- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
If it appears to me that the sun rises tomorrow and that the sea has water this will not be because you were certain that these things would transpire. This will not prove to me that you, then sun, or sea exist because all of this remains predicated upon the unproved soundness of my perception (and, indeed, my own ontology).
Even if all of these things were true - that you exist, that the sun exists and rises, that the sea exists and has water - their truthfulness would be incidental to my belief (and yours). That a thing is true and we believe it to be true does not constitute knowledge, because there is no proved connection between the two which would establish our belief in the thing as knowledge of the thing. Where our beliefs are correct it is by chance, and we can never know it either way.
None of this seems especially pertinent to my original remarks. Are you going anywhere particular with all of this, or can I expect it to remain tangential?
Karl Marx produced an exhaustive academic analysis of why capitalism cannot sustain itself about 150 years ago. I suggest you read that.
Your presumptions lead you to error; I have read it (and it's hardly exhaustive).
In short, why would a critical, free thinking, logical population want to live in a pyramid system where 10 percent of the people own 90 percent of the wealth, and 90 percent of people own 10 percent of the wealth? It's contrary to the best interests of the majority of people, hence one has to be irrational to want it.
American capitalism doesn't properly exist, as the US economy is a mixed economy lacking a fixed form. Setting that aside, though, the argument you present remains unpersuasive. It presumes that to be rational is to desire excess rather than comfortable sufficiency, in order that it might overvalue egalitarianism under the auspices of reason. Further, it presumes that it is logically inherent to capitalism that it produce marked wealth discrepancy, rather than an inherency in human nature to be uncritical and illogical producing that effect under capitalism. It is contrary to the best interests of the majority to not be irrational, yet they persist in that quite regularly for the simple reason that we're not generally evolved to be optimally rational (and that the statistical median will always be average, necessarily). If the majority were rational then the majority would be considerably better at securing better socio-economic position within any economy, and particularly a capitalist economy which places fewer restrictions upon the exercise of that reason towards personal gain.
As for the rational minority, it is historically well established that their interest does not generally lie in putting before their own well-being the well-being of others who suffer on account of their irrationality. We cannot reasonably conclude the compliance of the rational outliers with the more distributive economic models, and it is precisely their rational superiority which vests them with the power to influence the economic model they and others operate within. That makes more egalitarian economic models untenable in the long run, because there is no effective check against the accumulation of power (monetary or otherwise)... the only counter force being a majority that is intellectually inferior as a simple matter of fact, and thereby insufficient for the task. Certainly, they can clamor for a baseline and even the elite have to be responsive to that to an extent... but that's not a threat to the system as long as it's managed, and can't accomplish the egalitarian vision.
The American government gave the American people a narrative about 9/11 which was not simply contrary to the facts, it was contrary to the basic laws of physics. Americans not only swallowed it up, but became rabidly emotional and angry when others painstakingly pointed out how exactly they had been fooled. In much the same way that a lover gets angry and emotional with a friend who tells her that her husband has been banging the local waitress. Complete shut down denialism.
That's rather obviously non-unique to the US, of course. Nor does it demonstrate your claim in the least. It shows that the average American is gullible and that the government took advantage of it for the ends of those in power. It establishes no clear relationship between that and capitalism, let alone anything about the inherency of capitalism's relationship to logic in the US context.
I have already explained at length how that statement misrepresents my argument. If you care to actually address any portion of that analysis and explain where I am incorrect then I would be glad to observe that argument. As it stands, though, you've merely evaded the matter through bullheaded denial.
What reasons are those, precisely? To the extent that your preceding commentary ever constitutes argumentation, it doesn't touch on fairness in the least. Asserting that earlier rationales which never even alluded to fairness somehow establish unfairness is evasive. Can you actually point to any particular statement of mine which was unfair? If such statements do exist, then identifying them really shouldn't be as difficult as you're making it.
Systematic instruction that encourages acceptance of partisan doctrines need not be absolute or totalitarian. You are, again, departing from the actual definition of indoctrination which you yourself provided.
Nor is it true that we are taught to question math, history, geography, etc. Though sometimes we may be taught to question their conclusions, theories, etc... it is exceedingly uncommon to be taught to question the soundness of the fields themselves or the validity of their alleged personal or social value.
If one is taught to think autonomously and critically without also being taught to be critical of those precepts themselves, then they have been indoctrinated into uncritically accepting those precepts as self-evident truths.
If you mean prove with a certainty then no, there isn't anything you could do to prove it to me because we can't know anything that way. I could be persuaded to give the proposition credence, though, if you appealed to the values I've professed.
Nothing you've asked or implied through asking is a problem for my position.
I prefer my ideas to serve me, rather than the other way around. Ideology is the obviation of autonomy and retreat into conformity. My perspective and interests are particular to me; why would I subsume them under anything else? Moreover, I'm preferential to logic and reason and subscribing to any homogenized, abstract concept riddled with inconsistencies just isn't in line with that.
There are a number of errors in this rationale:
(1) Incorrectly presuming that 'code' is a uniform signifier. 'Genetic code' refers to inferred causal relations between the arrangement of genetic material and observed effects. This is not the same as when 'code' is used to refer to a message meant to convey something.
(2) Even were 'genetic code' used to refer to a message meant to convey something, that does not mean the ascription is sound. The phenomena we are observing may not be as we conceive of them (if they are at all).
(3) Even if 'genetic code' were a message conveying something, it does not necessarily follow that the message must have been intended. It is hypothetically possible and equally plausible to the alternative that there is some object or force which produces things like the 'genetic code' which are message conveying without meaning to.
(4) Potentially related to (3), depending on your response... This statement is unsubstantiated: "Codes are something which need to be invented rather than discovered." Why must they be invented rather than simply extant?