Presidential Election: 2012

[Biggles]

Danoff: What you have done is the equivalent of observing an argument between a scientist who thinks the universe is filled with ether and a scientist who believes the universe is not, and subsequently announcing "clearly there is no one answer to what the universe is filled with, it depends on who you ask".

Not at all. I'm saying until some scientist comes up with an objectively verifiable, indisputable answer to the question I'm going to regard the question as unsolved. In science, even when the question appears to be convincingly solved, new discoveries often lead to the answers being modified or even completely changed later.

There have been over 2500 years of recorded philosophical inquiry. All the great philosophers constructed "logical" arguments - philosophical inquiry, like science, continues to ask new questions & come up with new answers. Why would you believe that in philosophy, unlike in science, we've suddenly arrived at the perfect answer to everything concerning the human condition?

Famine: If you start from a single thing and use logic you will arrive at a single result.

We've already established this this is not true. It's not true in general & in particular, we've already seen how people have arrived at a wide range of different conclusions starting from Lockian ideas.

Famine: However, where does one start applying logic? If you start from a principle, how did you arrive at that principle? Was it through logic or not? If not, your foundation is not logical and using logic will arrive at a logical (in that context), but flawed and illogical conclusion. If so, you can logically regress all the way to the first truth - a single thing that logically leads to further single principles and answers.

Says who? What is this "first truth" of which you speak? How did you arrive at that principle? I hope not in the same way you arrived at the conclusion that philosophical disagreements are just like 4th graders making mistakes in basic math. Perhaps you read it in the Great Big Book of First Truths?

 

[Famine]

We've already established this this is not true. It's not true in general & in particular, we've already seen how people have arrived at a wide range of different conclusions starting from Lockian ideas.

Each conclusion is based on logical progression from an earlier one.

Says who?

Logic.

What is this "first truth" of which you speak?

The only thing you can know to be true.

How did you arrive at that principle?

However, where does one start applying logic? If you start from a principle, how did you arrive at that principle? Was it through logic or not? If not, your foundation is not logical and using logic will arrive at a logical (in that context), but flawed and illogical conclusion. If so, you can logically regress all the way to the first truth - a single thing that logically leads to further single principles and answers.

I hope not in the same way you arrived at the conclusion that philosophical disagreements are just like 4th graders making mistakes in basic math. Perhaps you read it in the Great Big Book of First Truths?

That'd be a short book if there's only one. Perhaps you should stick to other forums if discussing things like an adult isn't your thing.

 

[Danoff]

Not at all. I'm saying until some scientist comes up with an objectively verifiable, indisputable answer to the question I'm going to regard the question as unsolved.

That's fine, you can wait for consensus. In the meantime, don't claim that lack of consensus means something it doesn't.

 

[arora]

While I disagree with Biggles on most counts I'd like to say.....

There have been over 2500 years of recorded philosophical inquiry. All the great philosophers constructed "logical" arguments - philosophical inquiry, like science, continues to ask new questions & come up with new answers. Why would you believe that in philosophy, unlike in science, we've suddenly arrived at the perfect answer to everything concerning the human condition?

This; I would hate to see the day the human condition is neatly wrapped up in a box with a pretty bow of reason.

As for the primary race, Santorum is gaining momentum 👎

 

[Dennisch]

As this race is actually going nowhere, is it safe to say that it will be Obama for another 4 years?

Unless Ron Paul has a trick up his sleeve.

 

[Sam48]

As for the primary race, Santorum is gaining momentum 👎

That's actually a good thing because we know Santorum obviously isn't persuading Paul voters. He's persuading Romney voters. Therefore, if Romney and Santorum begin splitting the vote, Paul will automatically start hauling in a greater percentage of the vote.

 

[arora]

Yeah, I thought of that as well, the problem being we don't need splits atm, we need a strong front runner now. I get it though, tbh..............

meh, where did I misplace my duvel again? bah(tired of it, I'm going to concentrate on local state stuff for a while I think)

👍

 

[disinfected]

As this race is actually going nowhere, is it safe to say that it will be Obama for another 4 years?

Unless Ron Paul has a trick up his sleeve.

It's safe to say he's going to win anyhow, as much as I hate to admit it. There are still too many people out there who are clueless about issues who are still going to ride Obama's popularity vote from last time.



...I hear Canada is nice.

 

[Biggles]

arora: While I disagree with Biggles on most counts I'd like to say.....

If you agree with me on this, you agree on the single principal thing I'm trying to say. Being convinced that you know the "First Truth", & "Everything Else" because everything else follows logically from that first truth is a mental straitjacket of the worst sort. It's just like a religion: all Danoff & Famine are doing are substituting political dogma for religious dogma. It's richly ironic that it all purports to be in the cause of "freedom".

That's fine, you can wait for consensus. In the meantime, don't claim that lack of consensus means something it doesn't.

Lack of consensus means ... lack of consensus. What is it you think I'm "claiming" it means? Examples of consensus?

There is a consensus among scientist that evolution over billions of years accounts for the diversity of life forms on planet earth. There are other people that continue to believe that God created all life forms in six days & the earth is only about six thousand years old.

There is a consensus among contemporary philosophers of logic that a concept like "First Truth" cannot properly be discussed in terms of logic & belongs in the realm of metaphysics. There are other people like Famine who believe that a concept like "First Truth" is:

The only thing you can know to be true.

(my emphasis)

and presumably, at some point, he is going to explain to us what that actually means ...

 

[Famine]

Being convinced that you know the "First Truth", & "Everything Else"

I very much didn't say that. In fact I said the opposite. I pointed out that we are all your math-problem fourth-graders and the reason we have so many different answers for everything is because we misapply logic, or apply it correctly to earlier principles established through misapplication of it.

That was the foundation of your rejection of Libertarianism as logical thinking - people disagree so it can't be logical. I pointed out that people disagree on things that are wholly logical and you missed the point entirely by demonstrating that you'd have to be stupid to get a problem like 28/4 wrong - which is pretty much exactly the point. So long as the problems remain as simple as 28/4, just about everyone can solve it correctly with logic - but math can get quite a lot more complicated than that and as we get more intelligent in the field we can solve more complex problems. However, not all math is solved yet, despite it being wholly logical.


But you continue to believe I'm saying whatever you want to believe I'm saying.

It's just like a religion: all Danoff & Famine are doing are substituting political dogma for religious dogma.

Not really, since belief isn't involved.

It's richly ironic that it all purports to be in the cause of "freedom".

Not particularly, given that "it" demonstrably preserves freedoms without denying any.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

That's actually a good thing because we know Santorum obviously isn't persuading Paul voters. He's persuading Romney voters. Therefore, if Romney and Santorum begin splitting the vote, Paul will automatically start hauling in a greater percentage of the vote.

I like posts that are on topic.

If I understood correctly they are trying to win 1,144 delegates, to be certain to become the republican candidate.
From here I get:

Romney, W = estimated 180 Delegates
Santorum, R = estimated 46 Delegates
Gingrich, N = estimated 71 Delegates
Paul, R = estimated 44 Delegates

it seem way to early to come to any conclusion, but there are trends.

 

[Famine]

I like posts that are on topic.

If I understood correctly they are trying to win 1,144 delegates, to be certain to become the republican candidate.
From here I get:

Romney, W = estimated 180 Delegates
Santorum, R = estimated 46 Delegates
Gingrich, N = estimated 71 Delegates
Paul, R = estimated 44 Delegates

it seem way to early to come to any conclusion, but there are trends.

The problem is that only primary States can have accurate delegate counts - either through a proportional number of the popular vote (open primary) or through winner-takes-all (closed primary). Caucus States have no accurate delegate counts at present, due to reasons I stated earlier - and the Paul campaign seems to think they have the majority of delegates from Nevada, despite finishing third in that state...

 

[Danoff]

Lack of consensus means ... lack of consensus.

Good. Keep it like that. Don't reach to saying lack of consensus means there is no answer. That's always wrong.

 

[Dapper]

all principles regressed with logic = first truth.

That is untrue and you have no way of proving it besides subjective thought... meaning you are only right in your reality.

Nope. I simply posit questions with it and you, as ever, decline to answer. We know why.

Unbelievable (not really):

If you start from a single thing and use logic you will arrive at a single result.

That is a big 'If' because you haven't shown anything you think, or any of your applications of logic, starts at a "single thing" and you won't be able to because subjective stuff is subjective.

You generate noise.

Are you on something? Unless it is something wiki can easily prove, everything you say is wrong. You think laws are subjective because they are mutable, but a table can mutate into a piece of wood and never leave the objective state. That is a synopsis of how you think. It is blatantly clear what you are saying makes no sense (for instance, that something is subjective becasue it can change, ie a law) yet you actually believe you are right. That is noise. And you copy/paste your opinion/noise until you get the last post.

 

[Famine]

That is untrue and you have no way of proving it besides subjective thought... meaning you are only right in your reality.

To disprove logic, use logic. Repeatedly whining "wrong" , "wrong", "wrong", "wrong", misquoting people (or editing their words to say completely different things) and redefining language isn't using logic to disprove logic. It's just obfuscation. Or noise.

Unless it is something wiki can easily prove

That explains a lot.

That is a synopsis of how you think.

You have already proven your inability to reason and articulate your own thoughts, multiple times. You should not presume to be able to reason and articulate mine.

I'm happy to be wrong. It means I can think about things in a new way. It's good to be wrong every day - that way you keep learning. However, to demonstrate that logic is wrong, you need to use logic. You've been invited to do this by multiple members on multiple occasions in multiple threads, but every time you sidestep it, ignore it or just go on some banal offensive. Danoff, on the other hand, manages it almost every post he makes and it's enlightening to watch him, Foolkiller, Duke, Keef and Omnis talking about conflicting details on something on which they broadly agree - challenging logic with logic. Especially compared to the GTPlanet's Axis of Drivel.

So long as you're not interested in the ball, I'm not interested in your game.

 

[Danoff]

Dapper, you bounce away from trolldum for just long to get people paying attention and then you have obvious troll posts like that one. Seriously... you're just trying to rile things up for the sake of doing so right?

 

[Keef]

 

[Liquid]

I liked this one.

 

[Biggles]

Famine: I pointed out that we are all your math-problem fourth-graders and the reason we have so many different answers for everything is because we misapply logic, or apply it correctly to earlier principles established through misapplication of it.

That was the foundation of your rejection of Libertarianism as logical thinking - people disagree so it can't be logical.

Absolutely NOT. I have never said libertarianism is "illogical" & furthermore, I am NOT saying it is illogical because libertarians disagree on aspects of it. What I am objecting to is not libertarianism or the fact that it leads to differing conclusions. What I have a problem with is YOUR (& Danoff's) pretense that there is only ONE possible logical answer because each conclusion is based on a logical progression from an earlier one.

Famine: If you start from a single thing and use logic you will arrive at a single result.

You keep saying this but it's simply not true.

To illustrate this you use the inappropriate analogy of a simple math problem. According to you, people who arrive at varying conclusions are like 4th graders getting the calculation wrong, that somehow their logic must be faulty. However, we are NOT like 4th graders "getting the problem wrong" - we are reasoning adults using the the information available & arriving at different conclusions. It’s called FREEDOM OF THOUGHT! The idea that libertarian ideas are the ONLY logical way of looking at the world in 2500 years of philosophical thinking is ridiculous.

If you must use a mathematical analogy to satisfy your desire for "logic", try this one: life isn’t like a math problem with a series of linear calculations leading to only one possible answer, it’s like a chess game – it has a logical structure but it has many possible outcomes. Insisting on only one possible legitimate outcome isn't an indication of logical thinking, it's just a freedom crushing, ideologically blinkered straitjacket. People who disagree with you are not stupid, or illogical, or misinformed - THEY JUST DISAGREE WITH YOU!

 

[Zenith]

You're using "logic" too broadly and confusing it with reason. Logic is a system. This therefore that. People may use reason to arrive at different conclusions because reason can be subjective. Using logic will always have one arrive at the same conclusion, just like the math problem.

 

[Famine]

Absolutely NOT. I have never said libertarianism is "illogical"

Okay, not illogical. Not sure why the quotes are required.

I am NOT saying it is illogical because libertarians disagree on aspects of it.

Okay, not illogical. I mean, it looked quite like you were saying both of these things in this post:

What IS wrong is to think there is anything so precisely logical about libertarian philosophy that it rises to the level of “mathematics” & therefore cannot be argued about or disagreed with.

But now you seem to be saying libertarian philosophy is logical (or at least isn't illogical - which logic would suggest means that it is logical; that would usually be a logical fallacy, but since we're dealing only with 0 and 1, "not 0" = 1*). I'd say that "ultimately logical, despite possibility for dispute" is a good description of math, but it appears you wouldn't. I think.

What I am objecting to is not libertarianism or the fact that it leads to differing conclusions. What I have a problem with is YOUR (& Danoff's) pretense that there is only ONE possible logical answer because each conclusion is based on a logical progression from an earlier one.

You keep saying this but it's simply not true.

To illustrate this you use the inappropriate analogy of a simple math problem. According to you, people who arrive at varying conclusions are like 4th graders getting the calculation wrong, that somehow their logic must be faulty. However, we are NOT like 4th graders "getting the problem wrong" - we are reasoning adults using the the information available & arriving at different conclusions. It’s called FREEDOM OF THOUGHT! The idea that libertarian ideas are the ONLY logical way of looking at the world in 2500 years of philosophical thinking is ridiculous.

Why does thought have to be logical? Why does freedom of thought (fun fact: preserved under libertarian principles) even enter a discussion about what is right, what is wrong and what the role of government is in distinguishing between the two and enforcing the distinction accordingly - except as something that is right and must be preserved?

Your comparison seems to be one of arrogance. Your math-problem 4th grader doesn't know enough about math to apply its principles to problems accurately and thus despite a single logical right answer for each problem he will arrive at a wrong answer in the firm conviction that it is the right one. We may be "reasoning adults", but in the field of thought (which I'd propose is somewhat older than a mere 2,500 years) we don't know enough to apply principles to problems accurately and thus despite a single logical right answer for each problem we will arrive at a wrong answer in the firm conviction that it is the right one.

As we learn more and are better able to hone our abilities, we will apply principles better and arrive at the right answer appropriately more often. In the meantime, a majority of "reasoning adults" take some time out of their daily lives to sing about how a dude was nailed to a tree for saying how nice it would be to be nice to each other more (but that it's okay to hate gays), or to prostrate themselves according the magnetic field of the planet, or something similar. Reasoning adults just 10% of your 2,500 years of philosophy ago thought it was reasonable to kidnap and sell black people or to electrocute and mutilate homosexuals. Reasoning adults today still think it is reasonable to beat, subjugate and treat by different, oppressive rules other adults with different shaped genitalia to their own.

To think we're more advanced in philosophy, merely because we have hairy parts, than a 4th grader is at math is arrogance. More to the point, where philosophies contradict you end up with your fabled "lack of consensus" - but that's what you get when you rely on subjective ideas.

If you must use a mathematical analogy to satisfy your desire for "logic", try this one: life isn’t like a math problem with a series of linear calculations leading to only one possible answer, it’s like a chess game – it has a logical structure but it has many possible outcomes.

A poor example, given that chess is subjective, man-made and bound by its own subjectively-established rules. Moving the knight from this square to that square would appear to be a logical outcome, based on knowing how a knight moves, but you cannot establish how a knight moves using logic - it's merely stated as a rule (the rule itself is objective - a knight moves like this).

Math is, of course, independent of the mathematician - as logic is of the mind.

Insisting on only one possible legitimate outcome isn't an indication of logical thinking, it's just a freedom crushing, ideologically blinkered straitjacket.

Which just happens to preserve all other (real) freedoms.

Incidentally, if disagreements still occur, what freedom has been crushed, what ideological blinkers have been applied and what straitjacket binds us?

People who disagree with you are not stupid, or illogical, or misinformed - THEY JUST DISAGREE WITH YOU!

I have never said libertarianism is "illogical"

Logic dictates that which is not illogical is logical (see *) and that disagreement with that which is logical is illogical. It might be suggested that if mankind were capable of perfect application of logic, those who disagree with logical principles are misinformed (perfect application of logic to poor information results in an inaccurate conclusion). "Stupid" is your own term and it would seem rather unhelpful.


All this aside, it'd be fun to put first principles into a computer, ask it to come up with logical codification of rights and compare it to all known legislations and philosophies. I suspect the result would be Skynet or the computerised equivalent of self-immolation, but if it did come up with an answer, it'd be instructive. Which do you think would be the most and least logical legislations and philosophies?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Unless it is something wiki can easily prove, everything you say is wrong.

A wiki is no a proof, I do believe all can agree on that one.

You think laws are subjective because they are mutable,

Almost there, laws are not rights because they are mutable. A right is something you can defend, if the basis of you defense "the right" can be changed, you can not defend it anymore, so it would be illogical that a right can change.
A right out of a law is something you can defend, if the basis of your defense "the law" can be changed, you can not defend it anymore. You still have a right to defend events that fell under the old law according to that law, but under the new law you have different rights. Since the laws change, they become subjective (an interpretation), you right to defend on basis of the law applicable at the time of the events always remains (objective).

That does not mean laws are not trying to describe the objective rights + a lot of other subjective things. The latter makes them subjective, since they have elements that go beyond and above the objective rights.

The existence of the law is objective. I can objectively say subjective statements exists. It does not make the subjective statements more objective.

Now use logic an not wikis to prove things and we can advance.

but a table can mutate into a piece of wood and never leave the objective state.

You are addressing the wrong issue here, the wood is always wood (objective) in the example, the subjective is that we call some bits of wood a table and other bits of wood not. Objectively you can say this bit of wood is formed according to the definition of a table, that bit of wood is not according to the definition. It does not make the definition of a table more objective.

So show where the definition of "right as something defendable" is subjective, and I will start to find some sense in what you say.
It is clear that a law is only defendable if it represents rights correctly.
You can accept law that is not defendable as well though, but it should be your choice = an agreement.

 

[Rich S]

Wow, Romney's a chick magnet. Santorum is on even keel, but Romney clearly has the better shot at winning the presidency. Sad woman still vote on looks. Especially Republican woman. OK, that's my opinion.

 

[Famine]

You're telling me that women don't swoon for the avuncular Munch that is Ron Paul?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Wow, Romney's a chick magnet. Santorum is on even keel, but Romney clearly has the better shot at winning the presidency. Sad woman still vote on looks. Especially Republican woman. OK, that's my opinion.

From an assumption that there are about 60% female voters, Romney and Santorum would have 30% each.

1) or it is sad that woman do not turn up to vote as much as men
2) or women are voting differently then assumed above.

 

[Rich S]

Well maybe Romney isn't "pimpin'" but he's seems to have a one up on Santorum when it comes to the females.

http://thehill.com/component/conten...female-voters-could-be-a-problem-for-santorum

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I hear that dentures just slide right out of the older women voting crowd any time the name Romney is mentioned

 

[Tesla]

Ron'll be bringing home the elderly female supporters, but by the time voting rolls round they'll have forgotten anyway.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Just a continuing theme here. Good ol' representative democracy and voter fraud. If what Ben Swann and others here allege is true, it's a clear example of fraud and election rigging. Should be interesting to see what doesn't develop from this.

http://www.fox19.com/story/16937227/reality-check-was-there-voter-fraud-in-maine

Edit: Also, I had no clue Obama was a gop hopeful. Interesting. Seems like they forgot someone too.

 

[YSSMAN]

As a Michigander, I want to apologize to everyone by having Santorum up by 9.3% compared to the rest of the field. I'm not even sure how or why those numbers shifted so far away from Romney, as I know not a single Republican that is supporting him.

Oh well, I guess if they want to give away the election, its easier to just nominate him in the first place.