Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Value Assumptions

LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 3:01:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Would it be considered legitimate argumentation to say that a topic assumes or assigns a value to something, and then challenge that assumption as opposed to directly negating?

Ex. "Capitalism causes exploitation". The wording of the topic creates the assumption that capitalism is therefore bad, because exploitation is bad. Attacking that assumption would be "exploitation is good".
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 3:54:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It creates no such assumption, stating something causes exploitation is value neutral, it's the feelings that've been poured into you that connote value :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 4:10:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 3:54:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It creates no such assumption, stating something causes exploitation is value neutral, it's the feelings that've been poured into you that connote value :).

Maybe. Is that value personal or cultural though? If the entirety of a society agrees that a certain word, though technically neutral, has negative or positive connotations, does that word have those connotations or not?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 4:12:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 4:10:04 PM, LB628 wrote:
At 8/31/2009 3:54:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It creates no such assumption, stating something causes exploitation is value neutral, it's the feelings that've been poured into you that connote value :).

Maybe. Is that value personal or cultural though? If the entirety of a society agrees that a certain word, though technically neutral, has negative or positive connotations, does that word have those connotations or not?
Words as such don't hold connotations, the receiver of the word holds the connotations for it. And it's rather moot, because the entirety of society does not agree, I for one will exploit situations and be darn happy doing it :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 4:15:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 4:12:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/31/2009 4:10:04 PM, LB628 wrote:
At 8/31/2009 3:54:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It creates no such assumption, stating something causes exploitation is value neutral, it's the feelings that've been poured into you that connote value :).

Maybe. Is that value personal or cultural though? If the entirety of a society agrees that a certain word, though technically neutral, has negative or positive connotations, does that word have those connotations or not?
Words as such don't hold connotations, the receiver of the word holds the connotations for it. And it's rather moot, because the entirety of society does not agree, I for one will exploit situations and be darn happy doing it :)

Which in turn gives me my answer. You would not vote for such an argument.

Thank you.

Any others?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 5:13:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 3:01:45 PM, LB628 wrote:
Would it be considered legitimate argumentation to say that a topic assumes or assigns a value to something, and then challenge that assumption as opposed to directly negating?

Ex. "Capitalism causes exploitation". The wording of the topic creates the assumption that capitalism is therefore bad, because exploitation is bad. Attacking that assumption would be "exploitation is good".

No, the emphasis is on 'causes'..
So; is there exploitation? if yes, could there be other causes? etc..
The Cross.. the Cross.