FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


CON-serve-va-tives and LIE-ber-alls are essentially the same





The Philosopher Princess
CON-serve-va-tives and LIE-ber-alls may be different when it comes to which pork barrel projects the citizens’ confiscated earnings should be spent on, but when it comes to issues that matter (whether and how to be corrupt, whether and how to con and lie to the sheeples, etc.) they are exactly the same.

Here is just one more example in one country, but I contend that this is a universal politician principle, the discovery of which helps transform a person from being politically naïve into being more reality aware.

LiveScience.com wrote:
Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds

By LiveScience Staff

posted: 24 January 2006
10:03 am ET

Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.

The results were announced today.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Bias on both sides

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.

The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, that clearly contradicted each other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.

The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.

"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen said.

Vote for Tom Hanks

Other relatively neutral candidates were introduced into the mix, such as the actor Tom Hanks. Importantly, both the Democrats and Republicans reacted to the contradictions of these characters in the same manner.

The findings could prove useful beyond the campaign trail.

"Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,'" Westen said.

The researchers will present the findings Saturday at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.

This is from http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html.
Soulfire
Yeah, both sides have their ups and downs, but despite some similarities, there are HUGE differences as well. For instance, conservatives are pro-life, and liberals support the killing of babies.

That's just an example, and though I worded it bias, what can I say? I'm a Republican! Moving slightly toward independent, because I find more and more issues that I side with both parties on, but still conservative.
Jeslyn
I'm pro-death. Kill them all.
horseatingweeds
Jeslyn wrote:
I'm pro-death. Kill them all.


No, I have an idea that will salve this abortion trouble. People will be able to have all the sex they want and no babies or abortions.

I think it will make pro-life and pro-choice people happy, however; the pro-death and anti-choice people might not like it.
SNES350
They are trying to hold their side while not going so far as to alienate less devout followers. Really I was misled by the title, I expected this to be about general conservatives and liberals, not the major political parties.
mike1reynolds
In another article on the same website at http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/brain_politics_041029.html, it was found that liberals are more empathetic than conservatives. In other words, they really care in a heart felt manner. Conservatives do not have as much heart.

For example, there is a direct correlation between the percentage of the population that is pro-choice in a region of the country and the level of child-care services that are available to poor children. Regions of the country where anti-abortion sentiments are stronger have fewer protections and services for children. So in truth, anti-abortionists are less concerned about the welfare of babies than the supposed "baby killers".
The Philosopher Princess
Thanks for your comments, Soulfire (and others).

Soulfire wrote:
there are HUGE differences as well. For instance, conservatives are pro-life, and liberals support the killing of babies.

They only seem “HUGE” when looking at an extremely small subset of Reality. When one looks at the bigger picture, they are not huge, but small.

For example, I understand how you mean that “conservatives are pro-life” in that they want to forcibly prevent women from having abortions. However, that particular use of pro-life is only referring to fetuses. If we instead apply the term pro-life to all human beings, not just fetuses, then we find that conservatives are not any more pro-life than are liberals. Both conservatives and liberals advocate the forcible stealing of earnings (wages, salaries, profits) from working people, in order to spend those funds (taxes, liscense fees, surchanges) on socialism redistribution schemes. It is anti-life -- not pro-life -- to take people’s earnings against their will. And (despite the rhetoric to the contrary), conservatives want to do it as much as liberals.
horseatingweeds
mike1reynolds wrote:
In another article on the same website at http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/brain_politics_041029.html, it was found that liberals are more empathetic than conservatives. In other words, they really care in a heart felt manner. Conservatives do not have as much heart.

For example, there is a direct correlation between the percentage of the population that is pro-choice in a region of the country and the level of child-care services that are available to poor children. Regions of the country where anti-abortion sentiments are stronger have fewer protections and services for children. So in truth, anti-abortionists are less concerned about the welfare of babies than the supposed "baby killers".


I question your conclusion. Correlations from statistics are about as good as superstitions but with a use.

An additional conclusion could be that in these conservative pro-life areas there are child care resources provided by Churches or private individuals?

Does this correlation correlate also with urban and non-urban. Urban areas are more liberal, pro-choice and have more protective services.
The Philosopher Princess
Soulfire, I am proud of you for the following:

Soulfire wrote:
Moving slightly toward independent, because I find more and more issues that I side with both parties on, but still conservative.

Would you consider going a step further? Why not begin to think of yourself simply as independent? Even as an independent (and even if you are still registered Republican), you are free to continue voting for the conservative, liberal, or third-party issues as you see fit.

With the step I am now discussing, I am not asking you to change how you vote, but to change how you think of yourself.

When one labels themselves, and thinks of themselves, as the label of a group (e.g., conservative, liberal, green, libertarian, socialist), then when they actually feel like and/or reason that they want to diverge from that group on an issue, that divergence can make them feel guilty. They can feel disloyal to the group. In other words, they don’t feel free to vote their true conscience (or at least as free as they could).

But when one starts out by identifying themselves (to themselves and others) as independent, then in their own mind, they are freer, which translates into actually being freer in life.
~~~~~~~~~~
I have personally gone through many steps like this. I started out in this world just as brainwashed by parents, teachers, celebrities, community leaders, and political leaders as others. But, little by little, and eventually by leaps and bounds, I progressed out of that brainwashing. You can too.

At whatever stage one is at, there is a next step towards really being fully Free.
Soulfire
I have an idea, why not bash both sides? The donkeys and the elephants! Well, anyways, the reason I am moving toward independent is really what you said (at least what I gathered from it). The republicans have this set of beliefs, and the democrats have that set of beliefs. I don't want to automatically agree with every issue on the side I am on.

Though I will most likely remain at least a little bit conservative, I am no right wing nut job (not am I far to the left). I'll vote for the candidate who promises to get what I want done, and that's that... democrat or not. Political party affiliation plays too big of a role in peoples' choices anyways.
mike1reynolds
horseatingweeds wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
In another article on the same website at http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/brain_politics_041029.html, it was found that liberals are more empathetic than conservatives. In other words, they really care in a heart felt manner. Conservatives do not have as much heart.

For example, there is a direct correlation between the percentage of the population that is pro-choice in a region of the country and the level of child-care services that are available to poor children. Regions of the country where anti-abortion sentiments are stronger have fewer protections and services for children. So in truth, anti-abortionists are less concerned about the welfare of babies than the supposed "baby killers".


I question your conclusion. Correlations from statistics are about as good as superstitions but with a use.

An additional conclusion could be that in these conservative pro-life areas there are child care resources provided by Churches or private individuals?

This line of reasoning might work if conservative areas had more churches, which they don't.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Does this correlation correlate also with urban and non-urban. Urban areas are more liberal, pro-choice and have more protective services.

Exactly the point, liberal areas have more protective services.

But regionality aside, look at the latest changes to medicare: Republicans slashed 100,000 children from eligability while giving billions in tax cuts to the big pharmaceutical companies. Proof is in the putting.
horseatingweeds
Certainly, but in this case the two parties are "putting" forth two different economic philosophies as well.

Demecrats wanting to tax and build programs while Republicans wanting to stimmulate the economy throughout. Logicaly, the Rep. make more sense long term. Short term the Dems.
mike1reynolds
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I have personally gone through many steps like this. I started out in this world just as brainwashed by parents, teachers, celebrities, community leaders, and political leaders as others. But, little by little, and eventually by leaps and bounds, I progressed out of that brainwashing. You can too.

Princess, your moral relativism is brainwashed.
mike1reynolds
horseatingweeds wrote:
Certainly, but in this case the two parties are "putting" forth two different economic philosophies as well.

Demecrats wanting to tax and build programs while Republicans wanting to stimmulate the economy throughout. Logicaly, the Rep. make more sense long term. Short term the Dems.

The Republicans want to tax and waste it on their terrorist breeding program in Iraq with no benefit. Democrats want to tax and invest it on developing social and commercial infrastructure projects which stimulate the economy long term.

Republicans rally against taxation while consistently engaging in monumental deficit spending, when in fact deficit spending is just another form of taxation. Deficit spending must be paid for at some point, and drives interests rates up in the mean time. Democrats are for fiscal responsibility, pay now, don’t force our children to pay. Republicans are for fiscal irresponsibility, ‘Screw the kids, just let us look good now.’

And even at that, it is consistently true throughout the twentieth century that the economy always does better under Democratic presidents, and always does worse under Republican presidents, without exception.
horseatingweeds
I was expecting more from you Mike, you are reading like a union flier.

mike1reynolds wrote:

The Republicans want to tax and waste it on their terrorist breeding program in Iraq with no benefit. Democrats want to tax and invest it on developing social and commercial infrastructure projects which stimulate the economy long term.


These “social and commercial infrastructure projects” are indeed very helpful and stimulating to our economy but certainly not long term. It actually increases the need for such programs. These programs sustain people, so they learn that they do not need to sustain themselves.

And the terrorist breeding program isn’t all that expensive, relatively. It is a hell of a lot cheaper than the cold war. Anyway, Sadam was to smart to do anything stupid enough AGAIN to motivate our citizens to allow invasion. It would eventually be in our interest to remove him so “I” think we went in when we could.


mike1reynolds wrote:
Republicans rally against taxation while consistently engaging in monumental deficit spending, when in fact deficit spending is just another form of taxation. Deficit spending must be paid for at some point, and drives interests rates up in the mean time. Democrats are for fiscal responsibility, pay now, don’t force our children to pay. Republicans are for fiscal irresponsibility, ‘Screw the kids, just let us look good now.’


Now this just sounds like a bumper sticker. Deficit cycles, just like everything else. Our children will be paying and making their own deficits just like us. Don’t you remember being feed this in the late 70’s early 80’s? Do you even remember paying this off in the blessed 90’s?

And I don’t think our current republicans are worrying about “looking good”.

mike1reynolds wrote:
And even at that, it is consistently true throughout the twentieth century that the economy always does better under Democratic presidents, and always does worse under Republican presidents, without exception.


Be careful Mr. Longterm, your contradicting your earlier point. Clinton had a fat economy because he did ____________. He did __________ and the economic engine Regan emplaced ran smooth.
The Philosopher Princess
Thanks for this fascinating assertion:

mike1reynolds wrote:
Princess, your moral relativism is brainwashed.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because you likely have not (yet) read much of my philosophy.

I am probably the furthest person from having “moral relativism” that you will meet. Even the god-based moral absolutist philosophies are more relative than mine because those people must figure out what their god believes, and interpret what their bible means, before they can figure out what they believe. I, on the other hand, only answer to myself. (For the record, I also differ from the atheistic, moral-based {Ayn} Randian objectivists.)

The following definition seems to be a decent one to use (since I don’t yet have the benefit of yours):
Quote:
Moral relativism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.
(There is more cool stuff on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism.)

I -- wholemindedly -- believe in moral absolutes. I begin with the axiom that there is one Reality. Whatever is is -- no matter what people think about it. So, humans (and other things) “sit” (i.e., rely on, “rest” upon) Reality. (Contrast this to people who believe things like “every person has their own reality...” and “just because I contradict myself doesn’t mean I’m wrong...”)

I have quite a few logical steps next (which I might consider to be intellectual property at this point, since I don’t find others asserting what I assert). But my philosophy eventually leads to the absolute principle that All initiation of force by a human being upon another human being is wrong (among other absolute principles).

There are a few people who (and philosophies that) also include that principle, but none to my knowledge derive it like I do. In fact, it should be considered even more evidence that I’m not a relativist because, though I agree with the conclusion at that point with those few philosophies, I disagree with their derivation, and thus I must reject their whole philosophy. In other words, my philosophy requires the means along the way, not just the ends.

There is much I could say on this subject (including my suspicion as to why you thought what you thought), but this is a start and we’ll see if more is appropriate. (In fact, you might be able to discover my “missing” steps above, if you were to ask the right questions.)
~~~~~~~~~~
On another matter, your calling my philosophy “brainwashed” is especially interesting, since I do not yet know of anyone -- living or dead -- who holds my philosophy, which I have laboriously worked to derive straight from Reality, not from anyone else. (And that is why I am working {outside of Frihost} to implement an explanation {in book form} that will change that.) You are welcome to put forth any other (political/life) philosophy, and I will show where I differ. (And if by wild chance they are the same, then I’ll be much obliged.)

Brainwashing means one believes what others have thrust upon them. I remember those days not that long ago when I was brainwashed, and I recognize the difference. It is very liberating to be past that. I do not consider it my duty, but I would like to help others, because that is enjoyable to me.
~~~~~~~~~~
mike1reynolds, I sincerely thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this, for I have not seen it come up on Frihost. And, please, if I’ve misunderstood how you use “moral relativism”, let me know.
mike1reynolds
horseatingweeds wrote:
I was expecting more from you Mike, you are reading like a union flier.


Why do conservatives rile against dead and dying unions so much? Unions are a dead letter in the US, but we would be enormously better off if there were active unions in the 3rd world where so many of the US’s jobs are being exported to sweat shops that pay nothing. Why don’t you rally against US Druidism, that would be about as meaningful.

horseatingweeds wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:

The Republicans want to tax and waste it on their terrorist breeding program in Iraq with no benefit. Democrats want to tax and invest it on developing social and commercial infrastructure projects which stimulate the economy long term.

These “social and commercial infrastructure projects” are indeed very helpful and stimulating to our economy but certainly not long term. It actually increases the need for such programs. These programs sustain people, so they learn that they do not need to sustain themselves.

You are talking about welfare programs that constitute a whopping 5.5% of the federal budget, most of which goes to children, old ladies and the handicapped. I was talking about infrastructure programs, such as the internet you are using, which was championed by democrats.

horseatingweeds wrote:
And the terrorist breeding program isn’t all that expensive, relatively. It is a hell of a lot cheaper than the cold war. Anyway, Sadam was to smart to do anything stupid enough AGAIN to motivate our citizens to allow invasion. It would eventually be in our interest to remove him so “I” think we went in when we could.

The war in Iraq has cost a quarter of a trillion dollars to date. As to comparing it to the cold war, granted, we bankrupted the Soviets with the arms race, but we could have done it much more cheaply, both monetarily and morally. The domino theory was brainwashed and absurd and that misguided immoral approach cost nearly a BILLION lives in 3rd world casualities (mostly civilian) in surrogate wars and prompted us to support despots all over the world who were Teddy bears compared to Saddam. We would be far safer today if we had simply left Saddam in power. There is simply no other way to rule an Islamic country like that with reasonable security other than with the kind of brutal methods that he used. Virtually all other Islamic countries operate in the same manner, including our allies, Saudi Arabia (source of most terrorist funding) and Pakistan.

It was not in our interests in the slightest to remove Saddam. If you read sciondestiny’s posts with any awareness, you will have noticed that Sunnis like sciondestiny despise Shiites, which includes al Qadea. Sadam and al Qaeda were mortal enemies, and Saddam was actually a bulwark against al Qaeda.

horseatingweeds wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Republicans rally against taxation while consistently engaging in monumental deficit spending, when in fact deficit spending is just another form of taxation. Deficit spending must be paid for at some point, and drives interests rates up in the mean time. Democrats are for fiscal responsibility, pay now, don’t force our children to pay. Republicans are for fiscal irresponsibility, ‘Screw the kids, just let us look good now.’


Now this just sounds like a bumper sticker. Deficit cycles, just like everything else. Our children will be paying and making their own deficits just like us. Don’t you remember being feed this in the late 70’s early 80’s? Do you even remember paying this off in the blessed 90’s?

What deficits in the 70’s? We never heard of real deficits until Reagan. Invariably the economy collapsed as a result, as it will in the future as a result of the even greater deficits now. When I got out of college I couldn’t get a job, the economy was so loused up by the Republicans. Fortunately, a Democrat got into office and the economy shot upwards again, increasing steadily until Bush got into office. If you are flipping burgers, the economy looks OK now, but if you have an advanced degree, the economy is moving at a snails pace and many are being forced to relocate to other countries because there is no work here.

horseatingweeds wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
And even at that, it is consistently true throughout the twentieth century that the economy always does better under Democratic presidents, and always does worse under Republican presidents, without exception.


Be careful Mr. Longterm, your contradicting your earlier point. Clinton had a fat economy because he did ____________. He did __________ and the economic engine Regan emplaced ran smooth.

Smooth? What do you call the market collapse of 1989? That was a direct result of deficit spending sending interest rates sky high. Clinton, on the other hand began aggressively balancing the budget, and surprise, surprise, the economy was in great shape until Bush got elected.
mike1reynolds
Whoa! I certainly touched a nerve!

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
(For the record, I also differ from the atheistic, moral-based {Ayn} Randian objectivists.)

All initiation of force by a human being upon another human being is wrong [/color](among other absolute principles)

Sounds like Ayn Rand’s non-coercion principle. Not that I disagree, for the most part, but it is a rather self-evident thing, at least when dealing with civilized people, but completely naïve when dealing with criminals and fanatics.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I -- wholemindedly -- believe in moral absolutes. I begin with the axiom that there is one Reality. Whatever is is -- no matter what people think about it. So, humans (and other things) “sit” (i.e., rely on, “rest” upon) Reality. (Contrast this to people who believe things like “every person has their own reality...” and “just because I contradict myself doesn’t mean I’m wrong...”)

You arguments are all intellectual, not moral. You rebel against much, calling for the destruction of all sorts of concepts, but construct very little that isn’t so much intellectual fluff without moral substance.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I have quite a few logical steps next (which I might consider to be intellectual property at this point, since I don’t find others asserting what I assert).

Intellectual rebellion without substance is hardly unique. It is easy to destroy, much harder to create.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
There are a few people who (and philosophies that) also include that principle, but none to my knowledge derive it like I do. In fact, it should be considered even more evidence that I’m not a relativist because, though I agree with the conclusion at that point with those few philosophies, I disagree with their derivation, and thus I must reject their whole philosophy. In other words, my philosophy requires the means along the way, not just the ends

Neither your means nor your ends address moral issues. It is only by eschewing all moral issues that someone as intelligent as you can claim a moral equivalency between liberals and conservatives.
The Philosopher Princess
Hi, mike1reynolds! Thanks for the feedback.

mike1reynolds wrote:
Whoa! I certainly touched a nerve!

That’s a good one Smile. No nerve of any kind is involved. This is just my normal modus operandi. I like to take the opportunity to discuss these kinds of fun issues when I have the extra time.
~~~~~~~~~~
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
All initiation of force by a human being upon another human being is wrong [/color](among other absolute principles)
Sounds like Ayn Rand’s non-coercion principle.

Yes, it does. However, it’s quite different. As I was mentioning, to know whether principles that look alike actually are alike, we have to look at how they are derived. Additionally, we can compare how a philosophy is used in hypothetical or real-life situations. Rand and the objectivists differ from me in both their (pre) derivation and their (post) applications.

For example, their philosophy (as some others) is based on so-called inalienable rights. I derive mine very differently. I do not think in terms of rights like most people do (except, of course, when I’m trying to understand others’ positions and discuss on their terms). I believe my method is more fundamental and more robust.

As another example, objectivists advocate a monopoly of force be granted to the government. Their stated non-coercion principle is inconsistent because they support such a monopoly instead of supporting defense via competition by private companies.
~~~~~~~~~~
If you would care to, look at the following snippets, which of course have much more context in the book.

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, pp 351, 356, 357, 363, wrote:
The basic principle of politics, according to Objectivism, is the principle endorsed by America’s Founding Fathers: individual rights.
Quote:
“Collective rights” means rights belonging to a group qua group...
Quote:
...there are no rights of collections of individuals...
Quote:
The citizens must create an agency with the power [“to protect man’s rights”]... This agency is the government. “A government,” in Ayn Rand’s definition, “is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct...
(Italics in original. I added red bold.)

On the one hand, she/they claim to believe in individual rights only, and no collective rights. On the other hand, they believe in a collectivist method of enforcing social rules. They are self-conflicting.

I, instead, believe in competition for social rules and competition in enforcement of social rules, and I do not support a monopoly of force in either of these things as do they.
~~~~~~~~~~
mike1reynolds wrote:
Not that I disagree, for the most part, but it is a rather self-evident thing, at least when dealing with civilized people,

It may be “self-evident” to pay lip service to this, but quite another thing to actually support it. In fact, the objectivists are better than most at being consistent, and yet they miss. Neither the conservatives nor liberals come even close to supporting it, so obviously it's not “self-evident” for them.

mike1reynolds wrote:
but completely naïve when dealing with criminals and fanatics.

Possibly you misunderstand that one’s being against initiation of force does not mean one cannot properly defend against true criminals. Force used as defense is not initiation. (I distinguish “true” criminals from other so-called criminals because I do not consider victimless “crimes” {like prostitution and drug dealing} to be crimes at all.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s one that may rock your boat Smile.

mike1reynolds wrote:
You arguments are all intellectual, not moral.

I contend that all valid arguments of morality are intellectual; otherwise they are not valid arguments at all. Even the people who generally aren’t that intellectual, but who have an actual moral philosophy, are being intellectual. (And this includes many philosophies with which I disagree.) Of course there are also many people who think they have a moral philosophy, but don’t fit my standard.

In brief, a moral philosophy must include principles. Principles are, by their very nature, intellectual.
~~~~~~~~~~
Oh good, you fell into my trap on this next one Wink.

mike1reynolds wrote:
It is only by eschewing all moral issues that someone as intelligent as you can claim a moral equivalency between liberals and conservatives.

I never “claim[ed]” that “liberals and conservatives” have “a moral equivalency”. I instead claim that they have an equivalency in their lack of morals. What I mean by that is they put forth so-called principles that they believe, but then they support other ideas that are completely contrary.

I already gave an example of this with conservatives on their pro-life/non-pro-life stances. An example for liberals is their claim to care about poor people and wanting to eliminate poverty. But then they support a bigger and bigger Welfare State, which actually creates more and more poor people. The Poverty Industry is big business and liberals can’t seem to catch on to that fact.
~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks, again, for the interesting exchange.
horseatingweeds
mike1reynolds wrote:

Why do conservatives rile against dead and dying unions so much?


1. Unemployment
2. Reduced competitiveness
3. Unneeded and wasteful entity

Quote:
Unions are a dead letter in the US, but we would be enormously better off if there were active unions in the 3rd world where so many of the US’s jobs are being exported to sweat shops that pay nothing. Why don’t you rally against US Druidism, that would be about as meaningful.


LOL, now who is sounding brain washed?

In many places Union and Demarcate are synonymous. The reason Michigan (Motown) is a Demarcate state is because of the auto union. They are still very strong but yes, they are dieing. They are dieing because the auto companies can simply not pay these grossly high wages. The unions have more or less taken advantage of the auto companies and caused their own demise. I could go on but this is another discussion.

I agree that we would be better off if these unions represented 3rd world worker but they simply won’t. 3rd world workers can’t afford the dues. 3rd world labor is a good topic under this discussion. Neither party gives a rate’s asss. Especially the Lib Dems being borderline protectionist socialists.

And please remember, these “sweat shops” don’t pay nothing. They actually pay rather well from a 3rd world perspective. Sweat shops are a big step toward increased standards of living. The real problem is the leadership in these 3rd worlds. Instead of making the next step they are bleed dry by war lords and dictators and left to be further exploited by the evil corporations.

Druidism? Like the Celts?


Quote:

You are talking about welfare programs that constitute a whopping 5.5% of the federal budget, most of which goes to children, old ladies and the handicapped. I was talking about infrastructure programs, such as the internet you are using, which was championed by democrats.


Welfare is a State program. I am unaware of any Federal $ going toward it. There is income security. This program is a good example of my point.

The difference is not that Dems want strong infrastructure and the Reps don’t. It is a difference of how to make them. Dems would tax and build gov’t programs (efficiency at it’s best…..Socialism..) and Reps would have regulated profit driven entities run them.

If one looks at the actual $ spent one sees something rather interesting. In 1997 62% of the budget was spent on human resources and 3% on physical resources. Last year 64% was spent on human resources and 5% on physical resources. However, this last years budget was 25% greater than in 1997. This seems to imply that the current administration is more willing to spend on such things.


Quote:

The war in Iraq has cost a quarter of a trillion dollars to date. As to comparing it to the cold war, granted, we bankrupted the Soviets with the arms race, but we could have done it much more cheaply, both monetarily and morally. The domino theory was brainwashed and absurd and that misguided immoral approach cost nearly a BILLION lives in 3rd world casualities (mostly civilian) in surrogate wars and prompted us to support despots all over the world who were Teddy bears compared to Saddam.


This is certainly easy to say now. Remember though what our nation was facing then. The constant threat of nuclear annihilation and the ever advancing iron curtain brought the US the drastic measures with the survival of the free world in its hand.

Quote:
We would be far safer today if we had simply left Saddam in power. There is simply no other way to rule an Islamic country like that with reasonable security other than with the kind of brutal methods that he used. Virtually all other Islamic countries operate in the same manner, including our allies, Saudi Arabia (source of most terrorist funding) and Pakistan.


This is a poor attitude. I would argue that no people require brutality. I would also argue that the hate we see is propagated by these brutal rulers in order to maintain their power. Iraq has an opportunity to show their brutally ruled neighbors that they too can live in a free and comfortable society.

Quote:
It was not in our interests in the slightest to remove Saddam. If you read sciondestiny’s posts with any awareness, you will have noticed that Sunnis like sciondestiny despise Shiites, which includes al Qadea. Sadam and al Qaeda were mortal enemies, and Saddam was actually a bulwark against al Qaeda.


Indeed, but as I said I think much of this hate has been aggravated by leaders such as Sadam. Also, leaders like Sadam understand that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. I would not doubt for an instant that Sadam or al Qaeda use each other to maintain or gain power.

The question of safety will be answered by history. Twenty years form now will we look back and see a fearful nation lashing out after being attacked while still finding ourselves under such threats; or will we see the freeing of Iraq as the first step in removing such entities that create such fear, hate and suffering; that would leave men willing to sell their souls to one supposedly representing the interests of God and kill woman and children; and societies ready to riot over a stupid cartoon?


Quote:
What deficits in the 70’s?


Not the 70’s, late 70’s and early 80’s, when it was being created and everyone was scared. The deficit it’s self was throughout the 80’s and first half of the 90’s. This was due a great deal to the cold war struggle. The reason the deficit reduced into a surplus was not due to Clinton’s magical Demarcate powers. It was due to the end of the USSR and economic cycles, smooth and controlled economic cycles thanks to Regan. The current increase in deficit is due to more cycles. The economy was experiencing a down turn at the end of Clinton’s term.

Quote:
We never heard of real deficits until Reagan. Invariably the economy collapsed as a result, as it will in the future as a result of the even greater deficits now. When I got out of college I couldn’t get a job, the economy was so loused up by the Republicans. Fortunately, a Democrat got into office and the economy shot upwards again, increasing steadily until Bush got into office. If you are flipping burgers, the economy looks OK now, but if you have an advanced degree, the economy is moving at a snails pace and many are being forced to relocate to other countries because there is no work here.


What your saying is crazy. The fact that a Dem or a Rep is in office can NOT immediately affect the overall economy as you explained.

There will be no collapse. That is old economic thinking. Deficit is a natural part of a controlled and buffered economic system such as ours. Think of it like a corporation.

Quote:
Smooth? What do you call the market collapse of 1989? That was a direct result of deficit spending sending interest rates sky high. Clinton, on the other hand began aggressively balancing the budget, and surprise, surprise, the economy was in great shape until Bush got elected.


Do you mean the Asian market collapse of 1998? Clinton's "aggressive" balancing? What exactly did he have to spend it on? The economy was already heating up. The automatic adjusters where responsible for the reduced deficit, not “aggressive” balancing.

The main flaw I have seen in the Dem economic plan, such as under Regan was the abandonment of certain systems that where helping the urban poor. Left them in bad shape but beat the Russians.
Jeslyn
For goodness' sakes, give it a rest.
horseatingweeds
Jeslyn wrote:
I'm pro-death. Kill them all.


Jeslyn wrote:
For goodness' sakes, give it a rest.


Contribute more than your poor worthless attitude.
Jeslyn
I will contribute more once your argument becomes more than the borderline pathetic nonsensical dribble you continue to spew. Very Happy
Eh... it's not my fault I can rile you up so easily. Get over it, gringo.
horseatingweeds
Jeslyn wrote:
I will contribute more once your argument becomes more than the borderline pathetic nonsensical dribble you continue to spew. Very Happy
Eh... it's not my fault I can rile you up so easily. Get over it, gringo.


It’s embarrassing how you flatter yourself. Embarassed
Jeslyn
Firstly, If you're replying to the post above you, there's no need to quote.
And second, you make it easy, gringo, very easy. Now are you done with your sophmoric squabbling? Or would you like to continue? I honestly could go either way.
horseatingweeds
My attempt was simple to avoid the confusion I have witnessed in your other short posts. I would be delighted to engage in an enlightening conversation if you are willing to think your thoughts through, use logic based on facts and ovoid your normal emotional reactions, especially the emotional reactions to statement that you simple have not taken the time to understand.

Otherwise I would prefer not to.


Jeslyn wrote:
sophmoric
Jeslyn
Emotional Laughing . You are a funny one.
You see, one can only be 'emotional' if one cares. By my "short posts", I would believe it would be obviously evident, to even the most dimwitted fool, that I don't.
Nonetheless, feel free to quit acknowledging me, it would do you some good.
Until then, amigo - vete pa' la mierda
horseatingweeds
I think it more obvious that you wish to seem uncaring. If you didn’t care I don’t see why you would take the time to read the posts, even less to make your responses.

It is as if you post your short little gabs fishing around for someone to tell you how annoying it is, just so you will have the opportunity to express how little you care.

I would bet it is more an issue of boredom than complacency.
Jeslyn
Dear God, you've figured me out. I guess I just couldn't fool you. Congratulations.
Oddly enough, you seem to care more about my apathetic 'attitude', as flattering as that is, I'd much rather you didn't. Thank you for the concern of my overly emotional wellbeing, I will make a pathetic attempt to keep in check next time. I wouldn't want another intriguing psychological analysis of my wounded psyche. By the way, I'd like evidence of a degree in this field, prior to my diagnosis next time.
mike1reynolds
It sounds like you both have too much time on your hands, I know I do
horseatingweeds
Jeslyn wrote:
I'd like evidence of a degree in this field, prior to my diagnosis next time.


In reluctant preparation, might a receipt to a very expensive book suit these requirements?

mike1reynolds wrote:
It sounds like you both have too much time on your hands, I know I do


upyoursjackass!!!! Laughing

heeehawww heeehawww Wink
The Philosopher Princess
SNES350, your observation, below, is very interesting to me.

SNES350 wrote:
Really I was misled by the title, I expected this to be about general conservatives and liberals, not the major political parties.

As you imply, the concept of conservative is technically different from Republican, as is liberal from Democrat.

Talking Repos and Demos is talking politics, while talking CONS and LIES (Laughing) is talking philosophy. (I’m laughing because the “cons” and “lies” really goes with the political part more than the philosophy part.)

As you might agree, these days, it’s difficult to find a person who is a “true” conservative or “true” liberal, who isn’t also quite politically entrenched (i.e., isn’t using the political system to force their philosophy onto others).

Actually, I would like your comments on this, since you clearly have some awareness.
The Philosopher Princess
In some ways, the following might be true:

mike1reynolds wrote:
Democrats are for fiscal responsibility, pay now, don’t force our children to pay.

But Democrats are traditionally BIG supporters of bonds: school bonds, library bonds, park bonds, jail bonds, stadium bonds (which are welfare for the rich and famous -- despite the Democrats' claim of championing the causes of the poor and working class), redevelopment bonds.....

Bonds are effectively taxes forced on future generations of children. They cost even more than direct taxes, in that they are loans that have to be paid off with interest over the years. Moreover, they are anti-democratic since many of the people who will be taxed to pay for the bonds aren’t eligible to vote when they are passed.

The ability to pass bonds also releases the politicians from having to budget responsibly. When they let buildings fall apart, neglect maintenance, don’t budget for growth, etc., they can point to the results of their own negligence as reasons for voters to pass huge bond debts in order to “save our schools”, and because “the poor need access to books”, and “we can’t let criminals walk the streets”, etc.

Bonds are the method used to make future generations pay for the ineptitude of today’s politicians. On the issue of bonds, no way are "Democrats... for fiscal responsibility".

When it comes to passing bonds and spending the money, politicians of both parties salivate, and they both dupe the public into voting for bonds. The only thing they differ on is whose special interest groups (and campaign contributors) should get the loot.

As I named this thread, CON-serve-va-tives and LIE-ber-alls are essentially the same. I didn't say, equal. But in the essence where it matters (to loot or not to loot), they are the same (they both champion looting, and in the case of bonds, that means stealing from babies).
mike1reynolds
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Hi, mike1reynolds! Thanks for the feedback.

Well, now that that has blown over, back to m-ladies reposte.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Whoa! I certainly touched a nerve!

That’s a good one Smile. No nerve of any kind is involved. This is just my normal modus operandi. I like to take the opportunity to discuss these kinds of fun issues when I have the extra time.
~~~~~~~~~~
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
All initiation of force by a human being upon another human being is wrong [/color](among other absolute principles)
Sounds like Ayn Rand’s non-coercion principle.

Yes, it does. However, it’s quite different. As I was mentioning, to know whether principles that look alike actually are alike, we have to look at how they are derived. Additionally, we can compare how a philosophy is used in hypothetical or real-life situations. Rand and the objectivists differ from me in both their (pre) derivation and their (post) applications.

For example, their philosophy (as some others) is based on so-called inalienable rights. I derive mine very differently. I do not think in terms of rights like most people do (except, of course, when I’m trying to understand others’ positions and discuss on their terms). I believe my method is more fundamental and more robust.

As another example, objectivists advocate a monopoly of force be granted to the government. Their stated non-coercion principle is inconsistent because they support such a monopoly instead of supporting defense via competition by private companies.
~~~~~~~~~~
If you would care to, look at the following snippets, which of course have much more context in the book.

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, pp 351, 356, 357, 363, wrote:
The basic principle of politics, according to Objectivism, is the principle endorsed by America’s Founding Fathers: individual rights.
Quote:
“Collective rights” means rights belonging to a group qua group...
Quote:
...there are no rights of collections of individuals...
Quote:
The citizens must create an agency with the power [“to protect man’s rights”]... This agency is the government. “A government,” in Ayn Rand’s definition, “is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct...
(Italics in original. I added red bold.)

On the one hand, she/they claim to believe in individual rights only, and no collective rights. On the other hand, they believe in a collectivist method of enforcing social rules. They are self-conflicting.

I, instead, believe in competition for social rules and competition in enforcement of social rules, and I do not support a monopoly of force in either of these things as do they.
~~~~~~~~~~
mike1reynolds wrote:
Not that I disagree, for the most part, but it is a rather self-evident thing, at least when dealing with civilized people,

It may be “self-evident” to pay lip service to this, but quite another thing to actually support it. In fact, the objectivists are better than most at being consistent, and yet they miss. Neither the conservatives nor liberals come even close to supporting it, so obviously it's not “self-evident” for them.

mike1reynolds wrote:
but completely naïve when dealing with criminals and fanatics.

Possibly you misunderstand that one’s being against initiation of force does not mean one cannot properly defend against true criminals. Force used as defense is not initiation. (I distinguish “true” criminals from other so-called criminals because I do not consider victimless “crimes” {like prostitution and drug dealing} to be crimes at all.)

Well, suffice it to say that I was correct in your being influenced by Ayn Rand, and I agree that drug users should get drug treatment and prostitutes should get sex abuse treatment in a sane society.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Here’s one that may rock your boat Smile.

mike1reynolds wrote:
You arguments are all intellectual, not moral.

I contend that all valid arguments of morality are intellectual; otherwise they are not valid arguments at all. Even the people who generally aren’t that intellectual, but who have an actual moral philosophy, are being intellectual. (And this includes many philosophies with which I disagree.) Of course there are also many people who think they have a moral philosophy, but don’t fit my standard.

In brief, a moral philosophy must include principles. Principles are, by their very nature, intellectual.

This is the first point where I really disagree with anything. As in Plato’s Republic where the principle of might makes right is played out as a contestant in a logical debate against the principle of karma, morality can be derived from logical means, but at what level of empirical experience? Karma is something very axiomatic that cannot be derived from more basic principles, and yet it requires a lot of empirical experience to recognize this axiomatic nature of karma. Socrates has to do a lot of talking to convince the very amiable visitors who personify the opposing principle that their principle is logically incorrect.

Something I should clarify is that when I use the term intellectual, it is something of a derogatory term; the intellect and brain are part of the animal. Computers, with the intellectual capacity of a fruit fly, can beat the best masters at chess. There is another part of the mind, the soul, or higher mind, that is not bound by the same computational constraints and does most of the real thinking, when it can get through. (There are actually two higher minds, according to Tibetan Buddhism and Kahuna shaman: the sub-supraconscious mind -- buddhic mind or soul, and the supraconscious mind or oversoul, a group Buddha.)

Morality is something that comes from spiritual and not intellectual roots, although spirituality is something hard to find in organized religions. The intellect is good at driving cars and brushing teeth, but it isn’t really up to higher thought, and when given free reign goes berserk flying off with ungrounded theories. Often, the only way to get through the circular intellectual reasoning is to feel someone else’s pain, but if the brainwashing is good, even that is not enough.

The two most preeminent societies that put forward an intellectual basis as their founding principles of morality were the French revolution and Nazi Germany, i.e. the first and the second antichrists. In Zen, the intellect is referred to as a wonderful servant but a hideous master, as if one were taking a dog to canine obedience school. If you have ever heard a perplexing Zen ‘Koan’, like what is the sound of one hand clapping (most are much more complex) this simple one is transparent in it’s motive which is the common theme of all Koans, to destroy the intellect. Only when it is bridled by the higher mind is it really useful.


The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Oh good, you fell into my trap on this next one Wink.

mike1reynolds wrote:
It is only by eschewing all moral issues that someone as intelligent as you can claim a moral equivalency between liberals and conservatives.

I never “claim[ed]” that “liberals and conservatives” have “a moral equivalency”. I instead claim that they have an equivalency in their lack of morals. What I mean by that is they put forth so-called principles that they believe, but then they support other ideas that are completely contrary.

I already gave an example of this with conservatives on their pro-life/non-pro-life stances. An example for liberals is their claim to care about poor people and wanting to eliminate poverty. But then they support a bigger and bigger Welfare State, which actually creates more and more poor people. The Poverty Industry is big business and liberals can’t seem to catch on to that fact.
~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks, again, for the interesting exchange.

Well, welfare constitutes about 5 percent of the federal budget, and if you look at European countries that spend a higher percentage, it is them and not the more stingy countires, that deal sanely with drug users and prostitutes.

While all politicians lie, Republicans lie about things that I care about, namely moral issues, while telling the truth about things that I don’t care about that derive from a shallow morality. Democrats, on the other hand, lie about things that I don’t care about, like who is easing their sexual tensions, and tell the truth about things that I do care about, like genuine moral issues.

This isn’t always the case, Clinton and Gore signed the 1996 Telecommunications act which gutted political speech by consolidating all news outlets under 6 companies. Or Jimmy Carter smashing the most progressive and liberal middle eastern government ever seen in an Islamic country when he supported fundamentalist terrorists in driving out the Russian backed progressives.

But on balance, the liberals are more moral than the conservatives, they care more about human suffering, and as the article that I quoted from your website said, democrats have more empathy.
The Philosopher Princess
mike1reynolds wrote:
(There are actually two higher minds, according to Tibetan Buddhism and Kahuna shaman: the sub-supraconscious mind -- buddhic mind or soul, and the supraconscious mind or oversoul, a group Buddha.)

I think it’s safe to say that I’m not going to intellectually respect or agree with much from Buddhists and shamans (because I deal in this world, not other worlds). (They are kind of an opposite of Rand, but I've studied them a bit as well.) And yet, if they would promise me an extra “higher mind”, maybe I should look into that more Smile Wink.
~~~~~~~~~~
mike1reynolds wrote:
Something I should clarify is that when I use the term intellectual, it is something of a derogatory term; the intellect and brain are part of the animal.

Okay. I use intellectual to refer to ability to process abstract data. One who can identify principles is being intellectual (because principles are abstract).

For example, take a guy who sees the prices of construction materials after Hurricane Katrina being “too high” (people sometimes call it price gouging). He wants to fix the problem by forcing the materials to be sold for lower prices (i.e., interfering in the free market). This person is not being intellectual, because (1) he is not recognizing the economic principles of supply and demand, and (2) he doesn’t realize that his so-called fix is not at all going to fix what he wanted. He's looking at the data, but not processing it based on any principles that might apply. Being intellectual (as I use the term) is not just a matter of using one’s intellect (i.e., of being smart); it’s a matter of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture on how the natural principles of the world really work.

Concerning this concept that I am calling intellectual, what term would you use for it?
~~~~~~~~~~
mike1reynolds wrote:
Morality is something that comes from spiritual and not intellectual roots,

I’ve already discussed a “true” morality as always being intellectual (using my def, not yours). I’ll add here that morality (conforming to the rules of “right” conduct) in no way must be spiritual. There are lots of bases of “right” conduct, some spiritual, some not. (I put “right” in quotes because I acknowledge that each moral philosophy will have its own definition of what is considered right.)

I know we have some disagreements, but would you be able to agree that it's possible to have a moral philosophy not based on spiritualism?
~~~~~~~~~~
Back to more important matters, do you have any pull with the Buddhists and shamans Very Happy?
mike1reynolds
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
(There are actually two higher minds, according to Tibetan Buddhism and Kahuna shaman: the sub-supraconscious mind -- buddhic mind or soul, and the supraconscious mind or oversoul, a group Buddha.)

I think it’s safe to say that I’m not going to intellectually respect or agree with much from Buddhists and shamans (because I deal in this world, not other worlds). (They are kind of an opposite of Rand, but I've studied them a bit as well.) And yet, if they would promise me an extra “higher mind”, maybe I should look into that more Smile Wink.

The intellect is nothing more than a sophisticated robot, that was the whole point of this thread, the ways in which people think robotically about politics, no matter which side they are on. The intellect is a computer and most of the time that it thinks it is thinking, in reality it is just churning over the same data over and over. The beauty of a sunset, the cuteness of a child, these are abstractions that the intellect cannot dissect. The higher mind deals with reality on a much more abstract scale than the intellect, it is a super-mind and the concepts it deals with are too subtle for the intellect.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Something I should clarify is that when I use the term intellectual, it is something of a derogatory term; the intellect and brain are part of the animal.

Okay. I use intellectual to refer to ability to process abstract data. One who can identify principles is being intellectual (because principles are abstract).

For example, take a guy who sees the prices of construction materials after Hurricane Katrina being “too high” (people sometimes call it price gauging). He wants to fix the problem by forcing the materials to be sold for lower prices (i.e., interfering in the free market). This person is not being intellectual, because (1) he is not recognizing the economic principles of supply and demand, and (2) he doesn’t realize that his so-called fix is not at all going to fix what he wanted. He's looking at the data, but not processing it based on any principles that might apply. Being intellectual (as I use the term) is not just a matter of using one’s intellect (i.e., of being smart); it’s a matter of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture on how the natural principles of the world really work.

Concerning this concept that I am calling intellectual, what term would you use for it?

Well, some people sleepwalk more effectively than others, but these are not the sorts of issues or mental capacities that will wake people up so that they are not robots. A robot is not going to wake itself up, the robot has to shut off in order to allow higher processes to work unimpeded.

Your definition of intellect is overly simplified. Thomas Kuhn wrote ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ in an attempt to come up with a more formalized description of the process of scientific advancement, after the discovery of Relativity and then Quantum Mechanics had so clearly invalidated Newton’s assertion of linear progress (‘we stand on the shoulder’s of giants’). He came up with two categories of scientific inquiry, ordinary science and revolutionary science. Revolutionary science is distinguished by being founded on what he called a paradigm shift -- a whole new way of seeing things. Relativity added an 11th axiom to Euclid’s 10 (and applied it in four dimensions), while Quantum Mechanics added the axiom of discrete and indivisible energy quanta. Adding an axiom creates a disorienting paradigm shift. It is almost like acquiring a new faith, the new axiom can not be derived from the old axioms. The new axiom has to be digested over a period of time and then one day the new paradigm suddenly becomes palatable. This was the most amazing thing to Quantum era physicists, the keen realization that the evolution of their thought process was not intellectual and rational, it was an inner struggle that they scarcely had a language for, more akin to painful soul searching and spiritual epiphany than ordinary science. After ‘getting’ relativity, everyone commented on how the same old facts that didn’t make any sense, just suddenly made sense one day.

This is the holy grail of scientific pursuit, the ability to make a paradigm shift and find a more expansive understanding, and yet it is also widely recognized as a process beyond the intellect, that follows a set of rules that are scarcely discernable to the intellect. This is the higher mind. While much more profound, it’s processes are far more subtle and can easily be drowned out by a noisy undisciplined intellect, and thus the reason why there is the term, ‘Ivory Tower Intellectual’. If the intellect doesn’t remain under the control of the higher faculty of the mind that makes paradigm leaps, it will create many distractions that impede the process of acquiring a new more relevant paradigm.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Morality is something that comes from spiritual and not intellectual roots,

I’ve already discussed a “true” morality as always being intellectual (using my def, not yours). I’ll add here that morality (conforming to the rules of “right” conduct) in no way must be spiritual. There are lots of bases of “right” conduct, some spiritual, some not. (I put “right” in quotes because I acknowledge that each moral philosophy will have its own definition of what is considered right.)

I know we have some disagreements, but would you be able to agree that it's possible to have a moral philosophy not based on spiritualism?

My assertion is that there are mental processes which defy the intellect, not because they are irrational, but rather because they involve higher thought processes that cannot be clearly ascertained by the intellect. Morality is probably not the best example of this kind of thought process, but when it gets out of control, such as the intellectually based morality of the French Revolution and the Nazis, it is a good counter-example of the intellect when defiantly unbridled from higher constraints.
The Philosopher Princess
mike1reynolds wrote:
The beauty of a sunset, the cuteness of a child, these are abstractions that the intellect cannot dissect. The higher mind deals with reality on a much more abstract scale than the intellect, it is a super-mind and the concepts it deals with are too subtle for the intellect.

Oh, okay, then. I already have that “second mind”, so, never mind on my request Smile. (However, I can dissect them.)

mike1reynolds wrote:
The intellect is nothing more than a sophisticated robot, that was the whole point of this thread, the ways in which people think robotically about politics, no matter which side they are on. The intellect is a computer and most of the time that it thinks it is thinking, in reality it is just churning over the same data over and over.

You’re definitely onto something there! I’ve been thinking about the possibility of starting a thread on Free Will vs. Determinism, but more in a context of science rather than politics.

mike1reynolds wrote:
Your definition of intellect is overly simplified.

Hmm. Well I wasn’t attempting to define intellect but intellectual. Maybe that’s what you meant to say.

I do enjoy the meta-science (talking about science), and I’m glad to get your latest input, but I think that probably should continue elsewhere. My example of intellectual was purposefully politically-oriented to stay relevant to the thread. (What I didn’t state was that liberals traditionally would want to circumvent the “price-gouging” more than conservatives traditionally would. {I include “traditionally” because, it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference in their political actions.})
~~~~~~~~~~
How about if we do a full circle? Your riveting “robot” talk makes me think that you possibly agree with the deeper meaning of this thread’s subject’s assertion. Notwithstanding the differences between Repos and Demos (which you and horseatingweeds discussed some) at a certain level, can you agree with my point at a different level?

Do you see how amazing it would be for someone to, on one level, be a conservative or liberal, but, on a different level, to be able to see the essential similarities?
Related topics
Angoli arrotondati con i CSS (senza tabelle)
ayuda con mi espacio web
xbox 360
Para Cyber Adictos [ésta va más en serio!!]
para hacer mi pagina
Civil war? What civil war?
[va]chistesss.. jajajajajaja | posteen chistes ustedes tmb |
Democrat US Senator Joe Lieberman booted for war-hawk stance
A quoi vous défoncez vous?
[help] Un guestbook seguro!!
Is philosophy a science?
Venezuela 2 - Brasil 0 (amistoso) :: Por primera vez!
Se divorcia 77 años después de casados.
Is atheism guided by satan?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.