I'm actually calling bullshit, Kittamaru, because I don't really believe you're so damn stupid. When, "Surely the world has not come to" women forcing cancer patients to walk in the Women's March despite their health, Kittamaru apparently needs help figuring out how that is an attack on women? Okay, fine. I would ask you, though, to explicitly insist that we believe you're that damn stupid. But one way or the other, we need your answer: Are you that damn stupid, Kittamaru? And consider all your uneducated temper tantrums over the last couple months, Kittamaru. It was quite clear you didn't know what you were talking about. Couldn't figure out what due process was? Didn't know what at-will employment is? Now you want us to believe, what, you can't figure it out? (sigh) Okay, let us cover that base: Is there something we need to know, here? Like a reading disorder or diagnosed learning disruption that might explain how you're missing such obvious points? Or are you just pitching that big a fit? Oh, hey: Would you say your description is of laudable behavior?
Hm, more ad hom attacks from Tiassa without any attempt to justify his vile position. Whatever... nobody is buying your self righteousness anymore. Thank you for showcasing that you prioritize a persons health less than your own political expedience.
Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. We are all free to follow our personal dictates. I am free to do that which delights me as are they. What I agree with is that freedom.
So, if you're irrelevant, why post such very little information in the first place? Does she agree with it? Are you just trolling? What?
He did justify his position though--both with regards to the matter of contention re: the OP, as well as the matter of you pretending to be stupid: I would add to this that whole "trolley problem" fiasco. What is sometimes framed as the "trolley problem" (as well as it's innumerable variants) is intentionally ridiculous and hyperbolic, precisely because it is not about the situation and it is absolutely not intended to be analogous to anything; rather, it exists simply to illustrate the differences between a consequentialist and a deontological approach to ethics. But the point here is that I suspect that you already know this --'cuz where else but in a text on (or some other medium) ethics would one encounter the "trolley problem" without the most pertinent explicatory bits? So the question becomes: why are you pretending not to know and understand these things?
Whhattt?! What does that have to do with anything that I said above? Edit: Dude, you're kinda acting like EF here. I think most of us have realized by this point that he is both a creep and a genuine idiot; yet, I think you've got more goin' on up there, right? So please stop doing that.
?? Anyone can succumb to peer pressure, from the staunchest activist to the least involved friend of a protester. One only need to look at the advertising industry in the US to see how pervasive it is.
Try to make sense from one post to the next, please. Your made the point that something sounds like peer pressure. Would you say that peer pressure is laudable? The reason you are asked this question is because you asked how the presumption of the worst in the peers allegedly pressuring her prioritize her own health less than their political expedience constitutes an attack on women. It wouldn't be men pressuring her to march, Kittamaru. As I said↑, she will answer according to how she perceives them perceiving her; she will not be seen sitting this one out because it means this much to her. Or, as Bells↑ put it: "The pressure was self inflicted, if you will." The problem with your temper tantrum retorts is they don't actually explain anything to anyone. You choose to not address the reasons why people are frustrated with your behavior, but want to complain nonetheless. The question remains: Peer pressure is the first presumption, why? And the thing is that nobody knows what else to tell you because you refuse to do anything other than bawl. Do I try a football metaphor? I don't know, in some cases it might work. Because in questions of Ockham and LaPlace, why would I deviate from observable, reliable baseline? I can think of a player who turned up with a professional team, and the superficial question is how bad a year was the team having to sign the guy; the next question in line was who the hell was his agent. He was a good receiver, don't get me wrong. But he had no business being on the field. After his first obvious concussion, other teams targeted him, and his college career ended after his fourth; he literally didn't get through a complete game after the first. His agent? The doctor who cleared him? Nobody without a direct financial interest would be pressuring him to play pro ball. But I do come from a football family, and from once upon a time. Coaches are now expected to have a better line than, "Can you walk? Then you can play." The players, however, will always say, "Put me back in, I can still play." There are times when the best thing to do is stay down, and everybody knows it. And in that moment, he's still going to get up and try to carry on. You climb the mountain because it's there. You play the game to win. And you will not be seen giving up. And nobody need be a bellrung athlete behave that way. After all, at the end of the day the Trump voter doesn't really care what I think. Neither did the #NeverTrump Republican. Yet they both have their reasons, and believe in them, and just like the athlete, or just like the cancer patient, what they answer is their own perception of how others perceive them. That this is the issue framing our discussion of nationwide marches pretty much makes its own point, but, still, the presumption of antisocial hostility↑—("Peer pressure? On a cancer survivor? Surely the world has not come to this.")—stands out: Women are people, and even act like it, and people need not be college football players to answer themselves first and foremost; it is perfectly human behavior. And underneath it all is also a tabula rasa question, which we might already answer; our neighbor has a recognizable history↑ presuming poorly about women and defining their experience for them. Furthermore, you might notice I asked↑, this time, and at least let him say it explicitly↑. It is not like the answer actually surprised me. It is not unclear in the least, Kittamaru, that you disagree with something I say, but please do try to make sense from one post to the next, because otherwise it just reads like disjointed personal dispute. I don't know what to tell anyone about how to perceive others perceiving them, but it's rather quite easy to tell the football player it's not worth dying for; whether he believes us or imagines we think him weak is his own doing. And it's perfectly human. It is also true I can imagine it rather quite easy to tell the cancer warrior to stay home and focus on recuperation. But I'm also an American, and we always pretend this ferocious pride, and there are some things, in our American canon, worth dying for. And, to the one, this time it's not really ours to judge; to the other, this is not football. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; Liberty and Justice for All; freedom from tyranny; human rights; these are the sorts of things Americans often pretend are worth dying for. This is a time including notions of the sides of history, and answering the call. Nobody lives forever. She is a cancer warrior. And as I said, this could be the revolution women have been waiting for since well before I was born, and every time circumstance presents this opportunity, it will also be some woman's potential last chance to make this stand. And compared to being just as human as the next person, I don't see why we would start by presuming ill of the women around her. Except, of course, a perspective driven by mistrust of women is, as has been noted, hardly unusual↗; given history, argumentative principles of Ockham and LaPlace alike would suggest your vague pretense of outrage presents the extraordinary argument.
Gosh! How is it you all seem to miss the point of her alleged position? She is passionate about the cause of the march! So much so that she was prepared to march if it was humanly possible, but alas she is declaring she is to weak to march. ( hint: she may actually be really sick...but passionate about the cause....marching in spirit perhaps?) Why delve deeper and claim peer pressure etc ... when there is no need to?
The whole idea of the "trolley question" is, what do you do when you have no good option. That's... sort of the point - it is like the Kobayashi Maru in Star Trek. I'm not sure how that fact is being a creep or being a "genuine idiot"... so, I ask again - do you believe that no such situations exist?
My apologies, but if you are incapable of keeping up, that really isn't my concern. Are you asking if I feel that peer pressure itself is laudable, or if it was laudable in this case? In this case, no, I don't really think it is. I don't think people should be pressured to do something they don't want or feel capable of doing, especially when it presents a very real possibility of damaging their health. Now, I'm sure you'll turn this into some sort of tirade about encouraging a drug addict to seek help or what not being "positive peer pressure", so have at it. So, let me get this straight - I asked how presuming the worst of someone pressuring her to put her health in jeopardy is an attack on women? Huh... I must have been blackout drunk at the keyboard... and then the forums must have wiped that post... because I don't see that written anywhere. No, what I actually wrote was a statement asking why you felt the obligated to attack another member for pointing out that it seemed like the person in question was being pressured to go to a march she did not feel she was in adequate health to participate in. Kindly point out where I said it was... So she felt that she was expected to do something... and that made her feel pressured to go and do said thing... even though she admitted she did not feel her health was up to the task. That would seem to satisfy the definition of peer pressure - a feeling that one must do the same things as other people of one's age and social group in order to be liked or respected by them. Ah, more insults, classic Tiassa. This has been explained to you already - do try to keep up. Ah, more insults, classic Tiassa. Uh huh... so your contention, then, is that Dave mistrusts women... rather than concern for another human beings health... interesting. I guess, then, that if she were to go to the march and, I dunno, fall faint, crack her head open on the asphalt, and die, you would see this as the actions of a "cancer warrior" and the "revolution women have been waiting for"... her "last chance to make this stand"? That the only way she can be helpful in this revolution is to go and march when she has admitted she doesn't feel she is physically up to it... you view her as that incapable of making a difference, that she must be part of a larger crowd? For shame, Tiassa... I didn't realize you hated women with cancer so much...
Uhmm... no. The point of the trolley problem is this: In fact, for a rigid deontologist or consequentialist it's not really problematic at all. "No good options"--that's basically ethics, in general, when pursued with proper rigor. Edit: I have to ask--I had (reasonably so, I had thought) assumed that because you referred to it as the "trolley problem"--and not by one of the innumerable variants--that you were familiar with... Well, I'm a bit confused here. I was gonna say that not knowing the whole spiel is kinda like claiming that you don't know how "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" turns out, or that Norway is full of white people. Meaning: if you know that there is such a place as Norway, then you most certainly know that it's full of white people. It's possible one might not, but most unlikely. So where did you encounter the "trolley problem" in such a way that the explanation for such was incomplete? I assure you (as a former editor of textbooks and a person with a worthless graduate degree in philosophy) that in any text where you encounter the trolley problem, you will also be informed that the point of the exercise is precisely what I said above. That's just kind of weird to me.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Incongruity: At least it's not a rickroll. Okay, now then: Well, as I pointed out, it wouldn't be men pressuring her to march. Your retort, "Kindly point out where I said it was...", is a common misdirection that occurs when one tries to fisk what they aren't comprehending. In this case, you're either missing or dodging a point: • You asked how DaveC's posture is an attack on women. The answer follows: You made the point that something sounds like peer pressure. Is this peer pressure laudable? According to you, and pretty much everyone else, no. Thus, the accused peer pressure to march in the the protests is a bad thing, much reflective of the fretting itself: "Surely," DaveC proclaimed, "the world has not come to this." Well, like I said, that peer pressure wouldn't be coming from men. Thus, it would be other women who apply↑ "peer pressure on a recovering cancer survivor to participate in a march she's too weak to handle because they might think poorly of her". That is to say, instead of recognizing that she, like anyone else, answers herself first and foremost, DaveC's mistrust of women compelled him to postulate a negative, bullying depiction. It isn't really a matter of apologies, Kittamaru: If you are incapable of keeping up, that really shouldn't be anyone else's problem.
How is it possible to, "be seen", by yourself? To "be seen" is passive; you take no part in it. "..to be seen as sitting it out." is something that, by definition, only other people can do. If sculptor thought she meant herself, it would have been "...to see herself as sitting it out".
Just for instance: I always wonder about the British and gerunds, to be honest. When they were all stood in the road, for instance, wait, what? But apparently this makes such perfect sense to British people I don't even know what question to ask. Among Americans, we were all standing in the road. Sure, there's probably a really obscure rule there, somewhere, but nobody knows what it is, and none would use the other rules that go with it, most likely. Or something like that. Still, though, surely you're joking. As I've suggested, repeatedly, now, she will answer, as people do, according to how she perceives others perceiving her. She will no more be seen than you or I will have it said of us. Seen or said by whom? Uh ... that would be the people we project, Dave. Then again, it's also true I never imagined, in younger decades, that straightforward formulations of common sentiment I could hear all over the diverse English-speaking world might prove so confusing. But in either case, it's a lot harder to figure out what you disagree with when you won't take the time to tell us. There is, for instance, something about what Bells or Parmalee or Quantum Quack or I have suggested that just isn't working for you, and there is nothing anyone can do to help resolve that question. Then again, at this point I'm rather quite uncertain how to address the proposition that you are so unfamiliar with the abstract rhetorical notion that someone won't be seen to do something or not. It seems a dearth of pathos, but at some point, something's gotta give. I mean, really?
Funny. I was kinda thinking along these lines, as well... All these "issues" with the passive voice. Though my example had something more to do with incorporating the passive voice into AI programming, and then the ensuing shenanigans.
Every iteration I have heard of it (and there are dozens of variants) have come back to a basic point - which choice is the "correct" one, ergo, which of the two normally terrible choices is "morally better". The fact that you don't consider having to choose one to die a "no good solution" type of problem is intriguing, but I believe at this point is merely a matter of spitting hairs so as to find an issue where none arises. Cest la vie. Oh, look more insults from Bells - how terribly droll. I think it is safe to say at this point, Dave, that these two have a singular goal, and that is to troll, demean, and otherwise insult anyone who doesn't cow-tow to them. Sad, but then, it seems that's what we've come to here. I don't know if they get some odd satisfaction from their pretense of moral superiority, or if they simply cannot help themselves. Either way, NMFP really.
