As the human race gets smarter, we should (in theory) converge on an idea about how most things should be done. That our parties are converging isnt necessarily a bad thing. Its only a bad thing if there are alternate points of view that are equally or more valid to consider. While it isnt as fun to debate tomato vs tom-a-to, if we are lucky enough to get to the point where thats the most important difference then horray us. What are the differences that should be debated that arent?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Never mind Iraq will there be a civil war in America
- Thread starter Paula62
- Start date
Werbung:
You've just validated my argumentative nature 
This comment entails an ontological commitment- it presumes the existence of an empirical reality of a singularly necessary nature. The nature and relationship of the discernible components of such (as defined) is supposedly what the methods of science would like to describe. Without falling to presumptiousness, I assert that a proper consideration of science on its own terms, and a proper consideration of all axiologies on their own terms will reveal (to a certain extent, since judgment must be made within a framework) their role and relationship to each other. This is something that people largely fail to do, because, like the right-vs-left what have you, they are more eager to dismiss in a bid to defend their sense of identity built upon their views, and therefore dependent upon their apparent validity.
As such, it also has certain deontological ramifications. What are they? Given that our actions have a basis from our being, which is related to and derived from our empirical reality, it seems obvious that our recourse to discerning the nature of our necessary existence will at least provide us with guidelines not on morality itself (since no moral system can purport to be complete and consistent without an inconsistency), but on how principles might be be formulated. I doubt that people would actually be able/be bothered to exercise this kind of critical thought, or even come to similar conclusions via other methods, because they are too wrapped up in the struggle that is feeling alright with oneself as long as they know they are better than somebody else.
This comment entails an ontological commitment- it presumes the existence of an empirical reality of a singularly necessary nature. The nature and relationship of the discernible components of such (as defined) is supposedly what the methods of science would like to describe. Without falling to presumptiousness, I assert that a proper consideration of science on its own terms, and a proper consideration of all axiologies on their own terms will reveal (to a certain extent, since judgment must be made within a framework) their role and relationship to each other. This is something that people largely fail to do, because, like the right-vs-left what have you, they are more eager to dismiss in a bid to defend their sense of identity built upon their views, and therefore dependent upon their apparent validity.
As such, it also has certain deontological ramifications. What are they? Given that our actions have a basis from our being, which is related to and derived from our empirical reality, it seems obvious that our recourse to discerning the nature of our necessary existence will at least provide us with guidelines not on morality itself (since no moral system can purport to be complete and consistent without an inconsistency), but on how principles might be be formulated. I doubt that people would actually be able/be bothered to exercise this kind of critical thought, or even come to similar conclusions via other methods, because they are too wrapped up in the struggle that is feeling alright with oneself as long as they know they are better than somebody else.
One of the problems I see today with trying to have a political conversation with anyone is that so many people can only recite sound bites they've heard on television. They have no capability of adding their own thoughts to that which they've memorized. I find this far more frustrating than people who spout and rant positions I don't agree with!
Solution: Ask them a question about the implications of their position. To quote Bush on the concerns about sovereignity of...I forget, the clip was too painful and I have expunged most of it from my memory.
"The sovereignity of...sovereign nations is...uh...sovereign..."
I had better stop, it makes me feel a little ill. Let's quote Robot Chicken instead: "Who dares disturb the...daring of his...uh...dare!?!?"
"The sovereignity of...sovereign nations is...uh...sovereign..."
I had better stop, it makes me feel a little ill. Let's quote Robot Chicken instead: "Who dares disturb the...daring of his...uh...dare!?!?"
That is true. I don't watch TV, so that isnt' my problem. The county and the entire world needs to do something to make a big change or we will have no future.
Our toll on the earth is overwhelming, and can't go on like this forever.
lizakollman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 54
Boy do I understand this one. We are in the middle of a substantial election in South Dakota - well, I am sure it is crazy all over the place, but we are voting on the abortion ban AND a ban on " quasi marital relationships" - and this whole state is just full to the brim with poeple who don't understand what the bills actually mean, they just repeat the things that their pastors say, or that are said on the local radio. It is enough to make me want to move. Seriously.
It's a problem. I remember being taught as a child that it was impolite to discuss politics at the dinner table ...I no longer agree with that since if you've got some thinkers at the table, it's good discourse. It's the sound bite people who annoy hell out of me. They cite the phrases and many times don't have a clue as to what it even means. There was a woman at a dinner recently who interjected that she thought Henry Kissinger was so stupid. One of the most stupid people on earth, as she put it. Now, alot of people disagree with Kissinger's policies, but I kept sitting there wondering where she ever came up with that one. You can't be bothered to even comment in a situation like that one LOL.
Werbung:
Similar threads
