This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 348349350 351352 ... 502
10471
« on: December 02, 2014, 10:36:44 AM »
]It's just an exercise. If you can't get people to listen to you, how are you going to do well in politics? Give me your best emotional argument to sway someone in support of gay marriage (or any matter you feel passionate about).
You and I both know you aren't stupid enough to be taken in by such arguments. They're meant for the unwashed masses.
10472
« on: December 02, 2014, 10:14:25 AM »
Female ejaculation
Fucking what?
squirting, brah
I know, I just literally have no idea why it's on the list.
10473
« on: December 02, 2014, 10:12:49 AM »
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade
Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Slippery slope logical fallacy? I highly doubt they're going to repeal straight marriage.
*sigh* I know you aren't being serious so I just won't bother.
10474
« on: December 02, 2014, 10:11:00 AM »
Female ejaculation Fucking what?
10475
« on: December 02, 2014, 09:54:43 AM »
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade
Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
10476
« on: December 01, 2014, 04:27:36 PM »
We agree on action, just not on whether implying you're going kill someone is coercion.
Well, no. I think we both agree that is coercion. You're implicating a very compulsive act, there. Merely thinking you're superior, however? No, that's not coercive. Implying you're going to kill somebody is explicitly threatening, implying you're just better than them isn't - because there's no compulsion happening. I'm not opposed to implications being coercive, as long as the implications are explicitly menacing and not so vague and vacuous as to merely present a belief that one is superior. If that were the case, most of the Earth's population would be quite seriously coercive.
10477
« on: December 01, 2014, 04:00:31 PM »
Except coercion isn't predicated on facts. You can still coerce somebody (and be stubborn for that matter) when they are in fact wrong. I'm not saying stubbornness isn't an aspect of coercion, it just isn't sufficient from coercion. Your idea that stubbornness somehow implies superiority is utterly without basis. Maybe the person being stubborn actually is in the right, and is thus intellectually superior? Do you consider those who are correct to be stubborn or coercive? Maybe they're being stubborn and hoping luck will pull them through; winging it, without any real feeling of superiority? Does the stubbornness need to be within an activity, or can it merely be adherence to an ideology or philosophy which counts? It's much too diffuse an argument to make. A feeling of superiority, or conversely a judgement of inferiority, isn't enough for coercion unless it's accompanied by a specific compulsion and some form of intimidation. Otherwise, it's just confidence, arrogance or the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
10478
« on: December 01, 2014, 03:42:12 PM »
It does make it coercion because what is implied through the subtleness is that the opposition doesn't care because they are stronger, larger, more popular, ect.
That is coercion. But it isn't. . . Thinking you're better than a person, for whatever reason, isn't coercion. Me thinking I'm more intelligent than my best friend isn't me coercing him, at all. You just don't seem to understand to concept. You're just twisting my use of the word subtlety to fit your obviously wrong definition. Subtle forms of coercion are thinks like passive-aggression, intentional body-language and manipulation. Stubbornness isn't sufficient for coercion.
10479
« on: December 01, 2014, 03:36:02 PM »
3.making use of clever and indirect methods to achieve something.
. . . Okay. So what? Powering on without consideration for other viewpoints, through stubbornness, might surely be subtle but that doesn't make it coercion. Although, you're giving too much credit to the stubborn when you describe them as subtle. Stubbornness among the intelligent is, as you say yourself, arrogance which isn't necessarily coercive..
10480
« on: December 01, 2014, 03:28:57 PM »
Considering I'm going to university before a year's up, this really does worry me.
you doing politics?
Policy, Politics and Economics.
10481
« on: December 01, 2014, 03:28:21 PM »
\
Stubbornness doesn't contain any measure of intimidation or threat.
No, stubbornness implies that you don't care what your opposition thinks, because you can deal with them if they try to take action against you.
The U.S. government, by not passing carbon taxes, isn't coercing economists or climate change scientists. It does tell economists and climate change scientists that the government thinks they're evidence is worthless, because they're not doing anything.
Great, neither of those are instances of coercion though. There's no implication in coercion, like I said: it's explicit. If you stand up, and tower over the other people and say: "You're worthless, I don't care what you say and I will continue as is because I, in every way, am superior to you and your pathetic life. If you cross me, I will fucking end you, so stay out of my way". There is some compulsion to do something in that instance, along with intimidation and threat. Under your criteria, virtually any instance of ignoring somebody is a form of coercion.
10482
« on: December 01, 2014, 03:21:30 PM »
Considering I'm going to university before a year's up, this really does worry me.
10483
« on: December 01, 2014, 03:20:35 PM »
This is why I wish we had a Bonpartist State sometimes.
10484
« on: December 01, 2014, 03:13:22 PM »
Holy shit, learn to read my posts.
I did. If you think stubbornness is a form of coercion you really don't understand coercion, at all. It takes a big leap to go from not acting on something despite evidence to the contrary and then taking that as a judgement of worthlessness. Coercion, by definition, is explicit in its application. Stubbornness doesn't contain any measure of intimidation or threat. The U.S. government, by not passing carbon taxes, isn't coercing economists or climate change scientists. Just because I don't quote your entire post, it doesn't mean I didn't read it.
10485
« on: December 01, 2014, 03:08:04 PM »
Stubbornness is a form of coercion. coercion kəʊˈəːʃ(ə)n/Submit noun the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. No, it isn't.
10486
« on: December 01, 2014, 03:02:36 PM »
Simply put, if you resort to coercion before your competition, you're the one in the wrong.
Except coercion used only in self-defence is ineffective as a proactive approach; it's purely reactive. Coercion and intimidation are good for the motivation of the passively stubborn.
10487
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:53:22 PM »
Bisexuals.
I remember reading somewhere that bis are seen by some gays within the "community" as fence-sitters and people who can't make up their mind. I can back that up from personal experience, to a minor degree, and I can't find the source right at the moment >.>
Essentially, I'm asking if the LGBT community - to the extent that it's organised and has people who self-identify within the movement - has a chronic problem with the treatment of bisexuals.
10488
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:45:29 PM »
Why is my immediate thought that it sounds like your point of view makes the Crusades seem like a good thing?
10489
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:43:57 PM »
Not to sound like a dick
You failed.
10490
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:34:42 PM »
Lol, faggot.
No, just kidding. To be honest, man, I know it's good to take the weight off, but it isn't a big deal. Just be who you are, and don't feel the need to tiptoe excessively around other people. Some may treat you differently, but depending on the people you know and where you're from - it's your call, in the end, but you should trust those closest to you.
Essentially - it's not a big deal. And while discretion is a good virtue, don't let it make you anxious or worrisome.
10491
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:22:08 PM »
Kakistocracy So you'd just keep it the same?
10492
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:19:46 PM »
If everyone acted civil and resorted to logic and debate rather than having a conniption whenever a disagreement or them being proven wrong took place we would have no need for force in the first place.
That's as unrealistic as it is boring. Intimidation can be a necessary process for furthering one's own aims.
10493
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:16:45 PM »
Technological quasi-theocracy based around hyper intelligent ai-gods.
Praise the Omnissiah!
>yfw tau>everything
10494
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:16:06 PM »
Such as how taking care of mental patients can be seen as coercive in itself, but, there being a clear difference in mental capacity, it is considered acceptable.
Not even as big a diverge in intelligence is needed. Coercion takes place between intelligent people within government all the time, it just tends to be subtler. The point is, coercion is usually a sign of superiority in certain contexts. It isn't universally undesirable.
10495
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:07:40 PM »
Could you expand on that a little?
10496
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:00:23 PM »
Anti-coercionists are usually found among the more libertarian libertarians, anarchists and hippies. Coercion, for the uninitiated, is essentially persuasion but with force or psychological intimidation. Putting fear in people.
Now, it sounds lovely to have us all sing Kumbaya and link hands around a tree, but society doesn't work like that. Bertrand Russell one said, with great perception, that as energy is the fundamental concept of physics, power is the fundamental concept in social science. Coercion is but a means to power, the Will to Power, and it requires intelligence in order to use properly. Only the foolish see coercion as a force lacking nuance and variation.
Coercion requires ruthlessness, ambition and duplicity; some of the greatest attributes nature saw fit to grant us with. Coercion for the ambitious is as money is to the capitalist. Now, am I arguing that we should beat the living shit out people who disagree with us? No, of course not. But to completely revile coercion is to misunderstand how humans interact with each other.
If you aren't ruthless at something, you're worthless.
10497
« on: December 01, 2014, 12:25:11 PM »
without looking at Israel and their problems and causes of tension, is simply lopsided. Israel is quite unique in its position in being an incredibly reactive state. Fundamentalists have been using the Qur'an since the time of Thomas Jefferson to justify crimes against foreigners, not just the Israelis, and that wouldn't change if Israel didn't exist as a State.
10498
« on: December 01, 2014, 12:19:59 PM »
Not simply talking about Hamas.
The rest aren't much better.
10499
« on: December 01, 2014, 12:17:20 PM »
But, others will also argue that Israel existing (Or, at least existing in the scope it has today) has only fueled their neighbors to step the fuck outta line.
Anyone who is willing to stand up, look at Hamas's political agenda, and still maintain that Israel is the source of unrest is fucking deluded.
10500
« on: December 01, 2014, 12:15:58 PM »
I don't know if I want Middle Eastern stability.
You can still answer the question, it'd just be phrased inversely to somebody who wanted Middle Eastern stability.
Pages: 1 ... 348349350 351352 ... 502
|
Show Posts