Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

You Evil Parents!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    When they are speaking of potentially abolishing the family entirely appealing to "familial relationship goods" is nothing more than a bit of sugarcoating, and a flimsy excuse for them to look rational to normal people.
    Oops; you went from accusing the philosopher in question of failing to account for the implications of his own logical argument (or disingenuously ignoring the contradiction) to merely accusing him of a hidden ulterior motive (Swift never advocated abolishing the family entirely).

    Stick to your initial accusation. If you were wrong in making it (and you were, as demonstrated by my citation), don't just move the goal posts into conspiracy-theory land.
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      The argument, even as you lay it out, is not at all valid. It assumes that the only value to be considered is promotion of familial goods.
      You might say that the argument isn't sound but it is valid, meaning only that the conclusion follows from the premises. C123 was trying to claim that Swift was ignoring (or hiding) the contradictory implications of his argument when, in fact, Swift clearly accounted for the decision to justify bedtime reading and not justify private schooling.

      Again, we're talking about a professional philosopher here making a philosophical argument. That means we have to play in the philosophers' ballpark, using proper terms and establishing valid (and sound) reasons for criticism.
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam View Post
        Oops; you went from accusing the philosopher in question of failing to account for the implications of his own logical argument (or disingenuously ignoring the contradiction) to merely accusing him of a hidden ulterior motive (Swift never advocated abolishing the family entirely).

        Stick to your initial accusation. If you were wrong in making it (and you were, as demonstrated by my citation), don't just move the goal posts into conspiracy-theory land.
        Source: ABC.net

        According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

        One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

        © Copyright Original Source



        No "oops", it's clearly what I meant by hiding what he really means.

        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        The thing is, it's the nuts like this that usually have the power/influence to enforce it. In fact, there are places where things like this are being enforced. An example I lived through would be where they kept the smarter kids out of class under the guise of "advanced classes" so that the other kids had a chance to catch up.

        Then there's the fact that he thinks private schools can't be defended because of how badly they effect the imbalance, but bedtime stories are even worse according to these "philosophers". Either he's stupid and doesn't realize this(and shouldn't be a philosopher at all), or he does, but doesn't like where his own methodology leads. Although, I suppose there's an option where he does know, and just doesn't want other people to know just how far he's really willing to go.
        Conspiracy theory land? Pfft, that's the kind of mentality you need to defend nuts like him. He's clearly stupid, lying/evil, or both. That you have to accept his garbage first in order to even hint at being normal just shows how bad he really is. The lengths youve gone to defend his crap shows just how far gone you are.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
          You might say that the argument isn't sound but it is valid, meaning only that the conclusion follows from the premises. C123 was trying to claim that Swift was ignoring (or hiding) the contradictory implications of his argument when, in fact, Swift clearly accounted for the decision to justify bedtime reading and not justify private schooling.
          No he didn't, he hid behind "familial goods". In other words, he sugar coated his poison.

          Again, we're talking about a professional philosopher here making a philosophical argument. That means we have to play in the philosophers' ballpark, using proper terms and establishing valid (and sound) reasons for criticism.
          Yeah, obviously you can't show the absurdity of Bizarro World without first living there, and accepting their ideals.

          Comment


          • Would anyone in this thread characterize reading to one's children as "unfairly disadvantaging other children," as Swift does?
            I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
              Would anyone in this thread characterize reading to one's children as "unfairly disadvantaging other children," as Swift does?
              Yes, of course it's unfair. What did the children do to earn the advantage or disadvantage? From the perspective of those directly affected, the children, this constitutes an unfair advantage.

              But no one has said or is saying that individuals, families, or societies should strive for complete and total fairness, either. As Swift argues in the source article, many unfair advantages are integral or beneficial in other ways that justify the unfairness.
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • I'm not real sure why anyone would twist themselves into knots trying to make sense of something that is clearly nonsensical. This is like reading the diary of a mad man.
                "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Source: ABC.net

                  According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

                  One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  No "oops", it's clearly what I meant by hiding what he really means.



                  Conspiracy theory land? Pfft, that's the kind of mentality you need to defend nuts like him. He's clearly stupid, lying/evil, or both. That you have to accept his garbage first in order to even hint at being normal just shows how bad he really is. The lengths youve gone to defend his crap shows just how far gone you are.
                  Go read "The Republic" and get back to me. It's an intro PHIL text, covers a lot crazier stuff than saying that private schooling is an unjustified fairness, and happens to be thousands of years old. Somehow civilization not only progressed but found these kinds of questions important enough to make Plato kinda a bedrock figure.

                  To quote Tiggy quoting that Per fella: "understand first, then criticize!" You're making character accusations on the basis of a comprehension that, to anyone versed in basic philosophy, just looks ignorant.
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • For anyone still convinced that this kind of philosophizing is the product of idiots and/or liars, I can provide this helpful line-up of undesirables:

                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      Yes, of course it's unfair. What did the children do to earn the advantage or disadvantage? From the perspective of those directly affected, the children, this constitutes an unfair advantage.

                      But no one has said or is saying that individuals, families, or societies should strive for complete and total fairness, either. As Swift argues in the source article, many unfair advantages are integral or beneficial in other ways that justify the unfairness.
                      So reading to children is a societal unfairness that must be justified? Wow.
                      I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                        So reading to children is a societal unfairness that must be justified? Wow.
                        No, not necessarily the case that it must be justified. You are absolutely free to disagree with the idea that society should seek to either justify or eliminate unfairness.

                        You had merely asked whether it was unfair. That is the question I answered.
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          No, not necessarily the case that it must be justified. You are absolutely free to disagree with the idea that society should seek to either justify or eliminate unfairness.

                          You had merely asked whether it was unfair. That is the question I answered.
                          You said, "As Swift argues in the source article, many unfair advantages are integral or beneficial in other ways that justify the unfairness." That sounds like unfairness such as reading to your children needs to be justified. I wonder: what other "unfair advantages" that some children have should be justified?

                          The way the original article, and you, are framing this is just bizarre.

                          Edit: Now I'm wondering, if someone else were to come into this thread and argue that bedtime stories should be banned because of their inherent "unfairness," what you would say.
                          I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                          Comment


                          • Hey Sam,

                            Is this a philosophical view you share, or are you playing devil's advocate?
                            "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                            Comment


                            • I don't really get what the issue is here. Sam is correct. All Swift is doing in this article is what all philosophers do. Taking things that we consider "common sense" and breaking them down into little bite sized pieces to be examined independently. All good philosophers do this. It seems to me that Swift's conclusion is that family bonding offers children advantages not accessible to children from broken homes. Its an obvious "no duh!" for us, but philosophers like to play around with these things and figure out why they're "no duhs". Swift doesn't seem to be seriously advocating that children should no longer receive family bonding (quite the contrary), he's just forwarding that idea as a philosophical hypothetical. A sort of "if we wanted to level the playing field, this would do it".

                              I've found that this forum has a really hard time with hypotheticals, and I don't really get that. Why is it so hard for some people to get their heads around the idea that someone may be playing devil's advocate, but not actually be the devil?

                              I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something here.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                I don't really get what the issue is here. Sam is correct. All Swift is doing in this article is what all philosophers do. Taking things that we consider "common sense" and breaking them down into little bite sized pieces to be examined independently. All good philosophers do this. It seems to me that Swift's conclusion is that family bonding offers children advantages not accessible to children from broken homes. Its an obvious "no duh!" for us, but philosophers like to play around with these things and figure out why they're "no duhs". Swift doesn't seem to be seriously advocating that children should no longer receive family bonding (quite the contrary), he's just forwarding that idea as a philosophical hypothetical. A sort of "if we wanted to level the playing field, this would do it".

                                I've found that this forum has a really hard time with hypotheticals, and I don't really get that. Why is it so hard for some people to get their heads around the idea that someone may be playing devil's advocate, but not actually be the devil?

                                I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something here.
                                I was thinking maybe Sam was playing devil's advocate as well. It's why I asked. Maybe I don't get a lot about philosophy (never really studied it that deeply), but isn't most philosophical points start from something grounded in reality? I guess that is the problem I am having. I am not real sure how reading to children or private schooling could inherit any type of advantage/disadvantage just by existing.
                                "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 07:50 PM
                                10 responses
                                62 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Teallaura  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:53 AM
                                32 responses
                                119 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 05-16-2021, 06:43 PM
                                5 responses
                                69 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Teallaura  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 05-16-2021, 07:22 AM
                                11 responses
                                93 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 05-16-2021, 07:05 AM
                                2 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X