Print

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

[IronyOwl]

Why not? My definition of rational means following a line of logic as you understand it, not necessarily being correct or having good data. "It rained today, therefore it will probably rain again tomorrow" would be rational, as would "It already rained today, so it probably will not rain tomorrow." At least, until you gain a better understanding of how rain works.

Ah, there you go. My definition of rational relies on actually having the data and not trusting yourself unless you do.

My experience with life is most people aren't this cautious in making sure what they believe is right.

Plus, it's impossible to know if you've actually got good data or not. Everyone who believes anything thinks they have data of some description associated with it, but there's no guarantee it's reliable or complete. Certainly, most people could stand to be a lot more honest and thorough than they typically are, but that's still no guarantee of being correct.

[Max White]

Ah, there you go. My definition of rational relies on actually having the data and not trusting yourself unless you do.

Your idea of rational sounds a lot like empirical to me.

[misko27]

Seriously it's gotten to the point where I just declare myself a chauvinist.

Most girls, after knowing me for a bit will just say 'You're not a chauvinist'.
But if I start the gun saying 'I'm not chauvinist', then every single thing I say is a tell.

I just tell people that the best way to understand me is to not put me into a category, as I am myself and I pride myself on that. I have traits from many different categories sure, but none of those traits define who I am.

I love to hear what categories people put me in. I have my own conception of who I am, and it's interesting to "compare notes" so to speak. Also tells you a bit about the person themselves.

Why offer up any labels at all? I don't tell anyone that I'm anything, unless they ask, or I find a good reason to interject one of my credentials into the conversation. Otherwise, most labels are pretty useless.

I had a whole thing I was going to post, but it suffices to say that this is an opinion people rapidly jump ship on when pressed enough. Almost all non-proper nouns are labels. There is a entire thread devoted to whether the label "donut" applies to things without holes. And the list of exceptions goes on. Nothing is simple, Only math is definite, and yet we have to describe plural things somehow. Labels are tools, like everything else, and that they can be used to hurt does not make their nature inherently hurtful. By the by, good job generalizing generalizations. Your comments will be forwarded to the label anti-defamation league immediately.

IronyOwl: most of those aren't rational things to say, unless your definition of rational is different from mine.

Why not? My definition of rational means following a line of logic as you understand it, not necessarily being correct or having good data. "It rained today, therefore it will probably rain again tomorrow" would be rational, as would "It already rained today, so it probably will not rain tomorrow." At least, until you gain a better understanding of how rain works.

Ah, there you go. My definition of rational relies on actually having the data and not trusting yourself unless you do.

ra·tion·al
/ˈraSHənl,ˈraSHnəl/
adjective
adjective: rational
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

[alexandertnt]

ra·tion·al
/ˈraSHənl,ˈraSHnəl/
adjective
adjective: rational
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

I would imagine that the most rational statement for the given rain example would be (in lack of knowledge of how weather works) "I dont know if it will rain tomorrow".

[Frumple]

Actually, it would probably be something along the lines of "I know it will either rain or not rain tomorrow."

[Max White]

It is possible it will rain tomorrow.
If it rains tomorrow then I will bring an umbrella.
There will be a type of weather tomorrow and it may or may not be rain.
There will be one or more types of weather tomorrow.
While it is raining tomorrow I will stay inside.*

^{*Logically this statement doesn't actually imply it will rain, just what to do while it is raining.}

All rational statements.

[Glowcat]

I don't follow. Conservative politicians are fine to discriminate against because they're "ideological" in nature, but police officers aren't, training and camaraderie and all? What about black culture and political leanings?

As I said, it would be wrong to make such a blanket statement. Notice that all your examples (and my one about tax fraud) the negative action/trait itself does not necessarily follow from the shared characteristics, while following an ideology by definition makes one responsible for negative actions/traits caused by that ideology because that IS the entire group being discussed.

Sure, it would also be wrong to believe all conservatives were always conscious of the harms they did to others like some kind of cartoon villainy, but a lot of nuance isn't going to be communicated every time somebody posts in exasperation about the state of politics.

What's your definition of rational? Mine is, as mentioned, following logic- which is not, obviously, foolproof. "Unevidenced non-sequitur fear-mongering" isn't very convincing when you're defending people saying that conservatives are actively trying to ruin peoples' lives without backing that up either, and the problem is identical.

I'm pretty sure anybody who's said such a thing HAS backed up their reasons with real world harm that actually follows from the premises given. Even by your own standards of rational your argument fails for at least some of your examples because the conclusions do not logically follow the premise. See above for example of non-sequitur thinking (some members of group x have trait y, thus all members of group x have trait y!). This isn't a disagreement where the evidence is blurry and people need to make far-reaching conclusions, the connections made in those arguments are absurd.

I don't understand what you mean by the bolded part. Are you under the impression that I claimed that conservatives suffer as much discrimination as any other minority in some particular area? Are you making the argument that discrimination is only bad when done in excess of that suffered by some other group? I don't understand what you're getting at here, or how it connects with our current conversation.

I was of the understanding that we are to back off on criticisms of conservatives because it somehow fell under discrimination, of which you and others have strongly likened to the struggles of minority groups.

As for the rest, that's true of all discrimination also. Anyone can assault a white man because of their skin color, and when they do, people tend to roll their eyes and say "Wow, what a dick." Most people do not take this to mean that beating up white people because they're white is okay, or that a higher incidence of this happening to blacks is perfectly alright because whites don't have any special protections beyond numbers.

Discrimination would be (as seen in the real world) white people ignoring crimes that effect black people, police officers disproportionately targeting black people due to a self-perpetuating stereotype, etc. This is actual discrimination... to where we return to an earlier part of your response...

The discrimination they face is the declaration that they as a group are terrible people actively trying to make life worse for other people.

...Sometimes, when I'm beyond fed up, I really wish some of you would experience actual discrimination so that you'd understand how insulting your comparisons are. >_>

[alway]

Why not? My definition of rational means following a line of logic as you understand it, not necessarily being correct or having good data. "It rained today, therefore it will probably rain again tomorrow" would be rational, as would "It already rained today, so it probably will not rain tomorrow." At least, until you gain a better understanding of how rain works.

Ah, there you go. My definition of rational relies on actually having the data and not trusting yourself unless you do.

My experience with life is most people aren't this cautious in making sure what they believe is right.

Plus, it's impossible to know if you've actually got good data or not. Everyone who believes anything thinks they have data of some description associated with it, but there's no guarantee it's reliable or complete. Certainly, most people could stand to be a lot more honest and thorough than they typically are, but that's still no guarantee of being correct.

Some relevant excerpts from Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, Chapter 2 "Intelligent agents."

We need to be careful to distinguish between rationality and omniscience. An omniscient agent knows the actual outcome of its actions, and can act accordingly; but omniscience is impossible in reality. Consider the following example: I am walking along the Champs Elysees ´ one day and I see an old friend across the street. There is no traffic nearby and I’m not otherwise engaged, so, being rational, I start to cross the street. Meanwhile, at 33,000 feet, a cargo door falls off a passing airliner, and before I make it to the other side of the street I am flattened. Was I irrational to cross the street? It is unlikely that my obituary would read “Idiot attempts to cross street.” Rather, this points out that rationality is concerned with expected success given what has been perceived. Crossing the street was rational because most of the time the crossing would be successful, and there was no way I could have foreseen the falling door. Note that another agent that was equipped with radar for detecting falling doors or a steel cage strong enough to repel them would be more successful, but it would not be any more rational.

This leads to a definition of an ideal rational agent: "For each possible percept sequence, an IDEAL RATIONAL AGENT ideal rational agent should do whatever action is expected to maximize its performance measure, on the basis of the evidence provided by the percept sequence and whatever built-in knowledge the agent has."
We need to look carefully at this definition. At first glance, it might appear to allow an agent to indulge in some decidedly underintelligent activities. For example, if an agent does not look both ways before crossing a busy road, then its percept sequence will not tell it that there is a large truck approaching at high speed. The definition seems to say that it would be OK for it to cross the road. In fact, this interpretation is wrong on two counts. First, it would not be rational to cross the road: the risk of crossing without looking is too great. Second, an ideal rational agent would have chosen the “looking” action before stepping into the street, because looking helps maximize the expected performance.

There is one more thing to deal with in the definition of an ideal rational agent: the “built-in knowledge” part. If the agent’s actions are based completely on built-in knowledge, such that it need pay no attention to its percepts, then we say that the agent lacks autonomy.

Or in short, ignorance is not rational unless resources available prevent acquisition of a better picture of the world.

[Sheb]

Glowcat, we're on a fucking discussion board. We don't have the scope to have police detaining people her. Anyway, I'll just avoid you in the political threads then.

[Cheeetar]

Glowcat, we're on a fucking discussion board. We don't have the scope to have police detaining people her. Anyway, I'll just avoid you in the political threads then.

The medium by which you espouse your political views changes nothing about any effects it might or might not have in real life.

[Max White]

Anyway, I'll just avoid you in the political threads then.

What? No! Fuck you! You are the last person who should avoid the political threads! You stay in the damn political threads until we let you out.

[IronyOwl]

As I said, it would be wrong to make such a blanket statement. Notice that all your examples (and my one about tax fraud) the negative action/trait itself does not necessarily follow from the shared characteristics, while following an ideology by definition makes one responsible for negative actions/traits caused by that ideology because that IS the entire group being discussed.

Sure, it would also be wrong to believe all conservatives were always conscious of the harms they did to others like some kind of cartoon villainy, but a lot of nuance isn't going to be communicated every time somebody posts in exasperation about the state of politics.

I think I may have misunderstood this point, then.

But still, why would ideologies be understandable to sort of gloss over sometimes, while other classifications wouldn't be? Your example was that calling all Republicans tax cheats isn't alright, but calling all conservatives harmful might be at least understandable, right? Both are potentially valid but not universally true. Is it just a matter of frequency, then? And if so, what would the cutoff be?

What's your definition of rational? Mine is, as mentioned, following logic- which is not, obviously, foolproof. "Unevidenced non-sequitur fear-mongering" isn't very convincing when you're defending people saying that conservatives are actively trying to ruin peoples' lives without backing that up either, and the problem is identical.

I'm pretty sure anybody who's said such a thing HAS backed up their reasons with real world harm that actually follows from the premises given. Even by your own standards of rational your argument fails for at least some of your examples because the conclusions do not logically follow the premise. See above for example of non-sequitur thinking (some members of group x have trait y, thus all members of group x have trait y!). This isn't a disagreement where the evidence is blurry and people need to make far-reaching conclusions, the connections made in those arguments are absurd.

Why are you convinced that everybody who's said the one thing has backed themselves up at some point, while equally convinced that everyone who's said the other thing hasn't?

The conclusions all follow logically from the premises for certain information sets as far as I can tell. If it matters, you can point out the ones you can't follow, and I can provide a logical path through them.

I don't understand what you mean by the bolded part. Are you under the impression that I claimed that conservatives suffer as much discrimination as any other minority in some particular area? Are you making the argument that discrimination is only bad when done in excess of that suffered by some other group? I don't understand what you're getting at here, or how it connects with our current conversation.

I was of the understanding that we are to back off on criticisms of conservatives because it somehow fell under discrimination, of which you and others have strongly likened to the struggles of minority groups.

As far as I'm aware, I've never implied that "criticism" of conservatives was bad. In fact, I believe I explicitly noted the opposite:

More to the point, I don't think the issue is one of "protection," as in, it's not fair to speak ill of conservatives because we don't have many. The issue, as far as I've seen, is one of civility and assumption- you probably shouldn't speak ill of conservatives in the same ways and for the same reasons you shouldn't speak ill of homosexuals, whites, or ice cream vendors.

You even responded to it, but it was to focus on the distinction between "speaking ill" of people based on ideologies as opposed to other criteria.

As for the rest, that's true of all discrimination also. Anyone can assault a white man because of their skin color, and when they do, people tend to roll their eyes and say "Wow, what a dick." Most people do not take this to mean that beating up white people because they're white is okay, or that a higher incidence of this happening to blacks is perfectly alright because whites don't have any special protections beyond numbers.

Discrimination would be (as seen in the real world) white people ignoring crimes that effect black people, police officers disproportionately targeting black people due to a self-perpetuating stereotype, etc. This is actual discrimination... to where we return to an earlier part of your response...

So... you respond to my analogy by ignoring it to list what "actual" discrimination is, meaning traditional discrimination as you see it.

I get the feeling you're less interested in discussing this issue with me than you are in lecturing me on which groups you feel are worthy of being declared discriminated against.

The discrimination they face is the declaration that they as a group are terrible people actively trying to make life worse for other people.

...Sometimes, when I'm beyond fed up, I really wish some of you would experience actual discrimination so that you'd understand how insulting your comparisons are. >_>

That's unfortunate, but I'm guessing you realize how petty and entitled that is.

Or in short, ignorance is not rational unless resources available prevent acquisition of a better picture of the world.

Ignorance is not perfectly rational unless shrouded by further ignorance or other factors. Crossing the street before looking is rational if you are not aware that cars travel along streets, or are under the impression that cars always stop for pedestrians. As would crossing the street without purchasing a radar system, despite it being physically possible to do so and being aware of its potential benefits.

So far as I can tell, I don't tend to call conservatives idiots. I (try to) call idiots idiots.

'Course, idiocy is down to interpretation.

Which leads us back to the same problem.

[Sheb]

But basically, it boils down to "be polite, avoids ad hominem, and don't let people in your own camp do those kind of stuff unchhecked."

[tahujdt]

Aww man,  I *wish* conservatives were like cartoon villains, then I might be able to grow a proper goatee. I'll go strap someone to the railroad tracks to see if that helps.

Anyway, seeing as how we have devolved into political metadebate, are there any suggestions for a new thread title?

[Max White]

Anyway, seeing as how we have devolved into political metadebate, are there any suggestions for a new thread title?

How about "Figurative analysis of voting intentions by socio-economic cultural groups in contemporary online culture"