User Tag List

First 9101112 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 114

  1. #101
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Since when was being informed a prerequisite for voting? Elections are won and lost by the decisions of tens of millions of completely uninformed people.
    Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
    Well that sorts that one out... NEXT!
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #102
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The entirety of it. You give up the state of nature and its freedoms to accept the protections of society in exchange for restricting yourself to society's bounds. Exerting proscribed actions in the public sphere is a breach of this contract, to which society is owed damages.
    Why?

    I have to wonder where this revenge idea came from as an established logical premise. It's pure negativity.

    The only time society is due damages is when it goes towards healing the damage done by the original incident. None of this lawyer happy jiggery pokery.

    If you want to find out what destroyed the neighbourhood and people's sense of society, look towards what lead to the increase in litigation. I'd wager they're closely linked.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    It does raise a correlative connection, however. Why would any sort of system other than a two-party system arise, given that the ceteris paribus odds of winning in a single-member district will never exceed .5?
    So people are binary now?
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    That's nice and all, but what does that do for you? What does that do for anyone?
    Nothing and why should it? Does being observant DO anything for you? No not unless you DO something WITH it.

    Jeez you need to get out of the city sometimes... it's not all escalators and elevators you know. Some people walk and all that DOES for them is get them there later than if they'd taken a cab and sweatier.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Why wouldn't a society in which trying to bring about change is heavily punished be as free as one where it is tolerated under this standard?
    Say what now?
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Because if you simply refuse to comply with society, you're not going to have access to the means of survival.
    Bzzt, sorry hans wrong guess... Not complying is not the same as rejecting. Compliance infers you obey, rejection is not choosing to make your own damn mind up (which is non compliance) it's full bodied throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    You sure are binary... what about the rest of us?
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You have a very optimistic view of people.
    Why thank you. I figure if I give you enough rope.... oh you mean the other thing... well I've admitted to being gullible before.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Maybe.
    I don't really want to know, how your garden grows, cause I just want to... nuts wrong subject...
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Everything's related to reproduction.
    Binary AND a one track mind... we are doing well for Freud today

    How do you reason those NOT interested in reproduction? And yes I've known a few.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    They love "Gawd" and "Jhee-susah" much more than that. They ignored the 15th Amendment for a century. They only respect the 2nd because it justifies what they already agree with.
    Nice though that the second amendment gives you guns and only by the fifteenth does anyone think about equal rights...
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Nothing wrong with injury awards, nor valor and heroism for saving fellow soldiers' lives. Awards for killing fifty of the enemy, on the other hand? Detestable.
    So a soldier who gets shot is in your book superior as a soldier to one who shoots them first? They are employees you know. Sure they sign up for it but it's not as simple as all soldiers being willing and capable killers, if only it were.
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    OF COURSE i'm up to the job. No, honestly. I know my limitations.
    You have limitations now?

    I'll check but I think you've just been thrown out of your type.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    Yes, but isn't ruthlessness an integral part of efficiency?
    To be ruthlessly effective? But it can't be excessive, either...
    God, I sound like i'm turning into an ENFJ.
    Ruthlessness and effectivity are often two very different things. The former is effectivity without considering human beings, that's particularly daft if you're involving them in the solution.

    As for sounding like an ENFJ, not even close. You haven't declared that no matter what kind of efficient they are they'd best follow the plan or you'll dehumanise them for good... that would be sounding ENFJish
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  3. #103
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Why?

    I have to wonder where this revenge idea came from as an established logical premise. It's pure negativity.

    The only time society is due damages is when it goes towards healing the damage done by the original incident. None of this lawyer happy jiggery pokery.

    If you want to find out what destroyed the neighbourhood and people's sense of society, look towards what lead to the increase in litigation. I'd wager they're closely linked.
    So now that common people have the same legal remedies available to them that the wealthy have had for generations, this is leading to the destruction of society? Do you really want to make that argument?

    It's not revenge - it's the idea that you have to abide by agreements made. If you don't, you're penalized for it. It creates greater consistency and predictability.

    So people are binary now?
    No, but money is. If you have to spend a lot of resources to advance a certain cause, would you rather spend all of it on a .16 chance of winning everything (six candidates) and a .84 chance of losing everything? Or would you rather spend less in resources for a .5 chance of winning some of what you want, especially when you'll expand the audience and coalition for promoting your cause?

    If the options are only total victory and total defeat in an election, it makes sense for as many coaligned interests to pool their resources toward winning as possible. This ultimately leads to two parties, each, with all other things being equal, having a fifty percent shot of winning.

    Nothing and why should it? Does being observant DO anything for you? No not unless you DO something WITH it.

    Jeez you need to get out of the city sometimes... it's not all escalators and elevators you know. Some people walk and all that DOES for them is get them there later than if they'd taken a cab and sweatier.
    I am not so arrogant to think my own existence is particularly special or noteworthy per se. Therefore, to ascribe some sort of significance to decisions I make that have no impact on others seems silly to me. The most trivial of trivial in the long story of the universe.

    Say what now?
    You can do whatever the hell you want to. Never mind that a jackbooted thug will bludgeon you in response, you're still free to act in that matter.

    Bzzt, sorry hans wrong guess... Not complying is not the same as rejecting. Compliance infers you obey, rejection is not choosing to make your own damn mind up (which is non compliance) it's full bodied throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    You sure are binary... what about the rest of us?
    You're still complying with the base requirements, thus restricting your own freedom.

    I'm not particularly binary (see the p over to the left), but I am fond of argumentum ad absurdum. You started with an absurd proposition, that the actions and decisions of others do not have any affect on your life, and I'm just going as far down the rabbit hole as you do.

    Why thank you. I figure if I give you enough rope.... oh you mean the other thing... well I've admitted to being gullible before.
    Heh.

    I don't really want to know, how your garden grows, cause I just want to... nuts wrong subject...

    Binary AND a one track mind... we are doing well for Freud today
    We're carriers for bits of deoxyribonucleic acid that for some reason tend to recombine with themselves, and have a few interesting side reactions. Human behavior becomes a lot easier to understand with this in mind.

    How do you reason those NOT interested in reproduction? And yes I've known a few.
    Group selection - those which both limit the consumption of resources through not having kids and intensify the rearing of their siblings' children still get to pass many of their genes on, perhaps all of them. Much better than everyone dying out from starvation.

    Nice though that the second amendment gives you guns and only by the fifteenth does anyone think about equal rights...
    The Fifteenth is universal male suffrage. Blacks essentially couldn't vote until the late 1960s, even though a constitutional amendment said they could in the 1860s.

    Point still stands. They only respect the Constitution when they agree with it already.

    So a soldier who gets shot is in your book superior as a soldier to one who shoots them first? They are employees you know. Sure they sign up for it but it's not as simple as all soldiers being willing and capable killers, if only it were.
    No. They are morally equivalent. Neither better nor worse, just caught in a tragedy not of their own design. Except for the fact that one has taken a human life, and to honor that is to imply societal condoning of such a concept. Which society does, as long as it makes the money men richer.

  4. #104
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    So now that common people have the same legal remedies available to them that the wealthy have had for generations, this is leading to the destruction of society? Do you really want to make that argument?
    HAH. I fail to see how being altruistic and naive makes a better stand point.

    The legal profession now engages in more advertising than most car dealerships. You think that's so they can righteously defend the poor? Please.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    It's not revenge - it's the idea that you have to abide by agreements made. If you don't, you're penalized for it. It creates greater consistency and predictability.
    Be good or I'm going to break your legs... hmm which part of that sounds like revenge?

    What difference are you drawing? The penalty most often does nothing to redress the damage and is more focused on making one party feel better through the punishment of the other party.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    No, but money is. If you have to spend a lot of resources to advance a certain cause, would you rather spend all of it on a .16 chance of winning everything (six candidates) and a .84 chance of losing everything? Or would you rather spend less in resources for a .5 chance of winning some of what you want, especially when you'll expand the audience and coalition for promoting your cause?
    Money is not politics, that American culture. We don't tend to have millions spent at the drop of a hat over here and people still get elected.

    The only reason money comes into it so much is because one guy did it and the others had to equal him and now it's expected. You could quite easily cap the spending and therefore allow those poor people you're representing in court a fair stab at making the laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    If the options are only total victory and total defeat in an election, it makes sense for as many coaligned interests to pool their resources toward winning as possible. This ultimately leads to two parties, each, with all other things being equal, having a fifty percent shot of winning.
    There is not only total victory and total defeat. It's all in the numbers. You'd be amazed how much attention the numbers get.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I am not so arrogant to think my own existence is particularly special or noteworthy per se. Therefore, to ascribe some sort of significance to decisions I make that have no impact on others seems silly to me. The most trivial of trivial in the long story of the universe.
    And yet you think you have an equal right to life.... interesting. So you're not important but you're as important as everyone else?

    Seriously... that's just messed up.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You can do whatever the hell you want to. Never mind that a jackbooted thug will bludgeon you in response, you're still free to act in that matter.
    Precisely. If you weren't being sarky that would be a eureka moment.

    Read choice theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You're still complying with the base requirements, thus restricting your own freedom.
    Choosing to comply is freedom, having to comply isn't. It's that simple.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I'm not particularly binary (see the p over to the left), but I am fond of argumentum ad absurdum. You started with an absurd proposition, that the actions and decisions of others do not have any affect on your life, and I'm just going as far down the rabbit hole as you do.
    Yes but trying to guess where I'm going, then leaping seventy three trillion steps in advance is getting no where.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    We're carriers for bits of deoxyribonucleic acid that for some reason tend to recombine with themselves, and have a few interesting side reactions. Human behavior becomes a lot easier to understand with this in mind.

    Group selection - those which both limit the consumption of resources through not having kids and intensify the rearing of their siblings' children still get to pass many of their genes on, perhaps all of them. Much better than everyone dying out from starvation.
    Yes yes and our brains work in a binary fashion blah blah... I'm sorry but I'm agnostic.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The Fifteenth is universal male suffrage. Blacks essentially couldn't vote until the late 1960s, even though a constitutional amendment said they could in the 1860s.
    Right to vote... equal rights.... you're being pedantic..
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    No. They are morally equivalent. Neither better nor worse, just caught in a tragedy not of their own design. Except for the fact that one has taken a human life, and to honor that is to imply societal condoning of such a concept. Which society does, as long as it makes the money men richer.
    How many times do you think they send out a soldier with the instructions of "go kill a few baddies"? It's called war because people object to what your doing and are willing to resist with extreme force. If you want to question whether the objective is worthwhile then that's a different matter but the armed forced are not equivalent to a bunch of psychopathic killers and never have been.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #105
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
    What do you make of the famous H.L. Mencken quote:


    How would we establish government based on this idea? Without democracy would the government always become tyrannical? Anarchists would argue that all government is tyrannical, as would Communists (seeing as the ultimate goal of Communism is that of Libertarian Socialism, or the broader term Anarchy)... because their ultimate goals are mutual. Which is the best system to follow for working towards freedom, and a well functioning politic system?

    Also, what really defines tryanny in regards to government and why are many people so quick to start hyperventilating about their lack of freedom...seeing as government is ultimately an invisible force?
    The point of Democracy is to have as inefficient a government as possible. It would be preferable to have a government with a benevolent leader, but you can never count on that. The next best thing is to have a totally inefficient government like a Democracy. If your leaders are going to be evil, then you want to make them as impotent as possible.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  6. #106
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    HAH. I fail to see how being altruistic and naive makes a better stand point.

    The legal profession now engages in more advertising than most car dealerships. You think that's so they can righteously defend the poor? Please.
    You're not denying the key point.

    Be good or I'm going to break your legs... hmm which part of that sounds like revenge?
    Sounds to me like an agreement.

    What difference are you drawing? The penalty most often does nothing to redress the damage and is more focused on making one party feel better through the punishment of the other party.
    Criminal law is about societal offenses, civil law about redressing personal damage. You commit a crime, you've harmed society as a whole; as a redress, society assesses penalties. Meanwhile, you may still have civil liability toward someone if they were personally harmed by your actions.

    Money is not politics, that American culture. We don't tend to have millions spent at the drop of a hat over here and people still get elected.
    You still need money to reach voters. More than the average person has. You really want to argue that it's not an issue in the UK? Cash for Honours, anyone?

    The only reason money comes into it so much is because one guy did it and the others had to equal him and now it's expected. You could quite easily cap the spending and therefore allow those poor people you're representing in court a fair stab at making the laws.
    Or, because it's mathematically sound to work in such a way. Personally, I'd prefer full public funding of elections. However, party apparatuses will still restrict candidates to those who best represent the interests of its various coalitions. Even New Labour isn't going to put up a candidate who resembles the BNP.

    There is not only total victory and total defeat. It's all in the numbers. You'd be amazed how much attention the numbers get.
    You win the election - total victory, because you have the level of political power commensurate with the office, and your opponents can do nothing about it for your term. You lose the election - well, you've just gambled all these resources and received nothing for it (well, maybe a book deal, but that's outside the realm of poli. sci.).

    And yet you think you have an equal right to life.... interesting. So you're not important but you're as important as everyone else?
    Yup.



    We've spent our entire existence fighting over fractions of that little blue speck in the middle of that brown band on the right. The universe is really big, and we are really small. Therefore, if there is to be any significance in what we do, it is in the very small impact we make on others in our life, so that once we do expand off that pale blue dot, something you've done, a person you've encouraged or a child you've raised has been part of the process to advance the cause of humanity as a whole.

    Seriously... that's just messed up.
    Is it really?

    Precisely. If you weren't being sarky that would be a eureka moment.

    Read choice theory.
    That's not a meaningful choice. The primary effect is not the intended effect, unless you were committing suicide by pissing a jackbooted thug off.

    Choosing to comply is freedom, having to comply isn't. It's that simple.
    How do you define "having to comply"? You're still making a choice. Just not a meaningful one.

    Yes but trying to guess where I'm going, then leaping seventy three trillion steps in advance is getting no where.
    Dude -



    This entire conversation by its very nature gets us nowhere. It's just amusement.

    Yes yes and our brains work in a binary fashion blah blah... I'm sorry but I'm agnostic.
    I don't understand... what does that have to do with binary cognition? Personally, I think it has more to do with multi-state quantum interactions.

    Right to vote... equal rights.... you're being pedantic..
    Fourteenth recognizes "equal protection under the law". We killed an amendment recognizing equal rights 30 years ago. It's an important distinction, because laws can still exist that treat people differently, as long as they have the same legal protection

    How many times do you think they send out a soldier with the instructions of "go kill a few baddies"? It's called war because people object to what your doing and are willing to resist with extreme force. If you want to question whether the objective is worthwhile then that's a different matter but the armed forced are not equivalent to a bunch of psychopathic killers and never have been.
    However, many of the best soldiers are sociopaths

    What do you think we did in Iraq after the initial invasion? Was there really a strategy, or was it just "go out there and kill some hajjis?"

  7. #107
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You're not denying the key point.
    I am, you're ignoring it.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Sounds to me like an agreement.
    And yet isn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Criminal law is about societal offenses, civil law about redressing personal damage. You commit a crime, you've harmed society as a whole; as a redress, society assesses penalties. Meanwhile, you may still have civil liability toward someone if they were personally harmed by your actions.
    Criminal law is about punishing the wicked, redemption and redress. There's very little which will heal what happens.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You still need money to reach voters. More than the average person has. You really want to argue that it's not an issue in the UK? Cash for Honours, anyone?
    Cash for honours being a loophole and not the intended effect of the system, in fact people got pursued by the law about that. You can't include those working outside of a system as part of the system without having the system as some kind of quantum experiment which is daft if you're looking for solutions and not just pontifications.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Or, because it's mathematically sound to work in such a way. Personally, I'd prefer full public funding of elections. However, party apparatuses will still restrict candidates to those who best represent the interests of its various coalitions. Even New Labour isn't going to put up a candidate who resembles the BNP.
    Maths has nothing to do with it except in analysis. It's the tool used as a measure not the thing being measured, it always is.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You win the election - total victory, because you have the level of political power commensurate with the office, and your opponents can do nothing about it for your term. You lose the election - well, you've just gambled all these resources and received nothing for it (well, maybe a book deal, but that's outside the realm of poli. sci.).
    Total victory = 1 seat?
    Out of how many?

    You have a strange idea of totality.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    We've spent our entire existence fighting over fractions of that little blue speck in the middle of that brown band on the right. The universe is really big, and we are really small. Therefore, if there is to be any significance in what we do, it is in the very small impact we make on others in our life, so that once we do expand off that pale blue dot, something you've done, a person you've encouraged or a child you've raised has been part of the process to advance the cause of humanity as a whole.
    So surely you should go and have kids and quit spending so much time trying to grasp an overall image that you clearly aren't interested in. Leave such things to those of us with a want to view the larger picture.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Is it really?
    Is that the only comment?
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    That's not a meaningful choice. The primary effect is not the intended effect, unless you were committing suicide by pissing a jackbooted thug off.
    "Primary effect" is your judgement alone. What is the primary is up to those involved.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    How do you define "having to comply"? You're still making a choice. Just not a meaningful one.
    This makes no sense. Being forced to do something is not a choice now is it.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    This entire conversation by its very nature gets us nowhere. It's just amusement.
    All is amusement if you choose to see it as such, even death.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I don't understand... what does that have to do with binary cognition? Personally, I think it has more to do with multi-state quantum interactions.
    Personally I think you have too much faith in a theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Fourteenth recognizes "equal protection under the law". We killed an amendment recognizing equal rights 30 years ago. It's an important distinction, because laws can still exist that treat people differently, as long as they have the same legal protection
    Equal being "same".... another useless division in people's vocabulary based upon faulty understanding.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    However, many of the best soldiers are sociopaths[/URL]
    A implies B does not imply that B implies A.
    What do you think we did in Iraq after the initial invasion? Was there really a strategy, or was it just "go out there and kill some hajjis?"
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #108
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I am, you're ignoring it.
    Nope - why would a lawyer need to advertise if legal protections had not been expanded to the general public?

    And yet isn't.
    How is it not? You act one way, I leave you alone. You act another way, I inflict physical injury upon you. This is in consideration of your acceptance of the benefits of living in our society.

    Criminal law is about punishing the wicked, redemption and redress. There's very little which will heal what happens.
    That's a very different concept of criminal law than I understand. Redress is clearly not the role of criminal law - that's what civil litigation is for. I would say there's very little redemption either - who is made better by the criminal process? Finally, who or what does punishment serve?

    In comparison, I'd say criminal law is about one key principle - strengthening societal cohesion. This is done through removing potential harms to societal stability (through imprisonment), along with establishing predictability as to the consequences of excessively selfish behavior (and with exceptions, it's selfish behavior that is criminal).

    Cash for honours being a loophole and not the intended effect of the system, in fact people got pursued by the law about that. You can't include those working outside of a system as part of the system without having the system as some kind of quantum experiment which is daft if you're looking for solutions and not just pontifications.
    Of course you can. Why wouldn't you? They're still there, and they still affect the system. Maybe you might try thinking less about what you think the government should do, and realize that there are just certain things which are inherent to the nature of society's collective decision-making bodies. One of those things is wealthy and/or powerful people trying to game the system to their own benefit.

    Maths has nothing to do with it except in analysis. It's the tool used as a measure not the thing being measured, it always is.
    That is, it describes things that are already present in the universe. The relationships created by a single-member district means of representative elections invariably lead to a situation whereby most interests will coalesce into two factions, because each interest has the greatest probability of its promotion through this process. This is science in a nutshell - using mathematical relationships to make predictions about future events.

    In contrast, proportional representation lends itself much more to third parties, because interests can maintain autonomy and still have a good chance at being represented in the legislature.

    Total victory = 1 seat?
    Out of how many?

    You have a strange idea of totality.
    Out of that one election. Which in this circumstance, is the only thing that matters. That this leads to two national parties (three in the UK for historical reasons) is then a function of requiring 50%+1 majorities to pass legislation.

    So surely you should go and have kids and quit spending so much time trying to grasp an overall image that you clearly aren't interested in. Leave such things to those of us with a want to view the larger picture.
    This is the big picture. In fact, I can't think of a bigger picture. To ascribe any more significance to one's actions is forgetting two major things - first, the universe is going to go on without you whether you like it or not, and second, you will die one day and after that, as far as we know, you're done. We have a very limited time in this universe, and there is only so much we can do. Rather than struggle against this, it is to our benefit to quit worrying about questions of significance, and simply make the impact on the world that you can. In the words of Mssr. Arouet, we must cultivate our garden.

    Is that the only comment?
    Yeah. Humanity's united in its common insignificance. What's hard to understand?

    "Primary effect" is your judgement alone. What is the primary is up to those involved.
    OK, let me clarify: "primary empirical effect". The subjective effects are essentially irrelevant.

    This makes no sense. Being forced to do something is not a choice now is it.
    You can still choose not to do it, and suffer the penalties.

    All is amusement if you choose to see it as such, even death.
    Then there is no distinction between any emotional states.

    Personally I think you have too much faith in a theory.
    No faith whatsoever. Come to me with empirical evidence that this is not the case, and then we'll talk.

    Equal being "same".... another useless division in people's vocabulary based upon faulty understanding.
    OK, well in that case, "same rights" and "same protections under the law" are not equivalent.

  9. #109
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Let me just say that I think it's pointless going any further. Either we are at opposite end in terms of philosophy or we're missing each others point consistently. Either way I've got one more attempt.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    OK, let me clarify: "primary empirical effect". The subjective effects are essentially irrelevant.
    Empiricism is a theory. There is no fact unless taken in social context. If taken in social context then it's all pointless because you're trying to hit a hammer with a hammer whilst claiming it's a pick.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  10. #110
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Empiricism is a theory. There is no fact unless taken in social context. If taken in social context then it's all pointless because you're trying to hit a hammer with a hammer whilst claiming it's a pick.
    At some point a hypothesis becomes so consistently predictive that it is accepted as the closest equivalent of fact for something that is not directly measurable. That is called theory.

    Being killed by the thug takes a way a person's ability to engage in the infinite possibilities of their future life, and you'd say this isn't a primary effect?

Similar Threads

  1. Because someone is Liberal does not mean they can ignore democracy
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-06-2017, 04:25 PM
  2. Democracy, Critical Thinking, & Journalism
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-18-2007, 07:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO