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... ><

Last edited by IceCream (2012 October 02, 6:20 am)

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.

Any opinions on the debate between Obama and Romney?

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Last edited by qwertyytrewq (2012 October 14, 4:06 am)

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.

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...

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.