Defining issues of today's politics / Left vs Right

okie wrote:

I once went to a seminar called "Problem Solving and Decision Making." The primary thing drummed into us there was you must first understand the problem, or question, before it can be solved, or answered. It is one of the main reasons that answers or solutions do not answer the questions properly or solve the problems.

It's nice that you once attended a seminar on problem solving okie. I have been making a living by problem solving for over 20 years.

That must be the difference between us and why you had a problem understanding that first statement. :wink:

I am glad I could be of assistance by giving you the definition of "primarily" and showing you the logic to disagree with "A is greater than B" if you think A=B.

0 Replies

Jimmy traded Johnny a pocket knife for $20.00. If the trade between Jimmy and Johnny was inevitable, it should primarily serve Johnny rather than the interests of Jimmy.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

What is your answer Parados?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre, you are wasting your time trying to reason with Parados. I've spent many, many hours going back and forth, and finally after realizing we could never agree on any answers, or even partially agree, we then began arguing about if a question was logical, let alone the answer. Parados cannot even reason out a logical question. I even asked him if we could agree on the name of this site, and I offered my answer of Able2Know.com, but I don't recall that he would even acknowledge that. I would recommend you not waste your time. The man is obviously a liberal, and he acknowledged that there is no such thing as "liberal logic." He said that in one of his last posts, and I quoted him, but he can't even see the humor. Now, he wants me to apologize to him. Go figure. Can't agree on any answers, can't even agree on any questions, and no sense of humor.

Yeah, but I like a challenge. Anyway I do it for my benefit. If I can't formulate an argument that makes sense to me, then I need to rethink my position. I'm not satisfied, as are some, in just making a point that won't hold up under scrutiny and then changing the subject when that is pointed out. Smile

0 Replies

Parados, perhaps it is an oversight or unintended, but it sometimes feels like you do the following a lot, and this is what is so frustrating in debating a point with you:

I said:

Quote:

Of course one can can logically claim God exists when speaking from one's own experience. If I have experienced God, I can logically claim God exists based on my experience. I cannot logically claim that I can prove God's existence to you. There is a difference.

Now then, if you have 250,000,000 people who claim God exists based on their own experience, and 50,000,000 people claim no such experience, this is not proof that God exists, but the probability has definitely swung in favor of the existence of God.

You respond:

Quote:

Fox,

By saying many people have experienced God you are introducing MORE variables. Each of those experiences would be a different variable. Since there are MORE variables it is ILLOGICAL to assume a degree of certainty using your argument.

By thw way, you violate the objectivity principle when you claim people have experienced God

Do you see what has happened here?
You 1) ignored the basis of experience and drawing a logical conclusion from one's experience and 2) you ignored the basis that many people have claimed such experience; indeed you changed the parameter to say I made the claim and not them.

and extrapolated that to:
1) there are more variables (which in this context is irrelevent) and
2) you say that I said that people have experienced God. I rather said that if people claim to have experienced God, which ties it to the first basis of the argument, it affects the probability of the existence of God.

It appears dishonest to attempt to change the premise into something that was obviously not said or intended.

Even the novice debate student is taught how such a tactic can be fatal if rebutted by a sharp opponent.

0 Replies

Standard problem solving. We will compare your statement to the statement from the quiz and see what is different about the 2.

Quote:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations?

This statement was in the context of a political test to figure out political leanings. It was obvious to me from that context that the person taking the test was to interpret the question based on their political understandings or leanings. The first thing to do is define the terms in a way consistent with the context.

Economic globalization - The expansion of the global economy, it would include trade, probably free trade and possible elimination of country borders.

humanity - mankind - all the humans on the globe (makes sense since we are talking about global economics.)

Trans-national corporations - corporations that are in more than one country. There are hundreds of these. I am sure you can name as many as I can.

Definitions may vary because the point is to use the terms in the way each person sees them politically.

Now that we have definitions of all the terms we can make the comparison. - As the global economy expands who should benefit more - mankind or corporations.

There is not one single right answer since the point of this is to get an answer based on the political interpretation of the person answering. Your list of 21 points certainly didn't expect a single answer to all of them since we were trying to create a scale based on the different answers.

The point of the exercise is to find possible benefits for corporations and mankind and decide who benefits more.
Possible benefits for mankind - lower prices, more consumer goods, less famine, less warfare,
Possible benefits for corporations - more profits, cheaper labor, more customers

Now lets look at your statement

Quote:

Jimmy traded Johnny a pocket knife for $20.00. If the trade between Jimmy and Johnny was inevitable, it should primarily serve Johnny rather than the interests of Jimmy.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

What is your answer Parados?

Context - to prove a point of logic

Definitions - pocket knife - self explanatory, a small folding knife. The exact kind doesn't seem to be necessary for the purposes of answering.

trade defined - knife for $20

Jimmy - unknown person

Johnny - unknown person

Analysis - Impossible to make a determination based on the information given. We can't extrapolate possible benefits for unknown persons since we don't know their needs.

The difference between the 2 -
The first one has a context that defines all the terms and allows for comparison. The person making the decision is supposed to determine the nuanced meanings of the terms based on their own political leanings or knowledge.

The second one lacks definitions of the persons involved and a context to define those persons. Without definitions of the persons or a knowledge of their needs it is impossible to make any comparison.

So you see okie. We first define the problem, then we solve the problem. We don't just look at the statement in front of us. We have to look at the context as well for effective problem solving.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yeah, but I like a challenge. Anyway I do it for my benefit. If I can't formulate an argument that makes sense to me, then I need to rethink my position. I'm not satisfied, as are some, in just making a point that won't hold up under scrutiny and then changing the subject when that is pointed out.

No Fox, You tend to disappear when your points don't hold up to scrutiny.

But you did point out exactly what okie does. Why did he bring up "beating my wife"? It was obviously an attempt to change the subject.

0 Replies

The pig trough supplied by of the US citizen's monies and freedoms: Both the Republicans and Democrats feed on it with the same regularly!

okie wrote:

I was debating on another thread about Left vs. Right.

The problem I have with the US's left v. right ethos is that it is an oversimplified, myopic artifice that clusters ideals/ideas/actions/beliefs in such a fashion that it leaves little real choice.

For example there is no demonstrable evidence to show that today's Democrats have increased the size of government more than Republicans, or that Republicans have had a better economic record than Democrats.

Wall Street Week with Luis Rukeyser did a long term study and found that the stock market did ever so marginally better under the Democrats, but not in a statistically significant way.

Another example is that there is no political party that truly espouses a tolerant social policy, real separation of church and state, laissez-faire economic policy, very strict antirust enforcement, legalization of prostitution and drugs, dismantling of the embedded pig trough industilal military complex, real controls on soft money..

The only real difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the right wing Christian wackos appear to have allied themselves to the Republicans at least for the time being.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Standard problem solving. We will compare your statement to the statement from the quiz and see what is different about the 2.

Quote:
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations?
This statement was in the context of a political test to figure out political leanings. It was obvious to me from that context that the person taking the test was to interpret the question based on their political understandings or leanings. The first thing to do is define the terms in a way consistent with the context.

Economic globalization - The expansion of the global economy, it would include trade, probably free trade and possible elimination of country borders.

humanity - mankind - all the humans on the globe (makes sense since we are talking about global economics.)

Trans-national corporations - corporations that are in more than one country. There are hundreds of these. I am sure you can name as many as I can.

Definitions may vary because the point is to use the terms in the way each person sees them politically.

Now that we have definitions of all the terms we can make the comparison. - As the global economy expands who should benefit more - mankind or corporations.

There is not one single right answer since the point of this is to get an answer based on the political interpretation of the person answering. Your list of 21 points certainly didn't expect a single answer to all of them since we were trying to create a scale based on the different answers.

The point of the exercise is to find possible benefits for corporations and mankind and decide who benefits more.
Possible benefits for mankind - lower prices, more consumer goods, less famine, less warfare,
Possible benefits for corporations - more profits, cheaper labor, more customers

Now lets look at your statement

Quote:
Jimmy traded Johnny a pocket knife for $20.00. If the trade between Jimmy and Johnny was inevitable, it should primarily serve Johnny rather than the interests of Jimmy.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

What is your answer Parados?

Context - to prove a point of logic

Definitions - pocket knife - self explanatory, a small folding knife. The exact kind doesn't seem to be necessary for the purposes of answering.

trade defined - knife for $20

Jimmy - unknown person

Johnny - unknown person

Analysis - Impossible to make a determination based on the information given. We can't extrapolate possible benefits for unknown persons since we don't know their needs.

The difference between the 2 -
The first one has a context that defines all the terms and allows for comparison. The person making the decision is supposed to determine the nuanced meanings of the terms based on their own political leanings or knowledge.

The second one lacks definitions of the persons involved and a context to define those persons. Without definitions of the persons or a knowledge of their needs it is impossible to make any comparison.

So you see okie. We first define the problem, then we solve the problem. We don't just look at the statement in front of us. We have to look at the context as well for effective problem solving.

Answer the question about Jimmy or Johnny. If your question about corporations and humanity are valid, mine is just as valid. You don't need to know anything about Jimmy and Johnny. Thats the point. Trade, by definition is made with things of roughly equal value, so both benefit the same by definition. Plus corporations are run by humanity, so another reason why the question is ambiguous. Plus why should we accept the premise that it is inevitable. What if I don't think it is when I answer the question. There is not opportunity to say so. Frankly you will never admit the obvious conclusion so I don't know why I am even trying to reason with you.

0 Replies

The answer is simple, there is no intrinsic seller / buyer bias.

0 Replies

I go back to my original suggestion that corporations and humanity are both primarily served at the very same time because they both receive things of equal value when the trades are made, so the question cannot be answered logicly any more than my question, "Have you stopped beating your spouse? Yes or No, which by the way Parados, you have not yet answered I don't think.

0 Replies

Parados & Okie duke it out, while the ever rapier witted, insightful and always friendly Chum interjects apropos truisms Smile

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Answer the question about Jimmy or Johnny. If your question about corporations and humanity are valid, mine is just as valid. You don't need to know anything about Jimmy and Johnny. Thats the point. Trade, by definition is made with things of roughly equal value, so both benefit the same by definition. Plus corporations are run by humanity, so another reason why the question is ambiguous. Plus why should we accept the premise that it is inevitable. What if I don't think it is when I answer the question. There is not opportunity to say so. Frankly you will never admit the obvious conclusion so I don't know why I am even trying to reason with you.

Lets see. Johnny is a criminal and plans to kill Jimmy with the knife and take the $20 back. It would appear that in that case Johnny benefits more from the trade. Johnny knows the knife has value and has a buyer who will pay $500 for it. In that case Johnny gets more benefit. There are a lot of possible scenarios in which the trade does NOT end up in equal benefit. Since I have no way of identifying Jimmy or Johnny, I can't logically make a conclusion about their benefit from the trade. In most cases we would expect it to be equal but it wouldn't be in all cases. Could you provide a dictionary definition that states items are of equal value in a trade? I know of no such requirement.

Perhaps you need to look up the word "If". If does not mean something WILL happen. "If pigs fly out of your butt then it means pigs can fly." That hardly means it is inevitable that pigs will fly out of your butt.

Of course corporations are run by people. No one said they weren't. You are arguing that because you think the statement was false you couldn't decide whether to agree or disagree. If you think a statement is false then you disagree with it. It is SIMPLE logic here okie.

The POINT of the statement about global economization was to use your political philosophy to decide if it was true or not. Based on all your statements so far, you think it was false but were unable to understand the logic of disagreeing with a false statement.

There is no context with which to judge your statement about the trading of a knife. It was just meant as an exercise in logic. It has undefined parties. There were no undefined terms in this.

Quote:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations?

If you think some of the terms weren't defined please inform us.

If you were to state Jimmy gets more benefit from a trade with Johnny in the context of a political philosophy question I would disagree. But you didn't ask the question in that context. Or at least you didn't explain it as such if you meant to do it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I go back to my original suggestion that corporations and humanity are both primarily served at the very same time because they both receive things of equal value when the trades are made, so the question cannot be answered logicly any more than my question, "Have you stopped beating your spouse? Yes or No, which by the way Parados, you have not yet answered I don't think.

If you understood logic than you could agree or disagree with the statement.
If you think A=B then "A is greater than B" would be false and if asked to agree or disagree you should disagree with it. How many times do I have to explain this to you okie?

You have made it clear you think the statement was false. Now you only have to make the next simple step and disagree with the false statement. C'mon, you can do it. We are all cheering for you. C'mon okie. Learn something today. It will make you feel good.

Your question about beating my wife is not a statement I can agree or disagree with. It is a logical fallacy.

Quote:

Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition
This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example is the classic loaded question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

You are also guilty of this fallacy, okie

Quote:

Appeal To Complexity:
if the arguer doesn't understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. So, his opinions are as good as anybody's.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yeah, but I like a challenge. Anyway I do it for my benefit. If I can't formulate an argument that makes sense to me, then I need to rethink my position. I'm not satisfied, as are some, in just making a point that won't hold up under scrutiny and then changing the subject when that is pointed out.

No Fox, You tend to disappear when your points don't hold up to scrutiny.

But you did point out exactly what okie does. Why did he bring up "beating my wife"? It was obviously an attempt to change the subject.

I 'disappear' when the argument becomes personally insulting, when one side refuses to consider any argument but his own, or the discussion has become so circular everybody is repeating himself.

And even here you choose to be personally insulting, albeit mildly, while 100% ignoring the observation and point that I made. Now if you would acknowledge that the changes you made in my statements did in fact change the meaning, we would have a basis for discussion.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Your question about beating my wife is not a statement I can agree or disagree with. It is a logical fallacy.

I believe the same way concerning Question #1 in your poll about corporations and humanity, so we are even, and I don't think it is going to be resolved. My wife took one look at it and also agreed the question was ambiguous. She noted that the statement uses the term, "inevitable" as an assumption, which is fallacious, and also pointed out that corporations are run by humanity. Lets move on to a couple more statements in the poll.

In the poll, Statement #2 "I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong" appears to be somewhat logical, but not totally. If my country was involved in a war I did not agree with, I would not support that part of the country's activity, but I probably would support many other aspects of the country that are positive. Be that as it may, I can live with that question by probably answering "Disagree."

But Statement #3 is another goofy one: "No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it." Obviously, it depends on what country you are born in, whether it is one to be proud of or not. If I am born into a dysfunctional family, I would not be particularly proud, whereas if I am born into a loving, respectable family, I am very proud of it. So here, this question is guilty of the same factor you accuse my Johnny and Jimmy question. You claim you need to know more about the people. Likewise, I need to know more about the country. Just because I am born into a country gives me no information at all about whether I should be proud of it, but also no information whether I should not be proud of it, so obviously I do not know whether it would be foolish or not. The statement is clearly illogical.

Another statement: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very common saying, but when analyzed, it is another conflicted statement without sufficient information to answer, because sometimes it is true and sometimes it is not.

Parados, if these are the kinds of logical statements you wish to defend to the hilt, I guess have at it to your hearts content. I think you are only digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole here, and each time, you must come up with more and more elaborate, convoluted, and erroneous logic in an effort to not admit to any shred of a mistake on your part. You apparently must be 100% right in your own mind about everything no matter what. Have you ever made one single mistake? Yes or No?

Bottom line, it is clear to me that ambiguous questions will result in ambiguous results. And that is what the poll is. The questions are leading and are slanted toward certain answers, which are more liberal. Thus when you get done with the poll, you are more convinced you are a liberal for very good reasons. Anybody that understands polls and how questions can be framed to extract higher percentages of the answers desired understand this. Where have you been, Parados, if you haven't figured this out yet?

0 Replies

Quote:

If my country was involved in a war I did not agree with, I would not support that part of the country's activity, but I probably would support many other aspects of the country that are positive.

Welcome to my world.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie,
You are supposed to agree or disagree with the statements. If all the statements were logical then you wouldn't disagree with any of them and the test would be useless.

The entire POINT is you are supposed to disagree with statements that are not logical or not true in your point of view.

You can't seem to understand that your reaction is exactly what the test is looking for. If the statement is stupid then disagree.

Because you disagree with some of the statements makes the test VALID. It doesn't make in invalid.

If you were given a test that asked Which of the following statements are illogical? You would argue that you can't answer because some of the statements are illogical.

Lets face it. You don't get it. You will never get it. You are so ingrained in your own world you don't understand how a political test is supposed to work. It shows you will never be able to meet what you set out in this topic. Therefore there is no reason to continue since you are incapable of simple understanding. You must have been a riot at that afternoon class on problem solving. They must still be talking about you.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Bottom line, it is clear to me that ambiguous questions will result in ambiguous results. And that is what the poll is. The questions are leading and are slanted toward certain answers, which are more liberal. Thus when you get done with the poll, you are more convinced you are a liberal for very good reasons. Anybody that understands polls and how questions can be framed to extract higher percentages of the answers desired understand this. Where have you been, Parados, if you haven't figured this out yet?

Lets see...

You don't understand the word "poll".
You don't understand the word "primarily"
You don't understand the word "If"

I only see one pattern here okie. It is that you don't understand much of anything.

A test is NOT a poll. It has never been a poll. It will never be a poll.

A simple test of your political philosophy.. Agree or disagree with all the following statements.

Abortion should be available at any time.
Taxes should be at least 50% of earnings of those making more than $200,000.
All businesses should be owned by the government.
Government should provide all healthcare.

I think it is obivious that if you agreed with all 4 then you are on the extreme left.
If you disagreed with all 4 then you are to the right.

Are the 4 statements illogical? If they are illogical then there is no way to define left vs right because they require you to take a position on a political topic and you are saying that taking a position is illogical.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The entire POINT is you are supposed to disagree with statements that are not logical or not true in your point of view.

No, the POINT is I cannot agree OR DISAGREE given the information provided. The information provided as a phrase at the beginning of many of the statements provide no basis to either agree or disagree. Example: The fact that you have no choice in what country you are born in has no bearing on whether you should be proud or not proud of your country. The question is illogical, as are a great percentage of the rest of them.

Now, you are arguing about the difference between a "test" and a "poll" and that I used the wrong term. Excuuuuuse me!
Good grief, what next?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

The entire POINT is you are supposed to disagree with statements that are not logical or not true in your point of view.

No, the POINT is I cannot agree OR DISAGREE given the information provided. The information provided as a phrase at the beginning of many of the statements provide no basis to either agree or disagree. Example: The fact that you have no choice in what country you are born in has no bearing on whether you should be proud or not proud of your country. The question is illogical, as are a great percentage of the rest of them.

Now, you are arguing about the difference between a "test" and a "poll" and that I used the wrong term. Excuuuuuse me!
Good grief, what next?

Is English a second language for you okie?

Quote:

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

"It" refers to the country of birth so that makes the second phrase in the sentence "so it's foolish to be proud of his or her country of birth." The country a person is born in as opposed to a country they might have immigrated to, the phrase has very real meaning for the statement. You have no choice in where you are born. You do have a choice in immigrating to another country. The statement is about the country of birth not the country someone might be living in if they emigrated.

Please tell me how the sentence is illogical? The grammar isn't a problem.

It's pretty easy to agree or disagree with the sentence once you understand it. Perhaps you are misusing the world "illogical." Are you perhaps confused by the grammar? You keep saying you can't agree or disagree because the statement is illogical yet you made enough of a determination earlier that you thought the statement was wrong.

Lets examine the logic of the statement
A - foolish to be proud
B - Country you are born in

Does B always lead to A being true? If you think not then a statement of A always leads to B would be false. The statement fits quite nicely into a logic table. We can determine if it is false or not based on your interpretation. You stated them earlier. Fill in the Proud section with Yes/No.

Should people always be proud of their country of birth or always not be proud or split based on the action?

| Country action | Proud |
|-------------------|---------|
| like action | | (You have stated this several times)
|-------------------|---------|
|dislike action | | (Try using your Nazi Germany example)
-------------------------------

Once you have your truth table you compare it to the truth table from the statement. "foolish to be proud" is a pretty clear statement. It doesn't give allowance for not being foolish so the table looks like this.

| Country action | Proud |
|-------------------|---------|
| like action | No |
|-------------------|---------|
|dislike action | No |
-------------------------------

If your truth table doesn't match the truth table from the statement then the statement is false.

By the way, your argument that the test is skewed to make people liberals doesn't hold much water. They used it to classify the candidates in the 2004 election based on their stated positions. John Kerry actually ended up on the right.

0 Replies

Defining issues of today's politics / Left vs Right

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know