4 ms·

> …that's okay from your definition. Can you point to where GP made a value judgment about what is and isn’t “okay” in their post? It kind of seems like you’re

> …that's okay from your definition. Can you point to where GP made a value judgment about what is and isn’t “okay” in their post? It kind of seems like you’re arguing against something that nobody said.

IncRnd 4y ago
That comment was specifically to say how a student's union can effect societal changes unrelated to the purpose of the union, by the leaders of the union using their bully pulpit to coerce people to act. That is exactly what they said. They even gave the example of how to effectively use the bully pulpit: the corrupt Jimmy Hoffa, who incidentally was convicted for jury tampering, attempted bribery, conspiracy, and mail and wire fraud.
- braingenious 4y ago
  Giving an example of how a thing can be observed to work in the world is not the same as saying a thing is inherently morally good or bad. If I were to say “The catholic church has had a lot of influence over architecture decisions”, would your response be “I see that you hate Frank Lloyd Wright”? Does describing how a plane flies mean that I like fighter jets?
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    Nobody ever said that the description of a thing implies any morality. Are you actually engaging in honest conversation here? The GP clearly wrote how a student's union can affect the members actions, outside of the union's purpose, through using the bully pulpit. That is literally what they wrote. By the same logic as what they wrote in their comment, the bully pulpit can be used to push different beliefs. I've answered your question about that twice now. Please don't try to engage me in red herring arguments.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      What did you mean by the word “okay” if you didn’t mean to imply that the author had any opinion on that process? I’ve now asked you in multiple ways what you meant by that phrasing! edit: I’ll make it even easier, since you don’t seem to want to answer that question. How about this: What was the topic of these sentences? > If a pastor uses the church pulpit to convince their flock to vote a specific way, that's okay from your definition. If a well-loved ceo at a company spontaneously meets with the employees in the breakroom, over their free coffee and free lunch, and decides to use that pulpit to convince people to act a certain way politically, that's okay from your definition. There is a saying: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" To clarify what I mean by “what is the topic”, I mean 1. What was your purpose in bringing up your example of a well-loved ceo when nobody else had? What were you trying to illustrate? 2. If you weren’t commenting on somebody’s perceived moral statement, did you share the goose and gander quote as a completely unrelated fun fact for everyone to enjoy? Was it some sort of fun little moral lesson unrelated to the rest of the content of your post, like the text on a popsicle stick or Snapple cap?
      - IncRnd 4y ago
        > What did you mean by the word “okay” if you didn’t mean to imply that the author had any opinion on that process? > I’ve now asked you in multiple ways what you meant by that phrasing! You might want to use far fewer words, then, if you want to know the meaning of a word. Using paragraphs to ask that question has a very high noise to signal ratio. okay [1] also OK also O.K. also ok Word forms: okays, okaying, okayed 1. ADJECTIVE If you say that something is okay, you find it satisfactory or acceptable. OK [2] exclamation (also okay) OK exclamation (AGREEING) used to show that you agree with something or agree to do something: > 1. What was your purpose in bringing up your example of a well-loved ceo when nobody else had? What were you trying to illustrate? > 2. If you weren’t commenting on somebody’s perceived moral statement, did you share the goose and gander quote as a completely unrelated fun fact for everyone to enjoy? Those are for the exact same reason. The first shows a parallel to what the GP posted but in an unexpected context, which is mentined to show the unintended consequences when using the bully pulpit of a union in a context that it shouldn't be used. The actual article mentioned that even the union organizer in the story denounced this. The second showed the long-held societal wisdom on this, that when one pushes their beliefs using a questionable method in one context, that same method will be applied by others to additional areas in unexpected ways. There was a link that contained an explanation for that. As I wrote, "By the same logic as what they wrote in their comment, the bully pulpit can be used to push different beliefs." > Was it some sort of fun little moral lesson unrelated to the rest of the content of your post, like the text on a popsicle stick or Snapple cap? And, it is now clear that you are intentionally not engaging in honest conversation. [1] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/okay https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/okay [2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ok?q=okay https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ok?q=...

IncRnd 4y ago

That comment was specifically to say how a student's union can effect societal changes unrelated to the purpose of the union, by the leaders of the union using their bully pulpit to coerce people to act. That is exactly what they said. They even gave the example of how to effectively use the bully pulpit: the corrupt Jimmy Hoffa, who incidentally was convicted for jury tampering, attempted bribery, conspiracy, and mail and wire fraud.

braingenious 4y ago
Giving an example of how a thing can be observed to work in the world is not the same as saying a thing is inherently morally good or bad. If I were to say “The catholic church has had a lot of influence over architecture decisions”, would your response be “I see that you hate Frank Lloyd Wright”? Does describing how a plane flies mean that I like fighter jets?
- IncRnd 4y ago
  Nobody ever said that the description of a thing implies any morality. Are you actually engaging in honest conversation here? The GP clearly wrote how a student's union can affect the members actions, outside of the union's purpose, through using the bully pulpit. That is literally what they wrote. By the same logic as what they wrote in their comment, the bully pulpit can be used to push different beliefs. I've answered your question about that twice now. Please don't try to engage me in red herring arguments.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    What did you mean by the word “okay” if you didn’t mean to imply that the author had any opinion on that process? I’ve now asked you in multiple ways what you meant by that phrasing! edit: I’ll make it even easier, since you don’t seem to want to answer that question. How about this: What was the topic of these sentences? > If a pastor uses the church pulpit to convince their flock to vote a specific way, that's okay from your definition. If a well-loved ceo at a company spontaneously meets with the employees in the breakroom, over their free coffee and free lunch, and decides to use that pulpit to convince people to act a certain way politically, that's okay from your definition. There is a saying: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" To clarify what I mean by “what is the topic”, I mean 1. What was your purpose in bringing up your example of a well-loved ceo when nobody else had? What were you trying to illustrate? 2. If you weren’t commenting on somebody’s perceived moral statement, did you share the goose and gander quote as a completely unrelated fun fact for everyone to enjoy? Was it some sort of fun little moral lesson unrelated to the rest of the content of your post, like the text on a popsicle stick or Snapple cap?
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      > What did you mean by the word “okay” if you didn’t mean to imply that the author had any opinion on that process? > I’ve now asked you in multiple ways what you meant by that phrasing! You might want to use far fewer words, then, if you want to know the meaning of a word. Using paragraphs to ask that question has a very high noise to signal ratio. okay [1] also OK also O.K. also ok Word forms: okays, okaying, okayed 1. ADJECTIVE If you say that something is okay, you find it satisfactory or acceptable. OK [2] exclamation (also okay) OK exclamation (AGREEING) used to show that you agree with something or agree to do something: > 1. What was your purpose in bringing up your example of a well-loved ceo when nobody else had? What were you trying to illustrate? > 2. If you weren’t commenting on somebody’s perceived moral statement, did you share the goose and gander quote as a completely unrelated fun fact for everyone to enjoy? Those are for the exact same reason. The first shows a parallel to what the GP posted but in an unexpected context, which is mentined to show the unintended consequences when using the bully pulpit of a union in a context that it shouldn't be used. The actual article mentioned that even the union organizer in the story denounced this. The second showed the long-held societal wisdom on this, that when one pushes their beliefs using a questionable method in one context, that same method will be applied by others to additional areas in unexpected ways. There was a link that contained an explanation for that. As I wrote, "By the same logic as what they wrote in their comment, the bully pulpit can be used to push different beliefs." > Was it some sort of fun little moral lesson unrelated to the rest of the content of your post, like the text on a popsicle stick or Snapple cap? And, it is now clear that you are intentionally not engaging in honest conversation. [1] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/okay https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/okay [2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ok?q=okay https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ok?q=...