My blog has already mentioned that only one political ideology espouses more correct theories than the other does, based on the evidence. I won't say which yet. If you read my posts, it will become clear.
What isn't as clear, to most people, is that by advocating a certain political ideology they are actually wasting their life. Many people espouse the same, incorrect political views for dozens of years...and in every single year they are literally wasting their life, promoting an ideology that is either not the most helpful one out there, or an ideology that is just plain damaging to society!
You often hear regret regarding time spent on relationships eventually gone bad, time wasted in line only to have the ABM machine run out of money when it's their turn, money wasted on clothes that don't fit and can't be returned.
Yet you rarely hear regret regarding dozens of years wasted promoting and voting for political theories that are incorrect! It is true that many people don't realize how illogical their own views are; I am to assist them with that understanding.
One might, however, argue that taking policy action based on incorrect views help expose the strength of the correct views, by contrast. Unfortunately, there is usually no need to enact policies to determine which of two imposing views is correct. That can be determined simply by logic.
Imagine how much harm one is doing to society by voting for a political party that is harming society. In that situation, one is actually assisting in harming their own society (and usually themself) by voting!
Imagine this scenario: For a very long time you date someone as part of what you are led to believe is a very serious relationship, then are suddenly dumped. You find out you were being used all along. Using you for money, sex, or simply a casual relationship. Would you feel like you had been screwed? Like you had wasted time?
Now, imagine the feeling when someone spends years, decades, believing and promoting beliefs, only to find out one day they are not only illogical, but harmful to society!
It's a quite sad state of affairs.
You are so full of yourself it's pathetic.
ReplyDeleteYeah, you seriously are misguided.
ReplyDeleteI do not care how logical you may or may not fancy yourself to be, but simply being able to say that the other side is wrong, harmful to society, and a waste of a life, is damn foolish.
If you truly think people would spend a lifetime devoted to ideals that can be "proven" to be "stupid" your heads in a hole my friend.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletewhat a strange response.
So, you feel that if someone spends decades advocating views that can be shown to be harmful to society (or shown to be less ideal than opposing views)...you feel that it's not foolish and a waste for them to spend their time on this?
If you don't think that's a waste, what DO you consider to be a waste?
The point is that people often advocate views they WANT to advocate.
Many people aren't intelligent enough to notice that the evidence actually does favor opposing views over their views.
There is no "intelligent" solution to a political problem. Many sides may agree on the ends but not the means--eg advocating peace through escalation and victory, or disengagement and surrender--
ReplyDeleteYou should be intelligent enough to realize that human behavior, unlike robots and molecules is not subject to easy measurement--You cant measure and weigh (ie quantify) and net out "harmful" and "helpful" outcomes to get an ideal outcome.
For example politically some may see justice as requiring not only equality of opportunity but equality of result. But if there are shirkers in this system who are disincentivized to produce at their ideal rate, who determines this, what is their punishment, and who oversees the over-seers?
So, it is all a matter of OPINION, there being no "objective" "best" or "true" philosophy. In the 1960's, one third of world's population believed that "scientific socialism" based on "scientific evidence", was the best system.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou are incorrect about your claim that it is all a matter of opinion, that you can't measure certain outcomes.
I show this within the thread of the article I wrote about Racial Hyphenation.
Your argument is without a coherent thesis, and therefore is ambiguous. To argue with a person who doesn't have main idea is futile.
ReplyDeleteReader 94,
ReplyDeletewhat do you find incoherent about this paragraph?
"What isn't as clear, to most people, is that by advocating a certain political ideology they are actually wasting their life. Many people espouse the same, incorrect political views for dozens of years...and in every single year they are literally wasting their life, promoting an ideology that is either not the most helpful one out there, or an ideology that is just plain damaging to society!"
Your argument contains one essential flaw; There's no such thing as an illogical political opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhat's best for society is simply the sum of what's best for each of its individual members.
You replied to an earlier poster by saying:
"...you are incorrect about your claim that it is all a matter of opinion, that you can't measure certain outcomes."
By referring to your article on racial hyphenation, it is apparent that you believe that the way to decide which beliefs are most rational is to collate the evidence from each individual; i.e. measuring the outcomes.
One can do this in the political sphere by polling each individual as to which political creed best meets their needs, and then aggregating the results. And yet in the political sphere there already exists such a mechanism - it's called voting.
With this in mind, it therefore becomes apparent that it is illogical to vote from any any motive other than your own self interest, since it is the aggregate of all such votes that shows what is best for society as a whole.
Then, following on from this, it follows that political affiliation is never illogical.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou write:
"Your argument contains one essential flaw; There's no such thing as an illogical political opinion."
If there's no such thing as an illogical political opinion, then that would mean every political opinion is equal, would it not?
And if they weren't all equal, then one position would be either more or less logical then the next, since they aren't equal.
You write:
"By referring to your article on racial hyphenation, it is apparent that you believe that the way to decide which beliefs are most rational is to collate the evidence from each individual; i.e. measuring the outcomes."
I actually don't believe this should be the case in all cases, and I didn't claim it should be.
It makes sense to ask individuals (rather than experts) for their views only when the topic seems to be so subjective that experts cannot define them themselves. For example, if you wanted to define the word "amazing", I would suggest you poll people to determine how different people would define it.
Therefore, because I don't believe you should be polling people in many, if not most, instances, the rest of your argument crumbles.
But even IF I did believe in polling all people, voting would still not be the most logical mechanism for people to express what's best for their self interest, because many if not most people aren't capable of analysing the available information well enough in order to determine WHICH politician would best serve their interests.
Yes, each political position is equal, provided that they are coherent. A political theory is just that: theory. It is only when applied to a human situation that any one ideology can be said to be preferable to another. But, what is logical for you may not be logical for me.
ReplyDelete"voting would still not be the most logical mechanism for people to express what's best for their self interest"
The fact is, that there is no more appropriate way to identify what is in each person's best interest than to ask them. No expert, knowing nothing of my personal circumstances, tastes and opinions can offer me a more thorough understanding of what course of action would better serve my interests than I myself could provide.
As for using polling to define the word 'amazing'; The word 'amazing' has a definition - polling would only show you how many people understand that definition.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou write:
"Yes, each political position is equal, provided that they are coherent. "
So, you believe that the costs/benefits of gun control equal the costs/benefit ratio of no gun control? That's absurd. You believe that the costs/benefits of abortion equal the costs/benefits of no abortion? Absurd.
You write:
"The fact is, that there is no more appropriate way to identify what is in each person's best interest than to ask them. No expert, knowing nothing of my personal circumstances, tastes and opinions can offer me a more thorough understanding of what course of action would better serve my interests than I myself could provide."
That's absurd. You can't simply ask them, because they aren't all educated about the topic to be able to make an educated judgement; and even then many people aren't capable of analysing the information well enough in order to make the best judgment. If people WERE able to make the best judgment when information was available, you'd see far less crime in the world, better financial choices, people buying cars that use better gas mileage, etc.
You write:
"The word 'amazing' has a definition - polling would only show you how many people understand that definition. "
It does have a definition, and I bet that definition refers to another word that some might consider subjective, such as "astounding". With somewhat subjective words like that, in order to determine the difference between a typical person's definition of "astounding" and "amazing", you could poll them.
You cannot tell me that the definition of "amazing" is as clear as the definition of the word "up" would be. You would see far greater consensus on the definition of the latter.
"So, you believe that the costs/benefits of gun control equal the costs/benefit ratio of no gun control? That's absurd. You believe that the costs/benefits of abortion equal the costs/benefits of no abortion? Absurd."
ReplyDeleteNo - I'm talking about an overall political creed, for example liberalism or conservativism, rather than individual policies. These incorporate a multitude of individual policies, which each mean different things to different people. That said, I'd be fascinated to see where you stand on gun control.
"That's absurd. You can't simply ask them, because they aren't all educated about the topic to be able to make an educated judgement; and even then many people aren't capable of analysing the information well enough"
This point worries me when the 'topic' in question is each individual's best interest. People's choices are founded on those criteria that are most important to them. Those choices are not wrong simply because you don't agree with them.
You seem to see yourself as a super-being whose guidance is required by 'inferior' people, in order to prevent them harming themselves. I would suggest you are a pathological narcissist.
As an aside, there's no such thing as a subjective words. Their definitions are absolute. There is only understanding and misunderstanding. Polling doesn't help you to define a word. You need a dictionary for that.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHere was the exchange:
START
"Yes, each political position is equal, provided that they are coherent. "
"So, you believe that the costs/benefits of gun control equal the costs/benefit ratio of no gun control? That's absurd. You believe that the costs/benefits of abortion equal the costs/benefits of no abortion? Absurd."
No - I'm talking about an overall political creed, for example liberalism or conservativism, rather than individual policies. These incorporate a multitude of individual policies, which each mean different things to different people. That said, I'd be fascinated to see where you stand on gun control."
END
I find it hard to believe that you were referring to overall political creed, and not individual policies, given that you yourself referred to "coherent" "political positions" when you wrote:
"Yes, each political position is equal, provided that they are coherent. "
But let me assume, for arguments sake, that you were indeed referring to liberalism and conservatism OVERALL.
There is still no reason to believe that the two are equal, unless they are DEFINED equally, which is obviously not the case!
I would be interested in hearing you argue as to why you believe the two are equal, given that they have different definitions.
And one other thing: In a practical sense, how could you NOT define conservatism and liberalism by referring to the individual positions that tend to be categorized within each creed? (ie gun control within liberalism etc).
By the way, you asked my thoughts about gun control. Now don't hold me to this, because I'm just spewing some unresearched thoughts quickly, outside the context of this "outsmart me" contest. I would probably lean towards favoring gun control, but ONLY if you could guarantee (or make it extremely likely) that the government and criminals weren't able to have weapons (which is perhaps not feasible, if you want to have a protective army!!)
Why do I say this? Because if you want a world without guns (which is perhaps admirable), that may only work if you can guarantee it of EVERYONE. If the public has no weapons, how can they defend themselves against a corrupt government that DOES have weapons, if that government tries to take over? There would be no defense!
Back to our debate. Here was an exchange:
START
"That's absurd. You can't simply ask them, because they aren't all educated about the topic to be able to make an educated judgement; and even then many people aren't capable of analysing the information well enough"
This point worries me when the 'topic' in question is each individual's best interest. People's choices are founded on those criteria that are most important to them. Those choices are not wrong simply because you don't agree with them.
END
Does it really worry you? Really? Perhaps I am starting to understand liberal thought better. I still find it to be irrational. You write:
"People's choices are founded on those criteria that are most important to them. "
That is not true. People's choices can only be based on the information they are AWARE of (education, etc), and based on their ABILITY to recall and make sense of that information (memory and intelligence).
You write:
ReplyDelete"You seem to see yourself as a super-being whose guidance is required by 'inferior' people, in order to prevent them harming themselves. I would suggest you are a pathological narcissist."
First of all, I never used the word inferior, so that's not fair to say at all!! And in fact, many of the people who aren't intelligent as me would be more successful than I in areas other than intellect.
What did I say that made you think I seemed to feel I was superior? That I may be a narcissist? I've been trying to stick mostly to using logic, after all! Is it narcissistic to use logic?
I simply have an ability to analyse information unbelievably well...much better than "geniuses" that have, for example, a 140 or 150 IQ. Perhaps even better than people with 170 or 180 IQs.
Why WOULDN'T one want to share this information with everyone, to make life better for everyone? Otherwise it's a waste!
You write:
"As an aside, there's no such thing as a subjective words. Their definitions are absolute. There is only understanding and misunderstanding. Polling doesn't help you to define a word. You need a dictionary for that. "
There are two problems with your argument:
1) First, people might not tend to use the dictionary definition of each word when communication in speech or writing. This is certainly the case given that different dictionaries have different definitions, even if slightly different. And ultimately it comes down to the MEANING of the definitions used when communicating.
2)But the main problem is this:
First, I claimed that the word "up" is more clear to people than the word "amazing" is. You didn't show this to be untrue. Even though you referred to dictionaries, you still didn't show my claim to be untrue.
Any poll would show people define "up" almost universally one way, while people would vary as to how they describe "amazing". Some might use the word "astounding", others "brilliant", etc.
You claim that words aren't subjective (meaning you can simply look at the dictionary). I've already argued that "amazing" IS subjective, because people would define it differently, because people wouldn't all use the dictionary definitions (and different dictionaries would use different definitions anyway! A CRUCIAL error with your logic).
But what IF people simply referred to the dictionary to define more subjective words?
If one were to look up "amazing", I bet it would then be defined by OTHER subjective words such as "astounding"...and one would then have to look up the definition of "astounding" in the dictionary! You could end up having to look up many different words just to determine the definition of one word! It's not practical that people have the dictionary definitions of each successive chain of words memorized for ALL dictionaries.
Ha ha! I love the juxtaposition of these two gems...
ReplyDelete"What did I say that made you think I seemed to feel I was superior? That I may be a narcissist?"
"I simply have an ability to analyse information unbelievably well...much better than "geniuses" that have, for example, a 140 or 150 IQ. Perhaps even better than people with 170 or 180 IQs. Why WOULDN'T one want to share this information with everyone, to make life better for everyone?"
Incidentally, how do you reconcile your love of American democracy with a belief that it should be scrapped? Surely that's more un-American than anything Obama has ever suggested?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletethis is what was actually written:
"What did I say that made you think I seemed to feel I was superior? That I may be a narcissist? I've been trying to stick mostly to using logic, after all! Is it narcissistic to use logic?
I simply have an ability to analyse information unbelievably well...much better than "geniuses" that have, for example, a 140 or 150 IQ. Perhaps even better than people with 170 or 180 IQs."
Do you disagree with that? If not, why did you both to highlight them?
You write:
"Incidentally, how do you reconcile your love of American democracy with a belief that it should be scrapped? Surely that's more un-American than anything Obama has ever suggested? "
I don't recall saying I believed it should be scrapped. I did say that one should consider scrapping it, however.
It's bizarre of you to suggest that getting rid of democracy is un-American! Completely bizarre. How could something be un-American if it improves the lives of Americans overall? lol
But if you define it as simply as that, how can you attack Obama as un-American/ anti-American?
ReplyDeleteIs it really so bizarre to say that getting rid of democracy is un-American? Given that the House Un-American Activities Committee was set up to protect the form of government guaranteed by the American constitution, I'd suggest not. And certainly Abraham Lincoln would agree with me.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou need to be clearer about what you write.
You write:
"But if you define it as simply as that, how can you attack Obama as un-American/ anti-American?"
If I define WHAT as THAT?
If you are referring to the idea that something that improves the lives of Americans is pro-American, then it's EASY to attack Obama-many of his policies are destructive to America. But that's not the point of this discussion, you are trying to expand the discussion, I suppose.
You initially wrote:
"...your love of American democracy with a belief that it should be scrapped? Surely that's more un-American"
then you wrote:
"Is it really so bizarre to say that getting rid of democracy is un-American?"
You just contradicted yourself. You said that scrapping democracy is more un-American than Obama's suggestions, but then you go on to imply that it really ISN'T unAmerican to get rid of democracy. LOL
Why did you contradict yourself?
And why did you ignore the following questions/points of mine?
1)"What did I say that made you think I seemed to feel I was superior? That I may be a narcissist? I've been trying to stick mostly to using logic, after all! Is it narcissistic to use logic?"
2)"Do you disagree with that? If not, why did you both to highlight them?"
3)"I don't recall saying I believed it should be scrapped. I did say that one should consider scrapping it, however."
4)"How could something be un-American if it improves the lives of Americans overall? lol "
For the latter you simply asked if it really WAS bizarre...(in contradiction to your previous point, too)...yet you offered no logic to support it, simply the existence of a Committee etc., which does not imply that there is foolproof logic behind it at all.
Those two quotes of mine are completely consistent. Both say that getting rid of democracy is un-American.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your other points.
1)"What did I say that made you think I seemed to feel I was superior? That I may be a narcissist? I've been trying to stick mostly to using logic, after all! Is it narcissistic to use logic?"
Hmmm... where to start? How about here: "I simply have an ability to analyse information unbelievably well...much better than 'geniuses'" If you'd like more examples, they shouldn't be too hard to find.
2)"Do you disagree with that? If not, why did you both to highlight them?"
I highlighted them to make the point above. That you claim not to make statements about your superiority, and then do exactly that in the next paragraph.
3)"I don't recall saying I believed it should be scrapped. I did say that one should consider scrapping it, however."
You advocated a position of limiting the vote to only those people who meet particular criteria of intelligence. That doesn't fit with American democracy.
4)"How could something be un-American if it improves the lives of Americans overall? lol "
Use of 'lol' aside, this could be a fairly valid point. However 'America' is a concept existing outside of national considerations. It is tied to the notion of representative democracy. As such, to replace it with your preferred political system would essentially be to replace America with something new.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete0)You write:
"Those two quotes of mine are completely consistent. Both say that getting rid of democracy is un-American."
The two quotes of yours were:
A) "...your love of American democracy with a belief that it should be scrapped? Surely that's more un-American"
AND
B) "Is it really so bizarre to say that getting rid of democracy is un-American?"
So, in quote B, you specifically imply that it's NOT un-American to get rid of democracy.
Then you write:
"Both say that getting rid of democracy is un-American."
Do you have trouble understanding sentences written by others? I'm not joking. Do you have trouble following logical sequences, and do you have problems with lying?
1)You suggest that the following comment of mine suggests narcissism:
"I simply have an ability to analyse information unbelievably well...much better than 'geniuses'"
Are you stupid?
The comment I made was made in a context which couldn't imply narcissism at all..in fact, it was made in response to a direct suggestion of NARCISSISM!
How could an honest answer imply narcissism?
"What did I say that made you think I seemed to feel I was superior? That I may be a narcissist? I've been trying to stick mostly to using logic, after all! Is it narcissistic to use logic?
I simply have an ability to analyse information unbelievably well...much better than "geniuses" that have, for example, a 140 or 150 IQ. Perhaps even better than people with 170 or 180 IQs."
2) You didn't answer the question. Do you think it's narcissistic to use logic?
3) You write:
"You advocated a position of limiting the vote to only those people who meet particular criteria of intelligence. That doesn't fit with American democracy."
You are lying. I said that my position should be CONSIDERED, NOT IMPLEMENTED.
4) I wrote:
"How could something be un-American if it improves the lives of Americans overall? lol "
You then responded:
"Use of 'lol' aside, this could be a fairly valid point. However 'America' is a concept existing outside of national considerations. It is tied to the notion of representative democracy. As such, to replace it with your preferred political system would essentially be to replace America with something new. "
What a bunch of liberal cult-like illogic. You really ARE stupid.
The definition of something being un-American is what most people would consider it to be, what's obvious (unless it was defined otherwise, which it wasn't).
In fact, you specifically defined it as such, when you referred to the House Un-American Activities Committee!
And it's clear what "Americans" refers to. Do YOU know what an American is?
Due to your refusal to respond to all points, and also due to your lie in point 0 above, I am banning you from posting in this thread.