Capitalism and the Natural Order is under Assault by Society’s Worst Elements

The use of "schizophrenic" to describe POVs you disagree with, -especially- when you started one of your first posts to this thread with a complaint about "poisoning the well," is erroneous. Same for "perverse," which you later used. The term is also slanted, stilted, pretentious, vague, inapposite psycho-jargon. "Schizophrenic," does not mean "conflicting," or "inconsistent." It describes a very specific type of mental disease, but you know that full well already, used it for its pejorative connotation.

Mainly, I just wanted to draw attention to your hypocrisy in "fallacy calling," and then engaging in the exact same fallacy in the next breath. I do -some- fallacy-calling here on this casual political forum, and lord knows my share of fallacies... to accent reasoned points. But other than when it is egregious and substituted entirely for reason, "You would think that, you're a Jew," or "So you are advocating drinking blood from live babies," it's bad manners.

No, on a casual political forum, the OP used another passing, casual reference to certain aspects of -Ancient- culture (just like his casual, passing reference to Nietzsche), backed by a couple of facts, in stating his opinion about supposed "deviousness" of modern progressives. This, and the OP generally, was plainly an invitation to either agree that modern progressives are devious, or to disagree and claim they aren't devious, or maybe even dispute the veracity of the specific claims of fact he made in a -cursory- way. Was "devious" Cupid at the bottom of the hierarchy or not? for example, not an invitation for a windy, jargon-laden discourse/debate on this or that aspect of Greek culture. Plato and Aristotle are aspects of Greek philosophy... that OP did not reference, not broader Greek culture... that OP did reference, a meaningful distinction. In fact, OP only mentioned the Greeks once and the Ancients two other times. If you want to start a thread about Greek philosophy, please do so.

Oh, and Plato advocated a strict caste system as you know... within a slave state... as you know... your latest windy wall somehow omits that. Do we really want to do a hard-core injection of Platonism into modern politics? I don't. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the "Ancients" didn't value deviousness, who does... ostensibly anyway? as a casual passing reference by OP, because that's what it was.

Again, I don't see reference to Peterson in the OP, just later in the thread. What kind of compound fallacy is that? Odors of straw man, ad hom, red herring all, can't decide on just one. See? Bad manners, it's obnoxious isn't it? Personally, I think Peterson is probably a fine clinical psychologist, but not particularly impressed with his social critique or life coaching... but that's in the eye of the beholder/beneficiary. If he helps people feel better about their lives and instills good habits and social skills in people? More power to that avocation of his. Is he some far right boogeyman because he rants about certain excesses on campus and Canadian rightthink? F no, that's patently absurd. He's something like Alan Dershowitz, an old school leftist who has gotten fed up with the many illiberal aspects of the prevailing Left. But my bad, if you want to make a Peterson thread, make it. This ain't it.

No, it doesn't. More importantly though, this thread isn't about defending the conservative worldview, but taking issue with progressives and their supposed "devious" behavior. Are you ever going to make a topical post to it? If you want to poopoo conservatives, make THAT thread.

My claim is clear, you aren't addressing it directly. Conservatism or "conservative" is a pure, relational abstraction, any meaning it has is entirely derivative of some underlying policy or condition (so is "liberal" but to a lesser degree, that word does have some non-derivative definition in political discourse). You can certainly discuss things as being "conservative" ... in the now, as convenient shorthand to discern immediately present politics and campaigns. Like milk, the term ages extremely rapidly and begins to stink over very short time. (see Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State, Part One, The New Toryism, for a very clear explanation of this). Progressivism, OTOH, has a commonly understood non-derivative meaning within political discourse that I posted, "preferring government, especially central government solutions to social problems over private solutions," agree with that definition or not, up to you.

I have developed that in later posts by comparing LW to RW appeals to morality in their various positions, feel free to read them. Even if I hadn't, it wouldn't be "foot-stomping"(sic). Recall that I also claimed from the start that many RW positions can be classified as reasonable examples of the "priestly mentality" also.

Not gonna do more Nietzsche. If you want to start a thread and discuss him, feel free. I may contribute. It isn't appropriate here, as OP's opinion piece made only a passing reference, and once again, was not an invitation to some windy, extended N discussion or debate. I contributed to that derail, and apologize to OP for doing so.

The Greek notion of "excellence" throughout Greek history, had far more to do with martial excellence, valor, accomplishments that led to fame, excellence in statecraft. Moderation was a -moderate- part of that, not the defining characteristic by a long shot, you are flat wrong on that. That is grade school stuff, and am amused you are doubling and tripling down on your error, but hey, again, make a thread.

 

Irrelevant. Tax cuts for businesses, taking funding from public programs, appointment of a right wing justice to the SC, appointing a corporatist who opposes regulations to head the EPA, enabling the Dakota Access Pipeline to finish, repealing much of what Obama put in place, withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, etc. are right wing deeds of right wing interest. The left, and even Democrats, are not interested in such things. So he apparently realized his right wing sentiments were out of place in the Democratic Party. After all, he is slow to catch on.

Praising Putin and insulting and offending our allies is also not in the interest of the people, but the right loves it. So don't tell me he's not a right winger.

He is afraid to because it will precipitate an immediate Constitutional crisis and damage his credibility that he is so completely innocent.

You don't think it's possible for a wealthy person (assuming he is wealthy) to crave political power? You reply here is weak, pathetic, desperate, and nonsensical.

 

I've read your posts, you are neither a "classical liberal" nor a "libertarian." Far from it.

Nonresponsive.

Not "straw man." You posted some parroted gibberish about individual rights being attributed to corporations, didn't substantiate it or explain it. Got called on it and had it refuted. You are out of your depth, as you have acknowledged in the thread, especially in my professional field of practice.

Really? You can't distinguish between a legislative body having the power to make laws that are backed by threat of force, imprisonment, etc.... and businesses that have no such power, and rely on totally voluntary transactions to survive? Sorry bout that.

They don't, a) the existence of lawsuits in and of itself is not an indicator of any wrongdoing by anyone, b) a vast majority of business lawsuits are collection suits and squabbles over insurance, etc., neither is evidence of any wrongdoing. To expand, very few regulatory actions are evidence of any wrongdoing either. Many businesses fail, that's a reality businesspeople understand and a risk they accept. No "wrong" in it. c) ten million is not a rough estimate, but a gross exaggeration.

Because your claim was so unclear, I asked specifically if you were complaining about limited liability and business entities being treated as artificial persons in the law. If you weren't claiming that, fair enough. If you don't want to be misunderstood, write clearly and make definite claims.

Mainstream leftists are acting out violently more and more daily in the U.S. Nonleftists generally don't and haven't done that. Deny those facts all you like and keep being wrong. And you're Canadian? don't even live here or see it firsthand? LOL.

Unhinged, check, deranged, check... Q.E.D.

No, as a matter of fact, they can't. They once could, but can't any more, making the "muhrussia" deflection all the more ridiculous. China can though, and they are laughing their asses off.

Yeah, those super accurate polls worked out real well for you in 2016. The most recent poll (Pew I believe) had to give an asterisk to concerns about Russian meddling because the response was so far so low as to be insignificant. So why should anyone believe -your- bullshit numbers. Americans don't care. If Canadians like you do, fine.

Nonresponsive, falsehood.

Hoot of the day, counter to plain fact, and the part about ACA is unintelligible. Obama exacerbated the recession into a long, slow malaise... just like FDR did in the 30s in just about the same way. Statists never learn, no matter how much damage they do.

Me too. You're bleeding.

Mhmm. Right on time.

 

You said "far right," and that's still manure.

Tax cuts for businesses? By "businesses," I guess you mean the middle class taxpayer and small businesses, right? Do you all -ever- not slant atrociously?

Yep, GOP POTUS appoints right of center justice. Yawn. Want to make a case for Gorsuch being "far right?" You're gonna lose.

Praising Putin? Didn't happen. Insulting and offending our allies? Are you talking about NATO? or one of the many other raw deals crooked establishment politicians have stuck us with over the years as they get inexplicably rich? If NATO, they need to pay what they agreed. The end. If that's insulting to them, so be it. Whatever it is, it's not "far right" just sharp, common sense diplomacy and standing up for American interests for once instead of a brown bag of "speaking fees" and raw deals.

Maybe you prefer a pushover mangina like Obama to conduct our diplomacy, giving away billions to Iran, or a corrupt, incompetent affirmative action case like Hillary Clinton selling us down the river. I don't, and that preference is not "far right."

Not what you originally posted, which is still false.

No, my response was true, common sense and on point. You didn't honestly respond to it, and how anyone can tell that is the empty drivel you tacked on at the end.

 

You spoke of "severe biological constraints on human behavior. I.e. ....... that human civilizations can be warped (molded) into something that goes directly against our nature (socialism)". What "human nature" were you referring to? Was it not a reference to individualism, freedom of the individual, and such?

Right. That's the social nature.

Ah yes, because you say so. LOL!!!!

I'm not interested in discussing anything with a person who surrenders to a compulsion to insult and to feign being an intellectual rather than engaging in a rational, civil conversation. Your moniker was well chosen.

 

I am glad we have a good economist on the board, Kode

 

Nope. It's all far right.

Can't you name any businesses that announced they would be paying out bonuses to workers?... like Apple, Caterpillar, Cisco, Pfizer, Ralph Lauren, Western Digital, Conoco Phillips, Charles Schwab, Southwest Airlines, Quest Diagnostics, Comcast, AT&T, Boeing, Wells Fargo, Kroger, and Costco?

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-small-business-cut-details-2017-9
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/these-companies-have-the-most-to-gain-from-trumps-tax-cut-plan.html
https://ijr.com/the-declaration/201...ill-give-employees-raise-increase-employment/

Don't you look into the garbage you're fed by fake news?

Really?
https://www.newsweek.com/heres-all-times-trump-has-praised-putin-708859

https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...deo.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0026d5ee8071

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/world/g7-trump-russia.html

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-offends-south-korea-claims-part-of-china/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/11/the-problem-isnt-who-trump-has-offended-its-who-he-hasnt/

Plus Canada, Mexico, Germany, Australia, and the UK.

Bunk. Your bogus argument was that a wealthy person isn't interested in power, and I pointed out the idiocy of that idea. Just look at history for a second.[/QUOTE]

 

The Frankfurt School (Herbert Marcuse · Theodor Adorno , Max Horkheimer ·Erich Fromm) fled fascist Germany to save their lives and these scholars attempted to understand how fascism emerged out of a Capitalist society.

1.) They extended ideological critique to social psychology. The psychology of the individual is an important agent in the rise of fascism. They did the first studies on the authoritarian personality and family structures (which turns out to be a key source).

2.) The Frankfurt School explained the self-reinforcing qualities of Capitalist social infra-structure and the process of power legitimation. Our Practical Reason (values) to achieve Freedom evolves into “Instrumental Reason,” (technology) to the point that there is an “Eclipse of Reason.” The Enlightenment has been replaced by Positivism to reinforce Capitalism. The tendency of instrumental reason is to dominated both Human Beings and Nature by a systemic internal process using social organizations. Instrumental Reason has redefined Human Beings. Now “surplus repression” (sounds like surplus value) is necessary to exploit surplus value.

3.) Frankfurt rethought the concept of the “Negative” or the "possible" as opposed to the “Positive,” or "actual." Marcuse borrows ideas from Freud, and the Existentialist like Jean-Paul Sartre’s ( Being and Nothingness), Heidegger’s "Non-Being," (Being and Time) and the Hegelian concept of "negation" to rediscover a tool, or method to carry on a Negative Dialectic, or "imagination of possibilities". Adorno contributed his book, “Negative Dialectics” to redefine and refine its meaning:

Adorno, Negative Dialectics.

[The genetic influence of Hegelian Idealism in Marxism allows the Critical Theorists to legitimately shift the analysis from its historical emphasis on Marxist materialism --a Positivistic Dialectic-- to a Negative Dialectic. My words.]

4.) Habermas brings a new hermeneutic (Greek word ἑρμηνεύω; hermeneuō, 'translate' or 'interpret') or 'standard of interpretation' of the theory of politics. Capitalism has changed modern "politics" from the Greek “polis” of participation and "He-ber-mas" (for some reason the board converts to ****) attempts to reclaim communication from distortion, and Orwellian contradictions.

 

Got it in one. never claimed to be one. I am social democrat.

I rarely respond to bullshit.

Yes a strawman, not that you'd notice.



As to your professional field of practice what is it again?

of course I can. That wasn't the point I was making. I see it flew over your head. Make an idiotic claim and get it turned around and returned.

I agree that the total number of lawsuits cover all kinds of disputes and crimes. Much of it in CONTRACT litigation, class actions, personal injury etc. And yes, a ton of it is directly tied to wrongdoing.

Very few regulatory actions are evidence of wrong doing? No, the evidence isn't the action. Its the reason for the action. And violation of regulation is wrongdoing - period.

THERE ARE 15 MILLION CIVIL LAWSUITS FILED IN 2015.
https://www.fhhfirm.com/lawsuits-america-infographic

You didn't ask you simply popped off. Way to mischaracterize your own bullshit. If you don't want to be misunderstood I suggest you start being honest with yourself first.

Deny facts? And you know that these people are "mainstream leftists". Funny how you have completely reverted to bumperstick generalizations that amount to nothing more than anecdotal bullshit OPINION.

But I do understand how opinion and facts blend into the same thing with the ideologically entrenched.

Yes they are. And those that accept their support are tainted by them. You can't accept the vote without the voter. You share a common cause with these scum.

Where are you getting your information from that you can make such an idiotic claim. I'm laughing my ass off at your utter ignorance.

Lessee. the can't mount an intell op, but they can wage war in Syria and Ukraine, and build hypersonic missiles but Putin who was a creature of the KGB and grad of their spy school and head of the east german directory, can't find the resources to fund russian intell operations around the world.

If it wasn't so ridiculously stupid, I'd swear you actually think that to be the truth.

Again, all you can do is spout opinion as fact. You can't come up with any facts so you'll just go with denial.

They ain't my numbers they are CNN/SSRS numbers. You can't even get that straight in your head. You appear to be deteriorating rapidly.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/02/26/rel3c.-.russia.pdf

OMG. You have totally reverted to denial in the face of facts.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/trump-lgbt-rights-discrimination-353774

I get that facts are unintelligible to you at times. Particularly when they are uncomfortable to your own partisan bias.
You should look up some numbers of per capita costs of US healthcare and health outcomes because nobody wants to be considered an ignorant true believer. You owe it to yourself to be an informed believer.

You'd make a perfect Black Knight. c

Yes I am right, thanks for the acknowledgement that you're a hop skip and jump away from those scumbags. Now what does that make you? Care to share or are you afraid to declare yourself. I have found that the vast majority of my fellow bigots are too cowardly to declare themselves - I think its the social stigma associated with their particular stink (literary reference regarding the subject of their bigotry).

 

Nope, it's not. The days of being able to dismiss opposing points of view by calling them "far right," "racist," "misogynist," blabla are over, and now that's counterproductive. So keep doing it I guess. Or maybe I should start citing to Farrakhan and calling him a "mainstream Democrat."

"Far right" voters, what little there are of them out there somewhere, did not elect Donald Trump, and nothing in Trump's Administration to date has been "far right." It's "not left" that's for sure, but it sure isn't "far right" either.

Wut? It's real simple. Calling the Trump tax cuts, that include tax cuts for all working Americans... all... "tax cuts for business" is not only slanted, since you are doubling down on it, but a plain lie of omission. Why are you posting lies instead of the simple truth of calling them what they are "tax cuts?" I know why.

Oh, he googled "Trump praises Putin" and then linked... Newsweek... the bastion of objective, factual reporting going all the way back to Eleanor Clift? I didn't see that coming... from a million miles away. Loathe as I am to support fake news, I will click on it... better hope it contains some real "Trump praise of Putin" and not BS... here I go... BRB.

...and as expected, despite the hack who wrote the article peppering the word "praise" throughout, there is none, not one iota, not one scintilla of anything a reasonable adult would read and say, "In this quote, Trump is praising Putin." Stating that Putin is "eating our lunch" is not "praise." Sarcastically commenting that "maybe we will be new best friends," is not "praise." Squabbling during the campaign over whether he knew Putin or not... is not praise. What a joke, and with the "don't you look into the garbage you're fed by fake news?" quoted above, yet another fresh new LW irony universe bangs into existence.

With respect to "insulting our allies," did you think I would click on ANY of that googling excess (notably ALL demonstrated LW TDS sources) after the stunt you failed with the Newsweek article? Sorry, no. Oh, and yeah, the "link stacking" stuff almost exclusive to leftists on this forum, without any comments on what's in them? Spare it. It's not argument, not discussion, not evidence of anything other than you know how to use a search engine. Yay for you. If you post a link, and don't elaborate on what's in it, add your own commentary or summary, it's as if you posted nothing.

You posted that Trump was seeking to "get more power for himself." I never stated that a wealthy person isn't interested in power, but made the crystal clear claim that Trump had all the power anyone could want already. Not the same, not surprised at your error though, I've read lots of your posts. YOU claimed that Trump is seeking more power, therefore the burden is on YOU, not ME to demonstrate exactly how he is doing that and more importantly WHY? You failed to do that, and are continuing to fail with every post in which you don't.

 

My habit of using word studies actually came from studying ancient Greek and translating parts of biblical scripture, then Platonic scripture, and then it was too late…Hegel and I was assimilated! Heidegger used word studies in his book “Being and Time.” In contrast, I hated Analytic Language Analysis, as in the early Logical Atomists like the “Early Wittgenstein,” and Bertrand Russell, and the Vienna School of Logical Positivists... Karl Popper (maybe not him), Carnap, and …I am going to throw up. …these guys were the “Fundamentalist Language Philosophers,” not your nice civilized French structuralist language philosophers. The word “structure” would not even survive analysis. This school of thinking would kill it like they kill every “concept.” They are the Frank Luntzs of philosophy. (There is a little hyperbole here on my part). By "Early Wittgenstein" I mean as they interpreted Wittgenstein and how he is taught in universities today--as a logical positivist.

 

Ah, we don't have those in the U.S. Must be a Canadian thing. As someone who doesn't live in or represent clients in Canada, I know next to nothing about Canadian politics and law, and anything I had to say about it other than the most cursory comments or barbs would be ignorant and uninformed... so...back to discussing U.S. politics with a Canadian social democrat...

Dealt with prior.

You didn't make any point, just a laughably inapt comparison involving the legislature in response to a fact I posted about the relatively small number of public companies in the U.S. as a percentage of all U.S. companies. As for the last sentence, yep, that's exactly what happened.

Were you capitalizing "contract" for any specific reason, or were you having a spasm? Do you think that all CONTRACT litigation involves wrongdoing? It doesn't. Very little of it does actually. Contractor agrees to get an upscale, high rent store open by X date. Contract provides for liquidated damages (a fixed amount) if the store doesn't open by that date. Key materials don't arrive in time. Store opens a week late. Store sues for liquidated damages. Who is guilty of wrongdoing? No one. Most business litigation is something like that. Most of it is actually debt collection, and the realities of business failure and that not being "wrongdoing" have been dealt with prior.

Won't bother with the obvious error in the first two sentences, on to the next. Period! I see, the Canadian U.S. regulatory business law expert hath spoken. So fire marshal comes and writes a ticket because there is not an "Exit" sign over the rear exit... of a 600 sq ft office... where only two people, the tenant and their assistant work. But violation of regulation is wrongdoing!

Some guy who cleaned the fish tank every month listed your firm as his "employer" on an unemployment application, despite cleaning the fish tanks of dozens of other businesses. DOL comes in and wants you to pay unemployment. You say "no." DOL rubber stamps you "guilty" up through humpteen unnecessary levels of bureaucrats. Finally, they say, "you don't have to pay unemployment, but you owe us a fine." "For what? and how much?" "For blargeblargetyblargeblarg... not having an updated version of blargetyblarg poster in your break room. You have the 2017 version! The fine is $100." You pay it (and unfortunately several hundred, sometimes several thousand dollars to someone like me). But violation of regulation is wrongdoing!

Tell us all some more about "violation of regulation is wrongdoing - period. Or don't.

No, we are talking about -business- litigation involving -businesses- as the defendant -not- general civil litigation. You said this, " I guess the 10 million plus current lawsuits those law suits are absolutely no indication (however rough an estimate) of any wrong doing by all those businesses." Go back and remove all the -millions- of debt collection suits against individuals, divorces and other suits involving only individuals, and the suits not involving a business defendant. Get back to us. Or google up another inapt link. You grossly exaggerated the number of lawsuits against businesses in the U.S. Why? I know why.

It's not my job to clear up your semi-literate posts or puzzling pieces of them. My assumption was a fair one based on what you posted. Don't like that? Tough.

I see, so you are going with deny facts, fine.

I see, so because there are 2000 or so (or whatever trivial number) Nazis and KKK in the U.S., and some of them voted for Trump, we are all Nazis and KKK. Got it. Perfect.

The difference between you and me is that as much as I complain about current leftist violence, I would never attribute or imply that to -you personally- based merely on how you vote. Doing that would make me not only a complete idiot, but pretty much a turd of a human being. You OTOH...oh well.

The USSR had far, far more resources at its disposal than Russia does today... especially in light of their population being essentially chattel at the time. Laugh away at historical fact, your choice. Do I believe Russia meddles in our affairs to the greatly lessened extent they can today? Of course they do. The joke is that they had any measurable influence on any of our elections or pretty much any other of our domestic affairs. But hell, maybe they meddled in Canada too and put Trudeau in office... talk about damage to a country.

It was all over the news last week, it was Gallup, not Pew, but maybe CNN is more accurate, fair and balanced <snort> Not even Democrats care about "muhrussia." What do Americans care about? Illegal immigration. Rah-roh.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/237389/immigration-surges-top-important-problem-list.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=NEWSFEED&g_campaign=item_&g_content=Immigration%20Surges%20to%20Top%20of%20Most%20Important%20Problem%20List

Trying to spin accounting changes into hating gays... what will they think of next?

mmmm... wut?

Ladies and gentlemen, step right up to the Barack Obama Magic Show, see an economic recovery turned into a tortoise! See trillions of stimulus dollars disappear into thin air! See infrastructure crumble! See your grandchildren cry... in MANDARIN! All these miracles and more await!

Mhmm, See bolded, underlined portion above. Thanks -so much- for making it crystal clear.

"your fellow bigots?" Uh...OK then, whatever you say.

(even if there's not even a rake there, one will miraculously appear for them to walk into... fascinating)

 

Why do you keep block quoting an amusingly slanted, inaccurate summary of the Frankfurt School and then talking to yourself in this thread? Do you think this is some kind of Dear Diary or journal? Would explain so much if you did. If you want to make a thread on the Frankfurt School and your "personal journeys into philosophical inquiry" why not make that thread so you can journal in stream of consciousness all you like?

 

Gee, and I thought it was more than obvious that you were projecting your own faults on me. Of course that is really just a diversion from the fact that you make claims that you cannot support with facts.

 

Nah, I recognized early on you have so many of your own I didnt need to project'

Some claims need to be backed up with facts. Some claims are so obvious that only an idiot would demand proof. Some claims are nothing more than opinion, either one's own or parrotted.

 

No some claims ( particulary yours) are so idiotic that only an idiot would present them as facts.

 

Oh? WE don't have a social democratic party, although our mainstream political parties have elements of it.

Just like Bernie and the social democrat wing of the democratic party. I'm not surprised you don't keep up with such things in your own country.

You said you were a lawyer although not in litigation. I just don't see it, considering your "rhetorical" style and your liberal use of bumperstickers.

Like I said it flew right over your head. Good for you to recognize you made a stupid statement.

Oh please. Now you want to be a grammar nazi for a capitalization misstroke?

I am well aware of the myriad of issues. I never suggested that many cases do not necessarily concern wrong doing. It can be simply screw ups of logistics, etc. Just like a lot have to do with one party stiffing another, which is about wrongdoing on one of the parties parts. And do you have any data to support your opinion that the % of business wrong doing in those 15 million plus cases each year is inconsequential?

I'll wait.

Yeah because there is no error. But I will grant that I was unclear that court cases is what I was talking about. I sure as hell didn't mean minor bylaws infractions that result in a ticket, not a court case.

Once again you attempt to drill down to an anecdotal defense as if it negates the bigger argument.

I didn't claim the number of lawsuits were all against business. And I know why you insist on dicking around too.

Hahaha. Seems you don't like the reaction to your stupid assumptions. But I'm not surprised yo think you are "fair".

Yeah I get how in your world gross generalizations and bumperstickers are considered "facts".

And once again you throw out a bullshit number unsupported by any facts other than your need as a rebuttal point. Perfect bullshit for sure.

My, what a perfect piece of twisted moral indignation. You dont attribute personal characteristics to the "leftists" you consistently excoriate and smear? When did you graduate from "how to consistently fool yourself" school of hypocrisy?

OTOH, I do attribute a variety of negative character traits to those who follow the various ideologies that I am bigoted against and they CHOOSE to adopt and promote. I hold the PERSON just as responsible as the ideology itself. I also am not afraid to declare what my bigotries are.

You on the other hand want to make excuses for yourself and your own behavior, while hypocritically accusing others of EXACTLY the same thing you do.

So what that the USSR was way more powerful than Russia. That still doesn't justify your original stupid opinion that they couldnt muster the resources for such a cyberwarfare campaign against the US.

And WTF does trudeau have to do with the topic at hand? Oh right SFA. Nice whataboutery.

Seems its so entrenched in your repetoire you simple kneejerk that kind of fallacious bullshit sans thought.


Measurable? no. INFLUENCE YES. But I get you just can't bring yourself to admit you've been had by a bunch of russkies. I mean America and Americans are way to sophisticated to be taken in by the likes of guccifer or fancy bear or DC leaks, or 1.000's of russian trolls/cyborgs/bots banned from social media, the DNC stolen emails, the myriad fake news stories. Nah, you and all the other trump voters weren't taken in completely.

Now, since you obvious aren't stupid, I can only surmise either your apparent ignorance is willful, or a deliberate rhetorical tactic. I'm sorta leaning towards a bit of both.

SQUIRREL!

Yeah "accounting changes". Nothing like ignoring the friggin facts, but I get how you have to in order to defend Trump and your own bullshit. After all, you do it so much its become an obvious pattern.

Perfect. Simply perfect. and what makes it so, is your obliviousness.

I, unlike you obviously, declare my bigotries openly. Your EXTREME partisanship is bigotry. Seriously you can look it up.

I rarely encounter open admission from other bigots. They always want to equivocate or deflect or deny. Sadly many of them actually believe their own bullshit in this regard.

 

"grammar nazi" LOL! Now that's desperation!!!

I don't know Jonsa! I thought we had this beat and now GRAMMAR NAZIS! This could be serious. What could we to defend ourselves? Maybe extended edit time if we were to ask nicely? Or a software counter--a grammar checker? We might be in trouble. Devious!
I used to have a Grammar Nazi for a English teacher...as you can tell I paid her no heed.
And I recently saw a commercial for a grammar checker, but can't remember it's name.

 

Sorry, should have put in the last post, I -am- done with you now. Got what I wanted (emphasis added with underlining in the below quotes). Thanks for stroking my confirmation bias and doubling down on it, especially in the last quote.

Expecting any adult discussion from a "mind" such as the above is a waste of time and beneath me (or any other emotionally stable, rational adult really), other than reinforcing preexisting beliefs about the serious cognitive impairment that leads to certain political beliefs.

Coincidentally, it also evidences OP's passing reference to the "priestly mentality" in today's progressives nicely.

 

And only an idiot would make such a generalized unsubstantiated accusation in butt hurt response. so I guess we're even.

 

That's it? This is your response? Perhaps you were too occupied with other posters...sigh. This is, to be honest, quite disappointing.

POVs I disagree with? - This is a hasty generalization. I used the term to describe one section of a post.

Tu quoque fallacy. And even here you are clearly mistaken. The opening of the OP is a textbook example of the poisoning the well fallacy. Using terms like "devious" to describe a group of people characterizes anyone in that group as untrustworthy; hence, any attempt by members of the group to respond is immediately met with suspicion.

Question-begging epithets.

Actually it can invoke those qualities when being used as adjective. You seem to be conflating the usage of the term as a noun or at least referring to only one possible definition - there are others. I explained precisely why I used the term in the preceding post.

But don't take my word for it:

Dictionary.com

schizophrenic

adjective

1. Psychiatry. of or relating to schizophrenia:Not all of these patients are schizophrenic.
2. of or relating to conflicting or inconsistent elements; characterized by unusual disparity

​

Now if you knew this definition and chose to ignore it, you would be committing the fallacy of omission. However, I'm going to invoke the principle of interpretive charity here and just say that you were ignorant as to its meaning. So no fallacy.

Tu quoque (again). Textbook example.

Special pleading fallacy. Devious Cupid vs Cunning Odysseus. As I pointed out. If you disagreed with me, perhaps parsing the language and making a semantic distinction would have been in order?

Question-begging epithets. And yes if you are presenting evidence for why your position is correct - an examination of the accuracy of that evidence would be in order no? Or perhaps you prefer just to type and read platitudes? It does have the added benefit of being easier.

Another question begging epithet. (windy wall). I'm sorry, how did you get to a defense of Plato's political theory out of what I said? - Red-Herring fallacy. Although, I agree though strict caste systems such as those found under neoliberalism are disconcerting. Although, given what I have seen the past several months, an aristocracy of the intelligensia (philosopher rulers) may be a marked improvement. As I am sure you are familiar, Plato's critique of a democracy suggested that a society ruled by desire and ignorance is, well, more conducive to tyranny, suffering, and dogmatism than to human flourishing.

That's the meaning of progressivism?? And it's ahistorical and acontextual? - so any time any one prefers a central government solution to any social problem -they are progressive? -no matter the solution offered? no matter what the cause? no matter the social problem? That's absurd. You're not really interested in examining/debating progressivism - if this were the definition it could easily be dismissed as vacuous - it would. You want to present a caricature and tear that down. Classic straw-man.

You did not in the context we were discussing - the internalization of nihilism in Nietzsche's "higher men." And yes if you don't provide evidence for your claims then you are "foot-stomping" which of course, just another way of saying you are committing the begging the question fallacy.

You have missed your calling - forum policing. I would suggest you "not doing more Nietzsche" is probably for the best for everyone reading.

Well I would be extraordinarily fascinated by how you define said excellences without reference to deficiency and excess (including hubris) - you are making a category mistake here: moderation is not something separate from these - it's inherent. I for one prefer a post-secondary analysis to the grade school stuff.

Speaking of post-secondary analyses, there are a few of Kyklos' posts that I haven't had a chance to read through yet- so I will bid you adieu.

 

Wow, not only have I remembered many informal fallacies, but have learned many new ones right here. There is no limit to deranged thinking, but there are only eight rules of valid logical inferences. I have earn a degree from the University of Ad Hominem by observation alone.

"Post-secondary analyses," Thank you Adorno Avatar for that term--that will be very helpful in writing the discussion on Husserlian Phenomenology.

 

Duplicate: delete please.

 

Poisoning the well by engaging in charged windup instead of simply disagreeing with a claim.

Compound fallacy, ad hominem + red herring. Nothing in OP quotes or references Jordan Peterson so plain red herring. Compound ad hom, implies that Peterson's views are innately questionable and that OP is aping them, and so his claims are questionable due to that alone. Very close to straw man also.

Poisoning the well, repeats ad hominem, repeats red herring.

Ironic in light of the above, and especially so in that there is not a single true ad hom in the entire OP, the fallacy requires that an -argument- be addressed fallaciously. OP doesn't do that, poster Adorno does though, in fallaciously addressing OP's claims via inaccurate fallacy-labeling. Stating the opinion that progressives are devious is not an ad hominem as a matter of fact and not opinion. It's admittedly insulting... but not ad hominem.

Claiming "you are wrong because you are a progressive" is ad hominem, but OP did nothing like that.

Stating negative opinions of this or that is not poisoning the well either, which also requires a prior argument to be addressed fallaciously... such as what poster Adorno is doing.

Close enough to a red herring often seen via derailing into tangential definitional issues with respect to a fairly well-defined, commonly understood term such as "postmodern" in an attempt to bog down and make the definition the topic instead of the claims made.

Red herring, a particularly nebulous, egregious one.

Red herring, ad hom. Poster incorrectly (again) calls a fallacy that requires more than a mere statement of an -opinion- or claim of fact. The naturalistic fallacy requires an argument, not an opinion. Apparently poster adorno does not know the difference.

For anyone still reading this thread and interested in how fallacies work and don't work, the mere statement of an opinion or claim of fact, without reference to or inclusion of some prior argument, is almost never fallacious. It can be false, insulting, unsubstantiated, non sequitur, etc., almost never fallacious though unless it is internally inconsistent. For example, "Progressives are nasty, devious wastes of skin" may be insulting, but it's not fallacious. "Clouds are all blue and no clouds are blue" is internally inconsistent, therefore fallacious.

Red herring, ad hom. When someone merely states an opinion, they are not "begging the question," and inaccurately claiming they are is the ad hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem, appeal to emotion. Appeal to emotion is a catchall fallacy commonly seen these days as "shaming" based on whatever.

Awhile into this post, and have we seen this poster simply disagree with OP's opinion ala "Progressives are not devious because of X, Y, Z?" No.

Straw man fallacy. OP stated an opinion/claim about laws of nature as applied to gender differences. That's a relatively straightforward claim that poster mischaracterizes semantically for the purpose of arguing against it.

Red herring, ad hom, incorrect fallacy-calling yet again.

Poisoning the well. Unnecessarily using negatively charged language in answering a claim or opinion.

Ad hom, red herring. Peterson is not the topic. Had OP posted, "I was reading Jordan Peterson's book on bladebla, he said blargeyblarg and I agree," this wouldn't be fallacious. But as it stands, it is fallacious.

Poster adornokyklos's posts are full of the above types of ironic errors, mostly red herring fallacy via inept "fallacy-calling." Anyone reading who has a genuine interest in learning about logical fallacies should not rely on informal posts on a political forum (including mine) to learn about such but do some googling on your own.

Oh, and going around listing out fallacies on a casual political forum is also bad manners, in addition to being obnoxiously pretentious, that's my opinion anyway. Especially when the person doing it is very -bad- at it. Every now and then it's necessary, usually not. I'm doing this to make -that- point.