Each section is roughly in response to each of your sections.
The problem here is still your veiled hostility, and your assumption that I, like you, ultimately need to win this conversation (and yes, you make it that obvious). If you want this conversation to go anywhere, stop trying to win, and stop trying to belittle me. Stop vaguely referring to your maturity or wisdom without offering anything that validates such an assertion. You've also misinterpreted my hostility as posturing. Since this assumption seems to relate to a large portion of your response, what type of negative consequence can you see coming from that (in terms of the effect on the validity of your response)? One consistent criticism that you lodge against my argument, and my reasoning, is a failure to adequately explain thoughts, but what of your consistent refusal to acknowledge inarguable facts (or logical conclusions) that I posit? What of your inability to fully respond in any meaningful way? All of your responses are composed of a large percentage of insults and frivilous critiques, as if you believe that offering criticism can validate your position. Again, you commit hasty generalizations repeatedly. You continue to play semantics (and I did get a chuckle there, as a matter of fact). Through statements that you have made, I can logically infer that your perception of agribusiness and globalization is somewhat related to the anti-globalization movement. In your first response to me, you defended your position on locally grown foods. Unless you developed an entirely new perspective that is exclusive to you, generalizing in such a manner doesn't negate the possibility of productive discourse. You could have easily responded by pointing out the aspects of your perspective that differ from those whom willingly include themselves in a homogeneous group, and then continued to defend the aspects which do represent your position. Instead, you evaded the question by criticizing my generalization - when I clearly pointed out that generalizations made were for the purpose of simplicity's sake.
You appeared to be plagiarizing most of your opinions. Even now, you come off as someone that's consistently referring to a dictionary, a thesaurus, and Wikipedia to construct your argument. I am aware of the severity of such an accusation, but as this is an informal discussion it isn't really an issue. My biggest concern with your ability to reason is your apparent demand for discussions to exist in absolutes, and your consistent refusal to respond to my statements on the basis that they are either A. not absolutes or B. too vague. Instead of saying "what does he mean precisely?" you response is similar to those used to simplistically explain the Third Reich and tolerance of the Third Reich. Then, you make the illogical connection between this and a slippery slope. Again, if you were really as well-educated as you propose to be, you would be aware of the fact that, in general, the process of globalization will inevitably have a negative impact on a small percentage of American business owners and employees, and in the opinion of just about everyone who's opinion matters or might matter in the future, this is necessary and tolerable for long term growth in the global market.
Woefully, it seems like instead of considering all of my responses, you rush through my posts in an effort to respond. I will forgive you for the misunderstanding. I say this in relation to your reiteration about extraneous topics. I never implied that you had brought up either topic, they were simply musings on the less intelligent and rational members of of various movements (that are closely aligned with your original position). Instead of interpreting these statements correctly, you take them as criticism of you yourself. It seems like so much of this conflict is consistenly influenced by your refusal to have a conversation that exists outside of the realm of control and influence, or winning and losing. You so often become predisposed with posturing and attempting to gain the upper-hand that you marginalize some of my sentiments, and simply refuse to offer a rebuttal to others (you seem to selectively choose which statements to refute). Now you're getting even worse; rather than composing a myriad of relevant responses, you're taking specific phrases and offering quips in response. For example, you quoted my statement about productivity rates, and then responded as if you had stated the opposite, and even made a sarcastic comment about it. Do you literally fail to understand when someone is using information as emphasis? This is the second time that you have failed to catch this. It is not "commentary on the obvious," at least not for many people.
Maybe I was implying that you're obtuse? I wasn't implying that you need to go from point A to point B without divergence. If I thought that this was the case, I wouldn't be talking to you. I was simply pointing out that you seem to focus on the individual human aspect of this discussion (and I would assume that you do so generally). Rather than focusing on millions, you are focusing on 1,000, or 20,000, or 100,000 (and more if you're considering the plight of the developing world). You also seem to be basing all of your ideas in this conversation on the assumption that A.the current economic system is broken or inadequate, B. Your opinions are inherently more rational, and thus correct, and C. a more sustainable and equitable option exists. Again, you seem to think in either/or, at least in this conversation.
Instead of actually addressing my statement, and recognizing your mistake, you reassert what you appear to believe is your near-omnipotence (in terms of my motive). I wish that you could understand why you sound ignorant when you make certain statements. You're undermining my education is Psychology again, thank you. That entire statement that you have expressed your analysis on twice? You still fail to interpret it correctly; instead of focusing on my supposed identity crisis, how about reading over it again? Then, consider your opinion, consider my opinion, and think about the words "relatability" and "manipulation." Most individuals who subscribe to radical ideas, regardless of political orientation, generally refuse to listen to those whom oppose them. Expressing my history of political activism usually lends credence to my opinion in discussion with various strands of political activists. Your conclusion assumes that my criticism for said ideas is a reflection of an identity crisis. I don't think you understand what an identity crisis is.
On the issue of posturing. Do you believe that posturing through telling me that I'm posturing numerous times will eventually make this assertion true? You seem to have misinterpreted my statement about fairness and the question of PMs in my first paragraph. Another fallacy on your part. I checked none of your sources on this one actually, if my memory serves me correctly (I did on others). This statement actually magnifies your predisposition to think in linear and obtuse terms. This time, you have shown a clear misunderstanding for the purpose of dictionaries and encyclopedias. Neither are meant to provide a complete explanation of a philosophical concept. Your only response to my statement about utopia (the correction of what it "actually meant") was posturing on your part. Because of this, I assumed that your definition of utopia, and understanding of the concept, was misinformed. If you did not want me to assume this, you should have considered a more thoughtful and intelligent response to begin with. Utopia is a philosophical construct. A dictionary does not have enough room to consider utopia in it's entirety, nor does Wikipedia (though Wikipedia certainly comes closer). You have made another arrogant assumption. I don't need to prove you wrong on this topic, I hope that you understand this. My understanding of Utopia is concise, and as to your statement that it's common knowledge...a lot of things are common knowledge in simplified form, dumbed down for the lowest-common denominator so people can "kind of understand" when they read it in Oxford's. Again, my understanding of utopia is rooted in the work of Thomas Moore, and necessarily incorporates further philosophical discourse on the topic. You're more interested in proving me wrong than providing me with an opinion - or a personality that I can legitimately respect as an intelligent peer. Keep saying posturing though, eventually it will mean that I actually am (ironically, you have been posturing since your first rebuttal to my response about locally-grown produce). Cleverly, you've disguised said posturing behind a feigned lofty disposition, but your behaviour belies this maturity repeatedly.
One of the common themes in our discussion has been progress in terms of the equatability of globalized capitalism and agribusiness. I assumed that you would have been clever enough to come to the conclusion that I was referring to this topic, provided the previous sentences make a direct connection with our initial subject matter. Instead, you again use my haste to complete my post to avoid actually addressing the statement, even though you and I both know that with a little analyzation, the meaning of the statement would have been clear. Likewise, the portion of my statement that quoted follows a statement that makes what I am implying very clear.
The issue of suburban sprawl should have been over. We have concluded that you misinterpreted my intent. You continue to express yourself arrogantly, and without merit. Did you really need to act like I'm not aware of the fact that suburban sprawl is a consequence of various factors? Sometimes you come off as exceptionally intelligent, and at other times you come off as petty and obtuse. You are very...peculiar.
You introduced and supported the locally-grown movement, which shares a number of connections with the anti-globalization movement (in terms of participants and NGOs/NPOs. Does your perspective on this subject not share many tenets with said movement? The hostility is flaring up again. I directly stated that I do not believe that you are obtuse enough to subscribe to any of the aforementioned movements. I presented a short but concise juxtaposition between people like you and I and those whom subscribe to any given movement as True Believers. I had the explicit intent of not grouping you in with any given movement, but I did draw comparisons between said movement and your ideas (though I did call you a wingnut, but that was more of a potshot than anything else). What I was implying is that your slippery slope correlates with that of the larger anti-globalization movement. It is not a specific slippery slope, but one which has a variable starting point, though said starting point is relatively constant in it's theme (it always concerns some government action, or some multinational corporation). Likewise, consequences vary in specific effect and order of consequences. I was implying that it is always a slippery slope to state that globalization and produce importation/exportation have a net negative effect and various consequences. I was stating that most considerations of this subject often disregard primary factors, and thus produce a slippery slope fallacy leading to the conclusion (which is always the negative impact of globalization or one of it's outlying effects, such as the marginalization of privately owned farms and organic/locally-grown movements). The slippery slope usually concludes with the same consequence, regardless of the preceeding variables. You have continually used this situation as a way to avoid a relevant response. Instead of responding as you have, it would have been more productive to say "would you please clarify?" Next time, say "you know, I couldn't really interpret this part, could you clarify before I respond?" I will do that if such a case arises.
Again, you made it obvious that you do not understand the concept of the slippery slope; you even defined it incorrectly in your last response in your haste to express your opinion. You already made the mistake of making it obvious to me that you had not even considered the slippery slope before our discussion, or only discussed it in passing during whatever degree of education you have completed (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe the latter). Your definition of slippery slope was taken directly from Wikipedia, and your personal thoughts on the matter were simply incorrect. The argument that you were somehow considering my interests when choosing Wikipedia is feeble, and you know it. I made it clear to you that my understanding of logical fallacies and applied ethics transcends the limited overview on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but what I said about the slippery slope stands.
Wikipedia is disreputable. If you had a history in academia you would know this. We both know that your reasoning for using Wikipedia is a lie. If you had been aware of this information previously, you would not have referred to Wikipedia. This paragraph is the definition of posturing, but I'm sure you already recognize that, and anticipate this very response (in fact, I'm inclined to believe that your consistent reference to posturing is meant to be commentary on this entire conversation, and both of it's participants...are you that clever?) Likewise, my attack on your educational background has little to do with discrediting your opinion in the eyes of the passive observer. You offered an explanation of the slippery slope that was so misinformed that, regardless of your arrogance, I don't need you to concede defeat. I literally laughed out loud when you tried to explain logical fallacies to me with authority. I am interested in your educational background.
The interesting thing is that you have come to another conclusion while still undermining the scope and objectivity of my perspective. You took a few vague criticisms as a reflection of my character - while you originally referenced The Yes Men in a hostile fashion, which naturally lead me to believe that much of their work coincides with your perspective. Does it not? If not, in which way does your appraisal of corporate culture differ? Regardless of how you define The Yes Men, the vast majority of people who appreciated it or reacted to it were observers, not those whom were being critiqued. This is ultimately why I considered it banal. Any time anyone (an artist, a group, an author...) tries to evoke a response from others who disagree with them or live a lifestyle which is the polar opposite to their own through such methods, their work is banal because it accomplishes nothing, it is pandering to the converted and agitating others. This says nothing about my socio-political perspective, because I feel the same way about all such movements, groups, or individuals, regardless of their affiliations of beliefs. Your musings on this subject are predicated by your misunderstanding of my position, and your inability to understand my motive (or refusal to to address it because doing so makes rebuttal easier?)
I used the inclusive "you," which may or may not include you. not the exclusive. The only time I used the exclusive "you" was in the last two sentences. One in relation to your use of wiki sources, and the other in relation to your use of gross use of hyperbole in relation to ConAgra. Likewise, the inclusive "you" was used to connect your ideas concerning locally-grown food products with the anti-globalization movement at large, which incorporates just about every idea that you have expressing concerning the subject. Stop being arrogant. Regardless of this, it was rather crass for me to do so in this paragraph, considering that I could have addressed the issue of misinformation or disinformation without grouping you with any specific movement.
Do you not recognize your own use of disarming suppositions? It essentially means that I don't believe that your use of inductive or deductive reasoning are entirely sound when coming to your conclusions about the locally grown produce, private farms, and agribusiness. You're foolish if you thought that I meant that individuals go through that process literally in the decisions that they make. Whether they have the interest to research or not is irrelevant. I feel like I need to spell things out for you. Some people do research and investigate their choices. Some of these people are objective in their process of reasoning. More are not, and thus even when educted, some come to conclusions based upon some, all, or more factors than were listed. Most, regardless of their resources (material or otherwise), generally come to conclusions based upon some of the factors listed (values, morals, assumptions, experiences) while occasionally analyzing factors, stakeholders, their subjectivity,and bias, etc. All of these things can influence your choices in seconds. While they often register this process, emotion is often more powerful than reason for many (if not most). This is probably the most dynamic group in terms of variability. Then there are those people who generally act on instinct. I do not believe many people consider their choices of peanut butter based upon research and investigation either. When did I say that? The individual? What do you imply? I assume that's not a euphemism for anything and take it at face value. Do you mean humanist? Anarchism? Existentialism? the inate importance of man? You have faith in man? That is too vague. I believe the individual is typically simplistic and predictable.
No, it was a joke. I support the integration of socialist tenets into the republican/parliamentary and capitalist system, with prudence. I was mocking the banality of your source's information. I don't dislike you at all, not to say that I particularly like you, but I'd have to say you're more fun than most. Is this a joke? I mean..you're not really capable of such fallacious reasoning, are you? Societies and individuals often must make choices for the greater good of all the stakeholders. I still don't understand why you can't grasp this inevitable facet of the human condition? In answer to your other question, no, I'm not a sociopath.
I already told you that...numerous time. I also cited one of ConAgra's dubious business practices in my first post (when I initiated the discussion of ConAgra). So yeah..D- on reading comprehension.
Wait, wait, wait...so there's a correlation between the genetically modified product and contract law? Yeah...this is an issue of contract law and tort law. So why not just bring up this unethical practice rather than refer to genetically modified produce? Why not remove the hyperbole? Do you have the citations on the terminator genes from a reputable research institute or academic journal? This is the single interesting point of interest that you brought up about ConAgra (the rest of it I was spewing out of my mouth myself). Which makes me wonder why you posted everything that I clearly stated that I was aware of anyway. What was the purpose of redundancy?
True Believer is a non-fiction book assigned to every philosophy student since...1971? Yeah, it was a self-deprecating joke. You weren't really supposed to respond. It's called informality...personability. Instead of taking the time to write all the html constantly quoting me, why not write something substantial?
Are you taking the mickey?
Log in to comment