Another way forward might be to find an instability within the enframing concept that sees humans within nature, or as always already inhuman. Human mastery over nature, seeing it as instrumentalised for us, invites a reverse position where we're (1) nothing but one type of its instruments and (2) thus have a duty of care for that which we're coextensive with. — fdrake
Heidegger captures something about us, perhaps. Marx is probably helpful too. Our practical behavior is more abstract these days. Quality is quantified. Perhaps I make low-quality or ugly things because they sell when I'd prefer to make quality or beautiful things. Maybe our dreary practical situation is especially ugly in some way lately, but it's hard to imagine being saved entirely from unromantic compromise. — jjAmEs
Someone should also have offered the white person who thinks that their whiteness is harmful to others a cyanide pill and advised them to "do the right thing". — Bitter Crank
So his argument is that the Platonic world of math doesn't exist because it is... uninteresting? :lol: — litewave
Thinking about it here, what is lurking behind my objection to this reasoning seems to be Hume's guillotine: that one cannot derive an ought from an is. So my objection is that one cannot go from the claim "being is intrinsically good" to "therefore, one ought to procreate." — Thorongil
You said I cannot trust your source unless it's backed up by a left-wing source. — Baden
unintentionally ironic posts about circling the wagons and so on. — Baden
This is question begging. The reason you expect not to learn anything new is because of the biased nature of the compilers and sources of the information. Ergo, genetic fallacy. — Thorongil
Sorry, but have you two jokers ever even written a paper in your lives? You know where you need to provide evidence from a source that can be taken seriously. When your professor told you, you can't just copy-paste from anywhere on the internet. I'm happy to deal with this issue, so please get your act together, get some info from a source that's not polluted and we'll deal with it. — Baden
It's curious the way you repeatedly use this strategy of pretending to be disappointed and sorry and so on about the posts of your interlocutors here. And I suppose you'll respond to this comment by feigning more heartbreak. Here, have a hanky in advance. Or even better, just answer the rest of my earlier post. Nobody's interested in your emotional state. — Baden
Is this honest-to-God that complicated for you? It's astonishing just how far you are willing to bending over backwards in order keep up with this facade of ignorance. Trudeau tweets his support of the Women's March and that the Canadian Government will keep fighting for gender equality. Peterson's response: Is that the murderous equity doctrine? For God's sake, how is this not hyperbolic? Or are you just unable to accept that fact that Jordan Peterson is capable of saying stupid shit on Twitter? — Maw
legitimately referred to as "a murderous equity doctrine" and whether that kind of rhetoric can be considered "hysterical". — Baden
We don't even have to argue over whether the left or the right is more unreasonable overall actually because it's not all that pertinent, — Baden
Sanctimonious? Check. Self-righteous? Check. Hectoring? Well, there's a limit to the extent to which it can reasonably be claimed blatant sarcasm is just gentle ribbing, and so...Check. Sectarian? Check. Maudlin? Well, expressions of self-pity and claims of sad disappointment probably qualify, and so...Check. Blustering? Well, certainly indignant, at least, and the use of uppercase can be said to be "loud", so...Check. — Ciceronianus the White
It worries you that I think gender equality shouldn't be equated with a murderous equity doctrine? — Baden
but you can't admit to that happening on the right even with blatantly obvious examples, and would prefer to distract with talk about hypothetical "reptoid aliens". Yawn. Same old boring tribal support mental block. — Baden