I don’t know about that. In his opinion all those alternative reasons to hold conservative beliefs are such hogwash that it is far more likely that their holders are motivated by a selfish bias. It is a judgment call. (Much like the belief that lissener can only hold what he holds about conservatives out of bigotry. Another judgment call).
Sorry, g8; it’s only been insisted THAT one can believe X without being selfish; it hasn’t satisfactorily been demonstrated HOW.
and g8, I have offered direct connections between my observations and my conclusions; the fact that YMMV doesn’t make me a bigot.
Then let me put it this way. Let us suppose that I were to offer the following opinion:
“Homosexuals are evil. After all, they spread AIDS, tear down the fabric of marriage and the family, and they don’t follow the plan of our dear Lord Jayyyy-ZUSS!”
I’ve just offered a conclusion and drawn some tenuous connection between two unrelated things. All efforts to convince me that my connection is stupid and irrational will be met with “the Bible says so, I don’t understand how you can fail to see this truth, and it’s only my opinion anyway.”
Were I to offer such an incredibly stupid statement, I would be (quite correctly) condemned as a bigot. I see no reason to say that just because one makes a judgment call, one is suddenly immune to the charge of prejudice and bigotry.
And lissener, this: “it’s only been insisted THAT one can believe X without being selfish; it hasn’t satisfactorily been demonstrated HOW” is precisely what I mean when I say willful ignorance. Scylla and Sam both gave their reasons for holding their positions; you have chosen to disregard their statements, dismissing them with absolutely no reasoned justification. It’s a case of “I know you say you hold this belief because you think it’s the fairest way to do things, but really you hold this belief because you’re selfish, stupid, or both.”
You have an opinion, and you’re welcome to do so, but it is an offensive and irrational opinion in denial of reality. Just as is the case with my hypothetical homophobia.
Bingo.
I have not disregarded them; but I have not been convinced. Their conclusions still require a leap of faith which I don’t share.
Since when does a debater’s inability to convince his “opponent” of his position mean that he’s infallibly right in his position?
I would agree that from the standpoint of logical structure this is a valid analogy. So it is also a judgment call. But that does not mean that the same judgment is required in every case. So you could logically conclude that either case is an example of bigotry while saying the opposite in the other case without being inconsistent.
In your case, you consider the statement about homosexuals “incredibly stupid”, so you would conclude that the holder of this opinion is a bigot. Quite possibly you consider lissener’s position about conservatives “incredibly stupid” too, so you might make the same judgment there as well. But one does not follow from the other - they are two independent judgments on your part. So you cannot appeal to a general rule that such types of statements are bigoted - you have to make your case for each individually. To the extent that you can prove that lissener’s opinions about conservatives are incredibly stupid, you can conclude that an intelligent fellow like lissener would not hold such opinions unless he was motivated by bigotry. To the extent that you can’t, your charge fails.
I wouldn’t say immune - if you believe that such a judgment could have only have been made if heavily influenced by bigotry then it doesn’t let anyone off the hook. What I am saying is that it does not automatically follow that a negative opinion about a group must be the result of bigotry. It might and it might not - every case is different and requires a judgment as to the motivation of the other person’s motives.
lissener,
Well, I don’t know about conservatives kneecapping the EPA. Certainly many feel that environmental concerns need to be addressed in partnership with economic concerns. Sam Stone and Scylla both have indicated that they feel that the environment is a legitimate area of concern for the government. This recent thread which Anthracite participated in does a pretty good job of explaining a current EPA issue. Do you have specific objections to her expert level analysis?
Regarding universal health care vs. private, for profit, health care it has been my understanding that universal health care was wasteful. The most legitimate area IMO that we might want to expand health care is for the working poor (those who work but who don’t have the means to pay for their own health care) since the truly destitute already have their health care paid for by the gub’ment (Medicare/Medicaid). We don’t really want to provide Warren Buffet and Bill Gates with government paid health care do we?
Of course you’ve disregarded their explanation of why they believe what they believe. You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that they are being dishonest in explaining their motivations. You do not understand why they believe what they believe, and that’s fine. Where you go wrong is that you concoct an explanation that does make sense to you, thus in effect doing the following:[ol][li]I do not understand why conservatives believe what they believe.[]They try to tell me why, but it makes no sense to me.[]Since it makes no sense to me, they must be either lying about their motivations or just incorrect.I am thus free to attribute their beliefs to either malice or incompetence.[/ol]Yes, you are free to do so. And you know what? You’re also free to paint yourself purple and do the macarena in a form of protest against the evils of conservatism. And the latter would be just as rationally based as the former.[/li]
Wow, if I’d suggested this, I’d have to be pretty stupid. Which is probably why I suggested no such thing. I leave such tenuous leaps of faith to you.
What I did suggest is that if I say “I think this,” I am speaking from a position of authority on the matter. When you say “no you don’t; you think this instead,” you are speaking from a position of ignorance on the matter. A reasonable person would take the claim from a position of authority over a claim from a position of ignorance. You have chosen not to do so.
Izzy, I think we’re having a disconnect. I am not saying that lissener is motivated by bigotry. He could be motivated by stupidity, he could be motivated by blinding insight beyond the ken of mortal man, he could be motivated by bigotry, he could be motivated by honesty, or he could be motivated by something else entirely. I neither know nor care what motivates him; it’s none of my business, and it’s irrelevant.
What I am saying is that his position is a bigoted position, regardless of how he reached it, because it attributes to a group characteristics which cannot reasonably be shown to belong to that group. The defense that “it’s just my opinion” is utterly inadequate, especially when the opinion is drawn from shaky inferences made from a position of ignorance.
OK, I thought bigot was a guy who was antipathetic to some group. Under your definition, a guy could be a bigot by making some innocent mistake. To the extent that you disagree with lissener’s position his attribution becomes “unreasonable” and his inferences become “shaky”, and he automatically becomes a bigot. OK. Still, I think you should distinguish this type of “bigot” from the regular good old time bigots, whose opinions are motivated by antipathy towards other groups.
Izzy, you’ve definitely given me something to think about, and I do value that, so let me attempt to clarify in light of your criticism, okay?
Bigotted position: a position which unreasonably attributes to a group characteristics which the group does not possess, though some large fraction of that group might indeed possess them.
Bigot: someone who holds a bigotted position out of malice.
Nitwit: someone who holds a bigotted position out of ignorance.
So let me state now that lissener’s position is bigoted. It is based on, at best, incomplete understanding. This has been pointed out to him, but he has continued to cling to his position without defending it except in saying that he doesn’t understand and it’s only an opinion anyway; this inclines me to believe that he falls in the category of bigot and not nitwit, but I freely admit that I may be wrong.
But it doesn’t matter whether someone clings to a bigotted position out of malice or ignorance; holding the position is wrong either way, and to that extent, I don’t care whether he’s a bigot or a nitwit.
The reason I suggest that his attribution is unreasonable and his inferences are shaky is that he has no positive data on which to draw. He fails to understand a philosophy, which is fine. He fails to understand why someone holds that philosophy, which is also fine. But the moment he decides that he knows why they hold that philosophy in the face of denials of the same, and from people who have more data than he does, he steps from the realm of they who do not understand into the realm of they who draw inferences based on insufficient information.
And that is also his right, but one should recognize that in drawing an inference with laughably incomplete information is not exactly a reasonable thing to do. Hence my conclusion that is attribution is unreasonable.
Am I drawing inferences myself? Yes. Could my position be wrong? Yes; lissener could in fact have more complete information than he has been willing to display. Do I think it’s likely? Nope.
Well as long as we are clear on what the meanings of bigot and bigoted are, I’m not inclined to argue the point too much. I happen to be a bigot myself, under various definitions of the term. Which is fine with me - as long as it is clear what the underlying concept is you can use whatever term you want. I think sometimes people try to fit labels on other people by using expansive definitions of the terms and then turn around and bludgeon them with the labels which contain connotations that are far worse. (Not that I am accusing you or anyone of deliberately doing this here, but I think it is worthwhile to be clear for this reason).
What it seems to boil down to is that you think lissener’s conclusion is unreasonable and based on laughably incomplete information, which by your definition automatically makes his position bigoted. He thinks his conclusion is reasonable and based on enough information, which makes his position not bigoted. So I suspect you are at an impasse here - as you’ve defined it, the issue is wholly dependent on the outcome of the debate in GD.
Agreed: “unreasonably” is open to debate, we’re not likely to agree here; “does not possess,” again open to interpretation.
Not sure if I agree, though that’s not relevant because my position has nothing to do with malice. Upon reflection, I don’t think “malice” is relevant anyway: a white person who thinks all black men are born basketball players is a bigot, but harbors no malice (though I’ll concede that would be an interesting debate).
Hmm. I’d say bigotted is bigotted, malice aside, and (assuming you’re serious here), I don’t think of “nitwit” as having such a rigid definition.
Granted, for the sake of argument, and with the caveat that your understanding–and Scylla’s, et al.–is likely to be just as complete or incomplete as mine. Otherwise, you would be suggesting that the liberal/conservative divide falls along a spetrum of education, which view I’d call bigoted, as it suggests that uneducated people are more likely to liberal than are well educated people.
I have given anecdotal examples of experiences and observations that have led me to my present opinion. It’s my continued belief that such opinions can only be illustrated by anecdotal examples; you disagree. Disagreements with my understanding of some of the economical mechanics of the issue have been interesting and enlightening (the expansion of wealth discussion, for example, though I’m not convinced that it’s infinite; furthermore other question arise: wealth may be theoretically expandable to include all members of society, but I’m not convinced that notion has any value in a practical discussion regarding real people and real economies). In any case, despite occasional points of agreement, or let’s say further understanding, I still can’t account for the leaps of faith (ignoring practical realities) that are required to buy the conservatice party line.
Agreed; see above as to why I don’t agree that this applies to me in this instance.
Can’t see what evidence would be relevant: I’m not arguing any specific system, in great practical detail, that would solve all the problems I think conservatism ignores. I AM speculating on motivation, which can have not positive proof: I can only share, anecdotally, the experiences that have led me to speculate thus and thus.
I do not “decide that I know why they hold that philosophy”; I speculate as to why they might.
To speculate as to the character of a person who is willing to sacrifice, for example, my civil rights as a gay man, or, a certain percentage of the poor, in order to maintain a status quo that is so clearly in need of revision, seems to me to be–not only my right, as you so graciously accede–but a universal human pastime. (And despite the denials that their philosophy has no intention of leaving such people behind, the fact remains that it does.)
And that’s it in a nutshell; we’re at essentially parallel positions on opposite sides of the issue (charitably ignoring “than he has been willing to display” for the sake of the peace).
Actually, it would be.
Nope; that’s just a throwaway line to distinguish malice from ignorance.
The incomplete understanding I am positing is the understanding of why the person believes what he does, not the understanding of the world in general. And as a conservative, I know why I believe what I do, and you don’t. I don’t really give a rat’s patootie whether you agree with my beliefs or not, but I do find it remarkably offensive that you assume that they must be motivated by either stupidity or wickedness despite having not walked a day in my shoes and therefore having no basis on which to draw such a conclusion. You’re obviously a decent person, but such cavalier imputation is wrong.
I don’t expect you to become a conservative, as I have no doubt you’ve excellent reasons for being liberal. I do expect that you will extend me the same courtesy.
To give an example: I assume, based upon your comments, that you are in favor of some form of wealth redistribution. It does not make sense to me that you (presumably) think it’s justified to take from A and give to B even though, in my view, A has all moral claim to the fruits of his own labor and B has none. Nevertheless, I assume that you have reasons to hold such a view, and that although in my opinion such a view is wrong on fundamentally moral levels, it is not immorality or idiocy which causes you to adhere to it. Does that make sense?
Lissener:
Well that’s the rub. I have 14 years in Finance and Economics and hold professional designations and licenses in the field.
I’m pretty sure I know what I’m talking about, and the idea that my underrstanding is as likely to be as complete, or incomplete as yours is insulting.
When you talk about capitalism, economics, and markets you have stepped firmly into my sphere of expertise.
Generally, I’m pretty nice about it. But when somebody that clearly has no clue what they are talking about steps in and pronounces me dishonest or stupid because what I beleive is full of holes that are obvious to him, I am not inclined to be gentle.
Your basic assumptions are flat out wrong, you’ve falsely attributed positions to the opposing view, you are unwilling to accept factual correction, or apply rationality to your assertions.
It is clear that you have not arrived at your opinions through reason, and you have demonstrated an unwillingness to modify or change them when reason is shown to you. That makes you a bigot.
Not at all. Their are well-educated bigots as well as ignorant bigots. What makes a bigot isn’t their education, it’s their resistance to reason.
You’ve given generalizations. You’ve given nothing specific whatsoever. If your going to malign an entire group you need to do better than generalized anecdotes. The fact that you would malign an entire group on such flimsy grounds as you’ve shown is a pretty strong argument that you hold a bigotted stance.
Well sure, all the homophobes have anecdotes about the nasty homos. My grandfather has all kinds of anecdotes about black people. Come on, get real.
Cool. This is what you should do then. You should ask questions instead of making pronouncements. Better yet, go get an econ text and educate yourself on the issue. Do the work, understand the reasoning and then you have an opinion worthy of consideration on the matter.
Wealth creation is pretty basic shit, economically, and you really can’t speak meaningully on economics unless you have a grasp of it. If you want to talk about how much wealth there is, how it’s growing and who’s getting it and how it’s changing you need a basic understanding of how money works in an economic and how it relates to employment and production.
The fact that you are not convinced that wealth is infinite is not an argument. Using it as such is a classical logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance.
You want to know about it? Ask. Don’t make pronouncements from ignorance.
It’s not theoretical. All members of society have a degree of wealth, so the fact is that it has expanded to include all members of society. It is both measurable, and very practical for making observations and predictions about real economies.
Econometrics is the statistical analysis of economic data, and it can take very precise measurements of things like the money supply. The Fed uses econometric models to govern its decisions both in the open market and with regard to fiscal policy.
This fiscal policy is both the throttle by which the economy runs.
Fiscal policy can be demonstrated both historically and mathematically to have a dramatic effect on economic conditions, so wealth creation very clearly and indisputably relates to real economies and real people.
What do you think has been keeping this economy alive through this recession?
Low discount rates have produced low mortgage rates and strenght in the housing. This has enabled people to keep and buy property through this recession. It has inflated real estate prices which has helped real people make their payments and see an increase in equity to offset what has been lost in the economic slowdown.
Economotrics and fiscal policy have literally have taken a total catastrophe and let it be survivable.
Very well. What are these leaps of faith? You have alluded to these “holes” or leaps of faith for a week now. Don’t you think it’s about time you show us what they are?
Lay it down. Show me what I’m missing. Just generalizing is useless.
You’re not even showing us what you think conservatism is ignoring. You need to do that before you can make the complaint.
Right, Gramps does this. He speculates about how black people are lazy and stupid since he anecdotes about them being jobless and incompetant.
That’s not true. You said conservatives either had to be stupid or dishonest to believe what they do. That’s not a speculation. That’s an assertion.
Oh you ignorant lying sack of shit! You don’t know fuck-all what you are talking about.
You haven’t bothered to understand it. Don’t you dare tell me what it is or isn’t willing to do, you ignorant judgemental prick. You don’t know, and you haven’t bothered to make even a token effort to find out.
You’re a bigot because you make these judgements when you know your talking out your ass.
You are a bigot because your judgements are your starting point.
Your assumption, in this case, is wrong. I’m not if favor of retroactive redistribution, but of working toward a system that moves forward into equity. (Except, of course, for egregious circumstances, but that’s nothing new: taxpayer support for people in need might be called redistribution of wealth.)
In any case, that’s incidental to this discussion, which is largely meta; we’ve been debating the debate, not politics, which has essentially functioned as a MacGuffin.
Scylla, your solipsistic little squeak (above) is so full of contradictions and mischaracterizations and such a fabric of either stupidity or mendacity that I don’t even know where to start. It’s largely an argument from authority, which is patronizing and hypocritical of you (you won’t allow lawyers on the board to discuss law, you two-faced cumfart) riddled with . . . oh, suck my dick.
I would disagree with this. Clearly you know and understand your conscious thought process better than another, but when it comes to knowing what biases and self-interest might have motivated you to adopt your positions you can’t be nearly as certain.
Clearly there is some correlation between self-interest and political ideology. Lower income people are more likely to support increased social spending, upper income people are more likely to support lower taxes, farmers are more likely to support agricultural subsidies, blacks are more likely to support affirmative action, gays are more likely to support same-sex marriage, etc. etc. etc. This is obvious to anyone who follows the political process even slightly. Few if any of these people would acknowledge that their views are influenced by self-interest. Most or all perceive their thought process as being purely intellectual and unbiased. But they are clearly wrong, in many cases.
Personally I am skeptical of the ability of anyone to detect bias with certainty in individual cases, for the most part. But the idea that you yourself can declare with absolute certainty what your motivations might be for holding your views - and that they are at all influenced by self-interest - is not correct, IMHO.
And when did I ever say I’m not biased, Izzy? At bottom, everyone is biased and motivated by self-interest, I think. So what? The main point, of course, is that I have evidence on my side since I know my own thought processes better than does anyone else, and those who would claim to understand my motivations better than I do, have none. You’re just splitting hairs at this point.
But let’s accept your hair splitting and say that I cannot know what motivates me with absolute certainty; instead, I know it with a reasonable degree of certainty. Of course, if you want to split hairs to that extent, I don’t know anything with absolute certainty, and I’d figure that would be taken as a given.
Now, as to motivations… Let me provide an example. I happen to oppose a lot of the recent anti-smoking legislation, although I neither smoke nor enjoy being around smokers. My motivation? I think the majority is being unreasonable in their unwillingness to accomodate a minority, and I think it’s an unfair interference into what ought to be a personal decision on the part of a business owner.
And why do I think the majority ought to be more willing to accomodate the minority, and that business owners ought to have more freedom in choosing how to run their businesses? Because, I feel, that’s the morally right way to do things. And why do I feel that’s the morally right way to do things? Ultimately, probably because I (a) believe in the golden rule and (b) would like to be accomodated by the majority when I’m a minority, and would like to be free to decide for myself how to run my business rather than having it decided for me by someone else.
So at a deep enough level, you could argue that I’m motivated in this case by self-interest. But I would suggest that at a deep enough level, so is everyone else. At the level that actually explains why I adopt a particular position, this needn’t be the case at all, and in fact isn’t in my example, since I am not a business owner, am not likely to ever be a business owner, am not a smoker, am not likely to ever be a smoker, and in fact would prefer not being exposed to tobacco smoke at all. Direct self-interest isn’t a motivation at all; indirect self-interest almost certainly is. And so it is for many.
So of course I have biases. Of course I have self-interest in mind somewere. How does this invalidate the basic claim that I know why I adopt the positions that I do, and it’s not because I’m a stupid selfish jackass?
Izzy doesn’t suggest that the only alternative to being the single most clearly self examined human on the planet is being a stupd selfish jackass. <-- pet peeve: least favorite debate feint.
I’m not sure what you mean here. Being described as a “stupid selfish jackass” sounds a whole lot worse than merely “hav[ing] self-interest in mind somewhere”, but it’s essentially an exaggerated version of the same thing. (OK, maybe take out the “stupid” part :)). If you are biased and have self-interest in mind somewhere, then you can be adopting positions that you might not otherwise adopt because they benefit you. What I understand lissener to be saying is that the rationale for conservative positions is so weak that no reasonably intelligent person would adopt them if they were not biased by their own self-interest. I don’t see how you can refute this based on your own assessment of your thought process.