|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
What is meant by partisanship here? From the way it's being used, it sounds as if anybody who's strongly in support of a certain belief or policy and intolerant of differing views is a partisan.
Using that sense, I can’t see that partisanship is universally a bad thing. Partisanship with respect to issues of a purely personal nature would be tiresome and antisocial. But partisanship with respect to inimical fundamental ideas about family and community is of a different order. Then the goodness or badness of the partisanship would hinge on the truth of the fundamental belief being supported.
Scolding men for the latter kind of partisanship appears to be simply a disguised profession of the moral relativism that BlackCat and Kuros were earlier coming down against. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
What is meant by partisanship here? From the way it's being used, it sounds as if anybody who's strongly in support of a certain belief or policy and intolerant of differing views is a partisan.
Using that sense, I can’t see that partisanship is universally a bad thing. Partisanship with respect to issues of a purely personal nature would be tiresome and antisocial. But partisanship with respect to inimical fundamental ideas about family and community is of a different order. Then the goodness or badness of the partisanship would hinge on the truth of the fundamental belief being supported.
Scolding men for the latter kind of partisanship appears to be simply a disguised profession of the moral relativism that BlackCat and Kuros were earlier coming down against. |
For Fox's view you would have to ask him, in my view it has to do with point scoring, setting up sides on every issue, not seeing flaws in your own side, not being able to articulate what you believe in a positive way, but rather in a negative sense I.e I like A because look at how bad B is.
They way you're using it sounds like you're describing a fanatic, which I think is slightly different and almost always bad. People should always be at least somewhat open to the idea that they might be wrong. People like to argue about whether religion or atheism killed more people in history but they are missing the point, it's fanatics, people who were too sure of some idea and tolerant of others, that really are the problem. Also this sort of thinking makes people see everything through their chosen frame, and ignoring religion because we aren't allowed to discuss that here, no idea is right under every circumstance. Being peaceful is the right mindset almost all the time, but there are time where force is necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| What is meant by partisanship here? From the way it's being used, it sounds as if anybody who's strongly in support of a certain belief or policy and intolerant of differing views is a partisan. |
Yes, I agree.
| Quote: |
| Scolding men for the latter kind of partisanship appears to be simply a disguised profession of the moral relativism that BlackCat and Kuros were earlier coming down against. |
Edit: I initially read this incorrectly.
Last edited by Kuros on Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| What is meant by partisanship here? From the way it's being used, it sounds as if anybody who's strongly in support of a certain belief or policy and intolerant of differing views is a partisan. |
Quite the opposite, my conception of partisanship requires a certain weakness of belief, such that the belief is not an independent feature of one's personality which would persist even in isolation, but arises only because of group dynamics. You are right about the intolerant element of it though; it is precisely because of the weakness of the beliefs in question that one must adopt a certain superficial ferocity and intolerance, so as to bolster that which would otherwise erode of its own accord. The partisan is a naturally neutral individual vis a vis the matter in question who is merely pushed or enticed to one side or the other by social forces. The "packaged set" nature of the partisan's beliefs will also characterize him; the partisan will likely be pushed onto his "side" based on a particular issue or two, but will likely acquire the other beliefs of his group in short order. If the group's beliefs change (and they will if that is what is required for the party to persist), then the partisan's will follow.
| GF wrote: |
| Then the goodness or badness of the partisanship would hinge on the truth of the fundamental belief being supported. |
If one's belief is truly based directly upon truth, then it ceases to be a matter of partisanship. To this extent, it's possible for two people to believe the exact same things, while one is a partisan of a particular cause and the other has simply reached those conclusions in response to the genuine state of the world. Partisanship implies the supremacy of party, not the supremacy of truth.
That said, I'm not scolding anyone for anything. The extent to which partisan behavior leaves me weary is the extent to which it causes the partisan to treat me as if I were myself a partisan; Mr. Blackcat trying (and failing) to extrapolate the totality of my thoughts by skimming my posts, picking out a few buzz words, and then guessing what I must mean based on with which "package of beliefs" those buzzwords seem to accord is simply not something I'm interested in enduring. I take enough heat for what I actually say, I don't need to be harangued over positions I do not actually hold as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh Fox, you certainly have a persecution complex don't you? I asked you for a clarification for your last statement in a post miles back because I obviously misunderstood it. I even apologized for calling you a bigot, saying that I shouldn't have been so personal. You responded by calling me indoctrinated. I decided to let the matter drop. Here we are days later, and you still can't let it go. To you, some random guy calling one paragraph you wrote 'bigoted' is a worse offence than thousands of gays being arrested and beaten by police. True arrogance.
I responded to all the points you initially made. If you have a problem with those responses then by all means address them. I found your last paragraph to be very offensive and arrogant. So instead of addressing my responses you've created this whole drama about the world being out to get you. Partisans and indoctrinated hoards out to get intellectuals like you who are only trying to define the lifestyles of people you know nothing about.
You call me out for saying your last paragraph was bigoted saying I'm just throwing out words to try to "win". Yet instead of addressing my long response or my request for clarification on that paragraph you instead just say I'm indoctrinated. Pot, meet kettle. Don't try to pretend you're above everyone else. I've read lots of what you've written on this site. You could be a cable news pundit. Let your image of intellectual grandeur go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding the aforementioned topic of bullying.
| Quote: |
Youth more likely to be bullied at schools with anti-bullying programs
Anti-bullying initiatives have become standard at schools across the country, but a new UT Arlington study finds that students attending those schools may be more likely to be a victim of bullying than children at schools without such programs.
The findings run counter to the common perception that bullying prevention programs can help protect kids from repeated harassment or physical and emotional attacks.
“One possible reason for this is that the students who are victimizing their peers have learned the language from these anti-bullying campaigns and programs,” said Seokjin Jeong, an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at UT Arlington and lead author of the study, which was published in the Journal of Criminology.
“The schools with interventions say, ‘You shouldn’t do this,’ or ‘you shouldn’t do that.’ But through the programs, the students become highly exposed to what a bully is and they know what to do or say when questioned by parents or teachers,” Jeong said. |
Given the statistical failure of anti-bullying programs, surely their advocates have reconsidered them, right? Wrong: as per the first rule of the social
"sciences," when the data does not fit the theory, apply more theory.
| Quote: |
The study suggested that future direction should focus on more sophisticated strategies rather than just implementation of bullying prevention programs along with school security measures such as guards, bag and locker searches or metal detectors. Furthermore, given that bullying is a relationship problem, researchers need to better identify the bully-victim dynamics in order to develop prevention policies accordingly, Jeong said.
Communities across various race, ethnicity, religion and socio-economic classes can benefit from such important, relevant Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice research, said Beth Wright, dean of the UT Arlington College of Liberal Arts.
“This important discovery will result in improvements in health, in learning, and in relationships, with unlimited positive impact,” Wright said. |
Data-driven failure transformed into a promise of "unlimited positive impact" through the magic of vague promises, blind faith, and total unaccountability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think you are all losing sight of the real threat: our four-year-olds are being indoctrinated about same-sex couples in our public schools! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So how many gay marriage books do you plan on buying your child, Kuros? You clearly think they're fine, and you want your child to be tolerant (of alternative forms of sex and different skin tones anyway), right? Shall I gift you the one about two dads, or do you already have it? Admittedly my kids mostly get stories about animals or going to the market, but I'm not "with it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I get your point about the book, but are you saying that it should be banned, or that you just don't like it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It should not be banned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| It should not be banned. |
But it wouldn't be all that unfortunate if the publisher was ticketed for some health and safety violations that caused it a bit of pain. Would it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| It should not be banned. |
But it wouldn't be all that unfortunate if the publisher was ticketed for some health and safety violations that caused it a bit of pain. Would it. |
That's some advanced level newspeak. Thought crimes against health AND safety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
What is meant by partisanship here? From the way it's being used, it sounds as if anybody who's strongly in support of a certain belief or policy and intolerant of differing views is a partisan.
Using that sense, I can’t see that partisanship is universally a bad thing. Partisanship with respect to issues of a purely personal nature would be tiresome and antisocial. But partisanship with respect to inimical fundamental ideas about family and community is of a different order. Then the goodness or badness of the partisanship would hinge on the truth of the fundamental belief being supported.
Scolding men for the latter kind of partisanship appears to be simply a disguised profession of the moral relativism that BlackCat and Kuros were earlier coming down against. |
For Fox's view you would have to ask him, in my view it has to do with point scoring, setting up sides on every issue, not seeing flaws in your own side, not being able to articulate what you believe in a positive way, but rather in a negative sense I.e I like A because look at how bad B is. |
So for you, partisanship is characterized above all by pettiness. Is that fair to say?
| Leon wrote: |
| They way you're using it sounds like you're describing a fanatic, which I think is slightly different and almost always bad. People should always be at least somewhat open to the idea that they might be wrong. |
I can't relate to a worldview in which uncertainty is regarded as some kind of virtue, while certainty is seen as intrinsically suspicious.
Certainty is obviously desirable, when it is real certainty and not just partisan pseudo-certainty. Fox drew what I take to be the classical distinction between men who know a truth directly, through, if I may elaborate, dianoia and noesis, and men who have opinions.
He also made the case that the uncertainty which underlies partisanship is liable to lead to insecurity, bravado, and - I don't think it a stretch to say - possibly violence. I think his case has a certain self-evidence, though I'm sure we could look to historical and psychological examples to fill it out.
This makes more sense to me than holding that certainty is equal to harmful fanaticism. Perhaps you could make your case more fully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
What is meant by partisanship here? From the way it's being used, it sounds as if anybody who's strongly in support of a certain belief or policy and intolerant of differing views is a partisan.
Using that sense, I can’t see that partisanship is universally a bad thing. Partisanship with respect to issues of a purely personal nature would be tiresome and antisocial. But partisanship with respect to inimical fundamental ideas about family and community is of a different order. Then the goodness or badness of the partisanship would hinge on the truth of the fundamental belief being supported.
Scolding men for the latter kind of partisanship appears to be simply a disguised profession of the moral relativism that BlackCat and Kuros were earlier coming down against. |
For Fox's view you would have to ask him, in my view it has to do with point scoring, setting up sides on every issue, not seeing flaws in your own side, not being able to articulate what you believe in a positive way, but rather in a negative sense I.e I like A because look at how bad B is. |
So for you, partisanship is characterized above all by pettiness. Is that fair to say? |
At least in one form of partisanship, yes.
| GF wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| They way you're using it sounds like you're describing a fanatic, which I think is slightly different and almost always bad. People should always be at least somewhat open to the idea that they might be wrong. |
I can't relate to a worldview in which uncertainty is regarded as some kind of virtue, while certainty is seen as intrinsically suspicious.
Certainty is obviously desirable, when it is real certainty and not just partisan pseudo-certainty. Fox drew what I take to be the classical distinction between men who know a truth directly, through, if I may elaborate, dianoia and noesis, and men who have opinions.
He also made the case that the uncertainty which underlies partisanship is liable to lead to insecurity, bravado, and - I don't think it a stretch to say - possibly violence. I think his case has a certain self-evidence, though I'm sure we could look to historical and psychological examples to fill it out.
This makes more sense to me than holding that certainty is equal to harmful fanaticism. Perhaps you could make your case more fully. |
I think you might have misunderstood me, which is fair enough I might not have articulated what I was thinking well or fully enough. Certainty is not the problem, there are times when being sure and decisive is important. It's using an ideology or set of ideas as a framework to see everything that is a problem. It's a self imposed blindness by viewing all things through a narrow viewpoint that I'm referring to, not being certain of things in general. Does that make more sense?
I don't think of uncertainty in and of itself as a virtue, although except in certain situations where decisive and intermediate leadership is needed, like to use an obvious example the Cuban Missile Crisis, being at least a little open to being proved wrong is a useful thing. Also being open to different ideas in different contexts to solve different kinds of problems is a good thing in a leader. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| So how many gay marriage books do you plan on buying your child, Kuros? You clearly think they're fine, and you want your child to be tolerant (of alternative forms of sex and different skin tones anyway), right? Shall I gift you the one about two dads, or do you already have it? Admittedly my kids mostly get stories about animals or going to the market, but I'm not "with it." |
Fox,
I'm going to go out on a limb here: almost every time you use the word 'clearly' in a sentence, the thrust of it is not actually that apparent.
Also, how the hell did this thread get so far? Maybe we should continue with the gay books for four-year-olds taking over our great land. How does Pope Francis's hippie tenure play into that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
