25
   

Critical thinking and political matters.

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 11:47 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
All logic is thought and all thought logic...
With all respect, Fido, if all thought were logic,
then there 'd be no room for chaotic confusion.





David
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 12:21 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
I have a constitutional right to vote given me by (among other things) the 14th Amendment. However, if my vote is motivated by a bribe, then it was no right of me to vote. Therefore, this is an example of a right which is not right.

That doesn't even make sense kenneth. The right to vote still exists. It didn't cease to exist because you exercised that right under false pretenses. The fact that you took a bribe doesn't change the right to vote in any way nor does it make the right to vote invalid or wrong. It only means you took a bribe and acted illegally when exercising that right. It in no way makes the right to vote wrong.

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm beginning to see why people like kenneethamy continues to be confused. They lack the ability to use logic to think.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The funny thing is that this guy seems to believe that this is 'critical thinking.'

Cycloptichorn


You guys are embarrassing yourselves, this is the kind of thing that makes me think I'm wasting my time. You have the right to vote, but it is morally wrong to base your vote on a bribe. You had the right, but were in the wrong. It is very simple.

Quote:
If you would provide actual answers instead of vague emotional appeals, this might go faster.


I'm sorry parados, but the problem is on your end. You make assumptions that I'm equating all muslims with terrorists, claim things are strawmen and red herrings when they aren't, assume that I am opposed to any buildings in the area, ask me if I'm aware that the building is two blocks away, fail to understand simple comparisons and examples that were there to help you out. And when you do grasp the main point, you ask me to repeat myself--I have made the case that rauf is latching on to 9/11, in his own words. I have to bow out of this argument, it is hard for me to continue without becoming too critical of you personally.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28logical_fallacy%29#Red_herring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordoba_House
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 12:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The funny thing is that this guy seems to believe that this is 'critical thinking.'

Cycloptichorn



Maybe that is how they did it on the PhiliForum. Just sayin.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 12:26 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
We actually agree on something. Smile
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 12:44 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

All morality is based upon emotions, primarily based upon pre rational bonds between child and mother which is where we get our sense of nation, for natal, navel... You must see the connection between ethics, and ethnic, or are you blind... And you must know, that all rational areguments have the target of individual good, that is, a certain fixed perspective; that his is not true of morality for which only the most general and infinite definition of good is evident...
Thanks Fido. You said it.

Logic isn't transperspective. It only works when anchored to a single viewpoint. That's evident in the fact that it doesn't admit contradictions, right?

I always think of Othello regarding emotion and morality. Logic can't condemn Iago. The heart does it easily.

So the law court is a picture of interaction between the mind and heart. The mind draws in facts and relationships. The judge is an image of the heart... the part of us that doesn't get tangled up in argument. But it's the fact that emotion can act without understanding that makes it important to temper it. So withdrawing to the courtroom is a way to suspend action and search for understanding prior to judgement.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 12:45 pm
@Jebediah,
Jeb, The only person embarrassing themself is you. How people vote is a legal right; why and how they vote is the voter's choice no matter how they arrived at their vote. Bribes and stupidity does not invalidate anyone's vote.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 12:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Jeb, The only person embarrassing themself is you. How people vote is a legal right; why and how they vote is the voter's choice no matter how they arrived at their vote. Bribes and stupidity does not invalidate anyone's vote.
I don't think so. Elections are subject to invalidation. Voting for money is an example of corruption. The only way such a vote would stand is if the situation never came to light.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 12:52 pm
@Arjuna,
You're trying to tell us that when a candidate campaigns and promises to lower your taxes, that's not a bribe?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 12:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Jeb, The only person embarrassing themself is you.



How people vote is a legal right; why and how they vote is the voter's choice no matter how they arrived at their vote.
Bribes and stupidity does not invalidate anyone's vote.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 12:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OSD, You did get the jest of what I said? Okay, it's "himself."
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 01:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
OSD, You did get the jest of what I said?
Jest is a joke; humor. Jist is the significant essence.


cicerone imposter wrote:
Okay, it's "himself."
Thank u.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 01:32 pm
@Jebediah,
Quote:
You guys are embarrassing yourselves, this is the kind of thing that makes me think I'm wasting my time. You have the right to vote, but it is morally wrong to base your vote on a bribe. You had the right, but were in the wrong. It is very simple.

It is illegal to base your vote on a bribe.


It is not immoral to vote for one candidate over another.

You are arguing that doing an action that is legal is immoral without showing why it is immoral.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 01:35 pm
@Jebediah,

Quote:
An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion.

An example would be claiming the building of the mosque is "immoral".
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 01:49 pm
@Jebediah,
Quote:
Therefore, this is an example of a right which is not right.

Quote:
You had the right, but were in the wrong. It is very simple.


You might want to compare your statement to what Kenneth said Jeb. Do you see a difference in meaning?


Now compare your statement to mine.
Quote:
It only means you took a bribe and acted illegally when exercising that right. It in no way makes the right to vote wrong.

Why was my statement wrong? Didn't I say essentially the same thing you did?

Of course someone can act illegally when they exercise a right. But that isn't the issue here.


The issue is why you think their actions are wrong. It is subjective and I don't buy your arguments as being well thought out. Not only can't you explain them clearly, you can't even answer questions designed to help you clarify your position. Sure, people leap to conclusions that they think are correct. But then it is up to them to be able to justify their conclusion. If you can't, OK, that's fine, but don't claim you have thought it through.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 01:52 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

I don't think so. Elections are subject to invalidation. Voting for money is an example of corruption. The only way such a vote would stand is if the situation never came to light.

That isn't true Arjuna. In the US votes are secret. If the bribery came to light the person that voted would be prosecuted but his vote couldn't be invalidated because there is no way to tell which vote was his.

In the case of massive voter fraud, the election could be invalidated but that means all votes are thrown out even those that weren't illegal.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 01:54 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Jest is a joke; humor. Jist is the significant essence.

There is no such word as jist.


Is gist pronounced "jist" or "jest"? I don't think you should be correcting spelling David when you are going to use your fonetik BS to try to do it.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 02:43 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Fido wrote:
All logic is thought and all thought logic...
With all respect, Fido, if all thought were logic,
then there 'd be no room for chaotic confusion.





David

Thought as opposed to insight, imagination, or speculation is reasoning, logic...All knowledge is judgement, again the result of reasoning upon observations, and it is upon knowledge which we reason, since only confusion results from false knowledge, something considered true which is not, and no matter what is the quality of our reasoning, all rests on the bedrock of knowledge, which if defective always results in wrong conclusions...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 03:03 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Fido wrote:

All morality is based upon emotions, primarily based upon pre rational bonds between child and mother which is where we get our sense of nation, for natal, navel... You must see the connection between ethics, and ethnic, or are you blind... And you must know, that all rational areguments have the target of individual good, that is, a certain fixed perspective; that his is not true of morality for which only the most general and infinite definition of good is evident...
Thanks Fido. You said it.

Logic isn't transperspective. It only works when anchored to a single viewpoint. That's evident in the fact that it doesn't admit contradictions, right?

I always think of Othello regarding emotion and morality. Logic can't condemn Iago. The heart does it easily.

So the law court is a picture of interaction between the mind and heart. The mind draws in facts and relationships. The judge is an image of the heart... the part of us that doesn't get tangled up in argument. But it's the fact that emotion can act without understanding that makes it important to temper it. So withdrawing to the courtroom is a way to suspend action and search for understanding prior to judgement.

Unfortunately, and this is born out by English judicial pronouncements; The courts only decide upon guilt or innocence, and the penalties for crimes... They do not decide issues of justice, but instead allow parlement, or the legislature to make the law... In this the court is wrong since law is a species of justice and so the court should always ask after justice to make certain they are not punishing the virtuous for the crimes of the bastards who make the law...

Your casting of emotions and reason as sides in a courtroom is appropriate enough, since morality is neither good nor bad, but only what it is, and so it can only be judged by its offspring, by the good or evil that comes out of it...The problem with law in fact is that it demoralizes everyone... In primitive times, outlaws were driven from their communities, and today the community is driven into the wilderness... Individualism is criminalism, and morality is community, but law breaks down the power of community to judge and punish their own, or to defend their own, so the obligations of community become onerous....Without the support of community morality law finds itself powerless, and so it demands more and more of power with less and less of results... Between the criminals in pens, and the citizens imprisoned by fear are the cops who are the only ones free... Law is a racket we all pay for and get little from...I do not think we were better off with blood feuds, but we were all more in control, and justice was individualized...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 03:23 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
Your very question here raises the difference between (1) having a right, and (2) its being right for someone to exercise the right. And that was the distinction my post was based on.

And you ignore the attempt to restrict someone's rights by influencing public opinion with lies and falsehoods.


Quote:

Arguing whether they ought to do it is not only an intellectual exercise, because if, for example, Consolidated Edison which owns a part of the site decides it would be wrong its property to the Muslim group, the building will not be erected on that site, and arguing whether the structure ought not to be built may persuade them not to sell the property.

Your example is not a way of making them change their mind. It is a back door way to restrict their rights by not letting them purchase property. On what legal basis could Con Ed not sell the property to a muslim group? Not selling because they are muslim would be a violation of their rights.

And you ignore the attempt to restrict someone's rights by influencing public opinion with lies and falsehoods.

Why should I concern myself with it? It has nothing to do with the issue of whether there is a difference between having the legal right to do something, and its being morally right to do that thing.

Your example is not a way of making them change their mind. It is a back door way to restrict their rights by not letting them purchase property. On what legal basis could Con Ed not sell the property to a muslim group? Not selling because they are muslim would be a violation of their rights.

1. Everyone in this country has freedom of speech (First Amendment) And lobbying, and advocating, and attempting to influence one policy or another is part of that freedom. No one is restricting their legal rights. They still have the legal right to build. But they don't have any money, and part of the goal is to prevent anyone from giving money to them through public pressure. There is no legal basis for Con Ed or the N.Y. Port Authority which also owns part of the property, not to sell it. But that does not mean that they are legally required to sell it either. I have no legal right not to sell you my backyard for a baccanalia you want to perform. On the other hand, I have no legal obligation to do so either. You really have to distinguish between not selling and being obliged to sell.

In any event it seems it no longer matters because the group of builders is now talking with the governor about choosing a different site where the building will not offend people. And that seems to me a good thing. Doesn't it to you?

Of course, all this is off the topic, since the topic is the president pointless speech last Friday when he tried to make people believe that the issue was a legal one, when it was actually a moral one.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  4  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 03:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
No one is attacking any Muslims. Where did you ever get that idea? As Obama later said, although they had a legal right to build, he questioned whether it was a wise thing to do. And so do I. And so do many people.



It is my understanding that President Obama took no position whatsoever on the "wisdom" of building a cultural center near "ground zero."

Why should we care if you question the wisdom of building a Muslim cultural center and prayer room near "ground zero"? Do you think your personal opinion concerning the wisdom or lack thereof should serve as the basis for discriminatory government action?
 

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 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 09:54:06