Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jsiajwbanakaksbsbsvc t1_isgbzik wrote

Reply to comment by heatfins in McPherson Square is a disgrace by [deleted]

This might be a good moment to reflect on that.

0

heatfins t1_isuj93t wrote

Yea, the person advocating for progressive change here is a puritan and the one with a 1840s view of mental health and addiction is not. Every teacher failed you.

1

Jsiajwbanakaksbsbsvc t1_isvzo20 wrote

There is no such thing as progress. There is no end goal to society. There are just people and families. The general welfare should always benefit the greatest amount of people possible. I want to live in a world with walkable cities and safe streets. This isn’t progress, is just what I want to see in my life. You’re welcome to continue on your moral crusade, though I encourage you to think about working families and individuals who do not put themselves front and center and demand special treatment.

1

heatfins t1_isycfm1 wrote

Who said the status quo was progressive policy? Ridiculous assumption

1

Jsiajwbanakaksbsbsvc t1_isyi7j3 wrote

I’m not saying anything about the status quo. In fact, the status quo needs to change because I am tired of being tormented by mentally ill individuals. What I did say was that no policy can be “progressive” because progress implies direction. No such thing exists. Therefore the best policy ought to be the one most utilitarian in its application, regardless of any normative impulses to alter it in such a way that sets in motion what you and a few others in this thread have been talking about.

1

heatfins t1_it48g1z wrote

Oh I’m sorry I didn’t know that you had this unilateral power to make words that mean things, and are used both colloquially and academically to mean their respective things on a daily basis, but apparently everyone’s a moron except for you. And then you wonder why you’re so alone?

1

Jsiajwbanakaksbsbsvc t1_it4deii wrote

You’re the one asserting full control over a word. My take on whether policy has a teleological edge to it does not conflict with any existing definition. This is an active area of debate in academia, and while there is no conclusive answer to this preposition, I am of the camp that does not buy that history (or policy for that matter) is directional. Your insults are delicious btw. Keep going.

1

heatfins t1_it4dnny wrote

No, rejecting your outrageously false premise and leaving it there. If I use a word according to its definition and how everyone else uses it and you personally disapprove because it’s inconvenient to your politics, I did not, in fact, exert any control over the word. Extremely odd to accuse someone of something very specific that you JUST did.

1

heatfins t1_it4dq7h wrote

It’s not actively debated in academia, unless you mean unaccredited regional colleges in the southeast.

1

Jsiajwbanakaksbsbsvc t1_it4fpy6 wrote

Email your professors right now and ask them whether there is a telos history.

1

heatfins t1_it4fz8v wrote

Rejecting your intentionally dishonest premise that I made any sort of statement on whether there was telos in history or not, but rather a statement about linguistic use of a used word.

1

Jsiajwbanakaksbsbsvc t1_it4g4iy wrote

Linguistic use of a word that implies direction. Progressive is inherently teleological.

1

heatfins t1_it4hnvw wrote

You’re still on this. I made it very clear that rejecting a word that is CONSISTENTLY USED IN AND OUTSIDE OF ACADEMIA, with NO REAL ACADEMIC DEBATE OVER ITS USE (academic debate over the use of progressive is what you answered to and went on about telos because you only know how to reply in bad faith) is simply trolling. If you want to have a conversation about policy but refuse to use the lexicon as it is defined because of personal reasons, that’s fine, but you made a decision not to have any conversations with anyone other than those who already agree with your point about USE of the word (that all of academia disagrees with you on). If that’s your prerequisite go troll someone else, but to start claiming you’re “truly curious” while essentially deviating the entire conversation so others have to use your personal vocabulary is weird as fuck.

1

heatfins t1_it4g3d2 wrote

What’s the point of always replying in bad faith? I honestly don’t understand what you get out of this other than feeling the satisfaction of trolling someone else.

1

Jsiajwbanakaksbsbsvc t1_it4gb7m wrote

I’m not. I’m serious about what I am saying. I’m more curious than anything as to what you think because we have such widely different conceptions of policy. I’m truly trying to understand where is the hole in my reasoning.

1

heatfins t1_it4gn2b wrote

Ah we’re not. If I used the word progressive the way it means what it means in policy and your argument is to put the word in a vacuum (no words exist in a vacuum) then say the word is objectively useless, and then purposely misunderstand an argument about academia to make it about telos vs the word. That is simply not what someone who is curious does. This is either called arguing in bad faith or having a cognitive disorder.

1

Jsiajwbanakaksbsbsvc t1_it5pqgi wrote

Words have meaning, not all meanings are universally agreed upon. You’re ignoring everything I’ve said so far. Are you by any chance borrowing from this progressive definition?

1