politicartoons | Hate Free Zone!

And you've just presented another ultimatum. "You either agree with our ideology, or suffer the consequence of our actions."

You're not going to get what you want. The moral superiority you think exists on your side is a false one.

Some facts are just indesputable, inarguable, it's just a pity that republicans tend to be opposed to a fact based reality.

Well, liberal logic isn't logic. So, good luck with facts absent of logic. It's just a language that makes no sense, except to the initiated.

Edited 2017-02-09 21:35 (UTC)

Your statement that "liberal logic isn't logic" is itself logically fallacious. First you label any person or view with which you disagree as 'liberal'; then you discount them on the grounds of being 'liberal', which in your mind equals 'illogical'.

Very neat! You thus are spared having to seriously consider any view or person with which you don't agree. No different from Trump proclaiming that all negative polls are 'fake news'.

Did that make sense to you? If not, I refer you to this list of logical fallacies (http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm): you're providing a textbook example of #3 and #31.

Of course, since I'm saying something you don't like, you'll naturally label me a 'liberal', and discount everything I have to say on the basis of that label. Q.E.D.

My response needs to be weighed in respect to the context I'm responding to. Someone presented their opinion as facts, and because it was declared as fact, it was deemed unquestionable. I called that liberal logic.

Don't seriously expect me to adhere to the rules of logic when the other party is playing identity politics. If you were being objective, I wouldn't have to point this all out to you. Instead, you would've realized I was being cheeky and playing tit for tat.

I suppose this means what I've been saying doesn't set well with you, and that's why you cherry picked me to correct.
QED

> Don't seriously expect me to adhere to the rules of logic when the other party is playing identity politics.<

Right, so now you've admitted that you're being illogical on purpose.

Yes, I'm purposely being a parody of my opposition. And I like how they can point out the illogical qualities of my response but can't do so in their own, yet I simply mirrored it.

Moral superiority does not require the acknowledgment of the inferior. Indeed, it would be incoherent if it did. Part of what makes the morally inferior so inferior is the lack of judgment, maturity, and sophistication inherent in that failed acknowledgment.

Like I said in my other comment, we can suspend the normal ideology surrounding "racism" and "misogyny" if you like, but even when we do so, it's hard to make sense of Republican claims to these terms but by seeing them as simple rejection of the concepts themselves.

Today's ideology surrounding racism and misogyny is absent of sound logic. They're false moral theories. At this point, they're tantamount to the word 'heretic' or 'blasphemer'.

In a similar vein as "RINOs" and "libtards," I'd suppose.

Anyway, you're moving the goalposts. Initially, you'd complained that any non-"objective" account of racism would be nonsensical. Now you're apparently claiming that "racism" per se is a "false moral theory." Is racism impossible, on your view?

No, I said the only objective definition that is valid is the one where judging an individual's character solely on race is erroneous.

If that's what racism was limited to, then I'd say run with it. But, that's not the case. So, from there I moved to tackle the moral argument that is actually being used when people invoke the term 'racist', This version is simply absent of merit because you can't have one group behaving ethnocentrically and holding that as moral or morally neutral while another group behaving in similar fashion is immoral. In the absence of objectivity you end up with this sort of inconsistency. That's why its nonsense.

If a dark-skinned hiring manager is presented with two candidates, one light-skinned and one dark-skinned, and he hires the one that is _less_ qualified for the job just because he likes their dark skin, does that strike you as a problem?

It should be a problem for me, right? Because that would be racism. That's what we're all told to think. And I should be shocked and appalled, but I'm not because I understand people are innately ethnocentric. So, his nepotism is something I completely understand. Why should I fault him for favoring his own people over another? Pretending people don't actually do this is ridiculous. I prefer to deal with reality as it is.

And, in this case, that manager's actions came with a cost. If the manager is willing to accept that, then that's the bed he made.

Clearly, from an economical standpoint I think it's a horrible idea because it's better for the business when you get the right people for the job.

Personally, I am of the mind that people ought to be free to associate with whomever they choose. So unless I'm an owner of that commercial entity, it's really none of my business.

"Dealing with reality as it is" is not the same as being passive. You/we can do things.

I agree with you that from an economical standpoint it's a horrible idea for the employer. Indeed the whole economy suffers. I also feel I need to point out that it's a horrible idea for the employee - who is being denied livelihood.

Based on that I'm willing to take it a step further and say that we should make such discrimination - where provable - a crime, because it goes against a basic American principle of equal application of the law ("equal protection", as the 14th amendment puts it.)

As Justice Harlan put it, back in 1896:

"In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."

See, I'm of the opinion that the tribalism you accept as inevitable is something that can be shaped, and that it should be shaped - by laws and by people - where possible.

"Equal application of the law," is in reference to enforcement of a law. So that principle is limited to government. I don't see how it applies to that employer/employee scenario.

What you're doing is setting up a law that dictates hiring methodology. And in doing so, you're adopting a moral theory that deems tribalism as immoral.

But, without tribalism we wouldn't be here today. From an evolutionary standpoint it's been a damn good trait, right? Otherwise it would've been weeded out.

So, why should I suddenly hold it as immoral? That sort of in-group preference has been very good to my people. And look how it's been really good for Jewish people.

I'd say it's far more pragmatic to behave with respect to this sort of in-group preference.

(no subject)

garote - 2017-02-11 02:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

tigron-x.livejournal.com - 2017-02-11 19:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

garote - 2017-02-12 00:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

garote - 2017-02-12 00:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

tigron-x.livejournal.com - 2017-02-12 00:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

garote - 2017-02-12 01:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

tigron-x.livejournal.com - 2017-02-12 02:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

garote - 2017-02-12 02:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

tigron-x.livejournal.com - 2017-02-12 03:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

garote - 2017-02-12 03:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

tigron-x.livejournal.com - 2017-02-12 04:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

garote - 2017-02-12 04:28 (UTC) - Expand

You left out Ayn Rand, Ann Coulter, and Margaret Thatcher.

No, really, I didn't.

the most censorship those women faced was people not liking them. They were never saddled with legal, or physical obstacles. Sorry.

in fact all three managed to do very well for themselves when they began their journeys of self.

So, what Ayn Rand wasn't saddled with legal or physical obstacles because she escaped communism?

I guess if it was capitalism she'd be in that picture.

Nice omission of facts.

Well, I guess if she was harangued by people telling her stuff like, "you can't be a writer, you're a goddamned woman!" then it would count.

While I admire her early adoption of atheism, I must say, both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were barely tolerable as fiction, and as expressions of a philosophy they were chock full of holes. The further reading I did about Objectivism itself did not address most of those holes either.

What draws you to Ayn Rand??

Everything depicted in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is happening today. Although Atlas Shrugged went way deeper into it.

Oh? When are the special innovator job-creator types going to pack their fucking bags and leave all us poor regular SOBs behind, and fly to their candy-ass island utopia then? Because I tell you what, that can't happen soon enough. :D

Funny thing, I wrote my comment thinking I better point out "except for the Galt secret camp" stuff. But, I said to myself, "Nah, this guy isn't going be that obtuse about what I said. He's going to understand I'm referencing the regression of society."

So, i really hope you're just having some fun with me and saying that in jest, and realize I'm pointing out how post modernism is turning everything on its head.