HappySqurriel said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
HappySqurriel said:
chocoloco said:
@ Squrril
Also you are generalizing an entire protest and thousands of people based on the actions of a few. Never a good thing to do because it leads to hate and closed mindedness. |
Right ... Because the hard-left is known for peaceful protests and anti-capitalist, communist and anarchist protests never devolve into rioting
|
Nice to see you fail to see my point again. We are talking about one riot in one very violent city and you want to go and generalize that action to the whole movement. Closed minded thinking period.
On top of it, you bend my statements to your thinking trying to say I am just a liberal that is trying to say they never are violent. Wrong I am saying you cannot you use one example to create truths about people. That leads to things like racism, sexism and agism.
|
Although it's only the second case of rioting. It's not like it's the only case of violence in the OWS movement.
There are countless charges of assualt, rape, theft and much more.
I could be wrong here, but I could of swore you were one of the people who considered the teaparty to be extremists and racists despite no actual violence or racism.
I would suggest that there is far more of a basis for HS's comments then the above.
|
Of course he has a basis for his comments because I do not hide my disdain for the far right. His reply ignored all my points and spinned the topic into a new direction.
Just so you know I do not join many political threads because guys like HS are polar opposites of me and I get angry. I come here mostly to have fun and politics are big and heated now and I do not intend to bring venom into it much. I would probably quickly get banned.
Now I wait for HS response because he is the one that made the original statement that set this off.
|
So your arguement boils down to "Do what I say and not what I do."
That's quite a bit of intellectual dishonesty you've got going there... and it's unabashed no less.
|
You are talking about statements from months ago for one. Secondly, every human is is subject to generalizations it is part of are pschy that helps us survive and make judgements about people and events. Still it can be taken to far and I got what your previous statement was supposed to convey. The topic here is supposed to be the riots and the current political climate. Perhaps I made many statements like that in the past, but I have not done so here. It is never an order, rather it is pointing out ideas to show the fallicy in his original statement.
|
So then you retract those previous statements calling the tea party racist exretmists?
Otherwise, his statements which we've established as having more of a factual basis then yours would be covered by your own defense.
Or conversly option 3 of intellectual dishonesty still remains which would also invalidate your arguement.
As for the generalizations comment, it sounds like you've taken a sociology of Race and Gender class and somewhat missed the main point. Which is that because people are prone to generalizations, people should take extra care when evaluating groups on more then the shallowest of levels.
Espiecally when, said generalizations are largely baseless like yours was.
Most generalizations people make actually tend to be based on actions that tend to give said generalizations glimmer of "truth".
|
My last reply to you on the subject because you have continued to draw on statements from months ago as your main point of arguement. Yes, I have taken the class in which I got an A. Also I have a BA in psychology so I have dealt with the subject a lot more than you probably think.
I did say generalizations are useful and a part of our psychy. Did I not? My point is when they are taken to far as my previous statements did . So if all you want is for me to admidt I previously made poor generalizations than I will say I have. I do take care not to use generalizations that go too far most of the time. Like I said stick to the present topic because that is what is most relivant now.
|
Indeed that was the case.
Previously unretracted statements that contradict what your saying now very much was part of the present topic.
Now that you've retracted them though, I have no real issue at hand. Though if you were unwilling to, it essentially invalidates your entire arguement.
The one thing that really bugs me more then anything is fairly obvious intellectual dishonsety.
As far as off topic goes... any plans to go furhter into psychology degree wise? I realized half way through my BA that basically every main branch of psychology has near identical therapy treatment records essentially invalidating them all making the research and teaching fields pretty useless.
|
Just on the bolded ...
I don't know if it was true or not, but in school my statistics professor used to make the comment that studies had yet to demonstrate that psychoanalysis was more effective than a placebo for most recognized mental illnesses; and he repeatedly used psychology and sociology as fields that are based on lying with statistics.
|
Psychoanlys is mostly the psychology of Sigmiend Freud. Which is considered by most current psychologists as being an absurd form of psychology. All sciences lie if they can using statistics and it is used especially as a strategy in marketing. Pschology isn't my main focus it is biopsychology,neuro science. I also have a BS is biology. Anyway I consider most psychology to be mostly wrong and based on subjective beliefs of the psychologist that forms the theories. That is why biopsychology is the better science because it is far more objective.
