Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[10ebbor10]

No, I am saying what I wrote. I am saying that it is not a logical fallacy. That if your goal is 'A', which requires people to stop doing (x), and you can only stop them by doing some (x), it is not a logical fallacy to do (x) specifically to counter other incidents of (x) when it gets you significantly closer to 'A' than you would otherwise get.

So not a logical fallacy, merely slightly hypocritical.

Well, I can live with that.

[GlyphGryph]

Fact is, you can't really get the ideal. It's the whole "freedom" and "rights" argument - your freedoms end at the tip of my nose, and all that stuff.

Restricting certain freedoms is the only realistic way to maximize the amount of freedoms available to people. We pass allows against murder, extortion, kidnapping, etc., in large part because the result is a populace that has more freedom (ironically) than if those freedoms weren't restricted at all.

Intolerance of intolerance is no more and no less than restricting the freedoms of people to restrict other's freedoms.

You're not allowed to shoot someone for being a different religion from you, and I think we're a more free society than if we didn't have such restrictions in place.

I'm still not sure how it's hypocritical, even.

The goal isn't "stamp out intolerance", it's "maximize tolerance", much like the goal of a free people isn't to "stamp out restrictions" but rather to "maximize freedoms".

When you have two options, and one gets you closer to your goal than the other, I'm not seeing how it's hypocritical to pursue it.

[LordSlowpoke]

Again, there is no logical fallacy whatsoever in being intolerant of intolerance, if your goal is to maximize tolerance.

It is literally arguing that using violence to control violence is a fallacy, when it's, like, the entire premise of a good chunk of the justice system and the military most countries have.

It may not be the best idea, but it's not what I would call a logical fallacy.

No, I am saying what I wrote. I am saying that it is not a logical fallacy. That if your goal is (x), which requires people to stop doing (y), and you can only stop them by doing some (y), it is not a logical fallacy to do so if it results in something significantly closer to (x) than you would otherwise get.

alright, i get the following idea from this:

goal x requires group y to stop z, doing z makes group y stop z and achieves (or brings you closer to) goal x, which is pretty much your second post and while i don't exactly agree with it - stare into the abyss for one, but many other reasons - it's a good prospect that might yet work

hooooooooowever you go ahead and give an example that completely crashes the idea in the first post? the military is a necessity caused by the existence of violence, and i'd argue that in some parts of the world it's redundant and only kept around in their current state for frivolous reasons but that's another discussion

the means of controlling violence with violence in regards to the justice system are redonkulous. i'll run with the american example since this is the american politics thread - aren't people who once were in prison an underclass? socially undesirable? crimes "waiting to happen"? because that's what controlling violence with violence fosters. instead of slapping them in the face and telling them that they dun fucked up and they need to change so you don't need to slap them anymore, we should put resocialization above punishment. still, that runs afoot of people's tribal-esque convictions of "justice" where people would be glad to see arms cut off for theft, etc.

ideally, you would only have need for a prison where psychology tries and fails horribly. but then, who would man the prison industry?

[wierd]

It isn't.

The verbage I took issue with, was in asserting it is "necessary".

It is only necessary in the immediate sense, because we don't know a better way.
Blandly and banally stating it is "necessary" without qualification implies abandoning the continual search for better ways, and turns a blind eye to the negative aspects of the practice.

If your goal is an ideal, then keep the ideal ideal.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Remember, it's intolerant to be opposed to limiting people's civil rights and actively debasing them.

Again, there is no logical fallacy whatsoever in being intolerant of intolerance, if your goal is to maximize tolerance.

It is literally arguing that using violence to control violence is a fallacy, when it's, like, the entire premise of a good chunk of the justice system and the military most countries have.

It may not be the best idea, but it's not what I would call a logical fallacy.

No, I am saying what I wrote. I am saying that it is not a logical fallacy. That if your goal is (x), which requires people to stop doing (y), and you can only stop them by doing some (y), it is not a logical fallacy to do so if it results in something significantly closer to (x) than you would otherwise get.

alright, i get the following idea from this:

goal x requires group y to stop z, doing z makes group y stop z and achieves (or brings you closer to) goal x, which is pretty much your second post and while i don't exactly agree with it - stare into the abyss for one, but many other reasons - it's a good prospect that might yet work

hooooooooowever you go ahead and give an example that completely crashes the idea in the first post? the military is a necessity caused by the existence of violence, and i'd argue that in some parts of the world it's redundant and only kept around in their current state for frivolous reasons but that's another discussion

the means of controlling violence with violence in regards to the justice system are redonkulous. i'll run with the american example since this is the american politics thread - aren't people who once were in prison an underclass? socially undesirable? crimes "waiting to happen"? because that's what controlling violence with violence fosters. instead of slapping them in the face and telling them that they dun fucked up and they need to change so you don't need to slap them anymore, we should put resocialization above punishment. still, that runs afoot of people's tribal-esque convictions of "justice" where people would be glad to see arms cut off for theft, etc.

ideally, you would only have need for a prison where psychology tries and fails horribly. but then, who would man the prison industry?

I love this post. Proof that spambots are becoming semi-aware.

[LordSlowpoke]

how in the everloving fuck am i a spambot son

extrapolate your opinion

[Max White]

Remember, it's intolerant to be opposed to limiting people's civil rights and actively debasing them.

You say that, but then what constitutes a civil right is up for debate.
After all, how is that fire arms thing working out for you?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Remember, it's intolerant to be opposed to limiting people's civil rights and actively debasing them.

You say that, but then what constitutes a civil right is up for debate.
After all, how is that fire arms thing working out for you?

That is due to open wording allowing varying interpretation, not to mention the baked in right-left friction on the issue lately. Religion is a good example of rule by interpretation going awry.

I think that any function the government is involved with should not take any moral/religious stance inherently. It'd be akin to giving Christians a 10% tax-writeoff just because. If it's entirely a function of the government to 'defend the moral tradition' of marriage [“government is in the marriage business to preserve the family and to ensure, wherever possible, that children do not grow up in motherless and fatherless homes.”¹] then why do we not allow the government to enforce all 'proper' [as determined by a group of certain people] moral traditions?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/13/indiana-house-chamber-bursts-into-laughter-after-speaker-calls-lgbt-people-intolerant/

[GlyphGryph]

It isn't.

The verbage I took issue with, was in asserting it is "necessary".

It is only necessary in the immediate sense, because we don't know a better way.
Blandly and banally stating it is "necessary" without qualification implies abandoning the continual search for better ways, and turns a blind eye to the negative aspects of the practice.

If your goal is an ideal, then keep the ideal ideal.

A society that allows intolerance to flourish is not a tolerant society. Can you explain to me how that isn't true? How can you possibly have a tolerant society that allows that?

And no, the idea that something is necessary implying it will always be necessary is what is banal. The nice thing about an intolerance of intolerance being acceptable, is that it's a self-solving problem. If you ever eliminate intolerance, it goes away on it's own, and even decreasing the amount of intolerance minimizes the amount of intolerating you need to do against it.

Something being necessary does not imply some sort of weird-ass-everything-is-set-in-stone-and-nothing-ever-changes situation, though to be honest I'm having trouble picturing how such a solution would even work - did you have something in mind?

I think, perhaps, I should post the full explanation, in the words of someone much better at this sort of thing than me. This explains what I am trying to say quite clearly, I hope, and better than I am capable of.

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

[Helgoland]

On a lighter note...

[GreatJustice]

On a lighter note...

I know some guy on some forum that has argued very strongly that Venezuela is a thriving modern socialist nation that has overcome the shackles of Capitalism to reach prosperity. Maybe they have a toilet paper shortage because Venezuelans have suddenly started eating so much that the Bureau of Toilet Paper Production hasn't had time to adjust.

[wierd]

Or maybe planned economies have a hard time planning for how much toilet paper people need? (sorry, can't find better link for the phenomenon.)

[misko27]

The answer to whether comedians are having fun with Christies scandal.

[GlyphGryph]

But... that article isn't about... it isn't about anything about a planned economy or a socialist one or a communist one or anything.

I mean I guess you can argue price controls are socialist, but in a planned economy wouldn't the government be producing the toilet paper?

The whole price control thing is something many capitalist countries do all the time, and it always screws them because it's such a blindingly stupid idea, no matter how you look at it.

[wierd]

I was more meaning it in the context that, for some strange reason, toilet paper seems to have historically been a problem with communist/socialist (yes, I know the difference) countries in the eastern bloc.

It didn't just happen in one-- it happened in quite a few.

Why toilet paper? Hell if I know. But it seems to be "a thing".

It could be that calculating needed supplies for a population is hard? Perhaps toilet paper should be more closely examined as a market index for economic research? Hell if I know.

Just that it has consistently been a problem.