Fallacy of false analogy.
Climatology is a hard science, sociology is (at best) a soft science. If you will not address the logic that I have presented, then you will not. But if all you can do to gainsay it is point out that I’m on a message board, then you haven’t actually challenged it.
Yes, because we’re dealing with hard science and we can firmly define what we mean when we talk about “neurotransmitters” and “white blood cells” and “serotonin receptors”, and so on, and talk about exactly what their roles are.
It’s nowhere near as clear when we’re talking about (or dividing up) various classes, talking about the effects, violational actions, unintended consequences of actions, etc…
This is especially relevant since we can either have, say, a protein that will bind with a certain receptor site or one that will not. What we don’t get is a protein that might bind or might not with a receptor site, depending on whether a Functionalist or a Critical Theorist or a Feminist is looking at them.
If that’s what you feel you have to do, okay.
I’d hope that other people will look at the support that the arguments have, rather than who wrote the bits of support that the arguments have.
No problem for me, that was going to be my line anyway.
BTW even if it is a soft science one should have no problem finding experts that demonstrate the proper way to use the terms, just like finding citations that show what treaties are to clueless supporters of North Korea. (Just to remind you and others how it is that you squashed ignorance in this forum before, now that was one of the candidates for the most beautiful ignorance crushing efforts I have seen I have to say)
Not if those terms are part and parcel of the academic jargon. Racial theory was quite popular during some time periods in human history, too. And when races were the terms of categorization, then that’s what got used.
Well, I will thank you for that.
But, still, those issues are quantitatively different. If treaties, international law (or what-have-you) exist, they can be cited and there’s little debate, they’re somewhere, and they say something.
Arguing that a term isn’t ideal, and is too malleable, is not at all the same thing as citing a law, or a scientific fact. It’s especially difficult if an academic discipline uses a specific bit of jargon and, generally, in order to publish you have to use that jargon too. The ivory tower has a way of falling into patterns while playing the glass bead game.
Yes, but the point still stands, someone with some expertise must exist that will show to all the proper way to use the terms. And the context.
BTW, I still see the OP as just barely making a good point. Yes, there is such a thing as class struggle, but the following wall of text just left a lot to be desired. What I have seen so far is that the working definitions include a struggle not only for economical but for political power.
And that is because indeed most sociologists today consider Marx an important figure but it is clear that they are not depending on him to go forward.
I’d be happy if Glutton would actually provide a refutation or retraction on any of the points that he responded to with insults or handwaving instead of actual debate.
While I’m chalking off my Christmas wishlist, I’d also like it if Glutton provided even the basest sort of argument about what errors he sees in the posts of mine he just quoted, other than a spirited rendition of The Nuhn Unh Song (with rare, radio-censored LOL U R Dum chorus).
I mean, as long as this is in GD. Now, to be fair, his comments about the quality of my mind, whether or not I’m senile and whether or not my statements are honest would tend to point to this being a Pit thread that was snuck into GD, but as long as we’re in GD I’d at least appreciate if the OP maintained a pretense of answering factual and logical challenges from this and the original thread with something more substantial than “Nuhn unh!!”
It no longer is. Since the original vaguely asserted topic appears to be little more than an excuse for two posters to snipe at each others’ language, I’m sending this nonsense to the BBQ Pit.
Glutton, you are a liar and a troll, a mental cripple and very nearly one of the stupidest Dopers we’ve got here. Because you continually get your ass handed to you on factual matters, and don’t know what the fuck to do about it, you start shit-threads like this in some sort of passive-aggressive version of impotent rage. Just like you started a pit thread in GD because you could only sputter and babble and sling ad hominems when you were caught being fucking retarded. Again.
Just like now your only responses to being shown to be full of shit in GD is to have the awesome factual rebuttal or changing the subject, or personally insulting me, or starting a Pit thread in GD where you can’t even manage to respond intelligently to anybody, at all. You are one poor, stupid, mouthbreathing, slackjawed fool who continually brings an angry kazoo to a gun fight.
The OP looks like the biggest pile of BS I’ve seen on this MB other than the nutters we get in here from time to time trying prove that their religion is the one true religion.
I formulated them, of course, just to make clear what I meant by the terms for purposes of the discussion; thought that was clear enough (if I were relying on some sourced definition, you know I wouldn’t be lax in linking to the cite); clear enough, also, that nevertheless I was not using/defining any of them in an idiosyncratic or unconventional way, with the sole exception of using/defining “class struggle” in a sense unconnected to Marxist ideology (but far closer, I think, to the sense most people would understand when they hear it used).
It’s not trivial, but it’s vague* until you provide some sort of definition as to what you’re referring to.* Unless you provide some guidance as to what is or is not class struggle, you’re just saying, over and over again, “Class struggle exists.” Okay, great. Now what?
Unfortunately, as this has turned into an epic flame war between you and Finnagain, and my keyboard has again started turning apostrophes into this - è - I guess nobody else has a place in your little war. Have at it, guys.
In Windows, left alt + shift swaps between keyboard languages. You’re probably swapping US English and French. You can disable it in the Region and Language settings of Control Panel.
Nah, not an epic flame war. It’s annoying that Glutton has recently developed a habit of making shit up and applying it to me, and kind of amusing that he’s an intellectual cripple who can’t defend his ideas and couldn’t do much other than Pit me in GD, and even then couldn’t make a go of it.
If you’d like to try to drag Glutton, kicking and screaming, into rationality? Be my guest.
I’ll be happy to bow out, Glutton’s dishonesty and his silence speaks well enough, and assuming that he continues his habit of ignoring or avoiding any of my comments which show he’s full of shit, I assume he’ll ignore or avoid pretty much everything I’ve said. Go for it if you’d like, kicking a mental defective’s head in is only fun as long as they don’t just go all ragdoll on ya.
I formulated them, of course, just to make clear what I meant by the terms for purposes of the discussion; thought that was clear enough (if I were relying on some sourced definition, you know I wouldn’t be lax in linking to the cite); clear enough, also, that nevertheless I was not using/defining any of them in an idiosyncratic or unconventional way, with the sole exception of using/defining “class struggle” in a sense unconnected to Marxist ideology (but far closer, I think, to the sense most people would understand when they hear it used).