feplus Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 My opinion is that you're wrong, That's exactly right. You have an opinion about my opinion. I want you to stop being passive-aggressive. I want you to stop implying I don't understand such and such. I want you to stop inventing errors so you can correct them. I want you to stop misinterpreting what I write. I want you to stop treating sources I post as definitive and proceeding to "debunk" them. I want you to give an opinion you can stick by and justify. I want you to provide sources for those opinions. I want conversation to be two-way. Most users in this thread have managed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 That's exactly right. You have an opinion about my opinion. I want you to stop being passive-aggressive. I want you to stop implying I don't understand such and such. I want you to stop inventing errors so you can correct them. I want you to stop misinterpreting what I write. I want you to stop treating sources I post as definitive and proceeding to "debunk" them. I want you to give an opinion you can stick by and justify. I want you to provide sources for those opinions. I want conversation to be two-way. Most users in this thread have managed. Uh.. lol. If you think I'm just "inventing" errors to disagree with you, then why are other people agreeing with me? Also, why can't you counter my points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 There is nothing to "counter." You are arguing against things I did not argue. You are "debunking" sources intended to start a conversation. People agree with you because not everyone agrees with me. That's fine. And I want you to stop focusing on me and start focusing on you. You have made ten posts in this thread. Seven of those ten are directed towards "debunking" my claims. The remaining three are directed towards correcting (what you perceive to be) others' mistakes. Do you see why this is frustrating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) There is nothing to "counter." You are arguing against things I did not argue. You are "debunking" sources intended to start a conversation. People agree with you because not everyone agrees with me. That's fine. And I want you to stop focusing on me and start focusing on you. You have made ten posts in this thread. Seven of those ten are directed towards "debunking" my claims. The remaining three are directed towards correcting (what you perceive to be) others' mistakes. Do you see why this is frustrating? Myself, I find criticisms of millennials to be absolutely on-point. Bolded part: Yes, you did. Just look at the quoted bit! I completely disagree that your criticisms of millennials are unfounded. I think it's obnoxious to generalize the way that you do from trends. You cited an article which you agree with, and I said it was bullshit, thus I disagreed with you. "What I perceive to be" huh? Then why don't you correct me? If you think I'm wrong, you need some counterarguments. This is how philosophy works. I personally, and I'm sure others do too, think that you're just chickening out of a response at this point. I guess this debate is over, I'm sad to say. Edited June 20, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 "What I perceive to be" huh? Then why don't you correct me? It's not my place to constantly speak on others' behalf. What I say continues to blow past you. I do not care that you disagree with a source intended to spark conversation. I do not care that you find my outlook obnoxious. I care a little about the misrepresentations, but I've come to expect those from you. What I would care about is if you took the time to articulate your own position with your own sources. Open two-way dialogue. Don't let every single post in this thread be a "debunking" of someone else. It's becoming unbearable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakusa Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 1. I said the same thing in my opening post wrt the self-esteem movement. I'm less interesting in "blaming" millennials and more interested in diagnosing their weaknesses. 2. "If done safely" is the operative phrase; it often is not done safely, which leads to the spreading of STDs. There are also problems with objectification, and some studies link premarital promiscuity with later divorce (though this field of research is in its infancy). On a cruder level, sex was one of the "draws" to marriage traditionally, and it being freely available might have something to do with people getting married later and less often. First of all, you asked why and what happened for millennials to turn out this way and then for everyone to share their opinion and have said absolutely nothing about diagnosing weaknesses in your segment about the self-esteem movement. [spoiler=DIRECT COPY AND PASTE FROM OPENING POST:] I will define "millennial" as any person living in the West who reached adulthood between the years of 1990 and 2010. Here is a piece from NPR summarizing millennial trends. On the whole, they are: * better educated * marry later in life * marry less often * more likely to be unemployed * more likely to be in debt * more likely to be dependent (eg. living with parents) * more likely to be unskilled, despite their high levels of education Many, many criticisms of the millennial generation have been penned in recent years. An example here. Common charges are that millennials are narcissistic, entitled, and emotionally brittle, unable to handle criticism. This topic explores whether or not you find this characterization accurate. Most of us here will either be millennials or right on the outside looking in, so it's personally relevant. --- Myself, I find criticisms of millennials to be absolutely on-point. Some will accuse me of being a nostalgist, but there are concrete things that separate our generation from previous ones. Most obvious is the rise of the internet and social media. This leads to more frequent, but also more superficial, social interaction. Because face-to-face communication is rarer, people do not develop the interpersonal skills they need. It also emphasizes the importance of image over substance; better to appear a certain way than actually be that way. Second is how our generation was victim of a relentless self-esteem campaign. The Everyone Gets A Trophy movement was, I think, deeply damaging. We were coddled, told we were snowflakes; no one limited our ambitions or gave us a realistic depiction of the world. "You can do anything!" is an attitude that, ironically, has led many millennials to doing nothing. It also explains our generation's general aversion to criticism and reluctance to pursue profitable career choices. Think about the rise of safe spaces, trigger warnings, and softly enforced thought crimes. These have been introduced under the guise of tolerance, but they're more likely a means of protecting millennials from uncomfortable challenges. Here's a good article on the subject. And the false belief that the world is everyone's oyster leads people to spend hundreds of thousands on degrees like sociology, anthropology, women's studies, and other "soft" disciplines. Admirable pursuits, but not financially viable for most. Thirdly, we live in the wake of the Cultural Revolution and are suffering its consequences more than any prior generation. The reason superficial irreligiosity and casual sex are on the rise (and marriage is on the decline) is a byproduct of mixing radical new social norms with millennials' narcissism and hedonism. Tinder and Grindr are applications designed to bypass inconvenient personal interaction and get to the good bits with naughty bits. It's embarrassing. New Atheism has carved out a sizable space in public consciousness despite being ridiculed even by atheist philosophers. Why? What explains all this? Seems to me that our generation is defined by shallowness. Shallowness with regards to personal relationships, spirituality, commitments, job prospects, and our entitlements. I am very concerned. --- Although that's one man's opinion. Please share your own. As for my next point, I'd like to see some statistics first. I don't see how sex was one of the draws to marriage traditionally when you could've just visited a brothel if you were that deprived, not to mention there was also plenty of sex outside of marriage. I think you underestimate how freely sex was available in ye olde times. Once Christianity was in vogue, the availability of sex decreased due to the axing of polygamy and criminalization of sodomy. Marriage was originally a contract between two families over financial assets and has recently become more of a social union. With the information we have available at our fingertips, there's generally more awareness about the dangers of pregnancy and many of my friends are reluctant to have children and get married. The proper medical services needed to actually have a child cost a small fortune. My friends who would like to have children (or haven't already) would prefer to be financially secure before rearing a child. It's actually more beneficial not to be married because of the tax burdens married couples have to deal with and it's actually more profitable (especially in poorer areas) to cohabit. (source: King Kong on 4th Street by Jagna Sharff, book) There is nothing to "counter." You are arguing against things I did not argue. You are "debunking" sources intended to start a conversation. People agree with you because not everyone agrees with me. That's fine. And I want you to stop focusing on me and start focusing on you. You have made ten posts in this thread. Seven of those ten are directed towards "debunking" my claims. The remaining three are directed towards correcting (what you perceive to be) others' mistakes. Do you see why this is frustrating? Actually, your source having reputable sources is completely relevant to not looking like a complete fool. The fact that anybody is focusing on you at all is because you started this topic and are going around trying to say "NO, I AM THE ONE WHO IS RIGHT STOP MISINTERPRETING EVERYTHING I SAY!" to everyone who happens to share an offensively different opinion than you. This has nothing to do with Chiki and everything to do with you. Those debunking claims you speak of? I'd think that's criticism. Something you claim millennials to be unable to take. It's not my place to constantly speak on others' behalf. What I say continues to blow past you. I do not care that you disagree with a source intended to spark conversation. I do not care that you find my outlook obnoxious. I care a little about the misrepresentations, but I've come to expect those from you. What I would care about is if you took the time to articulate your own position with your own sources. Open two-way dialogue. Don't let every single post in this thread be a "debunking" of someone else. It's becoming unbearable. It's actually your place to correct misrepresentations and misinterpretations of your opening post and also to keep things relevant, as this is your discussion. On the contrary, I find that Chiki is the one trying to have a two-way dialogue with you and you're just waving off whatever this person says as mindless arguments. A good discussion is fueled by argument and counterargument, and hopefully everyone leaves feeling more informed. You have promoted absolutely nothing of the sort by dancing around semantics, playing "NO YOU!", and moving goalposts back and forth to be "right." (If you want evidence of this I am more than willing to dig it up.) Those are my two cents. I honestly think this entire discussion is a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I don't think what happens here in the West is nearly as bad as Japan's hikikomoris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Ouch. Well the Christina Hoff-Summers incident I referenced is an article I discovered a while ago. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/22/christina-hoff-sommers-lecture-leads-to-trigger-warnings-and-safe-spaces-at-oberlin-and-georgetown/ Again, it's not an article with statistical evidence, but merely something to provoke discussion. I acknowledged that my anecdotes hold no concrete evidence (because I honestly don't have the time now to write an essay on this). Change in inevitable, it's a given. However, generational change can be both good and bad. it's not just that (your breitbart link notwithstanding lmao), your post isn't even particularly witty, informational or groundbreaking in any way. it's refried KIDS THESES DAYS tripe, combined with anecdotes that you try to project onto our entire generation, plus plenty of self-congratulation about how much better you are than those oversensitive, tech-savvy members of your age cohort it's not insightful, it's just masturbatory Edited June 20, 2015 by I.M. Gei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 that's definitely the vibe i get with feplus' argument and those that have agreed with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 [spoiler=DIRECT COPY AND PASTE FROM OPENING POST:] I will define "millennial" as any person living in the West who reached adulthood between the years of 1990 and 2010. also can i say that OP's definition of millennial doesn't even match the conventional definition? people who were born between 1965 and 1980 (of which you'd get the bulk of people hitting 18 in the 90s) are usually called generation x, whereas those born between 1981 and 1997 or so are defined as millennials of course the cutoff between the tail-end of gen x and the eldest of our generation is pretty murky, and it's tough to determine whether someone who graduated from high school in 2005 has more in common with someone who graduated in 1997 or 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 It's actually your place to correct misrepresentations and misinterpretations of your opening post and also to keep things relevant, as this is your discussion. On the contrary, I find that Chiki is the one trying to have a two-way dialogue with you and you're just waving off whatever this person says as mindless arguments. welcome to arguments with feplus. the guy claims to value specific evidence and an entire paragraph of his opening post is a blind assertion that millenials suffer from these trends because they believe less in god. he claims to be open to a two-way dialogue while his argumentative habits render such dialogue impossible. that shows you what good it is to have a philosophy degree. incidentally, i do not believe that philosophy has contributed very much to our understanding of the world in recent times without also employing the scientific method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 @Sakusa: I am going to condense your post's length and respond to the points I feel are worth responding to. I am going to respond to these numerically (first paragraph is 1, etc.). If you feel there is some significant argument I have glossed over, please let me know. First of all, you asked why and what happened for millennials to turn out this way and then for everyone to share their opinion and have said absolutely nothing about diagnosing weaknesses in your segment about the self-esteem movement. As for my next point, I'd like to see some statistics first. Actually, your source having reputable sources is completely relevant to not looking like a complete fool. The fact that anybody is focusing on you at all is because you started this topic and are going around trying to say "NO, I AM THE ONE WHO IS RIGHT STOP MISINTERPRETING EVERYTHING I SAY!" to everyone who happens to share an offensively different opinion than you. Those debunking claims you speak of? I'd think that's criticism. Something you claim millennials to be unable to take. 1. My discussion on the self-esteem movement demonstrates that I am not interested in "blaming" millennials. If I were, I would not have spent time explaining why previous generations contributed to the problem. 2. What do you want data on? For the possible (and contentious!) link between premarital sex and divorce: examples one, two, and three. The steady rise of STD infections is not controversial, so I believe one source should be fine. If you want data on the promiscuity of "ye olden days," I don't think it exists. I've never come across it, anyway; both sides are speculative. The reason I suspect a connection is that "ye olden days" did not benefit from modern medicine. No reliable birth control, no way to properly treat syphilis and the like. This made extra-marital sex a much less appealing proposition. 3. All the sources provided are reputable. They are not intended to be definitive; they spark a conversation. Trying to "debunk" them confuses the purpose of their inclusion. 4. I have complained about being misinterpreted because I am constantly being misinterpreted. 5. I welcome criticism. I enjoyed reading your post and responding to your post. I do not enjoy Chiki's obsession with trying to correct me. I am sure you can appreciate the difference. @dondon: Your post makes the following errors: * that my opening post was a "blind assertion" when it was in fact sourced * that I claimed "not believing in God" was the cause of millennials' weaknesses * that your dislike for one person with a philosophy degree indicates something about all philosophers * that the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics have not made significant contributions to collective understanding Please learn from these corrections and do not make the same errors in future posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 @dondon: Your post makes the following errors: * that my opening post was a "blind assertion" when it was in fact sourced * that I claimed "not believing in God" was the cause of millennials' weaknesses * that your dislike for one person with a philosophy degree indicates something about all philosophers * that the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics have not made significant contributions to collective understanding Please learn from these corrections and do not make the same errors in future posts. first point is not an error. second point is not an error. third point is your assumption. fourth point requires evidence and specifics. you're in no position to lecture me about making errors LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 First point is an error. A blind assertion is unsourced. The opening post was sourced. Second point is an error. I argued superficial irreligiosity was one byproduct of millennials' flaws, not that superficial irreligiosity was the cause of millennials' flaws. So this is actually a double error. Because I personally frustrate you, you sarcastically undermined the value of a philosophy degree in general. "...shows you what good it is to have a philosophy degree." I am happy to provide specifics. What sort of evidence would lead you to accepting my position (and the truth) on this question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm gay dabadeedabada Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Can I just say that complaining about "superficial irreligiosity" sounds really, really... I dunno... unreasonable? It sounds as if you have to have a concrete reason not to subscribe to a religion, which is horsecrock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 Those who deny that God exists should be able to provide reasons why their beliefs are more likely true than false. Same applies to theists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Those who deny that God exists should be able to provide reasons why their beliefs are more likely true than false. Same applies to theists. The problem is that there is no way to disprove that a being that could qualify as a divinity exists. Even if one were to sit down and pick apart every religion in the world and disprove them that doesn't mean that the Xarblonian God doesn't exist. Shque may very well exist and we will get to know squer when the Xarblonians invade Earth in 2020. Let me see if I can put it another way. You are born in a room with nothing in it besides a red box. You search around, explore, but there is no way to leave. The only thing there is a red box. Then, one day, a voice asks you if there is a blue box in the next room. How do you understand that? A whole other room? What even is 'blue' and what does it look like? Your mind wouldn't be able to comprehend it. Yet, sitting happily on the table in Dr. Monstro's coffee room, is a blue box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted June 22, 2015 Author Share Posted June 22, 2015 The problem is that there is no way to disprove that a being that could qualify as a divinity exists. "Proof" is not what's needed. Justification is what's needed. In your box example, an honest person would say he is unsure. He is unsure about what "blue" means and has no way of determining what's outside his box. But if a person denies that God exists, then he is making a positive claim, just like the theist. He would need to offer up some justification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 I suggest looking around the forums, then. People like Chiki and dondon have offered answers that support their view that God doesn't exist. I'm still very open to this matter, and I cling toward the existance of God mostly from bias, so I decided to suspend my judgment for the time being until I am more mature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) "Proof" is not what's needed. Justification is what's needed. In your box example, an honest person would say he is unsure. He is unsure about what "blue" means and has no way of determining what's outside his box. But if a person denies that God exists, then he is making a positive claim, just like the theist. He would need to offer up some justification. There is a red alien in outer space named Santa. He exists, I've heard about him from many other people. Now you go ahead and prove he doesn't exist. Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feplus Posted June 22, 2015 Author Share Posted June 22, 2015 @Klok: I did not say the Bible was evidence that God exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 There is a red alien in outer space named Santa. He exists, I've heard about him from many other people. Now you go ahead and prove he doesn't exist. Wow... Just... Wow... That is so ungodly stupid I think even people who rabidly hate the notion of God would have to dismiss this as an argument. You may as well claim that George Washington does not exist because, alongside the painting of him crossing the Delaware, there is a painting of fairies making out as well. But let me cut right to the core of this problem. No one believes Spiderman exists. Why? Everyone who reads Spiderman comes in knowing it's fiction. That's why the whole series even exists. It's fiction. Out and out. Not only that but there are actively multiple story plot-lines running through several different issues along with a multitude of other stories focusing on other heroes at the same time (Go Squirrel Girl!). That's not to mention the whole religious mishmosh that is the Marvel theological canon and how some people try to use it to get overly preachy and even possibly deny what is already written in the canon. I.E. claiming that there are no gods when actively poking Thor or telling Dr. Strange that magic isn't real. By comparison the Bible has served as a book of theology, a record of history, and a guide for life. It has survived thousands of years because people have believed it to be the word of god and done their best to follow and adhere to it. They have used it to scold and try to reduce crime, to progress science, art, philosophy, and to gain further knowledge and understanding of humanity as a whole. It has been used to bring together entire communities under the same roof and has changed and affected the world thousands of years after it was around for the better. They are not in the same... anything... beyond the fact that they are on paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) Are we going to have yet another religious debate in this thread? EDIT: Here, now feel free to argue about God's existence (or lack thereof). Edited June 22, 2015 by eclipse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.