CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think the more negative form of leftism is fascist collectivism. Things like social credit scores and radical censorship, for instance.
I'm not really sure what change for the sake of change would even look like, and can't place any movement which that would track. I'm also not sure why that would necessarily be bad; it seems to presume something inherently sacred about what already exists but I don't see why we'd suppose that unless we presuppose conservatism which rather begs the question.
I'm not really sure what change for the sake of change would even look like
It looks like people who use “status quo” as a curse word, or people who are anti-establishment.
I'm also not sure why that would necessarily be bad
It’s analogous to people who rail against buildings, and seek to destroy and replace them with the supposedly better, though undefined “building alternative”. If it turns out for the better, it’s a happy accident.
it seems to presume something inherently sacred about what already exists
I refer to oppressive inflexible order on the other side. It’s a love of status quo for the sake of status quo. Like someone who is a traditionalist without regard for the specific tradition.
My point is essentially that change is good, but not in and of itself. Stability is good, but not in and of itself.
It looks like people who use “status quo” as a curse word, or people who are anti-establishment.
Being anti-establishment isn't always a defect as you seem to think it is. If the establishment were working for everybody, then there would be no reason to be anti-establishment in the first place, would there?
Of course, you would sooner dodge the logic of that entirely and hide behind your usual generic attacks against the left, mired in your own prejudicial nonsense.
If you worked half as hard to solve the problems of the people your system has failed as you do to deride and insult them, I am sure you would both be better off for it.
“Establishment” is itself overly vague. That’s what’s wrong with being anti-establishment.
If you worked half as hard to solve the problems of the people your system has failed as you do to deride and insult them..
Another example of you saying things that are not rooted in anything but your imagination. When it was pointed out to you by Al that I do not act the way you claim or say the things you claim, all you could tell him was to read between the lines.
That’s what’s wrong with being anti-establishment.
Hang on. You were the one who called them anti-establishment in the first place. You can't blame them for a word you used. Are you a fucking idiot?
Another example of you saying things that are not rooted in anything but your imagination.
Another example of you being an obnoxiously obvious liar.
When it was pointed out to you by Al that I do not act the way you claim or say the things you claim
You incessantly distort, manipulate and reword information to make it compatible with your own ideological bias. You are doing it right now. Al is not the world authority on who you are. You included his opinion yet spectacularly avoided the opinion of, say, FactMachine. That is because you are pathologically dishonest. You both cherry-pick and purposefully omit information with all the enthusiasm of Hitler.
yet spectacularly avoided the opinion of, say, FactMachine
That’s because he is the only other person on this site as wildly deceitful, hateful, ignorant, and stupid as you are. He used to be slightly more creative than you, but now even that’s out the window.
No I’m not. You hearing a word from me first, does not mean I invented the word.
I didn't say you invented the word, you pitiful liar. I said it was your terminology. You were the one who used it in our conversation.
How can you so calmly manufacture such brazen straw man argumentation? It is absolutely cringeworthy watching you attempt to backtrack out of your own stupid comments.
That’s because he is the only other person on this site as wildly deceitful, hateful, ignorant, and stupid as you are.
It is obviously circular reasoning to argue that Al agrees with me, therefore he is right, as it is obviously circular reasoning to argue that FactMachine disagrees with me, therefore he is wrong.
Far from being "in my imagination", you simply cannot go more than two sentences without either contradicting yourself or trying to use some form of logical fallacy as a crutch.
It does not make me stupid to point out that you are a liar. It makes me honest. Honesty is not the same thing as stupidity.
I'm sorry, but you have now descended into abject and overt silliness. Of course we are having a conversation.
You’re just here.
I am here. So are you. We are engaged in discourse. That's a conversation.
Saying stupid shit.
Stupid shit like denying we are having a conversation?
Your accuracy at turning the truth upside down is fairly amazing, buddy. If you were caught leaving the pantry with chocolate all over your obnoxious little face, your first words would be to accuse the baker of raiding the pantry. When you just sit there arguing that black is white and sneering out ad hominem attacks befitting a six year old then you can't blame other people for laughing at your childishness.
It looks like people who use “status quo” as a curse word, or people who are anti-establishment.
I don't think those people are interested in change just for change's sake. In my experience they've always been motivated by something beyond that, even if that motivation is poorly developed and doesn't withstand scrutiny.
It’s analogous to people who rail against buildings, and seek to destroy and replace them with the supposedly better, though undefined “building alternative”. If it turns out for the better, it’s a happy accident.
I'm even less familiar with this sort of person...
I refer to oppressive inflexible order on the other side. It’s a love of status quo for the sake of status quo. Like someone who is a traditionalist without regard for the specific tradition. & My point is essentially that change is good, but not in and of itself. Stability is good, but not in and of itself.
I don't think that really gets at my point. The only reason that change for change (or stability) in and of itself could not be good/bad is because there's some value in it's converse. Unless I'm missing something. I don't really understand why you think neither can be good/bad in and of themselves.
I don't think those people are interested in change just for change's sake. In my experience they've always been motivated by something beyond that, even if that motivation is poorly developed and doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Of course. It goes without saying. Without these people there would be no right to vote for women, no right to marry for homosexuals, no rights for blacks and minorities -- indeed, no civil rights generally. The very fact that Amarel is trying to demonise these people -- people like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi -- tells you all you need to know about him. He's a nasty, self-obsessed, narcissistic liar who thinks everybody who disagrees with his fascistic viewpoint is an idiot.
Well. You've rather gone and dressed your strawman up in some tacky ad hominem, haven't you?
Nothing Amarel's said suggests that he thinks people like MLK, Mandela, or Ghandi were motivated by change for it's own sake. In fact, Amarel explicitly states that some change is good.
P.S. I'm not a sympathetic audience for your grievances with Amarel.
Well. You've rather gone and dressed your strawman up in some tacky ad hominem, haven't you?
Errr... No?
Nothing Amarel's said suggests that he thinks people like MLK, Mandela, or Ghandi were motivated by change for it's own sake.
Hang on a moment. First, you falsely accused me of a straw man argument. Then, in your very next paragraph you use a straw man argument!! My comments were not in relation or reply to Amarel's point about "change for change's sake". They were in relation to the exact same point you responded to: his attack on people he sees as being "anti-establishment". All of the character examples I listed were people who were anti-establishment.
If you are going to side with him then you are obviously either deranged or stupid.
Amarel's point about 'change for change's sake' is explicitly about a particular sort of anti-establishment person, rather than about all anti-establishment people. Conflating his critique of a particular sort of person (i.e. anti-establishment for anti-establishment's sake thinkers) with a general sort of person (i.e. to include anti-establishment for reasons x, y and z) is a disingenuous misrepresentation of his comments. His remarks rather obviously do not apply to the group of people you've indicated, and suggesting that they do is a strawman. You also made a series of irrelevant attacks on Amarel's character. My observation about the nature of your argument is therefore correct.
Disagreeing with your misrepresentation of Amarel's argument and your mischaracterization of him as a person does not mean that I agree with him. Frankly, it should be quite obvious from my responses to him that I don't. You're repeating the same behavior towards me that you've directed at Amarel.
Amarel's point about 'change for change's sake' is explicitly about a particular sort of anti-establishment person
No, this is entirely your own manufactured idea. Amarel did not write this. You are arbitrarily conflating two separate comments he made in two separate posts in an effort to patch up your own argument. Not only is this dishonest, but it is bizarre and implies that you may have an ego problem. You will be in good company with Amarel, I assure you.
Conflating his critique of a particular sort of person (i.e. anti-establishment for anti-establishment's sake thinkers) with a general sort of person (i.e. to include anti-establishment for reasons x, y and z) is a disingenuous misrepresentation of his comments.
You are the one doing the conflating you liar. You are conflating two separate comments he made. The first about "change for change's sake", the second about people he views to be "anti-establishment". You do not have the right to morph his comments together and then accuse me of misrepresentation.
Amarel introduces the idea of anti-establishment people in direct response to my query about what it looks like to desire change for change's sake. Consequently, what it means to be anti-establishment is contextualized by the original idea of change for change's sake. Despite your baseless protestations to the contrary, the ideas are not distinct here.
At no point does Amarel suggest that anti-establishment people would include people like MLK, Mandela, or Ghandi who were obviously motivated by more than mere anti-establishment sentiment. That is a baseless presumption which you introduce to Amarel's argument in order to make it seem ridiculous.
Your bizarre hostility and fallacious tendencies do suggest that I am in better company with Amarel, though, so you're not incorrect on all points I suppose.
Amarel introduces the idea of anti-establishment people in direct response to my query about what it looks like to desire change for change's sake.
Read and understand please.
He introduced -- reasonably -- a negative concept (i.e. people who want change for change's sake), but when you asked him to define that idea further he swapped it with the entirely different idea of people who are anti-establishment. I don't know which posts you have been reading, but that is literally what happened. His exact words were:-
people who use “status quo” as a curse word, or people who are anti-establishment.
All of the examples I gave you (i.e. Nelson Mandela, MLK and Gandhi) fit the definition he gave, so there was no misrepresentation on my part. I do not ever intentionally misrepresent people because I am not dishonest.
You fail (or perhaps merely do not wish to see) that Amarel is a conman. He literally showed you what was in his left hand, and when you asked him for a closer look, he swapped it for what was in his right hand.
I understand your argument. It's a possible interpretation, but it remains disingenuous because it makes assumptions towards the weakest possible case. You seem more interested in construing his analysis to suit your preferred conclusion than in having an earnest discussion with him. Making a generous interpretation is not the same thing as being conned by someone, but fosters more serious discourse (as well as being more interesting and challenging imo).
Considering the context, my interpretation also does make more sense. Simply, Amarel has no reason to use a slight of hand that obviously weakens his original argument. Moreover, given his original observation it makes sense to understand his second as a modification operating within the same parameters; it's implicit that he means people who are anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment. (And having had a lot of exchanges with Amarel, it's a particularly obvious implication for me to draw.)
I will allow that I may have misjudged your intentional motives, though.
Disagreeing with your misrepresentation of Amarel's argument
I did not misrepresent his argument. You did. I criticised his second comment, but you are defending his first comment, which I did not even disagree with. To get past this you are trying to glue both of these comments together, which as I have already pointed out is dishonest.
ROFLMAO. Now you've just jumped the bloody shark. I had hoped it would be worth the entertainment value to stick this out a bit longer, and I'm surely not disappointed.
The only reason that change for change (or stability) in and of itself could not be good/bad is because there's some value in it's converse.
I disagree. A thing that is value neutral may have a value neutral converse. Consider warmer and cooler temperatures. Their value depends on context. By themselves each are neutral
Change and stability depend on context before value can be assigned. There are people that get attached to each as such. The person who declares other motivations, which are poorly developed or loosely defined, will often attach to any more well defined motivation so long as change is part of the effort.
Change is literally a flowery word that evokes pleasing emotions in some people. Right up there with hope. Put them side by side and you have a winning slogan. Some people love the idea of change as such.
On the other hand, tradition has a strong emotional draw as well. But people who argue for it, will often attempt to present alternative arguments, which may be poorly developed. When they finally argue that it’s tradition, and that’s the end, they have lost the argument in our culture. That’s because the love of change or stability as such is irrational, but I maintain that neither are uncommon..
I disagree. A thing that is value neutral may have a value neutral converse.
There is no such thing as value neutral. Value is relative to the observer. It is not something which exists objectively or independently.
The problem you have is that, while your language is complex, the actual ideas behind that language are not logically congruent or consistent with themselves. This makes it evident that you use language as a smokescreen to obfuscate the lack of merit in your ideas, whereas you should be using it to communicate your point as simply as possible.
I did not claim otherwise. I used climate as an example of why you are wrong to assert that temperature is value neutral. Temperature is not value neutral because some people prefer it when the weather is cold and some people prefer it when the weather is hot. Hence, temperature is not value neutral. Different temperatures are valued differently by different people.
You seem to perpetually be backtracking your way out of the stupid things you say, Amarel. Last stop is always semantics.
I said temperature because it is value neutral, just like change.
If change were value neutral then I would not be on the left wing arguing for change and you would not be on the right wing arguing for no change. Obviously change is not value neutral.
The amusing thing is that I know you genuinely believe I am the one of us who is the idiot.
You miss in just the right way to make me want to keep explaining simple shit. That’s why you’re a better troll than Ming.
First, I’m not arguing for “no change”.
Second, you are arguing for the change of certain things, not change as such. For example, you won’t change your stupid opinions to more correct ones. That’s not a kind of change you value.
You miss in just the right way to make me want to keep explaining simple shit.
No, that isn't true either. What is true is that your ego won't let you accept the fact that you have been proven wrong by me in public. Hence, you are going to continue to distort language and reason until the conversation becomes incomprehensible or you feel like you have won.
First, I’m not arguing for “no change”
Openness to change is a commonly accepted dividing factor between the left and the right, Amarel. The right are considered to be traditionalists and the left are considered to be innovators. Your faux denial that this dividing factor applies to you personally does not counter the point that it is still a common rule.
Second, you are arguing for the change of certain things
The change of certain things is still change, so I was clearly correct in my assertion that you would inevitably resort to struggling against semantics. Obviously change is value neutral -- if you automatically discount all forms of change which are not value neutral, as now appears to be your argument. If indeed one can even continue to call it an argument. At this point it is just narcissistic heel-dragging.
You should try arguing against my position rather than against your predetermination of my position.
Your "position" was a very purposeful deflection of the point. You tried to misrepresent a commonly accepted divide between right and left into something pertinent only to you personally, on account of the fact that I had used you as an example of this rule in action. As I explained the first time, by falsely claiming this divide does not apply to you personally, you do not counter the fact that the divide exists and proves that change is not value neutral.
Why are you responding exactly as I predicted you would respond? One would expect anybody with half an iota of intelligence to do the opposite.
Then again, that's not you, is it?
Well, you’ve accepted one part of my argument, good job.
That's the second time you have misrepresented the same quote by purposefully omitting the second half.
I want you to remember this conversation the next time you claim my assertions about your dishonesty are "baseless".
You are laughable, Amarel. So wrapped up in your own ego that it makes you vulnerable and weak.
There is no such thing as value neutral. - Waylife
Obviously change is not value neutral. - Waylife
Obviously change is value neutral--if -Waylife
Some learning has occurred. Now let's take a look at the rest of the sentence:
Obviously change is value neutral -- if you automatically discount all forms of change which are not value neutral
If you discuss any specific form of change, you are adding context. Change depends on context before value can be assigned. Until then, it is value neutral. I'm glad you were able to put it into your own words.
Don't deliberately misrepresent my quotations, Amarel. What I said was:"Obviously change is value neutral -- if you automatically discount all forms of change which are not value neutral." Milk is also black. If you automatically discount all milk which is not black.
Ultimately, you must always resort back to misrepresentation because you are not intelligent enough to structure a credible argument. That is just the cold reality of the matter.
You seem to have subtly shifted your ground. Your earlier remarks don't suggest that change or conservation for their own sake are value neutral. They're explicitly represented as having negative value, and that's the context in which my responses operate.
People may be more disposed to conservation or change, even to the extreme, but that's not been my experience with people and I suspect it's more complicated than mere a priori preference. Regardless, even if the motivation is purely a post hoc rationalization for a pre-existing preference for conservation or change I don't see why that's a negative (as your earlier comments suggest). Even if it's irrational it doesn't follow that it's bad.
My initial statement was that the topic is true, ideally, but that there’s a negative side.
There’s nothing wrong with a predisposition toward novelty. Nor is there anything wrong with a predisposition toward the familiar. But the negative aspects of either predisposition begin to arise as context falls out of focus. This is true with many topics.
When people loose context, they act irrationally. As it pertains to this discussion, adhering to tradition, when a very obvious superior alternative is available, often produces negative outcomes. Abandoning a perfectly functional and useful established mode, for the sake of some unspecified or poorly developed alternative often produces negative outcomes.
Irrationality can be accidentally beneficial, but it’s usually not.
It is "lose" context. And it becomes very easy to lose context when the other person arbitrarily changes it mid-argument. You introduced a reasonable concept of people who simply want change for change's sake, and then you swapped that context for a completely different one of everybody who is "anti-establishment" or "anti-Status quo". Hence, you were very overtly engaged in the classic "bait and switch" fallacy. Being anti-establishment is not the same thing as wanting change for the sake of change. You purposefully conflated those two ideas to better promote your silly right wing propaganda.
Ha, well, this seems to predictably boil down to my being a nihilist again. ;)
I'm sympathetic to your attitude towards (ir)rationality. But I don't understand how we know an alternative to be obviously superior in any objective sense, and if it's subjective then it seems circular to me.
Perhaps "apparently" would be more accurate that "obviously", since there is no accounting for unforeseen random catastrophe and whatnot.
Even so, it likely does come down to the fundamental differences we have. I don't mind fleshing those arguments out though. If the difference is reducible to the fundamental, at least I know I am being internally consistent.
Even so, it likely does come down to the fundamental differences we have. I don't mind fleshing those arguments out though. If the difference is reducible to the fundamental, at least I know I am being internally consistent.
Yeah, I'm down. Same reason.
Perhaps "apparently" would be more accurate that "obviously", since there is no accounting for unforeseen random catastrophe and whatnot.
A useful clarification, but I more or less already took that to be your meaning so I don't think it'll change my counter much.
I basically take you to be appealing to a sort of reasonable person standard, wherein some option is more reasonable to take than another and this makes it preferable. Consistent with your observation, an option may be more reasonable by virtue of its anticipated consequences even if something even worse happens than we'd expect from the alternative.
I have two concerns with this argument: (1) I'm not sure that reasonableness is conceptually sound; and (2) I'm not sure why reasonableness would be preferable.
(1) I don't think it can be said that one option is more reasonable than another as a matter of fact. This is because our ideas about which option is more reasonable are predicated upon our a priori values. For someone who values the status quo the costs of preserving it may be reasonable to accept, whereas for someone who values change the costs of preserving the status quo would not be reasonable to accept. Consequently an option may be both the more reasonable and unreasonable option, depending upon the agent in question. You disprefer both status quo and change for their own sake (i.e. as values unto themselves), and this makes options that satisfy them at the expense of what you do value seem unreasonable. But that unreasonableness is only seeming, not actual.
(2) You argue that preferring the status quo or change for themselves (i.e. as values unto themselves) is irrational, and therefore an option which preferences them is less desirable. Wrapped into your idea of preferability, however, is a presumptive value of rationality as well as other unspecified ends which you value over the competing values. This begs the question, though, because you have not demonstrates that rationality or these other unspecified ends are or should be preferable. You suggest that they are and use this to argue the dispreferability of status quo and change as values unto themselves, but if we instead presumed their preferability first your values would be disprefered. An argument is required to demonstrate that rationality (and possibly other ends) are actually preferable, rather than merely an expression of your personal preference, if you want the argument to have proscriptive force.
You're observation, that the dispute is rooted in your fundamental nihilism, is clearly correct. Especially in light of your expanded response.
I don't think it can be said that one option is more reasonable than another as a matter of fact. This is because our ideas about which option is more reasonable are predicated upon our a priori values.
Our most fundamental difference is rooted in the valuation of one's own life. I find a positive valuation of one's own life to be the most fundamental value and a necessarily rational one. Without it, the valuer would cease to live (somewhere we have an extensive dispute on this topic). It is this primary rational value that creates conditions wherein some options are factually better than others. Whether a person values the status quo or change, valuing either to the detriment of one's own life is irrational, and may lead to poorer outcomes.
-I believe this addresses your first concern, though almost certainly not to your satisfaction.
Wrapped into your idea of preferability, however, is a presumptive value of rationality
That's true. Accepting the primary value I presented above does necessarily lead to other values; rationality not least among them.
if we instead presumed their(status quo and change for their own sake) preferability first your values would be disprefered
That's true. But there is no reason to prefer status quo or change for their own sake. Holding them as preferable above all else, would remove the foundation on which preferences are created. In other words, a person who prefers change for it's own sake has no reason to prefer anything at all. This is because the positive valuation of one's own life leads logically to the valuation of anything else. The alternative isn't a different set of values, the alternative is having no life and thus no values. In this way, my argument is more than a mere expression of my personal preference. It is an expression of once value that is objectively necessary to all, and of any values that logically follow therefrom.
-I believe this addresses your second concern. Again, not likely to your satisfaction.
Our most fundamental difference is rooted in the valuation of one's own life. I find a positive valuation of one's own life to be the most fundamental value and a necessarily rational one. Without it, the valuer would cease to live (somewhere we have an extensive dispute on this topic). It is this primary rational value that creates conditions wherein some options are factually better than others. Whether a person values the status quo or change, valuing either to the detriment of one's own life is irrational, and may lead to poorer outcomes.
You claim that a positive valuation of one's own life to be necessarily rational, because without such a valuation one would not live. However, this suggests to me only that a positive valuation of one's life affirms itself. I do not see why this means it is rational, beyond it's being tautology coherent. The same is equally true of a negative valuation of one's life, however. Since the way in which positive valuation of one's life is rational is non-unique this does not seem to suggest any reason that it is further rational to prefer it over other valuations. Are you presuming something about the nature of rationality itself that I'm missing? I'm not sure what conception of rationality would plausibly presume that life is rational.
I'm also not sure how your analysis accounts for cases of mortal self-sacrifice. People who willfully die to protect others (or ideas) seem to hold other values which exceed the value which they place upon their lives, otherwise their actions could not occur. I don't think most people would be satisfied with simply dismissing this as a type of irrationally motivated act. As I've seen mortal self-sacrifice defended, it usually resonates with deep intuitive values which people hold about family and community. It's a part of being a social species, so I'm not sure it can be dismissed as less fundamental and therefore irrational. At the same time, if it's allowed then it becomes considerably less clear that there are singular answers to which actions are more rational.
If valuing one's life is the most fundamental value and necessarily rational, then how do you explain people being irrational? If this really were the most fundamental value then shouldn't we expect people to be more rational? That people are irrational, in the sense that they (frequently) act to disadvantage or harm themselves, suggests that their most fundamental value is not actually their own life. This challenge teases your presumption that without valuing one's own life (foremost) that one would cease to live; it suggests that so long as our other values are not so detrimental to kill us off before we reproduce that we can (and do) hold them.
You also seem to be assuming that the value of life is greater than the quality of life, which seems fairly controversial to me. It seems evident that lots of people think that quality of life is more important than merely living. This is the entire motivation behind assisted suicide advocacy, and as with mortal self-sacrifice I'm not sure how your analysis accounts for this extant phenomenon.
That's true. But there is no reason to prefer status quo or change for their own sake. Holding them as preferable above all else, would remove the foundation on which preferences are created. In other words, a person who prefers change for it's own sake has no reason to prefer anything at all. This is because the positive valuation of one's own life leads logically to the valuation of anything else. The alternative isn't a different set of values, the alternative is having no life and thus no values. In this way, my argument is more than a mere expression of my personal preference. It is an expression of once value that is objectively necessary to all, and of any values that logically follow therefrom.
It is only true that preferring the status quo or change for their own sake defeats preference if you first presume that a positive valuation of one's life is the most fundamental, which is precisely what is being contested. If instead the most fundamental value for someone were the status quo for its own sake (or any other value), then the application of your reasoning would suggest that valuing one's own life for its own sake would defeat preference. If you're claims about the value of one's life are correct then your analysis here might stand, but if they are incorrect the implications for the value you place on life could be considerable.
Some of my responses my be somewhat disconnected from the larger topic, as this conversation is tending the way ours always tend. My apologies up front.
I do not see why this means it is rational, beyond it's being tautology coherent.
It's the basis for rationality in decision making. Without this primary value, no decisions can be made, including the decision to use logic at all.
The same is equally true of a negative valuation of one's life, however.
No one who truly holds a negative valuation remains alive. Can you elaborate on this argument for the converse?
Since the way in which positive valuation of one's life is rational is non-unique this does not seem to suggest any reason that it is further rational to prefer it over other valuations
Other valuations cannot be had without maintaining the positive valuation for one's life.
I'm not sure what conception of rationality would plausibly presume that life is rational.
Rationality is a product of life. So it cannot be said that life as such is rational, but rather that rationality exist because of life. I worry that this argument is going to lead down a side road that we disagree on and have never resolved. In a previous debate, I argued that you seek something outside of reason as a proof for reason, but that proof itself is a function of reason. If you don't recall that particular debate, we may end up down a similar rabbit hole here.
I'm also not sure how your analysis accounts for cases of mortal self-sacrifice. People who willfully die to protect others (or ideas) seem to hold other values which exceed the value which they place upon their lives, otherwise their actions could not occur.
We don't value our lives merely in quantity, but in quality. People don't want to live in a world where certain things are the reality, so they risk their lives to keep those things from becoming a reality. We call them brave when we share the value for which they risk their lives. We call them stupid when we do not.
how do you explain people being irrational? If this really were the most fundamental value then shouldn't we expect people to be more rational?
Evolution is an ongoing process. Rationality is relatively new to the scene. Not everyone is good at it. Some people would never wish to harm themselves and believe that they love themselves, all while slowly killing themselves with this vice or that. They fundementally value their own life, but they are irrational on key issues. Sometimes they have what they call a moment of clarity, and their behavior changes.
You also seem to be assuming that the value of life is greater than the quality of life, which seems fairly controversial to me. It seems evident that lots of people think that quality of life is more important than merely living.
I'm not sure what I previously said to give you this idea. We are in agreement about quality of life. My position is that a person who does not hold thier life as a fundemental value will cease to live. This is not to say that holding this value will keep one from willingly dying.
If instead the most fundamental value for someone were the status quo for its own sake (or any other value), then the application of your reasoning would suggest that valuing one's own life for its own sake would defeat preference. If you're claims about the value of one's life are correct then your analysis here might stand, but if they are incorrect the implications for the value you place on life could be considerable.
That valuation of life is actual. The valuation of status quo and change requires context before it can be actual. In that way, a person may accidentally act rationally by valuing change for it's own sake only if the change is in the context of a rational pursuit. Otherwise, both change and status quo are mere floating abstractions. They cannot rationally be evalutated until they are actualized. Of course, this is all premised on what I have already argued for. But can you provide a realistic scenario where valuing a floating abstraction as ones fundemental value can make any sense?
Thanks for the time you put into this. I did read it, appreciated it... but then got busy and never got around to responding. Killed the thread; my bad. Hope you've been well the past 1/3 year I went awol from the forum.
Our threads always die this way. That’s fine since we both knew the root of our differences before we began the thread. I wasn’t seeking a conclusion. I get significant value out of developing those long threads with you and your like. Though it isn’t common here anymore.
I’ve been well. I hope your absence wasn’t for terribly unfortunate reasons.
Glad you've been well. Nothing unfortunate on my end, just got busy with work and school. I've noticed the number of quality discussions seems lower than the last time I was around, which is unfortunate. Happy to see you're still around, though.
..… whereas TRUMPISM is ANYTHING BUT "conservatism"! He has erased any "values" (especially the FAMILY type) that conservatives used to run on. They're more interested in values that drive the 1% to pour millions into the deeply dredged "SWAMP" embellished by Captain Healspurs and his "company of destroyers"! They are destroying democracy, decency, "family values" and, what used to be the GOP. They are turning capitalism into a weapon instead of an asset! Turning it loose without restraint is like putting a fox in the henhouse! He is using the BIG "FOX" to attack that henhouse while he builds a fence around the henhouse of America to keep our allied friends at bay while he opens the gate for the big Russian BEAR to share in the carnage! Any similarity to the conservatism of Reagan and before is purely coincidental! HE has destroyed the "pre-established values and hierarchies of conservatism. HE and those brainwashed enough to believe and/or worship him!
There ARE many reasons why the most ardent "conservatives" are now on independent news networks railing against Trumpian policies, (George Will, Joe Scarborough, Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, S.E. Cupp, David Jolly, Michelle Wallace, etc.), their basic values have been thrown out by "The Trumpians"! The NEW "conservatism" is not-so-thinly-disguised "authoritarianism" (fascism, we used to call it!)! Time to throw THAT kind of FAKE conservatism OUT! :-0
Leftism/progressivism= equality and the adaptation of new values.
Hello:
Nahhh… Freedom and equality are NOT new values.. They're Constitutional values.. Leftists brought FREEDOM to black people.. It brought FREEDOM to gays.. It brought FREEDOM to women..
For you to even mention the Constitution in the same sentence with Leftists is absolutely laughable.
Hello From:
We've discussed the 14th Amendment many times.. You know, the one that says if YOU have a right, I have that same right.. You don't LIKE it so you pretend it doesn't exist..
There ain't nothing I can say about that, except I HOPE you CONTINUE. It makes libs like me look VERY GOOD..
Conservatism reflects a general preference for preservation. Liberalism a general preference for change. Neither is fundamentally connected to hierarchy/equality, as their meaning is context dependent. (This is why capitalists were formerly recognized as liberals, as well as why capitalists today are sometimes referred to as neoliberals rather than conservatives.)
Consequently, OPs framing is confused - are we discussing conservativism/liberalism, collectivism/individualism, capitalism/socialism, egalitarianism/fascism, etc?
Neither is fundamentally connected to hierarchy/equality
Yes they are. Historically that is like, the main defining characteristic of what differentiates the left and the right. Conservatism is the preservation of the pre-established aristocracy and of pre-established cultural values.
No, the main defining characteristic of conservativism is preservation of whatever happens to currently be the tradition. Liberalism changes what the tradition is until it's values become the new tradition at which point they become conservative values. Consequently, the aristocracy and pre-established cultural values you reference conservativism preserving were formerly extensions of liberality (that's how they came to exist in the first place).
As I already mentioned, capitalists were formerly regarded as liberals because the values they expressed represented changes to traditional non-capitalist values. They are regarded as conservatives now because capitalism become the traditional values. This means that at one point liberality was defined by a connection to hierarchical values, unless you mean to claim that capitalism is not hierarchical (in which case conservatism today is not hierarchical).
I think the correct pair of terms here would be conservatism and progressivism. Liberelism is a loosely defined ideology, based around certain core principals: proclaiming individual freedom as an absoulute value that superseeds collective interests, that only strong individuals can form a strong and functional state, that individuals have god-given innate rights ("human rights", the theological argument was later forgotten), that the excercise of rights by an individual should not violate on the rights other individuals. The terms conservative relates to a different political metric. A liberal can also be a conservative.
You're right. Progressivism would have been more apt, although I think liberalism has assumed a rather similar function. Liberality used to describe what you say it does, but I don't think the people commonly described as liberals now are oriented around individual freedom (i.e. they're collectivists); the term seems to have taken on a similar usage as progressivism (despite Freeman's objections).
The more negative form of Rightism is oppressive inflexible order
Which is why sound like a filthy little ass monkey when you talk about freedom while espousing right wing bullshit. Far right libertarianism amounts to chaotic and despotic insanity as everyone kills each other to reach a higher status, far right authoritarianism is fascism or monarchy. So either way the further right you are the more tyrannical you are by definition. The least tyrannical thing would be something where everyone has the same rights and opportunities and no one class, group or entity has control over production or society i.e socialism. The worst you can get with a genuinely far left system is a "tyranny of the majority" as in pure democracy.
Which is why sound like a filthy little ass monkey when you talk about freedom while espousing right wing bullshit.
Yup. He talks about freedom while he simultaneously espouses policies which have seen America rise to become the number one taker of liberty in the entire world. Twenty two percent of all the prisoners on Earth live in American jails. It is impossible to take him seriously because most of the time he is consciously making shit up just to sound good. The reality is that not even he believes the crap he writes.
I think you seriously underestimate the risks and harms of a tyrannical majority, as well as the potential for egalitarianism to become fascist itself.
You see my support for capitalism as far right bullshit, but that’s because your focus is collective, while I’m an individualist. You see groups and classes while I look at what an individual can do in a given system. An individual doesn’t stand a chance in socialism, because if he creates a means of production or becomes independently wealthy, he enters the “oppressive” class. Everything that one might build is confiscated in the name of equality.
The big lie with socialism is to obscure the fact that there is a class that enforces all that equality, and they are the true oppressor class. That’s why communism has to pretend the state will fall away in utopia.
Under capitalism, equality before the law is all that matters. Which means I’m not oppressed by Bill Gates. It doesn’t matter that his kids will have more opportunity, ant more than it matters that a child born on the coast will have more opportunity to be a sailor than a child born inland.
Also, right vs left is not a clear line between status quo vs change. Capitalism ithe most innovative economic system in history, as it embraces creative destruction. Conservatives are classically liberal in this sense, while more rigid on social norms. The economics of socialism fails to account for the economies dynamic nature, seeing it rather as a snapshot and seeking to preserve and rearrange the fruits of the economy as they are at the given time. Thus, leftist economics are more rigid, and oppressive in their logical ends.
You see my support for capitalism as far right bullshit, but that’s because your focus is collective, while I’m an individualist.
You misunderstand the situation gravely. You are a certain individuals-ist. I am an every individualist. Right wing thinking assumes that some people belong in the toilet and others should have their butt holes licked. I believe in making people better by giving them equal access to education and nutrition etc. whereas you believe in allowing all the things that have a dysgenic effect and then blaming those who are effected by it for their failure to adapt to the conditions of society.
You see groups and classes while I look at what an individual can do in a given system.
I see millions of people in America going hungry and being educated in low-grade obedience training schools while others are handed everything in life because their parents are rich.
An individual doesn’t stand a chance in socialism,
The odds are stacked against most people in capitalism while a few are handed everything or arbitrarily become successful through mass appeal or dirty deeds.
because if he creates a means of production or becomes independently wealthy, he enters the “oppressive” class. Everything that one might build is confiscated in the name of equality
Wrong imbecile. If everyone owns the means of production then everyone is free to create their own production. In capitalism only people who have enough capital can own the means of production which is relatively few.
The big lie with socialism is to obscure the fact that there is a class that enforces all that equality, and they are the true oppressor class.
Will you stop pulling this garbage out of your ass please? Socialism is about removing class from society entirely.
That’s why communism has to pretend the state will fall away
Communism is when there is no state and the means of production are collectivized so unless the state is already gone there never was communism to begin with you ignoramus.
utopia
Now we come again to the point where you repeat meaningless buzzwords instead of making an argument. You must have a fucking inch worm for a dick.
Under capitalism, equality before the law is all that matters.
Right, that's why rich people can essentially buy their way out of prison. Under capitalism, the more money you have the more you can get away with. Not only that but you seem to be indirectly implying that a free market and general capitalism are the same thing.
Which means I’m not oppressed by Bill Gates. It doesn’t matter that his kids will have more opportunity
Yes it does. It's not just about more opportunity, it's about being handed everything in life while other kids starve you sanctimonious turkey fucker.
Capitalism ithe most innovative economic system in history
That would be RBE. Capitalism is only one step above feudalism due to the concept of inheritance and is based on an unscientific social construct.
Conservatives are classically liberal in this sense, while more rigid on social norms.
Conservatism comes in many shapes and sizes and there is nothing inherently "classical liberal" about it.
The economics of socialism fails to account for the economies dynamic nature, seeing it rather as a snapshot and seeking to preserve and rearrange the fruits of the economy as they are at the given time.
My economics is based on what is scientifically feasible and practical whereas you believe in a made up economy which is disconnected from reality and is only a social construct made of conceptual currency.
leftist economics are more rigid, and oppressive in their logical ends
Ok, on that note I will have to ask you to go mine some gold for me, I'll just sit here doing nothing and take 99% of that and you can have 1�ter doing all the work mmkay?
If you really believed that, you would have spent this part of the post clarifying you’re position rather than illustrating your misunderstanding of my position.
The odds are stacked against most people in capitalism
Not as stacked without capitalism. You are speaking from one of the wealthiest countries in the wealthiest time in history. You are more educated and more comfortable than the vast vast majority of human beings in centuries past. However better off a few other people are, the odds are much more in your favor than than against you... thanks to capitalism.
If everyone owns the means of production then everyone is free to create their own production.
First, look up “tragedy of the commons”. Second, realized that the “means of production” is a concept, not a set quantity. Innovators in the market regularly create their own means of production, and they are regularly small businesses. There is no incentive to do that if what they create belongs to everyone else.
In capitalism only people who have enough capital can own the means of production which is relatively few.
It’s literally almost everyone. I know lots of relatively poor people who still have at least one tool. I’ve seen a business started with a dremmel tool and a pocket knife.. It doesn’t require gifts from the state, it requires personal know-how. Much of this country runs on small business innovation. Even so, there are plenty of people clamoring to work for prestigious large corporations such as Apple and Google, because it’s worth their effort.
Will you stop pulling this garbage out of your ass please?
Will you ever attempt to actually confront my position? I doubt it.
Socialism is about removing class from society entirely.
Yeah, that’s impossible. It’s not even desirable. First, class analysis is merely one perspective on social hierarchy. Classes are created according to arbitrary attributes depending on the analysis. There is no removal of classes, only redefining. Second, attempts to remove classes has been and is always responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. The idea that humans will one day act as classless cogs (non-humans) in the collective machine is the height of naïveté.
Communism is when there is no state and the means of production are collectivized
Yes, the communists keep telling us.
Right, that's why rich people can essentially buy their way out
They can pay good lawyers. They can’t buy there way out.
Not only that but you seem to be indirectly implying that a free market and general capitalism are the same thing.
Capitalism is economic freedom. It includes free markets and free enterprise.
Yes it does. It's not just about more opportunity, it's about being handed everything in life while other kids starve
People don’t starve in the US. Almost no one starved even in the Depression. People starve in other countries though, where equality is the goal.
Conservatism comes in many shapes and sizes and there is nothing inherently "classical liberal" about it.
Sure there is. There is Conservative economics that are typically “classical liberal” about it.
My economics is based on what is scientifically feasible and practical
You’ve not demonstrated that. Nor have you demonstrated even the most basic understanding of economics.
you believe in a made up economy which is disconnected from reality
I Have only ever referenced economic concepts that are supported by historical observation.
and is only a social construct
Do you regularly undervalue the “social construct”. Language is a social construct.
Ok, on that note I will have to ask you to go mine some gold for me, I'll just sit here doing nothing and take 99% of that and you can have 1�ter doing all the work mmkay?
That’s right. And capitalism you will have to ask. But you will have to do better than what you are offering here. Otherwise you will have no employees. you will have to pay a premium for trust too.
Are you aware how perfectly suitable your venomous rhetoric is to your ideology? You express utter jealousy for people who have more money than you. You have to pretend that their succes is always unwarranted, lest you be forced to take responsibility for your own shortcomings. You aren’t interested lifting the downtrodden so much as laying low those who achieve, because you do not.
If you really believed that, you would have spent this part of the post clarifying you’re position rather than illustrating your misunderstanding of my position.
You need to eating a raw meat to fortify your testicular glands.
You are speaking from one of the wealthiest countries in the wealthiest time in history.
I am also speaking from the position of someone who can see the flaws of a system where the primary purpose of everything that is produced is to profit the 1% and where your opportunities in life and influence in society depend on a social construct which has nothing to do with merit or good intentions.
the odds are much more in your favor than than against you... thanks to capitalism.
Most of the things you mentioned are thanks to technology and science though.
There is no incentive to do that if what they create belongs to everyone else.
owning things is a social construct. If everyone owns the means of production then no one owns anything thus everyone is free to use resources and create their own means of production. If certain people can own certain things and others can't based on a social construct then people are brainwashed with a conceptual excuse for the wealthy class to control all the resources. Think about the natural culmination of what capitalism is. Eventually everything will be owned by the wealthy class and all of society will become a corporation with all the land and resources already controlled. Then the lower classes will essentially be forced into wage slavery which is already the case. But then with increased automation and AI tech people will start losing jobs rapidly which can only lead ultimately to technocracy, total collapse or socialist revolution.
I’ve seen a business started with a dremmel tool and a pocket knife.
Yes, I'm sure lord Rothschild finds you very quaint as he buys your politicians and runs your central bank and you support his system because you get to make a bit of cash with your pocket knife.
attempts to remove classes has been and is always responsible for the worst atrocities in human history.
I guess you're not a fan of the American revolution then.
The idea that humans will one day act as classless cogs (non-humans) in the collective machine is the height of naïveté.
Yeah but classes are a (drum roll) social construct and therefor unscientific and therefor incompatible with a highly advanced technological civilisation.
Yes, the communists keep telling us.
Then stop quote mining and go read Marx for yourself.
They can pay good lawyers. They can’t buy there way out.
They can make bribes, pay corrupt lawyers to lie for them, cover their tracks better and commit more nefarious crimes because of their wealth. Also you seem to be unaware that the government itself is corrupt.
Capitalism is economic freedom. It includes free markets and free enterprise.
where the primary purpose of everything that is produced is to profit the 1%
Speaking of brainwashed idiot.
Science and tech is not independent of capitalism. Especially tech, which we have in abundance, in no small part, because of profit motive.
If everyone owns the means of production then no one owns anything thus everyone is free to use resources and create their own means of production.
Again, see “tragedy of the commons”. And stop ignoring historic examples of these attempts and their failures. Learn how people respond to incentives.
Eventually everything will be
Empty predictions of doom for your opponents are no better than empty promises for you comrades.
I guess you're not a fan of the American revolution then.
The American Revolution was not an attempt to eliminate classes.
Yeah but classes are a (drum roll) social construct and therefor unscientific and therefor incompatible with a highly advanced technological civilisation.
Yeah but language is a (drum roll) social construct and therefor unscientific and therefor incompatible with a highly advanced technological civilization. Oh wait, that’s a retarded notion.
go read Marx for yourself.
I have. I just knew better. And I didn’t stop there.
Also you seem to be unaware that the government itself is corrupt*
The entire form of Leftism is oppressive inflexible order....
Every State WILL be forced to change their marriage laws!
Every Public school will be forced to allow so called Transgender boys into our daughter's bathrooms.
Every State will change their bathroom policies to incorporate men dressed like women, or they will be boycotted from having NCAA championship tournaments.
Every private owned company will be forced to cater events that go against their faith or conscience.
On the Left, their entire form of Government in not flexible, but an arrogant political correct Big Brother control of the people.
I see no one in the Republican Party supporting oppressive inflexibility. They believe in State's rights and the freedom to disagree with the Collective.
