You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Are there absolutes? Are you absolutely sure?
The problem is that people generally take the Bible out of context and stuff.
So you're going with "appeal to ignorance".
Do you have any specifics? And if "The Bible" is so difficult to understand, why do people use it as an excuse for their personal views?
Are you a feminist?
I'm a logiczombie.
Tucker's completely missing the point.
Some women are better at some jobs and some men are better at some jobs.
You have to sort of take it on a case-by-case basis.
I wouldn't generally qualify or disqualify an applicant based solely on their personal identity (ad hominem).
Are you seeking for equality?
I'm seeking logical coherence (nice red-herring by the way).
That is what Tucker said. I do not understand why you say Tucker is crazy for saying what you said. But you are saying Tucker did not say what you just said. Women are better at certain jobs. Men are better at other specific tasks. That is what Tucker said. But you said no. And then you went on to paraphrase what Tucker said but in different words. But it is the same.
SOME women are better at SOME jobs than SOME other women.
SOME women are better at SOME jobs than SOME other men.
SOME men are better at SOME jobs than SOME other men.
SOME men are better at SOME jobs than SOME other women.
The job ITSELF does not determine the individual (woman or man) best suited.
Statistical averages are nearly always intentionally deceptive (and do not apply to individuals, only statistically significant groups-of-individuals).
Generalities are true. You're emphasizing on exceptions to the generalities. Over 99% of the time, certain things has happened all around the world via billions of people for thousands of years.
Some of those "generalities" are self-enforcing.
For example, if blacks (poor because of jim crow and red-lining) are thought of as criminals then they are more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes, which leaves their families destitute (poor = at risk for crime) and fatherless (fatherless = even more at risk for violent behavior) which almost guarantees most of their children will be incarcerated at some point in their lifetime.
Now, in my example you might argue that INDIVIDUALS can RISE ABOVE the unfairness of their birthright.
But you've just tried to argue that GENERALITIES are true when it comes to GENDER EQUALITY.
What is your UNIFORM STANDARD OF EVIDENCE (USOE)?
Do you always blame generalities (circumstances), or do you always blame the individual for their plight?
Inaccurate:
Incorrect. What you are saying is not true. Just go ask @stefan.molyneux about that. Generalities tells you certain patterns because different people are different.
Patterns vs Exceptions
Most people make certain choices. Most people prefer collectivism and therefore should not be eligible to be in America. Some people are better at certain things than other people. These are generalities. These are statistical patterns. Yes, individuals can break from the patterns.
Many Reject & Regret
But most of them choose not to. Many people choose to be victims. Most people choose fake versions of federally enforced peace and security over risky freedom. Evidence is seen everywhere. If you are asking for it, you are basically denying reality. You have the right to say, "Where's the proof the sky is blue?" I could explain why the sky is blue. Likewise, you are asking me to explain what we all know is true.
Three People Groups
There are three main lines of people groups, three colors, the black people, the white people, and the yellow people. These three groups are related to each other and all humans who are human are from these groups. Generalities can describe their strengths and weaknesses. These are generally true no matter what.
Blacks in the Early 1900's
Now, keep in mind that African American business men were beginning to make more and more money in the late 1800's and even more in the early 1900's. Different groups, including democratic groups, begin finding ways to stop that. Individuals are free to make choices.
Breaking Patterns
Some people break patterns and they do extraordinary things. We should always encourage people to fulfill their potential.
Trump constantly complains about being a victim.
Ben Shapiro even wrote an entire book about how the sweet and kind conservatives are being "bullied" by all the horrible mean libtards.
Should they stop CHOOSING to be victims?
People are victims. But people can also rise beyond that to become victors. When I say that I'm a victim, then I'm addressing some of the problems. But the bigger problem would be if I never ever tried to get out of that hole. Some people can live in denial. Some people end up ignoring the root causes and symptoms. It is true that people are being bullied. People are victims. But that doesn't mean we cannot at least try to become victors. I encourage people to find the key to escape the prisons and mazes they may be lost in.
Are you suggesting that people "choose" to be victims?
Are you suggesting that people "choose" to be victors?
And now you're saying that you've personally "chosen" to be a victim?
Why would you do that?
Why don't you just "choose" to "get out of that hole"?
Are you "living in denial"?
Is it true that Trump is being bullied?
Wait a minute, I thought you said people could "choose" to be victors?
Now you're saying they should "at least try to become victors"?
How would you describe what "escape" looks like (just, you know, your personal utopia)?
This statement is self-contradictory.
Generalities apply exclusively to (adequately large) GROUPS of people.
Generalities do not apply to specific INDIVIDUALS.
Generalities do apply to individual. For example, I need air to breath. That is applied to me, an individual. That is a generality that applies to probably every single normal human human that is totally a human and not anything else in actuality. Individuals make choices. But many of the choices that individuals make just so happen to be the same as what other individuals made. For example, most babies, as individuals, choose to cry. So, that is a generality. But babies are individuals. But most of them cry. And we all know that famous song, big girls don't cry eye eye eye.
You're describing a FACT, not a generality.
Babies don't make conscious decisions.
They cry (or not cry) instinctively.
This is a FACT.
SOCIETY = COLLECTIVISM
If you are "anti-collectivism" then you should become a hermit. Are you a hermit?
Collectivism can especially be seen in Asia for example, historically speaking. Collectivism can only be as good as the group, the tribe, the collection. The problem is when authoritarians manipulate that type of system to pressure the majority of the people who want peace and security. So, people end up not questioning authority. They end up not asking questions. Collectivism is the crowd. It is peer pressure. It can also be a type of mob-ruling democracy. I prefer a republic over a democracy.
(IFF) you rule-out BOTH authoritarian hierarchies (AND) mob rule (democracy) (THEN) what the heck is left?
What is your personal idea of "the most perfect society (that's still realistically) possible"?
And by the way, a republic is just a hybrid of authoritarian and democracy. Mixing the two together doesn't solve either "problem".
Do you realize that "risky freedom" only empowers MOBSTER ETHICS?
Have you seen what happens when the electrics and phones go out?
Mobsters can try to use anything to their advantage. Mobsters are weeds. So, dirt might be empowering the weeds. But dirt also empowers the flowers. People should have solar power. People should not rely too much on power, on phones, etc. People do better, historically, in small local community tribes as opposed to the larger cities found in and during the fall of the Roman Empire.
Have you ever tried to build a solar panel from raw materials yourself?
I'm pretty certain you need some sort of corporation to manufacture those.
And without a gardener, the flowers will always lose to the weeds.
Flowers can't defend themselves.
These are generally true, EXCLUSIVELY when dealing with (adequately large) GROUPS of people.
These statistical patterns do not apply to individuals.
These statistical patterns do not apply to all geographic areas and time-scales.
All data is sample-biased.
Generalities do apply to individuals. I need water. I am an individual. But I need water. Most people need water. That is a generality. But it is specific to an individual (me) at the same time. It can be specific to individuals. It is a generality. It is specific at the same time. Sounds like a paradox. And some paradoxes can be true. I love paradoxes. I love what sounds like contradictions which aren't actually contradictions if fully understood. But at surface level, people discredit contradictions. It is true, as a generality, that contradictions might be flawed. That is generally true. But some contradictions can be individualistic in the sense that they can be true even if they look like they are not true.
Generalities do NOT apply to individuals.
What you keep describing are FACTS (which are not generalities).
Please, perhaps you can explain to me exactly what you mean when you say "generalities".
I AGREE.
HowEever, FACTS are not "generally true".
FACTS must be TRUE (by their tautological definition).
Yes, they "found ways" (freedom-in-action),
Click to watch 9 minutes,
My brother was living in Tulsa. Interesting.
Well stated.