# Which Dem has a Shot?



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2003)

Pick a candidate and throw a plug.  If you don't think any Dems will win in 2004 lets hear why?

Upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2003)

I don't know who will be the best candidate to run against the President.  I think that Dean has a hard fight ahead if he is nominated.  I think in the new climate of fear and terror, perhaps the general would be a good bet.  Mr. Clark has some good ideas, he is rather moderate and he has the military experience to blow the war dodging Bush out of the water.  

In my opinion, none of the Dems really fit my political philosophy.  I'm kind of a green libertarian in favor of a small socially conscious federal government and states rights.  In my opinion, this philosophy is a mix of both parties and it throws out the crap.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 19, 2003)

The key to winning the election will be to bring both parties closer together, not further apart. The general public is not lunicilly (I just made up a new word, me thinks) right winged, or left winged...they are somewhere near the middle. Election 00', due to  the reason that canadates Gore and Bush were so close together on many issues yet so bi-partisen in there presentation of the issues, that it segmented our country. People couldn't differentiate the 2 canidates on the issues enough, so they stuck with the party that they were most comfortable with at the time.

Now since Bush has been in power, things are more bi-partisen then ever (don't get your panties in a bunch, republicans...I think it would have been the same way if Gore had gotton elected - well he did get elected - I mean if Gore was president.  ]. The country is torn completely down the middle, again, with only a very small precentage of swing voters. This is why both parties are focusing on their own party, and getting voters w/in the party to the polls, rather then capturing the swing voters. It seems at times that I might be the only swing voter (could vote republican, democrate, green, or for myself on any given day) around, and ain;t NOBODY catering to MY needs! (lol)

So keep in mind that for the democratic party to win, they need a canidate who can cater to the middle, as well as the party.

Having said that, right now, Dean seems to be the pick for the Democratic party. At least thats the buzz hear in Michigan. I like Deans policies on many issues, but I don't think this will be good if he is nominated. It's just that Dean comes off like a huge jerk-off to many of Republicans. Hell, I like his policy on a lot of issues, yet his retired WWE wrestler look, and Bill O'Rielly attitude turns me off at times. It's unfortunate that appearance means anything, but sometimes it can mean everything. Also, I think that Dean is very bi-partisen, and I get the impression that he would only make decisions that his political democrate constituents approve of, rather then what is best for the country. So, I think that Dean will be the pick for 04', which could cost our country the election to bush (again), unless there is an upset of some kind. I really hope the Dems don't pick him. But, I do like his policy, and I like him much better then Gore or Clinton because of his policy, so I'd actually vote for him if he was the democratic choice (as opposed to last election where I supported Nader because BOTH Gore in Bush sucked it, in my opinion).

Now, I would like to see Gen. Clark get picked by the Dems. With Clark, the Dems have a much better chance of beating bush. Clark is not nearly as Bi-partisen; and he gives me the impression that he has the ability to work with both sides well. I think as a general, and given his credentials (worked on NATO, as well as a slew of ther things) he is far more experienced and better to deal with foriegn policy then Bush. I think that his attitude, and his lack of bi-partisen behavior, and the fact that he has not been in politics as an elected official will work in his favor to get the support of both Dems, and many moderate republicans. I think Clark would be great for our country, but the ultra-right's worst nightmare, because he will actually be a serious threat to that agenda for many reasons: he CAN get elected over Bush, and he CAN get policy on the books by appealing to Moderate Republicans in the legislature. I like Clarks policy much better then Deans, And I think he would be good for our country. I hope Clark is the Democratic pick, but given the bipartisen environment, It doesn't seem like it'll happend. It's sadly ironic that to be picked by the party you have to be bi-partisen, but to be picked by the people (and to get things done in office) you can't be. Oh well.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 19, 2003)

I think the country is drifting from the bipartisan system and the Dems are the first to feel the birthing pains. I also think that it is less about who in the Dems will emerge, than it is about how many people just don't want to vote for Bush. It's quite possible that the party will firm up after the primary. Personally, I like Clark, a classic example of a military hotshot that realizes the negatives of war because he's seen it and been in it. I don't think he knows politics well enough or has the connections to win over all the party line Dems though. I also like Kerry, Gephart a little less, but I think Dean's going to win out in the end. 

Clark - military experience
Gephart - old school politics and unions
Dean - Gore recommendation


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 19, 2003)

> I think the country is drifting from the bipartisan system and the Dems are the first to feel the birthing pains.



If you said this in 99' or 00', I would have agreed. But since then, it is very clear that people have become more party biased. There are polls and stats to prove it, and it was covered by CNBC and another TV news source I saw, and Time Magazine (december or November issue this year). Higher percentages of people by a landslide in the last election voted straight Dem or Rep. tickets, and higher % in polls are claiming a party, rather then claiming to be "independant." 

The stats are there, and I only know this stuff because I have news stations on all day long in my office, so you'll have to excuse me!  :asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 19, 2003)

Whoops...double post on accident.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 19, 2003)

I would rather the two parties _were_ farther apart.  I want a real choice when I vote.  I want to vote for candidates that will defend, uncategorically, my right to keep and bear arms, for example.  I want to vote for candidates who understand that the money each of us earns is _ours_, not the government's. 

The middle of the  political road is no place I want to be.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *If you said this in 99' or 00', I would have agreed. But since then, it is very clear that people have become more party biased. There are polls and stats to prove it, and it was covered by CNBC and another TV news source I saw, and Time Magazine (december or November issue this year). Higher percentages of people by a landslide in the last election voted straight Dem or Rep. tickets, and higher % in polls are claiming a party, rather then claiming to be "independant."
> 
> The stats are there, and I only know this stuff because I have news stations on all day long in my office, so you'll have to excuse me!  :asian: *



I'm sure that's the case, but it's because of the baby boomers, who are still the most populous generation and still very party loyal, compose that majority of the voting populous. Most of the younger generations have shown little want to sign on to a party.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 19, 2003)

Clark


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *I would rather the two parties were farther apart.  I want a real choice when I vote.  I want to vote for candidates that will defend, uncategorically, my right to keep and bear arms, for example.  I want to vote for candidates who understand that the money each of us earns is ours, not the government's.
> 
> The middle of the  political road is no place I want to be. *



I agree, but I also want a government that puts the citizens as its first interest and not the big money corporations.  They don't deserve our tax money because they have enough of their own.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *I would rather the two parties were farther apart.  I want a real choice when I vote.  I want to vote for candidates that will defend, uncategorically, my right to keep and bear arms, for example.  I want to vote for candidates who understand that the money each of us earns is ours, not the government's.
> 
> The middle of the  political road is no place I want to be. *



I agree that I don't want stagnant canidates who don't stand for anything. To me, this has little to do with the party, but more to do with canidates who are out to please everyone, and who are willing to misrepresent what they believe in and what they are going to do in office just to appeal to the masses. I feel that Bush and Gore in 00' were doing just that, and I feel that both canidates were misrepresenting what they stood for, and what they were going to do in office. They were going with the polls, which was why they were so similar on the issues, at least back then.

But, for me, the issues have nothing to do with partisenship, it has to do with what are the canidates going to do when they are in office. Most people who fit the "conservative" catagory would consider me liberal (despite my conservative views), and because of my dislike for Bush, unless the Dems. pick someone I really hate, I'll be voting Democrate in 04'. Yet, I also want a canidate who will defend my right to bear arms, and who believes that my $$ is mine, not the governments. Yet there are structural problems with our system that I see some of the democratic canidates addressing that the republicans are not.

So, I don't believe its about "partisenship," and I don't want a 2 party system locking our in our choices based on bi-partisen views. I want a canidate who I believe will do the right thing regardless or partisenship, and I think a canidate has to be able to work with people from both parties to get things done. Personally, I wish we had more then 2 parties dominating the political environment, but hey, thats just me.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *I would rather the two parties were farther apart.  I want a real choice when I vote.  I want to vote for candidates that will defend, uncategorically, my right to keep and bear arms, for example.*


*
Because, of course, you want to belong to a 'well-regulated militia', right?




			I want to vote for candidates who understand that the money each of us earns is ours, not the government's.
		
Click to expand...

Yet, without the government, you would have no money. No rules to protect your person, or your possessions. Are you asking for anarchy?




			The middle of the  political road is no place I want to be.
		
Click to expand...

*Most people live in the mushy-middle. They don't want to be taxed to death, but they want their grandmother to get cheap (or free) prescription medication.

I believe we are stronger as a community, than as individuals. And I feel I was let down by how the current President has gone about 'Uniting' - 'Not Dividing', as he promised.

It looks like Dean is going to be the Democratic candidate. I think the election hinges on the "You're With Us or You're With the Terrorists". If Bush can keep the fear of terrorism alive, Dean has little chance. If Dean can show the world is not so dangerous a place, Bush can be voted out of office.

Mike


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 19, 2003)

> Because, of course, you want to belong to a 'well-regulated militia', right?



*What the Second Amendment Means*



> Yet, without the government, you would have no money. No rules to protect your person, or your possessions. Are you asking for anarchy?



The purpose of the government of a free society is to protect individual rights.  A government therefore has certainly strictly defined roles.  I believe strongly in this concept.  I have not advocated the abolition of government and I am not an anarchist.  



> Most people live in the mushy-middle.



I am not most people.



> They don't want to be taxed to death, but they want their grandmother to get cheap (or free) prescription medication.



There is no such thing as "free" health care.  There is only government mandated transfers of wealth.  I do not believe you are "owed" healthcare.  I do not believe you are _owed_ anything except what you earn through your own effort.



> I believe we are stronger as a community, than as individuals.



Individuals can indeed better their individual circumstances by cooperating and trading with others.  There is no such thing, however, as a "community" -- there are only individuals who choose to work together or choose not to work together.  A "community" in which communitarian values are enforced over individual rights is no community in which I wish to live.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 19, 2003)

Oh.

Good to know that you too are completely opposed to mandatory Christian prayer (in schools or government) enforced recitation of patrioic jingles such as the Pledge, legal limits on who can marry whom, limits on reproductive rights, etc. 

There are such things as communities. If we make them.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 19, 2003)

> There are such things as communities. If we make them.



No, there are only groups of individuals.  There's a difference.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 19, 2003)

For you, perhaps there are no communities. Perhaps it's all just parallel play. And I understand that there is a line of argument holding that everything outside the individual is illusion. However, I've never quite understood why, given that level of skepticism, one would stop short of doubting the integrity of the individual itself.

But I am at present part of several communities--none on the Internet, I'm happy to say--and have been in the past. They're as real as anything else, and realer than lots of things people take for granted.

Rugged individualism is itself an ideological artifact of some cultural and historical developments in nineteenth-century culture. It's not some a priori category. It can't be based on biology (as far as anyone knows, human beings are social critters, and always have been), or religion (congregations, communion, choirs, etc), or anything else of which I'm aware. Unless, of course, one adopts the complete Bishop Berkeley position and starts arguing that nothing is real, or (I suppose) a pragmatism that says it's all just lies about selfish self-interest.

Then, I guess I can't establish the reality of community. But then, the same approach says that neither can anybody establish the reality of the individual.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 19, 2003)

I don't vote democrat so won't choose, but it seems the choice has been made for them already. It seems as politics has taken the bandwagon approach, and who-ever is higher in the polls at the primaries is where the bandwagon starts from. But Mr. Gore (Gosh that feels so much better than saying President Gore) has catapulted Dean into the lead it seams for that lucky bandwagon.

But if I were for socialized healthcare, socialized medicine, socialized childraising, socialized workcamps...and a 70% income tax rate, well I guess any of the democratic candidates would do.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 19, 2003)

"Workcamps," eh? Nice. Yep, Kerrey and Gephart and the Governor of Vermont, really gonna put us all in workcamps.

In case you haven't noticed, it hasn't been Democrats who've been throwing American citizens and others (criminals, probably yes, but still citizens) in the clink without charges, counsel, visitors, or rights. Not recently, anyway.

So who's your preference? Ollie "I traded arms to Iran so I could finance death squads and then make my living claiming that Jesus would have done the same," North?

Hey, how's it going with the whole UN Black Helicopter scare?

Hyperbole is one thing. What you wrote is another.

That kind of hatred, ridiculous exaggeration and factlessness is a big chunk of our problems.

Yell, by all means. Accuse me of being personally responsible for the Gulag--I've READ Solzhenitsyn (who's apparently mutated into a true kook, I'm sorry to say...oh well, no worse than Louis Althusser)...have you?

We're all in this thing together, buddy.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2003)

> A government therefore has certainly strictly defined roles.



"Strictly defined roles" ... Such as: government will define the laws of the community. You can't escape it. Unless you, yourself, become the trier of fact, judge, jury, executioner (or imprisoner). Because you and I can interact through the act of commerce ... we have to have a set of rules that govern these interactions ... those rules are defined by *the community*, not a bunch of individuals. The society works only because the minority will accept the rule of the majority. 

Once you proclaim that, as an individual, you do not have to accept the norms of the community ... you are preaching anarchy.

What currency do you use?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *
> 
> 1.  There is no such thing as "free" health care.  There is only government mandated transfers of wealth.  I do not believe you are "owed" healthcare.  I do not believe you are owed anything except what you earn through your own effort.
> ...


* 

1.  Most wealth in this country in inherited.  The recipients did nothing to "earn" it but be born.  The ultimate lottery.  Meanwhile you and I work our rears off to get ahead in this society, struggling for the scraps the neo-aristocracy dangles.  So go ahead and defend that system, but if you are going to be true to the "I do not believe you are owed anything except what you earn through your own effort," principle then you must allow for redistribution of wealth.  Anything else is rather hypocritical, don't you think?  Have you seen Fight Club?

2.  Current human paleontological evidence shows that humans have always lived in communities.  People work together in a collective to accomplish a common goal.  Take hunting mammoths for instance.  There were no individuals on those teams.  Your rugged individualism is born out of the other side of human evolution.  Xenophobia.  Mine is mine is the attitude of my tribe and your tribe, except that our tribes are now our individual families.  This principle evolved to protect resources in an environment of compitition.  They both are part of who we are as a species and your denial does nothing to change your genetic nature.  Do me a favor and read Carl Jung.

Its good that you can take care of yourself.  Its good that you can provide for your family.  Its good that you have no health problems (I assume).  Not everyone is like you though.  Ability levels swing throughout a large spectrum and success in this society is loosely based on those abilities.  We are products of our genetics and our environments if one or the other or both are bred in deficiency, is it right to hold accountable that which cannot be controlled?  You said "I am not most people" and there is a lot of truth to that.  Spend some time in a ghetto or a prison and talk to the people there.  Find out for yourself the truth of your statement.*


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 20, 2003)

> That kind of hatred, ridiculous exaggeration and factlessness is a big chunk of our problems.



Well, you may think that's what it is. But these people could only make more jobs by increasing the size of government (workcamps). And all of this costs our tax money. The tax cuts were supported and opposed right down party lines buddy. And that was only for about 2%. These idiots will raise our taxes if let loose(70%), and I'm glad they haven't got a chance.

Take your head out of the sand, or wherever it is....


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Well, you may think that's what it is. But these people could only make more jobs by increasing the size of government (workcamps). And all of this costs our tax money. The tax cuts were supported and opposed right down party lines buddy. And that was only for about 2%. These idiots will raise our taxes if let loose(70%), and I'm glad they haven't got a chance. *



This type or rhetoric is simplistic in its ideology. To refer to the elected individuals as 'idiots' is really unneccessary. Why don't your run for public office and change it? 

To think that they will raise taxes to any specific percentage is also ridiculous. Democrats believe in something called a 'social minimum', that by providing a 'base level' of support in the community, the entire community benefits.

Personally, I would like to see our military budget cut to provide that social minimum. Is there any reason the US needs to spend as much as all of the other countries in the world combined on 'defense'?

Your rhetorical support for something that is not proven, you demean the conversation.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *This type or rhetoric is simplistic in its ideology. To refer to the elected individuals as 'idiots' is really unneccessary. Why don't your run for public office and change it?
> 
> To think that they will raise taxes to any specific percentage is also ridiculous. Democrats believe in something called a 'social minimum', that by providing a 'base level' of support in the community, the entire community benefits.
> ...



Until YOU can prove otherwise, don't demean the conversation with YOUR rank hypocrasy.

Glad to see what you would like cut. I stated what I would like cut. Don't get your panties in a bunch just because we're different.

It doesn't need to get so heated just to find out what my thoughts are. Just ask. I believe in a base level of community support as well. Like the military, and aid for people who cannot support themselves(the elderly and handicapped).


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 21, 2003)

1, Carl Gustav Jung was a frickin' fascist, philosophically speaking--just another essentialist thinker, sure, he had the Big Guy's private number.

2, increasing the size of gov't=workcamps? Huh? And if we're gonna get into increases in the size of the gov...hey, guess who's presided over an enormous recent expansion of the size of government and its powers? Hint---it's not a Democrat.

3. Those, "tax cuts?" beyond the fact that they aided primarily the poor, picked-upon wealthy (when in the HELL are working people and others in similar boats going to realize who their enemies are?), simply SHIFTED THE TAX BURDEN ELSEWHERE. Onto "user fees," and etc. and endless etc...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *1, Carl Gustav Jung was a frickin' fascist, philosophically speaking--just another essentialist thinker, sure, he had the Big Guy's private number.*



Facist?  Who says?  That opinion is interesting.  Carl Jung's thinking had lots of enemies in the establishment.


----------



## pete (Dec 21, 2003)

where's Rudy Guiliani when we need him?


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 21, 2003)

For everyones information work crews are the norm here in VT. Thank you howard. The cops are tripping over their dinks to bust kids for anything so they can get them sentenced to the work crews as the state has no budget to pay people for this.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 21, 2003)

Apparently Jung's ideas were not at odds with ALL establishments; this is off a "Books and Writers," website, easily findable (lousy annotation on my part, I know) through a google search:

"In 1933 Jung was nominated president of the General Medical Society for Psychotherapy, an organization which had Nazi connections. He also assumed the editorship of its publication, Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie. Jung's activities with the organization and his writings about racial differences in the magazine have later been severely criticized. However, Jung had already in 1918 explained his differences with other schools of psychotherapeutic practice with racial terms: "...I can understand very well that Freud's and Adler's reduction of everything psychic to primitive sexual wishes and power-drives has something about it that is beneficial and satisfying to the Jew, because it is a form of simplification." He also saw in National Socialism "tensions and potentialities which medical psychology must consider in its evaluation of the unconscious." From mythology Jung took the figure of Wotan, an old Nordic god, "the truest expression and unsurpassed personification of a fundamental quality that is particularly characteristic of the Germans." In 1937 Jung said of Hitler less than critically: "He is a medium, German policy is not made; it is revealed through Hitler. He is the mouthpiece of the Gods of old... He is the Sybil, the Delphic oracle" (see Jung in Contexts, ed. by Paul Bishop, 1999) One of Jung's pupils, Sabina Spielrein, who was his patient first, and later mistress according to some sources, practised psychoanalysis in the USSR after completing her studies. She was killed with her two daughters by German soldiers in 1942."

Just lovely, eh? I realize that the bit about good old Adolf as an "oracle," in a fuller context, could be read (see "From Caligari to Hitler") as a simple explanation of his articulation of German ideology at the time. But the "beneficial and satisfying to the Jew," crack in reference to Freud? Yick. And then too, Jung's central ideas--the collective unconscious, the archetype--are perfectly consonant with racist theory.

No wonder Freud famously fainted twice around Jung. He prob'ly wanted to hit  him, and was too civilized to do so.

Incidentally, Freud left Austria in 1933, after correctly realizing that Hitler was a good solid symptom of mass psychosis. And some of his family died in camps--real ones, not paranoid fantasies.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *And then too, Jung's central ideas--the collective unconscious, the archetype--are perfectly consonant with racist theory.*



Despite this interpretation, archtypes and collective unconscious neatly describe many of our political problems today.  Ideas have become symbols and a programmed response has been inserted into the minds of the ideologically suseptible.  A good case study of this are some of the responses from people on this board regarding politics.  

Robert, every scientist has a slew of biases they carry around with them and these biases can fit into theories which are based off of real evidence.  They can not totally shape them without ignoring evidence.  I think it's fallacious to disregard a position because a person has proven their humanity.  Take Ernst Haekle for instance his work with evolution was very insightful, yet, he supported social darwinism - an unpalatable interpretation of evolution.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 21, 2003)

Umm...what the hell was this thread about again........? :shrug:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Umm...what the hell was this thread about again........? :shrug: *



Carl Jung has some interesting philosophy regarding archtypes and collective unconsious.  I was making a point about a groups use of symbols in order to trigger a programmed response in republican voters.  This makes it difficult for the Dems because it means their message is going to change a person's mind based on the facts.  Whoever wins this election is going to have to monopolize the symbols of power.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 21, 2003)

That's an absurd rationalization of Jung's active collaboration with Nazism, to say nothing of his active production of psychiatric and spiritual justification for Nazi ideology, certain aspects of racist beliefs more generally, and don't even get me started on the sexist crap implicit in his ideas. 

Funny how you'd yell "fascist," at every phantasmatic opportunity, only to say, "nope, don't see a thing," when the real deal arrives. 

The man a) headed a German psychiatric group with direct ties to Hitler from 1933 on, b) published articles in that group's main journals that were to say the very least racially stereotyping, c) dismissed Freud and others on the grounds of their identity as, "Jews," and d) spent his life developing his theory that life, mind and culture were properly understood to be expressions of collective and racial unconsciousnesses and we should give up and accept it.

For you, there's no problem with this? Oy. And arguing that this sort of thing, "merely reveals...humanity," c'mahn. If I lose my temper on the Internet, or drop a grapefruit on my toe and cuss, or snap meanly at somebody, THAT reveals my humanity. What Jung did amounts to (and this is at the rock-bottom least) an intellectual negligence that contributed to the ugly deaths and immiseration of tens of millions of people. 

Personally, I'd call what Jung did direct intellectual collaboration with anti-Semitism and with Hitler. He provided intellectual support for horror, and while this may very be within the scope of human possibility, that sure as hell don't make it right.

One sign that Jung's ideas continue to do damage is in your phrase, "monopolize the symbols of power?" What a grotesque version of democracy--whoever wins, a few strong men have taken control of millions.

And by the way, a technical point: Jung's ideas about symbology have nothing to do with "insert{ing}" them into the minds of the gullible through prrogramming or anything else. Jung believed that these symbols WERE ALREADY THERE, and at most needed uncovering. That's what an essentialism is--a belief based on the idea that certain archetypes (see Plato) were present in the universe and the human mind BEFORE any and all education. See Erich Neumann, "Eros and Psyche," or Jos. Campbell's books, or Jung's own journals, or that hilariously pretentious Laurens van der Post biographical film.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> 
> 1.  That's an absurd rationalization of Jung's active collaboration with Nazism, to say nothing of his active production of psychiatric and spiritual justification for Nazi ideology, certain aspects of racist beliefs more generally, and don't even get me started on the sexist crap implicit in his ideas.
> ...



1.  You want to see the bones as they have been placed without a care for who placed them.

2.  Never denied that Jung had ties to Nazis.  I will use your own words "So did lots of people...big deal...move on."  This was in response to my charge that the Bush family had dealings with Nazis.  Seems like only you can play that card...

3.  Depite the despicable ideology, the knowledge of symbology is useful today.  I will say again, how many scientists in those days did not carry horrible bias?  Sometimes you have to wipe the slime off the workings of nature, Robert.

4.  Again, the Bushes, but further...many German scientists were imported after the war and many escaped Nuremburg.  Why was this done?  Other scientists thought they might have useful information despite the horror they may have accomplished.  Robert, the Nazis were normal people, completely controlled with symbols and rhetoric.  Put yourself in 30's Germany and we will see how "human" you become.

5.  I agree with you on this point.  Yet, so did Darwin and his gang provide support for european colonialism through social darwinism.  And it has been a long hard road to convince people that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with racism.

6.  If you truly deny that a few powerful men rule millions no matter who wins, then you do not know the nature of the enemy.  Do me a favor and turn off your TV and then you will see symbology surrounding you in a cloud so dense its chokes the mind.

7.  According to Jung, using a symbol reveals an archtype that is already fixed in the mind.  This response is an emotion which can be tied to another response through education and it is so powerful that it can cause people to do vastly horrible things.  Robert, you can compare stories cross-culterally and across oceans and the same archtypes appear.  If you know the context of these archtypes you can control people.  Plain and simple.  Also, the U of M twins studies support the theory of genetic archtypes which take the form of predilictions.  

I am surprised by your vehemence as you argue against this.  Politics is all about symbols and feelings and continually, throughout the history of this country, the real facts have not mattered as much as we would like.  I have a friend who worked for P&G in Cincinatti.  He was an executive in advertising until he gave up that kind of life.  According to him, "you can convince anybody of anything given the right symbols and enough money.  We used our symbols to make people feel things and then said, 'when you feel this, buy this.'"  Can you honestly say that our President does not do this?  Can you tell me that landing on the aircraft carrier was not a symbol to make people feel something?  Can you tell me that you were not told how to respond to that feeling?  You can't...and that is pure Jungian psycology.  I suggest you read a few of the books and sift through the nazi wreckage to find the Nature beneath.

John

PS - perhaps birds of a feather flock together in this case.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *
> 2.  Never denied that Jung had ties to Nazis.  I will use your own words "So did lots of people...big deal...move on."  This was in response to my charge that the Bush family had dealings with Nazis.  Seems like only you can play that card...
> 
> ...




I think te point was that, Jung in that time was associated with Nazi's. Bush today, some 60-70+ years later is not.


** Dang It, I hate to defend Bush and possibel agree with Robert in the same statement. Will you forgive me Robert, for possible agreeing with you?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *I think te point was that, Jung in that time was associated with Nazi's. Bush today, some 60-70+ years later is not.
> 
> 
> ** Dang It, I hate to defend Bush and possibel agree with Robert in the same statement. Will you forgive me Robert, for possible agreeing with you? *



I am skeptical of the above claim.  I'm not saying that our president has a secret tattoo that proves a secret Nazi conspiracy, though.  If you look at the history involving the Bush family, though, you will see the same dirty tactics they used during those times are being employed today.  The difference now is that they are global.  When my students book subject is published, I will point you to the source of this information.

Rich, you would be surprise how much of our knowledge comes from Nazi Germany.  Nuclear power for instance.  Rocket technology.  If we used Robert's moral filter, both the ideology and the information are lost.  I prefer to filter the ideology and keep the technology.  Anyway, back to the debate at hand...

Unless the dems can find a way to harness the power of the some of the rights symbols/ideas, they will not have a chance in 2004.  I think the best man for the job is Gen. Clarck.  With his military background, he can steal the fear away the President and become the archtypical american hero because he does actually have the credentials to back it up.  Bottom line, this election will be about fear.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 22, 2003)

Yea...this is totally off topic now (which dem has a chance to take the election?), but I am engaged in the conversation because this seems very interesting to me!  

Now, I didn't really study much psychology beyond the basics, so I don't have an in depth analysis on Jung, his history, or whatever. So...bear with me please.

What are these "symbols" that we are talking about? I ask because I could see how certian things are being used as symbols to effectively control the masses. At least, what I see is falacious comparisons are made to come up with seemingly true conclusions to get "the masses" to support certian ideas, for the gain of those with certian agendas. Basically, I see a clasic case of the Ad Logicam falicy all the time in our society.

Example: The idea of Patriotism is a "symbol" used to control people, I believe.

Premise 1. Being against terrorism = Patriotism.

Premise 2. Patriotism = also entails supporting your country and your leaders, especially in times of war.

Premise 3. There is such a thing as a War on Terror = a constant "war" against terrorism.

Premise 4. We are in a war on Terror = we are at war, a war with no evident end.

5. Since we are at war = we must support our leaders or we will be unpatriotic.

6. Supporting our leaders = not questioning our president or the administration.

Conclusion: If you question our President or his administration (which could include not supporting him, or not voting for him in the next election), then you are questioning our leaders in a time of war (war on terror), meaning that you are being unpatriotic, meaning that you support terrorism.

Condensed conclusion: If you question the President (which also includes not supporting him, or not voting for him), then you are supporting terrorists.

When I lay it out as I have done, you can see the falicies seeping through. Patriotism does not equal being against terrorism, for instance. The 9-11 hijackers are considered "patriots" for many fundamentalist muslims. We have had terrorists in our country, such as white supremecist groups, who are very "patriotic" in regards to the U.S.. So, Patriotism does not equal being against terror, so #1 is falicy. But, #2 could be true. Problem is; part of the definition is left out. For us in the U.S., our history was built on questioning our leaders. Questioning our leaders is a big part of patriotism for us, but that is not focused on. Second Problem is, we are supposed to believe #3, that we could actually wage war on a noun..."terror". War is waged against people, not nouns. THis is a falicy. Then we are supposed to buy #4; that we are at a never ending war. There is no proof what-so-ever that we are constantly under attack from terrorists. Sure, we had a horrible event occur where 3000 of our own people died (9-11). This would convince the biggest cynics that yes, there are people out there who would wish us harm. But the facts are deaths to terrorism accounts for not even a % of deaths in our country over any given time. Do you want to know how likely you were to be a terrorist death in 2000. Zero %. How about 2002? Correct...zero percent again. Even in 2001, the year of one of our greatest tragidies, your chances of being a terrorist victim was 1/100,000 or 0.00001%; meaning you were more likely to die from riding in a car (1/6500) or the flu or pnemonia (1/4500). How come we don't freak out when we get the sniffles? Point is, this idea that we are at some constant war with an unseen enemy is a scare tactic, simple as that. Yet, we are supposed to buy #4 based on #3, a war on a noun. Now, #5 is true if the rest is true, as is #6.

So we clearly have a case of logical falicy; faulty definitions and premises, but put together, they make what would be "true" conclusions if the definitions, and premises were true, which they are not. There are list of other falicies here as well, but you get the idea.

So "Patriotism" because of logical falicy propigated and accepted by some, becomes a symbol of control by our administration. Bush commercials for his campaign already made (not aired yet, at least not in Michigan) basically alluding to the idea that not supporting him is supporting "terror". 

So I don't  know what Jungs theory really is...but if it is anything like what I just described then I can see how the theory might have some credability. But, I could be way off base to what Jung was actually saying. 

So, someone please elaborate. What were these "symbols" that Jung was refering too, and how exactly were they used?

PAUL


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 22, 2003)

> Most wealth in this country in inherited.



No, it isn't.



> Have you seen Fight Club?



When you learn the difference between reality and movies, you'll be well on your way to forming a working philosophy.



> Current human paleontological evidence shows that humans have always lived in communities. People work together in a collective to accomplish a common goal.



Cooperation for mutual benefit and individualism are not mutually exclusive.  Mutual gain is the very foundation for individual prosperity, as people working with and trading with one another have more opportunity than do individuals living completely alone.

When you understand that individualism is not atomism and that individuals do not live outside of context, you'll grasp the idea that there are no _communities_ -- only _individuals_ who _interact_ (by choice in a free society).



> Its good that you can take care of yourself. Its good that you can provide for your family. Its good that you have no health problems (I assume). Not everyone is like you though.



Need does not constitute a valid claim on the efforts of others.  You do not have the right to live at someone else's expense _without their consent_.  Voluntary charity is fine;  forced government redistribution of earnings is not.



> Ability levels swing throughout a large spectrum and success in this society is loosely based on those abilities. We are products of our genetics and our environments if one or the other or both are bred in deficiency, is it right to hold accountable that which cannot be controlled?



Reality is the metaphysically given.  Egalitarian wishes are irrelevant.  There will always be people who are better at certain things and who have more than you.  I see no reason to punish them it, any more than I would punish you for being better off than someone else.



> You said "I am not most people" and there is a lot of truth to that. Spend some time in a ghetto or a prison and talk to the people there. Find out for yourself the truth of your statement.



I'm not.  Neither are you.  We are all individuals -- if we choose to be.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 22, 2003)

I'd put up a long post on this last night--but fortunately, it got eaten by the computer gods as MT went down for a few minutes. So, rather than reduplicate that effort to disentangle this tangle, let me just try and clearly explain a few of the concepts that are gettting tossed around here--pretty much inaccurately, I'm afraid. You can look all this stuff up if you like, and I'll try to remain an equal-opportunity offender.

First off, Jung. His basic ideas trace back to Plato's notions of ARCHETYPES--pre-existing, permanent, unchanging and universal patterns that are engraved somehow into the universe. These essential realities, for Jung, are expressed in people through what he thought was a COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS, a sort of reservoir of symbols (again, symbols that express the underlying universal archetypes existing before people came along) in which everybody shares. Our dreams and stories and art and politics and lives, then, simply draw symbols from that deeper storehouse, that collective unconscious, which got filled in the first place from archetypal reality. See Erich Neumann, "Amor and Psyche," or Jung's "Man and His Symbols," or Jos. Campbell, "The Hero With a Thousand Faces."

Second off, problems with this theory. a) The existence of the symbols--let along the collective unconscious and its archetypal origin--cannot be verified scientifically. These are metaphysical concepts, not physical ones, and their "proof," always relies upon anecdotal or otherwise-biased evidence ("my aunt dreamed of an angel the night before her father died") b) this sort of essentialist thinking (see Kaja Silverman, "The Subject of Semiotics" for a quick intro to the term) relies upon the notion that ALL human beings share the same collective unconscious. To call this ethnocentric, biased towards men's ideas, and slanted toward Western culture, is to be kind. Further, Jung's ideas clearly impose RACIAL notions upon who has what ideas. This stuff is bad scholarship: Campbell, for example, simply takes Western culture as all there is in the world, andd warps the few examples from other cultures into  Western terms; c) this sort of "analysis," frequently gets employed to justify a whole host of really fairly nasty ideas--men are from Mars, women are from Venus; black people and white people are fundamentally different; Hitler is the symbolic expression of the German hero--a Siegfried--out of the raciallly-determined collective unconscious. 

Third off--alternatives. See the extended literature on CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION, SEMIOTICS, and related themes. A good place to start  wwould be Claude Levi-Strauss, "The Raw and the Cooked," or Robert Scholes, "Structuralism: An Introduction." Or see Freud's insistence that while a good psychiatrist must be very widely read in human culture so that they can understand the basic language of the unconscious, all symbols must be interpreted in the individual terms of the person who came up with them. 

Fourth off--BEHAVIORAL GENETICS. Basically, this subdivision of physiological psychology investigates the ways in which our inherited DNA is expressed in our behavior. Since one cannot simply start playing around with human beings as one would with rats (well, we hope), much of this work is done by examining actuarial and demographic data, or studying patterns of behaviour such as alcoholism, schizophrenia, manic-depression, in families with well-documented histories. TWIN STUDIES, usually done in semi-isolated social groups (frequently Northern European more or less in terms of ethnicity--they tend to have the best records and public health documentation), refers to examinations of behavior in iddentical twins and fraternal twins, comparing these to ordinary siblings, relatives and strangers. You study their behavior, and compare, say identical twins raised together and raised apart. The first famous ones were done in Denmark; so you get DENMARK TWIN-STUDIES. The basic idea is this: you can't experiment on people, so you let society do your experiment for you, then look at the results. If a behavior is highly correlated with a particular genetic pattern, you'l see (for example) that identical twins will tend to behave the same way throughout their lives, whether or not they're raised together.

Will continue--hitting the space limit.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 22, 2003)

I am not flying with Jungs metaphysical ideas as you explained, Robert.

I think that certain things get turned into cultural "symbols", and these are used to sway public opinion. Patriotism, Saddam Houssien, The War on Terror; many of these things have become "symbols" for lack of a better term, as I explained. Yet, my idea is not even in the same ballpark as Jungs. As you explained them Robert, I don't float with his theories...

PAUL


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 22, 2003)

Moving on then. Problems with taking genes as determining of behaviour. Oops--that's not what the work says. I suggest looking up Robert Plomin's work; he's one of the early good researchers in the field, and as it happens I had him as a prof back in the 1970s. In lectures, discussions, published work, and office visits, he was insistent that genes do NOT determine behavior. They--at most--pre-dispose individuals. Similarly, one may inherit a sort of talent for, say, breast cancer--that doesn't mean you'll develop it, it means watch you diet and environment, and make damn sure you get mamographies done early and often.

Next problem: it's a big jump from Jung's archetypes to genes. Not only was he talking religion and metaphysics, not biology and genetics, but some of the work arguing for strong linkages of genes and behavior (the obvious example was Cyril Burt, but "The Bell Curve," provides more-recent bad science) was racist lousy science (Burt, for example, never did the studies he said he did, apparently because he "knew" how they'd come out) and outright fraud. But if you must buy this cheese, look up that idiot Leonard Jeffries and the whole "ice people," vs. "sun people," nonsense of a few years ago, which you should easily be able to find as an aspect of AFRO-CENTRIC theory.

As for the social and moral issues. 

Well, if you want to see human beings as a crowd of self-deluded individuals only ostensibly living in communities, there's no strict way to prove you're wrong. It sure doesn't seem to look like our history, like the anthropological results, the results of looking at similar animals, or our evolutionary past to me, but again you can't run the experiments on people to find out what's actually going on in their thick little heads. I would suggest, however, that a look into the ideological origins of these ideas might help--again, try checking into the historical and cultural construction of ideas like, "rugged individualism," as aspects of capitalist ideology--perhaps Frances Barker, "The Tremulous Private Body," Trilling's "Sincerity and Authenticity," Foucault's work, those extended histories by...dammit, what's his name...

As for scraping the slime of what we want. Sorry, that particular slime don't scrape off so easy--unless, of course, we lie about what's on our hands. That's why good old Freidrich Wilhelm (yes, I saw "Blazing Saddles," so insert appropriate line here) wrote that there was no document of civilization that is not, at the same time, a document of barbarism. However, there remains such a thing as moral choice.

We none of us know what we would do in such a situation as that of 1933 Germany. But it is an insult to the memories of the White Rose, Martin Niemoller, and a LOT of other people to even suggest that we'd all just collaborate in one way or another. And this, "they were all good people who had NO idea what was going on," crap...all Good Germans, eh? All misled by a few conspirators eh? Where the hell are Robert Jackson and Simone Weil and Eichmann when you need them?

This ties into that ridiculous claim by the ad exec. Advertising has two methods: fear, and desire. These haven't changed since forever. And ads don't "work" on their own--that's self-aggrandizing bull. Ads do their work as part of a whole suite of devices belonging to what Marx correctly identified as the ways capitalism reproduces itself across generations. Cultures need ways to perpetuate their ideas, their, "MEMES," to use last year's fashionable terms, and ads are one of them. By themselves--nada. Give your buddy an unlimited budget for throwing ads at me, aand unless he can directly affect my freedom, health, relationships or livelihood, ads as such won't do jack. Except get his *** sued for harassment.

Why am I so bugged by this. Here are the elements of "upnorth's" argument.
1. People are helpless pawns of a small, secret elite.
2. Symbols drawn from a collective and racial unconscious are totipotent in their ability to control thought.
3. These symbols are being manipulated on behalf of an international conspiracy.
4. This conspiracy can be seen through its appearance in certain quasi-secret groups--the Trilateral Comission, the Masons, etc.
5.  The intellectual ground for my ideas contains a) a lot of "scientifc," notions about genes and behavior; b) a lot of C.G. Jung's ideas about archetypes.
6. The history of such theories traces straight into some very, very ugly ideas indeed--and in Jung, we see once again the same old same old enemy: them Jews.

Man, I would very strongly suggest getting yourself a bucket and a big brush and painting some of that "slime," back ON to the theories you're espousing.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 22, 2003)

As for the thread...well, I've seen the Democrats. And they ain't even minor gods. And I loved hearing Daniel Schor say," Well, the Republicans are running a picture of Howard Dean with his mouth open, which it usually is..."

Personally, I recommend going back and reading J.G. Ballard, "Assassination of John F. Kennedy Viewed as A Downhill Motor Race," "Why I Want to F*** Ronald Reagan," and "Hello, America."


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *
> 
> 1.  No, it isn't.
> ...



1.  Prove that most wealth is not inherited.  The paycheck to paycheck pittance of the middle class does not constitute wealth.
2.  Have you ever heard of allagory?  I guess the entire body of human literature has nothing to say to you.
3.  This is the basis of community.  You've given the reason for its existance.
4.  Special Pleading and Argument from authority.  Fallacious.
5.  This is crap.  Without redistribution of wealth you'd still be a peasent in the fields.  Ever crack a history book?
6.  So, the rich are rich because God wills it.     Your argument is jumped up fuedelism.  Let them eat cake eh?  You don't understand that we are "them"

I a bit irritated with your replies.  They basically follow a strict ideology.  They are comprised of catagorical statements without a hint of evidence.  You present yourself as if you are issuing commandments from above.  Perhaps think about humility...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> 
> a) The existence of the symbols--let along the collective unconscious and its archetypal origin--cannot be verified scientifically. These are metaphysical concepts, not physical ones, and their "proof," always relies upon anecdotal or otherwise-biased evidence ("my aunt dreamed of an angel the night before her father died")
> ...



a.  According to any sociologist, especially one versed in the usage of statistics, any social/psychological experiment could be anything else because there are too many veriables to control.  With this being said, if I shaved your head and placed peizometers at various places and then if I showed you a symbol and that symbol registered as a signal in the limbic system of your brain, you would be feeling an emotion.  Where did that emotion come from?  The collective unconcious or your environment?  This is difficult to prove unless you were to do this experiment cross culterally across the world making sure you measured as many different people as possible.  This experiment was done by one of Jung's students.

b.  You make no point here.  You present no connection between racial, sexual, or enthocentric biases in the concept of the collective unconcious.  By its very nature, the collective unconcious includes everybody and cannot be biased toward one culture or another.  

c.  With no point and no "analysis" above, there is really no point here either.  Please provide a connection between the term collective unconcious and show where the racial, sexual, and ethnocentric bias is inherit in that term.

Now to Robert's second post - I will eventually relate this to the topic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> 
> 1.  Moving on then. Problems with taking genes as determining of behaviour. Oops--that's not what the work says.  They--at most--pre-dispose individuals.
> ...



1.  I believe that I said the same thing.  Prediliction was the term I used.  The collective unconcious does not mean that everyone behaves the same when confronted by a symbol.  It means that an emotional response is induced and your behavior in response to that emotion is taught to you by culture.  Your emotional response is loosely determined by your genetic prediliction.

2.  The jump from archtypes to genes is not such a big jump when you look at religion cross culturally.  The similarities are astounding.  Whether or not they are the product of genetics or the natural environment (which is the basis for all religion) is a different story.  Yet, couldn't either one be the collective unconcious?  Again, Jung's students are a good source for this interpretation.

3.  You have made the moral choice to disregard this theory because of Jung's connection with Nazi's.  To be fair, perhaps you should unplug your house from the power grid.

4.  Prediliction is not behavior.  People are able to choose the response for the emotion the symbol elicits, if the response to the emotion is taught by the individual to him or herself.  There was an interesting psychological study done where a group of people were chosen and put to a test.  There was a room, an opaque wall, a set of electrodes, a switch and a list of questions.  One experimentor put the electrodes on himself and the other adorned himself with the symbols of authority and held a clipboard with the questions.  The testees job was to flip the switch when the man on the other side got a question wrong.  Needless to say, only one of the large group refused the experiment.  Even when the experimentor on the other side of the wall was wailing in agony and begging for mercy, the testees flipped the switch again and again and again.

5.  I addressed this point above.  You've said nothing really against the concept that archtypes can be used to make people buy things.  I bet you have been manipulated in the fasion and don't even know it.  List some of the movies you own.

6.  The last bit is pure spin.  If you would pause to read what I said and stop reading into it things that are not there, you would see that I am saying that a healthy knowledge of archtypes and symbols is essential in politics.  The truth is that symbols/archtypes can be used to control behavior and the reason this bothers you is because you realize that your mind is not nearly as impregnable as you thought.  In fact, your speech is replete with symbols and archtypes.  You KNOW they work, if you catch my meaning.  I see your attempt at tying this concept to these tragically flawed conspiracy theories as nothing more then denial.  

With that being said...

Fear is the key to winning this election.  The candidate that controls the symbols of fear will take the majority of the votes.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 22, 2003)

I see. You don't know the work I've cited--including Jung, Campbell, Neumann, and you aren't about to look. Instead, you choose to selectively edit what I wrote--and for that matter, what you wrote.

Tell me--how exactly does one get around Jung's statement that Freud, as Jews do, oversimplified?  Gee, nothing racial there. And well, Jung became head of a pro-Nazi psychological association, but so? Nothing to do with the slightest racism. Not at all. Absolutely not.

Those "cross-cultural," comparasions of symbols? They don't exist. Are you familiar with Campbell and Jung's work at all? Their analyses run about as deep as saying, well, Zen artists and Tibetan mandals and American Indians all draw four-sided figures, so see there? Further, please go back and re-read: the erasure of cultural differences, the supposition that European white guys are the yardstick by which everything else is to be measured, is the very essence of this particular kind of racism.

The bit about disconnecting from the power grid is an absurd collapsing of moral issues. (And by the way, go back and re-read: throwing Werner von Braun and the rocket program is kinda useless, since I BROUGHT IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE) It's one thing to either employ technology devised for ugly purposes (though I do find that a problem in and of itself); it's quite another to rely for your whole structure of thought upon ideas that are, in their essential character, racist. And again, let's not even get into Jung's idiot notions about women's proper roles. 

Here are two of your quotes:

"Robert, the Nazis were normal people, completely controlled with symbols and rhetoric. Put yourself in 30's Germany and we will see how "human" you become."

So, in other words, the Nazis were simply victims. Really. So who did the puppeteering? The same guys as on a couple of the websites you quoted on another topic, and demanded that everybody keep an open mind about? You know--them? Eeew, gross.

Second:

"According to Jung, using a symbol reveals an archtype that is already fixed in the mind. This response is an emotion which can be tied to another response through education and it is so powerful that it can cause people to do vastly horrible things. Robert, you can compare stories cross-culterally and across oceans and the same archtypes appear. If you know the context of these archtypes you can control people. Plain and simple. Also, the U of M twins studies support the theory of genetic archtypes which take the form of predilictions."

So tell me--what's a "genetic archetype," if not one of Jung's archetypes existing in human beings at a genetic--and therefore biological--level? Yes, you mentioned "predeliction," a term which contradicts a) your calling them genetic, b) your insistence that these archetypes are invariable, and c) your notion that the individual is completely helpless before the manipulators of such symbols. 

And why're you quoting twin studies if not to attempt to back up Jung's notions with science, even if it is pseudo-science? Which you continued to do in your latest posts, incidentally--that hooking people up to electrodes and showing them symbols bit is a ridiculous bit of pseudo-science. For openers, there's no link between the GSR and the inward conceepts that one can reliably establish. 

If you will go back to the post directly above this one, you will find your writing. It says, unequivocally, that, "symbols can be used to control people," and asserts that whoever controls the symbols will control the election because Jung was right. "Plain and simple," was your phrase. No good trying to wriggle away from it with waffles about, "predeliction," and claims that somehow I'm in, "denial."

Luckily, symbols simply don't work in the mechanistic, "plain and simple," way you're describing. And again, I realize that it's very flattering to put ourselves in the position of being the ones who really, really see what's going on unlike all THOSE poor benighted fools, but sorry, nope.

In fact, the ideas you're militating for fit beautifully into dominant ideology as it is presently constructed. Critique? Not in the least.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 22, 2003)

Oh yes--neither rocketry nor nuclear power "came from Germany." The direct ancestors of manned rockets, satellites and all the rest are the Russian, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, and the American, Robert Goddard. As for nuclear power, while assured Otto Hahn and Lise...dammit, what was her name? Meinerl? did the first atom-splitting experiments, they were directly inspired by the Brit Ernest Rutherford. And if memory serves--which it does--Enrico Fermi was running a self-sustaining pile at the Univ. of Chicago while Heisenberg and the rest were still screwing around with little cubes and chains. Then too, the American Robert Oppenheimer had a tad bit to do with the Manhattan project, to which the Germans had nothing comparable.

And Einstein? he got the hell out, early, and played no direct part in a-bomb development after the famous letter to Roosevelt.

Read Richard Rhodes, dude.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2003)

Robert

You do a good job in ignoring just about everything I say and selectively quoting what you do read.  You dance around my points and make an endrun with illogic.  I think that I have said enough on this subject.  The only thing I can do in response to your unreason is dig out the books I have from my Jungian Psychology class and start quoting.  Fat chance anyone will have of understanding that!     If anything could be said about that guy its that his terminology is quite - dense.  As far as Psuedoscience goes...that is a symbol in itself and your usage of excellent.  Also, I noticed that all of the symbols I "placed" in my rhetoric were regurgitated back.  I've obviously strummed the learned scholar archtype with the "I see your attempt at tying this concept to these tragically flawed conspiracy theories as nothing more then denial" quote.  Predictably, your miffed.  Archtypes can't be used to control people when used contextually?  Who says?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 22, 2003)

Piffle.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 23, 2003)

> Prove that most wealth is not inherited.



Prove that it is.



> The paycheck to paycheck pittance of the middle class does not constitute wealth.



Vaguely Marxist terminology does not constitute insight.



> Have you ever heard of allagory?



No, but I've heard of "allegory."



> I guess the entire body of human literature has nothing to say to you.



I wouldn't know;  I haven't yet gotten around to reading the entire body of human literature.  I'm working on it.  I suggest you get started, too.



> This is the basis of community. You've given the reason for its existance.



Not in the sense that you believe in it.  There is a difference in understanding the benefit of cooperation among sovereign individuals who respect each other's rights and believing the collective is more important than the individual.



> Special Pleading and Argument from authority. Fallacious.



No, but then, it doesn't surprise me that you'd apply logical laws incorrectly.



> This is crap. Without redistribution of wealth you'd still be a peasent in the fields.



No, responses like "this is crap" are what is "crap."  Deluded Marxists might believe that all human benefit is the result of government-mandated wealth transfers, but to do so they must ignore centuries of innovation and the success of capitalism in making individuals upwardly mobile.  The industrial revolution is what took the peasants out of the fields -- but then, to understand _that_ one has to have at least a tenuous grasp of history.



> Ever crack a history book?



Why, yes.  Why, are you asking for assistance in getting started?  I suggest you start with Myths about the Depression and go from there.



> So, the rich are rich because God wills it.



No one here invoked theism, but I suppose a spurious leap like this is par for the course where you are concerned.



> Your argument is jumped up fuedelism. Let them eat cake eh? You don't understand that we are "them"



There is no such thing as "fuedelism."  You don't understand that _you_ are only _them_ if you persist in blaming external factors for your own lack of prosperity.  No one ever became wealthy by whining about what others have.  Your entire philosophy is one of _envy_ -- an ugly emotion built on the notion that you desire what others have.  You wish to possess what you have not earned and so you blame the "winners of life's lottery for daring to have more than you do -- without realizing that another human being's wealth does not diminish your own in any way.  

Only you are responsible for your choices and your actions.  Learn that and you'll be better off.



> I a bit irritated with your replies.



Who cares?



> They basically follow a strict ideology.



Now _that's_ a thundering insight.  Yes, my replies follow a strict ideology.  I'm an Objectivist.  My replies are logical and philosophically consistent.  While concepts like consistency, logic, and rationality may be alien to you, they are not foreign to others.



> They are comprised of catagorical statements without a hint of evidence.



Examine your own replies, which are nothing but assertions "without a hint of evidence."  I'm not going to be held to a higher standard in refuting your assertions than that to which you hold yourself in making them.  The difference is that I can support, philosophically, what I believe, and I can do so without mewling that it isn't _fair_ that other people are better off than I am.



> You present yourself as if you are issuing commandments from above.



I present myself as one person with one person's opinions who believes strongly in what he says.  If that threatens you or makes you feel somehow inferior, that is not my problem.



> Perhaps think about humility...



Perhaps think about education.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 23, 2003)

As for, "which Democrat has a shot," I'd say none of 'em. 

Beyond their all-too-clear incompetence, the real problem seems to be the one that Hunter S. Thompson identified some time back--this batch doesn't act like they stand for anything other than gettting elected. That's why Dean's doing so well--even his rapidly-becoming-legend mouthiness at least resembles commitment.

It's actually easier for the Republicans, and specifically the present Bush. (I still say, read Molly Ivens.) Their approaches to reality and history are simple-minded, so they can appear to be standing on a few timeless principles. They aren't well-educated--seriously, folks, comparing, say, Carter and Clinton to Reagan and Bush Jr. as intellectuals causes me to clutch my gut and fall over laughing--and the upshot of it is, the Republicans are able to articulate a clearer message because that's all they can see. Moreover, the present Pres is actually dumb enough to BELIEVE the claptrap he's spouting, and the result is, he looks more real on TV.

Then too, the historical conditions are such that voters prefer somebody who looks OK riding on a tank. The way we're pissing away trillions on crazed military expenditures, loonbox tax cuts for the wealthy, ridiculous drug benefits for the elderly that we wouldn't need if we had a rational health care system---so what? (Just stuns me, the way that somebody's bound to respond to this by yelling slogans that TAX CUTS ARE GOOD, never mind if they got little and the wealthiest got a lot...I know, I know, the wealthy and their corporations are the salt of the earth and anybody who says different is a Marxist.) He's doing something, and the hell with all this analysis. Don't they do that in France?

The Dems are gonna lose. It isn't going to make any difference that our present fiscal policies are insane, we're engaged in at least one completely unnecessary war, the present government "plans," in a way that would get the manager of the local ACE hardware fired, we're spending like a drunken sailor on leave in Bangkok, and we're throwing away opportunities right and left. If it mattered, we'd be listening to Colin Powell and not that nutcase Condoleeza Rice. The Dems are gonna lose.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 23, 2003)

In regards to politics of course. 

I am only a quarter of a century old at this point, so I'll probably remain optimistic for the next few years until the establishment beats it out of me.  

My question for you is, are you going to vote at all? You don't have to tell me who, if you don't want to say, but are you going to vote at least?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 23, 2003)

Haven't decided yet. However, you have a point about having seen this before--I recommend reading HST's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail," books, and looking at Nixon/McGovern. McGovern--a combat pilot, incidentally, before anybody starts screaming about peaceniks--was right all down the line. We'd be far better off today if he'd been elected--among other things, it is unlikely he would've had to resign in disgrace to forestall impeachment. Didn't help in the least. In fact, it seems to've hurt.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *
> 
> 1.  Prove that it is.
> ...



1.  Question.  Where is most wealth located?  
2.  Why not?  You deflect insight with a flip tongue and expect that to be an honest response?
3.  Cheap Shot from the "perfect"
4.  Nice.
5.  Which is a difference that you fail to make again and again and again.  You spout all of this philosophy and respond to questions like a preacher in a pulpit.  You are just a man and no body gives a damn what you think unless you can explain.  You must have been ignored alot as a child.
6.  Okay, more sarcasm and no substance.  I'm beginning to sense a pattern.  Paper thin callous remarks from behind the computer screen.  If you think that I've applied the laws incorrectly, show me, or shut up.
7.  It's blah blah blah again.  Clearly you have some basis for these beliefs yet you keep this hidden.  Why are you afraid?
8.  Finally, some insight.  It's an interesting article.  I think its a bit slanted.  Try reading "People History of the United States" by Howard Zinn.  This will give you a different perspective that has been researched a lot better then your citation.
9.  To quote you "Reality is the metaphysically given" this is pure predestination.  Out of all the statements that you have made, this is one that you cannot support.  You invoked a higher power no matter how much you waffle and waver.
10.  I get your point here.  "Fate is only what you make"  Yet, you persist in this belief that we can do anything we want if we set our minds too it.  Their is nothing realistic in this position and it does nothing to address the difference in us all.  In fact, instead of embracing the individual, you have lumped humanity into a collective fishbowl with limited food and resources.  Only the strong survive, right.  Is this the truth?  I see you wear glasses...yet you have overcome that physical weakness.  Take them away and in your society, you are naturally selected out - meaning you die.  Isn't it possible then, that others have limitations that require other methods to over come?  How about someone with Down's syndrome?  According to your philosophy we should just let them die.
11.  Bullsh!t!  Pretend for a moment your mother smoked crack before you were born.  How are you responsible for that?  
12.  My grandmother is an old german marm and she would slap your smart mouth! (and mine too for engaging in this pettiness most likely...sigh she's right)

Ahhh forget it.  Thanks Grandma...


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 24, 2003)

> Question. Where is most wealth located?



Most wealth is located with the people who earned it.  Envious collectivists spend a great deal of time worrying about where other people's wealth is located -- while failing to realize that economies are dynamic, not static, and therefore every dollar in another man's pocket does _not_ necessarily come from their own wallets.



> Why not? You deflect insight with a flip tongue and expect that to be an honest response?



You flatter yourself if you think you've offered any _insights_.



> You spout all of this philosophy and respond to questions like a preacher in a pulpit. You are just a man and no body gives a damn what you think unless you can explain. You must have been ignored alot as a child.



I'd say you're the one who was ignored a lot, as you seem to get very upset when confronted with opinions you do not like. You seem, in fact, to be very threatened and offended by the fact that I believe I am correct.  Why do you have so much trouble coping with the confident expression of philosophical ideas?



> Okay, more sarcasm and no substance.



You flatter yourself if you think you've offered any "substance."



> I'm beginning to sense a pattern.



There is indeed a pattern -- I ridicule the ridiculous and don't care if that hurts your feelings.



> Paper thin callous remarks from behind the computer screen.



Would you prefer I opened the window and shouted in your general direction?



> If you think that I've applied the laws incorrectly, show me, or shut up.



I'm not your mommy.  Do your homework and educate yourself, or shut up.



> It's blah blah blah again. Clearly you have some basis for these beliefs yet you keep this hidden. Why are you afraid?



Spare us.  There is an entire section on my personal website devoted to my philosophy.  I would direct you to it, but I am redesigning the site at the moment.  If you'd been paying attention, however, you would have noted that I mentioned being an _Objectivist_, a statement that is not exactly hiding one's philosophical beliefs.



> Finally, some insight. It's an interesting article. I think its a bit slanted.



Of course you do.  You're a Marxist.



> To quote you "Reality is the metaphysically given" this is pure predestination.



No, it is simply a fact of objective reality.  Reality is that with which you are granted to deal.  It is the totality of everything with which you must cope.



> You invoked a higher power no matter how much you waffle and waver.



I have not invoked any "higher power," nor have I wavered in any way from the consistent statement of my beliefs.  If you're going to make foolish attacks, at least don't miss the painfully obvious.



> Yet, you persist in this belief that we can do anything we want if we set our minds too it.



I persist in no such belief.  Anything you manage to accomplish in life is your own responsibility, and you certainly will accomplish nothing if you spend your time whining.  However, you are always constrained by _reality._  You are constrained by the limits of your abilities and your ambitions and your intelligence.  You may want to become an NBA star or sprout wings and fly;  you cannot do these things no matter how much you "set your mind to it."

When you understand that nothing occurs outside of _context_ -- that is, outside of _reality_ -- you'll take a step towards understanding of these concepts.



> ...it does nothing to address the difference in us all. In fact, instead of embracing the individual, you have lumped humanity into a collective fishbowl with limited food and resources.



That's a painful misinterpretation of what we've been discussing.  The "differences in us all" are not things that need to be "addressed."  They are simply facts.



> Only the strong survive, right. Is this the truth? I see you wear glasses...yet you have overcome that physical weakness.



Only those with the _will_ to do so "survive."  Had I been born in an era in which there was no technology for glasses, I would have lived my life as a "blind" man.  Would that mean I was _owed_ a living at the expense of my better-sighted fellow citizens?  No, it would not.  Thankfully, human innovation enables us to compensate for these things, just as medical technology allows us to heal easily certain illnesses that would have been fatal fifty or a hundred years ago.  None of these are the actions of a _government_.  Doctors are private citizens who trade their skills for payment.



> Take them away and in your society, you are naturally selected out - meaning you die. Isn't it possible then, that others have limitations that require other methods to over come?



Overcoming adversity is the responsibility of the individual.  If I could not afford to _buy_ glasses, it would not be society's responsibiltiy to provide me with them.  You don't have the right to live your life at the expense of others without their consent.  Yes, some of your fellow citizens may indeed choose to keep you alive out of charity -- to help you _with their consent_.  In the absence of such charity, you would indeed be "naturally selected."  Do you honestly believe you have a right to continue living regardless of any effort on your part?  That's not how life works, though it certainly is how egalitarians approach it.



> How about someone with Down's syndrome? According to your philosophy we should just let them die.



No, according to my philosophy it is the responsibility of that person's family or of private citizens inclined to charity to care for that person, rather than the government's.



> Bullsh!t! Pretend for a moment your mother smoked crack before you were born. How are you responsible for that?



Spare us the childishly profane interjections.  Life isn't fair.  If your mother smoked crack it would explain quite a lot, but the fact is that this is what you've been metaphysically granted and this is the challenge with which you must deal in life.  It is not the responsibility of your government to make your life easier for you.  If you'd been born with cloven hoof for a foot or an extra hole through your face it would not be the government's responsibility to fix them for you, either.



> My grandmother is an old german marm and she would slap your smart mouth!



Does your grandmother fight all your battles for you?


----------



## khadaji (Dec 24, 2003)

A reminder, the govenment of our here country is not a Democracy, It is a Republic.   

While we may have many democratic ideals with in our society, the government which is ours is officaly a Republic.  That is why it runs the way it does.  

It was astabilished under the ussumption that it was best that the Highly Educated Elite would rule justly for everyone else.  


In this system, you can still make things happen, buy choosing the Elite that is in offace.  (Atleast choose the people that choose, thanks elector collage) 

I think Dean has the best chance.  The reason for it, is that he is able to act, and speak in the mannor that helped Bush in running.  However he also seems to have some if the speaking, and seemingly outsider advantages that Clinton had.  The one problem I see with him is that he is not from any of the Sothern states.  That makes it hard for running for president.  I will almost bet that if he does get the nomination he will choose a running mate who is from the southern states.  Overall I am realy waiting for this election.  I want to see how all the campains on all sides play out.  I have my small hope that we will even get to see some actual debates this time, but I know deep down it will never happen.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Does your grandmother fight all your battles for you? *



No, Phil, she teaches us how to behave and how to become strong, successful adults.

All right Phil, I'm not going to participate in your brand of nastiness, but I am going to address your points.  You may not like what I have to say, but that gives you no right to be disrespectful.  Your name may be Sharp Phil, but in this forum, isn't the rule "respectful discussion?"  

You remind me a lot of my uncle-in-law.  When we start discussing our personally philosophies it ends in a good old wrestling match out in the snow until we are both laughing.  

Our wealth is dynamic.  It changes hands rapidly because the quantities are small.  We can become rich or poor in an instant based on the decisions we make.  Most americans live this way.  They don't save, they charge way too much, and they barely have any left over to pay the bills.  Personally, I don't have any credit cards, I save everything I can, and I live a spartan existance to keep my bills low.  That is me and I am not most people.  I take pride in taking care of myself and I take pride in the fact that I am providing my daughter with a better life then I had when I grew up.  

On the other hand, inherited wealth is not nearly as dynamic.  It is not the norm.  Most of my peers will leave very little for thier children.  I may not be able to leave much when I'm gone.  If I can provide my child with enough to cover her needs as she grows into an adult (this include education and a firm home base that she can trust) that may have to be good enough.  This is not the case for someone who is born into their wealth.  Have they worked in any way to earn it?  No, their parents may have, but again, the norm here is that the parents too, inherited the wealth.  By this process, the majority of wealth (if we define this term as that which is over and above what is needed to do that which I described above for my family) in this country changes hands.  Exceptions exist.  My uncle for instance.  He is an engineer and he invented a whole new class of medical equipment.  In his lifetime, he has made millions of dollars.  This quantity will now be passed on into his line when he is gone, inherited, altered and, hopefully, multiplied.  The greatest thing about this country is that people like my uncle can come from a working class family that worked and saved and provided the chance for him to take the fortunes of his intellect and turn it into millions of dollars.

Your assertion that this is just a metaphysical element of the universe is true.  It's predestination and whether or not you believe in God or Gods, there is nothing anyone can do to change it.  Yet, this in an opportunity that exist in very few places in this world.  If you have traveled to a variety of places on this planet, you may have noticed this fact.  

Despite what you may have heard, it was not always this way in our country.  Pre-industrial society was constructed of a small middle class, a mass of peasentry, and a small group of elite.  When industrialism entered into the picture, this model was very slow to change.  It was people like my grandfather and great grandfather and his father who took the bullets and forced a change to provide more people with a chance to do the things that we are able to do at this moment.  In fact, if you talk to my grandfather, who stormed the beaches of Normandy without so much as a scratch to tell and who was shot by government troops during a workers strike, where he truly fought for our rights, he will tell you hands down, the strike.  From this strife emerged a new and truly American way of thinking (as opposed to the aristocratic European pre-industrial way of thinking).  In America, a person works to make themselves who they are, yet we believe that the provision of some basic needs for all is a fair price to pay for those who have been provided with the opportunity to accumulate wealth through inheritance or hard work.

Without this belief and without the blood of people like my grandfather we would still be a peasant working in a sweatshop with no oppotunity to make a better life for ourselves.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 24, 2003)

Admin. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Rich Parsons
-MT Assistant Administrator-


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Do your homework and educate yourself, or shut up.*



You asked and now you shall recieve.

Logical problems with your arguments.  The source for this information is "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.  The book chapter is "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" which is quite appropriate in this instance. 

1.  Ad-Hominem - latin for "to the man" attacking the arguer and not the argument.  Instances...

"You're a Marxist"

"If your mother smoked crack it would explain quite a lot..."

"I'd say you're the one who was ignored a lot, as you seem to get very upset when confronted with opinions you do not like. You seem, in fact, to be very threatened and offended by the fact that I believe I am correct. Why do you have so much trouble coping with the confident expression of philosophical ideas?"


"No, but I've heard of "allegory."

"I wouldn't know; I haven't yet gotten around to reading the entire body of human literature. I'm working on it. I suggest you get started, too."

"While concepts like consistency, logic, and rationality may be alien to you, they are not foreign to others."

"Perhaps think about education. "

"Envious collectivists spend a great deal of time worrying about where other people's wealth is located..."

"When you learn the difference between reality and movies, you'll be well on your way to forming a working philosophy."


2.  Special Pleading - often used to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble.  Example...how can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple?  Special plead - you don't understand the doctrine of "free will."  This fallacy is used to deflect an argument rather then deal with its substance.

"When you understand that nothing occurs outside of context -- that is, outside of reality -- you'll take a step towards understanding of these concepts"

"Not in the sense that you believe in it. There is a difference in understanding the benefit of cooperation among sovereign individuals who respect each other's rights and believing the collective is more important than the individual."

"Envious collectivists spend a great deal of time worrying about where other people's wealth is located -- while failing to realize that economies are dynamic, not static, and therefore every dollar in another man's pocket does not necessarily come from their own wallets."

"When you understand that individualism is not atomism and that individuals do not live outside of context, you'll grasp the idea that there are no communities -- only individuals who interact (by choice in a free society"

"When you learn the difference between reality and movies, you'll be well on your way to forming a working philosophy."

"When you understand that individualism is not atomism and that individuals do not live outside of context, you'll grasp the idea that there are no communities -- only individuals who interact (by choice in a free society)."

"When you understand that individualism is not atomism and that individuals do not live outside of context, you'll grasp the idea that there are no communities -- only individuals who interact (by choice in a free society)."


3.  Straw Man - caricturizing a position to make it easier to attack.

"Vaguely Marxist terminology does not constitute insight"

Just about everything else...my daughter is coloring on the walls and I have to go for a minute 

I could go on, but this is enough.  The ONLY reason I did this is to hopefully show you that your personal attacks, your slick deflections, and your caricturization are not a very good method for presenting your philosophy.  There is nothing wrong with having strong beliefs.  I am very curious about those beliefs and I think that others are too.  In a discussion like this, in my opinion, you need to show us why, instead of relying on fallacious logic.  This is not a personal attack, it's just an observation and hopefully, being an "objectivist" you can appreciate it.  If you disagree, fine, but I am not going to respond to any more personal attacks.  

Merry Christmas, Sharp Phil

Upnorthkyosa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 24, 2003)

Well, Christmas IS a great time for the worst of Heinlein and the best of Ayn Rand to be advocated as social philosophy and moral guide...

Merry Christmas, gentlemen.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 24, 2003)

Haven't we covered the fact that you haven't even _read_ Rand in recent memory, Robert, and that you have never read any nonfiction produced by Objectivists?   



> No, Phil, she teaches us how to behave and how to become strong, successful adults.



I don't hear anything that makes me think of a strong, successful adult from you.  I hear _envy_, which is a weak, unsuccessful, childish emotion.



> All right Phil, I'm not going to participate in your brand of nastiness



Don't confuse disdain for "nastiness."  There's a difference.



> ...but that gives you no right to be disrespectful.



You haven't earned my respect.  I generally ridicule the ridiculous and hold in contempt the contemptible.



> Your name may be Sharp Phil, but in this forum, isn't the rule "respectful discussion?"



I believe I've treated you in equal measure for your own tone. 



> You remind me a lot of my uncle-in-law. When we start discussing our personally philosophies it ends in a good old wrestling match out in the snow until we are both laughing.



Great.  Cry "uncle" and this is over. 



> Our wealth is dynamic. It changes hands rapidly because the quantities are small. We can become rich or poor in an instant based on the decisions we make. Most americans live this way. They don't save, they charge way too much, and they barely have any left over to pay the bills. Personally, I don't have any credit cards, I save everything I can, and I live a spartan existance to keep my bills low. That is me and I am not most people. I take pride in taking care of myself and I take pride in the fact that I am providing my daughter with a better life then I had when I grew up.



You understand that wealth is dynamic and you understand that we are directly responsible for it.  That's a very good start.



> On the other hand, inherited wealth is not nearly as dynamic. It is not the norm. Most of my peers will leave very little for thier children. I may not be able to leave much when I'm gone. If I can provide my child with enough to cover her needs as she grows into an adult (this include education and a firm home base that she can trust) that may have to be good enough. This is not the case for someone who is born into their wealth. Have they worked in any way to earn it? No, their parents may have, but again, the norm here is that the parents too, inherited the wealth. By this process, the majority of wealth (if we define this term as that which is over and above what is needed to do that which I described above for my family) in this country changes hands.



Here you run aground.  The _economy_ is dynamic;  money is not a static pie, all of whose slices come at the expense of others' pieces.  The accumulated wealth passed from family to family has no relevance to you or your life;  it does not make you poorer in any way and it does not come at your expense.  It is none of your concern.  To be so concerned over it is a manifestation of jealousy.  It is also not the case that "most wealth is inherited," as you originally asserted without support.



> My uncle for instance. He is an engineer and he invented a whole new class of medical equipment. In his lifetime, he has made millions of dollars. This quantity will now be passed on into his line when he is gone, inherited, altered and, hopefully, multiplied. The greatest thing about this country is that people like my uncle can come from a working class family that worked and saved and provided the chance for him to take the fortunes of his intellect and turn it into millions of dollars.



Wonderful!  You understand the upwards mobility of capitalism, at least at a rudimentary level.



> Your assertion that this is just a metaphysical element of the universe is true.



Our circumstances and our abilities are the metaphysically granted, yes.  Our _choices_ are not.  The choice to make the most of what we can within the scope of our abilities and in accordance with our circumstances is what makes the difference.



> It's predestination and whether or not you believe in God or Gods, there is nothing anyone can do to change it.



Incorrect.  This would only be "predestination" if the _outcome_ were the metaphysically granted, which is not the case.  On the circumstances and the abilities with which we are born are metaphysically granted.  Our wills are our own;  our choices make the difference.  We can choose to be rational, or we can choose to be irrational;  we can choose to work hard, or we can choose not to work hard.  _That_ is what we can do "change it."  That is an _internal locus of control_.  Those operating under the crushing weight of a philosophy whose locus of control is _external_ are doomed to bemoan their fates and look with envy on the gains of others.



> Yet, this in an opportunity that exist in very few places in this world. If you have traveled to a variety of places on this planet, you may have noticed this fact.



Thus we see that capitalism -- a _free society_ -- is superior to the Marxist schools of thought that dominate, in whole or in part, many of the world's other societies. 



> Despite what you may have heard, it was not always this way in our country. Pre-industrial society was constructed of a small middle class, a mass of peasentry, and a small group of elite. When industrialism entered into the picture, this model was very slow to change.



Actually, when industrialism entered the picture, this model changed very quickly, because suddenly we had the ability to sustain a population much larger in size within the same given geographic area than we were able to sustain in a predominantly rural economy.



> It was people like my grandfather and great grandfather and his father who took the bullets and forced a change to provide more people with a chance to do the things that we are able to do at this moment. In fact, if you talk to my grandfather, who stormed the beaches of Normandy without so much as a scratch to tell and who was shot by government troops during a workers strike, where he truly fought for our rights, he will tell you hands down, the strike. From this strife emerged a new and truly American way of thinking (as opposed to the aristocratic European pre-industrial way of thinking). In America, a person works to make themselves who they are, yet we believe that the provision of some basic needs for all is a fair price to pay for those who have been provided with the opportunity to accumulate wealth through inheritance or hard work.



Labor unions are fine, as long as they are voluntary -- and the implementation of unions was simply the _other side_ of the economic equation.  When workers realized that employment is, ultimately, a _voluntary and mutual contract_, they realized they had _leverage_ they could use to gain more by bargaining with what they had to _offer_ -- their effort.



> Without this belief and without the blood of people like my grandfather we would still be a peasant working in a sweatshop with no oppotunity to make a better life for ourselves.



This contradicts, at least philosophically (though you may not be aware of it) your original assertion that the government brought the peasants out of the fields (which it didn't).  Labor unions likewise did not "bring the peasants out of the fields," though you're getting closer to an understanding of basic economic theory.  It was a recognition of the fact that labor is half of the economic equation that enabled workers to better their lives, _within the context of a capitalist system._

Where government _did_ play a role in the industrial revolution was in cracking down on those things that _hinder_ a capitalist system -- namely manifestations of fraud, theft, and force.  The government's role in a free society is that of guardian of _individual_ rights -- which means it is that of _policeman_.  The government protected individual consumers by passing laws relevant to, and cracking down on, widespread fraud in certain consumer industries -- such as the meat packing industry.  It did not, however, liberate the oppressed worker;  the workers themselves managed that by recognizing their role and the leverage it offered them.



> Logical problems with your arguments. The source for this information is "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. The book chapter is "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" which is quite appropriate in this instance.



Quoting a book does not constitute supporting your argument.  I'm more familiar than are you with the laws of logic and with logical fallacies, I am sure;  you seem to believe that your own arguments were laden with substance, which was not the case.  When you offer substantive arguments you will receive substantive replies.  The fact remains, however, that anyone who starts going on about liberating the oppressed worker and the evils of inherited wealth is indeed spouting _Marxist ideals_, the identification of which is relevant in the course of the argument because Marxism is _unsound and discredited economic theory_.

I do indeed believe in sprinkling my prose with appropriate amounts of venom, however, specifically because I lack both patience and tolerance.  It's a character failing;  foolishness makes me mean.  The fact is that _you_ chose to apply a certain attitude to your posts, and I simply gave it back to you in equal measure.  Don't complain that you got worse than you gave.



> Special Pleading - often used to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble. Example...how can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead - you don't understand the doctrine of "free will." This fallacy is used to deflect an argument rather then deal with its substance.



When you offer a _substantive argument_, you will receive a substantive reply.  For your misapplication of the "special pleading" to apply, you would have to have been offering logical discourse yourself.



> I could go on, but this is enough. The ONLY reason I did this is to hopefully show you that your personal attacks, your slick deflections, and your caricturization are not a very good method for presenting your philosophy.



You failed in the attempt, then, though I give you credit for trying.  I'm not primarily attempting to present my philosophy;  I am simply enjoying poking holes in yours.  There's a difference.



> There is nothing wrong with having strong beliefs. I am very curious about those beliefs and I think that others are too. In a discussion like this, in my opinion, you need to show us why, instead of relying on fallacious logic.



I offer logic where logic is offered.  When presented with empty rhetoric, I supply superior (and sharper) rhetoric.  This is recreation for me.  If you want to start a philosophical thread in which you ask substantive answers in order to receive substantive replies, that's fine;  you're certainly free to do so.  This thread has not offered much in that regard and I feel no obligation to supply it in its absence.



> This is not a personal attack, it's just an observation and hopefully, being an "objectivist" you can appreciate it. If you disagree, fine, but I am not going to respond to any more personal attacks.



I think you labor under the misconception that I _want_ you to respond;  I'm indifferent to the idea.

Nothing I've written has been intended as disrespectful, but I cannot pretend to have respect for ideas or attitudes I find silly or hostile.  I always respond in equal measure, though I admit I tend to escalate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *
> 1.  Here you run aground.  The economy is dynamic;  money is not a static pie, all of whose slices come at the expense of others' pieces.  The accumulated wealth passed from family to family has no relevance to you or your life;  it does not make you poorer in any way and it does not come at your expense.  It is none of your concern.  To be so concerned over it is a manifestation of jealousy.  It is also not the case that "most wealth is inherited," as you originally asserted without support.
> 
> ...



1.  In a biological sense, resources (wealth) fluctuates on a very minimal basis.  This maintains a system that is essentially stable.  If all wealth were as you assert, there would be very little opportunity for advancement in a free society.  In any community, if the resources fluctuate too much, all members suffer.  Scientifically, your assertion is incorrect.  Economics are human ecology and even humans cannot violate these laws.  Wealth has to be fundamentally static or our society wouldn't exist.

2.  True.  If you want something, you must work for it.  No free lunches, right?

3.  Partially true.  The jury is out on whether capitolism is the best economic system.  Fundamentally, capitolism fails when it comes to long term vision.  Some things that are good for a species do not necessarily have a dollar sign attached to them.  We shall see...  Yet, either way I am sure that you or I will take advantage of whatever situation comes.

4.  Population increased quite rapidly, but change did NOT correlate proportionately.  As the general education level of the populace increased, the ability for the populace to organized increased.  Only then did the old aristocratic system fall away to a more modern system.  

5.  Partially true.  Government did not, initially, bring peasents out of the fields.  You are right when you say that government opposed them.  Through corruption, the government even sent soldiers against them!  Until through the democratic process, the workers changed the government.  Hence the New Deal.  (as of now the government is in need of another change)

6.  True.  The most freedom is offered by the smallest government.  Large government breeds corruption from those who have accumulated the most resources.  The best protection from the rich is to take away their federal power.

7.  Your superiority in the matter of logic remains to be seen.  The very fact that you charicterize my position as Marxist is a large strike against you.

8.  Your attitude lacks any shred of humility.  That is the most bothersome aspect of your presentation.  How long do you dare spin the wheel of hubris?

9.  Substative replies are subjective and totally inconsistant with the label "objectivist."  If you would be true to your philosophic claims then your demand for substantive replies would not matter.  Objectively, every reply is substantive.  As a scientist, I know special pleading and you are guilty.

10.  Poke.  Poke.  Poke.

11.  Lets start a thread on the value of libertarianism.  I think that you will see that we agree on a great many things.

12.  Do not lie to yourself.  I could guarentee your response with the phrase, "if you do not respond, I will be right," yet I do not care what you do.  This discussion will not change anything substantive and does not merit worry. 

As far as this thread is concerned, I think that we need a candidate that will take government out of our lives.  This includes updating an outdated military in order to better deal with the "war on terror."  A small, coalition based military will operate best in a global world.  I also believe that safety, health care, and education need to be addressed on the national level in order to ensure that our country remains productive.  Unfortunately, there are no candidates that meet this criteria as of yet.  General Clark comes the closest to this ideal, but I admit that I need to do more research.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *12.  Do not lie to yourself.  I could guarentee your response with the phrase, "if you do not respond, I will be right," yet I do not care what you do.  This discussion will not change anything substantive and does not merit worry.
> *



I'm kidding about this last part, Phil.  I'm fond of fishing, though.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 25, 2003)

> In a biological sense, resources (wealth) fluctuates on a very minimal basis. This maintains a system that is essentially stable. If all wealth were as you assert, there would be very little opportunity for advancement in a free society. In any community, if the resources fluctuate too much, all members suffer.



Confusing biology with material goods will lead you astray every time.



> Scientifically, your assertion is incorrect.



No, it isn't.  You don't understand trade, apparently, or the laws that govern it.



> Economics are human ecology and even humans cannot violate these laws.



No, economics is not "human ecology."  It is not biology, either.  Economics is the mechanics and the principles governing the ways in which people trade goods and services, exchanging value for value.



> Wealth has to be fundamentally static or our society wouldn't exist.



That is a ridiculous statement.  _Wealth_ is simply a store of _value_.  Value is dynamic because the economy is _dynamic_.  It is not a static pie that is divided up.  It expands and it contracts with the actions of its participants.



> Partially true. The jury is out on whether capitolism is the best economic system.



The jury is only out to those who wish to deny the evidence of history and the fundamental moral and economic failures of collectivist systems, which invariably infringe on individual rights.



> Fundamentally, capitolism fails when it comes to long term vision.



Your problem is in thinking that economics must have _vision_.  An economy is not something with a lofty goal or a long-term purpose.  It does not exist to fulfill a _mission_.  It is a mechanical set of processes that facilitate the exchange of value for value in a free society.  Yes, egalitarians, Marxists, collectivists, utopian socialists -- these are people who believe the economy should have some "long term vision," some "higher purpose" -- invariably, the transfer of value from those who have earned it to those who _haven't_, for the accomplishment of whatever social schemes are the order of the day.  

None of this changes the fact that it is fundamentally wrong to divorce people from the product of their efforts -- to deny them what they have _earned_ by confiscating it.  That is why forced government transfers of wealth are immoral.



> Some things that are good for a species do not necessarily have a dollar sign attached to them. We shall see...



You need to spend some time considering the concept of a _standard of value_ for a philosophical system.  By _definition_, all things that are good for _an individual_ have a _value_, though this may not always be quantifiable.  That which you value is that which you act to gain and keep.  Only individuals are capable of goal-directed action;  morality is not a question of "the good of the collective" but of the unit of action, which is the individual member of the species -- not the species as a whole.  Human beings are not cells in a living organism, who can be discarded for the good of the "body."  

That is a monstrous concept that discards individual rights and implements an inhuman utilitarianism.  This, in turn, treats all _individual_ human beings as disposable, as long as the _collective_ is served by their deaths.  I have no desire to live in such a dystopian "community."



> Population increased quite rapidly, but change did NOT correlate proportionately.



Actually, it did, by definition.



> As the general education level of the populace increased, the ability for the populace to organized increased.



The implementation of organized labor was not a manifestation of education.  It was a reaction to working conditions.



> Only then did the old aristocratic system fall away to a more modern system.



We have never had an "old aristocratic system" in the United States.  This nation was founded on Enlightenment ideals that dismiss such notions.



> Partially true. Government did not, initially, bring peasents out of the fields.



Totally true.



> You are right when you say that government opposed them. Through corruption, the government even sent soldiers against them! Until through the democratic process, the workers changed the government. Hence the New Deal. (as of now the government is in need of another change)



The New Deal is a fiction propagated by collectivists.  It solved little.  World War II rescued us from the Depression, ironically.  And you can't have it both ways;  you cannot on one hand claim the "government" opposed the people but that the "democratic process" liberated them.  The two are the same.



> The most freedom is offered by the smallest government.



Thank the gods we finally agree on something.



> Large government breeds corruption from those who have accumulated the most resources.



You were doing so well;  don't ruin it by adding that note of class warfare and envy.  It's unnecessary and historically incorrect.  Governmental corruption and abuse of power is not about _wealth_ -- it is about _power_.  The President of the United States is not the richest man in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but he has the most _power_ -- and thus the most ability to abuse his fellow citizens.



> The best protection from the rich is to take away their federal power.



There you go again, blaming phantom legions of "the rich."  The best protection from _corruption_ is limited government -- a government with strictly defined roles that respects citizens' individual rights.  This is not about "the rich."



> Your superiority in the matter of logic remains to be seen. The very fact that you charicterize my position as Marxist is a large strike against you.



Actually, it doesn't remain to be seen.  Your position is Marxist because you spout Marxist ideals, or at the very least voice quintessentially Marxist opinions about the Evil Rich.  I think this attitude really hinders your understanding of how these things work -- and ultimately will hinder you in life, for this amount of envy and resentment invariably works against the individual.



> Your attitude lacks any shred of humility.



I suppose it does.  Why does that threaten you?



> That is the most bothersome aspect of your presentation.



Why would I care if you are bothered?



> How long do you dare spin the wheel of hubris?



Only as long as it takes for my Chariot of Arrogance to arrive via mail-order.  It's considerably more comfortable than the Wheel of Hubris and has nice velvet upholstery.



> Substative replies are subjective and totally inconsistant with the label "objectivist."



I think you need to get your dictionary and look up the meaning of the word *substantive*.



> If you would be true to your philosophic claims then your demand for substantive replies would not matter.



This is a meangingless statement.



> Objectively, every reply is substantive.



Really?  Now there's an interesting assertion.



> As a scientist, I know special pleading and you are guilty.



I suggest you spend a little more time immersing yourself in your "science," for you are incorrect.



> Lets start a thread on the value of libertarianism. I think that you will see that we agree on a great many things.



Libertarianism is fine as utilitarian politics go, but it is insufficient as a moral philosophy.



> Do not lie to yourself.



I never do.



> I could guarentee your response with the phrase, "if you do not respond, I will be right," yet I do not care what you do.



You could make silly statements of that kind if you wished, I suppose.  I would still remain indifferent to your replies.



> This discussion will not change anything substantive and does not merit worry.



Why, are you worried about it?



> As far as this thread is concerned, I think that we need a candidate that will take government out of our lives.



We agree on that, at least.



> I also believe that safety, health care, and education need to be addressed on the national level in order to ensure that our country remains productive.



This and "taking government out of our lives" are mutually exclusive concepts.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2003)

Chopping an argument into its constituent sentences and replying to each of them in isolation is a sure-fire way to stall an argument to death, but it has little else to recommend it. It's a tactic, not a (counter-)argument.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 25, 2003)

Economics and ecology are related through the equations that are used in prediction.  Wealth, in human systems, really is nothing more then energy in a natural system.  The ebb and flow of a natural system operates on certain natural rules and NOTHING a human has created has not already been done in a natural system.  Whether it's trade, currency exchange, or inflation, there is ALWAYS a natural analogue.  That is why your assertion that all wealth is constantly in flux is scientifically incorrect.  It cannot be or we wouldn't be sharing these messages over the computer screen.  Look at it from a realistic perspective rather then idealogic.  The whole concept of corporations, banks, currency and ownership ALL depend on static wealth/energy.  If this were not the case, the organization required to form these structures could not overcome the entropy of their many parts.

Also, your assertion that the redistribution of wealth is immoral is ludicrous.  Again, wealth is energy in a human ecosystem and if a group of humans decide to take some energy from a smaller group of humans that is as natural as a lion driving a hyena off a kill.  The hyena will protect as much of the kill as they can while the lion rouses the pride.  Class warfare is a biologic fact.

You have chosen the side of the hyena.

This objectivist philosophy of yours is full on contradictions.  You claim to be a rugged individualist who does not believe in community, yet you affirm community by making moral judgements.  The very nature of morals is that of collective beliefs in a community.  You cannot have it both ways unless you redefine the term objective.  Otherwise, in order to be consistant, you must remain morally neutral.  There would be no such thing as "evil rich" or "immoral redistribution of wealth".  

Perhaps when you step out of this "objectivist" paradigm and look at an "objective" portrayal of reality you will develop a working philosophy.

Humans are social creatures and the needs of the individual are equally important as the needs of the community.  There needs to be a balance that allows people to be as free as they can and yet provides a descent base for everyone in the community rise or fall as they please.  A "right" or "left" ideology will not accomplish this by itself.  There needs to be balance.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 25, 2003)

Axly, Philip, all I can really think of to write that seems appropriate and may not draw a torrent of abuse is:

Best wishes of the season.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 30, 2003)

> Chopping an argument into its constituent sentences and replying to each of them in isolation is a sure-fire way to stall an argument to death, but it has little else to recommend it. It's a tactic, not a (counter-)argument.



Actually, it's a sure-fire way to address (and refute) each salient point, which is why I employ such a tactic.  I like to be thorough, at least when I'm interested enough to continue arguing -- which is growing less and less frequent.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Actually, it's a sure-fire way to address (and refute) each salient point*



But, by treating them in isolation, it deprives them of their context. As John Cleese said, "An argument is a _connected_ series of statements..." (emphasis mine). That series of statement makes a point(s). It's incorrect to treat each statement as an argument to be refuted on its own. If there's a logical fallacy--a statement that begins "Therefore..." but does not follow from what has gone before--it can easily be pointed out. But an argument deserves to be refuted.

There's a reason you don't see the great philosophers refuting one anothers' positions in this way, nor high school debate teams scribbling down their opponents' statements and refuting them line-by-line. It not only fails to make a counter-argument, but it also smacks of sophistry--of a trick with words.

One should refute the argument. The argument is, in my opinion, more than the sum of its sentences. The order matters, for example. A "bag of words" approach (I refer to latent semantic analysis, the basis of many computerized essay grading systems) succeeds in grading essays, sadly, but I don't think it succeeds in refuting arguments. You're approaching a "real argument" (in the sense of this book) as though it was a simple syllogism, or a high school geometry proof.

In what writing that you appreciate and respect do you see an approach like the one you're using? One might argue that there is something vaguely Socratic about it, but that method is based more on skepticism and attempting to force the other person to carefully define his or her terms, which I don't see in what you're doing.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 31, 2003)

> But, by treating them in isolation, it deprives them of their context.



Not at all.  The original post remains there for readers of the thread to see.  I _never_ take an item out of context when I address and refute it, for to do so would be to give the opponent ammunition in rebutting my refutation.  That's too simple a mistake to make;  I don't often hand the other party to a debate a gift of that kind.



> It's incorrect to treat each statement as an argument to be refuted on its own.



That is not, however, what I am doing or have done.  Each component of the argument constitutes a point supporting it (at least in theory -- in reality, most of the "arguments" made are sloppier than that);  addressing the components demolishes the argument by kicking out each of the (however many) legs on which it stands.



> There's a reason you don't see the great philosophers refuting one anothers' positions in this way, nor high school debate teams scribbling down their opponents' statements and refuting them line-by-line.



The world's great philosophers did not have the Internet.  High school debate teams do not work in a text medium.  People have been arguing posts point by point, however, since the early days of the UseNet.  That is why I do it (and do it well) -- countless hours logged engaged in that type of debate, since the days when I had to use the University's VAX system to log into the Chapel Hill BBS just to read newsgroups.



> One should refute the argument. The argument is, in my opinion, more than the sum of its sentences.



A _logical_ argument, however, is an assertion supported by component parts.  Addressing the component parts thorougly demolishes the argument, which is why I use such a method.  I believe in being thorough.



> The order matters, for example. A "bag of words" approach (I refer to latent semantic analysis, the basis of many computerized essay grading systems) succeeds in grading essays, sadly, but I don't think it succeeds in refuting arguments. You're approaching a "real argument" (in the sense of this book) as though it was a simple syllogism, or a high school geometry proof.



That may well be true, but it is an inaccurate assessment of what I do.  I write for a _living_.  I never just throw a "bag of words" at the issue and then go home.



> In what writing that you appreciate and respect do you see an approach like the one you're using?



Don't hang too much significance on this medium.  The Internet -- and bulletin board debate -- is not great literature.  It is not even _prose_.  It is a near-real-time interaction between parties whose responses are delayed by the nature of the medium, one stepped removed from text chatting.  An argument on the web is not _War and Peace_, _Plato's Republic_, or even _The Turner Diaries_, though it often verges closer to the latter than either of the former.



> One might argue that there is something vaguely Socratic about it, but that method is based more on skepticism and attempting to force the other person to carefully define his or her terms, which I don't see in what you're doing.



That is _precisely_ what I am doing, though not as overtly.  I'm somewhat misanthropic and don't believe in holding anyone's hand.  You might say I'm something of a social Darwinist when it comes to bickering;  I figure the strong survive and the weak go home offended.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *addressing the components demolishes the argument by kicking out each of the (however many) legs on which it stands.*



Assuming, of course, that the other party is mistaken...assuming it's an issue on which one party _can_ be considered objectively ritght or wrong. Your phrasing goes to my point: You're using an argument-of-attrition tactic to win arguments rather than addressing the argument on its merits.

I find your comment that it isn't even prose to be interesting--indeed, it has many of the components of a conversation/chat. But here you nearly argue against yourself, for the type of refutation you use could not possibly be used in a conversation. And again, while there's much to be said for addressing each point in a detailed, cogent, written argument, you dismiss this medium as not conducive to such arguments, as being much more informal, but then proceed as though you believe the opposite.

It _is_ an Internet tradition, and I have used it too, but to be frank, I've only ever seen trolls split up a post as finely as you do. I don't think you're trolling--I think you're using a sow-the-fields-with-salt tactic to stop the argument. The more patient person wins.

Let's reason together. Suppose a person posts a two-line argument. Suppose you split it up into two parts that you refute, each with a two-line rebuttal. If the other person adopts your style, he or she will split your two parts, consiting of four lines, into as many as four separate components for rebuttal (perhaps fewer). But then you'll split up his or her post...I hope you see my point. This method cannot lead to a useful discussion because of the "and they tell two friends" nature of it.

[Socrates' approach:]


> *
> That is precisely what I am doing, though not as overtly. *



Ah, to be more subtle than Socrates. I must disagree. While he went point-by-point, he did so in a much more connected way. Despite the source of the following material, I do agree with their summary:
http://www.str.org/free/studies/socratic.htm

I don't see that in what you're doing. Where is "the actual discovery of opinions amongst men"? You aren't forcing others to draw their distinctions more carefully, you're flat-out contradicting them. Look back at your post here. I see nothing Socratic in "You could make silly statements of that kind if you wished, I suppose. I would still remain indifferent to your replies." or "I never do." or "Libertarianism is fine as utilitarian politics go, but it is insufficient as a moral philosophy." or "I suggest you spend a little more time immersing yourself in your "science," for you are incorrect." These don't lead the other person anywhere, they simply falt-out contradict--in many cases, without any support that could be refuted in turn (e..g., 'it is insufficient as a moral philosophy _because_...'). No, your appraoch shares nothing more in common with Socrates' than the often brief nature of the interchanges. There's much more to the method than brevity.

This _is_ an ephemeral medium, and I don't mean to put too strong a point on this--I think we both agree that no one is likely to win a prize for their philosophical ramblings in the humanities.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup, and that neither of us has a great deal invested in this argument. (I'm about to go back to working on my textbook, due to be published in February. I meet with the publisher next week in Phoenix.) But I've seen you use this approach here before and I felt compelled to say that what you are doing is a tactic designed to win an argument through frustrating the other person into quitting rather than a true meeting of minds to determine the truth or even just to force careful statements of opinion.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jan 1, 2004)

> Assuming, of course, that the other party is mistaken



Of course.  If they're not wrong, I don't argue.  



> You're using an argument-of-attrition tactic to win arguments rather than addressing the argument on its merits.



Not correct.  I'm using a tactic that demolishes the supporting points of an argument to address the argument's explicit merits overwhelmingly and totally.



> But here you nearly argue against yourself, for the type of refutation you use could not possibly be used in a conversation.



Sure it could -- because a conversation moves much more quickly than this type of exchange and people often interrupt and address points as they are made.

Discussions of this type on the Internet, in fact, have made it much easier for me to have highly charged discussions in person.  



> And again, while there's much to be said for addressing each point in a detailed, cogent, written argument, you dismiss this medium as not conducive to such arguments, as being much more informal, but then proceed as though you believe the opposite.



Well, yes.  I think I'm wasting my time -- but I do it because it is fun and because it allows me to refine my own opinions and methods.



> It is an Internet tradition, and I have used it too, but to be frank, I've only ever seen trolls split up a post as finely as you do.  I don't think you're trolling--I think you're using a sow-the-fields-with-salt tactic to stop the argument. The more patient person wins.



I believe in destroying the other argument entirely, yes.  I like to stop arguments.  Sometimes I get bored and simply wander off.  It happens.



> Let's reason together. Suppose a person posts a two-line argument. Suppose you split it up into two parts that you refute, each with a two-line rebuttal.



I reject your premise.  I would never find it necessary to break up two lines if that was all that was offered.  I use point-by-point rebuttal for _lengthy_ posts.



> If the other person adopts your style, he or she will split your two parts, consiting of four lines, into as many as four separate components for rebuttal (perhaps fewer). But then you'll split up his or her post...I hope you see my point. This method cannot lead to a useful discussion because of the "and they tell two friends" nature of it.



That would only be true if you play the other person's game.  When I find someone who responds in like manner, I do a lot of cutting, pasting, and consolidating to make my posts flow as I wish them to flow.

I must disagree. While he went point-by-point, he did so in a much more connected way. ...I don't see that in what you're doing.[/QUOTE]

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.



> Where is "the actual discovery of opinions amongst men"? You aren't forcing others to draw their distinctions more carefully, you're flat-out contradicting them.



Let's not make more of this than there is.  There are times when I don't bother to waste my effort.  I tend to treat arguments on the level they earn through their content.  If I am flip and dismissive, it's a sure bet I don't think much of the argument presented.

Look back at your own posts, now.  Don't you find it silly to have wasted so much time arguing about arguing?  I will continue to win arguments as I see fit.  No amount of complaining that it just isn't fair will change that.

Of course, I have an unfair advantage.  I write for a living and therefore have most people outgunned in text before we begin.  Even in an informal setting such as this, in which I don't preplan my posts and don't proof them, it generally works to my advantage.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Look back at your own posts, now.  Don't you find it silly to have wasted so much time arguing about arguing?  *



No more than any other argument. I, like you, choose to argue when it suits my interests (or whims). I have no vested stake in this.



> *
> I will continue to win arguments as I see fit.  No amount of complaining that it just isn't fair will change that.*



There is no complaint here--it's an observation. You're being too sensitive in assuming I am trying to stop you from doing what you want to do. If it was a complaint, I would have asked you to stop. I am indifferent--but you've done it a number of times that I've seen, it's a cheap tactic, and I wanted to comment on that, and to hear what your response was.

The claim that you follow in the tradition of Socrates here is simply without merit. As you offered only a curt "You can disagree, but you'd be wrong" in response to my reasons for disagreeing, however, you offer nothing for discussion. I will simply respond in kind: You're mistaken. Frankly, you flatter yourself. You're wrapping a stalling tactic in the flag of reasoning. Short replies of the form "not _X_" to assertions of _X_ are not Socratic.



> *Of course, I have an unfair advantage.  I write for a living and therefore have most people outgunned in text before we begin.  Even in an informal setting such as this, in which I don't preplan my posts and don't proof them, it generally works to my advantage. *



Your oft-repeated "I write for a living" is rather stale also, I must say. (Judging from my local newspaper, writing for a living doesn't guarantee a very high standard of achievement.) However, if you claim that your level of success as a writer speaks for itself, and is fully in line with your abilities, I will concur. But your phrasing above, that you have people "outgunned" on general writing skills--not the facts, or logic, or what-have-you--goes precisely to my point: This is a general tactic intended to work in any argument. We all have tactics and approaches we like to use in argumentation and I don't mean to imply that you should be defensive about having tricks that you employ. But, this one seems intended to win by longevity alone.

To write well one must practice, practice, practice. Your practiced response of cutting an argument into sentence tokens to treat in isolation is practiced, but it remains a technique. If winning the argument is the goal then using a technique intended to get you there is fine. But if the goal of an argument is to increase understanding--here we come again to the ways of Socrates--then a technique intended to "demolish" is hardly appropriate. Not every issue admits of a clean resolution, where the strongest argument wins, leading to the right answer. In an earlier post in this thread you said to someone else: "Great. Cry "uncle" and this is over." But the issues at hand--related to Ayn Rand's philosophy and political matters--don't seem to admit a simple Yes/No solution. A model that says every position is either 100% right or 100% wrong doesn't work well in the real world.

Once again, I'm not complaining--feel free to keep using this tactic. It's a boring read for those of us lurking in a thread, who would prefer to read paragraph-style discussions, and splits an argument into so many points that the "tell two friends" problem occurs for the other person, but it's your choice. Still, let's call it what it is--a technique for winning through superior patience, not a means of engaging in rational debate.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jan 1, 2004)

The truth may get "stale," but it's still the truth.  You're entitled to your opinion, however misinformed it may be.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Let's not make more of this than there is.  There are times when I don't bother to waste my effort.  I tend to treat arguments on the level they earn through their content.  If I am flip and dismissive, it's a sure bet I don't think much of the argument presented.*



This is a blatent admission to special pleading and its academically lazy.  If you have such high standards with logic you sure don't show them in this setting.  Do you ever think you might dismiss an argument that has merit you didn't realize at first?



> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Not at all. The original post remains there for readers of the thread to see. I never take an item out of context when I address and refute it, for to do so would be to give the opponent ammunition in rebutting my refutation. That's too simple a mistake to make; I don't often hand the other party to a debate a gift of that kind.*



If you don't present any coherent alternative positions, you haven't really refuted an argument.  If you want to debate someone, you must do this.  This is very much like saying that you can punch me in the face with a technique and when I ask you to try, you refuse.  Nobody gains from this. 

I'm curious about your opinions and there is no need to be miserly.  We certainly aren't any threat, unless you are afraid of being wrong.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 1, 2004)

To go back to something I mentioned a few pages back, the Democrats are going to git whupped. Now there are all sorts of reasons for that, but the salient one, here, is that they lose these days in part because they tend to offer thoughtful responses. They may not always be grounded in facts, and they may not always be terribly insightful, and they may at times very well be wrong--but their tendency, over the last twenty years, has been to attempt thoughtfulness. 

Unfortunately, they are up against people who have been writing and speaking and acting in ways that are the opposite of thoughtful. Spiro T. Agnew, Dan Quayle, even the VPs were far better at sloganeering than analysis. It's why right-wing talk radio works and sells--they pass off yelling and attempted bullying as thoughtful commentary. More than that, these guys have managed to pass off repeating the ideology of wealth as a "radical," position, something that is opposed to the status quo. And in a sense they're right: capitalism is what's radical, what wipes out the "old," and brings in the "new." These folks play off the frustration that these radical changes cause--and they help convince us all that the very people who are trying (though sometimes badly) to explain what's going on are in fact the enemy.

But be that as it may, the Democrats are going to lose partly because in our present fix, yelling slogans and trying to bully the opposition works a hell of a lot better than saying, "Now wait a minute, let's try and look at the history of that...,"  or, "Well, the result of privatizing schools seems to be...," or, "Uh, we are actually talking about leaving people without health care, aren't we?" 

Look at the present war in Iraq. Why'd we get into that, again? In part because the yahoos presently running our government (elected by a minority of voters, remember) started yelling about a threat that a) we helped create, b) could have been taken care of by other means, c) wasn't really there at all--no WMDs, remember? and about two weeks ago, our gov't quietly noted that there probably hadn't been any for ten years. In part, because these clowns didn't have the patience to shut up and let a professional like Colin Powell do his job. 

The problem relates to martial arts this way: it is always hard to take a deep breath and walk away, or try to settle things peacefully. (I wrote, "try," see? Not all situations can be resolved peacefully by most of us.) It is difficult to spend the time and energy to really learn, and much easier to announce that all that stuff in martial arts is just junk and what we need is just boxing and grappling. It takes a LOT of time and energy to really learn about oneself and about the world, and it is a hell of a lot easier to grab onto this simplistic philosophy or that simplistic philosophy and simply declare that ________ was right about everything and if you all weren't stupid and inadequate, you'd know that already.

The Dems are going to get whupped, and in part they're going to get whupped not because they're wrong, and not because their facts are inadequate, and not even because of their differing and "out of the mainstream," philosophies, but (in part) because their basic moves involve explaining and trying to be reasonable. And reason takes time, and means complexity.

Look at Jack Lemmon's character in that silly and inaaccurate, "China Syndrome," movie: he was right, got lost in his explanations, and came across like a complete loon.

It is much easier to yell.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *The truth may get "stale," but it's still the truth.*



But using an irrelevant truth as some form of appeal to authority--that authority being, by odd coincidence, you--is what's getting stale.



> *
> You're entitled to your opinion, however misinformed it may be.*



I am reminded once again of Monty Python's "The Argument Clinic" sketch (the Man is played by Michael Palin; Mr. Vibrating, the clinic employee, is played by John Cleese):


Man: I came here for a good argument. 

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument. 

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction. 

Mr Vibrating: It can be. 

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. 

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't. 

Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction. 

Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. 

Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' 

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is! 

Man: No it isn't! 

Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. 

(short pause) 

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't. 

Man: It is. 

Mr Vibrating: Not at all. 

Man: Now look. 


You provide nothing but automatic gainsaying. Much as in the Monty Python sketching, it's an automated process that frustrates, rather than responds to, an arbitrary argument. Simply repeating "You're misinformed" or variants of it is a child's game.

I suggest you make the claim that this is Socratic dialogue to a philosopher and see if agreement is reached.

Well, I believe that we have both made my point very well, and I consider it established.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jan 2, 2004)

Mischaracterizing my arguments may make you feel better, but it does not change the facts.  You may believe it however fervently you choose to believe it -- but this, too, changes nothing.  There are two dynamics at play, as well -- arguments over which I choose to take time, and contemptuous dismissals I employ when I grow bored with the opponent.  (This would be the latter and has been so for some time now.)


----------



## KenpoTess (Jan 2, 2004)

Please Keep to Topic

 Which Dem has a Shot?

Pick a candidate and throw a plug. If you don't think any Dems will win in 2004 lets hear why?

Thank you

Tess


----------



## arnisador (Jan 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Mischaracterizing my arguments*



Calling what you do 'argument' is already a mischaracterization. I see you are already hedging your bet by claiming that what we have here is not a true example of your considerable skill but rather 'contemptuous dismissals' out of sheer boredom.

There is no point in continuing this so I will heed the call for topicality. Feel free to add the final 'contemptuous' word.

This is a time of high patriotism, so Gen. Clark is the person to beat.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *Mischaracterizing my arguments may make you feel better, but it does not change the facts.  You may believe it however fervently you choose to believe it -- but this, too, changes nothing.  There are two dynamics at play, as well -- arguments over which I choose to take time, and contemptuous dismissals I employ when I grow bored with the opponent.  (This would be the latter and has been so for some time now.) *




Phil,

No Disrespect meant. Taking a contemptuous view in your written arguements could also influence how you think in a self defense or combat situation. This could lead you to making errors.


As to to the questions at hand, Which Dem has the Best shot?

The one that has the cleanest record and has the money to stay the course against the other Dems, until the party unites completely.  Who is this? I honestly do not know.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jan 4, 2004)

> There is no point in continuing this so I will heed the call for topicality. Feel free to add the final 'contemptuous' word.



But not before trying to get the last word, right?  You don't like the manner in which I choose to communicate so you've gone on and on at length to bicker over just how terribly unfair it is.  Cope.


----------



## TonyM. (Jan 5, 2004)

Just to lighten the mood.
If a republican, a democrat, a communist and a socialist all jumped off the empire state building, who would hit first? Answer; Who really cares?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2004)

The media sure is bashing Dean these days.  What is the Establishment afraid of?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jan 5, 2004)

I'd say they're afraid of the possibilities that A) he is unsuited for the office thanks to a volatile personality, and; B) his tax policies would raise taxes to unacceptable and economically counterproductive levels.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2004)

I wonder how Dean is able to energize the democratic base to such an extent if he is so bad?  It seems to me that the internet campaign really has the establishment surprised and it seems to have pulled people out of the woodwork.  As far as his volitility and poor policy choices...one of those is in the eye of the beholder.  I happen to agree with some of what Dean has to say.  Although, "reportedly" he has been somewhat inconsistant.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jan 6, 2004)

I think the key is that the "base" to which he appeals is really the most extreme element within the party -- enough to make him a very real contender for the nomination, but not necessarily enough to win the election.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/advertising/dean-release.php


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *I think the key is that the "base" to which he appeals is really the most extreme element within the party -- enough to make him a very real contender for the nomination, but not necessarily enough to win the election.
> 
> http://www.clubforgrowth.org/advertising/dean-release.php *



I totally agree. This is what I expressed in my first post, and why I would rather see Clark be the nominee rather then Dean. I think Clark has more appeal to independents and republicans who don't like Bush, more so the Dean.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 6, 2004)

Although the "Club for Growth" group, and that article is highly misleading many of what it says, and outright false in some of what it claims.

That is hardly a credable source regarding Deans policy making.  :shrug:


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Although the "Club for Growth" group, ... That is hardly a credable source regarding Deans policy making.  :shrug: *



I find it interesting that self-proclaimed "economic conservatives" (Club for Growth members) are such champions for deficit spending and government debt.

You have to wonder if there personal credit card debt resembles anything like the federal governement under GWB. Seems they are getting all the tax cuts they are pushing for (inheritence, capital gains, et al), but not doing so good on their goal of 'controlling federal spending' or 'providing true school choice'.

I still like McCain's metaphore ... spending like a drunken sailor 

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2004)

Just to mention reality--Howard Dean, who I have no intention of voting for, is a fiscally-conservative, budget-balancing managerial type from Vermont rather than Leningrad.

It is quite possible to disagree with folks, and explain why they're wrong, without this absurd demonizing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Just to mention reality--Howard Dean, who I have no intention of voting for, is a fiscally-conservative, budget-balancing managerial type from Vermont rather than Leningrad.*



Why wouldn't you vote for Dean?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2004)

This is one reason why I think that Clark is the best candidate.  Only a non-career politition could come up with a gem like this.

http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3880316&p1=0

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Cthulhu (Jan 7, 2004)

I'm not entirely sure why, but my father-in-law is supposed to have a phone conversation with Clark tonight and a meeting with him later in the week.

In light of that, maybe I ought to be paying more attention to this 'politics' thing...  

Cthulhu


----------



## arnisador (Jan 12, 2004)

My late father-in-law was asked to help with Paul Simon's campaign in New York.


----------



## TonyM. (Jan 13, 2004)

Must keep hands off keyboard....No, don't you dare type that.....
Gee I'm glad Paul is back with Arty.


----------

