Tzadeck Wrote: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.

So mediocre philosophy students say stuff like:

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

Because this made me laugh. As if everything must be stated as right or wrong. Hiiro's whole post just sounds awkward to me really. I don't know what he's aiming for but maybe it wouldn't sound so funny to me if it was simply stated like: "Can you explain what you mean by 'lack of humanity?' And after that, can you explain whats wrong or right about that?"

Yeah, a lot of it is just awkward writing. He's basically dancing around with a lot of philosophical concepts and words, but he completely misses the point over and over again. How can you talk that much about a presidential debate without realizing that its purpose is to win undecided swing state voters rather than to change your opponent's mind?

Bad philosophers, and even professional philosophers, get so worked up dancing around with concepts that they just get further and further from actually gaining any insight into the topic at hand.

Good thinking is simple and clear, not complex and sloppy.

Tzadeck Wrote: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.

As I read the post, I couldn't help but think, "This person just took, or is taking, introductory logic." Anyone can nitpick poor word choices or omissions of details, but it takes actual effort and ingenuity to build up an argument as best as possible, well beyond its original form, and then tear it down.

vix86さん、
“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.” だから議論はどうあるべきかを説明しています。嘘と偽りを使えば人を騙すことができるけど、論理と事実を使えば議論の質が高くなりリベラル派・保守派の人々の心を抜本的に変えてしまうことができます。 “In the debates, you 'win' by having good charisma, being a good orator,…” いずれも主観的なことなので評論家・視聴者の過半数の意見に頼るしかないんですね。もっと客観的な基準を使わないと “he said, she said”のままでつづき、政治は変わりません。
By the way, I had been watching The Rachel Maddow Show almost every day since its inception until I read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and realized that both sides fail to use logic correctly. I’m well versed in Keith Olbermann and Lawrence O’Donnell’s etc. views too. I know that Maddow often laments the fact that Democrats are not as cutthroat as Republicans and says they should use the same tactics Republicans use to gain power. Do you believe Democrats should use filibusters as much as possible if they lose the Senate? If so, and you hate the Republicans’ use of it, you’re a hypocrite. Notice the word “should” in my question. This is an indication of morality in disguise. If I ask, “Is it morally good for a person to filibuster?”, and you say yes, and then tell Democrats to filibuster when they lose the Senate, you’re clearly acting hypocritically.

However, the words should/shouldn’t, good/bad, right/wrong don’t always imply morality. “If a equals b, and b equals c, then a should equal c.” “You should use e-mail instead of snail mail because it’s more efficient.” “What? 23=24? That’s not right!” “It’s a good thing you remembered your umbrella.” If you let your opponent get away with a should-statement and then his actions contradict himself, he can just go back and say, “But I didn’t mean should in the moral sense”. I’m removing possible excuses beforehand.

Tzadeck, I didn’t miss the point of the presidential debates. I’m saying it shouldn’t work this way. I want to change this game-like atmosphere politics has. If you’re frustrated with the fakeness of politicians like I am, we, the people, can change the system. If you think I’m mistaken, use what you learned as a philosophy major to show me I’m wrong.

vileru, if I used bad logic, please point out the fallacies. Anyone can nitpick? Did you see how I inferred qwertyytrewq’s intended meanings and gave him the benefit of the doubt at every turn? This thread is full of times you guys didn’t do that. In fact,… because of your wording (introductory logic), I can’t be sure if you’re saying I displayed ingenuity or not….If you were actually agreeing with me, that’s great!

HiiroYui Wrote:だから議論はどうあるべきかを説明しています。嘘と偽りを使えば人を騙すことができるけど、論理と事実を使えば議論の質が高くなりリベラル派・保守派の人々の心を抜本的に変えてしまうことができます。 いずれも主観的なことなので評論家・視聴者の過半数の意見に頼るしかないんですね。もっと客観的な基準を使わないと “he said, she said”のままでつづき、政治は変わりません。

These are ideals. Yes, we want politicians to actually debate and hold high quality discussions, use facts, and only speak the truth. Except that it doesn't matter really because such a majority of the populace doesn't care about that sort of stuff. For many people, their decision on who to vote for in the election comes down to "Who looks like a leader." Facts don't "win" debates, a mix of personality and half truths usually do. Maybe the system will change in the future but for now its stuck the way it is; this 2 party system.

------------

So on the recent debate. I caught some of it while at work and I can say that it turned out better for Obama. I think the format helped a lot. The standing and talking I think was very in line with Obama's style. The town hall format is rough for both of the candidates though since it allows for a lot 'being blind sided' by questions you aren't prepared for, hence a lot of dancing around the actual questions.

A lot of the news was afire about the Libya thing that happened with Romney, I'm curious to see how that will stick. That was suppose to be something that Romney was suppose to hammer Obama with and he pretty much got knocked down.

Overall Obama came out swinging and I think he landed lots of hits. He nailed him on all the points that the democrats have been wanting him to hit him on. I felt Romney did ok-ish but to my ear he always sounds like he's struggling to convince everyone that everything is true instead of talking like its true.

Obama won the debate, but not by some landslide. I'm expecting Fox to talk about moderator bias though.

Obama won on the technicality of Romney messing up his Libya attack. That was pretty brutal.

However, take a look at the polls showing the Obama "win". Romney crushed Obama on the deficit (59-36 - CNN), the economy (58-40 - CNN, 65-34 - CBS), and taxes (51-44 - CNN). Romney also showed narrow 3-4 point wins on healthcare and leadership but they are within the margin of error.

Mark my words - Romney, not Obama, is going to get a bounce out of this debate.

HiiroYui Wrote:Tzadeck, I didn’t miss the point of the presidential debates. I’m saying it shouldn’t work this way. I want to change this game-like atmosphere politics has. If you’re frustrated with the fakeness of politicians like I am, we, the people, can change the system. If you think I’m mistaken, use what you learned as a philosophy major to show me I’m wrong.

Well, you said what determines the winner of the debate is subjective. Then you say that a debate should be about changing the opponent's mind. It's unclear whether you mean that because it's subjetive you've simply chosen the standard that most agrees with you, or that defining winning as changing your opponent's mind removes the subjectivity of who wins.

That seems like it's missing the point to me. When the two people who are having the debate have a clear goal in mind, and that goal is the same, and that goal is understood by the moderator of the debate and the majority of people watching, and the achievement of that goal is measurable (i.e., in poll numbers), it's ridiculous to call that goal subjective. That's what you would call 'objective,' not 'subjective.'

Now you say your point was that it shouldn't work that way. I agree that politics shouldn't work the way that it does, and that the debates highlight some of the disappointing truths about modern politics in America. But that's not what you said originally, and not what I responded to.

Also, I think defining winning a debate as changing your opponent's mind shows a degree of naivete. The two major parties in America more than anything divide themselves based on a different sense of values, motivations, and sense of identity (a famous example: you meet a young woman who's a yoga teacher and a vegetarian--do you think she's a republican or a democrat?). The candidates who represent the parties share a lot of values with their base. Even among friends with similar values, it's usually impossible to change a friend's mind about a certain issue--how do you expect people with different values to? Defining winning a debate as changing your opponent's mind would therefore result in 90%+ of debates having no winner, which makes that standard of winning--here's a nice philosophy word for you--supererogatory.

vix86 Wrote:For many people, their decision on who to vote for in the election comes down to "Who looks like a leader." Facts don't "win" debates, a mix of personality and half truths usually do.

Some anecdotal evidence (for what its worth) in support of this: If I remember correctly, back during the Reagan vs. Mondale election, Mondale essentially squashed Reagan in the debates in terms of "winning" a debate based on presenting your arguments and tearing apart your opponent's arguments. However, Reagan was far more charismatic while Mondale looked uncomfortable. Not that it was the only factor in the race, but it was an electoral college landslide in Reagan's favor, Mondale only taking the state of Minnesota (I don't recall the difference in the popular vote, but I believe it was far less of a landslide win than the electoral college vote made it appear).

Tzadeck Wrote:a famous example: you meet a young woman wo's a yoga teacher and a vegetarian--do you think she's a republican or a democrat?.

Neither. She's Green party, a Hipster, owns every Apple product, drives a Prius, volunteers with PETA, and pickets somewhere over environmental issues on the weekend.

vix86 Wrote:

Tzadeck Wrote:a famous example: you meet a young woman wo's a yoga teacher and a vegetarian--do you think she's a republican or a democrat?.

Neither. She's Green party, a Hipster, owns every Apple product, drives a Prius, volunteers with PETA, and pickets somewhere over environmental issues on the weekend.

Haha. Sorry, I'm imposing a false dichotomy. Logical fallacy alert!

vix86 Wrote:These are ideals.

Everyone has ideals. Keynesian economics forms part of your ideals.

vix86 Wrote:Yes, we want politicians to actually debate and hold high quality discussions, use facts, and only speak the truth. Except that it doesn't matter really because such a majority of the populace doesn't care about that sort of stuff.

You didn’t define “we”, so it sounds like “we want politicians to be better, but we don’t care.” Because I can assume you were at least talking about yourself, you revealed more of your ideals. The next part is important: do you want people to try to change each other’s minds using logic and facts? Stop telling me about what other people think -- I’m asking YOU. It’s illogical to say, “Yes, I want people to try to change each other’s minds, but most people don’t, so I don’t want to try to change people’s minds.”

vix86 Wrote:For many people, their decision on who to vote for in the election comes down to "Who looks like a leader."

And they are hypocrites. Are you?

vix86 Wrote:Maybe the system will change in the future...

The future starts now.

Tzadeck, there is a kind of debate where two people stand on stage and argue opposing views. At the end the audience decides who wins. (As for objective/subjective: if you ask an audience member, “who won the debate”, he will use his personal preferences to decide. If you ask, “who said ‘I changed my mind and I agree with you’”, he will base his decision on something more objective.) I’m advocating a different type of debate, and I usually refrain from using the word “win” to avoid confusion. I am still hoping to someday be able to use “to win a debate” to mean “to change your opponent’s mind”, but I better put that off for now. Now that I think about it, maybe I shouldn’t use “politics” either.

Tzadeck Wrote:I agree that politics shouldn't work the way that it does, and that the debates highlight some of the disappointing truths about modern politics in America.

It’s good to know you don’t think of me as a mediocre philosophy student any more. Can I count on you to back those words up with some actions? You see, part of changing people’s minds will involve proving your actions are less hypocritical than theirs are.

Tzadeck Wrote:But that's not what you said originally,…

I didn’t mention “winning” in my first post. I also mentioned how to resolve the issue of party affiliation there. I’m not sure what everyone’s level of Japanese is here, but I was hoping for a place to practice my Japanese while debating.

Hey!! Anyone know any good live links to watch the election results roll in? (online)

i'm especially interested in streams with in depth analysis and commentary.

http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20076298
http://www.ustream.tv/cbsnews
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/election...video-chat (watch this for the LoLs)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

thanks!!!

youtube has it's own lineup too.... http://www.youtube.com/politics

So obama won and as predicted stocks are down despite all the predictions that an end to uncertainty would be good for markets.

Anyone able to take a guess at the date for total economic collapse?

nadiatims Wrote:as predicted stocks are down despite all the predictions

lol

as I predicted stocks are down despite all the predictions in the media that an end to uncertainty would be good for markets.

Stocks go up and down all the time; a 2% drop is hardly the beginning of the end. The market always overreacts to stuff -- if it keeps steadily going down for the next month or two we can start talking about financial collapse. The Dow Jones dropped even more in 2008 the day after Obama's first victory.

The stocks being down had very little to do with Obama being re-elected.

It had a lot more to do with the looming fiscal cliff in the US as well as worry over the EU which still has economic rumbles going on.

Total economic collapse will be brought on by the EU. Probably when the coalition in Greece collapses (very soon, since a new round of austerity measures just passed) and the Neo-nazi party, the Golden Dawn, comes into power; we'll have trouble. Because they'll probably put to vote the option to leave the Euro and it'll pass probably, sparking a chain reaction through the markets.

Of course it's a reaction to the reelection. Why else would the market wait until the election? The fiscal cliff has been looming for a long time now. The fall is a clear statement by the markets that for the economy at least, this was the worse of the 2 outcomes.
Whether that statement is correct or not, or whether it's an over-reaction waits to be seen.

Europe is of course a huge problem too, but may actually be propping up the US economy. Investors flee europe/euro and where do they go? some flee to the US/dollar (for now at least).

I don't think Golden Dawn is a problem yet. They only have like 7% of the vote.

Greece exiting the Euro wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing by the way.

I'm curious nadiatims, did you ever study economics?

Yes.

Though not at a university (which is I'm sure exactly what you wanted to hear).

I've been interested in economics as a hobby for a good 5 years or so, and like to consider myself reasonably capable of logical thinking (scored very highly in maths/sciences etc in school).

nadiatims Wrote:Yes.

Though not at a university (which is I'm sure exactly what you wanted to hear).

I've been interested in economics as a hobby for a good 5 years or so, and like to consider myself reasonably capable of logical thinking (scored very highly in maths/sciences etc in school).

That's fine, though I hope when you say you have studied economics as a hobby you don't mean that you read 6 or 7 non-fiction books about economics that make it interesting for the layman.

I don't know anything about economics myself, so I'm not disagreeing with you or mocking you as much as I'm exploring. Anytime you don't know anything about a topic (me), and someone else is talking about it (you), you use heuristics to try to figure out whether their information is trustworthy. You come off as being a lot more confident than you should be about your conclusions, but that's just a guess.

nadiatims Wrote:The fall is a clear statement by the markets that for the economy at least, this was the worse of the 2 outcomes.

Would the market have dropped less, or even rallied, if Romney had won? If so, why?

nadiatims Wrote:I don't think Golden Dawn is a problem yet. They only have like 7% of the vote.

This was posted yesterday before the austerity vote. Of note is the end bit.

Quote:The journal notes "If elections were held today, only 20% of Greeks respondents said they would vote for New Democracy—down from 29.7% in June—while Pasok saw its support cut almost in half to 6.5%, and Democratic Left by a third to just 4% and Syriza would garner 23% support, down from 26.9% in June."

Those percentages total only 53.5%. If all of those parties are losing votes then where are the votes going? Here's the depressing answer: the Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party.

I do hold a bit of skepticism since I can't see the actual data. However the Golden Dawn has been rising quite a bit recently and I'm pretty confident I recall hearing double digit figure support for them some months ago. Hell, the Greek police have started even referring people with immigrant problems to the Golden Dawn due to staffing issues.

Quote:Greece exiting the Euro wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing by the way.

This depends on who you ask and where you read. The biggest point of issue is that leaving the Euro means massive inflation on the dracma and means that most debts will default and trigger the insurance claims (blanking on term). No one really knows how intertwined the system is with these insurance claims but it has the potential to bankrupt some banks and create a domino effect. There are some other things I heard as well some months ago that go unmentioned in the media as well that could cause the system to go up in flame as well due to a domino effect. And if Greece exits and writes off all the debt like its nothing, you can probably expect Spain, Portugal, and Italy to leave as well.

In my opinion its only a question of when they leave the Euro not "if." Because of the public opinion in Germany about supporting these nations, no one will want to finance a deep Greek recovery on their tax dollars.

Another deep global recession is in the works. I don't believe Romney nor Obama can waylay it so to me, finger pointing and saying "Obama broke the economy." just seems stupid to me. None of the bad debt (ie: mortgages, etc) from the last recession was written off, it was merely consolidated and spread back out; its still in the system. The only sign I have for something like this is how the market can be sitting at near market highs before the last crash and 15% of Americans are still unemployed or working shitty jobs. The administration has gamed the reporting system to exclude large swaths of people from even being counted as possibly "unemployed" so unemployment numbers look nice, but only cause the workforce keeps shrinking. (And again, this is just capital hill politics, Reps. would have done the same dam thing)