Stacy Summary: Of the sort of mentality of the Kos left is really the peasant attitude that Matt Taibbi has written about and which the second link below suggests the health care legislation introduces (the post was written in December 2009, but is relevant for today).
Tags: healthcare · kucinich · left · neo-feudalism · progressives129 Comments
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/indexes/idx24_usd_en_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_caoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_bpoz_2.gif)
@ frances snoot
>> I’m not arguing…
No, you’re not arguing. You’re just making statements.
Articulate a universal and absolute morality.
This requires global governance.
>> Declaring truth to be a set of dogmatic assertions is the domain of papal rule.
What do you *mean*? Who declared ‘truth’?
Again with your need for relativism.
What? That I ‘declared’ violence to be immoral and said that a commitment to non-violence is a moral absolute, I’m invoking the powers of the papalcy??
What sort of “hyperbole” is that??
Is violence morally acceptable?
Yes or no?
Either doesn’t make it a ‘truth’.
Always (yes, many, many times) accusing people of invoking ‘the truth’? Sheesh!
Adam:
I’m sorry I disappoint you.
You are inconsistent. If you demand solid science behind climate regulations you should hold the same criteria (solid science) for the designate ‘psychopathy’. It just stands to reason.
>> Articulate a universal and absolute morality.
What?
I need a global government to stop myself being violent against others??
Of course, not!
A global government – and it’s likely coercive actions (for what else is a government for??) – would be the very definition of violence, a monopoly of violence no less.
I sincerely hope we’re reaching a common understanding with these lastest exchanges, I don’t want to waste my time playing a game called ‘WIN’.
You’ve begun attacking my person, Adam. Calling my argument oatmeal is a whimpy response.
Please: show me the science behind your assertion concerning the category “psychopath”. The ruling is completely arbitrary, no?
>> You are inconsistent. If you demand solid science behind climate regulations you should hold the same criteria (solid science) for the designate ‘psychopathy’. It just stands to reason.
Science ‘proves’ a definition of a word.
I won’t hold my breath.
What is it with you and words, anyway? I mean that question with genuine curiosity.
You will find my consistency in empircism, not abstract reasoning, btw.
Just to be clear regarding climate, I want solid evidence not of policy but of the science, the empirical observable actions and interactions within the atmosphere.
Again, empiricism. Judging things by actions.
>> You’ve begun attacking my person, Adam.
Where? Demonstrate, otherwise you’ve just committed the very same crime.
>> Please: show me the science behind your assertion concerning the category “psychopath”. The ruling is completely arbitrary, no?
What??
The science. You just linked me some ‘science’. Whether you question that particular methodology is up to you.
What do you mean by arbitary? Do you simply mean all science and knowledge is conditional and open to revision and refinement? Well, then, of course.
Category. Again, I care not for the definition of words only the actions those words are seeking to explain. Call the sun ‘knock-knock’ doesn’t prevent me predicting it’ll come up in the morning.
From my point of view, you are seeking towards relativism. It’s just not productive. You can WIN any debate by using it only because you’ve killed the debate.
I care only about learning not winning.
You’ve begun attacking my person, Adam.
“You never fail to disappoint.”
…………………
That’d be bingo, Agnes.
What?! Finally! I’ve been coming here for a year now, and I finally get to win.
Agnes, it’s not about winning.
What-erwe playin’ fur?
It’s about learning, Agnes. You don’t get anything for winning.
Well, Shoot-n-Tarnation. Them’s the brakes, ain’t they! I thought I was goin’ home with a new crockpot.
Agnes, Agnes. You never fail to disappoint.
What’s yur name, you uppity-coot?
Jim.
I thought yur name was Adam.
No, a few years have come and gone since those days were upon the earth. You poor barbaric woman. You need to learn some empathy.
I’ve got a mind to learn YOU somethin’. Playin’ this darn game fur nothing!
Not for nothing, Agnes. Life is a path: a journey: a laugh a minute.
I’m goin’ to home. Ya can keep this darn card and stop callin’ off them numbers. Dang-nabbit.
Learn to care! Learn to share, Agnes! Peace!
>> Good Lord. That is hyperbole. Declaring truth to be a set of dogmatic assertions is the domain of papal rule.
Equating my argument with a brutish religion. I accuse you of attacking my person and avoiding commited argument in general – which is the worst crime since it deprives both of us of our time.
“That is hyperbole.” This could be said about anything and everything. Relativism? You WIN?
You can do better. Or do you *categorise* encouragement as an ad hominem?
I’m not very good with poetry. Excuse me for not reading in full that particular post.
I take it the spirit is to gloat at having identified something to get upset about?
You never fail to disappoint.
Adam, Agnes left. To whom were you speaking? I’m sorry. She seems to pop up at odd times and leave oatmeal strewn about the threads. We are working with her here, but she has a problem with empathy. Perhaps a little more social cohesion in her community would ‘do the trick’.
Agnes insists she should be ‘left the hell alone’ to watch daytime television and play bingo. How can she find fulfillment or happiness in those activities? We are concerned and insist that she ‘come to terms’ with her errant conscience.
In her last session, she ranted about you. I’m sorry, Adam, she feels violence is fine. She likes the Green Bay Packers: her trailer is filled with memorabilia from prior games. She also beats her husband Abner regulary with the Reader’s Digest.
We appreciate your concern, and we are doing everything within our capability to return Agnes to her community as a productive and happy person.
from:
–those who know, care
“What do you mean by arbitary?”
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary
For goodness sake!
// What you mean by x in the context of y, the actual argument. //
I can’t continue. No more replies to this thread.
Did we learn anything? Me, not really.
Thanks anyway.
Adam:
I learned something!
You don’t have the link.
The classification of “psychopathy” and the accompanying remedy will be decided by an arbiter. That is why I said the category was arbitrary. The condition is not prelated by scientific empiricism but by a category of neglect and an underlying premise of what constitutes ‘empathy’.
“The evidence came from brain scans of volunteers ranked according to their psychopathic traits through psychological testing.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jeSBZZ_cVO3ZbvCAoffAZXHxIzNQ
The science of correlation based upon arbitrary “traits” deemed unsavory?
The arbiter is the person holding the clippad and checking the ‘traits’.
Thanks for the link. According to my list, I read that article on the March 15th.
Apologies for not sticking around to read or properly respond to your comments.
@Adam:
Relativism or pragmatism? :
“Pragmatism’s basic move is to declare that the answers to these questions will not be found by identifying some transcendental universal and then conforming ourselves to its normative demands (like “Be ye perfect”). Rather, we must, and can, make do with the “ordinary aptitudes of human beings (ourselves) viewed within a generously Darwinized ecology, without transcendental, revelatory, or privileged presumptions of any kind.” Pragmatism “completely undermines any assurances, empirical or transcendental, that exceed the provisionality of what we may consensually construct (in our own time) as a workable conjecture about the way the world is.”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/pragmatisms-gift/#more-42151
@frances snoot
I feel it polite to respond to you. I don’t mind doing so while I’m online watching this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUP4gC_N6ww
Rather than get into yet another faux debate, I’d rather just say that pragmatism has been criticised as being relativistic in moral terms, and I very much agree. I’m sure there’s more to be said, but I don’t have the time to get into it.
So what’s left to ask you is, what do you want from me? It seems to me you’re playing a game called WIN and I’m playing a game called LEARN. So if you’re asking me to continue this exchange until such time as you’ve received your WIN, I kinda don’t want to unless you’re offering me some learn along the way. I’ll respond, but I’m really not engaged.
Have *I* made you angry? Are you looking for revenge?? I can’t imagine what I can do to satisfy you if that’s the case.
I feel like you’re forcing me into a role of your ‘enemy’ and that anything I say towards your argument (such that it is) you take as an attack on your person whether you explicitly say so or not.
I just want to move along until the next exchange hoping that it can be more productive.
Peace? Or at least a temporary halt in hostilities?
On to part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lH3qPxeC9s
Adam:
You surely didn’t find Fish a bore, did you?
I’ve got to be honest, upon clicking-through, what little I scanned didn’t particularly grab me.
Though this I noticed is a pertinent question:
“If a philosophy doesn’t have a real world payoff, what’s the use of it?”
“When pragmatism tells us that there are no first principles, it not only disqualifies itself as the source of guidance and justification; it disqualifies the whole enterprise, at least in its more ambitious forms.”
Pragmatism saves us from lethal boredom and granulated assumptions.
Here’s an example of a capricious ordinance:
“Another key clause has caused rather more argument – at least outside parliament, says our correspondent.
This is the creation of a new crime of psychological violence inside the home.
The bills’ supporters say it is important to recognise that actual violence against women is always preceded by psychological bullying, and that this too needs to be outlawed.
But many lawyers and professionals in the field are nervous, our corre
They say it will impossible to say at what point verbal abuse – for instance in an argument – suddenly becomes a criminal offence.
Critics argue the psychological violence clause is unlikely to make any practical improvement to the lives of women who suffer domestic violence.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8537591.stm
Stacey is right to call the “Kos left” blogosphere peasant-minded. A more feckless pack of ineffectual losers could scarcely be imagined. They imagine they can make lasting incremental improvements by conceding their principles at every turn. I wonder how that would have worked for Dr. King? These people refuse to learn, so they are either masochists or morons – either way they richly deserve the abuse and disdain they regularly receive.
The PDA, the Progressive Caucus, etc. are the Democrats’ equivalent of the ‘Tea Party’.
My letter to Dennis Kucinich:
So how did they get to you, Mr. Kucinich?
Did your opposition to Obama’s gift to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries start to waver when Rahm Emanuel went to the House Progressive Caucus a month ago and called you and your colleagues “a bunch of fucking retards” for not seeing the benefits (more campaign money) of voting for the bill the health care lobby drafted?
Maybe it was Mr. Obama’s letting you ride on Air Force One. Is that plane really cool?
Maybe Mr. Obama offered to create your ‘Department of Peace’, making you its first Secretary. If that’s the case, be sure to ask for an office with a window. Doing nothing all day gets pretty boring if you don’t at least have a window to look out.
In the press conference in which you announced your switching your vote you admitted that the bill is still a bad bill — as you have been telling everyone for months. You rationalized your new support for the bill on the grounds that a defeat for Obama’s health care bill would “delegitimize” Obama’s presidency. In other words, you think Obama’s presidency is legitimate and worthy of protection. That is an odd defense, coming from someone who sought to impeach Obama’s predecessor, Bush, because he started a couple of illegal wars, violated the Geneva Convention, and pushed through the civil liberties disaster called the PATRIOT Act. In case you haven’t noticed, Mr. Kucinich, the current president, the man whose ‘legitimacy’ you hope to preserve, is expanding Bush’s illegal wars into Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and even Colombia. There has been no congressional authorization for these illegal acts, either. Obama has also pledged to give the military and intelligence services free- reign when it comes to their treatment of ‘detainees’ (the Obama administration, consistent with the preceding administration, refuses to call prisoners taken in this war ‘prisoners of war’, because prisoners of war have rights under the Geneva Convention). AND (last but not least) Obama just pushed through a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act (in addition to defending warrantless wiretapping of American citizens). In other words, Obama is doing all the same things that you thought warranted impeachment proceedings for Bush. But, when it comes to Obama, you throw away your integrity to defend him.
Nazi America, The corp. Gov. Hail “o” excuseee mee “O”
Yup, the progressive left should never be taken seriously because they are hypocrites and as much as they say they stand for social justice & human rights and all that other mambo jumbo, they really don’t care, they are so stupid they think that “coverage” equal “care”, “coverage doesn’t equal “care”, and “coverage” doesn’t equal “low costs high quality health care”, even the author himself contradicted himself by supporting it, I wonder if he would say the same thing if Bush or McCain had passed this same bill. No No No, Mother F*ck the progressive left, the only think the progressive lest care about is Gay rights, Finding more converts into the Gay life style, making sure the family breaks down & culture is pissed on, and a brand of feminism which literally treats women like imbecile children and by law give them the right to do whatever the F*ck they want with no consequences and no responsibilities what so ever, they can continue to feel like victims and enjoy that pleasure & sympathy that comes with being a victim, and making sure more & more people become Homosexuals & lesbians that is all the filthy progressive left in the USA cares about, they don’t give damn about anything else in this world. Not wars, not poverty, not healthcare not anything.