Print

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

[wierd]

False equivalence is indeed false-- one side seems to do it more shamelessly than the other, but this causes a different kind of sin in the opposing group.

The Right's major sin is refusing to introspect, even with coaching.
The Left's major sin, is refusing to introspect, while knowing better (as in, they accepted the tools to improve.)

I approach it from the standpoint that it is a mine field, and the only way out is to cling to empiricism, objectively verifiable truths, and deep continual introspection. Throwing in with either side's ideology without such effort, only makes one complicit in their sins, whichever flavor you may choose.

[Maximum Spin]

So perhaps a better choice of words would have been "Look at any Republican, and realize that they are exactly the same as you used to be." If the argument is that their thinking can be changed. I'd still disagree, because I don't think I was ever *defiantly* ignorant back then, just garden-variety parochial ignorance. But I'd allow that yes, I'm probably throwing a few babies out with a whole lot of bathwater.

But if the argument is just more false equivalence bullshit of "Both sides are equally wrong and you're just a Mirror Universe Republican", then I'm not interested. That serves no purpose other than to seem smug and detached, and negate any attempt to claim a position.

Declare that you have outgrown ideology, then call the other person smug

[RedKing]

So perhaps a better choice of words would have been "Look at any Republican, and realize that they are exactly the same as you used to be." If the argument is that their thinking can be changed. I'd still disagree, because I don't think I was ever *defiantly* ignorant back then, just garden-variety parochial ignorance. But I'd allow that yes, I'm probably throwing a few babies out with a whole lot of bathwater.

But if the argument is just more false equivalence bullshit of "Both sides are equally wrong and you're just a Mirror Universe Republican", then I'm not interested. That serves no purpose other than to seem smug and detached, and negate any attempt to claim a position.

Declare that you have outgrown ideology, then call the other person smug

Correction: I've outgrown a shitty ideology. Y'know...20 years ago. I make no apologies about being a leftist these days. But bless your heart for trying.


@wierd: That's a fair cop. I disagree, because I think that way lies madness, and a sort of mishmash of political incoherency, because so much of politics is not empirical. But reductionism is a valid tactic. It's just not for me.

[Trekkin]

I approach it from the standpoint that it is a mine field, and the only way out is to cling to empiricism, objectively verifiable truths, and deep continual introspection. Throwing in with either side's ideology without such effort, only makes one complicit in their sins, whichever flavor you may choose.

Yeah, what we really need is a good, strong monarchy with a tasteful and decent king who has some knowledge of theology and geometry and to cultivate a Rich Inner Life, right?
_{please tell me someone else recognizes that quote...}

[wierd]

To me, the purpose of politics is not actually "I need to get my way, regardless of actual consequences", but rather "How can we attain the best possible outcome that satisfies the most people's needs and wants."

Naturally, this leads to less than ideal solutions, as people can have either very asymmetrical needs, or very obtuse/wasteful wants.

You still need the empiricism and rigor to determine when a grossly asymmetrical need is in the public interest to satisfy, or when it is necessary to tell the public that their want is grossly self-destructive to the country as a whole (even when the majority of the country has this want.-- See for instance, Brexit.)

You can only keep that rigor through that evaluation and introspection.


Trekkin:

Looks like you are referencing this quote.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/515959-do-you-think-that-i-want-to-live-in-a

[RedKing]

Sounds like you're a True Believer in empiricism. 
Physician, introspect thy self.

[wierd]

Sounds like you're a True Believer in empiricism. 
Physician, introspect thy self.

It is true, but I have yet to see it be proven false. Axioms that are indeed verifiable, are not wrong to be used. It is when you cling to an axiom that can be proven false, that you have issue.  I will concede to a different philosophy, when such evidence or proof is presented to me; My philosophy requires me to do so.

[Trekkin]

Sounds like you're a True Believer in empiricism. 
Physician, introspect thy self.

It is true, but I have yet to see it be proven false. Axioms that are indeed verifiable, are not wrong to be used. It is when you cling to an axiom that can be proven false, that you have issue.  I will concede to a different philosophy, when such evidence or proof is presented to me; My philosophy requires me to do so.

Well, if you think being an empiricist makes you more likely to be right about things, that you, a staunch empiricist, routinely fail to be factually correct about the most basic and easily verified of things (and equally fail to qualify your statements in any way that might reflect a considered uncertainty about your grossly erroneous claims) would suggest it is not the reliable path to truth you claim it to be.

[wierd]

Being in denial that I deny these past errors shows what about yourself, oh braggart?

(That is to say, I wholesomely acknowledge these past errors, and try to grow from them; whereas, you seem to insist that I can never grow from them at all, and deny that acknowledge them as errors. One of us is guilty of a cardinal sin. I wonder which.)

[Trekkin]

Being in denial that I deny these past errors shows what about yourself, oh braggart?

Merely that I know an attempt to deflect criticism when I see one.

[wierd]

Perhaps you should consult a mirror?  (We often find fault in others, what we detest the most in ourselves.)

[Dorsidwarf]

Will you two just kiss already?


Re:trump
I wonder how the tax bill is going to affect republicans in the midterms. I've heard it's pretty appalling for low-income voters.

[wierd]

Oh, I fully admit that I see *MUCH* of myself in Trekkin.   I love myself, so no matter how surly he is to me, I will love him too.

Re: Tax plan

I dont think it is what you think it is.  This has all the earmarks of "golden parachute plan B", That is to say, when voted out of office in the mid terms, they expect to land cushy gigs at many companies that benefited from this atrocious legislation.  See for instance, Frank Dodd, and his appointment to head of the MPAA a few years back.  Think on it from THAT angle, and it makes LOTS of sense. (The GOP *KNOWS* they will be booted like last week's smelly diapers, and wants to land with a bounce, instead of a loud thud.) The removal of the individual mandate is a talking point that will ingratiate this horror on parchment with people who dont know any better. (People who just know they cannot afford health insurance, as they currently struggle against poverty (mostly due to income disparities, but there are other reasons as well), and make a poor choice to go without insurance, as otherwise they have to go without food, water, clothing, or shelter, because they just dont have the money. Penalizing them with a regressive fine every year they go without that insurance (that they cannot afford, even with the market) does not help them, even though the existence of the fine improves the total healthcare coverage of the nation. (See prior quips about riggor.) The individual mandate is better than no solution at all (what the GOP is offering), but is not ideal, because it is regressive in attacking people who only suffer from it.  Sadly, this latter truth is the weapon the GOP is using to make this shitfest look like it is in the public's interests, when it totally is not. It is the security string on their new golden parachute, that will make it difficult for the DNC to repeal their plan.)

[smjjames]

This is what happens when you rush through a tax bill, you end up with a buggy, glitchy, mess. And I think we all understand what a buggy glitchy mess looks like with games.

Also, since the argument ended hours ago and no point in locking the thread now, I'm goinna yell at you guys to quit the personal attacks and calm down.

[RedKing]

Re:trump
I wonder how the tax bill is going to affect republicans in the midterms. I've heard it's pretty appalling for low-income voters.

Meh. The Republican base takes "voting against your own self-interest" as a core value. All it needs is some nice gentlemen on the radio screaming about how they have less money now because something something gay Mexican welfare moms, and they'll keep steadfastly voting R.

I honestly don't expect this to swing that many votes that weren't already swung. I think popular attitudes towards Trump are going to be the bigger factor in any electoral swing.