What did this girl have that she needed?

[pErvinalia]

I should point out, Hack, that I only just identified a glaring piece of Seth's cognitive dissonance the other day, but one that he's been displaying for years now that I think back on it. It's the idea that individuals are apparently rational enough for rational actor type theories of free markets to work wonderously, yet at the same time they are apparently all deluded Marxists who couldn't be trusted to vote properly. It's ridiculous to posit on one hand people being highly rational, and on the other hand being highly irrational. But that's Seth for you. :crazy:

[pErvinalia]

Can't believe I failed to pick up on that. I must be nearly as stupid as him:

Much more stupid in fact. Orders of magnitude more stupid. You're so fucking stupid that your stupidity doesn't even exist in the same universe as everyone else, it's an infinite universe of stupidity all your own. The gravity of your universe of stupidity is so strong that it affects the time-space continuum in nearby universes. Your stupidity is the largest black hole of stupidity in all the universes. You are so stupid that other people's stupidity disappears beyond the event horizon of your stupidity.

[Seth]

Well, it seems that both Seth and hack are pushing the "democracy is a bad idea because the populace is stupid" barrow.

Just shows that strange bedfellow can exist in politics.

The position itself is dangerous, elitist and conducive to totalitarian regimes. The answer is better education and more genuine, widespread political conversations, not the arrogant dismissal of the "common people", more worthy of aristocrats in bygone days than any modern commentator.

I pretty much hold the position that the majority of the population is too stupid in the concepts of civics and political philosophy, not to mention economics, and therefore this is a BIG problem for our "democracies". The difference between the right wing and the left wing is that lefties like you and us usually see the solution being to educate the masses to bring them up to a level on these issues. The neoliberals are THE elitists in society and they want it to stay that way, which is why they are always chipping away at universal education (not to mention health and welfare etc).

Excuse me? Lefties want to educate the lumpen proletariat? You're insane. Leftists want to "educate" the lumpen proletariat about one thing only: Obedience to the Marxist Dialectic. The Marxists in charge of the American (and European) school systems are doing everything they can NOT to educate kids in anything but proper Marxist dogma. "Universal education" in Marxist Progressive Newspeak means, in point of actual fact, "Marxist indoctrination" that has nothing to do with giving any child the ability to reason, because anybody who can reason can see that socialism can do nothing but fail, ever.

[Seth]

I should point out, Hack, that I only just identified a glaring piece of Seth's cognitive dissonance the other day, but one that he's been displaying for years now that I think back on it. It's the idea that individuals are apparently rational enough for rational actor type theories of free markets to work wonderously, yet at the same time they are apparently all deluded Marxists who couldn't be trusted to vote properly. It's ridiculous to posit on one hand people being highly rational, and on the other hand being highly irrational. But that's Seth for you. :crazy:

The ones who are highly irrational are the dependent class lumpen proletarians like you who have been propagandized and indoctrinated into blind acceptance of whatever your Marxist masters say.

Most everyone else is rational and they act rationally most of the time.

[pErvinalia]

Well, it seems that both Seth and hack are pushing the "democracy is a bad idea because the populace is stupid" barrow.

Just shows that strange bedfellow can exist in politics.

The position itself is dangerous, elitist and conducive to totalitarian regimes. The answer is better education and more genuine, widespread political conversations, not the arrogant dismissal of the "common people", more worthy of aristocrats in bygone days than any modern commentator.

I pretty much hold the position that the majority of the population is too stupid in the concepts of civics and political philosophy, not to mention economics, and therefore this is a BIG problem for our "democracies". The difference between the right wing and the left wing is that lefties like you and us usually see the solution being to educate the masses to bring them up to a level on these issues. The neoliberals are THE elitists in society and they want it to stay that way, which is why they are always chipping away at universal education (not to mention health and welfare etc).

Excuse me? Lefties want to educate the lumpen proletariat? You're insane. Leftists want to "educate" the lumpen proletariat about one thing only: Obedience to the Marxist Dialectic. The Marxists in charge of the American (and European) school systems are doing everything they can NOT to educate kids in anything but proper Marxist dogma. "Universal education" in Marxist Progressive Newspeak means, in point of actual fact, "Marxist indoctrination" that has nothing to do with giving any child the ability to reason, because anybody who can reason can see that socialism can do nothing but fail, ever.

You are a paranoid ranting bot. Get to a head doctor, quick.

[pErvinalia]

I should point out, Hack, that I only just identified a glaring piece of Seth's cognitive dissonance the other day, but one that he's been displaying for years now that I think back on it. It's the idea that individuals are apparently rational enough for rational actor type theories of free markets to work wonderously, yet at the same time they are apparently all deluded Marxists who couldn't be trusted to vote properly. It's ridiculous to posit on one hand people being highly rational, and on the other hand being highly irrational. But that's Seth for you. :crazy:

The ones who are highly irrational are the dependent class lumpen proletarians like you who have been propagandized and indoctrinated into blind acceptance of whatever your Marxist masters say.

Most everyone else is rational and they act rationally most of the time.

You've said that all Democrats and a good chunk of the Republicans are Marxist stooges. That's way more than 50% of your population. So "most everyone" is irrational, in your deluded world view.

[Hermit]

Well, it seems that both Seth and hack are pushing the "democracy is a bad idea because the populace is stupid" barrow.

Just shows that strange bedfellow can exist in politics.

The position itself is dangerous, elitist and conducive to totalitarian regimes. The answer is better education and more genuine, widespread political conversations, not the arrogant dismissal of the "common people", more worthy of aristocrats in bygone days than any modern commentator.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill

Indeed. But

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. - Winston Churchill

trumps the first quote.

[Collector1337]

The majority of people being rational or not doesn't matter.

Freedom is something we should all be able to agree on. Freedom to own a gun or not. Freedom to marry whoever you want, whatever.

I just expect that the same freedom be granted to me that you also want for yourself. We should be able to agree to not impose on each other. Why is that so hard?

I don't want to rely on others for my safety. So, when I can keep from doing that where I can, I will.

It is not right for you to deprive me of that. You have no right to make my personal decisions for me.

[pErvinalia]

Because philosophically speaking freedom isn't and never was supposed to be about solely "freedom to". It's also about "freedom from".

And the coalescence of societies is always going to require compromises. That's essentially the social contract.

[Blind groper]

http://io9.com/on-correlation-causation ... 1494972271

I do not know if Seth is stupid or not, but it is very clear that he needs education in statistical methods and interpretation. He has consistently made statements that make no statistical sense at all, and therefore no sense.

One of his latest is to comment that it does not matter that 24 nations (including the USA) showed a direct correlation between a reduction in the percentage of young men in the population, and a drop in murder rate. According to Seth, because more people in the USA had guns, the drop in murder rate was solely due to more guns. Therefore it was the more guns that lowered murder rate. Duh!!

The reference above shows how correlation can lead to idiotic conclusions if no good scientific sense is applied to them. Seth needs to learn how to use statistics, and how to apply good scientific sense.

[JimC]

Well, it seems that both Seth and hack are pushing the "democracy is a bad idea because the populace is stupid" barrow.

Just shows that strange bedfellow can exist in politics.

The position itself is dangerous, elitist and conducive to totalitarian regimes. The answer is better education and more genuine, widespread political conversations, not the arrogant dismissal of the "common people", more worthy of aristocrats in bygone days than any modern commentator.

I pretty much hold the position that the majority of the population is too stupid in the concepts of civics and political philosophy, not to mention economics, and therefore this is a BIG problem for our "democracies". The difference between the right wing and the left wing is that lefties like you and us usually see the solution being to educate the masses to bring them up to a level on these issues. The neoliberals are THE elitists in society and they want it to stay that way, which is why they are always chipping away at universal education (not to mention health and welfare etc).

I agree that a lack of knowledge and sloppy thinking is a problem for democracies. However, as you indicated, it is not an insurmountable problem, and is certainly not enough to justify some form of "rule of the elite" which seems to be the alternative for some thinkers on both sides of politics. (just think of the "vanguard of the people" position of the early Marxists, for example)
But for intellectuals who adopt it, the position betrays a breathtaking arrogance; "the little people can't be trusted to make decisions, which must be left to bright chaps like us"
The other safeguards against at least certain stupid populist decisions are a little Sethian; public institutions (including well-educated government advisors), the rule of law and various types of constitutions put some useful inertia against a polity lurching from one extreme, ill-thought position to another via votes which control all decision making. Seth may think that only the US constitution (and indeed a particularly libertarian interpretation) is the only mechanism which tempers the ill effects of populist democracy at its most crass, but in fact most democratic societies have evolved structures which perform that function.

[Collector1337]

Because philosophically speaking freedom isn't and never was supposed to be about solely "freedom to". It's also about "freedom from".

And the coalescence of societies is always going to require compromises. That's essentially the social contract.

Sure. What are you trying to free yourself "from?"

There definitely are already compromises indeed. You don't have the freedom to just do whatever you want to people.

But firearm ownership doesn't mean you get to victimize anyone. So, as long as you aren't hurting anyone, then what's the problem?

[pErvinalia]

Because philosophically speaking freedom isn't and never was supposed to be about solely "freedom to". It's also about "freedom from".

And the coalescence of societies is always going to require compromises. That's essentially the social contract.

Sure. What are you trying to free yourself "from?"

There definitely are already compromises indeed. You don't have the freedom to just do whatever you want to people.

But firearm ownership doesn't mean you get to victimize anyone. So, as long as you aren't hurting anyone, then what's the problem?

Freedom from being murdered. A freedom clearly reduced massively when guns are around. Why not let everyone own a tank? Coz it's fucking stupid, that's why. Same with guns. Although, as I've said before, I do grant that you have a problem of criminal inertia in your country, and an argument can be made for self-arming to deal with that problem.

[Collector1337]

Freedom from being murdered. A freedom clearly reduced massively when guns are around. Why not let everyone own a tank? Coz it's fucking stupid, that's why. Same with guns. Although, as I've said before, I do grant that you have a problem of criminal inertia in your country, and an argument can be made for self-arming to deal with that problem.

You can never have "freedom from being murdered." Nor do you need a firearm to murder someone. So banning firearms does not give you "freedom from being murdered."

I believe you are thinking about it and framing it completely incorrectly. Having a firearm increases your "freedom from being murdered."

Freedom is NOT "clearly" reduced when firearms are around. I do not feel my freedom is reduced when firearms are around in any way. That's just a bizarre and asinine way to see things in my opinion.

In America, you can own a tank. You can pay someone who does own a tank to let you drive it if you want even. There are literally Groupons for "drive a tank" services.

Crime is far from my primary reason for owning firearms. My primary reason is for recreation. The protection benefits from firearm ownership is just a bonus.

[pErvinalia]

Freedom from being murdered. A freedom clearly reduced massively when guns are around. Why not let everyone own a tank? Coz it's fucking stupid, that's why. Same with guns. Although, as I've said before, I do grant that you have a problem of criminal inertia in your country, and an argument can be made for self-arming to deal with that problem.

You can never have "freedom from being murdered." Nor do you need a firearm to murder someone. So banning firearms does not give you "freedom from being murdered."

Typical conservative false dichotomy. It's not about total freedom. It's about more or less freedom and a compromise between freedoms 'to' and freedoms 'from'. The same argument could be given for the "freedom to live (life)".

I believe you are thinking about it and framing it completely incorrectly. Having a firearm increases your "freedom from being murdered."

No it doesn't, in countries that don't already have a problem with firearms. You clearly are less likely to be murdered in Australia than the US.

Freedom is NOT "clearly" reduced when firearms are around. I do not feel my freedom is reduced when firearms are around in any way. That's just a bizarre and asinine way to see things in my opinion.

The more guns in society, the more gun crime you will get. It's pretty simple logic.

In America, you can own a tank. You can pay someone who does own a tank to let you drive it if you want even. There are literally Groupons for "drive a tank" services.

And this is supposed to convince me that owning guns is a good thing because why?

Crime is far from my primary reason for owning firearms. My primary reason is for recreation. The protection benefits from firearm ownership is just a bonus.

If guns are to be around for recreation then you don't need to have them armed and available at the drop of a hat. In Australia and other sane places that allow firearms for sport or pest control, you have to store the firing mechanism and ammo and the rest of the gun in separate places under lock and key.

And a regime like that would still allow the loony libertarians to overthrow the government when they so such desire.