Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
Because when making an academic argument I use abstractions?

---

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
Rather because you made an academic argument out of context of what was really being discussed, and still continue at one in spite of being told otherwise.[B]I've met a lot of social science and humanities scholars. Many of them are.[B]No, only the ones who don't realize when it's not warranted, and really doesn't fit.

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
Wow, so when I said "Newton did live in a theoretical world, simplified of the concepts of relativity." you thought I was claiming he didn't reside on earth, obey the laws of physics and such?

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
Seems to me like back in the 50's you would have said there was no use in a civil rights movement because it isn't the way things are, and despite the nobleness of hte cause, since it's not going to happen, there is no use in trying.

---

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
Then you do seem to have trouble understanding what I'm saying.[B]People arguing from abstraction didn't change a damned thing about civil rights. People marching in the streets and getting arrested or getting their skulls bashed in on TV did.

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
[...] You seem to be arguing against any vision of how life can be because we aren't there already.

---

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
[Band (saying this in as nice a way possible) it shouldn't offend you if I were to make such a conclusion (of course I think it's a stupid conclusion based on the facts, but hey, pretend I did). If someone were to make that conclusion who thinks everyone who votes for whatserface is an idiot, you should be offended (prepare to slap in 5...4....3...2...1...)! That is the distinction I'm making. [/B]

---

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Earlier KRamsauer wrote:
So is it wrong for a judge to enter an innocent plea on the part of a defendent? Afterall, that's a belief.

---

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

I understand that--but I disagree that the well-meaning intention of you in assuming that I automatically would vote for her makes it okay. I might legitimately get upset that you would assume that b/c I am female I would be stupid enough to support her. NOTICE: You wouldn't be, in your KRamsauer brain, be thinking I was stupid. But the EFFECT on me of your assumption is no less valid b/c you didn't mean to offend.

---

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

HUH? That isn't a belief of the judge. It's a fact that the the defendant or his representative pled (i.e. verbalized) "Not Guilty." The judge doesn't get to assume that all defendants of X religion believe they are innocent and all defendants of Y religion believe themselves to be guilty.

---

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
And in my proposed framework, you'd realize said evaluations carry no moral weight. It is the same as you being offended by my red sneakers. It just shouldn't be. And before Toby jumps down my throat, I don't claim this is how things work, I'm saying if things worked this way, the world would be a better place.

---

It isn't the color of your sneakers, so much as the smell!


"I'm saying if things worked this way, the world would be a better place"
I do not disagree that if everyone were so even-keeled on everything and value judgements were never based on non-neutral things, this might be a better world.

The problem with your theory is--who decides what is truly neutral or not? You say the erroneous evaluation of me as someone who supported Ferraro is the same as what color your Nikes are. I just do not agree. I think it would be silly for me to be offended by the color of your shoes, but I don't think it is silly for someone to be offended by erroneous assumptions made about them.

Honestly, I would be (slightly mind you, very very slightly) offended if someone thought I supported Ferraro just b/c I am female. and you saying "It just shouldn't be that way" does nothing to alter the way I react. Feelings, unfortunately, can't be manipulated--or else there would be a lot less divorces.

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

Are we reaching the end.... :)

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

It isn't the color of your sneakers, so much as the smell!

---

Funny you mention that. I just took off my shoes (which are not red) and you're right. I need to shower. I know, I know, you don't really want to know that. Too bad!

quote:

---

The problem with your theory is--who decides what is truly neutral or not?

---

The person forming the judgement. There are issues which we use to judge the worth of another person. There are issues which we do not use. Assuming the former is wrong and prejudicial (because we judge people on those bases). Assuming the latter is not wrong and not prejudicial (because we do not judge people on those bases). I'm calling the approach "rational liberalism." It allows for the recognition of traits our society says we should ignore while preserving the equality that is the aim of said ignorance.

Last edited by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 at 09:49 PM

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
I never said as much. I was demonstrating that the labelling of all inferences regarding beliefs as morally wrong is itself wrong.

---

I am sorry (it is late friday afternoon, after all) but I do not understand what you are trying to say with this.

You said "So it is wrong for a judge to enter a guilty plea on behalf of a defendant. That's a belief."

and I said that the judge's entry of the plea isn't based on his assumption of what the defendant thinks, but on what the defendant says. There is no inference. The Court Reporter can't take down inferences. I don't get how you are using this analogy.

I think you say this: Assuming stuff about others based on random factors is okay, as long as what I assume doesn't change my opinion about them.

I say: The fact that you assumed something is sometimes enough to injure/annoy/hurt/p.o. the other person because that other person doesn't necessarily know that you have super-human strength of neutrality

You will respond: I'm saying it oughta be that way, not that's how it is.

And I say: Fine, but if that's the way it is now, then that's the way it was yesterday (or whenever) when the assumption that all Jewish folks favor war with Iraq was made.

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

Re: Are we reaching the end.... :)

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
There are issues which we use to judge the worth of another person. There are ussies which we do not use.

---

Typically, I try not to judge others on their ussies. I think judging another by their ussies is morally wrong.

Sorry--getting geared up for happy hour...

quote:

---

I'm calling the approach "rational liberalism." It allows for the recognition of traits our society says we should ignore while preserving the equality that is the aim of said ignorance.

---

Well, good luck with that. Just don't be confused when others respond to your assumption-type statements based on the way it is!

Okay--I'm checking out and leaving this flogged horse for now. Have a good weekend you two! (And any other poor soul who has made it this far!)
Kelley

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

I am sorry (it is late friday afternoon, after all) but I do not understand what you are trying to say with this.

You said "So it is wrong for a judge to enter a guilty plea on behalf of a defendant. That's a belief."

and I said that the judge's entry of the plea isn't based on his assumption of what the defendant thinks, but on what the defendant says. There is no inference. The Court Reporter can't take down inferences. I don't get how you are using this analogy.

---

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
It's been claimed here that it is morally wrong to assume anyone holds any belief. The judge example is that we assume people hold "not guilty" beliefs all the time. That doesn't make our criminal justice system flawed.

---

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

Re: Re: Are we reaching the end.... :)

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

Typically, I try not to judge others on their ussies. I think judging another by their ussies is morally wrong.

Sorry--getting geared up for happy hour...

---

Stupid keys, being too close together. If only manual typewriters weren't invented until after computers we'd all have a good keyboard layout.

quote:

---

(And any other poor soul who has made it this far!)
Kelley

---

If I weren't so poor, I'd bet $5 there is no one pursuing this any further. Probably including me.

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

yep, too bad you didn't make any dough off of Toby on that coin-flipping scheme you had going!

Talk at ya later.
KC

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

Oh--I get you. Well, the difference is that we assume people hold "not guilty" beliefs b/c they stand up at arraignment and say "I'm plead not guilty."

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
[...] And before Toby jumps down my throat, I don't claim this is how things work, I'm saying if things worked this way, the world would be a better place.

---