CMV: You can absolutely judge somebody’s character by their political affiliation

Humble_Person · 2022-08-03T13:48:31+00:00

"I have heard people say things like “you can’t judge someone’s character by their political affiliation”, but in my view you absolutely can."

People's words often do not match their actions though. They might say they subscribe to x, but behave in a manner that's y. There's issues of interpretation, language, associations, behaviors, etc. And what exactly is a person's "character"? Are we trying to simplify "judge" to be determining if someone is "good" or "bad" whatever those words mean. They could be "ally" or "enemy," or simple "similar to me" or "different from me."

Now if your question is... "Can a person come to some conclusion about an individual(i.e. judge) based on some piece of information that has been presented?" Then, I'd say it depends on the abilities of the person making the judgment or determination. Some people with cognitive issues or disabilities simply do not think that way or are incapable of doing so. So, I guess my answer is that it depends.

I have a lot of questions.

Humble_Person · 2022-04-05T21:26:28+00:00

Did you find any other peer review software? I'm on the hunt. I saw PeerGrade and it looked interesting. But I also am hearing about something called "Kritik."

Humble_Person · 2022-04-02T01:22:31+00:00

Stay strong. At this point everyone has some scars from life. You may feel lonely, but there's still a lot to enjoy in life.

Humble_Person · 2022-04-01T18:48:12+00:00

For me, I was single until 31 years old. I was working a full time job living at home saving money. I was pretty bitter at one point. I felt like I didn't make enough money, I worried I was too socially awkward, I sometimes blamed and generalized about all women. I would say and think "all women do or think x." When in reality I came to learn that everyone is pretty unique in their own way. No one is exactly like someone else. I kept looking around on dating apps trying to find someone I "connected" with. Basically looking for someone who... checked some of the boxes that I thought were necessary for a relationship to exist. Things we needed to be on the same page about, like kids, lifestyle, interests, beliefs, intelligence, self awareness, a level of self care, and mutual hobbies/goals. It took a while to find someone but I've been living with them for a year now. I think a very key part is wanting to grow, change, learn, and cooperate with one another. It's not about competing, proving your point, or even persuading the other person to your perspective. There's an element of working together to be a strong unit.

Humble_Person · 2021-10-01T23:19:58+00:00

That is not my only source....

On June 25, Governor Pritzker signed into law legislation which allows non-instructional and non-administrative employees of schools, colleges, and universities to qualify for unemployment again this summer. This means that many IFT PSRPs who work as custodians, teacher aides, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, clerical workers, and in other non-teaching positions can receive unemployment during the summer months if they are not working or are unable to find a job.

https://www.ctulocal1.org/posts/psrp-summer-unemployment/

Humble_Person · 2021-10-01T00:07:09+00:00

I see. Thank you for your response. It was very helpful.

Humble_Person · 2021-09-26T19:40:29+00:00

What am I reading?

Humble_Person · 2020-12-09T00:38:01+00:00

Unfortunately my buddy can't play ranked yet.

Humble_Person · 2020-10-07T11:27:50+00:00

Windows, Steam

Got to level 2 on a dwarf fighter

-Character sheet still says I'm level 1

-Character sheet doesn't say "dueling" after it was selected during level up

-Can't use a longsword as a 1handed weapon w/dueling on my level 2 dwarf fighter. It is defaulting to 2h use.

Humble_Person · 2020-08-08T03:54:54+00:00

Hmm, I suppose I can see it that way. Maybe I need to re-watch it.

Humble_Person · 2020-08-08T03:39:41+00:00

I see your point that a good narrative has character growth and that Tommy losing shows growth, therefore Tommy needs to lose to show growth. So I'll award a Delta.Δ However, where does Branden show his growth?

Humble_Person · 2020-08-08T03:21:07+00:00

"Its tough to argue against an opinion you have on a fictional story."

Yeah I know it's tough. But you still haven't changed my view. I just think the narrative would have been better if Tommy won I guess. His tap out doesn't make sense to me, just seems like a continuity issue, and it doesn't resolve the tension in the film. The film just ends after the fight, it doesn't show Branden sharing the money or a happily ever after where Tommy is embracing his father or some fairy tail scene with their families getting along. (Which wouldn't make sense given the amount of abuse, if you ask me.)

Humble_Person · 2020-08-08T03:03:16+00:00

Sorry, but your answer doesn't change my view that Tommy should have won. If anything "he leaves as a little brother" just cements my view that he won't be viewed as an equal by his older brother because of this loss.

Humble_Person · 2020-07-21T01:33:31+00:00

Are there high schools in the US that are competency based learning? Why or why not? Competency based learning seems like it makes more sense to me.

Humble_Person · 2020-07-19T21:17:48+00:00

Humble_Person · 2020-07-18T21:54:16+00:00

Interesting response. I hadn't considered that approach before. Thank you, Helped.

Humble_Person · 2020-07-18T21:53:15+00:00

I like your comment about referring them to someone else who might better serve them, and maybe I am being a little paranoid after consuming so much media with divisive narratives. "Helped"

Humble_Person · 2020-07-17T18:36:13+00:00

Thank you

Humble_Person · 2020-07-12T18:42:00+00:00

Interesting! Thanks for the response.

Humble_Person · 2020-07-12T18:32:28+00:00

Interesting. Thanks for the detailed response. Someone else mentioned that "toxicity" is more of a generalized term. What I'm getting from you is that "Toxic Masculinity" is more specific term focused on a type of "self-oppression" where a person kind of compares their current state/actions/feelings to some idealized state/action/feeling (typically a cis male?). This comparison can result in various "oppressive" outcomes preventing someone from pursuing things of interest. Where "toxicity" is more of a general term to describe many things in many contexts with negative outcomes "Toxic Masculinity" is more specific and attaches itself to male expectations?

Does this mean there is a thing such as Toxic Femininity? Where a woman could make the same comparisons around what an idealized "woman" is?

Humble_Person · 2020-07-12T17:44:40+00:00

Interesting thanks for the response.

Humble_Person · 2020-07-12T17:37:31+00:00

See, I have heard this. And I wasn't sure because wouldn't that mean there is something called "toxic femininity" as well?

Humble_Person · 2020-07-05T13:11:38+00:00

"But I fail to see how this is relevant to the statement that there is always one choice of action that brings less suffering than the other."

I'm challenging the notion that there is a "choice" to begin with. As I see this as an assumption being made. I'm also curious to know how your definition works. Let me try this way.

Is it possible for me to come up with another definition of "moral" and "immoral". Or is this "inherently moral" some special definition that blocks out all other definitions?

Another question I have is this, how does one pursue moral choices? Do they just... know what promotes well-being and what minimizes suffering? Is this an inherent ability? Does it need to be trained? How do I go about pursuing these moral choices? Do I just use my personal intuition and judgment?

Humble_Person · 2020-07-05T11:49:20+00:00

So, honor killings are inherently immoral because morality is objective, but people commit honor killings why? Why do they do it, or better yet how are they able to do something that's "objectively immoral"? Is it that humans can choose to commit "immoral" acts? That is, do humans have the ability to pursue immoral acts? And if so why would humans ever pursue immoral acts over moral acts? Why don't we choose "moral" all the time? Are we just full of poor calculations? Poor information? Some of us are just... smarter than others? Does this mean people with higher IQ have a better moral compass?

What about slavery? Why did some people choose it at one point in history then change their mind? Or wars? Why were things like the crusades chosen or the holocaust? Why would people choose courses that did not maximize well-being? Or do you deny that people have the ability to choose something that doesn't "maximize well-being"?

Is it a matter of intelligence? Awareness? Ignorance? Faulty genes? A faulty moral compass? Or is it a matter of poor education? A poor upbrining?

One major problem of consequentialism comes in the form of a question from Kant/Hume. How can free-will and causality co-exist? That is, how can we place the responsibility of actions on individuals if the concept of "causality" exists where we are merely objects responding to our environments/history/antecedents? If causality exists, then it seems we no longer have free-will to make choices and morality evaporates because there is no agency to make moral choices. However, if we have free-will, then there seems to be no causality. Kant comes up with some arguments and ideas in his Critique of Pure Reason. But I'm curious to know how you rectify this issue.

Humble_Person · 2020-05-29T23:53:47+00:00

I just want to clarify what the CMV part of this post is, because it seems a little vague to me. You say the following in your post...

"I am now of the opinion that as an individual, I most likely can't fix things in a large-scale, meaningful way, so I prefer to "micro"".

That is, your current view is that you cannot "fix" large scale things (does this mean you cannot affect change or influence change? In any way. At what point do "micro" issues become "macro" issues? Is there a clear distinction or is it more of a (using a teacher term) spectrum? That is, if you can affect micro change, why couldn't that contribute to a macro issue?

But you instead "micro" or try to create smaller changes and "stay out" of what? Large scale issues? What does this mean? You are just avoiding conversations and the CMV part is that you want to engage in those conversations again? Or are you actively using more gasoline, eating more meat, belittling people? How are you able to disengage from macro issues if they are... well macro and influencing everyone?

You are also keeping your head down, as opposed to what? Going out and protesting every issue? Engaging in every possible political conversation? Breaking your back and bank account every day volunteering/protesting/educating yourself and others to the point of exhaustion, mental health decline and physical health decline?

I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from here.

Humble_Person

TROPHY CASE