• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Dglgmut

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  2. If Trump wins there are some very productive people who will be leaving the US to live in Canada. There are some appealing reasons in this video:
  3. Yes, depending on the context. A... You're right, but not in the context of the scene. Very good of you to point that out, though... valuable insight as usual.
  4. That clip is less offensive to Rand than I expected. I found the fact that the boss didn't wear shoes interesting and the fact that he trimmed the Bonsai bush even more interesting. In the martials arts, shoes are not generally worn, and the pursuit of "The Way" often includes not just learning the particular martial skill/art, but learning at least one other art as well, such as flower arranging, watercolor painting, archery, etc. Tending to Bonsai bush would fall right in with this notion. The play on that theme (if intentional) would be a very flattering nod to the idea that those appreciate Rand are also following "The Way". But alas, perhaps I am too much the optimist. That clip does not illustrate the character entirely, but it is the scene where he introduces his influence by Rand. The writer of the show is clearly ignorant of Rand's philosophy and did not realize how contradictory it is to have this character also invested in Japanese culture and new age spirituality... I believe she used these to show how greedy business men simply want comfort and pleasure (no morals). "Philanthropy is the gateway to power." Would a Randian hero say that?
  5. Rearranging or prioritizing beliefs may be a better way to put it. You are not contradicting any of their beliefs, but rather affirming the more important ones. It is then up to them to consistently apply their own reasoning and come to better conclusions. But to attack one of their conclusions off-the-bat will make your affirmations weaker. Therefore conclusions should never be addressed.
  6. Going back to this, I disagree with the theory behind this technique... A "pivot" entails a change of direction at a certain point. What I'm trying to understand is not persuasion, but rather imparting truth. In other words, exposing contradictions, or expanding non-contradictory beliefs. The concept of an argument actually implies some contradiction. There has to be disagreement. Yet, a successful argument necessitates complete agreement. How can two people agree conclusively if they have disagreed at any point in the line of reasoning that lead them there? They can't. If at any point one person has been derailed from the line of reasoning, they will not end up at the same conclusion. Imagine the truth as a length of beliefs in a straight line (non-contradictory), and misunderstandings are when one has that length of beliefs entangled. The contradictions come when beliefs cross each other... and deception is the process of entanglement. Imparting truth is untangling one's beliefs or extending that straight line. Therefor a mere pivot is not enough, you must make sure each belief along the way is in line... like vertebrae. And really, argument is probably not the best method to impart truth. An argument is like saying, "I'm going to straighten your beliefs out," and of course, people tense up. Like someone saying, "I'm going to straighten out your spine," there are conditions that make people more open to these things. This is why empathy is so important for successful communication.
  7. Ironically, Ayn Rand's philosophy is characterized in mainstream media as this: Bertram Cooper could easily be a villain in a Rand novel. He is portrayed as lazy, stupid, and greedy.
  8. But people can "desire" to do any number of masochistic things, many people think intervention is proper in these cases. The argument comes down to: Is homosexuality bad for the individual? Here's an interesting interview that is relevant:
  9. Very true. That said, I would go so far to say that even IF it were a choice, that wouldn't make any sexual preference immoral. There's no moral duty to reproduce, and not everyone wants a family. Well, like how I said that "God doesn't make gay people," I think the idea is that human sexuality is human sexuality (we're all the same). Of course that's not true, but that is the assumption that makes it a moral issue. If a person does something against his nature, you could argue that it is immoral because it is harmful to the individual.
  10. This is interesting but I'd argue that "born this way" is a reaction to the original idea that God does not make gay people. It is immoral because they were not born that way and that they are doing something they know is wrong. "Born this way" is not meant to challenge but to contradict one's beliefs. It is not a discrepancy between moralities, but metaphysics. I've heard that only 1% of people are actually born with the gay gene, but there is a psychological reason people become gay. I have no idea if that is true. But if people could turn gay because of psychological issues, it still wouldn't be a choice.
  11. Nobody is looking to politicians to persuade them. They don't look to politicians for moral guidance either. Most people think morality is fairly simple and obvious--which is why they are so quick to deem capitalists immoral. What they want from politicians is a plan. Bernie Sanders' goal is to make healthcare more affordable and reliable, especially for the less fortunate. Rand Paul's goal is... Bernie Sanders' plan is to socialize healthcare and get rid of a lot of the inefficiencies by consolidating what are currently separate entities. Rand Paul's plan is...
  12. I agree with the "riding the coat-tails" bit. What else though can socialists have, but a "willingness to compromise"? They HAVE to compromise for their system to at all survive. Capitalists have indeed budged, and compromised, and that circles back to the nub of the problem. A little casual there, Calvin, with "principles". Does one throw away principles when they interfere with one's "credibility" - or are perceived by listeners as stubborn and not being utilitarian enough? That's lack of integrity, which will get one, or a politico, even less credibility, deservedly. Well, no, they don't have to compromise on policies. But they are all about results, so if one policy does not work, they would be open to new ideas. The capitalist, on the other hand, is apparently unconcerned with results--which is troubling. Now that I think of it, principles don't really have a place in a debate or argument. If you bring up principles, then you have to be able to explain their purpose, which means their results, which makes the principles redundant. I'm not talking about whether one lives by his own principles, but whether one relies on principles to get his point across (if he even has a point).
  13. Yes that was good, but also that it doesn't need legislation or compulsion does not mean that legislation or compulsion would necessarily be a bad thing. If it ain't broke don't fix it, but unfortunately most people would probably feel "safer" with the legislation and compulsion.
  14. I don't know the answer, but I've done a good amount of theorizing and can make suggestions. The only way to know for sure is to experiment. I do stand up comedy so this is something I focus on a lot... I want to be able to talk about things that other people can't because they don't know how to avoid offending people. Offending people is like cutting the wrong wire when diffusing a bomb: you have to cut some wires to do the job, but you have to be very careful. That applies to politics just as much as comedy. Maybe it doesn't always blow up in your face, but it certainly takes a chunk of your momentum away. I think being able to articulate the desired outcome of your political system in positive terms is probably important. People don't really know what libertarians want, they just know what they don't want. They assume they want kids working in coal mines and people being shot for stepping on someone else's property... Why not make it known that the goals of libertarians are actually a lot more appealing and realistic than socialist alternatives? Instead of parroting the values of the socialist, why not give them a better option? Karl Popper's critical rationalism could inspire a persuasion tactic. Perhaps more effectively criticizing bad ideas in a simple and clear way is what is lacking. A lot of the criticisms of socialism are either too soft or too metaphorical and absurd. Rand's literal criticism in the last video I posted was that people might have legal issues when they're doing landscaping in their backyard... That doesn't hit hard enough at all... Then when he goes for something with more heat it's a wild characterization of his opponents. So he got off a bunt, then a big swing and a miss. I suppose you can't rely too heavily on criticism, though, as there are enough real examples of relatively successful socialist programs. Of course those programs are either riding the coat-tails of capitalist policies, or they only look good because there is not a capitalist example to compare to, or a bit of both. And one BIG difference between the capitalist and socialist debaters is the willingness to compromise. The socialist will say, "Well, if that works better maybe we could try that." Where the capitalist won't budge because "principles". The problem with coming off as stubborn is it takes away your credibility as being objective. It makes you seem like you'll follow your principles even if it leads to negative results. Anyway, there's a few ideas. I'm not saying I am smart enough to figure this out, but I do think it is something that should be explored for not just political reasons, but to promote the spreading of good ideas in general.
  15. The fact is that women are not built as well as men for certain activities and vice-versa, so the insult is completely valid. It's saying that even though you have an advantage in an area, you're still no good at it. And "like a man" certainly can be used as an insult to a girl or woman... I'm sure a female gymnast would not want to be told she executes certain movements "like a man," or a model to be told she walks "like a man," or any woman that any part of her looks "like a man." The whole "like a girl" thing is just more double standard BS.