🚀 go-pugleaf

Gary Strand <gary@titanic.cgd.ucar.edu> wrote in article
<uxubu6l2onp.fsf@titanic.cgd.ucar.edu>...
> m > Me <none@urbusiness.com>
> gs> Gary Strand
> 
> m > To answer your questions, of course liberals can be rich.
> 
>   Your concession is accepted.
> 
>   If you know person X has an income of $100000/yr, what can you assume
about
>   X's political inclinations?

I'd have to learn more about how they make their living and how
they use their money.

> 
> m > Tell me about your life and I can probably find the themes that
helped
>     form your political personality.
> 
>   I see - I'm not a product of my own free will and mind, I'm just a
product
>   of my environment. Gee, if I had a strong mother, does it mean I'm gay
too?

That's not what I said, either.  Again it's out of context, Gary.  Why are
you quoting me, incompletely?  What is a free will?  What is a free mind? 
Do we ever completely escape who we are when we use that mind?  If so, how
do we escape our own frames of references?  

I tend to think there is an objective reality, but I'm not sure one can
ever get to know it because one's personality is always getting in the way
of a virgin perception.  We filter the perceptions against our belief
system, a great deal.  I admit to doing it.  

Some people see a sunset and say it is the work of God.  Others see the
sunset and say it's a flaming gaseous ball.  Some have no eyesight and
can't see it at all.  Our capacity to physically sense something, and our
ability to understand it based on preconceived ideas makes all the
difference in whether one has or doesn't have a free will and free mind.

But, I said one is ultimately responsible for one's actions.  

 
> m > Those who rioted in Denver were likely socialized through living in a
>     lower socioeconomic bracket, through being denied unalienable rights
due
>     to institutionalized racism,
> 
> gs> I see, it's not their fault. Anglos made them do it.
> 
> m > Huh?  When did I say that?
> 
>   The 2nd phrase of the above quote, following the 1st comma.

Nope.  Read it again.

Now this time try to perceive it without the filter of your ideology.

It says what it says.  If you infer something else, that has everything to
do with how you are wired for perception and very little to do with me.

Take responsibility for your perceptions, Gary.  Use your mind to see what
is and not how you want it to say, to prove your point.

(A quick digression: Limbaugh's book "The Way Things Ought to Be" is so
wrong.. normative filters do nobody any good when trying to understand the
nature of a thing.  What person A thinks person B ought to be has little to
do with how person B is.  If we start making public policy based on
normative misunderstandings, as we have done in the past, we will find
ourselves quickly in deep stuff).

> 
> m > However, that being said, economic factors are a part of one's
political
>     socialization.
> 
>   A negligible part. There's plenty of rich liberals and poor
conservatives.

You make the statement.. now back it up with data.

Again you are just not getting it, Gary.  Your prejudices and opinions are
quite entertaining, but where's your proof?

I offer study after study on the effects of economics on political
socialization as my proof... excellent studies.  What have you got to
offer?

Gary, anybody can sit on a bar stool and tell me how they think things
ought to be.  I'd damned near pay to have someone talk to me, with proof,
about why things are the way they are.  


>   There neither a correlation nor a causation.
> 
> gs> The reason(s) for the two incidents boil down to just a few things -
not 
>     many young people are mature and responsible; a sense of
"entitlement" to
>     do whatever you feel like when you feel like it (certainly a leftish
>     idea);
> 
> m > The hell it is.  The notion, my friend, is classically liberal.. 
> 
>   Nope. Hedonism (if it feels good, do it) is classically leftish.
> 

Gimme a source for that conclusion, please.  I offered my thesis for why it
has its basis in classical liberalism and the enlightenment and gave you
three examples of those who helped define the notion from that school of
thought: Locke, Jefferson, Mill.  Time for you to do the same.

> m > It's illogical to criticize something you don't understand.
> 
>   I understand perfectly - you're attempting to rationalize criminal
actions
>   and lay blame elsewhere. Typical left-wing tactic. There are many more
CU
>   students and Denver Latinos who didn't riot or "cruise" - how do you
ex-
>   plain away them? Every single CU student or Denver Latino made a
choice,
>   and those that broke the law, or infringed on the rights of others,
have
>   to take responsibility for those actions, and don't need you to make
ex-
>   cuses for them.
>

And here's what they call a fallacy of composition.  If everyone doesn't
react the same way, then it negates those who did.  Because the big picture
did not reflect the smaller picture, somehow the ideas expressed about the
smaller picture are wrong.  Nope.  Logical fallacy.  Next.

Nor do I defend lawlessness.  Again, that's your bias against liberalism
intruding on that "free will and free thought".

As I said, I'd like to understand why people break the law so
we can use that understanding to prevent future crime.  Again I feel like
I'm writing to a brick wall.

And with that, Gary, I leave you to the mental stasis you call free will
and free mind.  

This discussion went nowhere fast, and I'm not going to keep trying to
defend against things I never wrote in the first place just because you
seem incapable of comprehending the written word because of the ideological
trance you're in.

Give me proof, give me logical arguments, try to persuade me not only that
you are correct, but WHY you're correct.  Then, maybe, we have something to
discuss.