Ted Kennedy Dead.

[foxpaws]

Can you say "distinction without difference"?

In all the ideas you mention, the application may be a little difference, but the basic ideal is the same.

They are shag? Really? Divine justice is the same as natural justice? Divine justice is arbitrary if you go by the concept that 'it is right if God commands it'. Is natural justice arbitrary? No it isn't, it is principled. So even the basic ideal - is justice arbitrary or is it principled is quite different in just those two ideals.

...doubt it.

Don't doubt it - try it. Justice is not a constant. The will of humans to have some sort abstract notion of justice in place within their societal groups happens often, but even that isn’t a constant. But how that notion of justice is defined - that will never be a constant. Just as the idea of 'superior being' as an abstract notion is often present in societal groups - but how that 'superior being' is defined varies greatly (this is an example…). Too many variables are present within any societal group to create a ‘constant’ across different societies as far as justice is concerned. There may be some similarities, but an overall constant isn't possible.

Now you are working to smear me, a pattern it seems when called on your dishonesty. Instead of, in any way defending yourself, you mock and belittle me with distortions and lies. You know that my pattern has not been "walk away" when "the water gets a little hot". Some of the longest threads on this forum have been due to our back and fourth. I have stopped engaging in that because it is futile; you cannot reason with someone who refuses to be reasonable.

Shag – there have been some decent exchanges – but lately, you have been getting more and more monistic in your statements, and less and less willing to allow ‘us’ an opportunity to find out your reasoning behind them. I do question, a lot, you might see it as being unreasonable, but I am trying to understand. When you reduce everything to a single point, force that point as being 'correct' without reasoning or cause, it is hard to understand where you are coming from.

Specifically, there is this question...Don't you ever have any interest in understanding a point of view instead of just critiquing it and propagandizing? You have said you do, but your actions consistently show that you don't. Which should be believed; your words or your actions?

Yes I do shag – why do you think I have asked over and over and over again this simple question…

Show me where justice has been served.​

You have claimed it was. I am looking to find out your reasoning behind this – I want to understand why you think that even in some tiny, minute form, that justice was served in this case. I want to understand your point of view – but when you state, ‘I have already shown where justice has been served to a small degree in this case,’ and then don’t really explain yourself it is hard to discuss your point of view.

So, just show me where justice has been served even to the smallest degree and then we will have a starting point. I will understand your rational behind that statement, right now, I don’t have a clue why you think justice was served.

I would love to see your viewpoints on justice – the bigger picture – but without understanding this tiny basic concept, the big picture doesn’t really happen yet. Lots of little pictures make it easier to understand your big picture of justice.

It is fine to talk about it in, as you state, the 'cosmic' sense, but lets see how you arrive at that by reviewing how you feel justice is served in a far more contained atmosphere. Are you taking the ‘karma’ attitude here – Kennedy died, so karma has somewhat been served? But karma happens in the next life, not in this life. And dying of old age with minimal suffering after a long life of relative ease is by no means the end result of ‘bad karma’. In Kennedy’s next life karma will be served (customarily he will drown because of someone’s neglect when he is quite young). Obviously in his past life - the one previous to Ted Kennedy's life, he lead a very good life. That is what is traditionally viewed as cosmic justice…

Or does this have something to do with Sowell’s book? I would have then thought you would be leaning more towards ‘traditional’ justice, the path that Sowell takes, and ignore the arguments regarding ‘cosmic’ justice. And even in that book there are two very different forms of justice – cosmic – or good deeds can undo bad, or traditional justice where rules, punishment and ‘chain of command’ are paramount regarding ‘servicing of justice’.

 

[foxpaws]

The second line about party affiliation was my doing. should have put a smiley or something in there. But this is where things are heading. If you don't think party affiliation has anything to do with this, you are so naive.

Half of this fiasco is to give a freebie to the illegals so they support Democrats in local, state and federal governments, thus guaranteeing their power-base in future elections.

Well, then MM - all the more reason to join the dark side, if in name only...

 

[shagdrum]

They are shag? Really? Divine justice is the same as natural justice? Divine justice is arbitrary if you go by the concept that 'it is right if God commands it'. Is natural justice arbitrary? No it isn't, it is principled. So even the basic ideal - is justice arbitrary or is it principled is quite different in just those two ideals.

You are making incorrect distinctions. I am talking" justice" in a very broad, abstract sense and you are focusing of the very specific, context derived applications of that abstract notion of "justice". That inherently mischaracterizes the issue by comparing apples and oranges. Like saying a Town Car is separate and distinct from cars in general.

You have tried this tactic in other threads; attempt to refocus the debate onto the specific when things are being discussed generally and broadly, or vice versa. How about, instead of trying to poke holes in my argument (which is clearly you intention here) you try and understand it. All your rants and inquires are aimed at perpetuating your reframing of what I originally said.

Why are you so intent on dragging this debate down into a "meaning of the word 'is'" worthless discussion just to poke holes in an argument? Why not understand the argument first? You can then make a much more coherent and consistent critique of the argument instead of just rhetorically flailing about as you do.

And you still haven't answered my question. The first part is rhetorical the second part is the question you need to answer:

Don't you ever have any interest in understanding a point of view instead of just critiquing it and propagandizing? You have said you do, but your actions consistently show that you don't. Which should be believed; your words or your actions?​

 

[foxpaws]

You are making incorrect distinctions. I am talking" justice" in a very broad, abstract sense and you are focusing of the very specific, context derived applications of that abstract notion of "justice". That inherently mischaracterizes the issue by comparing apples and oranges. Like saying a Town Car is separate and distinct from cars in general.

Justice as arbitrary or principled are very 'broad' concepts of justice. Your apples and oranges shag.

And before, when you mentioned that in some small way justice was served here, you obviously were going down a rather 'narrow' band of justice - correct? I don't see that statement of yours as being a broad statement.

You have tried this tactic in other threads; attempt to refocus the debate onto the specific when things are being discussed generally and broadly, or vice versa. How about, instead of trying to poke holes in my argument (which is clearly you intention here) you try and understand it. All your rants and inquires are aimed at perpetuating your reframing of what I originally said.

Once again shag - I try to understand your broad concepts with how they relate to specific issues or instances. It is much easier to do that - and it makes it much easier for others to understand as well. So, I question where this lies on your 'justice' path. If you can tell me how this fits into your broad concept of justice I will have a better understanding of that broader ideal.

Why are you so intent on dragging this debate down into a "meaning of the word 'is'" worthless discussion just to poke holes in an argument? Why not understand the argument first? You can then make a much more coherent and consistent critique of the argument instead of just rhetorically flailing about as you do.

I am trying to understand your concept of justice, the 'argument' - and what better way than to understand how your version of justice was served here with Ted Kennedy's death. I have the opportunity to understand the small concise picture and then work up to the larger more abstract ideal.

And you still haven't answered my question. The first part is rhetorical the second part is the question you need to answer:

Don't you ever have any interest in understanding a point of view instead of just critiquing it and propagandizing? You have said you do, but your actions consistently show that you don't. Which should be believed; your words or your actions?

As you can see I do want to understand your point of view - I look at it from bottom up instead of top down. Tell me how something works in a real life scenario (in this case how justice was served specifically in Ted Kennedy's case) will tell me a lot more about your broad concept rather than a long treatise about your philosophical overview. Show me how a clock works and I will have a much better understanding of it than if you explain the movement of gears and mechanisms in some long dissertation on clock building.

So, we differ on the method of how we get to our final destination. You want to instantly delve into some abstract concept, whereas I like to look at actual vignettes to better understand sometimes difficult and complex ideas. It is easier, especially when I discuss these types of issues with you shag, to move you away from complex disquisition and find out how you look at these issues as they relate to 'us'. Yes - I question them and even challenge them quite often, because your big picture discussions are difficult to place. Theory to me isn't as interesting as 'action'. You see my challenges as propaganda - where I see your unwillingness to look at specific issues as a weakness when you try to support your larger abstract concepts.

So my actions do follow my words - just because I go down a different road doesn't mean we aren't trying to get to the same destination. I want to understand your point of view - it is just that it is often very difficult to do. By using specific examples and issues I can hopefully understand better how your broad concept is defined within a small sample.

So, once again - hopefully you will now understand why I want to know the answer to this question, which I have asked over and over and over again, long before you asked me about my interest in understanding point of view... If you could please answer it shag...

Show me where justice has been served.​

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Why is it that every thread you get into turns into a pissin match?
You people need to grow up.
Bob.

 

[MonsterMark]

Bob,

Have you watched any of Glenn Beck this week? The guy is really exposing the horsecrap that has infected the White House with all the Czars Obama has anointed.

Obama used to call them CZARS himself. Now you can't call them CZARS because that word hasn't focus-grouped well.

Remember when Obama used his middle name, and then you couldn't dare breath the word and now Obama runs around calling himself Hussein.

How this Obama guy working out for you? You know, the one you wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to because you couldn't see his inherent evil thru your rose-colored glasses?

Just curious if you are ready to come out of the Matrix and join the rest of us living in the real world.

 

[shagdrum]

As you can see I do want to understand your point of view - I look at it from bottom up instead of top down....


So, we differ on the method of how we get to our final destination. You want to instantly delve into some abstract concept, whereas I like to look at actual vignettes to better understand sometimes difficult and complex ideas....

I am approaching this with the methodology used for the creation of and/or examination of most any complex philosophical ideas (formalized in Hegel's dialectic), where as the approach you seem to be trying is to impose only leads to superficial examinations that inherently mischaracterize things.

Most any Idea of this nature, to be fully and accurately understood has to go from an abstract, generalized examination to the more specific and concrete, not the other way around. It has to start in abstraction and proceed through systematic analysis and successive approximation to the concrete and the specific; to reality. This is due to the fact that many of the ideas attempting to be understood cannot be grasped directly. So you have to start simple and work your way to the complex in order to be able to substantively understand them. To try and avoid all that only leads to misunderstanding, or, as Marx put it "catches only the delusive appearance of things." It only looks at the superficial and misses the substance.

Considering you are supposedly interested in understanding my point of view, you have to approach it in the same way I do. To try and force me to approach it differently only works against trying to understand my claim as well as being highly arrogant and demonstrating a hostility toward my claim that. You basically come across as more interested in challenging my claim then in understanding it.

It is easier, especially when I discuss these types of issues with you shag, to move you away from complex disquisition and find out how you look at these issues as they relate to 'us'. Yes - I question them and even challenge them quite often, because your big picture discussions are difficult to place. Theory to me isn't as interesting as 'action'. You see my challenges as propaganda - where I see your unwillingness to look at specific issues as a weakness when you try to support your larger abstract concepts.

In order to understand my perspective you have to go through my thought process. You cannot simply jump from point A to point Z.

If someone is truly interested in understanding a point of view, they won't start trying to challenge it until they actually, fully understand it. To start challenging it before then shows a hostility to the idea and a lack of genuine interest in understanding it. You cannot gain knowledge about a concept if you are fighting that concept at every step. You must first understand the concept before you can critically analyze it.

There is also a huge difference in inquiring about an abstract concept in order to better understand and "place" it and out and out challenging an idea that you don't understand. One shows a respect for the idea and the person conveying it and one shows a hostility toward the idea and a lack of respect for both the idea and the person conveying it. Basically, you come across as "closed-minded" (a term I really hate and think is used way too much).

 

[foxpaws]

I am approaching this with the methodology used for the creation of and/or examination of most any complex philosophical ideas (formalized in Hegel's dialectic), where as the approach you seem to be trying is to impose only leads to superficial examinations that inherently mischaracterize things.

I am not missing the substance shag - I am trying to understand your 'complex philosophical idea' with the 'specific data'. Usually with deductive reasoning (what you are saying you like to use in examining philosophical ideas) you have your hypothesis - in this case Justice - and then you support that hypothesis by testing it against other 'competing' hypothesis with observations that could address either hypothesis, and finding out which hypothesis holds true. Eventually you get to the point you can test your theory with many specific observations which will lead to a confirmation of your hypothesis - if it is 'true'.

So, with the example here - I am looking at a specific observation and trying to find out how it confirms your hypothesis. How does the specific observation you made - that justice was served with Kennedy dying in this manner, work in confirming your theory of cosmic justice?

Considering you are supposedly interested in understanding my point of view, you have to approach it in the same way I do. To try and force me to approach it differently only works against trying to understand my claim as well as being highly arrogant and demonstrating a hostility toward my claim that. You basically come across as more interested in challenging my claim then in understanding it.

There is also a huge difference in inquiring about an abstract concept in order to better understand and "place" it and out and out challenging an idea that you don't understand. One shows a respect for the idea and the person conveying it and one shows a hostility toward the idea and a lack of respect for both the idea and the person conveying it. Basically, you come across as "closed-minded" (a term I really hate and think is used way too much).

I am challenging your claim that justice has been served here, because I need you to state your overall theory of justice - which you haven't stated yet. When you finally state your 'cosmic' justice theory, then we can see if Kennedy's death confirms your hypothesis of justice... If your logic regarding justice is sound. You were the one that claimed justice had been served, you apparently believe that Kennedy's death supports your theory of justice. Right?

So, shag, once again - and if you just answer this I will have a pretty good idea of your complex philosophical idea of justice...

How has justice been served in this case?​

You have yet to answer this question. Or perhaps I should state it, how does this case confirm your cosmic theory of justice?

 

[shagdrum]

I am not missing the substance shag - I am trying to understand your 'complex philosophical idea' with the 'specific data'.

and Ideas of this nature are not things that cannot be understood in that fashion. To examine them in that fashion ends up mischaracterizing them by only focusing on appearances; on the superficial.

You cannot understand them that way. But that is the only way you are supposedly willing to try to understand them. Basically, you are changing the rules to make it impossible to explain.

Usually with deductive reasoning (what you are saying you like to use in examining philosophical ideas) you have your hypothesis - in this case Justice - and then you support that hypothesis by testing it against other 'competing' hypothesis with observations that could address either hypothesis, and finding out which hypothesis holds true. Eventually you get to the point you can test your theory with many specific observations which will lead to a confirmation of your hypothesis - if it is 'true'.

No, that is not how these things work. I have tried to explain it to you and you refuse to understand it. You don't "test" the idea first. You don't challenge the idea in any way unless and until you have a strong grasp of it. You clearly don't and are only interested in challenging the idea. That is exceedingly disrepectful because it shows only an interest in challenging the idea, not is giving it any serious consideration. The fact that you claim to want to understand opposing points of views while only trying to poke holes in them only makes what you are doing all the more rude because it is very two-faced.

To characterize it as some sort of hypothesis to be tested is to mischaracterize things. It is not an experiment.

If you are not willing to take the time and systematically go from the abstract and general to the specific and concrete, then you are incapable of any accurate grasp of these ideas. You cannot, in any honest way, challenge an idea unless and until you understand it.

 

[Black87LSC]

Well, then MM - all the more reason to join the dark side, if in name only...

What is wrong with you?!

 

[foxpaws]

No, that is not how these things work. I have tried to explain it to you and you refuse to understand it. You don't "test" the idea first. You don't challenge the idea in any way unless and until you have a strong grasp of it. You clearly don't and are only interested in challenging the idea. That is exceedingly disrepectful because it shows only an interest in challenging the idea, not is giving it any serious consideration. The fact that you claim to want to understand opposing points of views while only trying to poke holes in them only makes what you are doing all the more rude because it is very two-faced.

So, give me an idea shag of what I should have a 'strong' grasp of. I have asked you to give me your cosmic justice theory- over and over and over again. And yes, I challenged your claim that in some way justice has been served in Kennedy's case - to get you to state what your idea is, so I can see it and give it serious consideration. I am fascinated by what type of justice 'ideal' would call Kennedy's death as some sort of 'justice served'. But as of yet - I have yet to see that, I really, really am interested Shag...

To characterize it as some sort of hypothesis to be tested is to mischaracterize things. It is not an experiment.

If you are not willing to take the time and systematically go from the abstract and general to the specific and concrete, then you are incapable of any accurate grasp of these ideas. You cannot, in any honest way, challenge an idea unless and until you understand it.

If you think I am incapable of accurately grasping some complex abstract idea - just try it anyway shag, I will probably understand it... If not - I know someone who will have no trouble explaining any ideal of justice, no matter how complex it is, I will be more than willing to run it by him. To this point however, you haven't given me the abstract shag that I can tell - if you have, maybe you can give me the post number if I missed it and I will quite gladly review it again. In your post #13 you refer to the traditional ideal 'cosmic' sense of justice. I asked what your cosmic ideal was (post 51)- many people refer to karma as 'cosmic' justice - is it that Shag?Or are you going with Sowell's version of cosmic justice from his book 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice" where he basically shows the flaws of cosmic justice...

And from post #25

If I thought you would treat my claims with honest consideration and good faith, I would be happy to clarify things (I have already shown where justice has been served to a small degree in this case). However, your history on this forum (and pattern in this thread) shows that engaging in these discussions with you is a waste of time and energy. All that will result is a 5(+) pages of your distortions and my corrections.

All I ask shag is to 'show' me the post where you have 'shown' this:
I have already shown where justice has been served to a small degree in this case

Just copy the post - give us the number, where you have already shown that justice has been served to a small degree in this case. Once again shag - all I am asking for is something you said you have already shown...

How has justice been served in this case?​

Oh - Black87 - sort of a small running joke I have going with MM... see the winkie?