Real World Event Discussions
The Demonization of the Opposition
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35776
PAGE 4 of 20
Saturday, July 10, 2004 3:51 AM
Yes, I sincerely mean the invitation. I had what sure seemed to me like a flash of insight! 
But, maybe I'm wrong! I'd sure be happy to find out!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, July 10, 2004 6:27 AM
Quote:
In light of the original topic of this thread, the binary choice created by the two major parties contributes to the demonization between them, because as the public notices, "Hey, why not the green shirt?" the major parties are forced to ratchet up the rhetoric in order to keep voters from jumping ship completely. They say, "Forget that we don't address issues that are important to you - look at the evil monster that will be in control if you vote your conscience!!!!" (And just look at the venom aimed toward Ralph Nader.)
splibertarian
This explanation for the abundance of vilification from both sides resonates with my experience. It's much more logical than just saying that those in the minority are attacking because they feel powerless. I'm not sure how you'd categorize the fallacy. It's probably a combination of red herring, appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and maybe some more that I've missed since it's been so long since I took that particular math class. But it is a smoke screen designed to obscure something.
There were a couple of other things I wanted to address that came up in the course of this thread.
Thanks for posting those links Rue, especially the basic definitions. It reminded me of just how little political theory I learned in many years of private high school/liberal arts college/research I university education. Although, as an engineer, I guess I am just expected to design things and not think about implications
.And thanks, Signym, for your analysis of Drakon's argument. It really does go back to the ends versus means debate. To borrow an often-used phrased, I sincerely believe that certain ends preclude certain means. (the Malcolm X - by any means necessary* - versus the Gandhi - nonviolent resistance). I'll ignore for the moment a lot of the assumptions that have led to us being in Iraq (that Saddam would provide al Queda with WMD to use against our country) and use the current party line - that we are liberating the citizens of Iraq from a tyrannical dictator and instituting a democracy to serve as an example and help stabilize the region (I'll also ignore for the moment whether or not this should be our job as a country). IF this is indeed why we are there, then I don't believe we can accomplish this by setting aside international law. If the goal is to establish democracy then you cannot do this by using undemocratic methods.
This is the same reason why we should not be limiting our freedoms to combat terrorists. The message this sends is that we don't trust our system enough to continue to use it in a time of threat. That we pay lip service to freedom, but when push comes to shove that freedom really just gets in the way. Sure it would be easier to control this country if the police and various agencies had more power, but it wouldn't be the same country.
Now I'll just zig in a completely different direction
. How viable an option is torture anyway? I keep going back to the inquisition. According to all the confessions, there sure were a lot of witches in Europe. Eventually, people will tell you whatever you want to hear to get you to stop hurting them. So any information you obtain using torture has to be suspect. If you know enough to know that someone is telling the truth then you probably know enough to not even have to torture them in the first place.So that's enough rambling for now...
* In all fairness, the Malcolm X quote is usually presented completely without context. The speech that this comes from is titled "The Ballot or the Bullet" and is a very interesting read.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, July 10, 2004 6:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
So any information you obtain using torture has to be suspect.
Torture will extract the information the torturer expects, true. That is why those who analyse information extracted by torture must exclude that information from their analysis. In turn, those who arrange torture to be used must ensure that a sufficient number of innocent people are tortured so that the information expected by the torturers can be statistically identified.
I'm not being judgemental here. Just saying that the torturing of innocent people is not an unavoidable by-product but a deliberate intention.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, July 10, 2004 7:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
I'm not being judgemental here. Just saying that the torturing of innocent people is not an unavoidable biproduct but a deliberate intention.
My first thought in reading this was, "At least they're using solid experimental design." My second thought was, "I feel dirty."
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:11 AM
Quote:You are right, that this is a danger. I recognize that. But we end up looking at each proposal individually, seeing how they affect security and freedom and deciding whether we draw the line here, or over there. Whether we impliment it, will it work, or not?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Furthermore, if I were to take your position to it's extreme (sacrificing any liberty for total security) it would quickly devolve into an Orwellian nightmare. What I think it really comes down to is how much liberty are we willing to sacrifice for how much security.
You do have a tough time convincing me otherwise, because I find it an effective means of living. Boiling problems down to as small as possible components, boiling issues and questions down to their fundamentals. You can bring up a lot of these issues, and I can defend my position on most of them. I spent far too much time on mid watches and owl shift.
By saying that "Well its all grey" I don't see that as being better. I see it as worse. It paralyses, it prevents decisions and actions. The world still rolls along and sometimes if you don't decide, don't move, it runs right over you.
Quote:Grin, we can have an interesting discussion about the interplay between the ideal and the real someday. Maybe in another thread. You may be right, that I might be an idealist. But I do think it is a set of ideals that are based on the real world, how real people function in it. And on what actually works.
Oddly, I think my discussion problems with you and others (Jasonzz, Finn, Wulfhawk, Drakon) is that while you all think that you're realists, in fact you're idealists (in the philosophical sense). You use words like "life" "liberty", "freedom" and "capitalism" as if they pointed to some ideal thing that is only imperfectly reflected in the "real" world. In other words the definition becomes the thing, and the actuality isn't real. But definitions (except mathematical ones) always have fuzzy edges and gray areas. To point out what I mean, please try to define for me what you mean by "LIFE".
Idealism has led to the concept of communism being a workable model for politics and economics. Reality is much different, totalitarian control of the economy of a large population is simply impossible, and inefficient. Which is why it naturally leads to Stalins and Hitler and Pol Pots and whoever else comes down the line, asking for total and arbitrary power in order to "do it right". That is also why it leads to bigotry, anti-Semitism or anti-whoever the scapegoat is. Since the system fails, since the system cannot work (information problem) the guys in charge would lose their phoney baloney jobs unless they were able to convince the populace that the fault is not in their theories, but because of the machinations of some other.
As for defining Life, this is an example of such interplay. I am sticking with the pure biological stuff when I talk about that. Granted there may be cases where it might be a bit murky. Those cases are fortunately rare. You are either alive, or dead. You may be asleep, you may even be in a coma, kept alive by machines. But you still have a functioning brain, as determinable externally, usually, by EEGs. Your heart is beating, your brain working, you are moving around, talking, posting stuff. That is signs of life. If any dead people can do those kinds of things, please speak up.
The key point here is that Life, unlike Happiness, is objectively verifiable. Your heart stops, your brain stops. You are dead. Last I heard, you have about 6 minutes before the impact of death becomes irreversable. Having no recollections of being dead, I can't say conclusively.
Happiness is a bit trickier. This is more subjective, not only in the sense that such cannot be observed or determined without assistance from the subject, but also it is an internal thing. Where are you happy? Inside your skull. That happiness may be the result of external (to your skull) activities, but since I ain't a mind reader, I am stuck with aski
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:13 AM
Quote:Time is an issue, as are other life's necessities. Just because I don't respond immediately, that does not mean a thing. I do have a life, such as it is.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I sincerely mean the invitation. I had what sure seemed to me like a flash of insight!
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:39 AM
Quote:Why do you do, well, anything? Why do we think and breathe and live and all the stuff that we do? We do it to achieve a particular purpose or goal. When it is dark, we hit the switch. Because we want the light to come on. We don't flush the toilet and expect it to have the same effect.
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And thanks, Signym, for your analysis of Drakon's argument. It really does go back to the ends versus means debate.
This is what I think you are missing. You don't get to pick the consequences of your actions. Reality does that for you. You pick your actions based on your mental model of reality. If that model is accurate, you should get what you expect to get. If your model is flawed however....
Quote:Funny, I don't think Washington, or Jefferson would have agreed with you. This nation was founded in revolution, and I don't think you can call that democratic. There was a lot of support for the British at the time, but their opinions were overridden. Whether that was by a majority, or simply an elect few, that is more an issue for historians. The fact remains we did not vote the British out, we kicked them out, by force.
If the goal is to establish democracy then you cannot do this by using undemocratic methods.
In an idealist world, that would be great. But we live in the world we live in, and have to deal with folks who don't give a damn about international law, UN resolutions, the Geneva Convention, or anything of the like.
And when you really think about it, how is a law enforced? It is not done by the agreement of the criminal. Heck if the criminal agreed with the law, he would not be breaking it would he? You have to use force, coercive force, whether he, or really anyone else, agrees.
And besides which, what you are saying cannot happen, is happening in Iraq, even as we speak.
Quote:If freedom means the freedom to get blowed up, well, I'll pass.
This is the same reason why we should not be limiting our freedoms to combat terrorists. The message this sends is that we don't trust our system enough to continue to use it in a time of threat. That we pay lip service to freedom, but when push comes to shove that freedom really just gets in the way. Sure it would be easier to control this country if the police and various agencies had more power, but it wouldn't be the same country.
Look, people are free. You don't have to agree with me, or even listen to me. You don't have to respond. I can't make you think one way or another. Nor can I even determine objectively whether you do or not. I would have to accept your word on it. Its part of that not being a mind reader thingy again.
But there are some actions that we decide that maybe its not such a good idea to do, in general. Murder, robbery, rape, talking during movies, and we have systems and institutions that, by their very nature, deny folks the freedom to do just that. Some are taboos, and punishable by public disaproval. Some are laws, and can include removal from this plane of existence. We allow these restrictions on our personal liberty, because without it, we ain't got any at all.
You appear to see freedom as an end unto itself. I see life and happiness as the end all of it all. What I do, what I say, what I think, what I decide, how I act, all of these are supposed to make me live longer and healthier. So far its been working. I am happier with less rules. But if the choice is getting through the airport line slower, or getting blowed up, well I have to go for the former over the latter. Freedom, even happiness don't mean a thing if you are dead.
As long as I am alive, I can get back, fight back for my freedoms, and the other things that will be condusive to a long and happy life. But if I am dead, well, that is it, game over.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:40 AM
Hello Drakon, I'm on the "sleepless" shift! to discuss further the difference between "realism" and "idealism", you said...
Quote:
"Boiling problems down to as small as possible components, boiling issues and questions down to their fundamentals...
...Life, this is an example of such interplay. I am sticking with the pure biological stuff when I talk about that. Granted there may be cases where it might be a bit murky. Those cases are fortunately rare. You are either alive, or dead. You may be asleep, you may even be in a coma, kept alive by machines. But you still have a functioning brain, as determinable externally, usually, by EEGs. Your heart is beating, your brain working, you are moving around, talking, posting stuff. That is signs of life. If any dead people can do those kinds of things, please speak up.
So boiling things down, your fundamental definition of an alive human is a "functioning brain" determined by EEG. How functional does the brain have to be? And, can you determine if someone is dead without an EEG?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:53 AM
Soupcatcher, I'm glad you liked my post. But, soemwhere along the line I falied to make the leap that went from "idealism" to "ends versus means".
I have a couple of thoughts, neither may be reflecting the connection that you made. This first is
a) The "ends" are definitional absolutes (like "freedom") that are unaffected by, and justify, any "means".
b) Taking that one step backwards, even applying the concept of "ends" and "means" in their ideal sense allows us to separate the processes... a separation that may not be justified in real life.
Is either one what you're talking about??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME