Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > General comments on Bloggingheads.tv
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

General comments on Bloggingheads.tv Post comments about our website here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 09-15-2009, 12:45 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
OK, but the larger message of the book was that culture was the catalyst. He may have gotten wrong the mechanism by which the cultural change was produced, but do you object to his thesis that culture was the catalyst? Most of the book was devoted to that premise.
I didn't read the whole thing! Brad DeLong's take on it was that it was 98% excellent economic history, lots of great facts, and 2% specious genetical reasoning (guess what got the most attention). I trust Brad's judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 09-15-2009, 12:46 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
no I am not saying that. Genetic explanations that do not take environmental influences into account are almost always going to be flawed. Environmental/cultural explanations that do not take genetics data into account are almost always going to be flawed. I find that there are far more examples of the latter than the former in the literature; consequently, I tend to be far more skeptical of the claims based on cultural explanations, which have a long history of being plagued by poorly substantiated or non-existant or misinterpreted or biased data and by the unwarranted assignment of causation to correlation. And I am saying that the knee jerk reaction to take a negative stance against genetic data or explanations simply because they contradict cherished beliefs about culture and human nature is wrong. I have no problem with criticizing all unwarranted conclusions drawn from data. I have a problem with assuming that behavioral genetics data is prima facie bad. And to the extent that one conclusion offers valid genetic data in support of it and a competing conclusion offers only cultural speculation or invalid cultural data in support of it, I'll go with the fomer as the better working hypothesis.



Me too, in the sense that they are not warranted by the data, but not in the sense that I just don't agree with them or find them offensive. I am an equal opportunity disdainer of the misuse of data, but not of data itself. Which is why I am willing to examine data from whatever source provides it, even while rejecting the conclusions those sources may draw from that data.
We're in strenuous agreement!
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 09-15-2009, 12:49 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Just looking at the subjects for today's Wilkinson dv you can already tell there's going to be a lot of pulling-it-out-of-my-ass sociobiological twaddle, right?
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 09-15-2009, 03:05 PM
Me&theboys Me&theboys is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 447
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
I didn't read the whole thing! Brad DeLong's take on it was that it was 98% excellent economic history, lots of great facts, and 2% specious genetical reasoning (guess what got the most attention). I trust Brad's judgment.
I agree with Brad. it is worth a read.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 09-15-2009, 03:13 PM
Me&theboys Me&theboys is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 447
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
We're in strenuous agreement!
I suspected we were.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 09-15-2009, 03:14 PM
Me&theboys Me&theboys is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 447
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
Just looking at the subjects for today's Wilkinson dv you can already tell there's going to be a lot of pulling-it-out-of-my-ass sociobiological twaddle, right?
Yep. We'll have to sift the good bits out.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 09-15-2009, 03:35 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
Just looking at the subjects for today's Wilkinson dv you can already tell there's going to be a lot of pulling-it-out-of-my-ass sociobiological twaddle, right?
Quote:
Yep. We'll have to sift the good bits out.
I listened to the whole of it while on a walk. So I don't feel as if I wasted my time. Yet, as well as each participant put forth their case, neither was particularly fact-based or definitive:

Shorter Will: I have a theory which comports with my ideological preferences to counter your prejudice.

Shorter Kay: I'm a conservative, therefore change is to be scorned. Because recent history tells me that hetero pairing towards children is an end in itself...I worry.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 09-16-2009, 02:34 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
In my view, appeals to culture and society are not the way forward -they are the way backward, because culture is tenuous and conditional and more resistant to moral condemnation because of the human tendency to see and use our created institutions as independent validation of the behaviors they perpetuate. A genetic basis for personality and behavior, on the other hand, not only offers a path toward the scientific rejection of cultural untruths, it forces people to take a moral stand, independent of cultural tradition, on whether a particular practice or behavior is good or not.
i think you are pointed 180 degrees away from the truth.

The truth is that absent culture, might makes right, and as a woman, you will never have right on your side.

It is only through the advance of culture, and the monopoly on violence by the state, that you are advanced and protected. when culture and institutions break down - who suffers the most? women, children, and old people. civilization is largely the process of harnessing male power and aggression into activities that help the entire society rather than hurt it.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 09-16-2009, 03:56 PM
Me&theboys Me&theboys is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 447
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
i think you are pointed 180 degrees away from the truth.

The truth is that absent culture, might makes right, and as a woman, you will never have right on your side.

It is only through the advance of culture, and the monopoly on violence by the state, that you are advanced and protected. when culture and institutions break down - who suffers the most? women, children, and old people. civilization is largely the process of harnessing male power and aggression into activities that help the entire society rather than hurt it.
If culture is so fabulous, how do you explain the mysogynistic cultures that prevail in much of the world and were nearly universal 100 or so years ago?
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 09-16-2009, 04:46 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
If culture is so fabulous, how do you explain the mysogynistic cultures that prevail in much of the world and were nearly universal 100 or so years ago?
Culture can have good influences or bad ones (although there are always going to be disputes as to which are which). Genetic influences just are. I don't see how the debate over which is more significant to a particular group difference says anything about what should be -- for example, culture could be argued to promote a particular group valuing education or not, but that has nothing to do with whether education is a good thing to value. Similarly, it might be genetic and physical differences which result in different career choices by men and women or it might be cultural, but neither requires us to think that those differences are good (or bad). In fact, to the extent that one argues that differences are innate to the genes, that seems to justify not doing anything to change things. If one thinks it's the result of cultural conditioning or the fact that a particular society's culture has certain norms, one can argue that individuals in the society would benefit from a different set up.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 09-16-2009, 05:27 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

point to any situation where culture breaks down and women are better off.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 09-16-2009, 07:34 PM
Me&theboys Me&theboys is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 447
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
point to any situation where culture breaks down and women are better off.
That's not an answer to my reply to you.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 09-17-2009, 11:59 AM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

go back. read my post and you'll see that your reply completely misses the point of my post, which is why i restated it.

I don't care to go down some other rabbit hole with you. I found your statement to be not based in fact, pointed that out, and then you changed the subject.

sorry - its not worth my time if you continue to be intentionally obtuse to avoid looking at the huge, gaping hole in your argument.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 09-17-2009, 02:58 PM
Me&theboys Me&theboys is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 447
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
go back. read my post and you'll see that your reply completely misses the point of my post, which is why i restated it.

I don't care to go down some other rabbit hole with you. I found your statement to be not based in fact, pointed that out, and then you changed the subject.

sorry - its not worth my time if you continue to be intentionally obtuse to avoid looking at the huge, gaping hole in your argument.
PK - You are quick to anger, my man. I generally enjoy debating with people I disagree with. You, apparently not so much. For that reason, and since you and I see eye to eye on nothing when it comes to human behavior, how about we agree never to respond to each other's posts? That sounds like a zero sum proposition to me. You started this exchange between us, so I'll end it, and then we can part ways and you can either set up vbulletin to ignore all my future posts or seeth in silence at them.

My reply to you was directly relevant to your claim that culture is beneficial to women. I was challenging such a sweeping claim by asking you to explain it within the context of cultures that are so obviously not beneficial to women. So I don't know why you're so worked up. In any event, you'd be mistaken to infer from my question that I was disputing your entire claim about the value of culture in general. My question was designed to point out to you that making blanket endorsements of culture leaves one in a moral quandry when confronted with cultures that are not good. Try telling the girls who have acid thrown on their faces in Afghanistan that their culture is beneficial for them. I'm sure the slaves in Virginia 175 years ago would have been mollified by the statement that it could have been worse.

Regardless of the above, I think you should reread the conversation I was having with claymisher. You apparently completely misunderstood it. I was addressing the value of prefering culture over genes as an explanation of human behavior and phenomena. I was not advocating that no culture is better than any culture. I was advocating that since most cultures suck from a woman's perspective and tend to serve the interests of those who create and sustain them rather than to represent what is morally or even factually right and wrong, true and false, they are unlikely to provide an accurate basis for explaining the phenomenon in question, so I'll put my money on genes before I'll put it on an unsubstantiated cultural belief when I want to explain behavior and human characteristics.

So long.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 09-21-2009, 01:38 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
PK - You are quick to anger, my man. I generally enjoy debating with people I disagree with. You, apparently not so much. For that reason, and since you and I see eye to eye on nothing when it comes to human behavior, how about we agree never to respond to each other's posts? That sounds like a zero sum proposition to me. You started this exchange between us, so I'll end it, and then we can part ways and you can either set up vbulletin to ignore all my future posts or seeth in silence at them.
seething in silence is not my style, I'll call bullshit on bullshit when i see it. Whether you respond or ignore me is entirely up to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
My reply to you was directly relevant to your claim that culture is beneficial to women.
I pointed out that when culture breaks down women are usually worse off than before - and asked for an example of where culture breaks down and women are better off. you chose not to respond to my point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
I was challenging such a sweeping claim by asking you to explain it within the context of cultures that are so obviously not beneficial to women.
and again you make the claim that these cultures are "not beneficial" for women - and again i'd ask for any example of where culture breaks down and women are better off than before - and to make it extremely clear, that is because of your claim of "not beneficial" (and since we are talking about "women" a bad thing happening to one woman does not count as an argument)

If you actually wanted a conversation that would allow us to see the other's point of view - you would have to respond to the point that I am making by either giving an example or explaining why you don't think my point is valid for other reasons and thus an example is irrelevant.

but you consistently misread my posts, so i'm not really expecting anything but continued misunderstanding between us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
So I don't know why you're so worked up.
yeah - i'm not really "worked up", but anyway...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
In any event, you'd be mistaken to infer from my question that I was disputing your entire claim about the value of culture in general.
clearly you were not disputing anything with me - you were ignoring the point I made.

so here is my question: is a culture that you find misogynistic better for women than no culture/cultural breakdown? I say the answer is clearly "yes". Which in no way means that misogyny is OK - but it does have relevance to many of the arguments that you make in many threads, in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
My question was designed to point out to you that making blanket endorsements of culture leaves one in a moral quandry when confronted with cultures that are not good.
looky there - we agree! a moral quandry is indeed the outcome because the suffering of women in some of these cultures is obvious and horrible yet the blanket condemnation of their culture is too easy considering the benefits that accrue to members of the society (including women).

If you admit to the fact of that this is a "quandry", then i think perhaps we've made progress in understanding each other's perspective.

Even "bad" cultures provide a ton of benefits due to the expansion of non-zero sum interactions and to posit that women are worse off (i.e. the culture is "not beneficial" to women) because of that culture than they would be otherwise seems to be over-stated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
Regardless of the above, I think you should reread the conversation I was having with claymisher. You apparently completely misunderstood it.
no i did not misunderstand it. you consistently make arguments about how women are oppressed by culture. I wanted to talk about that particular issue and how you deploy it in argumentation. I understand this was somewhat tangential to the conversation you were having with Clay - I didn't expect that to confuse you - it seems pretty normal for conversations to have branches and tangents and things like that.

here's to hoping we can communicate more effectively in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 09-21-2009, 03:54 PM
Me&theboys Me&theboys is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 447
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
and again you make the claim that these cultures are "not beneficial" for women - and again i'd ask for any example of where culture breaks down and women are better off than before - and to make it extremely clear, that is because of your claim of "not beneficial" (and since we are talking about "women" a bad thing happening to one woman does not count as an argument)
Here's the problems with this conversation:

1) You construe my claim that many cultures are not beneficial to women as equivalent to or containing the claim that no culture is better than a bad culture. I am making the former claim. Why do you think I must also be making the latter claim?

2) I don't quite see how it makes sense to discuss the state of affairs where there is no culture (where does that even exist?) or where culture has broken down. I guess I need some examples of such situations. What is a culture that has broken down and how do you differentiate a culture that has broken down from a culture that is simply worse than the one it replaced? If anything, a broken down culture will be a transitional phase between one culture and another, and such chaos is generally bad for everyone, not just women, though the culture that arises from it can be either better or worse than what came before. But even if cultural transition is what you are talking about, I don't see what claims about cultural transition (which I am not making) have to do with claims about culture (which I am making).

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
no i did not misunderstand it. you consistently make arguments about how women are oppressed by culture. I wanted to talk about that particular issue and how you deploy it in argumentation. I understand this was somewhat tangential to the conversation you were having with Clay - I didn't expect that to confuse you - it seems pretty normal for conversations to have branches and tangents and things like that.
I continue to find it hard to see how you really understood my conversation with Clay when your response to it was that my comments were pointing "180 degrees away from the truth" and you then go on to show how I am wrong by making a claim about culture that was completely irrelevent to the conversation I was having with Clay. If my points to Clay were wrong, they were only wrong within the context of the conversation I was having with Clay, which was about the role of culture versus genes in explaining human behavior. It makes no sense to tell me my points were wrong within some other context that I was not even addressing. The impression you gave was that you either didn't understand what I was saying or just wanted to start an argument.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 09-21-2009, 07:21 PM
Me&theboys Me&theboys is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 447
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
.......
PS - If you object to the claim that many/some/any cultures are not beneficial to women, by that same logic you must also object to the claim that many/some/any cultures are not beneficial to slaves. And you must also object to the claim that many/some/any cultures are not beneficial to Jews. And so on and so on, because in your book, every culture, no matter how bad, is beneficial to everyone to some degree, no matter how persecuted or abused or oppressed they may be. That is similar to saying that any culture is better than no culture. That may be true as a concept(you’d have to go back to prehistory to have any hope of finding humans living in a cultureless world and I think it would be unlikely), and I doubt many people would seriously dispute it as a concept, but it is true in a trivial sense and is a statement that IMO adds no value to a discussion. What is the point of making such a statement? It is a hard core relativist position: “well, no matter how bad they have it, it could be worse, so it's beneficial to them in some way and who are we to judge.” Is that really the argument you want to be making?

Also, it is worth noting that such an argument has to begin with a starting point of zero - that anything better than zero (non-existence) is beneficial (and I mean beneficial to everyone since we are not concerned, as you say, with individuals). So existence without culture is more beneficial for everyone than non-existence. And existence with any cuture is more beneficial for everyone than existence without culture. But why stop there? How about stating that cultures with laws are more beneficial for everyone than cultures without laws? Well, I think this is where things become disputable. Cultures with laws are not more beneficial for everyone than cultures without laws. Certainly there are groups of people who would benefit more in cultures without laws. So now we have to start talking about cultures in terms of beneficial for the most, rather than beneficial for everyone. So can we state that cultures that are beneficial for the most are better than cultures that are beneficial for the fewer? Well, certainly slavery would be a counter example to such a claim. As would Nazi Germany. So this line of thinking starts to push against our moral sense. And this brings us to a situation where we feel it is appropriate to label some cultures as not beneficial, or as oppressive, or whatever. When people disagree over the labeling, it will generally represent a moral disagreement. I have no problem with the fact of moral disagreement, but to the extent that the labeling does not follow a system that is morally coherent, there is no reason to take it seriously.

Also, I think that a common flaw in different perspectives on culture is to view dominant/powerful individuals in a culture as having a starting point of 100 and to view the dominated/powerless individuals in a culture as having a starting point of zero. With this perspective, any incremental benefit given to those starting at zero is something they should be grateful for, while any incremental reduction from those starting at 100 is generally resented, at least initially. The flaw in this line of thinking is its implicit assumption that some people are inherently more deserving than others.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 09-22-2009, 12:49 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
I continue to find it hard to see how you really understood my conversation with Clay
your egotistical posturing is both funny and sad. good luck with it. but i'll let you in on a secret - you're not nearly as smart as you think, and i'm not nearly as stupid as you think.

i had hoped you'd be able to climb off your high horse and have a conversation. oh well.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 09-22-2009, 01:52 PM
Me&theboys Me&theboys is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 447
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
your egotistical posturing is both funny and sad. good luck with it. but i'll let you in on a secret - you're not nearly as smart as you think, and i'm not nearly as stupid as you think.

i had hoped you'd be able to climb off your high horse and have a conversation. oh well.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. What egotistical posturing? Disagreeing with you is egotistical posturing? You pull this stunt all the time - when the conversation gets difficult, you pull out, often leaving a wake of insult. I'm having a serious conversation. I have no idea what you are doing. I directly answered what I think about your claim about cultural breakdown. I also asked you several direct questions about what you seem to be saying. And then I posted an even more elaborate response to explain my views. I didn't call you names or insult you. That's how serious conversations proceed.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 09-24-2009, 10:37 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I don't believe that about Derbyshire. He says plenty of shit that I think is offensive ("Rubble doesn't doesn't make trouble") but I don't think he's a racist. The same goes for Razib and even Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray (who, of the four I've listed is the most troublesome, I think.) Murray's defense of Obama on The Corner last year, came as a surprise.

Most of this came up here in this very thread about a year ago.

Here is the clearest statement from Derbyhire on the topic of which I'm aware. I remember Brendan characterizing it as "not quite a complete defense, but pretty interesting." I agree.

Link
Having defended Derb, et al - I feel obligated to admit when they cross the line. Here's Derb approvingly linking Sailer.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 09-24-2009, 11:01 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Having defended Derb, et al - I feel obligated to admit when they cross the line. Here's Derb approvingly linking Sailer.
Ugh. Yep. I like some of what Derb has to say, but he does have that color-nonblindness problem.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 09-24-2009, 12:56 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
My reply to you was directly relevant to your claim that culture is beneficial to women. I was challenging such a sweeping claim by asking you to explain it within the context of cultures that are so obviously not beneficial to women.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
1) You construe my claim that many cultures are not beneficial to women as equivalent to or containing the claim that no culture is better than a bad culture. I am making the former claim. Why do you think I must also be making the latter claim?
beneficial = "providing a benefit" (i hope this is pretty much a definition we can agree on - as at least being 90% o.k? - good enough to continue the discussion or do you have something different in mind when using this word?)

you say that some cultures (including nearly all cultures 100 years ago and many today - correct? ) are providing no benefits to women ( i.e. they are not beneficial)

I am saying that to make that kind of claim - you would need to believe that these women would be equally well off without their "culture" or "society" (i realize these words are slippery and this is where i would need you to try and understand rather than try to obfuscate the issue if we were to have a worthwhile conversation).

I am saying that this view is incorrect. These women are gaining many benefits even within misogynistic cultures (better food supplies, greater reproductive success etc.) Not as many benefits as some other groups perhaps, but benefits none the less. this is because our cultures are essentially a web of non-zero sum interactions and a "rising tide lifts all boats".

This does not mean that i think misogyny is ok. equality for women expands the web of non-zero sum interactions and is beneficial to everyone in the culture (on a macro level)
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 09-24-2009, 01:11 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Thomas Sowell

I'd love to see Sowell paired with someone who disagrees with him but who can also handle himself--e.g., Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, etc. However, I doubt Sowell would go on Bh.TV: he's 79, so he probably doesn't dig on having arguments he had thirty-fifty years ago, and I gather he's not into talking to people he disagrees with. Not anymore, anyway.

Last edited by Bobby G; 09-24-2009 at 01:12 PM.. Reason: catchier title
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 09-24-2009, 01:14 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Big time conservative intellectuals

John Kekes
Roger Scruton
Alasdair MacIntyre (a conservative only in the European sense)

Charles Taylor, if you can get him (not that he's a conservative).
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 09-24-2009, 03:53 PM
Me&theboys Me&theboys is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 447
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
beneficial = "providing a benefit" (i hope this is pretty much a definition we can agree on - as at least being 90% o.k? - good enough to continue the discussion or do you have something different in mind when using this word?)

you say that some cultures (including nearly all cultures 100 years ago and many today - correct? ) are providing no benefits to women ( i.e. they are not beneficial)

I am saying that to make that kind of claim - you would need to believe that these women would be equally well off without their "culture" or "society" (i realize these words are slippery and this is where i would need you to try and understand rather than try to obfuscate the issue if we were to have a worthwhile conversation).

I am saying that this view is incorrect. These women are gaining many benefits even within misogynistic cultures (better food supplies, greater reproductive success etc.) Not as many benefits as some other groups perhaps, but benefits none the less. this is because our cultures are essentially a web of non-zero sum interactions and a "rising tide lifts all boats".

This does not mean that i think misogyny is ok. equality for women expands the web of non-zero sum interactions and is beneficial to everyone in the culture (on a macro level)
OK. Got it. I was using "not beneficial" so as to avoid using a more pejorative term, but that was clearly a bad decision, so I am happy to change my phraseology from "not beneficial" to the terms I should have gone ahead and used in the first place: "detrimental" (damaging, harmful) and/or "disadvantageous" (meaning opposed to one's interests, unfavorable, adverse, detrimental), neither of which exlude the possibility of some level of benefit at the same time.

Does that solve our problem? I suspect not, but then again, I am still not quite sure what it is you want to discuss, because you're the one who initiated this discussion and it clearly got derailed early on over terminology. Is the claim that any culture is better than no culture or than cultural chaos what you want to discuss? If so, there's not much to discuss because you and I (and probably most of the rest of the world) are in agreement on that point, and probably always have been, despite this long conversation.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 10-20-2009, 05:50 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Any chance you could get someone from J Street, the Jewish lobbying group.

I remember Bob was dismissive of their approach when they first launched and suggested they should ape AIPAC's methodolgy. To my ears this sounded pretty short sighted, especially coming from Bob who has chosen to taken on the MSM with his own off beat approach.

I doesn't have to be a diavlog about Israel per se, but maybe about lobbying in general and changes in lobbying in response to changes in technology and information accesibilty.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 10-20-2009, 06:02 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Good Op Ed in Ha-Aretz on J-Street and the resistance it's meeting.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 10-21-2009, 11:32 AM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

I was actually refering to someone who was actual a J Street staff member such as Jeremy Ben-Ami, who could talk more about issues relating to lobbying in the US rather than the I/P issue in general.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 10-21-2009, 11:35 AM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

I think it's J Streets annual confrence soon, so expect a few more bick bats to be thrown.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 10-21-2009, 11:52 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvantony View Post
Fine with me. Just have an equally informed critic as well.
Sounds like the makings of a good Apollo diavlog here -- opposable_crumbs and mvantony discussing their perspectives on the two principal Israeli lobbying efforts.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 10-24-2009, 07:29 PM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Doug Henwood. This guy is such an obvious choice for bhtv that his absence makes me wonder. And now that I think of it, is there anybody who is really left and really serious on this site?
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 11-05-2009, 11:31 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default film discussion

The great Armond White of the New York Press likens the new film Precious, to Birth of a Nation, calling it the "con job of the year."

Stephanie Zacharek of Salon, a great film critic in her own right, sees things differently: she calls Precious a "blunt, effective, piece of work," and argues that it should not be seen as a social commentary.

And if there is a benevolent God, these two will be brought here to bhtv to discuss this.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 11-05-2009, 12:16 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Russell Arben Fox.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 11-05-2009, 12:53 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post
Doug Henwood. This guy is such an obvious choice for bhtv that his absence makes me wonder. And now that I think of it, is there anybody who is really left and really serious on this site?
Seconded.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 12-09-2009, 03:33 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Judea Pearl wrote the book on causality:

Quote:
I got my first hint of the dark world of causality during my junior year of high school.

My science teacher, Dr. Feuchtwanger, introduced us to the study of logic by discussing the 19th century finding that more people died from smallpox inoculations than from smallpox itself. Some people used this information to argue that inoculation was harmful when, in fact, the data proved the opposite, that inoculation was saving lives by eradicating smallpox.

"And here is where logic comes in," concluded Dr. Feuchtwanger, "To protect us from cause-effect fallacies of this sort." We were all enchanted by the marvels of logic, even though Dr. Feuchtwanger never actually showed us how logic protects us from such fallacies.

It doesn't, I realized years later as an artificial intelligence researcher. Neither logic, nor any branch of mathematics had developed adequate tools for managing problems, such as the smallpox inoculations, involving cause-effect relationships. Most of my colleagues even considered causal vocabulary to be dangerous, avoidable, ill-defined, and nonscientific. "Causality is endless controversy," one of them warned. The accepted style in scientific papers was to write "A implies B" even if one really meant "A causes B," or to state "A is related to B" if one was thinking "A affects B."

Clearly, such denial of causal thought could not last forever ...
-- http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/why.html

Maybe Cosma Shalizi could ask the questions.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 12-09-2009, 04:14 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
I second this, at the top of my lungs.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 12-28-2009, 02:45 AM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pat Condell

He'd be good.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-21-2010, 04:17 AM
wreaver wreaver is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 96
Default Christopher Walter Monckton

I think seeing a debate with Christopher Walter Monckton interesting and entertaining.
__________________
I blog at Martial Culture
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-23-2010, 09:33 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Christopher Walter Monckton

Quote:
Originally Posted by wreaver View Post
I think seeing a debate with Christopher Walter Monckton interesting and entertaining.
I don't think we should encourage cynical cranks with our attention.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-23-2010, 09:51 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Christopher Walter Monckton

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I don't think we should encourage cynical cranks with our attention.
CENSORSHIP!!!1!
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.