On 1/27/2013 4:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:51:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 1/27/2013 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:34:37 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
What I really what to know is: what motivates the need to
find oppression?
What motivates the need to deny oppression?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression>
''*Oppression*is the exercise of authority or power in a
burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.^[1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression#cite_note-1> It can also
be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being
oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or
physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety."
My argument is that the entire idea of oppresion is flawed
unless there is a clear and objective means to show the metrics
that is used.
I would say that is never a valid argument for anything. If I can't
give it a number that is objectively true in all cases then it doesn't
exist? Like, if someone cuts keeps you locked up in a dungeon for 20
years there is nothing you can say about it unless someone can point
to some kind of metric showing how much worse it was in the dungeon
than out of the dungeon?
Hi Craig,
Is it correct to generalize from a single case to a class?
What defines "burdensome", "cruelty", "unjust"?
Why would these concepts suddenly be mysterious? Why do we have to
become lawyers to address simple vocabulary that a 10 year old
understands clearly? In general, anytime that someone contributes to
your life in a way that you do not appreciate, and obstructs your
ability to free yourself from that condition, that is burdensome,
cruel, and unjust.
I am pointing the vagueness and subjectivity involved and arguing
that making judgements based on such subjective aspects should be
confined to case by case situations. To demonize an entire class or
group of people because of the bad actions of a few is bigotry, no? Thus
my complaint against the entire line of thinking that flows from the
idea of oppression.
All subjective eye-of-the-beholder valuations.
You mean the universe?
Oppression cannot be objectively defined,
I just did.
I single case does not define a class, and I was not talking about
observations, I was considering evaluations: namely what does it mean to
be oppressed.
as I previously pointed out how one could claim a state of
oppression and there is no way to measurable show that the
oppression does not exist - it is impossible to prove a negative.
There is no measurable way to show that measurement is an appropriate
political standard. The entire legal system has no problem with
establishing all kinds of measures and metrics of what constitutes
these qualities though. They aren't always in agreement, but they
aren't uncommon or puzzling.
Oppression now become a means to oppress itself, to pit one group
against another.
So when the rich enslave the poor its not oppression, but when the
poor claim to be oppressed, that is oppressive to the rich?
Is membership in a class a permanent condition? Can the rich become
poor and the poor become rich? Again, the class argument is flawed.
So I ask, what is the motivation to even consider the idea of
oppression if not to inject subjectivity further into relations
between humans that already hard enough to figure out?
Liberty is always the motivation to eliminate oppression. Liberty has
no meaning if it cannot be used to inject subjectivity into relations
between humans.
Oh, nice, switch to something else.
When one can look at the measurable results of policies and find
where and when people thrive
(Socialist Scandinavia)
So go live there. See ya!
and where and when they do not,
(Capitalist Sub-Saharan Africa)
Capitalism exist in sub-Saharan Africa? Really? For a few or for
all? I think that your definitions are off
there is no need to even mention the word oppression or injustice.
Huh? Democratic countries are destroyed because multinational
corporate interests are threatened, and there's no need to mention it?
Why would you not mention oppression or injustice? I mean I could
understand if someone was an heir to a fortune from these enormous
crimes that they would not want to mention them, but why would anyone
else want to protect them?
When evaluating policies, does it not only matter that the results
are beneficial by some agreeable measure so that we can cast aside
all subjective aspects?
To cast aside all subjective aspects then we would have to exterminate
all human life on the planet.
We can see in history that collectivist policies have almost
uniformly caused harm (measureable in the numbers of people in
mass graves), so why do they keep being tried?
Because privatization uniformly leads to tyranny.
Where has this occurred uniformly? Seriously, Craig, this is bullshit!
Has there ever been a collectivist revolution which was not motivated
by the injustices of the regime which is the target of the revolt?
Read about Mao's China sometime.
The South could have kept their slaves - all of them, forever, if they
just hadn't have been so incredibly evil about it. They had to rape
them and beat them and torture them routinely for pleasure. They had
to expand their unquenchable perversion westward and in perpetuity.
That is what pissed off the abolitionists enough to make trouble. This
is the inevitable result of the denial of oppression and survival of
the fittest fallacies. Slavery is the pristine example of unregulated
capitalism.
Frankly, this is a display of utter nonsense like likes of which I
cannot believe!
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
