Subject:
|
(Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:12:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
240 times
|
| |
|
|
Kevin and Frank are right, this discussion didn't belong in that thread. My
bad. It kind of crept up on me.
Now, Scott wrote:
> > > Subjective - influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings,
> > > rather than based on facts
> >
> > I agree with the definition above. And I think, in general -- where
> > appropriate/possible, objectivity is a good thing. But then, in the case of
> > what society should strive to provide, and at what cost, how can you claim
> > objectivity? Obviously, you think the majority should dictate theft from
> > the people to help some subset of the people because it's the right thing
> > to do...by the nature of this very idea, it is subjective.
>
> "theft"?
Would you prefer "the forceful (when necessary) realocation of resources?"
Theft is much shorter. It is more convenient to call it theft or even
taxation.
In what way is "theft" less subjective than "taxation?"
> > I'm not opposed to
> > your claim that others have subjective opinions, I'm opposed to your claim
> > of objectivity on matters where the continuum of objectivity <-->
> > subjectivity doesn't mean anything.
>
> If others have opinions which are based on emotion, rather than reason, it
> does not assist understanding. One should have a reasoned argument, not just
> gut feelings. To call taxation “theft” is not helpful.
Or maybe, to call theft taxation is trying to hide something. I'm not trying
to cast taxation in a bad light by artificially painting it with unpleasant
terms. I'm trying to remind or teach that taxation is a form of thievery. You
would call the same behavior committed by any other group of people theft.
Objectivity, as the opposite of subjectivity, is an argument or opinion based
on facts instead of emotion etc. Right? I see that objectively, taxation is
theft. I'm not saying that because the 50% (or whatever) that they're getting
is killing me; I still take home more than 80% (or whatever) of Americans and
I'm doing OK. I'm saying that because it is.
And a reasoned argument is what I have. But it does no good when the person
with whom you are arguing won't have it and even denies the reality of the
claims. Is your assertion that my suggestions about taxation is merely my
subjective and circular argument (without demonstrating either) is an example
of your much valued objectivity? Come on.
> > Do you think it is impossible to have those feelings sometimes and
> > debate objectively?
>
> Oh yes.
Wait...is that what you really mean?
> > What I really meant was, can you cite an instance in which
> > you disagreed with Larry (on specifics, or in general) and then because of
> > the argument presented, changed your mind at least in part?
> > If you claim to listen to what others say, and test your own belief
> > structures against that, but can't cite any instances in which you
> > actually changed,
> Without answering your point specifically, is it not possible that that I
> have not changed because I still have the same values?
Sure, that sounds possible. But how do you know that you can change, if you
have not?
> I still think that education should be based on ability to learn.
Fine. That sounds like a good idea. Until you start thinking about the
unethical means in which you must partake to get there. I've said before that
the means don't justify the ends. Regardless of how moral the goal is, when
built on a foundation of immorality, it counts as bad. (This is a perfect
example of non-objectivity on my part. Objectivity and subjectivity don't make
any sense in this regard.)
> Getting back to your point, I think I once said the LP gaining power would
> result in slavery - was I not shown to be wrong on this?
I don't recall that. Out of curiosity, how were you shown to be wrong, since
to the best of my knowledge we didn't switch over to a libertarian society and
test the hypothesis?
> and then have the bravado to call the rest of us (or some subset thereof)
> too pigheaded to debate properly because our opinions can't change, I
> think that's the height of hipocracy. I can cite changes that my stances
> have taken because of debates in general and because of .debate in
> particular.
>
> I never claimed to be perfect Chris. I am not that conceited. Hypocrisy
> aside, are you saying I am wrong?
Thanks for alerting me to my spelling error. But I don't understand your
question. Wrong about what? I think that it's inappropriate to condemn others
for the lack of a trait that you don't exhibit. (And again, I'm not trying to
say that you don't change your mind, but that I haven't seen it.)
> Do you really think it adds to the debate by calling taxation “theft”?
As noted above, I don't think it's any worse than calling theft "taxation."
> > but there is no indication that you attempted to see it from my
> > side of things. Maybe you did. But how would I know that? (I'm just using
> > this as one example.)
>
> My problem with your outlook, is that I _view_ it to be selfish and full of
> contempt for our fellow man.
OK...I'm not sure how to respond. I don't particularly see how it matters if
I'm selfish or not. (And for the record, I suppose I'm pretty middle of the
road.)
> When I see somebody on the "dole", I see wasted potential.
Me too. I have even tried to help them.
> What do you see? Do you not see a guy/gal on the fiddle, wasting
> your hard earned $$ on booze and fags?
Sometimes. What do you see when you see someone who is on the dole, and whose
parents were on the dole, and who doesn't bother to get their free education
and who cheats the food stamp system so that they get free booze?
As previously stated, I have also seen people who just got in over their heads
and used the state to help out for a while. But even when it's that, I don't
think that it's good. It is still (and at best) a good end founded on an
immoral means.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
29 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
