USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
We have enough black market here that banning guns isn't feasible.
You will have a VERY difficult time in raising taxes. For any politician, or candidate, that is a BIG black mark for you.
Foreign policy is always a question mark. To use Russia, Gorbachev was in power, we were cool with each other. Then here comes Putin. BOOM. We are enemies again. That sorta thing. It's not only our leadership for this, it also is the other countries' leadership that is a factor.
We have enough black market here that banning guns isn't feasible.
You will have a VERY difficult time in raising taxes. For any politician, or candidate, that is a BIG black mark for you.
Foreign policy is always a question mark. To use Russia, Gorbachev was in power, we were cool with each other. Then here comes Putin. BOOM. We are enemies again. That sorta thing. It's not only our leadership for this, it also is the other countries' leadership that is a factor.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Really the optimal approach is to discuss to listen as much as impart, be respectful to ensure engagement, use facts/logic to convince others.
My opinion is that if you want to simply find the ultimate truth and don't care what others think...go find a closet to learn in. Discussion with others either A) convinces them and/or B) corrects or adjusts your own opinion. Outcomes from discussion is much better than just being a paragon of truth somewhere that is both likely missing some important nuance and has no impact on anything.
Really the optimal approach is to discuss to listen as much as impart, be respectful to ensure engagement, use facts/logic to convince others.
My opinion is that if you want to simply find the ultimate truth and don't care what others think...go find a closet to learn in. Discussion with others either A) convinces them and/or B) corrects or adjusts your own opinion. Outcomes from discussion is much better than just being a paragon of truth somewhere that is both likely missing some important nuance and has no impact on anything.
unofan
Well-known member
So what do you do when you've heard the other person, point out repeatedly why they're factually wrong (or, more realistically, why the clearly biased and inaccurate story they're forwarding is clearly biased and inaccurate) , and they triple down? How often should you bang your head against that wall before giving up?
I'll also note that I didn't call for anyone to be shouted down. I'm voluntarily not responding because the thread creator called for no snark.
Last edited:
cF[Authentic]
southpaw
I think you do exactly what you said you're doing in your last paragraph. After a try or two, just don't respond. Most people here are intelligent and can avoid being sucked into an argument in every thread. Ignore the posts you've already stated your case about and it will move in a day.
Or just move the topic yourself. I have appreciated this thread because it seems like up until recently people are treating each other as adults in a civil conversation whether asking a question or responding. It's how most of us would like to act if we were posted up at a bar stool in a nice hotel and pick up conversation with a person next to us.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Exactly.
I wish I could remember the famous quote: the best antidote to crahppy free speech is better free speech, something like that.
Exactly.
I wish I could remember the famous quote: the best antidote to crahppy free speech is better free speech, something like that.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
I respectfully disagree. The debate about climate change is not about whether it occurs or not; we have had climate change throughout the entire history of the earth for millions of years before human beings walked the earth.
There is room for skepticism when people claim that 100% of climate change today is driven solely by human activity. That flies in the face of reason and the historical record.
Yet, if a person in some circles asks, "how do we parse out the relative impact of human activity, solar activity, wobbles in the orientation of the earth's axis, and changes in the shape of the earth's orbit around the sun?" that person is frequently shouted down and treated as a pariah.
If someone says, "hmm, the people who are most adamant that human activity is the primary source of climate change, also are the ones receiving the largest share of research funding.....are they saying it because they have a strong economic incentive to do so?" (the very exact same thing people say about clinical drug trials sponsored by pharmaceutical firms, by the way), again that statement is treated as heresy in the climate change context while in any other context it would appear to be a reasonable thing to ask.
Similarly, if a person says, "we need to do something to prepare for a response to the impact of human activity on climate change," if they suggest that maybe there is a better way than forcible government intervention in the form of regulation and fines, again they are often shouted down, because they are not on board with the only solution that is allowed to be considered, no matter how many other better responses there might appear to be to a less strident mindset.
What I have seen happen too often in the climate change debate is that there is only one narrative allowed, yet that is totally opposite of how reasoned scientific inquiry is supposed to work. If someone asks, "what proportion of change is caused by which input?" they are called "deniers" even though clearly there is no denial, and their reasonable question is totally ignored.
I respectfully disagree. The debate about climate change is not about whether it occurs or not; we have had climate change throughout the entire history of the earth for millions of years before human beings walked the earth.
There is room for skepticism when people claim that 100% of climate change today is driven solely by human activity. That flies in the face of reason and the historical record.
Yet, if a person in some circles asks, "how do we parse out the relative impact of human activity, solar activity, wobbles in the orientation of the earth's axis, and changes in the shape of the earth's orbit around the sun?" that person is frequently shouted down and treated as a pariah.
If someone says, "hmm, the people who are most adamant that human activity is the primary source of climate change, also are the ones receiving the largest share of research funding.....are they saying it because they have a strong economic incentive to do so?" (the very exact same thing people say about clinical drug trials sponsored by pharmaceutical firms, by the way), again that statement is treated as heresy in the climate change context while in any other context it would appear to be a reasonable thing to ask.
Similarly, if a person says, "we need to do something to prepare for a response to the impact of human activity on climate change," if they suggest that maybe there is a better way than forcible government intervention in the form of regulation and fines, again they are often shouted down, because they are not on board with the only solution that is allowed to be considered, no matter how many other better responses there might appear to be to a less strident mindset.
What I have seen happen too often in the climate change debate is that there is only one narrative allowed, yet that is totally opposite of how reasoned scientific inquiry is supposed to work. If someone asks, "what proportion of change is caused by which input?" they are called "deniers" even though clearly there is no denial, and their reasonable question is totally ignored.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Right, and that is why Pope Paul V is so widely praised today for the way he silenced Galileo, eh?
Right, and that is why Pope Paul V is so widely praised today for the way he silenced Galileo, eh?
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Hmm... a self-reflective person might wonder why they are so invested in changing the other person's mind in the first place.
Are you a missionary out to convert unbelievers?
Does their belief in something you disagree with put your physical well-being, or the physical well-being of others, at risk?
Has it possibly occurred to you that, from their perspective, you are just as obstinate, biased, and inaccurate to them as they appear to you?
Try arguing with a color-blind person about the color of grass.
Hmm... a self-reflective person might wonder why they are so invested in changing the other person's mind in the first place.
Are you a missionary out to convert unbelievers?
Does their belief in something you disagree with put your physical well-being, or the physical well-being of others, at risk?
Has it possibly occurred to you that, from their perspective, you are just as obstinate, biased, and inaccurate to them as they appear to you?
Try arguing with a color-blind person about the color of grass.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
I do not doubt they face that response from some people, but at least in my experience of reading people committed to a scientific analysis of climate change, that has not been the case.
There are ideological tails on both ends of this distribution, and neither is behaving in a scientific manner. Luckily, in science the peer review process is designed to moderate new offerings of theory and empirical evidence.
I do not doubt they face that response from some people, but at least in my experience of reading people committed to a scientific analysis of climate change, that has not been the case.
There are ideological tails on both ends of this distribution, and neither is behaving in a scientific manner. Luckily, in science the peer review process is designed to moderate new offerings of theory and empirical evidence.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Very nicely put.
I thought I clicked the "add to reputation" button in response to this post but it may not have registered that way. If not, oops! sorry.
Very nicely put.
I thought I clicked the "add to reputation" button in response to this post but it may not have registered that way. If not, oops! sorry.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
In the case of debates which affect public policy, yes.
Take anti-vax and herd immunity. If a majority of the electorate holds a pseudo-scientific bias against vaccination and votes accordingly, it may well cost the lives of the loved ones of those who are scientifically literate.
This is what is meant by being entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
In the case of debates which affect public policy, yes.
Take anti-vax and herd immunity. If a majority of the electorate holds a pseudo-scientific bias against vaccination and votes accordingly, it may well cost the lives of the loved ones of those who are scientifically literate.
This is what is meant by being entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Good exception.
Even then, tactics matter.
"I can understand how you might have a concern, here is some information that you also need to consider..." is an attempt to persuade. At the end, if that fails, then "well, the law is the law and you have to comply."
On the other hand, "You f*#&%*#! idiot! you are putting my kids' lives at risk with your obstinate stupidity!" is not at all persuasive, and is more likely than not going to harden opposition rather than soften it.
Good exception.
Even then, tactics matter.
"I can understand how you might have a concern, here is some information that you also need to consider..." is an attempt to persuade. At the end, if that fails, then "well, the law is the law and you have to comply."
On the other hand, "You f*#&%*#! idiot! you are putting my kids' lives at risk with your obstinate stupidity!" is not at all persuasive, and is more likely than not going to harden opposition rather than soften it.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Eisenhower said, "hitting people over the head is not leadership, it's assault."
Eisenhower said, "hitting people over the head is not leadership, it's assault."
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Addendum to post # 74:
I recall something from a "history of the world" class about Egypt in its earliest days. The Nile would flood every year, and the silt from the flood waters would settle on either bank, to provide fertile soil for farming. To control the spread of the flood, everyone had to build dikes on their land: if even one person failed, the entire purpose would be thwarted. Of course there was a similar problem of getting everyone to comply.
Addendum to post # 74:
I recall something from a "history of the world" class about Egypt in its earliest days. The Nile would flood every year, and the silt from the flood waters would settle on either bank, to provide fertile soil for farming. To control the spread of the flood, everyone had to build dikes on their land: if even one person failed, the entire purpose would be thwarted. Of course there was a similar problem of getting everyone to comply.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Sorry that I am posting a link to a link here....
http://commonknowledge.dukejournals.org/content/15/3/340.full.pdf cites Alasdair MacIntyre, as quoted in Constantine Sandis, “Torn Away from Sureness,” TLS, August 15, 2008, 23 as source
Interesting, if you find both DJT and HRC morally repugnant, he asserts that it is your duty to vote for neither. As a corollary, it seems that a third-party vote is not fruitless nor pointless in this situation, it is a way of making yourself heard that "neither" is your choice, while not voting at all says "leave the status quo alone."
So, if we follow this line of moral reasoning, many of us have a moral duty to vote either for Stein or Johnson.
It is hard for me to find a flaw in this line of reasoning, given the premises, yet I also feel a bit uncomfortable about it. Though Hippocrates words, "first, do no harm" also come to mind.
Sorry that I am posting a link to a link here....
http://commonknowledge.dukejournals.org/content/15/3/340.full.pdf cites Alasdair MacIntyre, as quoted in Constantine Sandis, “Torn Away from Sureness,” TLS, August 15, 2008, 23 as source
Interesting, if you find both DJT and HRC morally repugnant, he asserts that it is your duty to vote for neither. As a corollary, it seems that a third-party vote is not fruitless nor pointless in this situation, it is a way of making yourself heard that "neither" is your choice, while not voting at all says "leave the status quo alone."
So, if we follow this line of moral reasoning, many of us have a moral duty to vote either for Stein or Johnson.
It is hard for me to find a flaw in this line of reasoning, given the premises, yet I also feel a bit uncomfortable about it. Though Hippocrates words, "first, do no harm" also come to mind.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
I may just write in Bill'n'Opus in that case. I am serious. It is voting without voting, using the above reasonjng, which on the surface seems sound
I may just write in Bill'n'Opus in that case. I am serious. It is voting without voting, using the above reasonjng, which on the surface seems sound
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Just a quick shout out to FF's citation of Alasdair MacIntyre, who is on my Rushmore of living philosophers. Reading him puts me in mind of Juliet's quote:
Just a quick shout out to FF's citation of Alasdair MacIntyre, who is on my Rushmore of living philosophers. Reading him puts me in mind of Juliet's quote:
Last edited:
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Two other related items of note:
In some states, once your party receive over x% of the vote in one election, you qualify for state matching funds in the next election, which in turn helps the third-party candidate's voice reach even more people next time.
This year, if I recall correctly, if Gary Johnson (used for an example only because he is polling higher than Stein) gets above 15% in the polls, then he qualifies for the Presidential debates.
While on one hand, Trump v Clinton would be like a UFC steel cage death match, having Johnson (as an example) also up there as a contrast between both of them could be really, really revealing to a much wider audience.
Two other related items of note:
In some states, once your party receive over x% of the vote in one election, you qualify for state matching funds in the next election, which in turn helps the third-party candidate's voice reach even more people next time.
This year, if I recall correctly, if Gary Johnson (used for an example only because he is polling higher than Stein) gets above 15% in the polls, then he qualifies for the Presidential debates.
While on one hand, Trump v Clinton would be like a UFC steel cage death match, having Johnson (as an example) also up there as a contrast between both of them could be really, really revealing to a much wider audience.