3 ms·

It needs to be a rational discussion. If we don't have unity then what do we get instead? If different nations aren't equal partners than what are they? I do

by YZF 10y ago

It needs to be a rational discussion. If we don't have unity then what do we get instead? If different nations aren't equal partners than what are they? I do realize though how difficult it is for people to agree on these things, partly because of their beliefs that at times seem to override any rational argument. That's partly where we need more and better leadership to demonstrate that things can actually work out and be win-win.

rhizome 10y ago
If we don't have unity then what do we get instead? Difference. Diversity. If different nations aren't equal partners than what are they? I can't think of a definition of "equal partners" that makes sense here. partly because of their beliefs that at times seem to override any rational argument This is a condescending and bad-faith argument.
- YZF 10y ago
  It wasn't my intention to be condescending. Are you saying that rationality always wins in humans over belief? I think I'm just making a statement about all of us as humans here and I'm possibly sometimes just as guilty.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    You're saying you know why these arguments are being made, and furthermore that they're motivated by irrational beliefs.
    - YZF 10y ago
      It's a recurring theme. Whether we talk about global warming, science, evolution, woman's rights, racial relations, human rights. There are beliefs and beliefs almost by their nature are irrational. Try having a rational discussion with a religious Jewish person about why they can't turn the light on or off in their home on Sabbath. And that's an easy topic. Some arguments are made from a rational position but many are not. Some are from an emotional position. Some are based on beliefs that don't care about the rational argument. Now to be honest judging things by rational arguments is a belief on its own.
      - rhizome 10y ago
        No, I get it. For whatever controversy, there's a "the" rational argument, you know what that one rational argument is, and all these dummies aren't interested in learning what that is. Kind of evangelical if you think about it. So on what basis are emotion and rationality being separated here? Common sense?
        YZF 10y ago
        I didn't say that. There is certainly not a single rational argument, there can be many going different ways. I also didn't call anyone a dummy. If someone's choice is not to present any arguments that can be evaluated by some means I just don't have a way of making progress. But I guess we are not bridging the gap here. EDIT: and to answer your question emotion and rationality are separated by coming from different places in the brain. I can be mad, or upset, or happy, or in love, without any rational reason. There's not a love=mc^2 equation. But just because I'm mad doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. I don't know if this makes any sense but that's my best answer. EDIT2: Or maybe you're asking how I can tell whether a given position originates from belief, emotion, or rationality? Well, I can't. I'm certainly willing to engage in the discussion and entertain the possibility that erecting trade barriers between the US and the rest of the world will improve in some way something for those people in the US who are feeling hurt by globalization. Convince me. So far what I heard is "we'll bring those jobs back" not followed by any specific actions or explaining how those jobs will come back.
niftich 10y ago
Unified humanity is a 'noble' goal for a self-fulfilling, tautological reason: it's defined to be noble by those promoting it. It's an endgame that assumes that resource competition between smaller subgroups will be nonexistent, and that the path to prosperity is mutually-beneficial trade or altruism. The fact remains, while a rising tide may lift all ships, it doesn't lift all ships equally -- and in developed countries, the wage-earning, non-tertiary-sector classes are left holding smaller relative pieces of the pie than before. Yes, chances are those jobs will have been lost to automation sooner or later. Yes, chances are those jobs are never coming back. But a manufacturing worker in the United States can lose their job to someone on the other side of the globe lifting foreign workers out of poverty, while real wages continue to stagnate [1][2] in the US. Cheaper foreign-made merchandise doesn't help a domestic family pay for homes, higher education (which is a way of buying job security), healthcare. At a certain point, people will start asking, "but what's in it for me?", which shouldn't be surprising. [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ [2] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...
- YZF 10y ago
  But look at Europe. Europe thought it could ignore Africa and the Middle East but guess what, when there's a large difference things tend to find a way of equalizing themselves. So my rational argument, I hope, is that one can't leave international disparity for long durations any more than they can leave internal disparity (or instead of it). It will catch up with you. This is a small planet. So when someone asks what's in it for me I think we have some answers for them. And we should also do better for them regardless. North Korea pursues an isolationist pose, how well is that working for the people there? How many American jobs are created because the companies they work for can trade globally? If anything the US is a prime example of how you can prosper while being more open. EDIT: + cheaper goods do help everyone. As to high house prices that's a different story, don't blame globalism for that one.
  - niftich 10y ago
adiabatty 10y ago
> If we don't have unity then what do we get instead? An ethos of "you do your thing and I'll do mine".

by YZF 10y ago

rhizome 10y ago

If we don't have unity then what do we get instead? Difference. Diversity. If different nations aren't equal partners than what are they? I can't think of a definition of "equal partners" that makes sense here. partly because of their beliefs that at times seem to override any rational argument This is a condescending and bad-faith argument.

YZF 10y ago
It wasn't my intention to be condescending. Are you saying that rationality always wins in humans over belief? I think I'm just making a statement about all of us as humans here and I'm possibly sometimes just as guilty.
- rhizome 10y ago
  You're saying you know why these arguments are being made, and furthermore that they're motivated by irrational beliefs.
  - YZF 10y ago
    It's a recurring theme. Whether we talk about global warming, science, evolution, woman's rights, racial relations, human rights. There are beliefs and beliefs almost by their nature are irrational. Try having a rational discussion with a religious Jewish person about why they can't turn the light on or off in their home on Sabbath. And that's an easy topic. Some arguments are made from a rational position but many are not. Some are from an emotional position. Some are based on beliefs that don't care about the rational argument. Now to be honest judging things by rational arguments is a belief on its own.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      No, I get it. For whatever controversy, there's a "the" rational argument, you know what that one rational argument is, and all these dummies aren't interested in learning what that is. Kind of evangelical if you think about it. So on what basis are emotion and rationality being separated here? Common sense?
      - YZF 10y ago
        I didn't say that. There is certainly not a single rational argument, there can be many going different ways. I also didn't call anyone a dummy. If someone's choice is not to present any arguments that can be evaluated by some means I just don't have a way of making progress. But I guess we are not bridging the gap here. EDIT: and to answer your question emotion and rationality are separated by coming from different places in the brain. I can be mad, or upset, or happy, or in love, without any rational reason. There's not a love=mc^2 equation. But just because I'm mad doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. I don't know if this makes any sense but that's my best answer. EDIT2: Or maybe you're asking how I can tell whether a given position originates from belief, emotion, or rationality? Well, I can't. I'm certainly willing to engage in the discussion and entertain the possibility that erecting trade barriers between the US and the rest of the world will improve in some way something for those people in the US who are feeling hurt by globalization. Convince me. So far what I heard is "we'll bring those jobs back" not followed by any specific actions or explaining how those jobs will come back.

niftich 10y ago

Unified humanity is a 'noble' goal for a self-fulfilling, tautological reason: it's defined to be noble by those promoting it. It's an endgame that assumes that resource competition between smaller subgroups will be nonexistent, and that the path to prosperity is mutually-beneficial trade or altruism. The fact remains, while a rising tide may lift all ships, it doesn't lift all ships equally -- and in developed countries, the wage-earning, non-tertiary-sector classes are left holding smaller relative pieces of the pie than before. Yes, chances are those jobs will have been lost to automation sooner or later. Yes, chances are those jobs are never coming back. But a manufacturing worker in the United States can lose their job to someone on the other side of the globe lifting foreign workers out of poverty, while real wages continue to stagnate [1][2] in the US. Cheaper foreign-made merchandise doesn't help a domestic family pay for homes, higher education (which is a way of buying job security), healthcare. At a certain point, people will start asking, "but what's in it for me?", which shouldn't be surprising. [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ [2] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...

YZF 10y ago
But look at Europe. Europe thought it could ignore Africa and the Middle East but guess what, when there's a large difference things tend to find a way of equalizing themselves. So my rational argument, I hope, is that one can't leave international disparity for long durations any more than they can leave internal disparity (or instead of it). It will catch up with you. This is a small planet. So when someone asks what's in it for me I think we have some answers for them. And we should also do better for them regardless. North Korea pursues an isolationist pose, how well is that working for the people there? How many American jobs are created because the companies they work for can trade globally? If anything the US is a prime example of how you can prosper while being more open. EDIT: + cheaper goods do help everyone. As to high house prices that's a different story, don't blame globalism for that one.
- niftich 10y ago

adiabatty 10y ago

> If we don't have unity then what do we get instead? An ethos of "you do your thing and I'll do mine".