Topic: I think I finally figured out why so many people disagree with me!
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Because I subconsciously follow the paradigm of Realism prior to taking International Relations while upon taking the class it couldn't be more clear to me. Yes! I am a realist! While many others are Liberals in international relations theory, or maybe feminists, I haven't taken the time to figure it out but nearly every (or for that matter every period.) assumption of Realism is something I agree with or use in my observations of international relations and historical power politics.
It is so clear to me! It all makes sense! This explains pretty much all of the friction between me and others, they are irreconcilable differences in opinion.
Now what I haven't learned yet is how to [b]argue[/i] with Liberals (in the classic IR sense in case Ron, that weird person or Clive are confused) from a Realist view point. Maybe I'll learn this before the semester ends.
Victory is mine!
Now funny thing Blackblade I remember a long while ago when I first asked about Political Science your FIRST response to me was "be prepared to discard every opinion you already hold about politics" Ha! I say to you Ha! Either Concordia University is the exception to the rule but so far I haven't had anything but my knowledge of terminology and procrastinism challenged. Everything being taught to me so far is something I already agree with its weird its like I entered the Debate Hall Where You Are Always Right. Link.
posted
Yeah... The problem with debating against realists is they can threaten you with bodily harm and be consistent with their own philosophy so long as they stand behind offensive realism and perceive your very existence as a threat to their security.
I tend to be slightly more squishy when it comes to international relations. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Thats because you didn't maintain enough of a deterrence in the form of ever an weapon or martial arts classes to prevent us from leveraging our advantage over you. Nor did you find any friends to act together to contain the greater threat. Also they would only threaten you if it were in their bests interests to do so, the key is to make it so that its NOT in their best interests to do so.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if I were to follow that logic we'd be in the stuck in Dr. Seuss' The Butter Battle Book. I'm not particularly positive on the notion.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. Of the 8 Common Assumptions Wiki lists for realism, I'd say I agree with them on 6 1/2. But that last one is the big sticking point for me.
If we're not going to add some ethics into our international relations, we might as well go back to the caves and beat each other over the head with sticks. I think our ability to decide right from wrong is one of the basics that seperates us from animals and needs to be a cornerstone of all our interactions with each other at every level.
Deciding whose version of right gets to prevail is the tricky part. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strict realism works only in a game where no one actually dies in wars, no one suffers hunger, exposure or disease, and no one is actually tortured because so some one else can increase their power.
In the real world, the pursuit of power without concern with ethics and ideals causes real and often enormous suffering. It is evil.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like debating with realists because I can simply beat them to death and take their wallets.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like dating realists because I can just drug them and date-rape them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Except no. Just no. Your being an idiot and your conflating International Classical and NeoRealism with political anarchy and anarcho-liberalism, Realism in the sense that I am discussing it only applies to international relations between nations where realism including its absense of ethical considerations is a valid and preeminant paradigm. What YOUR discussing is politcal anarchy within a state which is irrelevent to International Relations, realisms mo is how the world IS not nessasarily how it should be which is Liberalisms mo of studying and assuming how the world should be and not how it is.
Realists I repeat do not concern themselves with how it should be, and stuff are not blinded by a cognitive dissonance where we assume that just because the neighbour is peace loving doesn't it won't attack us if given the oppurtunity thus a strategic relative balance of power should always be maintained to prevent war through deterrance.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I guess I have to say it again, because this is maybe the seventh time.
If you're going to call me an idiot, it's
"You're being an idiot"
not
"Your being an idiot"
If you are going to challenge my intelligence, have a go at it, but don't do so in a way which is unhelpfully ironic!
quote:What YOUR discussing is politcal anarchy within a state which is irrelevent to International Relations, realisms mo is how the world IS not nessasarily how it should be which is Liberalisms mo of studying and assuming how the world should be and not how it is.
None of the statements made in this thread (of any degree of seriousness or lack of thereof) broach upon the concept of political Anarchism or anarcho-liberalism, which is a different beast entirely and does not bear even superficial resemblance to the critiques of vague Realist principles.
Anarcho-liberalism (the more correct term is Anarcho-capitalism these days) in fact bears essentially zero resemblance to my posts in particular, given that it follows the non-aggression principle as its single unassaliable axiomatic foundation. I could not have described something more different from anarcho-liberalism if I had tried.
it's great that you're poking your head into this stuff but you need to be real careful about the subject matter, since you appear to be very confused about the non-ambiguous definitions of various movements, and there are plenty of people here like myself who are far more qualified and knowledgable about these subjects.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No no just no.
"I like dating realists because I can just drug them and date-rape them."
Is irrelevant to International Relations has NOTHING to do with realism which deals with power politics between state level actors, what you stated is inappropriate to any serious debate on the subject and is a rhetorical response to those who advocate political anarchy as a replacement for government.
That you use it deliberately shows your not taking seriously and thus Being an Idiot which is a distinction with simply saying "You are one" which implies your an idiot all the time which I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that you are not, more accurately i should say you are acting like an idiot but right now in this discussion you are nitpicking aside most definitely being disruptive and deliberate ignorance of the subject matter, thus being or more precisely acting like an idiot to annoy me.
If this is NOT your intention then you can apologize and start over.
IP: Logged |
posted
Color me the far purple shade of surprised that Blayne has concluded that an overwhelming number of people constantly disagreeing with him is a problem with those people and nothing to do with him.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: I never realized even my friendly advice was treated by you with such contempt, I'll try to forgo making that mistake in the future, or at least until such a time you indicate you actually want it.
You remind me of myself in college, especially in my early days of philosophy class and political science. Oh my gosh I love deontology, Emmanuel Kant is my new God, oh my gosh I love teleology even more, Mill is the man! I am definitely a realist, I am definitely an idealist, I am definitely a moderate, I am definitely a liberal on some things but a conservative on others, I thought I was a conservative on this issue, but it looks like I'm more liberal...maybe I should not be so outspoken what I am, and instead just talk about ideas as I see them and try to learn.
I'm glad you have found so much to admire in the realist model of IR. There are so really smart people who subscribe to it, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon. You could ask almost all of them where realism failed them.
You wouldn't be the first person to go to college and think, "I've always been a... I just didn't realize it!" I discovered I wasn't a Republican when I went to college.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My father noted to me when I started college that the vast majority of people's attempts to typify and put a name to their philosophy turns their quest for individuality against them; in practice, it's young people filling themselves into a mold of philosophical exclusion as part of a struggle for identity. He doesn't have a name for his philosophy — in fact, he doesn't care to put a name to it — but could easily analyze its agreements and disagreements with any other stated philosophy. In this way he sort of avoided going through that wild-eyed awkward philosophical puberty where people are going "man, this sounds great! I must be this! And they disagree with this, so ... hmm, I guess I do too!" When this process goes most spectacularly awry, especially later in life, it churns out the cultlike dogmatists who sleep with their copy of Atlas Shrugged or Infoshop News & Views or Michael Moore's Eight Billion Ways to be a Petulant Liberal or whatever.
I'm kind of maneuvering in the same vein. Whenever someone asked me what my philosophy was, I would just say I was an "Anti-Axiomaticist" and see if they would be able to figure out what couldn't possibly make sense about that but everyone would just nod their head and say 'cool,' so I stopped. Now I say "What the Protheans chose to call us is irrelevant. We simply are."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Your grammar critique is correct as far as it goes, but I suggest that both sentences could be made more pithy by dropping the extraneous 'being', to make "You're an idiot". Short and sweet, no?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your grammar critique is correct as far as it goes, but I suggest that both sentences could be made more pithy by dropping the extraneous 'being', to make "You're an idiot". Short and sweet, no?
Removing the word "being" changes the meaning of the sentence in question. It isn't extraneous at all.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Your grammar critique is correct as far as it goes, but I suggest that both sentences could be made more pithy by dropping the extraneous 'being', to make "You're an idiot". Short and sweet, no?
that's not extraneous
/edit -- woop beaten to it
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm curious where you came up with that list. BlackBlade, can you lend me a hand on that one?
Hobbes
Which list? The one where I talk about how exposure to different systems influenced my thinking, or the realist IR proponents?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Your grammar critique is correct as far as it goes, but I suggest that both sentences could be made more pithy by dropping the extraneous 'being', to make "You're an idiot". Short and sweet, no?
that's not extraneous
/edit -- woop beaten to it
While the intended meaning may change with deletion, the result is not necessarily any less true.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Does the list look wrong to you? I mostly selected guys I encountered in my reading with one or two people I have judged to be realists in regards to IR.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Blayne: I never realized even my friendly advice was treated by you with such contempt, I'll try to forgo making that mistake in the future, or at least until such a time you indicate you actually want it.
You remind me of myself in college, especially in my early days of philosophy class and political science. Oh my gosh I love deontology, Emmanuel Kant is my new God, oh my gosh I love teleology even more, Mill is the man! I am definitely a realist, I am definitely an idealist, I am definitely a moderate, I am definitely a liberal on some things but a conservative on others, I thought I was a conservative on this issue, but it looks like I'm more liberal...maybe I should not be so outspoken what I am, and instead just talk about ideas as I see them and try to learn.
I'm glad you have found so much to admire in the realist model of IR. There are so really smart people who subscribe to it, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon. You could ask almost all of them where realism failed them.
You wouldn't be the first person to go to college and think, "I've always been a... I just didn't realize it!" I discovered I wasn't a Republican when I went to college.
I stopped reading at "contempt" as your mistaken I took your advice and expected to have my views challenged but found instead that my views were mainstream. I have no idea what gave you the impression I felt any sort of negative feeling towards your advice regarding political science.
IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe its because the internet does not properly carry emotion like actually oral communication but the "Ha!"'s should have clearly to my view signaled that I was trying to be funny and in mock-triumpth. The way Stewie Griffon states "Victory is mine!" over acquiring a illegitimate cookie.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:"You're being an idiot"
not
"Your being an idiot"
Your grammar critique is correct as far as it goes, but I suggest that both sentences could be made more pithy by dropping the extraneous 'being', to make "You're an idiot". Short and sweet, no?
The point is that I am giving benefit of the doubt and believe he is not an idiot ALL of the time simply in this instance of my thread and simply at this time acting like an idiot a distinction I think important, same way as "you acting like a jerk knock it off".
As bhwa, individuality? I don't care about that, I just care about having a spiffy official name for my views I can withdraw on without having to elaborate for those familiar with the material.
IP: Logged |
Your grammar critique is correct as far as it goes, but I suggest that both sentences could be made more pithy by dropping the extraneous 'being', to make "You're an idiot". Short and sweet, no?
Removing the word "being" changes the meaning of the sentence in question. It isn't extraneous at all.
Nu, I grant this in the general case, but I feel it is unlikely that Blayne makes such fine distinctions in his insults. He doesn't in the rest of his posts.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:"You're being an idiot"
not
"Your being an idiot"
Your grammar critique is correct as far as it goes, but I suggest that both sentences could be made more pithy by dropping the extraneous 'being', to make "You're an idiot". Short and sweet, no?
Removing the word "being" changes the meaning of the sentence in question. It isn't extraneous at all.
Nu, I grant this in the general case, but I feel it is unlikely that Blayne makes such fine distinctions in his insults. He doesn't in the rest of his posts.
Did you read my previous post or are you just being pissy over to issues on another forum about not listening to my valid requests to have the province conversion file looked at properly and not ignore me?
IP: Logged |
posted
As it happens we did cross-post; but in any case, you would say that - after the difference was pointed out - wouldn't you?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
That makes no sense, I was elaborating my point that otherwise was resulting in a misunderstanding and confirming there was and is a distinction I recognize, once more your being a condescending asshat who is in no position to actually judge what I was thinking at the time.
IP: Logged |
I could be wrong but that phrase invokes the sort of haughty derision reserved for somebody who was so completely wrong, you want to mock them for it.
My advice was be ready to discard it, because there are so many ideas floating around in college it would be a shame if you closed the door to them all.
I'm pleased to hear that you weren't being rude, sorry if I misunderstood your delight in discovering realism for glee at me being so wrong. You and I don't have a significant history of agreeing on much.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I was trying to channel Stewie Griffon!
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The real shame is I LIKE political science but am only taking it to get my grades up so I can transfer to Computer Sciences, otherwise I would love to attend the Chinese politics seminar and comparative politics classes on such, maybe I can get a double major?
IP: Logged |
quote:Does the list look wrong to you? I mostly selected guys I encountered in my reading with one or two people I have judged to be realists in regards to IR.
I don't know enough about the philosophy to judge that, I was more curious if this was coming from statements like "I adhere to the view point espoused by the realists", or if it was a little more ... malleable. It particularly piqued my interest because I've never really thought of McNamara in those terms.
Blayne, I'm pretty sure the reason people keep disagreeing with you is different than the new conclusion you've come up with.
Is it possible that you approach debate in a manner others find irritating? Is it not possible that much of the time, it is not the opinions you express, but your manner of expression and your tendency to dismiss counterarguments rudely that causes people problems with you?
Is it not possible you're acting too big for your britches?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Sigh.
Blayne, I'm pretty sure the reason people keep disagreeing with you is different than the new conclusion you've come up with.
Is it possible that you approach debate in a manner others find irritating? Is it not possible that much of the time, it is not the opinions you express, but your manner of expression and your tendency to dismiss counterarguments rudely that causes people problems with you?
Is it not possible you're acting too big for your britches?
Or you know because there's a fundamental differences of opinion, I don't care about ethical or moral considerations in foreign policy other people do, that kinda explains it.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to use this thread to say that I appreciate how much your spelling and grammar has improved in such a short space of time, Blayne.
However, I believe that it is not your position that necessarily causes people to react to what you say. Sometimes it is the manner in which you say it, and the lack of uncertainty that you display.
I bet if you just tempered your opinions slightly with more "I think"s and "Perhaps"es, you would not clash so often with people, even with those you disagree with.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I'd like to use this thread to say that I appreciate how much your spelling and grammar has improved in such a short space of time, Blayne.
However, I believe that it is not your position that necessarily causes people to react to what you say. Sometimes it is the manner in which you say it, and the lack of uncertainty that you display.
I bet if you just tempered your opinions slightly with more "I think"s and "Perhaps"es, you would not clash so often with people, even with those you disagree with.
No no thats no good at all people in Academia will laugh at you for not having a strong opinion.
IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about, Blayne.
Dismissing suggestions so blithely doesn't endear you to anyone.
That's what's annoying, not what you believe.
When someone suggests you temper your opinion, and in fact don't act with so much uncertainty, and your response is, I kid everyone not, "no no, that's not good at all people in Academia will laugh at you for not having a strong opinion" then... well, can't you even see it? Is it possible for someone to be so unselfconscious about something that's just been pointed out to them?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No no thats no good at all people in Academia will laugh at you for not having a strong opinion.
Not at all. You don't need a strong opinion, you need a well researched, well backed-up opinion. That is to say, you need to hold an opinion that is strong on its own merits, rather than a strong opinion.
People will laugh at you if you present an opinion, strongly or weakly, that is baseless or easily proved to be false. They (generally) will not laugh, however gently you suggest your opinion, if your opinion can be backed up-- even if they regard it as the wrong opinion.
This works here as well as in the world of academia. Nobody minds the kid who puts up his hand all the time when he is right; they mind when he is obviously wrong.
When you hold a bombastic opinion all you are doing is alienating your listeners-- the very people you need to listen, if not to agree, with you. You can be firm, even vehement, without being bombastic-- or absolutely certain you are right.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
