Reply
Sackboy
Registered: 03/06/2011
Offline
458 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

You seem not to understand what an ad hominem is. Ad hominems attack the PEOPLE presenting an argument and not the argument itself. 


Well yeah, but isn't it kind of attacking a person simply because the subject matter of the argument is about what rights a person is/isn't entitled to? It's like having a discussion about Muhammad Ali's character qualities and someone bringing up his draft dodging. It might be an attack on his person - but it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Same applies to individual rights. Attacking the proposal of individual rights inevitably attacks the individual. It's a relevant and consistent argument and not an ad hominem - unless I am just confused by your initial stance, so let me summarize what I see and maybe you can clear it up for me:

 

Him: Rights are just subjective. Herpdiderp.

 

You: So Hitler's views on rights were just as valuable as mine.

 

Him: Melodramatic. Yes, that's what I mean. We invented rights, the only value is what we make of them.

 

You: Tear, tear. I'm going to call out the one ad hominem you made because I don't want to acknowledge your other points until I've established that I've got a bigger **bleep**.

 

Correct me if that's not how it went.

 

Complete global saturation.
Message 51 of 119 (118 Views)
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 03/06/2011
Offline
458 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

[ Edited ]
Oct 10, 2013

lauranichole25 wrote:
@Kloey: I dunno who you are...But you sure do analyze good n everything. With the points that you make, I must ask..what do you propose as a solution to the quagmire that is this political mess. 10 extra points if you can insult me in your answer!

Limit Congressional terms. Two terms in House, one term in Senate. Pull is less from the voters so they can act more on behalf of national good rather than for a political victory. Provide better information online (I'm sorry, but can anyone actually find any good sites where can actually be active in any government policy such as a referandum or recall? No? It's usually a chainmail through Twitter - say that in a south London accent if you want it to really hit home) and allow for better education of actual policy because C-SPAN just airs crap from 4 weeks ago that's already off the floor and Bill O'Reilly **bleep** IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE! I'LL WRITE IT DOWN AND WE'LL DO IT LIVE.

 

Really though misinformed voters and vote-collection incentive is what's primarily happened to Capitol gone-down-Hill. It's like a **bleep** American Idol contest instead of a legislature.

 

Complete global saturation.
Message 52 of 119 (116 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 06/12/2013
Offline
5477 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

KIoey wrote:

I don't have to make the assumption that you don't know what you're talking about, you've proven that.

 

People never fully identify with an ideal. They just typically have no idea what they're talking about and support a name more than a value. That's not good, either, but that doesn't mean they identify with said values. Look up any video on YouTube "Lol these guys don't know that Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act are the same thing." 

 

The political system does work, the assumption that the system needs a change because the people are changing is poor logic. Poor education and the increasing(ly balanced) population also play very large roles in political debauchery. It has nothing to do with a system not working or the need for another "party."

 

With that said, the best way to focus the inevitable flaws that come with a two party system is by informing voters - primarily better ads on the television would be a good start and online voting would be amazing. If people just continuously put a checkmark next to the person who calls themself a Republican or Democrat, then people don't know what they're voting for. The ease in which the parties can change, flex and hash out their ideas in correspondance with the other party is what makes them work so well with our HUGE and DIVERSE nation.

 

More specifically, people seem to attribute social tensions, economic desparity and bad fiscal habits with politics as if it is, in fact, actually politics. Take the recent government shutdown, for example. The issue is not just about seperative issues like Obamacare - it's mostly about the fiscal issue of the debt ceiling. I wouldn't say protesting the media either as any sort of "both sides are being **bleep**" as an acceptable argument - both sides aren't being **bleep**, they just have commendable points that nothing gets done with. Both parties have consistently offered up a clean bill that just gets shot down.

 ....

I'm not attacking your beliefs, in fact I'm sure we agree on a lot of things on a political/moral level. I'm just simply saying that adding more parties is not the solution - it's just brainwashed banter that formulated from misinformed people.

 


We agree on many points - this is true.  I would argue that the polarization inherent in two parties is the problem. 

 

You cite media as a possible positive influence on educatiing people about the issues - the media bombards the masses with all kinds of rhetoric,a nd I don't see that helping, as it stands.

 

In fact, the vast majority of your post I found highly well-worded, respectful, and compelling, at least in the sense that i can see where you are coming from, particularly in the risk inherent in a third party.  Frankly that's a risk I'm willing to take.

 

Your words, though eloquent and intelligent, didn't bear anywhere near as much weight with me as they could have, because you opened it all by making the assertion that I do not know what I am talking about.  Our opinions differ based on our experiences.  You came that close to having my respect, and you dashed it away because you'd rather be right than be involved in a discussion. You and I, two people that agree on many things, have reached a sort of stalemate based on pride.

 

^  I'm going to call that a case study on why 2 parties, as they exist now, do not work.  Good day to you.

Grindhead_Jim

Message 53 of 119 (109 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14623 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

KIoey wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

You seem not to understand what an ad hominem is. Ad hominems attack the PEOPLE presenting an argument and not the argument itself. 


Well yeah, but isn't it kind of attacking a person simply because the subject matter of the argument is about what rights a person is/isn't entitled to? It's like having a discussion about Muhammad Ali's character qualities and someone bringing up his draft dodging. It might be an attack on his person - but it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Same applies to individual rights. Attacking the proposal of individual rights inevitably attacks the individual. It's a relevant and consistent argument and not an ad hominem - unless I am just confused by your initial stance, so let me summarize what I see and maybe you can clear it up for me:

 

Him: Rights are just subjective. Herpdiderp.

 

You: So Hitler's views on rights were just as valuable as mine.

 

Him: Melodramatic. Yes, that's what I mean. We invented rights, the only value is what we make of them.

 

You: Tear, tear. I'm going to call out the one ad hominem you made because I don't want to acknowledge your other points until I've established that I've got a bigger **bleep**.

 

Correct me if that's not how it went.

 


Except it is not how it went. And that is not what I meant by calling out the ad hominem. He essentially tried to discredit my argument by saying I am just a high schooler who thinks he has the world figured out. While age is a good time for brainstorming, it does not decide the validity of the argument. If some kid comes up to you and tells you the Ottoman Empire took over Constantinople in 1452, you do not tell him he is wrong because he is just a kid. You correct him and say that it fell in 1453. You go after the point and not the person. And it is one of the worst things to ever do in a discussion or debate. It may get a rise out of people, but it does nothing to prove a point.

 

And that is hardly how it went. I was simply trying to dig into his belief that rights are just made up by the person with the biggest stick. I was more or less trying to see if he was hypocritical in the approach. It is one thing to claim you think something, it is another to actually blieve and live by it. If I molest, torture, and murder a 10 year old girl, you have no place to say what I did was wrong if you believe everything involving rights and morals to be subjective. I was going to go more into the discussion, but I did not want to derail the thread.

 

I never like to continue an argument until I hear their view on something. I would rather not go into a debate on morality existing if they already believe they do (many secular people DO believe in good and evil acts without seeing what that implies). In the same way, I wanted to get clarification on what his statement on subjectivity actually entails.

 

Proud to hear an argument for subjectivity from someone who appears to have made racial remarks in another thread.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 54 of 119 (107 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 04/29/2010
Online
4990 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

[ Edited ]
Oct 10, 2013

Bob-maul wrote:

Kiosk wrote:

Bob-maul wrote:

You seem not to understand what an ad hominid is. Ad hominess attack the PEOPLE presenting an argument and not the argument itself. 


Well yeah, but isn't it kind of attacking a person simply because the subject matter of the argument is about what rights a person is/isn't entitled to? It's like having a discussion about Muhammad Alias character qualities and someone bringing up his draft dodging. It might be an attack on his person - but it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Same applies to individual rights. Attacking the proposal of individual rights inevitably attacks the individual. It's a relevant and consistent argument and not an ad hominid - unless I am just confused by your initial stance, so let me summarize what I see and maybe you can clear it up for me:

 

Him: Rights are just subjective. Herbicides.

 

You: So Hitter's views on rights were just as valuable as mine.

 

Him: Melodramatic. Yes, that's what I mean. We invented rights, the only value is what we make of them.

 

You: Tear, tear. I'm going to call out the one ad hominid you made because I don't want to acknowledge your other points until I've established that I've got a bigger **bleep**.

 

Correct me if that's not how it went.

 


Except it is not how it went. And that is not what I meant by calling out the ad hominid. He essentially tried to discredit my argument by saying I am just a high schooled who thinks he has the world figured out. While age is a good time for brainstorming, it does not decide the validity of the argument. If some kid comes up to you and tells you the Ottoman Empire took over Constantinople in 1452, you do not tell him he is wrong because he is just a kid. You correct him and say that it fell in 1453. You go after the point and not the person. And it is one of the worst things to ever do in a discussion or debate. It may get a rise out of people, but it does nothing to prove a point.

 

And that is hardly how it went. I was simply trying to dig into his belief that rights are just made up by the person with the biggest stick. I was more or less trying to see if he was hypocritical in the approach. It is one thing to claim you think something, it is another to actually believe and live by it. If I molest, torture, and murder a 10 year old girl, you have no place to say what I did was wrong if you believe everything involving rights and morals to be subjective. I was going to go more into the discussion, but I did not want to derail the thread.

 

I never like to continue an argument until I hear their view on something. I would rather not go into a debate on morality existing if they already believe they do (many secular people DO believe in good and evil acts without seeing what that implies). In the same way, I wanted to get clarification on what his statement on subjectivity actually entails.

 

Proud to hear an argument for subjectivity from someone who appears to have made racial remarks in another thread.


Okay, let me just stop you there. I thought our argument concluded. I don't need you trying to spin something I said when I'm not around. The reason I said "I know you're in High School and you think you have the whole world figured out" is because I was puzzled by how poor your reasoning was in the "In God We Trust". Then I found out that you were in High School which was very revealing to me as to why your debating techniques were poor (I'm not trying to be mean, I'm being honest). I'm not sure which "argument" you're claiming that I was so afraid of that I "simply could not discredit it." If you're talking about that "dictator" statement you made, it was (honestly) so amateurish that I don't think it had any credibility to begin with. That's why I told you that "I know you're in High School and you think you have the whole world figured out" because your immaturity was really showing and I wanted to make you aware of it.

semajmarc87
My YouTube | My Twitter
220+ Subscribers | 1,500+ Followers
Message 55 of 119 (93 Views)
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 06/12/2013
Offline
5477 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

semajmarc87 wrote:

Okay, let me just stop you there. 

...it was (honestly) so ammiturish that I don't think it had any credibility to begin with.


Well, if we're making claims based on inferred credibility based on context, allow me to point out your glaring spelling error.

 

A professional debater can probably spell (or at least used the spell check feature).  So, you're an amateur, too.  In fact, so am I.  

 

I've known plenty of people Bob's age that can reason circles around people twice their age, so, that alone doesn't give you the ground to undermine his logic, no matter how much you toss the word "maturity" into whatever point you're trying to make.

 

Sorry.  For me, that doesn't hold water at all.

Grindhead_Jim

Message 56 of 119 (87 Views)
First Son
Registered: 10/10/2013
Offline
9 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

Except it is not how it went. And that is not what I meant by calling out the ad hominem. He essentially tried to discredit my argument by saying I am just a high schooler who thinks he has the world figured out. 

 

Proud to hear an argument for subjectivity from someone who appears to have made racial remarks in another thread.


That would be where the problem lies. I assumed that you meant his statement about your quotes not being impressive. In which case, it's just simply not an ad hominem - because the highschooler remark wasn't meant to attack you but the purported notion that you seem to have an idea of what you were talking about.

 

The racist remarks too weren't even racist. People took the internet meme "I sell white power and white power accessories" and ran with it. The other offensive term wasn't even "offensive" unless you count the narrow margin of people who find offense at things that don't even correspond to their personal aptitude. 

 

Also do these moderators have friends or have they all just jumped off the deep end? Where might I contact said moderators so I may inform them that doing a little research goes a long way.

Message 57 of 119 (83 Views)
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 10/10/2013
Offline
9 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

Grindhead_Jim wrote:

Well, if we're making claims based on inferred credibility based on context, allow me to point out your glaring spelling error.

 

A professional debater can probably spell (or at least used the spell check feature).  So, you're an amateur, too.  In fact, so am I.  

 

I've known plenty of people Bob's age that can reason circles around people twice their age, so, that alone doesn't give you the ground to undermine his logic, no matter how much you toss the word "maturity" into whatever point you're trying to make.

 

Sorry.  For me, that doesn't hold water at all.


I can see where you're coming from, but I'll have to disagree. My reasoning stands on the principle that people who have held a job working with the general public for X amount of time usually have a better idea of how life works than someone who simply uses logic. The world's not a logical place and someone who views it as something that can be deconstructed into basic principles is either stupid or delusional.

Message 58 of 119 (80 Views)
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 06/12/2013
Offline
5477 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

KIoey_2 wrote:

Also do these moderators have friends or have they all just jumped off the deep end? Where might I contact said moderators so I may inform them that doing a little research goes a long way.

You know, if you want to reason with the moderators, this isn't a good start.

 

Here's how you contact them:

 

http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/Forum-Frequently-Asked-Questions/The-PlayStation-Forum-Team-a...

 

Pm PSForumMods

 

Grindhead_Jim

Message 59 of 119 (79 Views)
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 04/29/2010
Online
4990 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

Grindhead_Jim wrote:

semajmarc87 wrote:

Okay, let me just stop you there. 

...it was (honestly) so ammiturish that I don't think it had any credibility to begin with.


Well, if we're making claims based on inferred credibility based on context, allow me to point out your glaring spelling error.

 

A professional debater can probably spell (or at least used the spell check feature).  So, you're an amateur, too.  In fact, so am I.  

 

I've known plenty of people Bob's age that can reason circles around people twice their age, so, that alone doesn't give you the ground to undermine his logic, no matter how much you toss the word "maturity" into whatever point you're trying to make.

 

Sorry.  For me, that doesn't hold water at all.


Oops. I forgot to use spell check. We all know that the legitimacy of a viewpoint is determined by the person's ability to use spell check. You didn't even try to understand why I brought up his age so I'm not gonna explain it again simply because your reading comprehension is poor. My post is still there in case you wanna try again.

semajmarc87
My YouTube | My Twitter
220+ Subscribers | 1,500+ Followers
Message 60 of 119 (77 Views)
0 Likes