Brexit

[MadMojoMonkey]

It is impossible to "choose ideology over humans" because "choosing humans" is an ideology.

What? Really? You think that's what he meant? It was a sentence, not an essay.

Do you find any value in trying to understand what someone means rather than pedantically saying that something they didn't mean is wrong?

Historically, ideologies are at the root of that which he considers the positive-for-humans developments. These ideologies are mostly the ones from the Enlightenment that the West embraced. Even with the sledge hammer of the anti-Enlightenment education system adopted by the West, academic historians still cover this a bit.

The original quote was: I've learned that humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate and that we get totally hosed when we choose ideology over actual humans.

He didn't say anything about what he "considers positive-for-humans developments"; I don't see where you got this from that quote. "Generally get less miserable" is about as broad a brush as can be painted while specifically avoiding saying that said reduction in misery is positive. If anything, I grant you, he's implying that it's less bad than being "totally hosed."

He didn't say what the root causes or manifestations of collaboration are (or aren't). I don't see how the Enlightenment is antithetical to the sentence. A quick Google search shows that the Enlightenment looks like it was about freeing humans to think and share their thoughts in an open and free way, which is fairly rockin'.

I think he'd say that to the extent that Enlightenment ideologies promoted the humans, things generally got less miserable and that to the extent that the ideals of the Enlightenment were used to suppress humans, things got totally hosed.

[wufwugy]

The original quote was: I've learned that humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate and that we get totally hosed when we choose ideology over actual humans.

A literal impossibility.

He didn't say anything about what he "considers positive-for-humans developments"; I don't see where you got this from that quote. "Generally get less miserable" is about as broad a brush as can be painted while specifically avoiding saying that said reduction in misery is positive. If anything, I grant you, he's implying that it's less bad than being "totally hosed."

His view is that some things make things better (less miserable) than other things (totally hosed). That he considers the former to arise from "positive-for-humans developments" is necessary.

He didn't say what the root causes or manifestations of collaboration are (or aren't). I don't see how the Enlightenment is antithetical to the sentence. A quick Google search shows that the Enlightenment looks like it was about freeing humans to think and share their thoughts in an open and free way, which is fairly rockin'.

I added the explanation about the Enlightenment for your benefit.

I think he'd say that to the extent that Enlightenment ideologies promoted the humans, things generally got less miserable and that to the extent that the ideals of the Enlightenment were used to suppress humans, things got totally hosed.

This is the same as saying that which is good for people is good for people. A meaningful explanation regarding history provides a description of potential causality. The Enlightenment is widely considered that causality for the betterment of humankind.

It is NOT the case that pursuit of ideology has made things worse and pursuit of "humans" makes things better. His statement misses the mark in two ways: (1) that which he says is not ideology is still ideology and (2) particular ideologies are the backbone for what made things "less miserable."

[MadMojoMonkey]

A literal impossibility.

Not even a little bit.

Death penalty is a thing that still happens in the USA.
We place the ideal of punishing criminals above that criminal's life.
Or above the ideal that humans' lives are the most important thing.

For you to say that it's literally impossible to favor an ideology before favoring the person is just blowing my mind. At most you are saying "assigning extreme value to human lives" is an ideology. Do you really think that is the definition of ideology that the speaker intended? Even so... if that ideology is used as a tool to suppress someone, I think he'd still describe that as the path to being totally hosed.

Again I ask: Do you find any value in trying to understand what someone means and not pedantically telling them that something they didn't mean is wrong?

I ask twice since you play devil's advocate and say things like "Taxation is theft" when it's clear through conversation with you that what you mean is closer to, "Taxation is very much like theft except for a subtlety in the definitions of the two concepts which is tenuous at times and is not the kind of subtle distinction we commonly find in the English language." So I can see why you choose the more terse, "Taxation is theft," even though it's not - strictly speaking - what you actually believe. Or if it is what you believe, it's based on non-standard definitions which you invented to talk about the "essence" of taxation as identical to the "essence" of theft... which is still a different statement, and those terms are purely subjective, with no agreed upon meaning.

So you use your words in - shall we say interesting - ways, and I don't see how you can do so, but then refuse to be delighted when someone else takes a similar liberty.

This is the same as saying that which is good for people is good for people.

So you agree with it, then?

A meaningful explanation regarding history provides a description of potential causality. The Enlightenment is widely considered that causality for the betterment of humankind.

It is NOT the case that pursuit of ideology has made things worse and pursuit of "humans" makes things better. His statement misses the mark in two ways: (1) that which he says is not ideology is still ideology and (2) particular ideologies are the backbone for what made things "less miserable."

Again: What did he say is or is not ideology? This is all in your head.

He doesn't say that ideology is bad or destructive or miserable. He says that when we choose ideology over humans, we get hosed. He does not say that choosing humans is not an ideology. He says that when ideology is used as a tool to dehumanize, things go to shit.

[wufwugy]

Again I ask: Do you find any value in trying to understand what someone means and not pedantically telling them that something they didn't mean is wrong?

I tend to let you do this a couple dozen times before I acknowledge it.

It seems impossible for you to converse with somebody without swiftly leaping to judgments of their character and motives.

I ask twice since you play devil's advocate and say things like "Taxation is theft" when it's clear through conversation with you that what you mean is closer to, "Taxation is very much like theft except for a subtlety in the definitions of the two concepts which is tenuous at times and is not the kind of subtle distinction we commonly find in the English language."

That's not what I believe. I believe taxation is theft. I haven't mucked my words on this. The concept of theft does not require legal codification. By law, taxation is not theft, but by fundamental concept, theft and taxation do not diverge. The word "theft" is used instead of "wrongful taking" because nobody (except when arguing against me on the internet) believes that something is only theft because the law says so. If the government passes a law that says it now gets to take all the stuff you and nobody else uses, you're gonna describe their actions as theft and not give two shits what the law says.

He doesn't say that ideology is bad or destructive or miserable. He says that when we choose ideology over humans, we get hosed. He does not say that choosing humans is not an ideology. He says that when ideology is used as a tool to dehumanize, things go to shit.

How can I choose an apple over a fruit?

The bold is what he likely meant, but it ain't what he said. I've seen the meme many times before, and I point out its mistake because I think the misunderstanding causes problems.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I tend to let you do this a couple dozen times before I acknowledge it.

It seems impossible for you to converse with somebody without swiftly leaping to judgments of their character and motives.

I asked you a question, with no judgement on your character.

You replied by attacking my character.

***
Truth be told, I do hold judgements on your character, but I think you'd be surprised to hear that they are almost 100% positive things.

That said, I do not conflate your character with your reasoning skills. Whether or not you intend to be an actor for the good of the world as best you see fit is separate from your ability to form a coherent world view, which I remain on the fence about even myself. So don't just jump to some conclusion that I don't value your world view. I am skeptical of all world views.

Yes, I find your reasoning procedures to be baffling and I don't know how you can say half of the things you say with such confidence. I don't consider this a fault of yours, though, so that is in your head. My desire to unravel the baffling bits is a testament to the fact that I do, in fact, think you are intelligent and that I can learn a lot from you, as long as I keep epic patience and keep asking questions.