Subject:
|
Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:55:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
215 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?"
If one were subject to theft, one normally calls the police or involves the
civil courts. If one objects to taxation, one protests against it.
>
> > > 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.
I think calling it "theft" detracts from you argument. However, it is not
all that big a deal to me.
>
> 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.
Sorry, I did not mean to say you had a circular argument, I meant our debate
circular - basically, we have to agree to disagree.
>
> > > Do you think it is impossible to have those feelings sometimes and
> > > debate objectively?
> >
> > Oh yes.
>
> Wait...is that what you really mean?
One can have feelsing on an issue and have an objective argument to back
them up - when you mix feelings and reason, you end up debating on daytime
TV :-/
>
> > > 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.)
Yes, but what if, in your hypothetical libertarian utopia, companies choose
to “invest” in educating those who they deem worthy/able to learn. Then,
education would be provided based on ability to learn. I assume you agree on
this? The difference between you and I, is that I believe that education
should be a right – not a privilege.
>
> > 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?
From http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7476
=+=
> > 2. Slave
> > Under libertarian principles, would one have the right sell oneself into
> > slavery?
>
> I'm not sure where the LP comes down on this, but I'll take a shot at • it.
> If certain rights, such as liberty, cannot be forfeit, then slavery cannot
> be entered into, even voluntarily.
Fair point.
=+=
It was Dave Schuler who was good enough to corrected me. To be honest, I
should really have researched this further. But, I still think it would show
that I was wrong.
>
> > 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.
I was focusing on your "pigheaded to debate properly" comment.
> 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.)
At least you know you are 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?
I see failure in the system... not them as individuals.
>
> 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.
How dare you impose your morals on me !!!! :-)
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
