Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why political debate is utterly pointless...

Page 1 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 Sep 2011, 1:45 am

I've surmised most of this myself, but here's an actual paper...

http://www.civilpolitics.org/sites/default/files/Ditto&Koleva_MoralEmpathyGap.pdf



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

24 Sep 2011, 2:21 am

This paper doesn't change the fact that the other side is clearly wrong.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Sep 2011, 6:18 am

NeantHumain wrote:
This paper doesn't change the fact that the other side is clearly wrong.


So you assert.

All of us are entitled to our own opinion. None of us are entitled to our own facts.

ruveyn



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

24 Sep 2011, 7:15 am

ruveyn wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
This paper doesn't change the fact that the other side is clearly wrong.


So you assert.

All of us are entitled to our own opinion. None of us are entitled to our own facts.

ruveyn


My facts are truthier than your facts.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

24 Sep 2011, 7:16 am

Your mom is utterly pointless.


_________________
.


NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

24 Sep 2011, 9:21 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Your mom is utterly pointless.

This paper doesn't change the fact that your mom is clearly wrong.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

24 Sep 2011, 9:22 am

I think it needs to be more about solving problems and less about proving people wrong/winning.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 Sep 2011, 10:13 am

donnie_darko wrote:
I think it needs to be more about solving problems and less about proving people wrong/winning.

The problem there is people rely on their moral compass to decide which problems need to be solved. Some people seem to think some problems aren't important enough to warrant even attempting to solve. Universal healthcare affordability is one such problem off the top of my head.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 Sep 2011, 10:18 am

NeantHumain wrote:
This paper doesn't change the fact that the other side is clearly wrong.

No. The other side clearly lacks empathy and an intuitive sense of justice.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Sep 2011, 11:12 am

marshall wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
This paper doesn't change the fact that the other side is clearly wrong.

No. The other side clearly lacks empathy and an intuitive sense of justice.


All of which is sentimentality. Intuitive senses are not objective.

Given a choice between following your head or following your heart, follow your head.

ruveyn



Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

24 Sep 2011, 11:42 am

ruveyn wrote:
Given a choice between following your head or following your heart, follow your head.

ruveyn


If you did that, you'd be a liberal :P



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Sep 2011, 11:49 am

Obres wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Given a choice between following your head or following your heart, follow your head.

ruveyn


If you did that, you'd be a liberal :P


No. I would be an Objectivist. Liberals are very sentimentally motivated. They think their notion of what is Right and Good is self evident. It is not. The Liberals are a priorists. The sound thinkers operate a posteriori.

It all comes down to this question. If Human A is in need and Human B has the means to satisfy the need of Human A, is Human B -obliged or duty bound- to provide it?

I say no. The Liberals say yes.

ruveyn



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

24 Sep 2011, 12:23 pm

Wait, are you suggesting that political debate on a mental health forum, amongst people famous for rigid opinions, is unproductive?

I anxiously await your findings on the wetness of water.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

24 Sep 2011, 12:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Obres wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Given a choice between following your head or following your heart, follow your head.

ruveyn


If you did that, you'd be a liberal :P


No. I would be an Objectivist. Liberals are very sentimentally motivated. They think their notion of what is Right and Good is self evident. It is not. The Liberals are a priorists. The sound thinkers operate a posteriori.

It all comes down to this question. If Human A is in need and Human B has the means to satisfy the need of Human A, is Human B -obliged or duty bound- to provide it?

I say no. The Liberals say yes.

ruveyn


its not a question of a priori vs a posteriori
it is a question of the choice of axioms.

Liberals choose to obliged to everyone
"Patriots" to their country.
nationalists only to people that look like them.
Partizens to their party.
ruveyn only to his family.
fanatics only to their religion.
Randian Objectivist cultists only to themselves and the holy mother Elisa Rosenbaum.
reprobates only their own Id.

there is no objectivity to a choice of axioms it is just a choice


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Sep 2011, 2:07 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

its not a question of a priori vs a posteriori
it is a question of the choice of axioms.



Fine. Then let us chose according to what has worked in the past and what we think will work in the future. But let it be on the basis of what works, not on sticky sentimentality.

ruveyn



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,196
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

24 Sep 2011, 2:18 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
This paper doesn't change the fact that the other side is clearly wrong.

The other side is ALWAYS wrong, If you don't know that you receive an F in PPR etiquette. :lol:


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin