yeah, that's exactly it... certainly under the form of communism that advocates government ownership of everything, anyway.

It's less clear that that would happen under the form which advocates the social ownership of the means of production, because the only people who stand to lose are the exploiters.

EDIT: argh, i reread the communist manifesto last night and realised that somewhere along the line i've managed to attribute some other ideas that i like to Marx. So, not everything that i've said about him is right, his idea of "social ownership" does seem closer to "government ownership" than i was thinking... ><

nadiatims Wrote:As it stands now, in many democracies large segments of the population are ruled over by governments they never elected. It's rather curious to me that so many should support things like the free tibet movement but would be against an amicable division of their own country. In the case of america (and i'm not even american btw), why not just let Romney run the red states and Obama the blue states. You could also have one city operating as a kind of HK style free market autonomous economic zone for libertarians.

There's always someone who loses the election. That's normal in a democracy. I think it's sad that U.S. politics are so divisive that people would actually consider splitting off from the rest of the country. I don't think that a large number of people think that way though.

@IceCream I had a look at the Critique of the Gotha Program. And while I didn't read the whole thing, he uses words like the "bourgeois" or "petty bourgeois" democracy. He didn't seem to believe very much in democracy. He also uses plenty of violent words like dictatorship and overthrow and talks about a revolution, not a peaceful democratic transition.

Eikyu Wrote:There's always someone who loses the election. That's normal in a democracy. I think it's sad that U.S. politics are so divisive that people would actually consider splitting off from the rest of the country. I don't think that a large number of people think that way though.

That just reminded me: If the U.S. splits, then accordingly, their medal count in the Olympics will split. Or on a bigger scale, their economy will also split and thus, lose their big economy benefits. Would the rich powerbrokers of the U.S. allow this sort of thing to happen?

I'm sure that's one reason why China places such emphasis on the "reunification" message.

Eikyu Wrote:@IceCream I had a look at the Critique of the Gotha Program. And while I didn't read the whole thing, he uses words like the "bourgeois" or "petty bourgeois" democracy. He didn't seem to believe very much in democracy. He also uses plenty of violent words like dictatorship and overthrow and talks about a revolution, not a peaceful democratic transition.

i haven't read critique of the gotha program, so, i can't comment on that. I'll read it later...

Like i said, he thought that it could be acheived with democratic means in societies that already had strong democracy, but revolution would be necessary in other countries. It doesn't have to be a peaceful transition.

When he refers to "bourgeois democracy" or "petty-bourgeois democracy" with disgust, he's talking about the liberal conception of democracy of the time, which only enfranchised certain groups of people and therefore allowed all the power to remain in the hands of the capitalist class. It's not the same as our concept of free democracy today.

Any opinions on the debate between Obama and Romney?

nadiatims Wrote:Any opinions on the debate between Obama and Romney?

My friend quipped that it was a great day if you want to learn about confirmation bias. Just look at your friends' Facebook or Twitter posts.

The only debate that matters to me is Stewart vs O'Reilly on the 6th. =D

Tzadeck Wrote:

nadiatims Wrote:Any opinions on the debate between Obama and Romney?

My friend quipped that it was a great day if you want to learn about confirmation bias. Just look at your friends' Facebook or Twitter posts.

Yeah, it's a very small minority that will change their minds I think based on this I think. In general, people get way too invested in their opinions.

nadiatims Wrote:Any opinions on the debate between Obama and Romney?

A win for Romney. But there wasn't really that much in terms of new information. It was a whole lot of repetition on talking points. Its pretty clear Romney put a lot of time into debate practice for this. To me though, Romney still comes off as really awkward and still has this issue where he comes off like a petulant child use to having others listen to everything he says. Obama on the other hand was defensive and pretty weak overall, he got some decent attacks in, but he didn't really call Romney out on some of the things he said. I think from the debate, the Dems probably gained a good amount of material to run ads on against Romney, but I'm not sure Obama really said anything new that would be good attack ad material.

I think the most amusing thing from the debate though was just how hard to the center Romney swung himself, which is really where he needs to be to try and pull the undecided/independent votes back. Hands down the biggest moment to me (and I stopped watching at almost the 3/4th mark since it was getting boring) was when Romney came out and admitted "Yes, We need market regulation." In current Republican rhetoric, "market regulation" is anathema.

Jim Lehrer though was a horrible moderator. He basically let them run the debate. I think PBS could have done a far better job getting a moderator who could tell them to shut it and "We're moving on." Plus, needle the two a bit more on stuff they said; just not enough of that.

I'm looking forward to the VP debate though. I don't know too much about Biden's debating, but I get the impression that as an orator, Ryan is a hell of a lot better than Romney and could probably drum up a bit of support. I remember hearing in the past somewhere that Biden is a pretty decent debater though (possibly even better than Obama).

But... He said he doesn't care about 47% of all Americans and called them lazy bums. What's all this talk about strategy? Why can't they just make him lose by bringing that up all. the. time?

"I know what to do about the eco-"
"You said you don't care about 47% of all Americans"

"We need to take a strong position toward Ira-"
"You said you don't care about 47% of all Americans"

I mean this is easy right? Right? Guys?

Surreal Wrote:I mean this is easy right? Right? Guys?

Bungles happen all the time in politics. Once the public has time to digest controversy, be it 47% or what have you, it begins to lose its effectiveness. Besides, I would rather see discussions brought up that will improve America, even should Obama be reelected, rather than the all too tiresome question dodging.

Obama omitting 47% is certainly not the only reason he failed the debate.

For the record, I'm not voting Republican or Democrat next election, I feel America being confined to two rather similar parties ("lesser of two evils"), coupled with the electoral college rendering most voters in key regions a nonentity (false sense of a voting right), the most ridiculous circus in the world. Not that that matters to anything.

I hear what you're saying, but what I really mean is that it is so extremely absurd that someone could say "yeah I don't give a shit about half of the people" and STILL BE ELECTED. Especially when the context makes it so clear that it's not just a "bungle".

And of course, yes, everyone wants high-level politicians to seriously deal with important questions. But since they're (especially the American politicians, it seems) so bound by their sponsors and party pressure they can't discuss the real issues, they have to play it safe so they don't step on too many, and above all too rich and powerful, toes. I know he got a lot of flak for it but I personally liked Obama's comment about how changing Washington from the inside is so hard. And he deserves credit for having the courage to at least expressing his disgust at the superPAC system, even though his own party ended up having to rely on them, too. But of course, the very nature of the political game means that Obama has and still is using a lot of dirty tricks so it's not like I'm trying to make him out to be this superhero. I think hardly anyone still holds that illusion.

It would be so nice to somehow have independent observers who can hold all the information the president has and then discuss things together in the media. But that's wishful thinking...

Surreal Wrote:I hear what you're saying, but what I really mean is that it is so extremely absurd that someone could say "yeah I don't give a shit about half of the people" and STILL BE ELECTED. Especially when the context makes it so clear that it's not just a "bungle".

Arguably, at least coming into the debate, the 47 percent thing has proven to be very toxic to Romney though. In many of the battleground states Obama had crept ahead of Romney by 4-5points which is a pretty large lead.

The people that it didn't effect though are Republicans, and this was seen in the debate quite comically. As I stated earlier, Romney swung hard to the center in the debate where as in prior outings and in the media, he had been leaning to the right a good ways in order to grab the strongly conservative vote. Polls have started to show quite amusingly though that his debate performance didn't really cause any of the Republican voter base to say much, in other words, many are just voting for him because he's not Obama. Not that its really surprising or anything, since there are people voting for Obama because he's just Obama.

Yeah, I've understood that the "I sure as hell don't want THAT guy!" attitude is playing into things a lot. To me, that is a clear indication that more parties/alternatives are sorely needed.

Obama had a "my kingdom for a teleprompter" moment during the whole debate. It was quite painful to watch.

Norman Wrote:Obama had a "my kingdom for a teleprompter" moment during the whole debate. It was quite painful to watch.

Obama is a spectacular orator, but a horrible debater in comparison. And I think that combo is fine so long as you have good numbers entering the debate. Its a 10th dimensional chess stuff, but there is a good chance that Obama went into the debate without much practice, on purpose. That way it was possible to size up Romney and then in the last two debates, up the ante a bit more with more practice and more hard lines in order to swing the numbers back around (ie: momentum going into the polls).

Obama isn't completely inept though in debating. As I mentioned above earlier, Obama never said anything that would give the GOP sound bites to use in ads. Romney on the other hand gave up tons, again showing that he isn't really good at moderating what comes out of his mouth.

EDIT: Meant to reply to this earlier.

Surreal Wrote:Yeah, I've understood that the "I sure as hell don't want THAT guy!" attitude is playing into things a lot. To me, that is a clear indication that more parties/alternatives are sorely needed.

There are other parties in the US, but its just that none of them ever gain any traction at levels higher than the state.

Yes... Yes I know that vix, I'm sorry if I came off as being that blindly ignorant (；´∀｀) But as has been said multiple times in the thread, to the majority of Americans there only seems to be two choices, and the system is making it stupidly hard for other parties to gain ground.

遅くなりましたが、僕も参加したいです。変な日本語があればご指摘ください。よろしくお願いします。

元々米国の民主党の支持者だったけど、アイン・ランドの「肩をすくめるアトラス」を読んで大きなショックを受けました。nadiatimsさんと imabiさんなどの立場は 完全的にわかったと思います。民主党と共和党の間の争いをどうやって解決できるかわかりました。問題の原因となったのは道徳に関する意見の言い違い・すれ違いです。

科学的に感知できる人間の行動は無数あります。その行動の道徳性を一つ一つ決めればそれぞれの人の立場がはっきりと見えてきます。人にミナーキストとかリベラルとかいったラベルを付ける必要はありません。で、その道徳性を決めれば決めるほど自分の偽善性がはっきりと見えてしまいます。みんなが自分の偽善性をなくそうとすれば問題解決につながると確信しています。

例えば、僕は「人が地球を汚染するのは悪徳だ」と決めたとしたら、僕の行動が注目されてしまいます。もし自分の行動が地球を汚染するのが科学的に感知されたら僕は偽善的に行動したとなります。それを避けるには道徳性を見直すか自分の行動を変えるか２つの選択肢しかありません。自分の行動を変える負担が大きすぎれば僕の発言を撤回しなければなりません。でも、変える負担がそんなに大きくない場合は行動を変えることによって他の人に「僕のように行動するよう」アピールすることができます。

備考：僕の考えでは「彼は何々である」とは行動ではないです。「彼は何々のように行動している」といったほうがいいと思います。理由は簡単ですが、あとにします。

So what did people think of the Joe Biden and Paul Ryan debate?

One interesting to note is that, in general, people accepted that Obama lost the first one. Even democrats/liberals accepted this.

On the other hand, in general, people accepted that Ryan lost the second one. However, republicans/conservatives are finding it very hard to accept this.

I think this further disproves the "same thing, both sides" theory of moderation/centralism.

Biden came out on top I think. Although the debate was hard to watch because both of them came off as the biggest douchebags/ego-heads. It was incredible to watch.

The debate overall was very good, I enjoyed watching it and I thought the moderator was spectacular this time around.

Biden came off weak on the economy I think, in the beginning of the debate but after they hit foreign policy he started laying into Ryan. I think Ryan was keeping pace and getting in some good hits here and there but he was always slightly behind. Honestly the Republicans would have a better ticket if Ryan was running for president instead of Romney. He's articulate, he gives off emotion and intensity when he talks, unlike Romney. Biden sounds weird when he talks but he's not bad at getting the facts out, but he lacks a finesse in oration that Obama has.

Biden leveled the playing field probably. Now its up to Obama to not drop the ball in the next two debates.

qwertyytrewq,
Who decides who won the debate? The majority of pundits? The majority of viewers? It is illogical to assume the majority is right because the majority of any group of people can be wrong. Even scientists. This doesn't mean we have to give up on having any kind of meaningful discussion of the debate. We just have to use less subjective measures to judge the "winner". Who changed his opponent's mind more during the debate? Who pointed out his opponent's contradictions and hypocrisies while not making himself a self-contradicting hypocrite? If you really want to be objective, these are the measures you should use.誰が勝者を決めますか。評論家の過半数？視聴者の過半数？どのグループの過半数でも間違っている可能性がありますので、「過半数だから正しい」というのは論理的ではありません。科学者だって。だから勝者を決めるのを諦めろというわけではありません。より客観的な考え方を使えばより良い議論になると思います。誰が誰の意見を変えましたか。誰が矛盾と偽善のないように相手の矛盾と偽善を指摘したのですか。これは決め手となります。

You clearly dislike the view that all politicians are equally bad. By saying that liberals acknowledge their candidate's defeat while conservatives don't, you hinted that it's morally good for a person to acknowledge defeat. If you really feel this way, don't merely hint at it. State it clearly and with pride. If you do, you will come under scrutiny as others watch to see if you consistently acknowledge defeat all the time. If your actions match your words, you will have a strong position and will be more likely to get others to adopt your view and act accordingly. If, however, you cannot acknowledge defeat all the time, you need to adjust your moral view until it is less burdensome for you. Maybe, "it is morally good for a person to acknowledge defeat at least three times a year".すべての政治家は同じ程度腐っているという立場は嫌いですね。リベラル派は保守派より自分の負けを認めると言うことは「人が自分の負けを認めるのは善徳だ」という意見をほのめかしています。もし本当にこう思っているのなら、ほのめかさずに胸を張って主張したほうがいいと思います。確かに主張したらqwertyytrewqさんの行動は注目されてしまいますが、その注目に耐えて自分の言葉通りに行動すれば人々は感動され同じ意見を持つようになるかもしれません。言葉通りに行動できなければその主張を変えることになりかねません。

Only debate human actions that are scientifically observable because you need to be able to scientifically prove that your opponent's actions don't match his words.科学的に感知できる人間行動だけを議論しなければなりません。なぜなら、相手の偽善を科学的に証明する必要があるからです。

vix86,
Can you define "to come off as the biggest douchebag/ego-head" in such a way that it's scientifically observable? If you can, you should say "it's immoral for a person to come off as the biggest douchebag/ego-head" and urge others to follow your example. People will check scientifically to see if your actions match your words, but if you can withstand the pressure, many people may agree to follow you.

HiiroYui Wrote:qwertyytrewq,
Who decides who won the debate? The majority of pundits? The majority of viewers?

There's probably no way to determine the winner because everyone will disagree based on party affiliation.

I personally don't care who won or lose. I was just pointing out that people who identify as democrats/liberals are more willing to admit that Obama's performance wasn't the best while people who identify as republicans/conservatives hold steadfast that their chosen person (Paul Ryan) had no flaws.

The question to ask is, if Obama won the first debate, would it be realistic to expect repubs/cons to accept and admit it? If Paul Ryan won the second debate, we don't need to ask that question about dems/libs because they already voiced their disappointment about Obama's performance.

HiiroYui Wrote:It is illogical to assume the majority is right because the majority of any group of people can be wrong. Even scientists.

I, of all people, subscribe to this idea.

HiiroYui Wrote:This doesn't mean we have to give up on having any kind of meaningful discussion of the debate. We just have to use less subjective measures to judge the "winner". Who changed his opponent's mind more during the debate? Who pointed out his opponent's contradictions and hypocrisies while not making himself a self-contradicting hypocrite? If you really want to be objective, these are the measures you should use.

Well, whoever you think won the debate, expect a lot of people to disagree. Assuming you can somehow find an objective way of determining the winner.

Personally, in general (outside the debate) I think Mitt Romney sets new records for amounts of mind changed and contradictions compared to things he said in the past, so much so that some people think there are two Mitt Romneys in the world. One Mitt Romney (the past) is exactly the opposite of the other present one. That's how much he changes his mind.

Determining who the winner is moot though because about 50% of people support Mitt Romney despite his mind-changing, his contradictions, his hypocrisies, and his complete lack of humanity.

HiiroYui Wrote:You clearly dislike the view that all politicians are equally bad. By saying that liberals acknowledge their candidate's defeat while conservatives don't, you hinted that it's morally good for a person to acknowledge defeat. If you really feel this way, don't merely hint at it. State it clearly and with pride.

Actually, I thought I wasn't hinting at it, I thought it was clear enough. If I wasn't clear before then I will make it clear now using your own words: "it's morally good for a person to acknowledge defeat"

Or to be more precise my view is that "it's morally good for a person to acknowledge reality."

HiiroYui Wrote:If you do, you will come under scrutiny as others watch to see if you consistently acknowledge defeat all the time. If your actions match your words, you will have a strong position and will be more likely to get others to adopt your view and act accordingly. If, however, you cannot acknowledge defeat all the time, you need to adjust your moral view until it is less burdensome for you. Maybe, "it is morally good for a person to acknowledge defeat at least three times a year".

In an ideal world, this is what would happen. I admit defeat, and people respect the fact that I admitted defeat, and I gain their support.

In the real world however, admitting defeat is "admitting weakness", or at least, that's the opinions of "the other side" (see current debate about whether spending less on the military is a sign of weakness). So it's a bit of a tough situation. On the one hand, you have people who are willing to compromise. On the other hand, you have people who are completely unwilling to compromise (see republican obstructions in the senate).

I don't really have an answer for this. In an ideal world, admitting defeat is a good thing and taking advantage of someone for admitting defeat is a bad thing.

HiiroYui Wrote:People will check scientifically to see if your actions match your words, but if you can withstand the pressure, many people may agree to follow you.

You sound like a bit of an optimist. It's noble but it might not work out in the end.

Anyway, remember that we're talking about America, which idolizes sports, worships religion, and like all other countries with the possible exception of Asian ones, has a very anti-science and anti-education culture.

I may not like the Republican side of politics but I, being a person who acknowledges reality, give credit where credit is due: they know their audience.

qwertyytrewq, thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.
“There's probably no way to determine the winner because everyone will disagree based on party affiliation.” This contains a logical fallacy because you said “everyone” (and liberals agree with conservatives that Obama lost), but let’s assume you said “most people”. The problem remains that “to win a debate” is defined subjectively. That’s why I say the purpose of a debate should be to change your opponent’s mind. If you change someone’s mind, by definition, they will admit it and not be angry with you. It’s more objective this way. That’s also why it’s important to get your opponent to go on the record about their opinions at the beginning of the debate. Acknowledge defeat by writing “I acknowledge defeat”.

“If Paul Ryan won the second debate, we don't need to ask that question about dems/libs because they already voiced their disappointment about Obama's performance.” But you said you don’t care who won, and “it’s morally good for a person to acknowledge defeat”, so logically speaking, for both debates so far and all to come you should call for both debaters to acknowledge defeat. Acknowledge defeat.

“…That's how much he changes his mind.” In my view, the goal of debate is to change your opponent’s mind. Therefore, it is not illogical for a person to change his mind. What is illogical is him trying to hold more than one position at the same time, or changing his mind without giving what he thinks is a logical explanation. I want people to give some explanation because their goal should be to convince people that hold their old view to also change their minds. Notice how holding 2 positions and not giving an explanation are objectively observable. Acknowledge defeat.

“…about 50% of people support Mitt Romney despite his mind-changing, his contradictions, his hypocrisies,…” You are hinting that “it is morally bad for a person to support a candidate that contradicted himself and acted hypocritically”. That’s fine if that’s what you believe (and you state so clearly and with pride), but you see, I can prove that Obama contradicted himself and acted hypocritically (and he only had to do it once). So logically speaking, you must criticize all Obama supporters. Luckily, you never actually stated that moral view, so you’re off the hook. Acknowledge defeat.

“…and his complete lack of humanity.” Can you define this objectively? If so, make a moral statement about it.

“…If I wasn't clear before then I will make it clear now using your own words…” Feel free to use the exact wording you want, as long as it’s in terms of the morality of a scientifically observable human action. "…it's morally good for a person to acknowledge reality." Can you define “to acknowledge reality”? If you believe it’s morally good to acknowledge defeat, you should want both debaters to do so. But now it seems you only want the loser to acknowledge defeat and the winner to acknowledge victory (which, remember, you said probably couldn’t be determined). You can only hold one of these moral statements at a time. Acknowledge defeat.

Do you define “to acknowledge defeat” and “to acknowledge weakness” differently? If so, do you care to give a moral statement about acknowledging weakness? You say you’re not sure how to fight back against the other side, but I know exactly how. Refrain from making too many moral statements as the burden will be excruciating. Then force your opponent to bear the burden of their statements until they give them up. In this case, if you don’t think acknowledging weakness is bad, say so. When the other side wins the election and things start going wrong, tell the people who voted for that side it’s their fault for voting against acknowledging weakness, and ask them to change their moral view. This will work if they are suffering because of their own decision. If they change their minds (get proof of this happening), the majority of people will share your view.

“…America… has a very anti-science and anti-education culture.” Wait a minute. You’re hinting that it’s morally bad to be anti-science, but didn’t you agree with me that it’s logically possible for the majority of scientists to be wrong? Maybe you were saying many people are against/ fail to use the scientific method. I agree, but I hesitate to make a moral statement about it. Acknowledge defeat.

You fell for a trap because you didn’t specify the conditions under which a person should acknowledge defeat. Surely you didn’t mean for it to be unconditional. Either acknowledge defeat six times, or change your mind about/ reword your moral view (don’t forget to give a reason, please). Feel free to attack me the same way I did you.

Don’t be angry with me. I’ve been a Democrat ever since I understood the issues and I understand where you are coming from. I voted for Obama because he said he would change the way politics works. He said if the policies he implemented were unpopular, he would be a one-term president, pretending that he doesn’t care if he does what he thinks is right and ends up out of office. Now he clearly cares and is changing his positions to match the polls of whatever the current, most-popularly held opinions are. I want a new system based on my new approach to debate.

Too long to try translating...

HiiroYui Wrote:That’s why I say the purpose of a debate should be to change your opponent’s mind.

The point of political debates in the US Presidential campaigns is generally to try and sway the [undecided] independent voters who would vote either Republican or Democrat. Most people don't actually believe that Obama/Biden getting up on stage is going to bring Romney/Ryan over to the Democrats or for Republicans to really change over; vice versa for Republicans. These debates are not about logical and factual arguments; most of the voters are not fact checking the candidates in the first place, and I doubt the media is holding any of the candidates to the fire on this either, so the public is oblivious to how false some statements are.
In the debates, you 'win' by having good charisma, being a good orator, and putting together arguments that are good enough to shut the other guy down and convince the public. None of that has to be logical or factual though.


EDIT:
Also, qwerty, to sort of repeat what you had said about the differences between the two parties this election cycle. This comes off of TalkingPointsMemo:

Quote:From TPM Reader LW …
Wondering if you heard the quote from a pollster that EJ Dionne mentionned on (I think) the Rachel Maddow Show. Anyway, the pollster, according to Dionne, said, “When I come out with a poll with bad news for Republicans, they want to kill me. When I come out with a poll that’s bad for Democrats, they want to kill themselves.” I think that comes really close to explaining the difference between the two parties and what has been happening since that first disastrous debate.

I was a philosophy major, and HiiroYui's post really reminds me of all the bad things about doing philosophy. Or at least, all the habits of mediocre philosophy students.