664
Iran bans weightlifter for life after he shakes Israeli’s hand on podium
(www.aljazeera.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
664 points (98.0% liked)
World News
32328 readers
461 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You can't while being a reasonable, logically consistent person. You can if you argue in bad faith, which I expect but usually people don't take pride in that.
Did he assign a trait to liberals? Because if not, there's no inconsistency.
Then a follow up question: is there a difference between 'liberals' as a group (i.e. not liberalism) and a government (i.e. an institution)? If so, there may be no inconsistency.
What I mean is, when people talk about governments it's often as a non-human legal person, which can act, omit, sue, and be sued, but which does not have the full range of human traits, like insincerity. Whereas a group that does not have legal personality and only describes a collection of humans, albeit in the abstract, like 'liberals', can demonstrate a fuller range of human traits.
Then, as an experiment, switch the terms and see if it has the same ring to it:
Does this anthropomorphise 'governments' in the same way as attributing human emotions to them?
I don't necessarily have answers to these questions but it seems that you can't be calling someone out for bad faith unless you can strongly argue yes, no, yes, to the above questions.
i admire the willingness to spell it out lol but that other guy has big reddit debatebro energy and i don't think it can go anywhere
It's often the way. Hopefully someone else reading will see the flaw in forever calling an alternative viewpoint 'bad faith' because it's presented with humour.
Let's see...
It sure seems like it. Liberals treat politics as a reality TV show seems to be a trait described.
Sure, there is a difference. They're both institutions though. They can both be assigned traits in perfectly valid reasonable ways.
I can strongly answer that "anthropomorphising" things made of anthropomorphic beings is perfectly reasonable. Giving traits to a building can be silly, but sometimes still useful literarily. Using human characteristics to describe humans is totally normal, useful, and reasonable.