3 ms·

And? This sounds like the usual socialist argument of “tear it all down”—they’d rather all the money went to China than to wealthy locals which, let’s not forge

by bzb6 6y ago

And? This sounds like the usual socialist argument of “tear it all down”—they’d rather all the money went to China than to wealthy locals which, let’s not forget, employ thousands.

woofie11 6y ago
Rereading my post, I can't find any sort of argument for either changing the system, keeping things as-is, or advocating for any sort of specific change. Simply pattern-matching what people say to ideology is what leads to nothing getting done. I'm not sure I have an opinion on what ought to be done. I do have an opinion that we should keep things fact-based. Licensing requirements protect entrenched interests. Is that a good thing? A bad thing? If there are problems, how should they be fixed? Please try to discuss based on facts (or even your own opinions) rather than pattern-matching to an ideology you disagree with, and asking everyone to discount based on that. All I did was point out a faulty argument. I didn't take a stance.
- bzb6 6y ago
  I am talking from my experience from living in the south of Spain. I know your argument, I know the kind of people who support it, and I know what it is and what it means. You mentioned a common argument, I told you what I think of it.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Yes. That's what you did. It's called stereotyping or bigotry. I am not one of those "kind of people." I don't happen to live in the south of Spain, or even in Europe. In this case, your stereotyping happened to be off-base. I don't even drink wine or eat fancy cheese, so i have no dogs in this race. My experience is that all "kind of people" are right about some things, wrong about others, and you're better off engaging critically issue-by-issue, rather than discounting an argument based on "the kind of people" who happen to make that particular type of argument. You're also better off not imputing meaning. There's a pathway to sensible actions: * Understanding facts (objective reality -- we should all be able to agree) * Understanding viewpoints on problems (which comes down to values and opinions -- and we definitely won't all agree) * Coming up with plans (which come down to figuring out how to meet the needs of as many people as possible). If you short-circuit the top ones because you think it will lead the wrong course of action, you're promoting polarization and standing in the way of meaningful civic discourse. You're also willfully ignorant, since you learn the most engaging with people you disagree with, rather than discounting them (as we do in two halves of America) as liberal snowflakes or racist redneck hicks.

by bzb6 6y ago

And? This sounds like the usual socialist argument of “tear it all down”—they’d rather all the money went to China than to wealthy locals which, let’s not forget, employ thousands.

woofie11 6y ago

Rereading my post, I can't find any sort of argument for either changing the system, keeping things as-is, or advocating for any sort of specific change. Simply pattern-matching what people say to ideology is what leads to nothing getting done. I'm not sure I have an opinion on what ought to be done. I do have an opinion that we should keep things fact-based. Licensing requirements protect entrenched interests. Is that a good thing? A bad thing? If there are problems, how should they be fixed? Please try to discuss based on facts (or even your own opinions) rather than pattern-matching to an ideology you disagree with, and asking everyone to discount based on that. All I did was point out a faulty argument. I didn't take a stance.

bzb6 6y ago
I am talking from my experience from living in the south of Spain. I know your argument, I know the kind of people who support it, and I know what it is and what it means. You mentioned a common argument, I told you what I think of it.
- woofie11 6y ago
  Yes. That's what you did. It's called stereotyping or bigotry. I am not one of those "kind of people." I don't happen to live in the south of Spain, or even in Europe. In this case, your stereotyping happened to be off-base. I don't even drink wine or eat fancy cheese, so i have no dogs in this race. My experience is that all "kind of people" are right about some things, wrong about others, and you're better off engaging critically issue-by-issue, rather than discounting an argument based on "the kind of people" who happen to make that particular type of argument. You're also better off not imputing meaning. There's a pathway to sensible actions: * Understanding facts (objective reality -- we should all be able to agree) * Understanding viewpoints on problems (which comes down to values and opinions -- and we definitely won't all agree) * Coming up with plans (which come down to figuring out how to meet the needs of as many people as possible). If you short-circuit the top ones because you think it will lead the wrong course of action, you're promoting polarization and standing in the way of meaningful civic discourse. You're also willfully ignorant, since you learn the most engaging with people you disagree with, rather than discounting them (as we do in two halves of America) as liberal snowflakes or racist redneck hicks.