25
   

Critical thinking and political matters.

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:40 pm
@GoshisDead,
You mean it wasn't caused by emotion?
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:46 pm
@parados,
I stated that here
Quote:
lol true that, accidental. Accidental is hardly methodical
accidents by definition do not have a motive and not methodical, Also to my recollection I never said ALL scientific discovery had a base in emotion, although if you want to drive it that far back, accidentally coming across one discovery while looking for another still carried the emotional motive of the original thing hypothesized. That happy accident likely would never have occurred without the emotion attached to the original research.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 09:47 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
Also to my recollection I never said ALL scientific discovery had a base in emotion

Although I think this claim would be correct---as long as you're not claiming that emotion is the only basis of discovery, which you didn't.

I think there is a fairly clean test for the hypotheses you and Parados have been exchanging: Look at people who don't have emotions. Some humans are afflicted that way, usually because of some form of brain injuries. (The rest of their brains is intact.) Do these people function as Mr.-Spock-like hyper-rationalists? The kind you'd think would make a good scientist?

I'm pretty sure Oliver Sacks wrote about some of those patients in one of his books, though the reference is hiding from me somewhere in my bookshelf. As best I remember off the top of my head, they are nothing like Mr. Spock; they're completely dysfunctional. Deciding whether to have vanilla- or chocolate ice cream is excruciating for them it takes forever. Because they can't feel, they can't just say, "hey, I feel like having vanilla today". They have to reason their way to everything.

Extrapolating from that into the business of science, I guess they couldn't come up with crazy ideas to try out on a hunch. They can't"sense", without ironclad evidence, that something about their theory or experiment isn't quite working. They probably couldn't decide which field of research seemed promising.

Science always seems so neat, buttoned-down, and logical once it's in a published paper. But the process of getting there involves lots of guesswork, hunches, even aesthetic judgments. I don't see how people could possibly make the process work without emotions.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 11:22 pm
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

Like Cycloptichorn said, I am ashamed with the thoughts and behavior of 50% of our population. My number would probably be higher.

A great many politicians are using people's feelings and sufferings for their own gain. Even when they know these feelings are unjustified or just plain wrong. There is no righteousness in their actions or speeches. It is a simple struggle for political power and our faster and faster communications systems bring much more of it to light. You should experience South Carolina politics for awhile for some real fine examples.

This whole issue with the mosque is a great example of something that should not have been an issue and became a very ugly one. It is certainly not unique though.

all po;;iticians use our suffering for their gain... They do not empower the people, and keep that power and turn it into money... All politicians are corrupt..
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 07:04 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

You mean it wasn't caused by emotion?


If I decide to take a walk to "stretch my legs" is that caused by emotion? That phrase is ordinarily used for an action like being in tears because of the death of someone you care about. Why would you think that we should also use that phrase to apply to something like deciding to take a walk to stretch my legs?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 07:27 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

parados wrote:

But all you are arguing is that all human acts are caused by emotion.


Yes, so it seems. That seems to be one of those views it is impossible to falsify by any contrary event because no apparently contrary event is every allowed to be actually a contrary event. The view then turns out to be a trivial tautology. Somehow, psychologists adore advancing such views.

It is moral forms, and even physical forms have their moral content, that accounts for our actions, and which result from an emotional attachment to mother first, then societies, and finally, to humanity... It is never that emotions cause anything except raw pain, or pleasure... The moment we consider our emotions we do so by way of forms, and it is only through forms that we get the sense that we all experience the same emotions because we have no objective proof, for example that my anger is like your anger, or my love is like yours... Even our judgements regarding our emotions are culturally tainted, but as drives go, the emotioal reactions of pain and pleasure have spured humanity on... So the point that emotions cause action is false, unless considered as a spur modified by moral forms which are culturally determined...The explanation is simple, but to make it more simple still makes it false..
0 Replies
 
Ahab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 07:45 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

They still talk about ground zero, and those folks who spoke didn't all say "don't build." The last guy say, "they should think of what they're doing." They're all placing blame on Muslims who didn't have anything to do with the WTC, and thereby restricting where they can build on "feelings and emotions."

They didn't have anything to do with WTC, for chrissakes!


Exactly. That is why this is such a nice example of the ad misericordiam fallacy.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 07:46 am
With so many Republican candidates being far out of the mainstream, the Republicans may not do as well as expected in November. Consider . . .

Editorial
At the Far Edge
Published: August 19, 2010

For months, it has been clear that Republican Congressional candidates would benefit from independent voters’ dissatisfaction with President Obama. With the Republican field now largely in place, all voters might want to take a close look at who those candidates are.
Related
Times Topics: Rand Paul | Ken Buck | Sharron Angle
The party has nominated so many at the far right of the spectrum, as well as some other unusual choices — Linda McMahon, the candidate for the United States Senate in Connecticut made millions running the sex-and-violence spectacle known as World Wrestling Entertainment — that the Republican brand is barely recognizable. Consider:



Ken Buck, the United States Senate nominee in Colorado. A former district attorney, he has said that the separation of church and state is too strictly enforced and wants to eliminate the Energy and Education Departments. Until recently, he supported repealing the 17th Amendment, which provides for direct election of senators. In the primary, he said he should win because “I do not wear high heels” — his opponent was a woman. As a federal prosecutor, he was reprimanded by a United States attorney after he gave information about the weakness of a case against gun dealers to the defense.



Rand Paul, the United States Senate candidate in Kentucky and physician, who has criticized the minimum-wage law and the civil rights and fair housing laws. He wants to cut way back on unemployment insurance and has denigrated Medicare as “socialized medicine.”



Sharron Angle, the United States Senate candidate in Nevada, who believes that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children, that the United States should pull out of the United Nations and that Medicare and Social Security should be phased out in favor of a privatized system. In May, she suggested to The Reno Gazette-Journal that if she failed to defeat her Democratic opponent, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, then conservatives might have no choice but to turn to violence. “I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?” she said.



Mike Lee, the United States Senate candidate in Utah, who said he favors repealing the progressive income tax and supports a low cap on liability for oil companies that cause extensive environmental damage. He is one of the many Republicans who support changing the 14th Amendment to prohibit American-born children of illegal immigrants from being granted citizenship.

Democrats have hardly been paragons of courage during this election cycle, whipping up phony fears that Republicans are on the verge of dismantling Social Security. Some, notably Senator Reid, have refused to stand with President Obama on the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan. These new Republican candidates are out of touch with mainstream American values of tolerance and pretty much everything else. They need to be challenged head-on.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on August 20, 2010, on page A20 of the New York edition.
nytimes.com
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 08:04 am
@Ahab,
Ahab wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

They still talk about ground zero, and those folks who spoke didn't all say "don't build." The last guy say, "they should think of what they're doing." They're all placing blame on Muslims who didn't have anything to do with the WTC, and thereby restricting where they can build on "feelings and emotions."

They didn't have anything to do with WTC, for chrissakes!


Exactly. That is why this is such a nice example of the ad misericordiam fallacy.


The ad misericordiam is the fallacy of appealing to pity when that appeal is not relevant. So I don't see why this is an example, much less a nice example, of that fallacy. In any case, and quite separately from that, could you say why you think that opposition to the building of the mosque lays the blame on all Muslims for 9/11? I don't even see that. The argument is that to build a mosque at that site would be wrong because of its symbolism as an act of defiance and justification of 9/11, and also because many people would be offended and made resentful by the erection of the building, and now, after so much opposition has been expressed, these consideration I just listed take on even more weight and now raise questions as to the real motives of the builders, when such questions were not raised before all the controversy.

What has any of this to do with "blaming all the Muslims"? Since it has nothing at all to do with it, it is also, just a red herring. A diversion from the real issue.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 09:54 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:
What has any of this to do with "blaming all the Muslims"? Since it has nothing at all to do with it, it is also, just a red herring. A diversion from the real issue.


Unless you blame all Muslims for 9/11, there is no possible way that the erecting of this mosque in Downtown NYC could offend anyone. There is no way it could be seen as being connected with 9/11 at all. This is the entire point people are getting at, Kenny; your points are all rooted in this soft bigotry, this blaming of people for things that had nothing to do with them. You say people will be 'upset' but they could only be so if they share that soft bigotry. You say that people will be 'made resentful,' once again, based on that same soft bigotry.

There's no other valid reason for why people could be upset or made resentful, other than that they blame all Muslims or the Religion itself. And there's no reason for you to be advancing their argument here, other than the fact that you do as well.

Cycloptichorn
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 10:01 am
i only think critically about the government

buncha douchebags
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 10:11 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
What has any of this to do with "blaming all the Muslims"? Since it has nothing at all to do with it, it is also, just a red herring. A diversion from the real issue.


Unless you blame all Muslims for 9/11, there is no possible way that the erecting of this mosque in Downtown NYC could offend anyone. There is no way it could be seen as being connected with 9/11 at all. This is the entire point people are getting at, Kenny; your points are all rooted in this soft bigotry, this blaming of people for things that had nothing to do with them. You say people will be 'upset' but they could only be so if they share that soft bigotry. You say that people will be 'made resentful,' once again, based on that same soft bigotry.

There's no other valid reason for why people could be upset or made resentful, other than that they blame all Muslims or the Religion itself. And there's no reason for you to be advancing their argument here, other than the fact that you do as well.

Cycloptichorn


Unless you blame all Muslims for 9/11, there is no possible way that the erecting of this mosque in Downtown NYC could offend anyone.

But I have given reasons for thinking that is false. Repeating the point is not showing it is true, no matter how many times you insist that it is true. It is the people who are insisting on erecting on that site who are being blamed. Many Muslims are indifferent, and some are opposed. But no blame attaches even to those who support the project. Only those directly involved are to blame form erecting a building which is a symbol of defiance, and justification of 9/11. And, as I pointed out, continuing to insist on it makes it much worse. (By the way, no one is even blaming the prospective builders for 9/11, much less all Muslims).
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 10:15 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:

But I have given reasons for thinking that is false.


Not valid ones. You've just thrown some illogical twaddle around.

Quote:
It is the people who are insisting on erecting on that site who are being blamed.


Because bigots are equating them with the 9/11 bombers. Not because the people in question have anything wrong with them.

Quote:
Only those directly involved are to blame form erecting a building which is a symbol of defiance, and justification of 9/11


You are proving your bigotry with every time you repeat this. How can it be a symbol of defiance and justification of 9/11 unless you are linking these people with 9/11? You are confirming what I wrote is in fact true.

You decided that it was a symbol of defiance. You decided that it was 'justification of 9/11.' They didn't declare that.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 10:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Their opinions are telling about their bigotry; they group together the terrorists and all Muslim in one basket. Their brains have been wired without any ethics or the understanding of the Constitution. That goes for some of those who were victims of 9-11 who continues to repeat "building at ground zero." They know not of what they speak; all bigots.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 10:31 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Their opinions are telling about their bigotry; they group together the terrorists and all Muslim in one basket. Their brains have been wired without any ethics or the understanding of the Constitution. That goes for some of those who were victims of 9-11 who continues to repeat "building at ground zero." They know not of what they speak; all bigots.


So are they acting like biggots from ignornance or expressing biggotry from a true sense of biggotry? This raises the question, does all biggotry come from ignorance or is there such a thing as someone who isn't a biggot?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 10:34 am
@GoshisDead,
Doesn't matter how it originates; it's blind and discriminatory against a group who is innocent and 100% Americans.
Ahab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 10:58 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Ahab wrote:

Exactly. That is why this is such a nice example of the ad misericordiam fallacy.


The ad misericordiam is the fallacy of appealing to pity when that appeal is not relevant. So I don't see why this is an example, much less a nice example, of that fallacy.

It is not relevant. If you think it is, you have fallen for the fallacy. Care to explain how the sorrow and pain of the 9/11 victims is relevant to the constitutionally guaranteed religious practice of Muslims who had nothing whatsoever to do with that tragedy?

Quote:
In any case, and quite separately from that, could you say why you think that opposition to the building of the mosque lays the blame on all Muslims for 9/11? I don't even see that. The argument is that to build a mosque at that site would be wrong because of its symbolism as an act of defiance and justification of 9/11,

Why do you think it is an act of defiance and justification of 9/11? These Muslims had nothing to do with that tragedy. You may not care for their religious beliefs, I know that I don’t. But the free practice of their religion is a constitutional right.

Quote:
and also because many people would be offended and made resentful by the erection of the building, and now, after so much opposition has been expressed, these consideration I just listed take on even more weight and now raise questions as to the real motives of the builders, when such questions were not raised before all the controversy.


People get offended about lots of things. Many people are offended over protestors burning the American flag. But that act is protected by the Constitution. Why do you wish to restrict the right of a group of people to practice their religion because some people find it offensive? I think it is the duty of Americans to value the rights granted to them in the Constitution.

Quote:

What has any of this to do with "blaming all the Muslims"? Since it has nothing at all to do with it, it is also, just a red herring. A diversion from the real issue.


Looks to me like you are creating the red herring here.
What is the justification for restricting the religious practice of some Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11?

GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 11:02 am
@cicerone imposter,
Why doesn't it matter how it originates? If the cause is not erradicated then one is simply treating the symptoms.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 11:02 am
@kennethamy,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Unless you blame all Muslims for 9/11, there is no possible way that the erecting of this mosque in Downtown NYC could offend anyone.

... except anti-Muslim bigots, who will feel offended by Muslims whatever they do. How do these feelings merit any more deference than those of antisemites offended by all Jews, or the feelings of White Supremacists offended by all blacks?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 11:05 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
Why doesn't it matter how it originates? If the cause is not erradicated then one is simply treating the symptoms.

Uhuh---that was Hitler's rationale for killing all Jews. If he had succeeded, there would be no more antisemitism.

Okay. I have triggered Godwins law. Is this thread over now?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 07:57:09