Democracy: Do you support it?

Post Reply New Topic

\

Yeah but what's the point of making the products cheaper if it costs us our jobs, which in the end makes it so we can't buy those cheaper, more efficient products made at another human beings expense?

Because it doesn't cost us our jobs. It may cause a different distribution of wealth, but honestly, we have been pursuing trade for a long period of time and our unemployment rate has rarely been much lower. Therefore, there seems to be no evidence that permanent unemployment is occurring. Not only that, but the assumption that this is at another human being's expense seems self-defeating as the other human being is being paid to do this, as you have already assumed. Not only that but, even if we consider the pay low and conditions unfavorable, what do you think can be said about the conditions of the 3rd world, period? The US underwent its time of low pay during the industrial revolution, and other countries are doing the same, and having growth through that as well.

I can't say that I have too much to complain about as far as democracy goes. Someone once asked me what I thought of the President and I said I think of him just as much as he thinks of me. I have heard a lot of people whine about the Patriot Act and how it is taking away their rights, but I haven't seen any real restrictions on my life. Well, yes, airport security is a hassle sometimes, but hey, we do live in a world where some people don't have any qualms about blowing up a plane or whatever to prove their point, and I would just as soon not be blown up, thank you. So I don't mind security except sometimes they can be idiotic, like one time I saw them hassle a woman because she had a bottle of hand lotion (ooh, now that's dangerous) that was over the regulated size. Meanwhile another woman walked right past them carrying a little dog in a blanket (we all know dogs never bite) and was allowed to board the plane.

Actually sir, don't the patriot acts (AKA total infringement on our rights) say that the gavernment can spy, watch, and basically monitor your every move to the point where they know where and when you are at most of the time and knows what your doing in the name of national security? please respond.

This is all true, and there are worse powers granted as well (ie, the Bill of Rights can be suspended for no particular reason, civilians can be herded into forced-labor camps, etc) but the absolute worst provisions in the "anti-terrorism" legislation (such as martial law) are unlikely to be carried out and I thing he was saying that, while the government may or may not be watching us, he doesn't particularly care as none of us have any way of knowing whether we are being spied upon and as they say, "what you don't know can't hurt you." I very strongly disagree with this kind of mentality and oppose the PATRIOT Act and a lot of the other legislation, but the fact is that most people just don't give a damn if their daily lives are not directly impacted.

This may seem strange to say...but I think we have made some progress...and by that I mean, in terms of communication. We are now actually close to understanding a few things about how each of us presents things. That is good, regardless of the rest.

Since, we keep throwing terms around, and you had between threads argued Objectivity. It perhaps, would be good to know how each is reaching their conclusions.

I suspect when you say 'assertions' you are claiming what I am doing is:

- a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Some of the things I say may be bordering close to that, however if you were to locate all of the things I said and piece them together, I would assure you they are not baseless.

Additionally, although you claimed earlier that no tool can prove itself...I did present why that was not true.

Furthermore, as I stated my purpose was to Disprove models. With that, I do not know that assertion is the PROPER term. The reason being, what I was saying was being used as the EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE a model. Not to propose a new one.

However, if we are going to try to claim something of mine is assertion. I would state that what I presented is more along the lines of this definitions of assertion.

In computer programming, an assertion is a predicate (i.e., a true–false statement) placed in a program to indicate that the assertion is true at that place. For example, the following code contains two assertions: x := 5;{x > 0}x := x + 1{x > 1}
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assertion (computing)

That may be confusing, which I will elaborate on as to why, on the next comment further down, regarding use of math/annoyance of math.



I already know many people dislike math/or any form of rigid logical structure. To many people it is like a different language. With the more complex devices those with ability utilizing it, can sometimes fail to understand it, due to the amount of data and information a person must process.

However, the strict enforcement of policy within, is the reason I use it. That way, if the person CAN understand what is being said, than their is no question to the data or proposition being made/arrived at.

However, I think sometimes, you have jumped sets of information I have written(which you said you have done because of its length), on account of being annoyed by the device used.

Well understand this. I have been in enough debates online, to realize how stupid source claims, credibility claims, and casual language arguments always end up being. Even if one were to argue Credibility of sources, and show dominance in an argument(something I have done, on other forums, but hated because of the amount of time it takes to collect the data), the other side can still come away with:

"I disagree on the foundation that the sources themselves, though many see as credible, are not infallible/present to debate. And therefore the claims you assert through those sources, mean nothing, without meeting the criteria."

Basically, seeing people do that, makes me irritated. Under that context, even if someone were to win an argument, they would never truly win. And assuming it was not a debate for two individuals, but rather to be presented for the reason of being seen by everyone and such that individuals could come and go at will, one still could not win regardless of if everyone agreed with the seemingly better argument.

I no longer care to argue with such devices. If I am not arguing to prove or disprove something, than there is no point to arguing at all. As I said, in the other thread, a journey means nothing to me. Only answers.

I do not argue to prove/disprove to the larger picture either. When I am debating with another person on a forum, my debates/arguments if presented to that individual...are for them and them only. If 30,000 people saw it and agreed with me, and the individual I argued was either in denial, or made claims of disagreement, I would be irritated beyond my very core.

That is because, those other people didn't F***ing matter. Showing the process and answer to the individual I argued with was my only resolution. As that person chose to end abruptly or without a change of thought...I am not satisfied.

Now, that may not mean anything to you. You may even wonder why bother with such a hassle if the rest of the forum that can easily observe it anyway does not matter. And to that I say...well that is just me. I am unsatisfied if a person removes themselves from being engaged prematurely.

I am willing to accept contributions by others who engage in the argument. If I see something they propose as beneficial to demonstrating to the individual with which I debate, why something does/does not work, I may use it. However, in the end, the only thing that matters to me, is the change in the individual themself.

This is why I choose to use math/rigid logical structures. If at any point in the debate the other person willingly accepts to enter the discussion using such methods, than their is no question to the veracity of the conclusions.



I did not say they were using logic...I said that I was not the only individual who told you that anarchy did not work.



It loses its credibility, not necessarily validity. (However, I repeat...a device can prove itself if it has a function to do so.)

One can also lack credibility...be valid, and still not be faith based.

For example; we could argue about nothingness.

Nothingness people both can and cannot comprehend. If there were nothingness you would not exist, so its impossible to comprehend it, as it is taking place.

This is why it is not credible. Trying to show the full experiment of nothingness would be impossible. We can only show the sum of its parts.

However, people can still try to understand what true nothingness means, as it applies to the whole. They themselves will never experience it though.

A sort of catch-22.





Actually, I did account for it. But the reason I disregarded it, is because if truth didn't exist, than arguing would lack purpose. There would be no reason to engage in it.

I had assumed you would have realized that. Which basically means that half the s*** you are saying or have said, is simply to be an as*hole? Wonderful. And pointless...as it hasn't helped contribute or prove anything since the very first response. If you are going to use skepticism, or if you are going to act like an as*hole, at least do it for a purpose. Not for your personal amusement.

And since you said you have gotten annoyed, it looks like it, on top of the other stuff, backfired as well. So now, amusement has approached neither side.



It doesn't matter how much detail there is. Your still within this comment, admitting to the fact of presenting a model. I am being rigid. You should realize this by now. If it is, it is, Im not letting up on that fact just to amuse you. It doesn't really amuse me either, it is just how I work.



Now you are saying you are only proposing assumptions...again...wtf are you even here than? If you are not convicted to a point of view...or at least to disprove a point of view(what I have been trying to accomplish), than you should not be trying to appear as if you are convicted.

Than you get arguments with a severe lack of communication like this one.

If you want to be skeptical on EVERYTHING...than fine. But DO NOT try to appear to have a preference than. It will at least prevent a lack of communication based on the appearance of conviction.



Im glad you mentioned these...because it helps us communicate.

Those "models" I utilized were actually all predicates, in the process of a compound decision. The purpose of those things were all to demonstrate the entire range, but using either opposites, or a variety of assumptions to be the proof for the whole.

Succintly put...the whole purpose such thoughts are to present all possibilities for a given situation. If you do not present ALL possibilities, than there is always a "what if?"

You would not PROVE a system of compound decision making wrong...you would disprove elements within them, and show where the errors were. And if you want, attempt to present new variables to expand them into a larger one.

Additionally, as they are "models"(if you want to use the term) that have been used before...I DID NOT MAKE THEM. Hence I did not "MAKE AND ASSERT THEM." I may have asserted them. However, if you read above I said Make AND Assert. I did not say Make OR assert.

Granted it goes back to math and a rigid logical structure, which you said you dislike talking about.



No I did not. I now can say that you argue in a forum, based on appearances, and not breaking down word by word. However, that is also a rigid logical structure which is probably why.

I said "Irrational. If you don't understand the consequences of something, claiming it is a good thing CANNOT be absolute. "

This is not me stating consequentialism. It is stating that 'CLAIMING something to be good, without understanding it, or how to go about understanding it, cannot make it absolute. ' The reason being, that for that statement to be absolute, you actually have to KNOW the answer, or how to arrive at it.

That is what is being said. Understand yet? (You have done this too often throughout the entire thread. Which is why I have told you to READ CAREFULLY).



For someone who considers themself careful and understanding, you certainly don't act the part.



Well I'm just trying to explain why I usually kept them whole, in case it was a problem.

However, I will say, that sometimes you should probably bring down an entire passage of paragraphs with me, rather than a single paragraph.

I do a lot of paragraph cutting for myself simply to keep it open and readable. Sometimes I cut one thought into many paragraphs. So if you bring down one of those paragraphs, it won't actually have the whole thought conveyed and everything will get confusing.

The majority of my single thoughts are usually cut up. That may confuse people, but its what I do.

Not saying you meant to do that...but still, something to think about.



People may prefer short writings, however, that is not an excuse to intentionally insult someone. In fact, none of those reasons are an acceptable reason to intentionally insult someone.

You did not even try to remark before by saying "you are insulting me, could you please reread your phrases to avoid doing so as often. I realize you may not mean to, but you are." or something similar.

Instead, you intentionally insulted me, once you felt it was too much for you.

You might have a case if you did, but you didn't. As a result, much of the arguments have partially degraded into basically piss fights.



Communication involves both parties. Im not trying to use an IDEA...Im saying what is. It IS between the parties involved. Therefore we are either succeeding or failing. I know you aren't correctly understanding what I say. You claim the same. Therefore we can both agree that communication has failed for both parties.

Yes, I am.


I would argue that they essentially are baseless, and frankly, anything can be declared baseless other than common assertions.


I don't remember seeing this proof. It may have been a while back and underneath a bunch of things. Really though, the notion that a tool cannot prove itself is only logical. Self-reference does not add validity, sort of like how if the Bible says that it is true that does not mean that the Bible is true.


Assertion IS the proper term. What you made there was an assertion, evidences can be assertions, and they are used to propose different theories about how things work. If you weren't proposing a different model then you would look at my own model using my own premises and argue that these premises would not lead to my conclusion, however, that isn't so much of what you are doing given the efforts going into the interpretation of terms and ideas.


Um, I can understand math, it isn't fun and frankly it isn't worth my free time trying to analyze. Frankly, I would simply prefer non-mathematical syllogisms.


I am not saying that math is not useful, I am saying that math is a pain to deal with. I could accept verbal syllogisms or something similar, but math is annoying. Syllogisms would still be relatively formal, and easy to take apart and analyze, even without


And I criticized you because I did not see your rigid structures as really valid. As noted by Izaak in another thread, you were smuggling in your own


No, you said : "Anarchy, as a whole, however, has logical failings in the foundation. I was not the only person in this thread who told you that." Which implies that 2 people were attacking using logic. I stated that there was only 1 person, the other person was arguing based upon empirical data.


Except that it cannot. That is self-reference and self-reference plainly does not work because of the issue that a flawed source of knowledge can still claim it is true, but if we ask why it is true then it must refer to something else. This goes back to the regress argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument If we have source of information X then it must be proven by data Y, and data Y must be backed by data Z, and so on and so forth. A premise cannot support itself.


Well, then we run into an issue, as it would seem to me that credible and valid would have to go hand in hand. If something is not credible then how can it be valid, and if something is not valid then how can it be credible. A definition of valid is "well-grounded", something that isn't credible is not well grounded.


Um.... what? Nihilism is the argument that truth does not exist and you accounted for that. Not only that, but I never stated that I argued from total skepticism, obviously I argue from partial skepticism since I never denied the existence of people or things of that nature.


Umm.... no. You assume that if one is a skeptic on some issues then they must be skeptical on all issues. Not only that, but you also assume that if one has some skepticism then that prevents them from having functional beliefs in other ideas, especially given that complete skepticism is self-defeating.

You do recognize that I am probably just going to drive you nuts from here on out, aren't you?


Well, let's just put it this way, there is no way I wasn't proposing assumptions. Honestly, I am not a committed proponent of much and really, I am more likely to be a person to undermine views than propose them.


Not everything, most things. If I were skeptical on everything then the conversation would end by me saying "Well, this is only true if you wish to propose the idea of people". Really though, I am not a person to show much in terms of preference, and frankly, I think my statements so far were just mild skepticism on epistemology because you seemed to be so anally logical, and profound skepticism on human morality, but not the denial of the concept, in fact, more of a skepticism on what can be stated as known about morality than skepticism on the existence of the institute itself, and I do in fact have moral beliefs, but I usually hide them under other moral beliefs which I hide again.

But in order to disprove something, possibilities aren't what matter. What matters is actual counter-premises or incompleteness of my own premises. Because you deny that you were doing A, and because this certainly did not fit within B, it was nonsense.


Their source DOESN'T MATTER. Make simply means that you brought up, frankly, I doubt that either of us are actually being creative. Also, the fact that you are asserting them undermines you point of only using logic to prove me wrong, you use counter-assumptions and essentially other models of human behavior.


Um... no, that IS you stating consequentialism. Now, if you had better sentence structures then you might have gotten your point across better. However, your sentence structures have always been funny, and I have complained about that on multiple occasions.

Neither do you.


"None of those are an acceptable reason" is an assertion. I did it, therefore I find it acceptable.


Dude, I have run into enough jerks who do this intentionally that I really just thought you were in that same group. No, I insulted you once I found you annoying and stupid while thinking you were smart. Too much for me implies there was a lack of choice. I really don't care what you or others think, so this notion of "case" really doesn't matter.

Guys, guys, guys.
Maths can only prove so much, and then it fails at times too if the established rules aren't so sound.
Nothing is definite, pretty much all 'scientific knowledge' is founded solely on establishing that a given result is gained more than any other.

Even things like water for example, good ol' H2O. Now removing all impurities and the like we know it's 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen, but then is it? How do we know for sure? Tests can, and probably have been, done so many times that it's established as being 'true' or 'fact', but it's still something we can't know 100%.

Essentially whatever 'proof' anyone uses is still just whatever we believe. Say what you think, keep an open mind to what others think, explore the possibilities. But don't act nastily if someone believes something different.

I'm off topic? Yeah, but I just went and read all that, and half of it was too.
Shake each other's frickin' virtual hands already or something.
________________________________________________________

And yeah I still pine for an anarcho-capitalist society, mostly out of curiosity. I think it's possible it may work, and if it doesn't chances are it'd change into something else, even if it's just back to the current system (which to me don't work all that well anyways). The US may be different, but from what I hear it may be worse than good ol' Australia. I'm very glad guns are illegal here... ^^;

The saying goes 'If it ain't broke don't fix it'. This society's broke. I know because of where I come from. Seen what people in power can do to others which is entirely legal. Many are well off, many are well and truly screwed over.

Later EDIT:

Men are probably nearer the central truth in their superstitions than in their science. ~Henry David Thoreau

Uh, have you ever been to Switzerland?

<<<Clearing my throat.>>>

I have many times and the country is the size of my backyard! It is one of the most homogeneous places on the face of the earth and doesn't make any allowances for someone outside of it's national demographic. You can't possibly hold that country up as a pillar of what democracy can be with such a small homogenous population to govern. Not to mention that most people there are quite affluent. You don't see poverty in Switzerland the way you do in other countries. Switzerland would be the last country I'd use as an example of how a democracy should work.

However, the people there are very nice, though socially stiff.