Suppose hypothetically I place a low value on a human and then fail realize when they produce a good idea. It's only to my detriment. — Cheshire

Suppose you don't place a low value on a human and then end up a prospect? That could be to your detriment.

It's a rare deliberate use of a universal. All human knowledge is subject to unknown errors. It's assumed to be undeniable as the basis of critical rationalism; until critical rationalism is shown to be an error. — Cheshire

I don't even know what that meant in the context of our discussion.

Nah, I don't judge you either. — Cheshire

Go ahead and judge. It's human. Value, it's human.

I'm confident everyone being intolerant about everything isn't it. — Srap Tasmaner

You might be right. All I know is, some times it is good to not tolerate something.

dehumanization seems like the extreme result of devaluation. — Cheshire

Anything can be taken to an extreme. That doesn't make it undesirable.

I disagree with them, but I don't see a need to devalue them. I need people that disagree with me in order to improve my ideas. A world where everyone agrees would eliminate this activity. — Cheshire

You like a hard stone upon which to whet your edge. That's a good thing. But if that stone is banging against your edge, it has lost it's value.

Every human organization, endeavor, or product will be subject to human error. If I devalue everyone subject to error, then I devalue myself. — Cheshire

Notice your use of the word "every", "everyone". Take it down a notch. That is extreme. If you see the world in such extremes, it is no wonder you can't appreciate the nuance of relative value.

I share the sentiment with regard to the struggle in today's landscape. Taking the 'high road' in the moment looks like weakness, but we forget it's a choice. It is often frustrating to play by the rules while the opponent would cheat at every turn. — Cheshire

Notice how, in this very thread, the defeated are trying to now take the high road? Conveniently forgetting how they call vaxers "sheep" and tools of big pharma, and whatnot? Treating us like shit?

Then, once the left stands up on it's hind legs and starts bringing them some of their own shit, they all of a sudden starting crying foul. Fuck them. And the gurney they are rolled in on.

They can dish it out but they can't take it. This kind of attitude, of mine, expressed here aggressively, is then used by them as they cry to mommy, the reasonable mediator (you?) about how bad people like me are. Don't fall for it. They'll be right back to slinging shit and being bully's once they get their way.

Do you know of an example that isn't in the context of a military operation? Your analysis is correct; I'm making the assumption that devaluing groups is inherently a bad decision. The exception of "so I don't mind killing them" doesn't carry the same weight with a civilian. I'm sure I'm making a dogmatic error somewhere, but I haven't located an example where devaluing a group of people was the solution. — Cheshire

I do know of an example and I lead with it: Trumpettes/Republicans.

However, you have entirely missed my distinction between devaluation and dehumanization when you say "so I don't mind killing them." That is the dehumanization used by many a human to make themselves feel better about killing, enslaving, etc.. That is a totally different than devaluation which is nothing more than an assessment of relative worth, of a person, a group, a position, etc.

If you want a non-military example of the benefit of devaluing a group of people, see every party in every election.

it goes both ways. — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed. In fact, like a little child, I feel like saying "But they started it!" LOL!

On the other hand, it is funny to watch the right start playing the victim card when the left starts giving them a taste of their own fucking medicine. Once they get their teeth kicked in with some push-back truth, they, with the tails between their legs, come back in trying their hand at "reason" and "calm" and "gravitas". So, our aggression and devaluation has served it's purpose: It's shown these bullies what it's like to be on the short end of the stick. Now they get a little more polite, they learn some manners, and don't venture out from under the fridge unless they are prepared to act like adults. They are still wrong, but at least they aren't throwing their weight around like they have been. Good stuff.

Government is the problem, remember. Saint Reagan said so. — Xtrix

That and trickle down is good.

Before Dennis Miller turned, he once opined something to the effect: Trickle down? If that's not fair notice that you are about to get pissed on, then I don't know what is." LOL!

The dynamic Xtrix created that influenced your interpretation of my position. When he devalued the group of people that might caution against thinking like a nazi; suddenly the thoughts of the person that holds a cautionary principle is worthy only of dismissal or easily attributed absurdist views.

I'm not even saying you are wrong, only that your beliefs about my position were unduly influenced in a way that doesn't serve the truth of things. It does serve a willingness to set ourselves above others. Which is what the Nazis did. I wouldn't have selected that group as an example of who we ought give consideration toward; but if I can present a reasonable argument against the worst example, then maybe my thoughts have objective merit. I always expect and receive fair treatment in our discussions. I have no complaints. — Cheshire

I don't think what Xtric said influenced my interpretation of your position. I was pretty much dealing with your statements alone. If anything, there is the opposites of "no devaluation vs devaluation" which I was trying to thread between: i.e. Devaluation is just a tool and not good or bad in itself. Rather, the extremes of those who wield it, or refuse to wield it, can generate an outcome that can be good or bad.

In fact, I was not saying you are wrong, only that your beliefs about my position were unduly influenced by your assumption that devaluation is inherently bad or only used for bad (and should thus be avoided). I was not saying it was bad or good; only that it is not inherently bad. Just because Nazis did it does not mean that is the only use of the tool. Nazis used guns, too. They used language, food, all kinds of things. So did we.

Your initial statement on the matter was interpreted by me as "devaluation leads to bad things." That may be true, on occasion, but that is not always true. It can lead to good things. The uniform lets us know who to shoot at and who not to shoot at. When a soldier dons his enemy's uniform, he becomes a spy. They get a whole different devaluation treatment.

Devaluation does indeed serve a willingness to set ourselves above others. That can be a good thing. Nazis, not so much. Allies, yes. I'll not cede the field to them in their use of the tool.

My devaluation did not start with Nazis but they do serve a useful foil. Most everyone is familiar with them and their use of devaluation. My devaluation started with Trumpsters/Republicans, but not everyone on this board is from the U.S. or is familiar with their level of devaluation and dehumanization of the left, so yeah, Nazis work.

Oh. I have no idea what that means — frank

That's okay. It's there if you want it. Or not.

Sounds pretty benign, though. — frank

It is. Much more benign than dehumanization.

Anyways, if you are vaccinated, what is there to fear from the unvaccinated? — NOS4A2

Variants and passthroughs that arise due to the recalcitrance of the unvaccinated. Indeed, the variants that have arisen thus far are due to failures to isolate and mask (and now vax). And there could be some on the horizon that are worse, thanks to those who don't play ball.

What's the mark of distinction? — frank

Dehumanization is what it says it is: De-humanizing. Personally, I hate the term, because is implies that that which is not human is somehow less, or that humans are somehow entitled to a consideration not applicable to others. I have the same problem with the term "humane." Seems like BS to me, since I've never met an animal that was as inhumane as most folks I know. Nevertheless, I digress.

Devaluing is a different animal (pun intended) all together. Devaluation recognizes the "humanity" of the person or group that is devalued. It just notes that they are worthy of less consideration in the making of plans. An example: When Lt. Aldo Raine carves a swastika into the forehead of a Nazi POS, he is just devaluing the individual for having aligned himself with a group that is an enemy. He has usually inquired as to what the Nazi intends to do after the war, or if released. The Nazi usually says what he hopes will buy his pardon; like doffing the uniform of the group and slipping back into the status of grey man, having learned his lesson and wanting peace. That, however, is not reliable. Thus, he is branded with his own brand so others will forever know he was a Nazi. He can go back to the plow and peace, but he will have to warn others of what he is and was. He's still human. But he has not been dehumanized. Indeed, he has been accorded all that humanity would call for. In this case, that would be devaluation.

(I could go on about uniforms and ranks and groups and the reasons therefor, but it's a long history.)

So, the unprofessional, emotional, childish person would need to dehumanize the opposition in order to impose upon them that which most humans deem as applicable to animals (after all, we treat animals like shit). Whereas the professional fully recognizes the humanity of the opposition and simply devalues him in accord with his perceived worth; a worth that he himself has accorded himself by his actions and affiliations. He may be highly valued among his own, but not so much among those he dehumanized.

Hope that helps.

and I believe that lateral flow tests have a quite high false negative rate — Michael

:up:

I think I read somewhere that it also takes a while after exposure to register on the test. If I get it from you and then take the test shortly thereafter, I may show clean. I'm not sure what the time frame is but it could lead to that case where a person is tested and allowed to do X but the horse is out of the barn. They are doing X and spreading disease. I'm not sure on the science of all this, but that was my understanding. It's not a good thing if little Johnny get's it from the bus driver, tests negative that morning, spends all day in class spreading crap, then tests positive the next morning. "Oh, we better close the school down! 50 kids have it! I wonder where it came from?"

It's what I quoted is what I took issue with; maybe sit with this a minute. I'll assume your right till you let me know otherwise if it helps. — Cheshire

I sat with it. I went back up and re-read what I said (summarizing my understanding of what you said), and then re-read your taking issue with that, followed by my explanation. You did not use the words "kumbha ya" but your argument seems to be that things would be better if we did not devalue groups. By better, I mean all hunky dory, kumbha ya, etc. Prospective Nazis would not become Nazis if we would only refrain from devaluing Nazis. Devaluing groups is bad, like the Nazis did. It is not good, like the Allies did. What am I missing?

Do you not understand what I'm saying here? You are demonstrating the flaw of assigning thoughts to a person based on your perception of the group of people you have in mind. And doing so inaccurately. — Cheshire

Was it the "kumbha ya" that you took issue with, or the idea that a tool taken off the bench would make the work better? If the former, then no, you did not use those words. But if the latter, maybe I missed your point. You don't like devaluation of groups. I say it is merely a tool that can be used for bad (Nazis) or good (allies) and you seem to be arguing that if no one ever devalued groups then things would be better. I used "kumbha ya" to summarize. If that is not what you are saying, then please enlighten me.

No, everyone who does this sort of thing believes it's ok to dehumanize part of the human population.

You're one of those. — frank

Sorry, frank, but you need to brush up on your analytic reading skills. We have expressly distinguished between dehumanization and devaluation. I'll wait while you catch up.

It's not all gold. — Cheshire

It's like getting the sleeping giant up off the couch. It's hard to be ruthless. Until it's not.

I don't recall saying this or suggesting it; which proves my point better than my argument. — Cheshire

The fact you don't say or suggest something proves a point better than argument? Hmmm. I'll have to take that one under advisement.

A person unwilling to devalue the worst amongst us in principle, will never devalue the innocent in practice. — Cheshire

That is so fundamentally untrue as to be crazy. In fact, shit rolls down hill. Think master, house slave, field slave.

In practice is where it matters and in principle we create the boundaries that prevent falling into the same patterns with different names. — Cheshire

I've got not truck with that. I just apply it differently.

If your going to be ruthless, then why be slightly ruthless? — Cheshire

Lazy.

I share the sentiment with regard to the struggle in today's landscape. Taking the 'high road' in the moment looks like weakness, but we forget it's a choice. It is often frustrating to play by the rules while the opponent would cheat at every turn. — Cheshire

To paraphrase one wag: "When Michelle Obama says 'When they go low, we go high' I'm thinking 'How about middle?'"

In principle it sets one further apart from Nazism. — Cheshire

I'm not asking about me. I'm asking about the prospective Nazi.

Considering things in the context of active military engagement presupposes quite a bit. I'm not sure it's suited for broad application; unless normalizing the state of war is desirable. — Cheshire

That just makes my point about gradients and tools. Devaluation may underlie bad (which you focus on) but it also underlies good (which I focus on). You might say that if it somehow went away, then we would be all kumbha ya. Great: start with the Nazis and get back to me. You can not devalue them and then say to the prospective Nazi "Hey, see, I didn't devalue Nazis. You should thus avoid them."

just gave license to corporate America to enforce his pro-pharma agenda. — NOS4A2

That's what happens when you are a petulant, obstinate, disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish child. I taught you long ago, NOS, that no law, regulation, rule, or policy ever came about in a vacuum, simply as a power grab. They were all the result of people who refused to respect the rights of others. They are taught manners but when they don't learn, the hammer comes down and they whine like little bitches. GO JOE!

The Nazis were firm believers in your position; not mine. — Cheshire

So were the Allies allied against the Nazis.

How is *not* devaluing Nazis going to prevent one from becoming a Nazi?

Who says the interests of society is health and safety? — NOS4A2

Article 1, Section 8 and a metric shit-ton of common law and state constitutional and statutory law.

I am fully vaccinated and I listen to the advice of my doctor. — NOS4A2

Did you do that only after you worked to falsify any theory, and applied the scientific method to what your doctor said? Just curious.

I’d love to hear what you think the “interests of society” are. — NOS4A2

The interest of the state is to protect the health and welfare of the citizens. Some times that means distance, mask, vax. Those "individuals" who don't want to play ball can stay home and off of society's streets and public places.

Do we want to create a society that operates on the rules of war? — Cheshire

See the tool example. Everything doesn't have to be either/or. There are gradients in life. But the left, in general does not stand up on their hind legs when doing so might keep us all from war. They let the right push them around and use those methods until war becomes necessary. Then they get their asses up off the couch, kick some ass, and go back to their lives. Maybe if they stood up a little sooner, engaged in a little push-back, speak a little of the right's language, then we would not end up in a war. So yeah, fuck Trump and his acolytes. I hope the DOJ burns them down.

I still argue that it is better isolate the ideas from the people. — Cheshire

I agree, but when the people throw their lot in with, and identify with an idea, I see no problem in holding them to it, especially if doing so will free up resources for others who could avail themselves of a good. For instance, if a guy won't take the vax because it is not FDA approved, then he should not take other non-FDA approved drugs to save him from being killed by that which the vax would have save him from. If he thinks Covid is BS, he should not take up the limited resources and time of individuals who could tend to others who need those resources or time. In a tip o' the hat to humanity, we can allow him to beg on bended knee, confessing the error of his ways, and swearing off the idea he had once thrown his lot in with; and then we re-value him, treat him, save him, and send him forth as a soldier to convert his former comrades.

Dehumanizing is arguably bad; devaluing groups is perfectly normal, and often just. — Xtrix

:100: Individuals often use dehumanization to harden their hearts and make killing easier. A seasoned soldier, on the other hand, doesn't need to dehumanize to kill. The killing is a business based upon devaluation. Killing Nazis was business and business was good.

at least acknowledging that people are a little more complicated than this or that ascription. — Cheshire

They can be, but when they throw their lot in with X, they have branded themselves with a group and with no aid from me.

It's the basis for tribalism. The foundation of fascism. It reduces the human condition to some narrow division of ideals and places us further from a constructive process. — Cheshire

While that may be true, it is also the basis for the forces required to defeat those ills. A destructive process.

It's a tool that can be used for ill or for good. Removing the tool from the work bench doesn't make all work the better.

Thank you spark that keeps this old carcass moving around.

This is a way of blaming them for one's low valuation of them. — Cheshire

Indeed, it is. Placing blame where it belongs. If they devalue themselves, that's on them. Think ISIS, if that helps.

Historically lumping undesirables into sets and devaluing them has preceded atrocities. — Cheshire

It has also preceded election losses, progress and change. But what might be an atrocity for them is a net win for humanity.

I think you can really get to know some one and determine they're shit on an individual basis if it's necessary to produce a market price. — Cheshire

True, if you want a market price for individuals. But if you want a market price for groups, use the groups. Think Liz Cheney and Donald Trump, as individuals, and the Republican party as a group. The first represents classic principles of the group to which she belongs. The second does not. Yet the group chose to throw her under the bus and run with the latter. By doing so, the group has devalued itself. So, the first set her market value and we can consider that, but her remaining with the group affects that individual value. But the group value (or lack there of) is a separate matter based upon their treatment of the individual.

:100: :up:

It's bad practice to devalue groups of people. — Cheshire

Some groups of people devalue themselves. That can aid in finding their market value.

The maskless rallies, the red-faced anti-maskers screaming at grocery store workers, the protesters hurling invectives at the schoolteachers who are begging for masks so that schoolchildren can return to school — Xtrix

I just think Trump voters and Republicans. And I remember them, after Trump won, saying "Fuck your feelings" to the left, and their coffee cups with "Liberal Tears" written on them.

Karma, bitches.

Plenty of countries choose not have such mandates. It’s a matter of authoritarianism. — NOS4A2

That sounds like a pretty loose definition of "authoritarianism." Any time authority is exercised when it does not have to be, that is an example of authoritarianism?

It's illegal to drive drunk. I suppose that is a matter of authoritarianism. Okay.

Support for abortion is completely dependent on emotion and not based on rationality. If you want to be an animal your choices are in your hands — Gregory

Support for life is completely dependent on emotion and not based on rationality. I am an animal, and so are you. You don't have any choice in the matter.

If it wasn't for the abortion issue biologists would be in agreement that human life starts at conception. — Gregory

I agree, life starts at conception. So what? The baby's right to life is subordinate to the arbitrary and capricious whims of the mother.