|
Monday, 15 August 2016
quote [ Do you want to stop Donald Trump from rounding up Mexicans into camps? Try this: Encourage your idealistic, third-party-voting progressive and libertarian friends to drop their fantasies of an ideal, radically revised political and economic order and fight instead to protect what we’ve got. It’s the prudent thing to do, and it’s the principled move.
In a profound and persuasive new book, The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society, the political philosopher Gerald Gaus shows that visions of political perfection are bound to lead us astray. ] Seems a surprisingly compelling argument to me, but I'd love to hear your opinions
|
kylemcbitch said @ 1:51pm GMT on 16th August
No, it can't, but what I was talking about in the abstract can... that is that progress builds progress. We have become less violent because we have removed more and more need for violence over time. The leaded gas, for example, just being the latest and most obviously pronounced. With the advent of television, we saw a rise in violence, then fall in violence as well... which coincides with the wide availability of the internet. And as we go back in time, you find that every noticable drop or rise in violence is inextricably linked to technological progress with strong social connotations.
See, you are going right back to the logical fallacies here, both confusion of the inverse and arguement from consequence. You are worried about the worst that Donald Trump could do in a vaccum, and that ignores that he does not exist in a vaccum. First, and most obviously, is the fact he is doing miserably poor in the polls, as is the rest of the party he would presume to lead. Even if by some miracle of math and indifference he became our president, he does not have the power to do the things you are scared of. Most of that is local government, whom are going to continue to do what is in the best interest of making a paycheck, which means keeping the voters as happy and healthy as they can. Donald Trump is a miserable failure, but even he would find it difficult to squander 20 trillion dollars. Especially when he will be faced with stiff political opposition from both the opposition party, and HIS OWN PARTY. Donald Trump may not be harmless, but he isn't the end of Western Civilization either.
I am not arguing for Communism, I do, in fact believe a person should benefit from their sweat of their own brow. I even believe the people who innovate and manage should have more money than those that work under them. The harder, more requirement fueled work, the more they should be paid. Capitalism is a pretty solid engine for progress, it's undeniable. What I am saying is that people who work need to make enough to live where they work, and be able to go to school and better themselves. Surely, some of the people who currently make more per year than everyone currently making minimum wage combined could spare to make a little less so that society can keep it's promise to humanity: to be the engine on which we move into a better, and not worse, future. I am asking for everyone to be equal in every way. I am simply saying that there are better things to spend our money on that wars, and there are better laws than ones that move wealth into the hands of the fewer and fewer.
kylemcbitch said @ 2:08pm GMT on 16th August
No, it can't, but what I was talking about in the abstract can... that is that progress builds progress. We have become less violent because we have removed more and more need for violence over time. The leaded gas, for example, just being the latest and most obviously pronounced. With the advent of television, we saw a rise in violence, then fall in violence as well... which coincides with the wide availability of the internet. And as we go back in time, you find that every noticable drop or rise in violence is inextricably linked to technological progress with strong social connotations.
See, you are going right back to the logical fallacies here, both affirming the consequent and arguement from consequence. You are worried about the worst that Donald Trump could do in a vaccum, and that ignores that he does not exist in a vaccum. First, and most obviously, is the fact he is doing miserably poor in the polls, as is the rest of the party he would presume to lead. Even if by some miracle of math and indifference he became our president, he does not have the power to do the things you are scared of. Most of that is local government, whom are going to continue to do what is in the best interest of making a paycheck, which means keeping the voters as happy and healthy as they can. Donald Trump is a miserable failure, but even he would find it difficult to squander 20 trillion dollars. Especially when he will be faced with stiff political opposition from both the opposition party, and HIS OWN PARTY. Donald Trump may not be harmless, but he isn't the end of Western Civilization either.
I am not arguing for Communism, I do, in fact believe a person should benefit from their sweat of their own brow. I even believe the people who innovate and manage should have more money than those that work under them. The harder, more requirement fueled work, the more they should be paid. Capitalism is a pretty solid engine for progress, it's undeniable. What I am saying is that people who work need to make enough to live where they work, and be able to go to school and better themselves. Surely, some of the people who currently make more per year than everyone currently making minimum wage combined could spare to make a little less so that society can keep it's promise to humanity: to be the engine on which we move into a better, and not worse, future. I am asking for everyone to be equal in every way. I am simply saying that there are better things to spend our money on that wars, and there are better laws than ones that move wealth into the hands of the fewer and fewer.
kylemcbitch said @ 2:14pm GMT on 16th August
No, it can't, but what I was talking about in the abstract can... that is that progress builds progress. We have become less violent because we have removed more and more need for violence over time. The leaded gas, for example, just being the latest and most obviously pronounced. With the advent of television, we saw a rise in violence, then fall in violence as well... which coincides with the wide availability of the internet. And as we go back in time, you find that every noticable drop or rise in violence is inextricably linked to technological progress with strong social connotations.
See, you are going right back to the logical fallacies here. You are worried about the worst that Donald Trump could do in a vaccum, and that ignores that he does not exist in a vaccum. First, and most obviously, is the fact he is doing miserably poor in the polls, as is the rest of the party he would presume to lead. Even if by some miracle of math and indifference he became our president, he does not have the power to do the things you are scared of. Most of that is local government, whom are going to continue to do what is in the best interest of making a paycheck, which means keeping the voters as happy and healthy as they can. Donald Trump is a miserable failure, but even he would find it difficult to squander 20 trillion dollars. Especially when he will be faced with stiff political opposition from both the opposition party, and HIS OWN PARTY. Donald Trump may not be harmless, but he isn't the end of Western Civilization either.
I am not arguing for Communism, I do, in fact believe a person should benefit from their sweat of their own brow. I even believe the people who innovate and manage should have more money than those that work under them. The harder, more requirement fueled work, the more they should be paid. Capitalism is a pretty solid engine for progress, it's undeniable. What I am saying is that people who work need to make enough to live where they work, and be able to go to school and better themselves. Surely, some of the people who currently make more per year than everyone currently making minimum wage combined could spare to make a little less so that society can keep it's promise to humanity: to be the engine on which we move into a better, and not worse, future. I am asking for everyone to be equal in every way. I am simply saying that there are better things to spend our money on that wars, and there are better laws than ones that move wealth into the hands of the fewer and fewer.
kylemcbitch said @ 2:33pm GMT on 16th August
No, it can't, but what I was talking about in the abstract can... that is that progress builds progress. We have become less violent because we have removed more and more need for violence over time. The leaded gas, for example, just being the latest and most obviously pronounced. With the advent of television, we saw a rise in violence, then fall in violence as well... which coincides with the wide availability of the internet. And as we go back in time, you find that every noticable drop or rise in violence is inextricably linked to technological progress with strong social connotations.
See, you are going right back to the logical fallacies* here. You are worried about the worst that Donald Trump could do in a vaccum, and that ignores that he does not exist in a vaccum. First, and most obviously, is the fact he is doing miserably poor in the polls, as is the rest of the party he would presume to lead. Even if by some miracle of math and indifference he became our president, he does not have the power to do the things you are scared of. Most of that is local government, whom are going to continue to do what is in the best interest of making a paycheck, which means keeping the voters as happy and healthy as they can. Donald Trump is a miserable failure, but even he would find it difficult to squander 20 trillion dollars. Especially when he will be faced with stiff political opposition from both the opposition party, and HIS OWN PARTY. Donald Trump may not be harmless, but he isn't the end of Western Civilization either.
I am not arguing for Communism, I do, in fact believe a person should benefit from their sweat of their own brow. I even believe the people who innovate and manage should have more money than those that work under them. The harder, more requirement fueled work, the more they should be paid. Capitalism is a pretty solid engine for progress, it's undeniable. What I am saying is that people who work need to make enough to live where they work, and be able to go to school and better themselves. Surely, some of the people who currently make more per year than everyone currently making minimum wage combined could spare to make a little less so that society can keep it's promise to humanity: to be the engine on which we move into a better, and not worse, future. I am asking for everyone to be equal in every way. I am simply saying that there are better things to spend our money on that wars, and there are better laws than ones that move wealth into the hands of the fewer and fewer.
Edit: I realized the amount of logical fallacies involved was too many to easily explain and enumerate in a single sentence.
First, the negative version of the appeal to consequence:
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.
(P being voting as self expression, Q is "bad guy wins." Not exactly directed at you, just Noam Chomsky :P, but it is a direct stab at Lesser Evil Voting.)
Secondly, affirming the consequent:
If X, then Y.
Y.
Therefore, X.
(X being worst case scenario, Y being you didn't vote for my guy)
Appeal to Fear:
Either P or Q is true.
Q is frightening.
Therefore, P is true.
(False dilemma fallacy is also involved, suggesting P is the proposed idea's sole alternative.)
<-- Entry / Current Comment
kylemcbitch said @ 1:51pm GMT on 16th August
No, it can't, but what I was talking about in the abstract can... that is that progress builds progress. We have become less violent because we have removed more and more need for violence over time. The leaded gas, for example, just being the latest and most obviously pronounced. With the advent of television, we saw a rise in violence, then fall in violence as well... which coincides with the wide availability of the internet. And as we go back in time, you find that every noticable drop or rise in violence is inextricably linked to technological progress with strong social connotations.
See, you are going right back to the logical fallacies* here. You are worried about the worst that Donald Trump could do in a vaccum, and that ignores that he does not exist in a vaccum. First, and most obviously, is the fact he is doing miserably poor in the polls, as is the rest of the party he would presume to lead. Even if by some miracle of math and indifference he became our president, he does not have the power to do the things you are scared of. Most of that is local government, whom are going to continue to do what is in the best interest of making a paycheck, which means keeping the voters as happy and healthy as they can. Donald Trump is a miserable failure, but even he would find it difficult to squander 20 trillion dollars. Especially when he will be faced with stiff political opposition from both the opposition party, and HIS OWN PARTY. Donald Trump may not be harmless, but he isn't the end of Western Civilization either.
I am not arguing for Communism, I do, in fact believe a person should benefit from their sweat of their own brow. I even believe the people who innovate and manage should have more money than those that work under them. The harder, more requirement fueled work, the more they should be paid. Capitalism is a pretty solid engine for progress, it's undeniable. What I am saying is that people who work need to make enough to live where they work, and be able to go to school and better themselves. Surely, some of the people who currently make more per year than everyone currently making minimum wage combined could spare to make a little less so that society can keep it's promise to humanity: to be the engine on which we move into a better, and not worse, future. I am asking for everyone to be equal in every way. I am simply saying that there are better things to spend our money on that wars, and there are better laws than ones that move wealth into the hands of the fewer and fewer.
Edit: I realized the amount of logical fallacies involved was too many to easily explain and enumerate in a single sentence.
First, the negative version of the appeal to consequence:
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.
(P being voting as self expression, Q is "bad guy wins." Not exactly directed at you, just Noam Chomsky :P, but it is a direct stab at Lesser Evil Voting.)
Secondly, affirming the consequent:
If X, then Y.
Y.
Therefore, X.
(X being worst case scenario, Y being you didn't vote for my guy)
Appeal to Fear:
Either P or Q is true.
Q is frightening.
Therefore, P is true.
(False dilemma fallacy is also involved, suggesting P is the proposed idea's sole alternative.)
