Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Right Wing Cartoonist vs Reality
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 61 of 91 (609775)
03-23-2011 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rrhain
03-23-2011 12:09 AM


Um, did you completely miss the 2000 election?
Did you miss the 2010 election?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rrhain, posted 03-23-2011 12:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rrhain, posted 03-23-2011 1:03 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 62 of 91 (609777)
03-23-2011 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taz
03-09-2011 1:40 AM


Taz writes:
quote:
For example, I have never met a single gay person that likes to watch sport. And after years of talking to gay people, I have never heard of a gay person who likes to watch sports. Yet, I know they exist because there are gay sports bars out there. In this particular case, I think it is fairly safe to assume that gay people don't like to watch sports even though there are undoubtedly some who do.
No, I think it's just your personal sample isn't very good.
The Dinah Shore Weekend is this weekend in Palm Springs. The Gay Games (apparently, "Special Olympics" isn't a problem for the IOC but "Gay Olympics" will get you sued) was in 2010 in Cologne and in Chicago in 2006. The fact that you know there are gay sports bars out there is proof that you are suffering from a sampling bias. Have you considered the possibility that gay people don't watch sports in the same way you do? That the reason you don't talk to gay people about it is because they don't relate to it in the same way that you do and thus there isn't anything to talk about?
There is, for example, the trend that most of the gay athletes who have come out have done so in individual sports such as tennis and golf rather than team sports such as football and baseball. Those that do come out in team sports tend to do so only after they have been long retired and no longer have to worry about getting kicked off the team and losing their job.
And, of course, there's the old joke that boxing is the gayest of all sports: Two men half-naked in a ring, wearing silk shorts, fighting over a belt, the winner gets a purse, and they do it while wearing gloves.
quote:
If we aren't allowed to generalize, then we could never ever make any statement about any group whatsoever.
Indeed. The problem isn't the generalization. It's the justification. It's thinking that one's personal life is sufficient to generalize to the population at large. It's very easy to do. You, just now, showed that despite the fact that you know you're wrong, you're still going to insist upon your personal experience as applicable to the group as a whole.
quote:
If enough people in group x like lobster
The question then becomes, what is "enough"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 03-09-2011 1:40 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Taz, posted 03-23-2011 12:30 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 63 of 91 (609778)
03-23-2011 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Rrhain
03-23-2011 12:26 AM


Rrhain writes:
The question then becomes, what is "enough"?
Would you agree or disagree with the statement that American is a jean wearing culture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Rrhain, posted 03-23-2011 12:26 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Rrhain, posted 03-23-2011 1:13 AM Taz has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 64 of 91 (609783)
03-23-2011 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Rahvin
03-11-2011 12:36 PM


Rahvin writes:
quote:
How do conservatives from other districts, who had no ability to cast a vote on the matter, bear responsibility for Boehner?
Do you seriously not understand how the Speaker of the House gets put in that position?
It isn't like there was a lottery and this time, the 8th District of Ohio won and got to have its Representative get elevated to Speaker. No, there is an election within the House among the Representatives as to who is going to be the Speaker. The caucus gets together and nominates their candidate.
Boehner is Speaker because the rest of the Republicans in Congress wanted him to be Speaker. Why would they actively choose a man who paid bribes on the floor of Congress to be in charge?
quote:
So how can we test your hypothesis, Taz, rather than looking for more confirmations?
You can take a look at voting records.
How many Republicans voted for the health care bill?
How many voted against DOMA?
How many have ever voted for ENDA?
How many voted for the climate change bill?
How many voted for stricter CAFE standards?
How many voted against the PATRIOT Act?
How many voted against the war in Iraq?
How many voted against the prescription drug benefit?
How many times must we see a more than 99% conformity among Republicans before we come to the conclusion that it isn't "confirmation bias"?
There's a reason the cliche is "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."
quote:
Are so-called liberal Congresscritters actually less guilty of the same evil?
Well, when William Jefferson did it, he was kicked out, prosecuted, and sentenced to 13 years in prison. That seems to me to be a bit of a difference to becoming Speaker of the House.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2011 12:36 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2011 2:39 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 91 (609786)
03-23-2011 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Coyote
03-23-2011 12:12 AM


Coyote responds to me:
quote:
How about the agreement Reagan had with the democrats in his first term to raise taxes if they cut spending? And how he allowed taxes to be raised but then the democrats raised spending even more? And then again?
Except they didn't.
If Congress had simply rubber-stamped the budgets that Reagan has submitted, his debt would have been more than $50B MORE than what actually was spent. Congress cut Reagan's budgets. You may have a claim against the final budgets that were passed (such as the ridiculous "supply-side" fantasy that tax cuts pay for themselves...even Bush I called it "voodoo economics" until he was on the ticket and had to support it), but they were better budgets than what the Republicans wanted.
And you seem to have forgotten: Who was in charge of the Senate Finance Committee for the first six years of Reagan's term? C'mon...you did read my post because I mentioned his name.
That's right: Bob Dole. The Republicans were in charge of the Senate. If there were "plenty of blame to go around," why does so much of it land on the Republicans?
quote:
How about we just blame almost all politicians instead of playing party politics?
Because that logic equates jaywalking with murder. Both are against the law, but they are not equivalent. You do understand the fallacy of the false equivalency, yes? All politicians may be bad, but some are worse than others.
You don't have to be a Democrat in order not to be a Republican. I'm not.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 03-23-2011 12:12 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 66 of 91 (609787)
03-23-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote
03-23-2011 12:14 AM


Coyote responds to me:
quote:
Did you miss the 2010 election?
What about it? Are you seriously claiming that the coverage of the 2010 election was an example of "leftie" media?
How the hell did healthcare not get overwhelming support with single-payer, universal coverage being paid for with increases on the upper income brackets if the media were "leftie"? Why is the cap on Social Security not gone? Why is it only being paid for with payroll taxes instead of including capital gains? How did "death panels" ever make it into anybody's consciousness? Why on earth does anybody still know who Sarah Palin is? How the hell did any Republican get elected in 2010 given a "leftie" media?
What, precisely, is your point regarding the 2010 election and "leftie" media?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 03-23-2011 12:14 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 67 of 91 (609788)
03-23-2011 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Taz
03-23-2011 12:30 AM


Taz responds to me:
quote:
Would you agree or disagree with the statement that American is a jean wearing culture?
No.
Because I've actually studied this (that's what you get when you study theatre and have to costume.) There are distinct regional differences in how people dress and in significant places in the country, jeans are not worn.
For example, "business casual" (yes, I know that's not jeans...go with me for a second) means something very different on the East Coast than on the West. In New York, you're wearing a jacket. In LA, it's just a button-down shirt. In New York, it's dark slacks. In LA, it's khakis.
Even in casual wear, there are distinct regional differences. Now, I will agree that jeans are very popular in the US, especially among the younger generations, but the American population is too large and diverse for such a statement to be solidly true. It's more of a "pop-culture" trend. Such trends are significant and indeed, we have seen major shifts in casual wear in the US compared to even 50 years ago. But if you look at department stores today, while there is the jeans section, more of the floorspace is dedicated to other styles of clothing.
It's why "sportswear" is a bigger commodity.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Taz, posted 03-23-2011 12:30 AM Taz has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 68 of 91 (609827)
03-23-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rrhain
03-23-2011 12:46 AM


Do you seriously not understand how the Speaker of the House gets put in that position?
It isn't like there was a lottery and this time, the 8th District of Ohio won and got to have its Representative get elevated to Speaker. No, there is an election within the House among the Representatives as to who is going to be the Speaker. The caucus gets together and nominates their candidate.
Boehner is Speaker because the rest of the Republicans in Congress wanted him to be Speaker. Why would they actively choose a man who paid bribes on the floor of Congress to be in charge?
I was referring to the fact that a known-corrupt politician shouldn;t be in Congress at all, let alone the Speaker, and that his presence in the body is the sole responsibility of the district that elected him.
His position as Speaker, I concede is the responsibility of the majority in the House.
You can take a look at voting records.
I'll do that. I like to look at data instead of outraged references to data not provided. I'm not going to go over all of what you mention, because I don't have the time, but I'll hit a few, especially ones I care about.
How many Republicans voted for the health care bill?
In the Senate, it was a full split - all Democrats voted for, all Republicans against.
In the House, it was a little different. All Republicans against, but 34 Democrats voted against as well.
How many voted against DOMA?
In the House, 224 Republicans for, 1 against.
But there were also 118 Democrats for, and only 65 against.
In the Senate, 14 Democrats voted against. All Republicans and 32 Democrats voted for it.
And then Clinton signed it.
I don't think you can entirely put that one on the Republicans. As unpleasant a thought as it is, I think the American public in general was too anti-gay at the time DOMA was passed. Yes, all of the Republicans except for one in the House voted for it, but so did an overwhelming majority of Democrats.
How many have ever voted for ENDA?
This one's tough to look up quickly, and it's complicated. For those who don't want to Google, this is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has been proposed in every Congress since 1994. It's taken several forms, sometimes including transgendered individuals in its protections and sometimes not (for some reason, many people who support gays do not support the rights of transgenders, as if gender identity is somehow more of a "choice" than sexual orientation, and as if anyone would ever "choose" to go through years of hormone treatments and eventual surgery along with a social stigma that even gays don't deal with).
H.R. 2015, a 2007 version that included gender identity protection, died in committee.
H.R. 3685 was then introduced without gender identity protections, and it passed the House. Among Republicans, 159 voted against, 35 for. Among Democrats, 25 voted against, 195 for.
Certainly a correlation according to party, but not exactly the goose-stepping party-line voting your outrage suggests. Even most Democrats won;t support equal protections for transgender individuals. And while we had overwhelming majorities along party lines, there were enough dissenters on each side that I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable labeling the Republicans the "bad guys" and the Democrats the "good guys," even if there are more "good guys" among the Democrats. As RAZD is so fond of reminding us, not all A are also B.
How many voted against the PATRIOT Act?
In the Senate only Feingold, a Democrat, voted against it. Every other Senator, with a single absentee, voted for it, whether Republican or Democrat.
In the House, there were 211 Republican Yeas to 3 Nays, and 145 Democrat Yeas to 62 Nays.
Absolutely overwhelming support from both parties, even if there were more Democrat dissenters than Republican. Again, I can;t see this as evidence of Republican "evil," I see it as evidence of the shortsightedness, apathy, and general amorality of American politicians in general.
How many voted against the war in Iraq?
In the House, there were 215 Republicans for the war and 6 against. Among Democrats, 82 voted Yea and 126 Nay.
In the Senate, Republicans were for it 48 to 1, while Democrats were split 29 Yea and 21 Nay.
Again, when both parties vote for something, it seems more to be the will of the American people rather than a specific Republican/Democrat issue. I think the American public in general supported the war initially, and that this is not an issue where you can directly call out the Republicans.
How many times must we see a more than 99% conformity among Republicans before we come to the conclusion that it isn't "confirmation bias"?
If you toss a coin 100 times, and only record the results that come up Heads, what happens?
That's confirmation bias. You're pointing out data that you've chosen because it confirms your existing belief - have you ever thought to specifically look for data that would falsify your belief? By nature, human beings will notice and remember information that confirms what they already know and disregard, doubt, or discredit information that would force us to actually change our minds. To counter that bias, we need to look for uncomfortable information, data that would negatively affect our existing beliefs. We should be skeptical even of that which we think we know, because when we're so sure of something that we don't think about it any more, that subject becomes an intellectual blind spot.
In the examples above, you did in fact mention several votes where the Republicans voted largely together - but not always. In some of those votes there were a significant number of dissenters. But worse, in some of those votes (the USA PATRIOT Act for one) all of Congress voted as a virtual block! You can't blame the Republicans when the Democrats were just as bad - then you have to blame the American people, or at the very least our politicians' perception of us.
Can you call Republicans "evil" becasue they tend to vote against obvious civil rights like the right to marry or equal protection for gays and transgender people? Because they vote for obvious travesties of justice like the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq war?
Maybe. But in many cases the Republicans are not exceptionally evil, their positions match the majority of everyone else as well. You didn't have to be exceptionally evil to be a racist two hundred years ago, everyone was racist - those who managed to rise above racism at the time were exceptionally good. Today, where race equality is largely accepted, racists are exceptionally evil, while those who discount racism are not exceptionally good.
Likewise with many of the issues you mentioned. The Republicans were not exceptionally evil when they voted to go to war in Iraq, or when they voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, or when they voted for DOMA. Those very few Republicans and Democrats who voted the other way were simply exceptionally good.
Look, a lot of Republican positions are unethical, stupid, or both. "Supply side economics" was introduced by Reagan, and despite early derision even from his own party, lowering taxes on the rich and corporations to supposedly allow them to create more investment and more jobs has become a Republican mainstay. It's also completely counter to any reasonable measure of fairness, and it doesn't even work. As time has passed, supporting LBGT issues has gained more ground among Democrats than Republicans, to the point where the majority of Democrats would likely no longer pass DOMA if it were brought before Congress today rather than in the 90s, while the majority of Republicans would likely still vote for it.
But lets be careful not to step into the trap of over-generalization. Not all Republicans support their representatives, they just like their representatives better than the other guy who was running. What's happening in this thread is that we're taking the extremely complex issue of American politics and trying to boil it down into which sides represent the "good guys" and the "bad guys," but it's just not a binary choice at all. When I vote for a representative, it's frequently not because I support the way that representative will vote, but rather because I think my alternatives are worse. If my choices are a guy who hates gays and another guy who wants to institutionalize Christianity, or a guy who supports the Iraq war and a guy who supports the USA PATRIOT Act, how do I choose? If I don't vote, or if I vote for an untenable third party, it really just helps the guy I like least because that's one more vote he doesn't need to overcome.
I vote almost exclusively Democrat, because they more closely represent my views than the Republicans. But even though the Democrats let provisions to protect transgendered individuals die in a committee, I don't accept responsibility for their actions. If I had been in Congress, I would have been right there with Barney Frank supporting the civil rights of all Americans; but most Democrats don't represent me very well either, and so we have the USA PATRIOT Act, Obama-care is so watered down that I even barely support it, and bills to give transgender individuals equal protections at work die in committee.
I just don't think that any American political party substantially represents those who vote for them. Single hot-button issues tend to funnel people into one party or the other as a determination of the lesser of two evils rather than true representation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 03-23-2011 12:46 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Rrhain, posted 03-29-2011 4:37 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 70 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2011 10:01 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 69 of 91 (610321)
03-29-2011 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rahvin
03-23-2011 2:39 PM


Rahvin responds to me:
quote:
quote:
You can take a look at voting records.
I'll do that. I like to look at data instead of outraged references to data not provided. I'm not going to go over all of what you mention, because I don't have the time, but I'll hit a few, especially ones I care about.
...and then proceed to focus on Democrats.
Nice try. This isn't about the Democrats. We can deal with what a fucked up party they are in another thread. This is about the Republicans. Not a single Republican voted for health insurance reform. Only one Republican voted against DOMA...the gay one.
quote:
Absolutely overwhelming support from both parties, even if there were more Democrat dissenters than Republican. Again, I can;t see this as evidence of Republican "evil,"
Then you are willfully choosing to disavow that which you have directly acknowledged as true. This isn't about the Democrats. It's about the Republicans. Time and time again, the Republicans vote en masse against the best interests of the country.
Remind yourself: This isn't about the Democrats. Any attempt to point out that there are Democrats that voted for these nasty things, too, is nothing but a distraction. We are simply looking at whether or not the Republican party as it actually functions, as opposed to how it likes to position itself, is what we might call "evil."
And so far, the overwhelming majority of instances shows only the tiniest fraction of Republicans ever voting in favor of things that will benefit the country.
There is a bill pending before Congress right how that will strip food stamps to any family where there is a worker on strike. Who do you think put it forward?
Republicans.
Who do you think is trying to strip funding for Planned Parenthood and has zeroed out all Title X funding (which provides pregnancy services to low-income women)?
Republicans.
Who are these Republicans who are somehow "moderating" the rest of them?
quote:
If you toss a coin 100 times, and only record the results that come up Heads, what happens?
What does that have to do with anything, Franklin? You seem to be claiming that I am being subject to selection bias, but your own research into this showed that the Republicans overwhelmingly supported these very bad laws. If a coin comes up Heads 100 times out of 100, it doesn't really matter that I'm only recording Heads, now does it?
quote:
In some of those votes there were a significant number of dissenters.
No, there weren't. Your eally are doing everything you can to deny what you researched on your own. The best example you could come up with was an 18% dissent while every other example was no better than 2%.
You have the same logic as Republicans: If you can get one Democrat to support you, that makes it "bipartisan." If you can get one Republican to say no, then that's "significant numbers."
quote:
But in many cases the Republicans are not exceptionally evil, their positions match the majority of everyone else as well.
To quote Breathed: If two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing. You're arguing the fallacy of ad populum: That because something is popular, that makes it right. It doesn't matter how many people try to justify the unjustifiable. It's still wrong.
quote:
The Republicans were not exceptionally evil when they voted to go to war in Iraq,
Yes, they were.
quote:
or when they voted for the USA PATRIOT Act,
Yes, they were.
quote:
or when they voted for DOMA.
Yes, they were.
quote:
Those very few Republicans and Democrats who voted the other way were simply exceptionally good.
No, they weren't. They were simply correct. It takes more than being correct to be good. Being good would have been passing a bill making it a federal offense to spend any money on fighting in Iraq, strengthening citizen rights rather than stripping them in the face of people screaming in fear, and legalizing same-sex marriage.
quote:
Not all Republicans support their representatives, they just like their representatives better than the other guy who was running.
There were plenty of people running. And if the guy you vote for doesn't stand for what you want, why are you voting for him? Let's not pretend that there is some great angst among the electorate.
quote:
What's happening in this thread is that we're taking the extremely complex issue of American politics and trying to boil it down into which sides represent the "good guys" and the "bad guys,"
Incorrect. You're the one trying to do that. Again, remind yourself: This isn't about the Democrats. It is only about the Republicans. They have shown themselves to be incapable of governance under any circumstances. On top of their general incompetence when it comes to governance (really...why would anybody elect somebody to run the government who has a fundamental philosophy that government is bad?) they have latched onto the strategy of opposing the Democrats no matter what: When unrest broke out in Libya, they were screaming at Obama to impose a no-fly zone. And not less than two weeks later when he did, they started screaming that it was an impeachable offense for Obama to do so.
So exactly who are these "other" Republicans that don't go along with this?
quote:
When I vote for a representative, it's frequently not because I support the way that representative will vote, but rather because I think my alternatives are worse. If my choices are a guy who hates gays and another guy who wants to institutionalize Christianity, or a guy who supports the Iraq war and a guy who supports the USA PATRIOT Act, how do I choose?
You're trying to pull a Nader, pretending as if there is no difference between the parties.
You really think we would have gone to war in Iraq if Gore were President? There's a good chance that Sept 11 would never have happened in the first place given than Bush deliberately ignored Clinton's security advisors who were literally begging and pleading for him to pay attention to Al Qaeda.
quote:
Single hot-button issues tend to funnel people into one party or the other as a determination of the lesser of two evils rather than true representation.
Huh? "Single"? The Republicans have shown that on every issue, they are on the wrong side. How can anybody vote for them for any reason?
You don't have to be a Democrat in order to not be a Republican.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2011 2:39 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 70 of 91 (610479)
03-30-2011 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rahvin
03-23-2011 2:39 PM


Huh?
Rahvin writes:
The Republicans were not exceptionally evil when they voted to go to war in Iraq, . . .
I snorted my chocolate milk through my nose when I read that. Rahvin, are you mentally challenged? If voting FOR war based on known lies is NOT a supremely evil act, than I am dumbfounded.
Edited by dronester, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2011 2:39 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Rahvin, posted 03-30-2011 12:38 PM dronestar has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 71 of 91 (610496)
03-30-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by dronestar
03-30-2011 10:01 AM


Re: Huh?
I snorted my chocolate milk through my nose when I read that. Rahvin, are you mentally challenged? If voting FOR war based on known lies is NOT a supremely evil act, than I am dumbfounded.
I said they weren't exceptionally evil. A Republican voting for the Iraq war was not exceptional, he was average. He wasn't any more evil than his contemporaries, including the Democrats, who largely voted for the war as well, even if their support quickly waned.
When the vast majority of a society believes something wicked, an individual who also believes that wicked thing is not exceptional - he's average. He cannot be exceptionally evil; rather, the people in the minority, the small number of people who do not believe the wicked thing, are the exceptions, and they are exceptionally good.
In the aftermath of 9/11, our entire nation went crazy. It's gotten a little better (a little, mind), but the public overwhelmingly supported both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Republicans aren't the only ones who believed Bush's lies. The Republicans aren't the only ones who knew or should have known that the "intelligence" was a crock. We know that the UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq doing their jobs at the same point in time that Bush was making a speech claiming they were being barred from inspection, and that information was readily available in 2003 as well.
Voting to go to war in Iraq was wrong. Even without the benefit of hindsight and with better knowledge of the level of lying, incompetence, and general asshattery involved from the Bush administration, our representatives should still have known that they were making the wrong decision. It was an evil act. I'm not disputing that at all.
But read what I've been saying. An individual who performs an evil act when everyone else is also doing the same is not exceptionally evil, he's just average. That doesn't make him less evil, it just means he (or whatever group he's part of) doesn't bear disproportionate responsibility for the evil act compared to others who did the same.
If fans of Team A and Team B both riot in the streets after a game of soccer, you can;t look at Team B and say "hey, those guys are evil." It wasn't just Team B. You can't arbitrarily subdivide a group of people who performed an evil act and say that the arbitrarily defined group is evil. It's a mis-attribution of responsibility. In the soccer hooligan example, it was not Team B who was evil - it was all the soccer hooligans, including those among Team A. Team B was not exceptionally evil, they were doing the same thing the other team was doing, and pointing at just one team when both were responsible is a blatant example of confirmation bias, paying attention only to the data that allows you to continue to support your pre-existing position while dismissing the data that would cause you to modify it.
So I'll say it again, very plainly:
Congress performed an evil act when they voted for war with Iraq. It was reprehensible. They shouldn't have done it, they're responsible for massive unnecessary loss of life as well as the lesser concerns of stretching our military too thin, nearly bankrupting the country, and so on.
But the Republicans were not any more guilty of that crime than the rest of Congress. Those few who voted against war were exceptionally good, being different from the norm; but those who voted for war, including both Republicans and Democrats, were not exceptional in any way - most of the country was supporting that evil vote at the time, no matter how much we'd like to forget.
That doesn't excuse anything. It doesn't make voting for war any less bad, any more than the fact that slavery was the norm in the 1700s somehow makes a given slave-owner somehow less evil for considering other human beings to be property.
Hating Jews was pretty normal in the 1930s. Antisemitism was rampant. Hitler was not notable for hating Jews - the reason he was able to so effectively use them as a scapegoat was because most people at the time readily agreed. Even among Allied nations antisemitism was disgustingly strong. There was nothing exceptional about horrible antisemitism at the time - you can't say a belief was exceptional when it was basically mainstream. You can't look at the Nazis and say "the Nazis were responsible for antisemitism," because they weren't exceptional for just hating Jews. Where they were exceptional was the "final solution;" most people who hated Jews didn't want to actually shove them into ovens or gas them!
This means you can't lay the blame on the Republicans and say they were the evil ones, when most other people, including non-Republicans, agreed with them and so also bear responsibility. The Bush Administration, who happened to be Republican, pushed an agenda based on a bunch of lies and half-truths and fact manipulation, and most people, not only Republicans, bought it - because they didn't scrutinize the information from the administration, because the Bush agenda fit perfectly with preconceptions about Saddam Hussein, because 9/11 happened and a halfhearted attempt at a connection to Al Qaeda, even if it was a totally obvious fabrication to the few people who were using their brains, was enough to stir people into a frenzy for blood..and it wasn't just the Republicans.
Am I getting through here?
Will it make you feel better if I say that the Republicans do appear to be exceptionally evil with regard to the union-breaking debacle in WI? In their single-minded determination to prevent even the halfassed healthcare act from taking effect? Our politicians in general are all pretty evil from the perspective of being mouthpieces of the wealthy and large corporations, and I can't lay the blame for that on the Republicans, but those two immediately come to mind as recent exclusively Republican bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2011 10:01 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2011 4:31 PM Rahvin has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 72 of 91 (610522)
03-30-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Rahvin
03-30-2011 12:38 PM


exceptional evil is as exceptional evil does
Rahvin writes:
Am I getting through here?
Well, I understand you are attempting to argue "percentage" or "popularity" when indirectly qualifying the word evil.
If I wrote, "nuclear power is exceptionally dangerous because it has caused more cancer by radiation exposure than all other power sources combined", would you say I was being very accurate?
Similarly, you are quantifying evil by using a very specific item/percentage/popularity to rate it which hardly tells the whole truth. It's not so much evil that you are quantifying, but rather a percentage of very specific set of people who commit evil you are quantifying to support your argument . . .
Rahvin writes:
An individual who performs an evil act when everyone else is also doing the same is not exceptionally evil, he's just average.
Not very accurate. When using a percentage of very specific set of people you can hedge, "the evil was not exceptional because MOST US politicians were voting for it." However, suppose you use a larger sampling of politicians including European politicians? What happens to your percentage/argument? Suppose you used all the world's politicians? What happens to your percentage/argument? America was/is unique in the industrial world because of its childlike terrified state when 9/11 struck. The people actually looked upon Bush Jr. to act as a father figure to protect them (regardless that Bush Jr. IS, in fact, an immoral-simpleton-child-war-criminal). Americans are quite off-the-charts when it comes to being frightened of terrorists threats (perhaps similarly frightened by nuclear power too?). However, even you recently used the more rational, broader, and relative example that US car accidents are for more deadly compared to virtually any "X". A broader view is usually the more accurate view, however your example uses ONLY "average" American politicians.
Rahvin writes:
paying attention only to the data that allows you to continue to support your pre-existing position while dismissing the data that would cause you to modify it.
Indeed, as your examples showed.
The set you specifically used in YOUR argument uses an unique aberration (irrationally frightened Americans). Your argument CAN be considered correct ONLY when viewed from this highly obtuse angle. Hardly the full truth.
Additionally, your argumentative device works equally poorly in the opposite direction:
If your argument was sound, then, IF enough people raped children, this particular act would have to be, by your criterion, less vile, more normal, or less "exceptionally evil" than just one person committing jay-walking.
Using this example, your parallel argument would have to be: Because jaywalking is only done by one person, it is "exceptionally evil".
How silly.
Lastly, using bandwagon effect, appeal to the masses, herd instinct, appeal to the majority, or argument by consensus (Rhain called it "fallacy of ad populum" or "popular fallacy") when trying to frame your argument is usually poor form.
When considering ALL evil acts, "raping children" should be rated among the worse. Raping a child, regardless of how you would attempt to quantify it by its "popularity", IS an EXCEPTIONALLY EVIL act, whether one democrat commits it, all republicans commit it, or 2/3 of all Presbyterians commit it.
Similarly, when considering ALL evil acts, ANY politician voting for a war based on known lies is exceptionally evil.
Am I getting through here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Rahvin, posted 03-30-2011 12:38 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 03-30-2011 7:39 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 73 of 91 (610529)
03-30-2011 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by dronestar
03-30-2011 4:31 PM


Re: exceptional evil is as exceptional evil does
If your argument was sound, then, IF enough people raped children, this particular act would have to be, by your criterion, less vile, more normal, or less "exceptionally evil" than just one person committing jay-walking.
NO.
You aren't understanding, and the bolded part is the reason.
I'm not arguing at all about the degree of wrongness involved. I'm talking about the responsibility borne for an evil act.
Let's imagine a nation where blue-eyed people are considered to be inferior, and are forced into labor camps where they live brutal lives before being executed by the state when they're no longer able to work. Sounds like a pretty nightmarish society to me, and I think you and I would completely agree that such a society would be unspeakably evil.
Now, say that roughly 92% of the citizens of that nation think that the blue-eye policy is completely right and just. The camps have overwhelming support on the national level.
Johnny Citizen is among the 92%. He thinks that blue-eyed people are subhuman, not deserving of any rights. If he caught a blue-eyed person who had escaped the camps, he'd at minimum report him to the police, but would also be immediately willing to join in a lynch mob is enough other people were present.
I think Johhny is an immoral asshole. I think his beliefs are reprehensible.
But I do not think that he is exceptional. I think his whole society is like that. I think he's average, not at all unusual for his culture, which is still unspeakably evil,.
Now let's add to the mix. There are two major political parties in our imaginary nation, we'll just call them the 49ers and the Raiders, just because I feel like messing with football fans. Every few years, there's an amount of legislation proposed by one party or the other regarding the blue-eyed slaves. The death-camps were set up just four years ago. According to a vote, 100% of the Raiders and 90% of the 49ers voted for the camps. Johnny happens to be a Raider, though he's voted for a few 49ers in the past.
Are the Raiders especially evil? Or is the whole society just as evil, in general? The overwhelming majority of both major political parties and the overwhelming majority of the general population support the death camps - is it accurate to say that the Raiders are worse than the 49ers? Can we really get into a "these are the bad guys" argument in such a situation? I think that neither the Raiders nor the 49ers are exceptionally evil - neither is an exception to the national norm, and so I can't say that one party bears more responsibility than the other for the perpetration of the specific evil we're talking about. Instead, I would say that each individual that voted to put human beings into work/death camps is evil. It's not being a member of a specific party that makes one evil, but the evil decisions one makes.
Notice that at no point whatsoever am I saying that the oppression of people with blue eyes is somehow less bad or more okay just because everyone else is doing it. I'm simply saying that we can;t point at one arbitrary subgroup, note that they were overwhelmingly in support of the death camps, and say that their group is evil. We'd be able to do that with literally any subgroup of people in our imaginary dystopia, because the overwhelming majority of the population as a whole is the same.
A person who agreed with the national death camp policy would not be exceptionally evil among his countrymen. He'd be average. The few individuals who disagree, the exceptions to the norm, would be exceptionally good. That's what the word "exceptional" means.
Let's go back to the Iraq war. I'm going to pull up what I said earlier:
quote:
In the House, there were 215 Republicans for the war and 6 against. Among Democrats, 82 voted Yea and 126 Nay.
In the Senate, Republicans were for it 48 to 1, while Democrats were split 29 Yea and 21 Nay.
Again, when both parties vote for something, it seems more to be the will of the American people rather than a specific Republican/Democrat issue. I think the American public in general supported the war initially, and that this is not an issue where you can directly call out the Republicans.
And now let's look at Wiki's info on public support for the invasion in January of '03:
Following Powell's February 5 speech at the UN, most polls, like one conducted by CNN and NBC, showed increased support for the invasion. NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, said the bumps in support were "largely" due to president Bush's State of the Union speech in January and to Powell's presentation on February 5, which most viewers felt offered strong evidence for action against Iraq. Bush's approval ratings jumped 7 points, and support for the invasion jumped 4 points. Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April 2002. The percentage of Americans supporting an invasion without UN support jumped eight points to 37%. 49% of those polled felt that President Bush had prepared the country for war and its potential risks, a 9 point jump from the previous month.[8] A Gallup poll showed the majority of the population erroneously believed Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11.
The significant majority of Americans supported the invasion at this point, with only 27% being opposed to military force (though teh numbers differed if you also asked whether that military action should come with or regardless of UN support).
In the House, the Republicans were overwhelmingly in support of going to war, while there were only 6 exceptions. The Democrats were less unified, with 82 voting Yea and 126 Nay - not nearly so close, but still with a clear majority not supporting the war.
In the Senate however, while only 1 Republican exception voted against the war, the Democrats were a near 50/50 split.
My impression of the Republicans differs according to who we compare them to. If we take Republican congresscritters as a subset of the entire American public, they don;t seem to be exceptionally evil - the majority of the whole damned nation was just as bad, and it wouldn't be rational to place the blame on one arbitrary subgroup when I could take a sampling of other arbitrary subgroups, like say "people with blue eyes" or "49ers fans" and also find that a majority would vote for the war.
If we compare them only to Democrats in Congress...well, the House Republicans were definitely overwhelmingly more in support of the war than the Democrats. I could agree that the House Republicans were on the average more in support of an evil action than the House Democrats.
In teh Senate, if only the Democrats had been allowed to vote, the measure would still have passed. I find it difficult to say that the Senate Republicans were evil for voting to go to war in Iraq, because their "opposition" didn't really oppose them and would have made the same choice, if in different proportions of dissent. I'd say that the Senate was evil, rather than arbitrarily choosing to only pay attention to the evil of the Republicans while ignoring the other relevant group in the decision-making process.
It's a matter of perspective, and perhaps also the difference between a Republican on the street and a career Republican politician.
At no point do I suggest that going to war in Iraq based on obvious lies and distortions was morally justified. Everyone knew or should have known going in that the end result of armed conflict would be dead Iraquis, most of them civilian, and that the "justifications" used wouldn't have justified the war even if they were true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by dronestar, posted 03-30-2011 4:31 PM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2011 1:01 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 74 of 91 (614000)
04-30-2011 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rahvin
03-30-2011 7:39 PM


I realize it's been a month, but I've been busy.
Rahvin writes:
quote:
I'm talking about the responsibility borne for an evil act.
That may be what you think you're talking about, but that isn't what you're saying. You're trying to argue popularity makes right and it doesn't. Just because a bunch of people do something wrong doesn't make it less wrong.
quote:
But I do not think that he is exceptional.
Except he is. You're equivocating on the word "exceptional." You are trying to pretend that we're talking about popularity rather than substance. The evil is "exceptional" due to its depravity and idiocy, not because it is rare. Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.
quote:
Are the Raiders especially evil? Or is the whole society just as evil, in general?
Yes to both. You seem to think there is a dichotomy here and there isn't. If everybody in society is exceptionally evil, that doesn't make the evil any less exceptional. The popularity of an evil act does not change it in any way. It is still exceptionally evil.
You are equivocating.
quote:
And now let's look at Wiki's info on public support for the invasion in January of '03
And this is your second logical error. You are trying to play "a pox on both your houses" when your own investigation into the subject matter shows that the two parties were nowhere near the same. The Republicans voted in lock-step. The Democrats had much greater diversity. But by your logic, the mere fact that there were a significant number of Democrats who supported the war makes them equivalent to the Republicans.
That simply isn't true.
quote:
I find it difficult to say that the Senate Republicans were evil for voting to go to war in Iraq, because their "opposition" didn't really oppose them and would have made the same choice, if in different proportions of dissent.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? A group of people unified in support of an exceptionally evil act is equivalent to a group of people who are only marginally in support of that act? Do you really think things would have been the same had there been any real debate on the subject? You do recall that there were no guests against the war on any of the Sunday talk shows, yes? That nobody ever got to hear any significant pushback about the "intelligence", yes? You do recall that Bush tried to talk about the uranium back in his speech in October before the State of the Union but that it got pulled out because it couldn't be verified...only to have it show up in the State of the Union despite being still unverified, yes? How many people know that on the day Bush announced hostilities in Iraq, the inspectors were destroying some missiles due to their range being beyond treaty specs and were literally begging Bush to stop and let them do their job?
Do you really think that if the Republicans were more like the Democrats, it still would have been inevitable that we would have gone to war in Iraq?
quote:
I'd say that the Senate was evil, rather than arbitrarily choosing to only pay attention to the evil of the Republicans while ignoring the other relevant group in the decision-making process.
See, there's that "pox on both your houses" act again. And again, you seem to forget that we're not talking about the Democrats. We're talking about the Republicans. You're the one who talked about "moderate" Republicans.
Well...where are they? Why is it Republicans routinely vote en masse? We can get to the Democrats and their inabilities in another thread. This is solely about the Republicans.
Give us a name. Name a single "moderate" Republican. Olympia Snowe? Susan Collins? Have you seen their voting records? Snowe killed healthcare.
We need a name. You claim there are "moderate" Republicans.
Name one.
Just one.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 03-30-2011 7:39 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Tram law, posted 04-30-2011 2:22 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 77 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-01-2011 12:45 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 75 of 91 (614017)
04-30-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taz
03-10-2011 7:55 PM


Re: "Leftie" logic
Taz writes:
Um... you guys are committing the fallacy of the middle man.
I've already proven that the majority of conservatives are evil. The fact that they put Boehner in congress, someone who has shamelessly passed out bribe checks from the tobacco companies to other congressmen, is proof of this.
You guys keep blaming that the majority of conservatives are moderates, and yet voting results continue to prove you wrong. Let's step back to reality, shall we? I know what you guys are saying are more politically correct, but are you willing to sacrifice reality and truth for the sake of political correctness?
PS - Don't be surprised if I don't respond to you in days. I've been practically living in my lab.
A few things:
What's this middle man you claim to exist?
Secondly, no, you have not proven that all conservatives are evil. They have many problems, yes, but they are not inherently evil and is not an accurate portrayal of them.
What you don't know is your generalizing and the generalizing is based on the loudest and most reprehensible from the bunch. Which is a typical leftist trait.
Broad generalizations are not very accurate either. It's the first resort of lazy people who don't want to get to know others on an individual basis. Such as leftists who constantly say all conservatives are racists just because. Like how leftists say Arizona is a racist state but how California is not when it is considering many similar anti illegal immigration laws to Arizona's anti illegal immigration laws.
And in regards to Boehner you realize that conservatives alone don't have the voting power to put somebody like him into office, right? You do realize it takes two to tango? Voting requires a majority of the vote, which means that both liberals and conservatives have to have voted for him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taz, posted 03-10-2011 7:55 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024