Armat Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 The next time your brother come to Montreal tell him to bring you with him. You are one of a hell of an artist. Domino jan, It would be a pleasure meeting you in person.Looking forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 If a majority rules, it no longer is a democracy. Why? Because there is a minority that cannot be heard. If there were a distribution proportional to parties, now THAT would be somewhat closer to a democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 None of you have the slightest clue concerning Democracy (OK maybe Armat does..)...anyway - it is only in part (directly) concerned with elections at all... And we talk of Democracy and we talk of specific political systems of the West - which contain aspects of Democracy - and are based - in part - upon Democratic principals - but none of these are at all the same thing. Too bad - perhaps - for any of you brilliant philosophers - so enraptured by your own genius - that I feel that its a waste of my time to explain further..you'll just have to (one day, perhaps) figure it out for yourselves...and I know that nothing I would post would any of you bother to absorb anyway... ...but yeah - your all (basically) wrong (again can't speak for Armat..and I'm sure there are others who understand...etc etc)...yeah...totally off the mark...what can I say... shame/pity...and all of that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 ...but yeah - your all (basically) wrong (again can't speak for Armat..and I'm sure there are others who understand...etc etc)...yeah...totally off the mark...what can I say... shame/pity...and all of that.... yes, and you god of almighty wisdom know everything and we don't .... just because our views on things dont agree with yours, doesn't mean that youre right and were wrong... if you ask me...no ones right or wrong, depends on who's looking at the situation.... and i thought u said you were chill THOTH?? i sense spme hostility Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 THOTH, I think you could be cited as a fine example of the Prejudicial Language fallacy. e.g: A reasonable person would agree with me that [insert argument here]. Maybe you should be included as an example in fallacy books. At least then you'd have some of the fame and awe that you seem to be seeking on this board. Philosophy students in undergrad school seem to be as awestruck by people as some of the members on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 THOTH, I think you could be cited as a fine example of the Prejudicial Language fallacy. e.g: A reasonable person would agree with me that [insert argument here]. Maybe you should be included as an example in fallacy books. At least then you'd have some of the fame and awe that you seem to be seeking on this board. Philosophy students in undergrad school seem to be as awestruck by people as some of the members on here. big bad wolfie...well said... but be ready 4 a long argument here and some personal attack.... load your pistols...ahhaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 :lol: Oh not at all, I seem to be pretty good at ignoring people when I see fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 THOTH, I think you could be cited as a fine example of the Prejudicial Language fallacy. e.g: A reasonable person would agree with me that [insert argument here]. Maybe you should be included as an example in fallacy books. At least then you'd have some of the fame and awe that you seem to be seeking on this board. Philosophy students in undergrad school seem to be as awestruck by people as some of the members on here. Haha that was brilliant, I read it as if I was saying. Marvelous Mr. Wolf. The mouse applauds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 No I won't get into an argument. These lower mamals are hardly worth it... And Im chill - what do I care. BTW I have degrees in Politcal Science and (Political) Anthropology..and I have worked for several Congressional Commitees (and no - never as a page)...I have friends involved in Politics - here and in other countries - (that I discuss these various issues with) and I do in fact have more then a little practical knowledge and experience beyond the theoretical (that may be of interest for argumetn but has negligible utility in the real world). I'm not saying that none of you have anything worthwhile to say and that you don't know things that I don't (and many of the old timers have much to offer as well - in many cases beyond my knwledge - certainly in soem areas..etc) - or that I couldn't learn form any of you as well (and I sometimes do certainly)...but by and large its not really worth my time (what can I say - i know how it sounds..but sorry can't help theat - just nbeign honest) as most of you just don't have the foundation yet (or perhaps its just attitude...don't know...) to truly understand many things (as has been made aparent) - and I also do not think that all here are really interested in much besides spouting off on their own tangents of questionable utility and interest. So no - I don't buy your arguments and neither do I care to engage in useless mudslinging... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 I have friends involved in Politics Mmmm, I love hearing this sentence... I have black friends, so I'm no racist!! AhhH!! pure joy when I hear that!! Sad thing is that, they don't realise that it proves nothing! Ditto for a degree!!! I mean, come now, it's way too easy to get a degree.. Anyway!!! back to the topic. What's the count at, Anonymouse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 Mmmm, I love hearing this sentence... I have black friends, so I'm no racist!! AhhH!! pure joy when I hear that!! Sad thing is that, they don't realise that it proves nothing! Ditto for a degree!!! I mean, come now, it's way too easy to get a degree.. Anyway!!! back to the topic. What's the count at, Anonymouse? What count are we talking about? My post count, or the number of times we have gone off topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 Ha ha!! I can see your post count, and I am fairly sure that the number of times we've gone offtopic is somewhere in between 1 million and 1 million, but I was talking about the count of the experiment LOL. Who votes for who. Remember what the thread was all about?! So do report the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 Well, because political systems are premised on that concept. When you vote, you are not voting just for yourself, you are voting for everyone else. In essence, you are voting to tell your neighbor what to do. That is the basic underlying premise of all political systems. Yes, OK I see that. It is not surprising - life is such. When there is lack of altruism and morality things fall apart regardless of the political system. I will expand on this in your democracy thread (I hope). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 Selfishness (opposite of altruism)? Politics? And never the twain shall meet!! Ahhh!!! The irony of it all!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 My example was not in anyway suggestive that everytime you vote for a socialistic candidate, that you will end up with a Hitler or Stalin protege. Not at all. My only point was that, voting for such a candidate, regardless, steers us towards more centralization, more authority, less liberty, and increased harping on the privacy and property rights of individuals. Maybe I misunderstood, I was expecting more meaning in this test. It maybe the case that the person who invented the test intentionally made the other candidate look almost like a gangster (well, not exactly but he seems to be a highly questionable candidate in my eyes) which is not likely to happen in reality. Yes, indeed the example is theoretical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 Anon I am rather surprised how not so elegantly ,dogmatically you maintain certain aloof position on democracy without having the patience to think and read through about the subject. I have read through the subject enough and this is why I am able to critique it because it has more flaws than monarchy. First off when we discus democracy ,we discuss democracy not some ideological “you assume” bs.I don’t assume anything! My statements are based in reality. Frankly I graduated the stage of brainstorming long time ego about thinking “outside of box” You're statements may be based on the reality of the situation that a "Democracy" supposedly exists, but rather your statements as to how people should act, that is based on an assumption, and highlights your thinking in terms of political systems, of telling people what to do. You assume that peoples' interests can only be solved via the voting process, which hasn't solved much. Has voting made the income tax disappear? You do know that the income tax is illegal and unconstitutional per what the framers have designed, don't you? Anon you want political anarchy,” free individual freedom” visit and live in Afghanistan. Perfect environment, people killing each other, robbing, raping as one whishes. Let us assume all the Afghanis are super geniuses and all are disgusted by democracy and all want to live the way they whish. Your assertion that Afghanistan has looting, violence and robbing as evidence against anarchy is twisted, for it is something made all the more remarkable by the fact that such behavior followed after heavy bombing and shelling of that country by forces of the American government. For the State to systematically create widespread destruction and disorder through its war machine, and to have that offered as evidence of the failure of anarchy, represents the kind of twisted reasoning we are taught to reside with. So in your “I am merely arguing against political systems” is hallow, shallow and without any base. Political “rigid” frameworks ,laws, exists precisely because I don’t trust your freedom nor your religious fanaticism. This is why governments exists!! So you are in other words saying that you do not trust me therefore you must have a State tell your neighbor how to live. Again you assume that it would be catastrophic for people to exercise complete control over their lives, but its quite alright for the State to enjoy the monopoly of such powers over all our lives, mind you that the State and political systems, through mass mindedness and collective thinking have caused the deaths of 200 million humans in the last century. How many have individuals, working without political affiliation, have killed? Again this is not an issue of violence or murder, such will always exist, the difference though are in degree, not in kind. Those of us such as you who insist upon the existence of the state in order to protect people from murderers, thieves, and rapists reflect a fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces and instead trusting vertically integrated systems that supposedly have control over events and the future, of course this is all made moot by the fact that all States and systems move towards disorder, and they fail in the job of protecting you from robbers, thieves, and rapists. Even in our everyday lives we do more to protect our life and property than the State does, we are the ones that buy guns for self defense, or locks for our doors. People are conditioned through institutions to fear their own autonomy,and to give the State the control to control their behavior. That is the way it goes, and that is why people hopelessly vote, as the psychologists would say, this is projection, since we are uncomfortable with the awareness that "who we are" with our darkside attributes is inconsistent with the virtuous qualities and "goodness" of how we have built ourselves to believe. That is why you are insistent on voting and on telling me and others what to do. Because we unconsciously believe that the way to free ourselves of these undesired negative qualities is to project them onto scapegoats, against whom we will take action. This is where the State comes in and mobilizes our fears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 Ha ha!! I can see your post count, and I am fairly sure that the number of times we've gone offtopic is somewhere in between 1 million and 1 million, but I was talking about the count of the experiment LOL. Who votes for who. Remember what the thread was all about?! So do report the results. 5 people have thus far voted for be, one more than A, if my counting process was accurate. Thus, it's a victory for Hitler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted February 15, 2004 Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 So, when do we start with the Jews? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 So, when do we start with the Jews? Well, let's ask some of these folks who voted for Hitler shall we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 15, 2004 Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 5 people have thus far voted for be, one more than A, if my counting process was accurate. Thus, it's a victory for Hitler. When I said that person B is not necessarily Hitler you said that's not your point. Now you are saying we voted for Hitler??? Is B Hitler or no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 When I said that person B is not necessarily Hitler you said that's not your point. Now you are saying we voted for Hitler??? Is B Hitler or no? Yes he is. For the purposes of the political though experiment he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 Do you see the problem Sasun? You didn't know it was Hitler did you? But do you see how you're vote contributed to it? Essentially my point, that when you vote ( and get someone like Hitler ), you are not only voting for yourself, you are voting for other people. I can understand a dictatorship that is acquired via force, but to simply vote and give the State the right to do what it does? That to me is the anamoly of the 20th century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 15, 2004 Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 If you read the descriptions carefully you will notice that both could technically be describing the same person. They don't contain any statements that would clearly indicate two different individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 If you read the descriptions carefully you will notice that both could technically be describing the same person. They don't contain any statements that would clearly indicate two different individuals. Well, if they are schizophrenic, maybe, but I doubt Hitler would fit candidate A's description judging by the fact that he was a vegetarian and he had a few million stormtroopers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 15, 2004 Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 Well, if they are schizophrenic, maybe, but I doubt Hitler would fit candidate A's description judging by the fact that he was a vegetarian and he had a few million stormtroopers. You keep reliving your Hitler fantasy but there is no mention of vegeterianism nor storm troopers in description B. B seems to be in favor of "promotion of whole-grain bread and soybeans" which by itself does not imply vegetarianism. As a matter of fact, candidate A may be a vegeterian just as much as candidate B might be. I think what you are proving with this experiment is how much people tend to read more into a description than what is actually being said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.