Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: opposing a policy » AuntieMel

Posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 7:45:39

In reply to Re: opposing a policy » Estella, posted by AuntieMel on May 16, 2006, at 9:36:30

> I don't think there is anything wrong with opposing a policy.

neither. but a policy can't be described as hypocritical...

> It gets a fair amount greyer when opposing an "ideology"

mmm
i don't see why if you actually engage with the content rather than just namecalling...
i'm opposed to racist and opressive ideologies...
block me for that if you will...

> And greyer still when ascribing that ideology to an entire group of people.

i usually acknowledge exceptions / possible exceptions.
i'm a philosopher.
i use 'all' sparingly...
it just takes one counter example to falsify your claim...

i'm thinking of particular examples.
can't be opposed to a policy (come now it was clear i was talking about a policy in context)
can't say certain ideals might be unjust (with arguments for the alleged injustice)
can't criticise the 'american dream' 'cause people think i'm talking about every single person in america.

doesn't matter.
i give up.

here isn't the place for me to talk politics.

it isn't about finding like minded individuals...

it is about finding someplace where people are okay with rational argumentation and words like 'unjust' 'unfair' 'hypocritical' etc so long as it is backed up with arguments.

that isn't okay here.

fine.

but nevermind the educational value in learning those skills of rational argumentation. never mind learning that arguments don't have to be taken personlly. nevermind that words like 'unjust' and 'unfair' and 'hypocritical' have meanings and you can unpack those in a way that isn't just mud slinging.

it is kind of interesting.

i presented someone or others case for animal rights a while back on social.

the analogy went that eating meat is speciest. and speciesm is a form of racism. both are equally unjustifyable. both are equally unjust.

and that wasn't pbc'd.

i don't see how my argument for hypocracy...
(though flawed)
wsa any different.
i don't see how my argument for injustice
was any different.

people are entitled to get upset about my criticising the american dream...
whereas they are not entitled (in the sense of being validated by pbcing me) to get upset about my argument that people who eat meat are akin to people who are racist?

interesting...

i'll go argue somewhere else.


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Estella thread:642738
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/645826.html