posted
I was implying that the truth should be fairly obvious (as this is hardly the first time I have defended Bush's actions, and stated more than once, in discussions that Will participated in, that I didn't hate Bush at all, I just didn't agree with much he had to say), and that one of the possible reasons for continuing to call ne a "hater" was he was being deliberatly obtuse about it.
In other words I used the word correctly. . .it was you assumptions about my ignorance of the definition of the word that was incorrect.
I was pointing out a trend in someones behavior, and wondering if it was an unconsious pattern of behavior or if he was doing it on purpose, just to further his own political agenda .
I am leaning towards the second idea.
Which would make his comments disingenious. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, okay, so you were calling him a liar. See, I made room for that possibility in my original post.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was pointing out a trend in someones behavior, and wondering if it was an unconsious pattern of behavior or if he was doing it on purpose, just to further his own political agenda .
And by the way, in order to point something out, you've got to, you know, actually do it. You know?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, I was simply mentioning that it was a possibility...not actually accusing him of it.
I have no idea how else everything would always be twisted around to defend bush from attacks, even when they ARE warreneted.
If I call Bush on something, I am a hater because I did so...but if I support one of his desisions I am showing how ownderful, because even a hater HS to like (whatever he is doing right now)....
See? It turns out that it becomes impossible to disprove anything they don't want to believe...and I think that most of the people who do that type of circular, nonsense argument have at least a clue what they are trying to do...and are, by definition, being disingenious about their agenda, not to mention their actual actions.
It isn't just Will, or just Bush supporters, although the people I see do it the most are his supporters these days.
It is actually possible to refute someone without smashing their beliefs, and to have a discussion about the topics....rather than go off on these wild goose chases about who is and isn't a Bush hater....and dismissiing an argument just because it comes from someone who doesn't like Bush doesn't serve much purpose.
posted
What bothers me is the fact that he ignores protests when he is in town. For me, Mr Yeltsin set the par for handaling any protest: go out there and speak.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'd love to see your explication of that .
Easy. The quote says:
quote:Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves.
It states what laws do provide against (injury from others) and lists one specific category of injury laws do not provide against.
It leaves entirely open the status of injuries caused by neither other persons or the victims themselves. Therefore it hints as strongly in each direction.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It leaves entirely open the status of injuries caused by neither other persons or the victims themselves. Therefore it hints as strongly in each direction.
Your therefore is not logically supported. That something is unclear on a question does not mean there are suggestions of supporting all things it is unclear on equally.
For instance, I have already pointed out a way in which "others" could be interpretted which would include hurricanes and other natural disasters. This is not a strong interpretation, but neither is it unsupportable. Can you present an argument of similar strength for mark's position that governments should have nothing to do with aid in the case of natural disaster?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure - as a deist, TJ thought natural events were not caused by God.
Further, in distinguishing between "others" and "ourselves," there is a strong suggestion of kind. When one uses "others" in opposition to a particular noun, one supposes that the "others" are of a similar kind.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure - as a deist, TJ thought natural events were not caused by God.
Further, in distinguishing between "others" and "ourselves," there is a strong suggestion of kind. When one uses "others" in opposition to a particular noun, one supposes that the "others" are of a similar kind.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a positive interpretation in favor of mark's position, that's a reason the interpretation I suggested isn't particularly strong. Note that you said that even if my statement about TJ's opinion not being included was accepted the quotation was equally supportive of both sides.
And as for the deism, again, I point out that Deism entails natural disasters most definitely being caused by God, just at a large temporal remove. This would be particularly true in TJ's period, before we understood how much weather could be influenced, when it seemed but part of the natural mechanism of the planet.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's not a positive interpretation in favor of mark's position, that's a reason the interpretation I suggested isn't particularly strong. Note that you said that even if my statement about TJ's opinion not being included was accepted the quotation was equally supportive of both sides.
I've read this five times and can't figure out the point you are trying make. This is exactly what I've been saying: that the quotation is equally supportive of both sides. You asked me to explain why. I showed that any argument you can make for it to hint at showing the opposite can be made equally strongly in the other direction. I think it's pretty clear I've been saying both things here: 1.) There is no strong positive interpretation of that quotation to support raventh's position. 2.) There is no string positive interpretation of that quotation to support your position.
However, I get the feeling you were making a point, not merely restating my position. I can't figure out what that point is, however.
quote:And as for the deism, again, I point out that Deism entails natural disasters most definitely being caused by God, just at a large temporal remove. This would be particularly true in TJ's period, before we understood how much weather could be influenced, when it seemed but part of the natural mechanism of the planet.
You are really reaching, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Since TJ was smart enough to know that anything that was caused by a person's lack of foresight also involved causation that could be traced to God, you would have to point to something in the statement that shows TJ was even evaluating God-causes when he made it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A weak but extant interpretation is not identical in strength of support to absolutely no interpretation. I have presented a weak but extant interpretation of the quotation supporting the notion of government providing aid to those inconvenienced by disaster. No interpretation at all has been suggested supporting the government specifically not providing aid to those inconvenienced by disaster.
quote:I showed that any argument you can make for it to hint at showing the opposite can be made equally strongly in the other direction.
You did not. You laid out some reasons my argument was weak, none of them supported any argument for specifically not providing aid to those inconvenienced. Negation of one argument is not positive argument for another position.
quote:Since TJ was smart enough to know that anything that was caused by a person's lack of foresight also involved causation that could be traced to God, you would have to point to something in the statement that shows TJ was even evaluating God-causes when he made it.
No, I wouldn't in this discussion, the simple reason because of this:
quote:
quote:plus, a text (in this case, a quotation) can hint at or suggest something without author intent. I was pretty careful in my phrasing; I talk about what the quotation says or hints at, not what Jefferson did. While what Jefferson consciously willed in his construction of the quotation is certainly very important in considering the quotation, it is hardly the final word. We are constantly finding new interpretations of texts which have been around a very long time but were not (and in many cases could not have been) applied to the situations implicated in the interpretation.
In that case, it "hints" as strongly in raventh's favor as yours.
You're arguing on terms where TJ's evaluations aren't the be-all-end-all. There are plenty of people for whom natural disasters are very much the work of a "someone"; a reading which includes that notion is a possible reading of the quotation.
Also, TJ's Deist beliefs included a strong belief in free will for humans and a strong belief in a clockwork universe. That is, those things which humans did not impact proceeded as if like clockwork from God's initial "winding" of creation. In the science of the day, natural disasters very much fell under that clockwork. This explains perfectly well the interpretation I have supported.
I don't think TJ had it in mind. I think he could have and I think there are readings of the quotation (even if it coudl be shown he didn't) which reasonably include a similar dichotomy.
Therefore I think that the interpretation I am laying out, while weak, is extant and has a small force. It is something the quotation "hints" at, no more.
You have not laid out any interpretation which even "hints" at the position mark takes, where governments should not provide aid to those inconvenienced by disaster.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have not laid out any interpretation which even "hints" at the position mark takes, where governments should not provide aid to those inconvenienced by disaster.
Yes. I have. You specifically brought up the deist/other argument. I gave a specific reasons why that interpretation is unlikely. The quote lists the types of injuries for the law to provide against. The type of injury at issue here is not included in that list.
In addition, if one is going to suppose such long, fragile chains of causation, then there are shorter chains which put the person who loses their house to a storm closer in the causal chain. For example, had the person either not moved to a place where hurricanes are likely or moved away if they were born there, the storm would not have affected them.* This is a much shorter causal chain than any involving clockwork from the beginning of the universe. Therefore, it is more likely that these injuries fall under the specifically excluded realm of self-caused injuries if one is invoking such indirect causation.
Further, the law "provides against" injuries caused by others; in this usage, it creates a cause of action against the other causing the harm - either criminal or civil. A right of action against God is not something that is easily read into that quote.
*No, I'm not saying it's the Katrina victims' fault. We're talking about very indirect causation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes. I have. You specifically brought up the deist/other argument. I gave a specific reasons why that interpretation is unlikely. The quote lists the types of injuries for the law to provide against. The type of injury at issue here is not included in that list.
You had pointed out that there is a strong interpretation for which situations not caused by anyone are completely uncovered by the quotation, but you had not put forth anything that could be interpreted as an interpretation positive towards not providing aid to those injured by hurricanes. You said specifically:
quote:It states what laws do provide against (injury from others) and lists one specific category of injury laws do not provide against.
It leaves entirely open the status of injuries caused by neither other persons or the victims themselves. Therefore it hints as strongly in each direction.
Nowhere in there could one insert anything like "therefore the quotation supports not providing aid to victims of disaster", which is rather necessary for there to have been such an argument.
You have finally made such an argument, which you had not laid out before:
quote:there are shorter chains which put the person who loses their house to a storm closer in the causal chain.
However, what follows misses part of what I was saying
quote:This is a much shorter causal chain than any involving clockwork from the beginning of the universe.
In addition to the tiny possibility TJ might think such a thing as I was suggesting, I was pointing out there are plenty of people for whom hurricanes would be most immediately an act of God, and that thus my interpretation is possible from that angle as well. In such a case God would be far closer in the causal change than the person not having moved, therefore your objection about causal change length is not particularly persuasive as to which interpretation is more reasonable.
However, as I reject that causal chain length is an adequate determinant of "cause", this does not mean that I think the interpretation I mentioned is particularly stronger than the one you just did.
(That someone forgets to put on a parking brake, leading to me being hit by a runaway truck while sitting on a bench, does not make me the most important cause of my death, despite being slightly nearer in the chain of causation than the parking brake forgetter (only one step to not sitting there, whereas we go out to what caused the vehicle to start rolling and then the parking break forgetter on the other chain).)
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nowhere in there could one insert anything like "therefore the quotation supports not providing aid to victims of disaster", which is rather necessary for there to have been such an argument.
My claim was that it hinted "as strongly" in each direction. This can be shown both by enhancing the hinting done in one direction and weakening the hinting done in the other. I have specifically dealt with the "acts of God portion" now on numerous ocassions. As this is the only argument you have advanced, I have been making this case from the beginning.
Frankly, the "others" argument alone is enough to dismiss it entirely. Couple that with an ambiguous statement and my original contention stands - it hints as strongly in each direction.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:(That someone forgets to put on a parking brake, leading to me being hit by a runaway truck while sitting on a bench, does not make me the most important cause of my death, despite being slightly nearer in the chain of causation than the parking brake forgetter (only one step to not sitting there, whereas we go out to what caused the vehicle to start rolling and then the parking break forgetter on the other chain).)
If you went to a beach where experts warned for 50 years that a car might come rolling down the hill, your responsibility would be increased.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, Dagonee -- I stated that I now thought you had demonstrated an interpretation which was equally reasonable in the other direction. I also quoted your previous post and pointed out it gave no such interpretation.
Weakening an argument in one direction does not show equal arguments in both directions if there had never been an argument in the other direction. I can show an argument is very weak all I want, but that does not mean another argument exists at all.
And my example was for why I said this: 'I reject that causal chain length is an adequate determinant of "cause"', not something specifically relating to this situation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, if you don't like it and refuse to consent to it, leave.
Note the first part of my statement
quote:You get to vote for the people who make governmental decisions
That clearly involves staying even if you don't like it. Your interpretation of my statement is incorrect.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Weakening an argument in one direction does not show equal arguments in both directions if there had never been an argument in the other direction. I can show an argument is very weak all I want, but that does not mean another argument exists at all.
Weakening one interpretation to nullity shows other interpretations to be at least as strong. Specifically, without that take on "others" provided by your deist argument, raventh's contention that victims of the storm had committed self-injury was already extant. I thought that was clear.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My take on others, as I have mentioned several times, does not rely on the deist argument; that's a very tenuous aspect of it. The much stronger (though still pretty weak) reliance is on there being a not uncommon view among a decent number of people that God is the direct, immediate cause of natural disasters.
For this, reading "others" as including God is not nearly as tenuous as for the deist position.
Mark contended that certain victims of the storm had committed self-injury, but not all -- he conceded that
quote:Some also were not in the place to make any other choice.
My interpretation could happily include only such people. Your argument, also including such people, is different from his, which excludes such people.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
