Reply With Quote
Absolutely. There be plenty of religious folks in the world. They ain't wrong for it; freedom includes the right to choose it.
the whole human, irrational, quivering political hairball? I think not.
parts I like, others not so much.
Absolutely. There be plenty of religious folks in the world. They ain't wrong for it; freedom includes the right to choose it.
WH,some hypotheticals for you: if given the choice between two politicians, and one used sets of statistics to back up his policies, and the other just said, "Trust me, this will work because God told me it would, even though the science disagrees", which do you think would present the more compelling argument?
Would you be fine if the general population decided to side with the 2nd due to their shared belief in God?
Why do you keep bringing up freedom? Have we not established that the freedom to be irrational is not an issue of contention? Yet you continue to go back there. Why exactly?
Do you think religion in the decision making process of politics is a good thing? It seems to me the founders of this country thought it was a bad thing. It seems they understood that that method of irrational thinking was best not brought into the decision making process.
plenty else about our culture is irrational, desirable and fairly wholesome. you want me to start naming things, Manny?
When they use their religiosity to vote, instead of their brains, I would argue that they're wrong for it. People can vote for whatever reason they choose to of course; but I'd say a vote for someone based on policies rather than, say, what color shirt they're wearing, is a more proper usage of their vote.
I believe I asked what you felt the benefits of irrational decision making were. I don't believe I asked you for examples of irrational thinking in our culture as if I was complaining about its inclusion in the political process I do not deny its existence. However, as you have pointed out (and I have not contested) we are free to do as we wish so if you'd like to continue avoiding questions and instead answering questions not posed you are free to do so if you'd like.
Again, I accept that you exist and that your observations if you are not trying to deceive me are valid. If I accept that then you take all the data points. And I mean all the data points without bias except for deception or misperception.
I personally do not think that a limited experience can make broad claims. The most I would be willing to say was that some black people are thugs. WC et al do not hold the same standard.
However if every person on the planet who had experienced black people said that they were thugs --I would use better terms than that although psychology is pretty damn soft as it is-- then I would be comfortable agreeing with that. Again, I accept I am not the only one with a valid observation. And how this bears out is proof. Your making a hypothetical that does not match with reality. There is truth behind the incidences of violent crime within the black populations relative to total population however there is no truth in the statement about 'all.'
OTOH, if you have everyone claiming that human cells go through a process of mitosis meiosis before cell division then I would feel comfortable applying that universality. That doesn't make it tautological but i would say that the notion of consensus is pretty damn democratic.
on the whole, I agree with you, but I respect those who think otherwise. that's a real position too -- for damn sure the founders didn't recommend it.
it's for you to say how somebody else should vote?
Why do you respect them? Do you have a reason for respecting them, or do you just do so? Is your reason for respecting their irrationality an irrationality on your part?
I read just fine. You are claiming that irrational behavior has a place in policy decisions and I do denounce that. Further your romantic characterizations are lame. Your culturally conditioned notions of religiosity projected onto me are unfounded and generally lame. Try to think outside of your box.
I do not give someone respect for making a decision based on religion. That doesn't mean I think they are terrible people or anything but assigning more respect to a person based on irrational thinking doesn't make much sense to me. Anyone is free to do as they wish of course, but I have seen decision making by religious proxy lead down some fairly disastrous roads.
it sounds like you are a proponent of instrumentalism then, as was milton friedman. and on the latter, well...
Sure, why not? I have the freedom to think that a vote based off actual policies is better than a vote based off irrationality. Do you argue that our country would be as well off if we just determined the President by the likability of the two candidate's warbrobe on election day, or perhaps whichever candidate memorized the most Star Wars quotes, or something equally irrational?it's for you to say how somebody else should vote?
I'm pretty sure thats what we do on the daily in here or anytime you try convince anyone of an argument of any sort. If there was a cons utional amendment up for legalizing slavery would you not feel it was ok to say that it should be voted down?it's for you to say how somebody else should vote?
I said the benefits probably weren't calculable. That's a real take. Everyone has to decide for him/herself if the supposed benefits are there and worth the trouble.
My case, definitely. Bass guitar and bike riding have improved my life immeasurably.
perhaps you mistake me: I'm pro- ing.
Is playing bass guitar and bike riding irrational?
If you think that choosing to play guitar and ride a bike are examples of irrational decision making then I believe you're using the word irrational incorrectly. But I may be misunderstanding your point here.
you should try to crawl back inside. you're all over the place.
my attachment to these activities -- as previously to soccer and miniature golf, for example -- has been not so much rationally motivated, as thoroughly enjoyable to me. rationality figures in heavy when I'm on my bike, but not so much before and after.
I'm not sure why spending time doing something you enjoy is something you consider an irrational decision.
And it sounds like you are a prac ioner of Aristotle's categorizations. I reject your box. I do not reject rational frameworks nor do I believe that empiricism cannot be used to prove their existence. Quite the contrary and we have had this discussion before.
absolutely!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
