from temperance and civility to what we have now likewise took decades. This is not rocket science, nor is it mere pie-in-the-sky idealism. The goals are realizable, and the means I've briefly outlined for achieving them are both sensible and feasible.

Suffice it to say that for any implementation of your plan to be even remotely successful it would have to be authoritairian and draconian in nature.

Entirely false. You merely asserting as much doesn't make it so. Yes, if we wanted to achieve our goals in 2 years, it would have to be authoritarian. There is no sensible or reasonable way to change society in so rapid a fashion. To achieve them in 40? Entirely possible while maintaining our traditional freedoms. Gradualism is the only healthy way to change a society, and our government has an obligation to see to the propagation of these virtues, which will lead to a healthier, more productive society.

The fact that you don't recognize this with your 'Now, this has nothing at all to do with a curtailment of our rights' leads me to believe that you're simply hopelessly idealistic and not at all pragmatic, or to put it another way, simply hopeless.

False. Again, you simply saying this is so doesn't make it true.

EXAMPLES.
The administration of the U.S would have had to be positively Chinese in their reaction to put down the free love hippies, gangsta rap, bling bling, sex and drugs and rock and roll, Beatle freaking mania, and these are all the kinds of influences that your Nancy Reagenesque 'Just say No to Drugs' kind of government funded TV programming would be completely pathetically useless against. ProTip: Flashing 'Winners Don't Excessively Indulge' in front of video games in the arcades won't. change. anything.

Protip: I'm speaking of gradual change in the long term, with a total effort on the part of our entire society. It's entirely doable. Or are you suggesting that only the loss of virtue is capable of occurring, and that it can never be regained once it has been lost? That's a foolish (read: not logically justifiable; inconsistent) stance to take, but, given some of your other "stances", I'd understand if that's what you're saying. We gradually became less temperate as a people; we can gradually become more temperate again. To suggest otherwise is inconsistent. Social mores don't just magically "change" by themsleves (and they didn't just "magically change" to get us to where we are now)-- they are informed, reinforced and supported by culture. This is common knowledge-- take a psychology or anthropology class or something. So to suggest that our social mores somehow changed without a concomitant and corresponding change in social policy that helped to create and reinforce it is untenable. These relationships go both ways (policy --> social values and social values ---> policy), and are not irreversible processes.

Alright fine, Good thing I never tried or that NEITHER DID ANYBODY ELSE.

Really? Could've fooled me:

Your connection between liberal government policies and immorality is very tenuous

(Loki's note: "immorality" is a term that Mandark introduced, and a word that I haven't used in this entire thread; when I spoke of liberal policies having a detrimental effect, just as conservative policies have had, I was referring to their contributing to the increased incidence of quantifiable, universally acknowledged undesirable states of affairs-- namely drug use, teen pregnancy, alcoholism, obesity, crime etc.)


So please don't say that nobody tried to assert that liberal policies and ideology have been only benign and productive, because that is false. Mandark did. And if he insists that he didn't, then he's using the term "immorality" in a way that is wholly inconsistent with my usage of the notion of "objective good" (and thus "virtue") throughout this thread. Anyone who asserts that their preferred party's policies and ideology has never had a harmful effect on society exposes themselves as entirely partisan, as I refuse to believe that a reasonable, intelligent, honest person can believe that all culpability for the devolution of society vis-a-vis these quantifiable states lies on one side of the aisle or the other. Nonsense.

First off, this statement is so vauge that it's useless. Hell EVERY society exhibits these traits to one degree or another.

Agreed on the fact that my wording was vague. My point was that sensible, sustainable societies champion these virtues in many spheres, if not all. A society cannot perpetuate itself when every sector of that society explicitly or implicitly speaks against those virtues, as ours does presently. Or, at the very least (assuming it can be sustained), such a society is not functioning optimally, and whatever functionality it exhibits comes at a great cost.

<various examples of cultural practices seemingly at odds with virtue>

Ever read Roman history, Azih? There is a pretty well-accepted relationship between their increased eschewal of virtue, as manifested by cultural practices, and their downfall as a society. I'm not going to do your reading for you, however, nor will I speak at length about it, as I've already lost years of my life on this topic.


And certainly in every society there will ALWAYS be practices or conditions which stand opposed to virtue; it is the sum of a society's mores that either hold that society together or contribute to its degeneration and eventual collapse. Pointing out isolated instances of this-or-that practice really has no bearing whatsoever on my arguments herein, which are concerned with the totality of a society's values.


And I stand by my statement: A society that in every sector espouses intemperance, self-interest, crass materialism, gluttony, incivility (taken a gander at the Presidential race lately?), licentiousness, and hedonism is not sustainable in the long term, nor is it functioning optimally, which is something we should strive for insofar as it is attainable. Is it sustainable in the short term? Sure, we're sustaining it right now-- but at a great cost. Eventually it will collapse on itself, however, if it continues on its current course. Think that's just unsubstantiated alarmism? I'll PM you my phone # and you can get back to me in 30 years. You are perhaps not understanding that the lack of virtues that I advocate manifest themselves in EVERY sphere, including such things as foreign policy; you think our questionable foreign policy won't eventually lead to either a war or large-scale terrorism against our society in the not-too-distant future? Think again. A virtueless people cannot adequately lead their own lives, much less guide the course of nations. Period.

because it is PRECISELY the PROSPEROUS socieites that could afford to NOT BE TEMPERATE

Oh, unquestionably-- affluence and prosperity afford a nation much more leeway in terms of being virtuous or not without it having a drastic effect on that society's functioning. Please note, however, that such a situation is fated to continued degeneration if they at some point do not make en effort to sow those virtues amongst the populace in various sectors. Our disavowal of personal mastery and excellence as expressed by those virtues is not conducive to the healthy functioning of society as measured by quantifiable criteria.


You're basically arguing that these virtues-- virtues that have been championed throughout the millenia by scholars and philosophers-- are, in essence, useless once a society reaches a certain level of prosperity, and that is simply false. Does a society tend towards indulgence when it becomes prosperous? Obviously. Does that mean that they necessarily go to the opposite extreme and eschew virtue totally (or that they should)? No. We currently do eschew it totally. Either that or you're arguing that they are not worthy things to champion and strive for in a society, which is just totally silly. There is no scenario you can posit (except in the wild, where it's a free-for-all, or in societies facing crises such as drought/famine etc.) where less temperance can be said to be preferable to more temperance. Last I checked, we don't live in the wild, we live in a society. And we don't have famine or drought or other such insufficiencies. Yet we neglect these virtues regardless, to our own detriment. It's a peculiar mentality.

It is that they were immoral in EXACTLY the same ways as today

No, they really weren't. Note here (and everywhere else) that I am not speaking of the particulars of their morality as expressed through words and deeds, but rather the degree to which they conformed to the virtues noted previously. And to insist-- against all good sense-- that people in the 50's were not, to a man, more temperate, more civil, and more charitable is just ludicrous. But I understand that you have to tear down the past in order to paint our current society as some sort of pinnacle of human achievement (which it is not, despite our accomplishments). A great many things about our present society are better than they were back then; likewise, a great many features of their society were better than what we have today (namely their greater conformity to virtues such as temperance, civility, charity, and the lesser materialism of those times).


To implicitly state, as you do, that there was nothing that was better about that society, or that somehow its clear evils (racism, lack of equal rights etc.) mean that we should not seek to emulate its good/beneficial features, is to say that you believe that society has done nothing but progress since those days. And, quite frankly, any honest person that has eyes to see realizes that that is not the case: some things have gotten better, some things have gotten worse. You bring up all these specific examples yet you're missing the forest for the trees. You entirely miss my point: we should be striving to keep the good things that we've accomplished and eliminate the bad; one way to do this is to advocate a return to virtue. You may feel that a full social effort to reinvigorate our nation's flagging moral character (speaking of a handful of key virtues here) will not accomplish that, but I know that it certainly would not hurt. And so I honestly don't see why everybody's jumping on me over what I feel to be self-evident. If we return to virtue and it doesn't, after a decade, lead to quantifiable results (i.e., lowered incidence of those conditions that we all agree are undesirable), then you can rightly say that I am mistaken. But we both know that's never going to happen, so we'll never know whether my thesis is correct-- but neither will we know if you're correct in calling me mistaken.



And in this instance, like before with the cultural examples you noted, pointing out this-or-that action or incident that stands against those virtues (in those times, such as racism or priestly pedophilia) does not at all influence the points I've made here, as my argument is concerned with the sum total of a society's virtue (note: because virtue is conducive to universally desirable quantifiable outcomes; these are the premises of the argument). It is the entirety of a society's values (virtues) that shapes the society and either makes it progress or regress.

Don't look to the past for inspiration for the temperate parts of your as-close-to-ideal-as-possible society

Bullshit. Certain societies have manifested certain virtues to a fuller extent than others have. To say otherwise is to essentially say that all societies have been virtuous to similar degrees; thankfully, people have brains as well as eyes and can see that this simply is not the case. Neither is it the case that they simply manifest their un-virtue in different spheres. To point out that "immorality" (to use YOUR term, not mine) occurred in those times HAS NO BEARING ON ANYTHING, because "immorality" refers to a specific instance of immoral (i.e., improper) conduct. Insofar as people will never be perfect, immorality has always, and will always, exist. The specific manifestations of these personal imperfections (i.e., the particular forms the immorality may take) are dependent upon the specific epoch under discussion based on the dominant social realities of the time. Yet it cannot correctly be said that the pervasiveness of a society's eschewal of virtues such as temperance cannot be measured or perceived by most people, because it can be. Ditto for their overall conformity to those virtues. People always fail and engage in depraved acts-- that doesn't mean that all societies are equally depraved. To implicitly assert as much is beyond my comprehension.


Even ignoring all of this, it comes down to this:

I believe in championing the very best ideals that we have as a culture (the fact that I believe that they would have an impact on social phenomena is tied up in this, but even as mere abstract values, they are eminently worthy and have been valued for millenia). You, apparently, do not believe in championing these values, or else you wouldn't be getting your panties in a twist over the details. Because, at the very least, I am proposing ways to return to such virtue, whereas you have not proposed any, either because you do not value it, or you believe it is not capable of being implemented. If the latter, I'd again note that it is entirely inconsistent to believe that a gradual lessening of conformity to virtue on the part of society is possible while the reverse process is somehow magically impossible. This is inconsistent and untenable.




Mandark:


Your "Cliff's Notes" are a spurious representation of my thoughts as well as of what has transpired in this thread. I am confident that anybody who cares to will read the thread in its entirety and see exactly what I said. Further, to say that "social policy" had no hand in social decline is really stretching the truth. Social policy enacted by BOTH parties has damaged the nation over the years. Beyond that, their ideologies (that is, the ideologies traditionally espoused by these factions) have also done damage in various ways. Culpability lies with both parties-- with both their policy initiatives (via legislation and judicial rulings-- where'd "personal responsibility" go again?) and their philosophy (policy ultimately being an outgrowth of philosophy, after all).

My original point is not that you are racist, but that you were repeating an old meme with racist origins. It's not exactly a secret.

First off, forgive me if I'm not quite the student of recent political history that you are. Point being that, regardless of whether it was public knowledge, I have never heard of the Reagan incident you allude to. End of story. Further, you were indeed implicitly stating that I harbored racist sentiment simply due to the examples I (hastily) employed, or else you wouldn't have alluded to a racist incident (the Reagan thing); you also wouldn't have followed it up with a catalogued post of mine that supposedly contains "racism", and by saying that you "agree with Azih on the matter", since he called me a racist in that very topic; so please don't try to make it seem like you weren't saying that I'm a racist to one degree or another-- it's an insult to my intelligence, and, quite frankly, you're not smart enough to do that judging by the quality of your "Loki is racist" reasoning. And all of this shows you to be a libelous, speciously reasoning person who'd like to pigeonhole me just because you disagree with my take on things. Puerile.

but I agree entirely with Azih's take on it

And you're entirely within your rights to-- it just makes both of you wrong. No skin off my back.

("HUH!? "Back"!? Loki meant to say "wetback"! He's TEH RACIST!" -- typical example of bullshit Azih/Mandark reasoning)


I don't take kindly to people stating or implying that I am a racist, and I can substantiate the fact that I'm not with literally dozens of posts I've made over the years condemning racism and taking other posters to task for explicit or implicit racism ("examples furnished upon request"). However, I have faith that the majority of people here can see the type of person I am through my posts. Racism literally destroyed my life, though I don't care to elaborate. It's like telling a rape victim that they're capable of raping someone, or that they have a "rapist's mentality"-- how do you think they'd take that? Think that's entirely different? Well that just shows you that you have no idea of the manner in which racism has savaged my life, and so, quite frankly, you should stfu about it-- especially when you bring such tenuous evidence to bear on the matter.




So I'm fine with just leaving it at that, though obviously the two of you will feel the need to "come back at me" and have the last word; you have made your points (well-reasoned points that I happen to disagree with for the stated reasons; except the racism stuff which is just an off-the-wall accusation), and I have made mine. People can read it all and decide for themselves where they stand. I'm fine with that, and I've said my piece.



-- Loki (the non-racist)

 

[Dilbert]

Just for the record: Loki's last post was 3,278 words and 16,206 characters...not including spaces.

Carry on.

 

[Boogie]

Long rant

Told ya

 

[Chrono]

Loki's tag should be Unleashing the weapons of mass discussion or just Weapon of mass discussion.

 

[Boogie]

Loki's tag should be Unleashing the weapons of mass discussion or just Weapon of mass discussion.

heh, awesome.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

Since when is your support of either candidate an indication of your intelligence?

This post and thread alone proves that stupidity can be found on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[Boogie]

Sorry but I found this both rich and ironic.

In what way?

 

[Incognito]

It's rich and ironic because Loki types up these 8,000 word essays in the hope of being "CLEAR and FREE OF ATTACK" yet is constantly attacked because he's not clear and concise. Basically, he's rambling. As for that whole "I'm not a racist" novel, that may be good and well, but you shouldn't need to spit out 4,000 words to defend your case.

And Loki edited a post of his where it orginally stated, "I now have two stalkers(Lonestar being the other). Why'd you edit that out, Loki? Everyone saw it last night.

 

[Loki]

Sorry but I found this both rich and ironic.

How so? Because my posts are lengthy? Sophistry /= verbosity.


I suppose it would be better if I had come in and just thrown out some flippant one-liner like you just did? Right. If you believe I have been engaging in sophistry and obfuscation solely due to the length of my posts, then that's your opinion; fortunately, I know that I haven't been doing any such thing.

 

[Loki]

It's rich and ironic because Loki types up these 8,000 word essays in the hope of being "CLEAR and FREE OF ATTACK" yet is constantly attacked because he's not clear and concise. Basically, he's rambling. As for that whole "I'm not a racist" novel, that may be good and well, but you shouldn't need to spit out 4,000 words to defend your case.

My reasoning is very clear, if nothing else. You may not agree with it, which is fine-- we all have different opinions. But it is not imprecise. I admitted that I would have defined certain terms and relationships better had this been an academic exercise, but contrary to Fifty's belief , I don't get paid to post here.


As for spitting out "4000" words to defend that I'm "not a racist", well, extraordinary charges deserve extraordinary rebuttals. I could have just posted links to topics where I've condemned racism in all forms, but that strikes me as childish and unnecessary, seeing as how I feel that people should have an idea of the type of person I am from my posts. Secondly, I could have just said "you're wrong-- I'm not racist at all" and left it at that, but then who would necessarily believe me? I mean, it's one thing if some n00b made those (hollow) charges, but Azih and Mandark are respected members of this forum (and for good reason, though I'm quite angry at both over the racism allegation), and their words carry a lot of weight; as such, their charges had to be spoken to.


The amount of words someone types has no bearing on the truthfulness of their claims or the soundness of their reasoning. It's just my manner of discourse; in answering such strong charges, I feel that I am within my rights to say as much as I feel needs to be said.


EDIT:

And Loki edited a post of his where it orginally stated, "I now have two stalkers(Lonestar being the other). Why'd you edit that out, Loki? Everyone saw it last night.

Because I realized that it was childish and wrong of me to bring someone's name into a conversation which they had no part in, as I generally try not to do in life. Especially since I've said my piece to you both here and on OA and see no point in perpetuating things. I realized that my conduct was in error and thus edited it out (it was only up for a few minutes-- you must be mighty quick on the "refresh" ). Like Kerry, I flip-flopped. (yes, that's a joke-- meaning that the same way that Kerry has legitimately thought the better of certain things later on and then altered his stance accordingly, which is rational and prudent to do, I did the same )

 

[Raven.]

Now if you have actually concocted a way to change some of the things you have complained about that is more effective than voting then my apologies and good for you.
.

I've become aware of ways to change things, it'll take a really really long time, and lots of help, but in the end the voting process can be obviated. Those with the highest intellect and capability can circumvent the majority, and though a minority, they can make the choices for them, they only need the strength to back these choices.

what I am saying is that society is under no obligation to condone such unproductive actions and behaviors through laws or programs or culture, as we do currently.

SOCIETY SHOULD MAINTAIN everybody, and allow them to enjoy their desired lifestyle. It's simple, the means will become available, it's something that many who're likely to gain power will probably find appealing, and thus it is that these means should be employed. So long as reproduction and the capability of aggression is controlled such a system is sustainable indefinitely. But be aware that many systems espousing some values/virtues from quite a gigantic-range of virtues/values are most likely capable of indefinite sustainability, provided the right environment/means, and as said by Azih sustainability does not make a particular belief more righteous than another.

I firmly believe that a grossly intemperate culture (which manifests itself in various spheres of activity) such as we currently have is unsustainable and doomed to decline and eventual collapse. Point blank-- I'm willing to lay my cards on the table honestly. .

Logic dictates what is possible, not the word of men, and it's that as long as power is implemented through a highly efficient system that maintains overall order in a society, that society can allow whatever it pleases so long as the system may bear it... thus such a system may last indefinitely, but again the duration of a society, nor how many promote it, is a logical justification for its accepted values.

Some Logical fallacies I've seen throughout this thread....

Ad ignorantiam fallacy - (argument from ignorance). Asserting the truth of any proposition on the basis that what is asserted has never disproved or what is denied has never been proved; or that there is no evidence for the thing denied, or, against what is asserted.

Alternative syllogism fallacy - (See disjunctive syllogism fallacy) Implying that two possible characteristics of a thing are mutually exclusive, when the premises only require at least one of the characteristics to be true, without excluding the possibility the other also being true.

Consensus gentium fallacy - (see Democratic fallacy) Arguing that an idea is true on the basis that the majority of people believe it or that it has been universally held by all men, in all places, at all times..

Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy - (See Non causa pro causa fallacy) (With this, therefore because of this) Asserting that one thing is the cause of another because that thing is always accompanied by its presumed cause.

Pragmatic fallacy - Asserting something is true or perforable because it has practical effects upon people, making them happier, more cooperative, moral, faithful, dependable, or stable.

PS

What is moral, what is virtuous and what is righteous is in a sense relative. In as much as an argument with internal logical consistency is given, that which is deemed moral, righteous, virtuous in such an argument will be so from such perspective. One cannot claim that one's views are more righteous/moral/virtuous than another if that other has arguments that are internally logically consistent and logically consistent between themselves.

edited

 

[Loki]

Divus:


There will be logical fallacies to one degree or another in anybody's posts if they post at the length I do, and I readily admit that. Like I said, this is an informal forum, not an academic exercise where I would take greater care to avoid such fallacies as you've noted.


I feel that the "pragmatic fallacy" is the one which you could most properly take me to task on (as the quantifiable conditions I've alluded to form the basis of my argument), though I would suggest that it, too, misses the point:


That fallacy is concerned with deriving truth (philosophical, moral truth) from tangible (i.e., pragmatic) occurrences. I have specifically stated that the truth value (philosophically) of such virtues and states of affairs as I've mentioned is, in fact, unknowable. So I've conceded that. The fact is that it cannot be philosophically proven that temperance is "true" or "absolutely good" (and thus that it would be preferable). Fortunately for us, however, most people admit of other lines of evidence in ascertaining what is "good" or "desirable", and a big component of that is our real-world observations as to what constitutes a functioning, healthy society. Thus, (virtually) nobody says that more hard drug use is more desirable than less, or that more teen pregnancies (with our society constituted the way it is, as opposed to, say, an agrarian society) is more desirable than less. Or that more obesity is more desirable than less. Thus, these are universally ackowledged beneficial states (i.e., "objectively good" as I've employed the term herein, which, as noted, is a classically incorrect usage). As such, they are things that 99% of society would agree on as ends. Thus, whatever values would tend to promote those ends can rightly be seen as "objectively good" (in that same practical sense).


I actually spoke about this distinction at some length in a previous post, if you'd care to fish around. The gist of it was as above; also, I stated that since the purely philosophical question (as to truth) will never be adequately answered (seeing as how relativism is a valid critique of absolutism; though I personally don't adhere to it, I can respect its force as an argument), then we have two choices before us: to either resign ourselves to stagnation and eventual decay, since we can never know what is absolutely "true", philosophically, or to embrace that which can be shown to promote certain quantifiably beneficial states. It is thus a way to sidestep the relativist's dilemma (perhaps not a very clever one ) and focus on progress as opposed to what I feel sometimes to be "overintellectualism" (i.e., "thinking oneself to death" while never reaching firm bases for action). Further, since society ignores the relativist's claim that there is no truth (or that the truth of propositions is indeterminable) every time it espouses any value (which is done all the time), why does it not behoove us then-- if we are going to act in the real world with disregard for the absolute truth of our values, as societies constantly do anyway under the relativist's account-- to advocate the values that will lead to universally acknowledged, beneficial, quantifiable states of affairs? This is the basis of my reasoning, more or less. There's an elaboration of this in my previous posts somewhere. Sorry if I can't pinpoint it for you (understandably ).


Also, I am open to charges of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety (as well as the "cum hoc" fallacy), as causal relationships (e.g., between the virtues and the quantifiable states) have not been sufficiently demonstrated, as it would require far too much time-- if we are to suppose that causal relationships can exist at all. These are issues of scope, not of the correctness or incorrectness of my reasoning; like I said, I don't get paid to be here.


EDIT:

What is moral, what is virtuous and what is righteous is in a sense relative. In as much as an argument with internal logical consistency is given, that which is deemed moral, righteous, virtuous in such an argument will be so from such perspective. One cannot claim that one's views are more righteous/moral/virtuous than another if that other has arguments that are internally logically consistent and logically consistent between themselves.

I've spoken to relativism at length in this topic, as well as in this very post. My point is not necessarily that relativism is not a valid school of thought, but rather that-- in a very real sense-- the fact that the truth value of our propositions/values is inherently unknowable simply doesn't matter. We still need to eat, sleep, and function soundly as a society; there are often more pressing concerns (in terms of their immediacy) than philsophic veracity. We cannot ignore these very real concerns even as we strive to discover truth via reason. This is why my argument is rooted in pragmatism (i.e., quantifiable, beneficial states of affairs and the values that tend to their realization) rather than being predicated on an abstract notion of "truth" in an absolutist framework. Hope that's clear enough. For further clarification, read my posts in this thread.


I am seriously leaving the topic at this time. I've wasted waaaaay too much time here.

 

[FightyF]

I don't see how people can call this thread (the title and the subject of it) "stupid" or anything like that, especially without backing it up why they think so.

I agree with the assessment. Why? The Republican party is something I view as a party that represents Hawish Neocons.

Most Neocons, if not all, are downright ignorant.

I would tie ignorance with a college education. Having a post-secondary education doesn't make you smart, and it doesn't make you open-minded, but it helps.

Uhh...so there!

 

[Boogie]

I am seriously leaving the topic at this time.

Uh-huh, sure you are ;P

 

[Fifty]

I am seriously leaving the topic at this time. I've wasted waaaaay too much time here.

No shit. Get a drink or something, you'll drive yourself insane writing those manuscripts.