The Glade 4.0

Quit moving the goalposts. You were saying that moral systems have to be internally consistent, I pointed out that we determine that consistency with logical rules, and now you're trying (again) to drag the issues of different moral systems into it.



No one is contesting how a false dilemma works.



That's fascinating, but doesn't change the black-and-white fallacy, claims about laziness notwithstanding.



Ah yes. I'm somehow locked into a black-and-white way of thinking because... well because elmo says so! Must be that, because I haven't said anything that separates any issue into black-and-white.

Clearly, everyone else reading this will believe you and you'll score lots of rhetorical points.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

With every TRUE Scottsman, he will.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Just how organized are the Tea Party people anyway? Just from TV news and etc, it doesn't really seem like more than a loose collaborate of folks. They don't even have a central figurehead as far as I can tell. Without a certain degree organization and focus, prospective baggers are just pissing in the wind IMO. They have to hold up their ideas and declare the core of their argument or whatever and make it known that any messages outside of that are not what the Tea Party thing is about.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I am not changing my goalposts DE, you're just rambling on and on without understanding.

If you agree that you have to prove false dilemma then show me a third option when something is claimed to be black and white, and you would have to show it within the logically consistent framework of the moral system itself.

That being said, I'll state again that
1. I never said everything is black and white.
2. That this isn't a position necessary for my moral framework.

You're conflating several things and trying to attack a thing based on something that is unrelated to it.

Clearly, everyone else reading this is thinking the same thing.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Of course I don't understand. You're all over the place and making no point whatsoever except to take issue because I pointed out the danger of fallacy in black-and-white thinking. Is there some other guy named DE posting here that you're arguing with?



And you're just carrying on about issues I haven't addressed at all. You claimed that you prefer black-and-white thinking because you think grey areas are lazy. Black-and-white thinking is prone to false dilemmas. All the rest of what you're saying is just you blathering on.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ahh now thats a different story DE. Obviously whens someone makes a black or white moral statement it can be an indicator of a False Dilemma. It not only not always is but it must first be shown to be one. Additionally, to have any effect on the maker in correcting their argument - you have to offer a 3rd option within their moral framework.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No you don't. You just have to show that a third option is possible at all. Saying the option doesn't exist because of their moral framework is just dishonest refusal to acknowledge a point. You can't make a possibility disappear just bby saying "it's not in my moral framework so it doesn't exist". It may be that the third option doesn't affect the internal consistency of the moral framework, but rather shows its assumptions to be absurd int he first palce when compared with observable fact. You can't, after all, base a moral framework on premises or assumptions that contradict observable reality and attempt to be taken seriously.

Moreover, it's not anyone's obligation to make their points in terms of the other person's moral framework at all. When two parties have different moral frameworks, any moral conversation will be an attempt by both sides to convince the other that their framework is more advantageous. Claiming that the other person has to put things in one's own moral terms is just refusing to have a discussion at all on a level playing field.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE in a moral framework if a thing is good or bad or wrong or right you must show a third option where it could be considered both within that framework.

Since you are only given two options in that kind of framework you have to show how it could be seen as both (morality doesn't have more than one axis, and for your argument to be effective you have to show how it is both within the morality).

If you think you can say to a Hindu that it is ok to eat a cow because the Torah doesn't prohibit it - you're not going to be persuasive.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yes you are. The Hindu is then forced to explain why I should use his morality over that in the Torah. Why are you assuming one side is attempting to persuade and not the other?

There is no obligation to persuade your opponent in terms of his own assumptions. You can just show that his assumptions and his moral system suck.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Except that its the only morality that the Hindu will accept as valid so other inputs are dismissed.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No it isn't. Who are you to speak for the Hindu, or anyone else? Do you just think everyone is a closed-minded douchebag?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ok if you think you can argue from an outside moral perspective and influence someone else - you go ahead and try.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'm not in the habit of doing this for the sheer hell of it, but I certainly have done so before. Most people are not closed-minded douchebags.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Absolutely and totally wrong.

At no point whatsoever were the Republican ideas publicly discussed until Obama already had the votes. At no point were Republicans given media play to express their ideas in any remotely proportionate way to Democrats. And finally, at no point did Republicans have anything close to votes needed to sway a damn thing. Supermajority by the Democrats is called "supermajority" for a reason.

Furthermore, their plan(s) were publicly available for a very long time. It is the Democrats who were unwilling to compromise, specifically because they had no need to.

In the end, the health insurance and pharma companies get exactly what they wanted.


As to compromise: for a small government proponent, there is no good compromise in modern government, as all bills expand spending, authority, or control. Therefore, compromising to expand things less is still harmful, and thus "not good."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Furthermore, and this is something that no one on the left wants to admit to, there was bi-partisanship when it comes to healthcare reform. Bi-partisanship in dissent.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Yeah, read about this the other day. Somehow I don't think the left is going to make much of an effort to weed out the folks trying to sabotage a legit protest.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Nope, they won't. Nor would the right if the tables were turned.

Ugh. Much like the moronic "Protest Warriors" that oozed out of the woodwork around the anti-Iraq War protests (which I remember many here lauding), I cannot fracking stand "counter-protests." What idiots think it's a classy, or even good, idea to counter-protest a peaceful protest? To what power are you standing up? To what ends do your counter-protests aim? You're already the group in power, you idiots. "Help, help, I'm bein' repressed!" Much as the counter-protest hawks should have done when the doves were protesting, shut the hell up and let dissenters have their say.

Counter protest is one thing. That's just open debate... kinda. Two opposing views showing their political power by turning out and getting on TV. The left has known those images are powerful persuasions on the American people for years now.

This is something very different though. It's "infiltrating" the protest. Posing as them in an effort to make them look stupid, racist, violent, nuts, whatever. Not that it's anything new necessarily, but how dumb do you have to be to be so obvious about it?


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... vement.php






mmkay....

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Counter protests can be good in the sense of showing support for those being protested. In Tucson, people protested in front of the Air Force base and other military recruiting centers. Counter-protests were also held on the opposite side of the street to show support for our men and women who serve. Yes, the people showing support for the military weren't actually protesting anything. But I would hope such counter-protests help maintain the morale, even if to a small extent, of those who provide for our nation's security. Some people on local radio indicated they appreciated it.

_________________
The Dude abides.

And this basically now means that if anybody says anything rotten at a Tea Party event, there is now sufficient reason to blame the left.

_________________
The Dude abides.

But you don't need that support! You've already got it! When you're the status quo, you've got the support of the people who matter. It's rather like a bully picking on a smaller kid, and then when the smaller kid says something mean in retaliation to the bully, people rally around the bully. I suppose maybe the recruiting center thing is a bit different, as they're more akin to a third party that got dragged into the fray, but that's a rarity among the "protest" and "counter protest" crowds.

That's just part and parcel of being in power...those who aren't currently in power are going to be pissed off and vocal about their perceived lack of say in matters. You need to just suck it up and go about your business, and leave the rabble to either change the minds of the ambivalent masses, or implode.

I suppose a third option is to listen to the minority opposition and bring some of their ideas into the fold to strike a balance between the two opposing viewpoints, thus paving the way for an era of unbridled bipartisanship and fostered cooperation, but I mean, c'mon...I'm not writing a science fiction tale, here.

But those who make the decisions may not know they have the support of a large number of people. And, by counter protesting, you let the media know as well.

If there were no counter protests, people may think the population is made up of dissenters and apathetics.

That's **** absurd. When one side is in power they should just let the other side have the public stage of protest to say whatever they want because it's somehow not nice or unfair if they try to counter it?

No, you don't need to just suck it up. A lot of these protests on both sides are where the wrong-but-plausible-to-the-uninformed ideas that permeate public debate take root.

A protest or demonstration doesn't have to be about standing up to the government; it can also be about standing up to your fellow citizens.

People have a right to assembly and free speech, and it doesn't suddenly become any more unmannerly to exercise it just because the people you agree with are in power. It may be stupid to do it because your position is **** idiotic in the first place, but that can be equally applied to the people on the minority side.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."