Nice straw man, buddy.
1) I didn't claim to be free of ideology. How's your reading comprehension?
2) There's nothing funny about quoting two people that are probably both smarter and wiser than you in order to make a good and valid point.
1) I didn't claim to be free of ideology. How's your reading comprehension?
2) There's nothing funny about quoting two people that are probably both smarter and wiser than you in order to make a good and valid point.
> There is similarly a non-ideological answer to "should I steal bread to feed my family?"
> proceeds to describe their own thought process
you didn't even engage with the ideological elements of the question. Is it right to redistribute property if the need is greater elsewhere? Does the right to survive override the right to property? What if violence is necessary to take the bread? You just treated it like a personal cost-benefit analysis of a single instance.
2: yes there is. The fact that you consider them to be authorities on non-ideological positions is the funny part.
I engaged with the question and responded, essentially, "there may not be a universally right answer to your question." I just didn't respond the way wished I would.
And, in general, I would say it's not ok to forcefully take property because you made the judgement that the property would be better used in your hands, but I won't say there are no exceptions to that. Again, life is complex. Abandon ideology.
2. I think you are overdue for some humble self-reflection.
2. humble self-reflection isn't going to lead me to think that Sowell and Peterson are authorities on non-ideology. But the tiniest bit of research into the criticism of them might lead you to understand the flaws in their positions. I would know: I used to think Jordan Peterson was great and his tirades against the postmodern neomarxists was him defending western liberalism against university indoctrination and crybullies or whatever. Then I grew up, read some books, actually thought about my internal unchallenged opinions.
> Again, life is complex. Abandon ideology.
Seems to be in direct conflict with this comment you made earlier:
> I find that when we call someone an ideologue today, or refer to an ideology, it is always a false narrative-based over-simplification of the world.
The idea of abandoning ideology is it's own ideology, no?
And again, I never claimed to be free of ideology. At the same time, you haven't done anything to pin down my ideological constraints.
Most of what you're parroting seems to be from JP anyways.
1) has major health problems
2) changes his diet and immediately sees those health problems go away.
3) gets mocked online by complete strangers.
Human bodies are so complex and variable. What works for one person's health may not work for another. If you are blessed to find something that works for you, be grateful and humble, and don't automatically assume what you know applies equally to everyone else. Also, "science" is not even close to settled on the subject of nutrition as it applies to individuals.