SoAMadDeathWish Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 Are you putting the cart before the horse? Back then it was "self evident" because the brain work had already been done. The same as for today for those (few) who have done the brainwork. That is, no need to think it out and through time and again. "Self evident" is when you are talking to people who have already done the same brainwork creating an artificial tautology. The question is has Naomi done any of this brainwork or is she taking intellectual refuge by claiming a fallacy then shutting up? If the latter, there's not much excuse for a failure to have properly examined the core rhetorical-intellectual propaganda on which this country was founded.--BrantMy position is that the arguments for a representative republic are nothing more than rationalizations of the status quo. I am not advocating for a constitutional direct democracy, just using it as a theoretical example to test the consistency of the claims made in favor of a representative republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 If checks and balances cannot prevent this from happening in a constitutional direct democracy, then the problem is even worse for a constitutional republic.If your claims about checks and balances are to be believed, then a direct democracy should be better at distributing power than a republic. If this is not the case, then checks and balances don't actually work, contradicting your original claims.Naomi,That's an opinion, I suppose.And you're entitled to it.Once again, there's the reality connection missing.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 If checks and balances cannot prevent this from happening in a constitutional direct democracy, then the problem is even worse for a constitutional republic.If your claims about checks and balances are to be believed, then a direct democracy should be better at distributing power than a republic. If this is not the case, then checks and balances don't actually work, contradicting your original claims.Naomi,That's an opinion, I suppose.And you're entitled to it.Once again, there's the reality connection missing.MichaelIt's your argument that is disconnected from reality. If you cannot provide evidence and rational justification for a belief, or if it can't stand up to rational scrutiny then get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Naomi,I my world--out here in reality--there is a convention of states coming and it will shackle many of the excesses the government has taken upon itself.I intend to work to help make that happen--like a lot of people who normally don't engage in politics.You don't have to accept that, but you will have to live with the result of that check and balance.It's a reality thing.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 Naomi,I my world--out here in reality--there is a convention of states coming and it will shackle many of the excesses the government has taken upon itself.I intend to work to help make that happen--like a lot of people who normally don't engage in politics.You don't have to accept that, but you will have to live with the result of that check and balance.It's a reality thing.MichaelI only know that I know nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Are you putting the cart before the horse? Back then it was "self evident" because the brain work had already been done. The same as for today for those (few) who have done the brainwork. That is, no need to think it out and through time and again. "Self evident" is when you are talking to people who have already done the same brainwork creating an artificial tautology. The question is has Naomi done any of this brainwork or is she taking intellectual refuge by claiming a fallacy then shutting up? If the latter, there's not much excuse for a failure to have properly examined the core rhetorical-intellectual propaganda on which this country was founded.--BrantMy position is that the arguments for a representative republic are nothing more than rationalizations of the status quo. I am not advocating for a constitutional direct democracy, just using it as a theoretical example to test the consistency of the claims made in favor of a representative republic.The claims don't matter. We have what we have and had what we had. They don't completely overlap for several reasons apart from the mere passage of time. If they are what you say--"rationalizations of the status quo"--your replacement is . . . ? (You may have already said this and I missed it.) And how do you expect your replacement to be an actual one? Whole? Parts?--Brantand we will get what we will get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Naomi,I my world--out here in reality--there is a convention of states coming and it will shackle many of the excesses the government has taken upon itself.I intend to work to help make that happen--like a lot of people who normally don't engage in politics.You don't have to accept that, but you will have to live with the result of that check and balance.It's a reality thing.MichaelI only know that I know nothing.Shame on you for that.--Brantnot that you can know shame (?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Brant,I think she was trying to say, with a double to a famous philosophy quote, she doesn't agree with my projection of the future. And the thing misfired.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Brant,I think she was trying to say, with a double to a famous philosophy quote, she doesn't agree with my projection of the future. And the thing misfired. MichaelShame on me for jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because I thought it was on the ground.--Brantarrrhhhhhh!splat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 My position is that the arguments for a representative republic are nothing more than rationalizations of the status quo. I am not advocating for a constitutional direct democracy, just using it as a theoretical example to test the consistency of the claims made in favor of a representative republic.The claims don't matter. We have what we have and had what we had. They don't completely overlap for several reasons apart from the mere passage of time. If they are what you say--"rationalizations of the status quo"--your replacement is . . . ? (You may have already said this and I missed it.) And how do you expect your replacement to be an actual one? Whole? Parts?--Brantand we will get what we will getNothing. Why would I argue for the truth of a belief that I don't believe to be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 Shame on you for that.--Brantnot that you can know shame (?)"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Shame on you for that.--Brantnot that you can know shame (?)"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."Are you quoting Plato who wrote about Socrates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Bob,Actually she's not being very consistent.She knows I'm wrong.She's said so several times. The quote (ah! Wikis ) could be amended to:I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.Except where he is wrong and I am right. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 My position is that the arguments for a representative republic are nothing more than rationalizations of the status quo. I am not advocating for a constitutional direct democracy, just using it as a theoretical example to test the consistency of the claims made in favor of a representative republic.The claims don't matter. We have what we have and had what we had. They don't completely overlap for several reasons apart from the mere passage of time. If they are what you say--"rationalizations of the status quo"--your replacement is . . . ? (You may have already said this and I missed it.) And how do you expect your replacement to be an actual one? Whole? Parts?--Brantand we will get what we will getNothing. Why would I argue for the truth of a belief that I don't believe to be true?You're an anarchist?--Brantsorry I missed that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 You're an anarchist?--Brantsorry I missed thatNo. I just don't believe that a constitutional republic is the best form of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Shame on you for that.--Brantnot that you can know shame (?)"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."But you know you are wiser?--BrantI know the feeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 You're an anarchist?--Brantsorry I missed thatNo. I just don't believe that a constitutional republic is the best form of government.Monarchy is pretty good.--Brantsee the USA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 Brant, Baal, MichaelI was alluding to the socratic method.I did not actually put forth a contrary position and try to defend it. Like Socrates, I was merely challenging Michael to think one step further than he had ever before.Who is right and who is wrong is irrelevant. Rationality is not about winning arguments. Being the smartest person on Earth is a lot like being a tall dwarf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Like I said, a reality connection is missing.We have to live in this world, not in our heads only.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Like I said, a reality connection is missing. We have to live in this world, not in our heads only. Michael Utopian fantasy is a problem specific to the intellect... until objective reality comes around to wake us up. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Brant, Baal, MichaelI was alluding to the socratic method.I did not actually put forth a contrary position and try to defend it. Like Socrates, I was merely challenging Michael to think one step further than he had ever before.Who is right and who is wrong is irrelevant. Rationality is not about winning arguments. Being the smartest person on Earth is a lot like being a tall dwarf.Intellectual SM.How does it feel, Michael?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Who is right and who is wrong is irrelevant. Rationality is not about winning arguments. Being the smartest person on Earth is a lot like being a tall dwarf..You're "the smartest person on Earth"--or . . . ?--Brant"a tall dwarf"--or . . .? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 Intellectual SM.How does it feel, Michael?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 You're the "smartest person on Earth"?--BrantOf course not.I'm the smartest person in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 You're the "smartest person on Earth"?--BrantOf course not.'m the smartest person in the universe. But it wouldn't be a big deal if you were, would it? Everybody's dumb.--Branthow could even a "tall dwarf" begin to imagine the God-like intelligence of a superior being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now