Kosti prijepora

ebenica wrote:

aben wrote: ako mravu nametneš da je neprihvatljivo da celo vrime rodi za svoju sebičnu korist

interesantno je tvoje životinjsko carstvo điđi, stvarno interesantno.

aben wrote:

ebenica wrote:

aben wrote: ako mravu nametneš da je neprihvatljivo da celo vrime rodi za svoju sebičnu korist

interesantno je tvoje životinjsko carstvo điđi, stvarno interesantno.

A ča?

aben wrote:nika nis ču kako govori njegoš, ali ovomu je svaka ko u njega

Fallacies are not simply crazy ideas. They are usually both plausible and
logical— but with something missing. Their plausibility gains them
political support. Only after that political support is strong enough to cause
fallacious ideas to become government policies and programs are the
missing or ignored factors likely to lead to "unintended consequences," a
phrase often heard in the wake of economic or social policy disasters.
Another phrase often heard in the wake of these disasters is, "It seemed like
a good idea at the time." That is why it pays to look deeper into things that
look good on the surface at the moment.
Sometimes what is missing in a fallacy is simply a definition. Undefined words have a special power in politics, particularly when they invoke some
principle that engages people's emotions. "Fair" is one of those undefined
words which have attracted political support for policies ranging from Fair Trade laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the fact that the word
is undefined is an intellectual handicap, it is a huge political advantage.
People with very different views on substantive issues can be unified andmobilized behind a word that papers over their differing, and sometimeseven mutually contradictory, ideas. Who, after all, is in favor of unfairness?
Similarly with "social justice," "equality," and other undefined terms that can mean wholly different things to different individuals and groups— all of whom can be mobilized in support of policies that use such appealing words.
Fallacies abound in economic policies affecting everything from housing to international trade. Where the unintended consequences of these policies
take years to unfold, the effects may not be traced back to their causes by many people. Even when the bad consequences follow closely after a given policy, many people may not connect the dots, and advocates of policies that backfire often attribute these bad consequences to something else.
Sometimes they claim that the bad situation would have been even worse if it had not been for the wonderful policies they advocated.
There are many reasons why fallacies have staying power, even in the face of hard evidence against them. Elected officiais, for example, cannot readily admit that some policy or program that they advocated, perhaps with great fanfare, has turned out badly, without risking their whole careers. Similarly for leaders of various causes and movements. Even intellectuals or
academics with tenure stand to lose prestige and suffer embarrassment when
their notions turn out to be counterproductive. Others who think of themselves as supporters of things that will help the less fortunate would find it painful to confront evidence that they have in fact made the less fortunate worse off than before. In other words, evidence is too
dangerous— politically, financially and psychologically— for some people to allow it to become a threat to their interests or to their own sense of themselves.
No one likes to admit being wrong. However, in many kinds of
endeavors, the costs of not admitting to being wrong are too high to ignore.
These costs force people to face reality, however painful that might be. A student who misunderstands mathematics has little choice but to correct that misunderstanding before the next examination and someone in business cannot continue losing money indefinitely by persisting in
mistaken beliefs about the market or about the way to run a business. In short, there are practical as well as intellectual imperatives to see through
fallacies. The difference between sound and fallacious economic policies by a government can affect the standard of living of millions. That is what makes the study of economics important— and the exposure of fallacies
more than an intellectual exercise.

kic wrote:
da, i meni se sviđa, to sam našao na: wait but why, stranici, dobar je lik..

u vezi debata još, možda je stvar u ratobornosti jer se previše ide iz ugla podučavanja, idem nekog poučiti pameti i to..

u ruke mi je došla knjiga od Z.Skotaka - zvuk polarne svjetlosti, samozatajan čovjek koji je pisao o haibunima, haikuima isl..

i na samom početku ima jedan haibun, to je kratka crta u književnosti, najčešće putopisni prikaz, gdje se miješaju proza i poezija, ajmo reć..

profesor s đacima stoji pokraj jezera, i uzrujan je što nitko ne shvaća do kraja fizikalne zakone koje im objašnjava, a jedan đak je zagledan u jezero i napola sluša te kako je lijep dan na površini jezera su se oslikali nebo i oblaci, i odjednom veli profesor: pa morate prihvatiti za početak da se kamen bačen prema nebu mora uvijek i vratiti, a đak: ne prihvaćam! i đak ustane  i baci kamenčić na površinu jezera, na nebo na jezeru, i potone, a profesor se nasmije i veli nešto, pa dobro, ima i nešto u filozofiji i poeziji a ne samo u zakonima..

ajme loše sam prepričao :D

kic wrote:
onda je ipak rat?

ebenica wrote:]
mogu ali nisam nego sam taj argument koristio u nečemu što smo svi složni da postoji, ljudima. a ako baš hoćeš mogu, što misliš jel postoje jednorogi među nama? (pod "jednoroge" mislim ljude koji totalno odudaraju od prosjeka ili ideje što bi čovjek trebao biti? a ako misliš da postoje zašto onda misliš da nema ljudi koji su ili potpuno zli ili onih koji su potpuno dobri?

violator wrote:

Mozda bi tvoje razmisljanje o apsolutno zlim/dobrim osobama imala savrseno mjesto na podrucju moralnog realizma prema kojem se "zlo" i "dobro" nalazi izvan nasih umova, egzistira izvan nas i uplice nam se u zivote, navodeci nas na odredjena ponasanja. I kao u primjeru s osjetilom koje ne funkcionira, tako bi i empatija bila to posebno osjetilo kojim mi zahvacamo taj svijet pa bi kod apsolutno zlih osoba to osjetilo bilo zakrzljalo, odnosno ne bi ga ni bilo, a kod apsolutnih dobrica bilo bi razvijeno do krajnjih granica. :)

aben wrote:

ni rat, nego sukob.