Originally posted by @philokalia You know, the way that a debater would confront this issue is by disputing my point and not repeating the same, silly questions.
Originally posted by @philokalia Yes, of course, everybody wants to have total and real protection of their dignity and their freedoms. But what people get, most of the time, evenw hen these things are "enshriend in law," is a shadow of that truth.
Originally posted by @philokalia So, after years (or decades) of this, we now have to deal with a guy who thinks he can debate and discuss things but the only tactic he has is to [i]insist that he has some right ot redirect the debate towards shallow questions that do not actually further the debate but bring it back to talking points that he wants to have but that he does not even adequately explain.
I don't believe that they are "shallow questions". They are certainly key in the real world where I interact with people in a fledgeling civil society who are seeking to build a "good society" in the wake of decades of de facto rightless and freedomless military dictatorship.
Originally posted by @philokalia I showed that the real intention of these questions was a dialog about the state of democracy and Muh Rights in the West, and to point out that the system that he wants us all to have so much faith in is completely fragile.
Your catchphrase "Muh Rights" is meaningless to me.
Originally posted by @philokalia Perhaps it is his career in pedagogy (which I assume is what he does) that has led him to believing he can have this role where we are his non-native speaking students or fanboys that sit around and let FMF direct the conversation to wherever he wants to go.
"Fanboys"? I do not "direct the conversation" between the Indonesians I assist and work for. Far from it.
I ask a series of ... practically rehtorical questions. He already has basically answered these.
I showed that the real intention of these questions was a dialog about the state of democracy and Muh Rights in the West, and to point out that the system that he wants us all to have so much faith in is completely fragile.
He has decided to answer these again.
Why is that?
Because you ignored them. And I think you ignored them because I did not answer them in the way the expected me to. You seem obsessed with your sneer-buzz word "Muh Rights" which you seem determined to pin on me. It means nothing to me. They may be words that you use to signal how upset you are or how exasperated you feel, but I couldn't care less.
Originally posted by @philokalia ... you insist that this shadow of the truth is more important than the actual virtues that make these situations possible to begin with.
This became circular quickly and you explicitly avoided having a deep conversation about anything in this topic.
Everything was either exceedingly surface level or barely relevant.
You didn't want to confront the larger conclusions I brought up about virtue and its relationship to rights.
You didn't want to discuss issues with the implementation of rights and freedoms in the west.
You just repeated some line about Indonesia's progress out of military dictatorship and tentatively linked it to Muh Rights when I suggested that the success of Indonesia lately is deeper and is connected to other things.
This wasn't really a discussion.
I am convinced that, even when you want to, you cannot go deep enough to have a meaningful covnersation at my level, hence you simply nitpick small parts of what people say and run away with them in weird directions hoping to score points.
Originally posted by @philokalia This became circular quickly and you explicitly avoided having a deep conversation about anything in this topic.
I don't think your conversation is "deep" at all. 'If people were nice to each other [had "virtue"], there'd be no need for human rights and freedoms'... is just about the long and short of it. It may appeal to you, but I find it all a bit naive and sanctimonious.
Originally posted by @philokalia You didn't want to confront the larger conclusions I brought up about virtue and its relationship to rights.
Like I said, virtue is really good. But I don't think one can wait until there is nobody in society without it before creating and upholding protections for citizens.
Originally posted by @philokalia You just repeated some line about Indonesia's progress out of military dictatorship and tentatively linked it to Muh Rights when I suggested that the success of Indonesia lately is deeper and is connected to other things.
Originally posted by @philokalia I am convinced that, even when you want to, you cannot go deep enough to have a meaningful covnersation at my level, hence you simply nitpick small parts of what people say and run away with them in weird directions hoping to score points.
I disagree. I think your stuff about "the equivalent of freedom & liberty" is not very meaningful in the real world, in the field, on the front line [as it were], for real people, for whom it is a life and death matter, and for whom your wishy-washy pretentiousness about "virtue" amounts to little. Yes, virtue is good. Ethics are good, Moral education is good. We can agree on that side of it.
Originally posted by @philokalia I am convinced that, even when you want to, you cannot go deep enough to have a meaningful covnersation at my level, hence you simply nitpick small parts of what people say and run away with them in weird directions hoping to score points.
...you cannot go deep enough to have a meaningful covnersation at my level...
Your "level"?
...you simply nitpick small parts of what people say and run away with them in weird directions...
Phikokalia's Virtue Oriented World
16 Jun '18 04:48
Back to Top