Do you really believe that all opinions have validity? What if someone were to have the opinion, and I'm sure there is some racist who does, that all blacks in America should go back to being slaves. Is that a valid opinion?
Sure some opinions can't be called invalid, like if you like chocolate more than vanilla (which I do), but I think other opinions are certainly invalid?
When one seeks to understand, one finds what one seeks. When one seeks division and fragmentation, one finds that too.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
easy... if you said women are inferior, i would say that was an invalid opinion.
if you said blacks were inferior, that is invalid.
i am sorry, not every opion is to be valued or respected
There is nothing to apologize for. You are entitled to your opinion.
If I said women are inferior, you would judge that statement on the surface, without trying to understand what I am speaking about? Would such a judgment stem from your personal and limited (biased) view, or from understanding my view (in this hypothetical)?
Women generally have 2 1/2 times less musculature than men have. I might refer to the fact that women have "inferior" musculature, and might be able to prove that based within certain parameters.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I would love to clarify my assertion: Any politician that is going to be able to hook the masses is doing so because they reflect the masses. Obama may be "shiny" and yet, that he resonates with so many shows the similarities he has with so many. The majority of people are imbalanced, and play this imbalance out all around them. And further, they deny what they do, and point the finger at the other guy. This mediocrity - this attachment people have with fragmentation and their egos, at the expense of wholeness, understanding and awareness is behind all judgment/blame/conflict and war in the world. People continue to act in such a fragmented way, and to gravitate to others who do so.
You might want to look up what "ad hominem" means...
I'm jumping in a little late but this one got me... It seems to me you're saying that because Obama is so popular that he must be closer to his constituency. This seems like a good thing. You've made a pretty broad generalization in that "the majority of people are imbalanced" and you've furthered it by suggesting that because these people are supporting Obama and are imbalanced, that he is as well. Is this what you're saying? If not, my bad. If so, could you elaborate?
And to the OP, just stop. Your drivel is embarrassing. It is, however, good to see a lot of people getting along in this thread and actually having worthwhile conversations.
When Jesus said "Love your enemies" he probably didn't mean kill them...
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
I would love to clarify my assertion: Any politician that is going to be able to hook the masses is doing so because they reflect the masses. Obama may be "shiny" and yet, that he resonates with so many shows the similarities he has with so many. The majority of people are imbalanced, and play this imbalance out all around them. And further, they deny what they do, and point the finger at the other guy. This mediocrity - this attachment people have with fragmentation and their egos, at the expense of wholeness, understanding and awareness is behind all judgment/blame/conflict and war in the world. People continue to act in such a fragmented way, and to gravitate to others who do so.
You might want to look up what "ad hominem" means...
Thanks for your response. However, this is still kind of vague. Can you show instances of Obama doing this? It seems to me that if he is rallying lots of people around him by espousing beliefs that others have, he is creating a greater sense of unity and wholeness, and not fragmenting the country, or understanding. If you could show some examples of what you're saying I'd really appreciate it.
Also, I know exactly what an "ad hominem" is. An "ad hominem" is a personal attack against the person without using any evidence or support. Its a type of fallacy. Your argument before was an ad hominem because you called Obama "mediocre" without backing it up. That's a personal attack on Obama as opposed to providing any evidence or real argument against him.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
When one seeks to understand, one finds what one seeks. When one seeks division and fragmentation, one finds that too.
I'm sorry, I'm not really sure what you're alluding to here. Maybe its me and I'm tired, or just not sharp enough, but I find some of your writing a little vague and ambiguous. I'm not saying you're wrong (not using an ad hominem ) just having a little trouble responding cause I'm not sure what you're saying. So again, if you want to clarify that would be great.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
I'm jumping in a little late but this one got me... It seems to me you're saying that because Obama is so popular that he must be closer to his constituency. This seems like a good thing. You've made a pretty broad generalization in that "the majority of people are imbalanced" and you've furthered it by suggesting that because these people are supporting Obama and are imbalanced, that he is as well. Is this what you're saying? If not, my bad. If so, could you elaborate?
If I said women are inferior, you would judge that statement on the surface, without trying to understand what I am speaking about? Would such a judgment stem from your personal and limited (biased) view, or from understanding my view (in this hypothetical)?
Women generally have 2 1/2 times less musculature than men have. I might refer to the fact that women have "inferior" musculature, and might be able to prove that based within certain parameters.
See, I kind of disagree with this. If your opinion was and you said "women are inferior" that would be invalid, plain and simple. If you meant something else, that "women have less musculature than men", that doesn't make your opinion of "women are inferior" valid. It would just mean that you hadn't stated your opinion clearly. These are two totally different opinions and just because you meant one, doesn't make the other valid.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
I'm jumping in a little late but this one got me... It seems to me you're saying that because Obama is so popular that he must be closer to his constituency. This seems like a good thing. You've made a pretty broad generalization in that "the majority of people are imbalanced" and you've furthered it by suggesting that because these people are supporting Obama and are imbalanced, that he is as well. Is this what you're saying? If not, my bad. If so, could you elaborate?
And to the OP, just stop. Your drivel is embarrassing. It is, however, good to see a lot of people getting along in this thread and actually having worthwhile conversations.
The majority is mediocre. That's self evident. What is normal and middle of the road is....middle of the road. Abraham Maslow, who studied self-actualized individuals - those who overcame their issues, and who tapped into their inner dreams and potential - questioned why the vast majority settled with mediocrity (98% are considered to be not self-actualized).
In terms of psychological human developmental stages, people who repress their dark side and project it out onto others...those who uphold black/white good/bad dichotomies are not individuals who are whole and healthy.
Imo, Obama is a great leader for what we have right now. He'll come across as a front-runner to many. He'll be an improvement, for sure. And yet, front-running mediocrity will perpetuate many of our ongoing problems, and at huge cost to Americans over the years. In the black/white right/wrong view, people will stay oblivious to what they deny and project onto others. And yet they will continue to create problem after problem for themselves. It's what the masses do in North America (among other places).
There is also the option of resolving problems. Resolution takes a different mindset than perpetuation. It calls for one to consistently rise above one's flaws. It entails aspiring to something beyond mediocrity and the status quo.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Thanks for your response. However, this is still kind of vague. Can you show instances of Obama doing this? It seems to me that if he is rallying lots of people around him by espousing beliefs that others have, he is creating a greater sense of unity and wholeness, and not fragmenting the country, or understanding. If you could show some examples of what you're saying I'd really appreciate it.
Also, I know exactly what an "ad hominem" is. An "ad hominem" is a personal attack against the person without using any evidence or support. Its a type of fallacy. Your argument before was an ad hominem because you called Obama "mediocre" without backing it up. That's a personal attack on Obama as opposed to providing any evidence or real argument against him.
An ad hominem is a personal attack against the person one argues against, rather than arguing the points....exactly what I first posted in this thread about. If I minimized the posters I am discussing issues with in this thread, rather than addressing the arguments, then it'd be an ad hominem. Until I do so, it is not.
Hitler created unity and wholeness, too. Not that I think Obama's intent is nefarious...but having a gift for rallying people together is typical of the "shine" Roland refers to. Obama will undoubtedly do good with that. And by his fragmented, non-whole view, he will inadvertently also cause negative consequences, thusly perpetuating good/bad. And his followers will continue to focus on his good deeds, and ignore his inconsistencies and contradictions, also perpetuating the denial and false images we currently uphold in North America along with experiencing the consequences for doing so.
Again, there is a world of wholeness behind good/bad and denial and unconsciousness. As long as people uphold their egoistic views at the expense of reality, they block movement into wholeness and awareness.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well they do quite frankly. He has zero tolerance for opposition in the middle east and will support Israel and fight "terrorism" for 600 years if necessary. That's a direct quote from him btw...
This is where a lot of Obama fans play ostrich..
so... actually understanding that terrorism is real is being the same as john mccain? obama is the only fucking person talking about diplomacy? he is the only one saying that war and violence will not defeat terrorism that is actually breeds it
not everyone thinks 9/11 was a government conspiracy dude. the shit did happen. alot of people died. it was not a movie. terrorism is real and should not be ignored. that doesnt mean you take the bush approach. it means you have to take it seriously and actually deal with it. and obama is, again, the only person talking about diplomacy with our enemies
not everyone believes everything they hear Alex Jones spew out
The majority is mediocre. That's self evident. What is normal and middle of the road is....middle of the road. Abraham Maslow, who studied self-actualized individuals - those who overcame their issues, and who tapped into their inner dreams and potential - questioned why the vast majority settled with mediocrity (98% are considered to be not self-actualized).
In terms of psychological human developmental stages, people who repress their dark side and project it out onto others...those who uphold black/white good/bad dichotomies are not individuals who are whole and healthy.
Imo, Obama is a great leader for what we have right now. He'll come across as a front-runner to many. He'll be an improvement, for sure. And yet, front-running mediocrity will perpetuate many of our ongoing problems, and at huge cost to Americans over the years. In the black/white right/wrong view, people will stay oblivious to what they deny and project onto others. And yet they will continue to create problem after problem for themselves. It's what the masses do in North America (among other places).
There is also the option of resolving problems. Resolution takes a different mindset than perpetuation. It calls for one to consistently rise above one's flaws. It entails aspiring to something beyond mediocrity and the status quo.
Ahh I see what you're saying. The only issue I have is projecting the issues of those that support him onto Obama. You seem to be saying that any politician, by gaining the votes required for office, must contain the issues of the populace. I think that is a stretch. Obama is a human, certainly. As was pointed out earlier, MLK, Ghandi, JFK were not saints, but they carried a message that inspired people to think about change. To cut down the overall good because of the faults of the individual is to miss the point.
And I see that you're having to work pretty hard in this thread now. Didn't mean to jump on you, just wanted some clarification. Thank you.
When Jesus said "Love your enemies" he probably didn't mean kill them...
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
I'm sorry, I'm not really sure what you're alluding to here. Maybe its me and I'm tired, or just not sharp enough, but I find some of your writing a little vague and ambiguous. I'm not saying you're wrong (not using an ad hominem ) just having a little trouble responding cause I'm not sure what you're saying. So again, if you want to clarify that would be great.
You are quite accurate that I am not arguing many points or details. I speak my view as I see it.
I also speak to universal Truths. Yes, universal truths can sound vague. I'm not hear to dispute the validity of people's very personal opinions. I'm not here to quibble over details. All views stand based on the experiences that created them, whether I believe they do or not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If I said women are inferior, you would judge that statement on the surface, without trying to understand what I am speaking about? Would such a judgment stem from your personal and limited (biased) view, or from understanding my view (in this hypothetical)?
Women generally have 2 1/2 times less musculature than men have. I might refer to the fact that women have "inferior" musculature, and might be able to prove that based within certain parameters.
angelica, come one. your kidding right?
if you say women are inferior, then that means women are inferior. and i would not value that opinion and would consider it invalid.
if i said my shit tastes like sherbert, i may find one person that agrees, but that doesnt validate it
not all opinions are valid or valuable. its pretty simple to me.
hitler saying jews are inferior and must be cleansed from the planet, you find that a valid and valuable opinion? not me
The whole Obama issue hinges on his blind support for Israel.
If you think cultural differences can be worked out through occupation and additional violence then I guess vote away.
I think the concept of beaten mercilessly into compliance is retarded (and impossible) personally, but Obama would apparently argue that.
Some neutrality from him would be nice....I'm just not seeing it. I'm seeing th opposite actually.
not a good sign at face value going in...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
An ad hominem is a personal attack against the person one argues against, rather than arguing the points....exactly what I first posted in this thread about. If I minimized the posters I am discussing issues with in this thread, rather than addressing the arguments, then it'd be an ad hominem. Until I do so, it is not.
An ad hominem is a personal attack against anybody, not just the person you are arguing against. You called Obama mediocre without giving any evidence or support. That is an attack to his person and thus an ad hominem. But this is not really important to the discussion, so I don't want to focus on this.
Hitler created unity and wholeness, too. Not that I think Obama's intent is nefarious...but having a gift for rallying people together is typical of the "shine" Roland refers to. Obama will undoubtedly do good with that. And by his fragmented, non-whole view, he will inadvertently also cause negative consequences, thusly perpetuating good/bad. And his followers will continue to focus on his good deeds, and ignore his inconsistencies and contradictions, also perpetuating the denial and false images we currently uphold in North America along with experiencing the consequences for doing so.
So then what would you suggest people do to elect leaders? I also don't know what you mean when you say both "he creates unity and wholeness" but that he has a "fragmented non-whole view" that seems contradictory. Also, why do you think that everyone of his "followers" will ignore his inconsistencies? It seems to me like you don't have much faith in anyone.
Again, there is a world of wholeness behind good/bad and denial and unconsciousness. As long as people uphold their egoistic views at the expense of reality, they block movement into wholeness and awareness.
Again, can you provide an example of Obama doing these kinds of things.
The majority is mediocre. That's self evident. What is normal and middle of the road is....middle of the road. Abraham Maslow, who studied self-actualized individuals - those who overcame their issues, and who tapped into their inner dreams and potential - questioned why the vast majority settled with mediocrity (98% are considered to be not self-actualized).
In terms of psychological human developmental stages, people who repress their dark side and project it out onto others...those who uphold black/white good/bad dichotomies are not individuals who are whole and healthy.
Imo, Obama is a great leader for what we have right now. He'll come across as a front-runner to many. He'll be an improvement, for sure. And yet, front-running mediocrity will perpetuate many of our ongoing problems, and at huge cost to Americans over the years. In the black/white right/wrong view, people will stay oblivious to what they deny and project onto others. And yet they will continue to create problem after problem for themselves. It's what the masses do in North America (among other places).
There is also the option of resolving problems. Resolution takes a different mindset than perpetuation. It calls for one to consistently rise above one's flaws. It entails aspiring to something beyond mediocrity and the status quo.
Humanistic psychology, of which Abraham Maslow was the father, and much of what you are espousing here was shown by Karl Popper (and David Chalmers) to be non-scientific.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
if you say women are inferior, then that means women are inferior. and i would not value that opinion and would consider it invalid.
if i said my shit tastes like sherbert, i may find one person that agrees, but that doesnt validate it
not all opinions are valid or valuable. its pretty simple to me.
hitler saying jews are inferior and must be cleansed from the planet, you find that a valid and valuable opinion? not me
Broad generalizations v.s. specifics is the issue here.
If something taste like something to someone it is valid, otherwise you are an elitist. Who's to say what is better for whom in this regard?
If Hitler said rid the world of Zionist Jews in particular I'd agree with him, so part of his opinion is valid. There's usually some measure of validity in every opinion.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Ahh I see what you're saying. The only issue I have is projecting the issues of those that support him onto Obama. You seem to be saying that any politician, by gaining the votes required for office, must contain the issues of the populace. I think that is a stretch. Obama is a human, certainly. As was pointed out earlier, MLK, Ghandi, JFK were not saints, but they carried a message that inspired people to think about change. To cut down the overall good because of the faults of the individual is to miss the point.
And I see that you're having to work pretty hard in this thread now. Didn't mean to jump on you, just wanted some clarification. Thank you.
I am glad to share a less-considered view. I appreciate your sensitivity.
I did say I'd probably vote for Obama if I would vote at all...or if I were American. Still, the man is not enlightened, despite his good points. I appreciate the value of enlightenment. All people are flawed, including enlightned people. I personally would much prefer my elected officials to be at a worldview beyond duality thinking.
It's a paradox. Those who spoke the Truth were/are unelectable. To be electable, one must resonate with the masses. That means one must vibrate at the same frequency of the masses. While vibrating to a similar frequency to the masses, one can have a greatly advanced method of communication. It doesn't change the frequency one vibrates at - only the method for communicating the frequency one is at.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I also speak to universal Truths. Yes, universal truths can sound vague. I'm not hear to dispute the validity of people's very personal opinions. I'm not here to quibble over details. All views stand based on the experiences that created them, whether I believe they do or not.
Does that make them valid? I can have the experience of being brought up raised by a racist, and therefore have racist opinions. Are my opinions now validated? Maybe rationalized on some level, but I don't believe they are validated; they are still wrong.
Also, I know what a universal truth is (oy - my philosophy teacher is gonna kill me now) but it seems, (at least without getting into all the technical philosophical issues and complications and implications of how they would work or not... etc...) that on face value at least some truths are some universal truths. Such as murder is wrong. Racism is wrong. etc.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
An ad hominem is a personal attack against anybody, not just the person you are arguing against. You called Obama mediocre without giving any evidence or support. That is an attack to his person and thus an ad hominem. But this is not really important to the discussion, so I don't want to focus on this.
I was always under the impression Ad hominem is when someone makes insinuations of a personal nature regarding his opponent despite the facts and information presented.
If someone is third party to the conversation are they really an opponent, or just a third party to the conversation? An opponent once removed not privy to the conversation...is that still an opponent? ....I guess is the question.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It's a paradox. Those who spoke the Truth were/are unelectable. To be electable, one must resonate with the masses. That means one must vibrate at the same frequency of the masses. While vibrating to a similar frequency to the masses, one can have a greatly advanced method of communication. It doesn't change the frequency one vibrates at - only the method for communicating the frequency one is at.
okay i have a question: how can i change the frequency i vibrate at? because sometimes i like it faster or more frequent.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
I did say I'd probably vote for Obama if I would vote at all...or if I were American. Still, the man is not enlightened, despite his good points. I appreciate the value of enlightenment. All people are flawed, including enlightned people. I personally would much prefer my elected officials to be at a worldview beyond duality thinking.
How do you know if Obama is enlightened or not? I read what you had before on Maslow, and read what Maslow meant by enlightenment, or transcendence, and I'm not sure I buy it. But either way, how do you know if Obama is enlightened or not? Why? Who do you consider enlightened?
It's a paradox. Those who spoke the Truth were/are unelectable. To be electable, one must resonate with the masses. That means one must vibrate at the same frequency of the masses. While vibrating to a similar frequency to the masses, one can have a greatly advanced method of communication. It doesn't change the frequency one vibrates at - only the method for communicating the frequency one is at.
So, who speaks the truth? Why do you think that and what's to say they are not electable? What about Obama makes what he says "untruth"?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
okay i have a question: how can i change the frequency i vibrate at? because sometimes i like it faster or more frequent.
Oh my...sounds good to me...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I was always under the impression Ad hominem is when someone makes insinuations of a personal nature regarding his opponent despite the facts and information presented.
If someone is third party to the conversation are they really an opponent, or just a third party to the conversation? An opponent once removed not privy to the conversation...is that still an opponent? ....I guess is the question.
Maybe you're right. It certainly includes the person you're arguing against, but I always understood the ad hominem fallacy to be any sort of defamation against a person without evidence or support.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
Maybe you're right. It certainly includes the person you're arguing against, but I always understood the ad hominem fallacy to be any sort of defamation against a person without evidence or support.
...is making me think
definition of opponent: "one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict)"
If the opponent can be considered in the virtual sense, then I suppose we're both right.
Not a direct attack, but an attack on a common position upheld by proxy.
Certainly ad hominem in nature at the outset.
kinda like splenda v.s. sugar... one is the real thing but both taste sweet.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
definition of opponent: "one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict)"
If the opponent can be considered in the virtual sense, then I suppose we're both right.
Not a direct attack, but an attack on a common position upheld by proxy.
Certainly ad hominem in nature at the outset.
kinda like splenda v.s. sugar... one is the real thing but both taste sweet.
Haha. Nice analogy.
And if I failed to use ad hominem appropriately I apologize. But there is definitely some sort of fallacy going on there (and one at least similar to ad hominem) because it is definitely not a valid argument to say "Obama isn't a good choice for president because he's mediocre" without backing it up, or anything like that.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
Before you respond to this, you need to watch the WHOLE video.
And after you do, if you are not bothered one bit by any of it then that scares me to death as an American.
And if I failed to use ad hominem appropriately I apologize. But there is definitely some sort of fallacy going on there (and one at least similar to ad hominem) because it is definitely not a valid argument to say "Obama isn't a good choice for president because he's mediocre" without backing it up, or anything like that.
No apology required. I just started to think about it, and you have a point. One can still make a comment of that nature despite the exposure to the source so to speak.
I'm sure there's a term for it.....If only I had a degree in wordology hehe
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
No apology required. I just started to think about it, and you have a point. One can still make a comment of that nature despite the exposure to the source so to speak.
I'm sure there's a term for it.....If only I had a degree in wordology hehe
If only we all did. Then the world would be a little less ambiguous... Oh, a guy can dream...
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
If only we all did. Then the world would be a little less ambiguous... Oh, a guy can dream...
Ok...I'm finished thinking about it, and you're right.
One can make an AH statement towards an individual without that individual being available for comment afterwards.
now...what were we talking about again?...lol
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
And if I failed to use ad hominem appropriately I apologize. But there is definitely some sort of fallacy going on there (and one at least similar to ad hominem) because it is definitely not a valid argument to say "Obama isn't a good choice for president because he's mediocre" without backing it up, or anything like that.
This is why I'm opting not to discuss the other points. When people only hear their judgments and cannot hear me, I'm out.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
If I said women are inferior, you would judge that statement on the surface, without trying to understand what I am speaking about? Would such a judgment stem from your personal and limited (biased) view, or from understanding my view (in this hypothetical)?
Women generally have 2 1/2 times less musculature than men have. I might refer to the fact that women have "inferior" musculature, and might be able to prove that based within certain parameters.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm jumping in a little late but this one got me... It seems to me you're saying that because Obama is so popular that he must be closer to his constituency. This seems like a good thing. You've made a pretty broad generalization in that "the majority of people are imbalanced" and you've furthered it by suggesting that because these people are supporting Obama and are imbalanced, that he is as well. Is this what you're saying? If not, my bad. If so, could you elaborate?
And to the OP, just stop. Your drivel is embarrassing. It is, however, good to see a lot of people getting along in this thread and actually having worthwhile conversations.
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
Thanks for your response. However, this is still kind of vague. Can you show instances of Obama doing this? It seems to me that if he is rallying lots of people around him by espousing beliefs that others have, he is creating a greater sense of unity and wholeness, and not fragmenting the country, or understanding. If you could show some examples of what you're saying I'd really appreciate it.
Also, I know exactly what an "ad hominem" is. An "ad hominem" is a personal attack against the person without using any evidence or support. Its a type of fallacy. Your argument before was an ad hominem because you called Obama "mediocre" without backing it up. That's a personal attack on Obama as opposed to providing any evidence or real argument against him.
I'm sorry, I'm not really sure what you're alluding to here. Maybe its me and I'm tired, or just not sharp enough, but I find some of your writing a little vague and ambiguous. I'm not saying you're wrong (not using an ad hominem
That's kind of the feeling I got too.
See, I kind of disagree with this. If your opinion was and you said "women are inferior" that would be invalid, plain and simple. If you meant something else, that "women have less musculature than men", that doesn't make your opinion of "women are inferior" valid. It would just mean that you hadn't stated your opinion clearly. These are two totally different opinions and just because you meant one, doesn't make the other valid.
In terms of psychological human developmental stages, people who repress their dark side and project it out onto others...those who uphold black/white good/bad dichotomies are not individuals who are whole and healthy.
Imo, Obama is a great leader for what we have right now. He'll come across as a front-runner to many. He'll be an improvement, for sure. And yet, front-running mediocrity will perpetuate many of our ongoing problems, and at huge cost to Americans over the years. In the black/white right/wrong view, people will stay oblivious to what they deny and project onto others. And yet they will continue to create problem after problem for themselves. It's what the masses do in North America (among other places).
There is also the option of resolving problems. Resolution takes a different mindset than perpetuation. It calls for one to consistently rise above one's flaws. It entails aspiring to something beyond mediocrity and the status quo.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hitler created unity and wholeness, too. Not that I think Obama's intent is nefarious...but having a gift for rallying people together is typical of the "shine" Roland refers to. Obama will undoubtedly do good with that. And by his fragmented, non-whole view, he will inadvertently also cause negative consequences, thusly perpetuating good/bad. And his followers will continue to focus on his good deeds, and ignore his inconsistencies and contradictions, also perpetuating the denial and false images we currently uphold in North America along with experiencing the consequences for doing so.
Again, there is a world of wholeness behind good/bad and denial and unconsciousness. As long as people uphold their egoistic views at the expense of reality, they block movement into wholeness and awareness.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
so... actually understanding that terrorism is real is being the same as john mccain? obama is the only fucking person talking about diplomacy? he is the only one saying that war and violence will not defeat terrorism that is actually breeds it
not everyone thinks 9/11 was a government conspiracy dude. the shit did happen. alot of people died. it was not a movie. terrorism is real and should not be ignored. that doesnt mean you take the bush approach. it means you have to take it seriously and actually deal with it. and obama is, again, the only person talking about diplomacy with our enemies
not everyone believes everything they hear Alex Jones spew out
Ahh I see what you're saying. The only issue I have is projecting the issues of those that support him onto Obama. You seem to be saying that any politician, by gaining the votes required for office, must contain the issues of the populace. I think that is a stretch. Obama is a human, certainly. As was pointed out earlier, MLK, Ghandi, JFK were not saints, but they carried a message that inspired people to think about change. To cut down the overall good because of the faults of the individual is to miss the point.
And I see that you're having to work pretty hard in this thread now. Didn't mean to jump on you, just wanted some clarification. Thank you.
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
I also speak to universal Truths. Yes, universal truths can sound vague. I'm not hear to dispute the validity of people's very personal opinions. I'm not here to quibble over details. All views stand based on the experiences that created them, whether I believe they do or not.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
angelica, come one. your kidding right?
if you say women are inferior, then that means women are inferior. and i would not value that opinion and would consider it invalid.
if i said my shit tastes like sherbert, i may find one person that agrees, but that doesnt validate it
not all opinions are valid or valuable. its pretty simple to me.
hitler saying jews are inferior and must be cleansed from the planet, you find that a valid and valuable opinion? not me
If you think cultural differences can be worked out through occupation and additional violence then I guess vote away.
I think the concept of beaten mercilessly into compliance is retarded (and impossible) personally, but Obama would apparently argue that.
Some neutrality from him would be nice....I'm just not seeing it. I'm seeing th opposite actually.
not a good sign at face value going in...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
An ad hominem is a personal attack against anybody, not just the person you are arguing against. You called Obama mediocre without giving any evidence or support. That is an attack to his person and thus an ad hominem. But this is not really important to the discussion, so I don't want to focus on this.
So then what would you suggest people do to elect leaders? I also don't know what you mean when you say both "he creates unity and wholeness" but that he has a "fragmented non-whole view" that seems contradictory. Also, why do you think that everyone of his "followers" will ignore his inconsistencies? It seems to me like you don't have much faith in anyone.
Again, can you provide an example of Obama doing these kinds of things.
Humanistic psychology, of which Abraham Maslow was the father, and much of what you are espousing here was shown by Karl Popper (and David Chalmers) to be non-scientific.
Broad generalizations v.s. specifics is the issue here.
If something taste like something to someone it is valid, otherwise you are an elitist. Who's to say what is better for whom in this regard?
If Hitler said rid the world of Zionist Jews in particular I'd agree with him, so part of his opinion is valid. There's usually some measure of validity in every opinion.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I did say I'd probably vote for Obama if I would vote at all...or if I were American. Still, the man is not enlightened, despite his good points. I appreciate the value of enlightenment. All people are flawed, including enlightned people. I personally would much prefer my elected officials to be at a worldview beyond duality thinking.
It's a paradox. Those who spoke the Truth were/are unelectable. To be electable, one must resonate with the masses. That means one must vibrate at the same frequency of the masses. While vibrating to a similar frequency to the masses, one can have a greatly advanced method of communication. It doesn't change the frequency one vibrates at - only the method for communicating the frequency one is at.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, that's fine. But if you can't lend evidence to what you're arguing, than there's no point in arguing it. Just state it as opinion.
Does that make them valid? I can have the experience of being brought up raised by a racist, and therefore have racist opinions. Are my opinions now validated? Maybe rationalized on some level, but I don't believe they are validated; they are still wrong.
Also, I know what a universal truth is (oy - my philosophy teacher is gonna kill me now) but it seems, (at least without getting into all the technical philosophical issues and complications and implications of how they would work or not... etc...) that on face value at least some truths are some universal truths. Such as murder is wrong. Racism is wrong. etc.
I was always under the impression Ad hominem is when someone makes insinuations of a personal nature regarding his opponent despite the facts and information presented.
If someone is third party to the conversation are they really an opponent, or just a third party to the conversation? An opponent once removed not privy to the conversation...is that still an opponent? ....I guess is the question.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
okay i have a question: how can i change the frequency i vibrate at? because sometimes i like it faster or more frequent.
cross the river to the eastside
First, I hope you don't think I'm being insensitive, really just trying to have a good natured discussion. No hard feelings at all.
How do you know if Obama is enlightened or not? I read what you had before on Maslow, and read what Maslow meant by enlightenment, or transcendence, and I'm not sure I buy it. But either way, how do you know if Obama is enlightened or not? Why? Who do you consider enlightened?
So, who speaks the truth? Why do you think that and what's to say they are not electable? What about Obama makes what he says "untruth"?
Oh my...sounds good to me...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Maybe you're right. It certainly includes the person you're arguing against, but I always understood the ad hominem fallacy to be any sort of defamation against a person without evidence or support.
...is making me think
definition of opponent: "one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict)"
If the opponent can be considered in the virtual sense, then I suppose we're both right.
Not a direct attack, but an attack on a common position upheld by proxy.
Certainly ad hominem in nature at the outset.
kinda like splenda v.s. sugar... one is the real thing but both taste sweet.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Haha. Nice analogy.
And if I failed to use ad hominem appropriately I apologize. But there is definitely some sort of fallacy going on there (and one at least similar to ad hominem) because it is definitely not a valid argument to say "Obama isn't a good choice for president because he's mediocre" without backing it up, or anything like that.
c'mon AG you don't really buy into this do you???
what do you think of Michael Moore?
No apology required. I just started to think about it, and you have a point. One can still make a comment of that nature despite the exposure to the source so to speak.
I'm sure there's a term for it.....If only I had a degree in wordology hehe
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If only we all did. Then the world would be a little less ambiguous... Oh, a guy can dream...
Ok...I'm finished thinking about it, and you're right.
One can make an AH statement towards an individual without that individual being available for comment afterwards.
now...what were we talking about again?...lol
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Sweet
Um, green eggs and ham? No wait that was the other Obama thread... hmm...