aban57 wrote:[ Your claim is utter bullshit, as proven by all social advancements in human history, which clearly prove that we're capable of doing better, which is the opposite of what you claim.

But that's philosophical. When has capability ever guaranteed achievement? You're full of hope, which is fine, but it is a belief on your part. Don't want to promise anything? Then don't.

aban57 wrote:Sure it doesn't touch everyone, it's not perfect, and some parts of the world are going backwards, but it's still better than it was before.

For whom? Don't forget that part. Everybody who has less than you do wants what you have, and they'll take it from you when they can, unless you line up to give what you have to them.

Do worry the question of approving Trump's dictatorship will be next.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:[ Your claim is utter bullshit, as proven by all social advancements in human history, which clearly prove that we're capable of doing better, which is the opposite of what you claim.

But that's philosophical. When has capability ever guaranteed achievement? You're full of hope, which is fine, but it is a belief on your part. Don't want to promise anything? Then don't.

I listed those achievements, but you conveniently, again, pretending they didn't exist, as you've been doing for several posts now. You claim what I said is philosophical, by removing the evidence I give for my claim, that's extremely dishonnest. A tactic usually (ab)used by believers.
I don't "hope", I look at facts. You should try sometimes.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:Sure it doesn't touch everyone, it's not perfect, and some parts of the world are going backwards, but it's still better than it was before.

For whom? Don't forget that part. Everybody who has less than you do wants what you have, and they'll take it from you when they can, unless you line up to give what you have to them.

For all humanity. Are you really going to claim that not paying people enough in some countries, is generally better than millions of people taken by force from their country, chained, and forced to work for nothing ? Are you really incapable of seeing the big picture here ?

An opinion piece from Charles Blow.

Donald Trump, a lying, bullying, womanizing autocrat-idolizer, is fundamentally transforming America in very real and lasting ways, in ways that have left decent people slack-jawed, enraged and exasperated.

He has overtaken and destroyed the structure of the Republican Party, unleashing its ugliest elements to chant his praise and stroke his ego like drunken apostates dancing around a golden calf.

...

Trump Remakes America

aban57 wrote:Are you really incapable of seeing the big picture here?

Don't you really just want to convert me to your belief system? That's what the 'big picture' is about, after all. I can see points of light, but I don't have to believe that the human project is the biosphere's golden boot. If that's not what you're after, please clarify.

aban57 wrote:I don't "hope", I look at facts.

You're cherry picking. That's what the true believers do.

aban57 wrote:Your claim is utter bullshit, as proven by all social advancements in human history, which clearly prove that we're capable of doing better, which is the opposite of what you claim.

None of that guarantees that progress is monotonic and unlimited. That's what you have to cherry-pick to get after. If you're not insisting that progress is monotonic and unlimited, please clarify.

Go and find a room you two.

chango369 wrote:An opinion piece from Charles Blow.

Donald Trump, a lying, bullying, womanizing autocrat-idolizer, is fundamentally transforming America in very real and lasting ways, in ways that have left decent people slack-jawed, enraged and exasperated.

He has overtaken and destroyed the structure of the Republican Party, unleashing its ugliest elements to chant his praise and stroke his ego like drunken apostates dancing around a golden calf.

...

Trump Remakes America

Trump remakes Trump the dictator.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:Are you really incapable of seeing the big picture here?

Don't you really just want to convert me to your belief system? That's what the 'big picture' is about, after all. I can see points of light, but I don't have to believe that the human project is the biosphere's golden boot. If that's not what you're after, please clarify.
the human project is the biosphere's golden boot

aban57 wrote:I don't "hope", I look at facts.

You're cherry picking. That's what the true believers do.

aban57 wrote:Your claim is utter bullshit, as proven by all social advancements in human history, which clearly prove that we're capable of doing better, which is the opposite of what you claim.

None of that guarantees that progress is monotonic and unlimited. That's what you have to cherry-pick to get after. If you're not insisting that progress is monotonic and unlimited, please clarify.

This is he most dishonnest post I've seen in a while. Or stupid, I still can't figure out which is it. You're trying to bring me, AGAIN, to a discussion I'm not having. I never claimed or thought that "the human project is the biosphere's golden boot". I never claimed that progress is monotonic or unlimited, or even that it will happen no matter what. Stop building armies of strawmen.
Your initial claim, that progress can't happen, is bullshit, as you've just admitted it here :

I can see points of light

Like I said, it CAN happen, as opposed as what Mr so-called empirical said.
So let me clarify even more, because you seem to have trouble understanding what's going on :
You said progress can't happen, I said it can, and you started accusing me of saying it will. Got it now ?

aban57 wrote:You said progress can't happen, I said it can, and you started accusing me of saying it will. Got it now ?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I was informed that I was forgetting about all our achievements, as if it were some sort of failure to be cynical. You quote-mined me with this shit:

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm just going with the empirical.

No you're not. You're conveniently forgetting about all social achievements in our history, focusing only on the negative things. You don't even care about seing the glass half empty or half full, you see it empty, when it's clearly not. That's the very definition of cynism.

... as if it were not empirical that there's plenty of failure to be enjoyed.

The stunt the repuglies pulled on Obama might just come around to bite them now

Republicans called for a swift confirmation. Democrats called for delay until after the midterms, pointing to Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to allow a vote on Barack Obama’s 2016 nominee on the grounds that American voters deserved a chance to weigh in.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/anal ... ement.html

and any threat to abortion rights could bring women out in droves in the mid-terms....

Cito di Pense wrote:

cyghost wrote:Bit of a tu quoque, eh Cito?

You mean, I'm doing what you just did?

You just did it again.

Problem is, you didn't say also.

If it’s a problem it’s yours, not cyghost’s. Unless you’re content with just being another OldSkeptic in lieu of OldSkeptic. We don’t need to refer to issues in our own countries every time we speak about a problem in someone else’s country.

You don't actually believe that your idealism makes you a swell person, do you? We get that mainly from the religious nuts, don't we?

Please don’t make stuff up, it’s boring.

Macdoc wrote:The stunt the repuglies pulled on Obama might just come around to bite them now

Republicans called for a swift confirmation. Democrats called for delay until after the midterms, pointing to Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to allow a vote on Barack Obama’s 2016 nominee on the grounds that American voters deserved a chance to weigh in.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/anal ... ement.html

and any threat to abortion rights could bring women out in droves in the mid-terms....

They're not going to win that delay. What's going to happen is that SCOTUS is going to be fixed the way the conservatives want it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:You said progress can't happen, I said it can, and you started accusing me of saying it will. Got it now ?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I was informed that I was forgetting about all our achievements, as if it were some sort of failure to be cynical.

I don't think it is (a failure). I was just "fighting" the claim that we couldn't do better, as it is not true. I wasn't talking about the rest.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:You said progress can't happen, I said it can, and you started accusing me of saying it will. Got it now ?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I was informed that I was forgetting about all our achievements, as if it were some sort of failure to be cynical. You quote-mined me with this shit:

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm just going with the empirical.

No you're not. You're conveniently forgetting about all social achievements in our history, focusing only on the negative things. You don't even care about seing the glass half empty or half full, you see it empty, when it's clearly not. That's the very definition of cynism.

... as if it were not empirical that there's plenty of failure to be enjoyed.

Missing the point and shifting discussion, AGAIN.

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:You said progress can't happen, I said it can, and you started accusing me of saying it will. Got it now ?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I was informed that I was forgetting about all our achievements, as if it were some sort of failure to be cynical.

I don't think it is (a failure). I was just "fighting" the claim that we couldn't do better, as it is not true. I wasn't talking about the rest.

Well, why are you doing that? Why fight against somebody's cynical opinion? Would it be cynical not to do so?

As I've said, I don't care that it is possible we can do better. Who cares about possibilities except believers? What you want is action, and I don't see it. I see it going the other way. That's what this thread is about.

aban57 wrote:
Missing the point and shifting discussion, AGAIN.

Oh, you could always tell me what you think your point is, instead of screeching. I'm just a cynic; sue me.

Fallible wrote:We don’t need to refer to issues in our own countries every time we speak about a problem in someone else’s country.

Of course we don't need to. I didn't make that part up, you did. Seems shit is going on just everywhere, except maybe on the ISS. If somebody points out the shit going on in your country, you're not actually going to deny it, just as I have not denied there's any shit going on in the US. That might be something you could use to see the difference between Old Skeptic or Skinny Puppy and myself. We can just have a big, happy festival of pointing out the shit that's happening in somebody else's country, 'cos we wouldn't be responsible for that, would we? I don't live in the US, and have not done so since Obama was beginning his second term. Trump was then a gleam in no one's eye, and I don't vote in US elections, particularly the congressional elections that have to do with the composition of the legislature that confirms US Supreme Court justices.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:
No, I think your lack of argument answers it all.

Well, now you want arguments. I'm going with the empirical, so you should be all about presenting evidence for your view. But that will be selective attention, I'm just betting.

How is it that you don't see there's no conclusion to this discussion except your complaining about somebody's lack of argument? That means this is philosophy, and not science.

aban57 wrote:That's a position of belief, not one of looking at facts

What fucking facts have you tried to present?

This is the kind of stuff theists say when someone points out they don’t have an argument. You’d call it shifting the burden of proof in that situation.

Fallible wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:
No, I think your lack of argument answers it all.

Well, now you want arguments. I'm going with the empirical, so you should be all about presenting evidence for your view. But that will be selective attention, I'm just betting.

How is it that you don't see there's no conclusion to this discussion except your complaining about somebody's lack of argument? That means this is philosophy, and not science.

aban57 wrote:That's a position of belief, not one of looking at facts

What fucking facts have you tried to present?

This is the kind of stuff theists say when someone points out they don’t have an argument. You’d call it shifting the burden of proof in that situation.

What was I arguing for? I forget. When I need to present facts, I present AGW, or something like that. I ain't one o' them nasty climate change denialists. Was I arguing there were no social progress achievements in human history? No, I don't think I was. In fact, the mining of petroleum has been one of the great social achievements of human history, in terms of improving living standards for lots of folks. If, that is, you don't have it in for oil barons.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Fallible wrote:We don’t need to refer to issues in our own countries every time we speak about a problem in someone else’s country.

Of course we don't need to. I didn't make that part up, you did. Seems shit is going on just everywhere, except maybe on the ISS. If somebody points out the shit going on in your country, you're not actually going to deny it, just as I have not denied there's any shit going on in the US. That might be something you could use to see the difference between Old Skeptic or Skinny Puppy and myself. We can just have a big, happy festival of pointing out the shit that's happening in somebody else's country, 'cos we wouldn't be responsible for that, would we? I don't live in the US, and have not done so since Obama was beginning his second term. Trump was then a gleam in no one's eye, and I don't vote in US elections, particularly the congressional elections that have to do with the composition of the legislature that confirms US Supreme Court justices.

Good lord, I don’t care. If you think current country of residence precludes you from bias in favour of your country of origin, visit the Costa del Sol. If you don’t think it’s necessary, why do you care he ‘forgot’ to say ‘also’? And no, I don’t see that as the difference between what you and OldSkeptic do, mainly because what you just did is what OldSkeptic does.