if the GOP had any real conservative principles, Trump would never have become leader — Wayfarer

How come I supported Trump's election then? I'm a conservative, and everyone knows that.

My point is that he's showing inconsistent principles by arguing against perceived injustice here but responding to political injustice by simply saying that that's how the game is played. — Michael

I'm responding to the injustice here because there's something I can do about it, and it's certainly not expected of an online forum to turn political.

And also that it's sociopathic to not care about things just because you can't change them. — Michael

No, I'm pretty sure that's not what sociopathic means.

The DSM-5 defines antisocial personality disorder as "[a] pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
• Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
• Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
• Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
• Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
• Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
• Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another."

I'm not violating anyone's rights by not caring about things I can't do nothing about.

There are words and there are definitions for them. Do you want me to justify language? — Noblosh

Yes there are definitions you make up in order to hide behind your nonexistant philosophy.

1.
to gain or get in return for one's labor or service:
to earn one's living.
2.
to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve:
to receive more than one has earned.
3.
to acquire through merit:
to earn a reputation for honesty.
4.
to gain as due return or profit:
Savings accounts earn interest.
5.
to bring about or cause deservedly:
His fair dealing earned our confidence.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/earn

Since when is earning (in any of the above definitions) necessarily tied to what someone is worth? Is a baby worth nothing because they haven't earned anything? Really this BS is hardly worth discussing. You either put in proper effort to defend your positions or there's really nothing to talk about.

You can't even recognise a syllogism?

1) I didn't earn anything
2) Worth is derived from what has been earned
3) Therefore I am not worth anything.

Your so called definition is nothing but premise 2. It's not a certainty, it's a premise. I'm asking you what justifies that premise? The conclusion is only as strong as the premises.

Of course it does, worth is derived from what has been earned. — Noblosh

Who says so?

That's another premise you're trying to smuggle in without justification.

That's pretty sociopathic. — Michael

So you'd rather be like one of those little girls crying about injustices around the world while sitting in their comfortable homes and doing nothing right? That's being a nice person right? Just sit back and say the right words, that will certainly fix the world up. Yeah that's certainly the way of fighting injustice. Condemning the Republicans... they must be rolling on the floor with laughter.

The world doesn't care about cries. The world only changes with actions. You or me or anyone can cry as much as we want about all injustices. The world itself is silent. And God only helps those who dare take action.

I don't see any proposals for action in this thread. All I see is crying about this and that.

if I never earned anything because everything was given to me, then I have no individual worth. — Noblosh

No this doesn't follow.

1) I didn't earn anything
2) Therefore I'm not worth anything

That's an incomplete argument right there. (2) doesn't follow from (1).

Then you should condemn the Republican party for their gerrymandering and voter suppression attempts, because they're being injustice. — Michael

Why? So that I give them the joy of laughing in my face?

I'm not saying that they would be just. I'm saying that they're not, and that this is a terrible thing. — Michael

Yeah, so what? It's a terrible thing. So? Is that gonna change it?

What's the point? Jesus, are you just not human? People care about terrible things that happen in the world even if there's nothing they can do to stop them. — Michael

I care about terrible things that I can do something about. If I can't do something about it then the energy I spend caring about it is wasted energy. It ain't going to change whatever happened. It's just going to fill my soul with negativity and put me down.

How do you respond to the recent terror attacks? — Michael

I'd say:

(1) No point crying about spilt milk.
(2) Need to be careful in public spaces which are potential terrorist targets.
(3) Tragedy can hit at any moment.
(4) If I was in politics (or I ever get elected), I'd do something about it.
(5) Do I know any of the victims, and is there anything I can do for them?

You don't seem to care. — Michael

Yes, because they're doing politics. I don't expect them to play fair to begin with. That's how politics is. If I have an opponent in politics, I wouldn't expect him to play fair - you have to be ready for everything.

So what I'm talking about isn't whether what they're doing is good or not. I'm talking about your silly expectation that they would be just. That's the bigger problem.

And yet you do care about perceived injustice on this forum. This seems like inconsistent principles on your part. — Michael

No it's not. I am concerned about injustice in those places where I can make a difference. If I was a political actor in America, I might be concerned about the injustice there too, because I could do something about it. But what's the point about being concerned about something you can't do anything about? You're not a political actor. Let political actors sort it out themselves, and don't have expectations of them. If you don't want to do that, then join politics and make a difference. But don't sit on the sidelines crying about X or Y. That's useless.

So is justice important to you? — Michael

To me personally, yes. But I don't expect this to hold true for others by necessity.

This coming from someone who complains so much about the supposed injustice of the moderation here. — Michael

Right, and since when is an internet forum the equivalent of politics? :s We're not here to battle out for political victory, so I don't understand at all why you're even making that reference. Do you consider the forum to be a political arena? And by the way Real Politik has little to do with principles. Ghandi had principles - he still had to be sly as a serpent though.

Anyway, this ad hominem does you well - saves you from addressing any of my points.

I think the Conservatives have this election in the bag pretty much, once again. But Labour will be close percentage wise.

You might be OK with a one-party authoritarian state, but most of us would prefer a legitimate democracy. — Michael

Politics is politics. The players of politics (that doesn't mean you the citizen) know this. Democracy, or oligarchy or dictatorship - they don't care. Just the means they have to employ to stay in power changes. For them, it's all the same, regardless of political system. That's one of the disadvantages of politics - it's all about power, even if the masks change. And that is true even if you're fighting for a good cause like Ghandi - Ghandi also had to be wise as a serpent and outmanoeuvre the British.

What alternative reality are you living in? He's only humiliating himself. — Michael

He did humiliate them DURING the elections - even merely by winning and then rubbing it in their faces.

I'm saying that the Republicans do, and so that they're not just guilty of turning a blind eye to Trump "destroying the republic in full view of everyone" (as Wayfarer puts it). — Michael

Yes, but you're neglecting to mention the fact that Wayfarer is a pink-cloud flying 60s liberal spirituality guy. That's expected from him.

But in all seriousness now, I don't think Trump is "destroying the republic" - he's just taking things on a completely different path compared to Obama. The break between Bush and Obama was big, but it's not as big as the break between Trump and Obama. That - combined with the fact that Trump has utterly humiliated the media - encourages a one-sided portrayal of his Presidency.

No, I mean that every citizen has a reasonable opportunity to vote. So none of the suppression tactics that are designed to practically disenfranchise certain groups of people. — Michael

Why not? Politics is a battle, which requires wits and intelligence to win. Yes, underhanded tactics can always exist, and as a political opponent you should be aware of them, even if you don't use them yourself. So failure to be aware of them and finding a way to counter them is YOUR failure.

In what sense it had fallen? In the sense that there were severe shortages of food, social and economic unrest, etc.? Sure. But it was still a very strong country militarily. America or China couldn't go and conquer them - otherwise they probably would have done it.

I was agreeing with you. — Mongrel

By saying "No"? >:O You're quite a peculiar character :P

you'll never pay it back. — Agustino

No. It will never be repaid. — Mongrel

Did I say something different? :s

The US is $19 trillion in debt. No Marshall Plan for us. :( — Mongrel

No, you aren't 19 trillion in debt. You stole 19 trillion - everyone knows you'll never pay it back.

I am struggling to recall the 'bloody arena' in which the Soviet Union fell. — mcdoodle

The Soviet Union never fell. They relinquished some territories temporarily and opened themselves to foreign investment and trade in order to modernise themselves and come back stronger than ever before. There was nothing to gain except economic stagnation by remaining stuck with Communism, and blocked from the rest of the world. But you think the ex Soviet bloc isn't still there? Ukraine is really part of Russia, so is Estonia, etc. They are absolutely controlled, to this day.

The Soviet Union never lost power. Russia has always remained one of the top 5 global powers, even when the Soviet Union fell apart.

There's no percentage in running the show — Mongrel

Yes there is. The percentage is that you set the terms, and just like the casino, when you set the terms, you generally win.

Britain and France abdicated world leadership after WW2. Maybe it's just time for the US to retire into obscurity? — Mongrel

Oh yeah, and Britain and France gave up power peacefully... because that's just what you do when you hold the reigns of power, you freely give them away without a fight... :s

Or, maybe the West is trying to be a little more civilized than they have been in the past. The West has had plenty of practice in the exercise of force. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but the problem with this approach is that the enemies of the West don't play by these rules. Therefore the West is at a disadvantage.

It looks like you failed to notice the word 'political' before the word 'freedom'. — andrewk

Who needs that? Politics is a bloody arena, where things are taken by force, whether that force is controlling the masses (Ghandi) or controlling the armies (Hitler) or otherwise. You have political freedom to say and think you disagree with policies and people. Someone in Russia can say they think what Putin is doing isn't good policy for Russia. You don't have political freedom to protest (if you do, then you're obviously joining in the political arena as a political player), form political parties, etc. And it doesn't seem all that unnatural that that is so. As I said, politics is a battlefield - there are consequences for actions.

How do you explain the contradiction in your views for a country to develop rapidly, and the rather contradiction you see, as you described it, in terms of how Russia has been developing under Putin? — Question

The development of a country's economy isn't the most important factor to a country's success. Its influence, and strategic positioning with regards to the future and its competitors - that's what matters the most. Economy is relevant only to produce sufficient resources.

For regular people though - not for countries - economy probably is a much more important factor. Personally for example I support free-market based economic systems - not exactly like US, but not exactly like Russia either. The idea is to have free markets that are dominated by entrepreneurship, not by bankers, speculators, or government bureaucrats and oligarchs.

Also, in regards to the above quote, you seem to describe that force matters in the end; but, fail to point at the US as the supreme user of force in mitigating conflicts in the past. How come? — Question

And that's what made the US great in the first place. It wasn't the "free market", etc. That's all BS. The US was great because it intervened at the very end in two global conflicts (WWI and WWII) and managed to set the terms after both conflicts with everyone. It got ahold of resources, it got ahold of influence, and it loaned reparation money (Marshal Plan for ex.) to most of Europe. It's hard not to be great when you set the terms.

I have heard people say this about Russia a lot. How is South Korea, for instance, so economically successful? What is so different about China? — mcdoodle

Simple. SK or China don't have centralised control. Sure, China is a dictatorship, but there is no one supreme leader of China. China is ruled by a group of strategists which decide what is best, not by a single person. Therefore power is more distributed, and when power is more distributed, it's possible to generate much faster economic growth. Whereas when you have one leader centralising control, he cannot risk things escaping out of control because (for example) someone is getting too rich. So everyone must be controlled.

China found the optimum point between control and freedom. I think their system is the most advanced to date, and China is likely to rule the future - as it has ruled for most of history actually. China has had some of the best strategic minds.

There's nothing to clarify, you're just not reading what I'm saying charitably, and misinterpreting things.

If everything I have the world just gave me, then I have no individual worth and therefore my input is not even worthwhile, so again, why bother? — Noblosh

It doesn't follow from everything you have being given to you that you have no individual worth for example. These are two distinct ideas. You who prise "logic" should know that.

If everything I have the world just gave me, then I have no individual worth and therefore my input is not even worthwhile, so again, why bother? — Noblosh

You're being purposefully obnoxious.

If I have everything already, why bother doing anything? — Noblosh

Don't be purposefully obnoxious. It's not that you have everything (you don't), but rather that everything that you have has been given by the world.

I detect a pattern. — Wayfarer

Yes, I prefer strong leaders to weak leaders. Do you expect me to prefer Crooked? Crooked can't even get her own life straight, much less a country.

Protests, etc. are another matter though. — Agustino

No, this is the part you didn't quote.

No it isn't. It's giving due weightage to what many define as ''progress'' - to reinstate (so to speak) the element of time to its rightful place in our reality and this is exactly what pessimists fail to do (to their peril). — TheMadFool

Trends represent average (the status quo). Optimists want to be better than average. Therefore optimists are always ahead of trends (or seek to be). They are the ones who push the world forward.

If the world owes me nothing then I owe the world nothing. I do not concern myself with that which doesn't reciprocate. — Noblosh

This is the wrong understanding. The world owes you nothing because it has already given you everything.

Thank you comrade. I must commend your always unswerving faithfulness and loyalty to the great cause. You are indeed an exemplar to all the progressive and scientific people of this uncertain world. — Wayfarer

You should read my full reply, not quote only a small segment of it.

Now, under Putin, they have no political freedom, and high unemployment and homelessness. It looks to me like, on the whole they were better off under either the Soviets or Yeltsin. — andrewk

This is not true. In Communist times you were given a job, and you had to work it, whether you liked it or not. You had no freedom to move in society. This isn't the case today. You have a lot more freedom. Freedom of religious expression, etc. The problem is that many people still expect the state to give them a job. They expect to be given things. Opportunities, etc. It's a mindset problem. People want to be given. They can't take for themselves. They can't create their own jobs, etc.

These ''trends'' you seem to be demonizing are derived off of you too. — TheMadFool

So what? I still don't care about the trends. My purpose is to maximise my health - I don't care if the trends are that everyone else is getting sick. To maximise my health - do better than others - means doing what others aren't doing anyways. So trends only give me information on what not to do, where not to be, etc.

Caring about trends is still a sign of pessimism and mediocrity.

But in Russia, not approving of Putin has enormous risks — Wayfarer

False. Disapproving of Putin is not a problem. Protests, etc. are another matter though.

Russian opinion polls have a very high approval for Putin — Wayfarer

Yes, because Putin is making Russia strong again. The Russian people are sick and tired of always being seconds or thirds.

This might be a topic worthy of another thread; but, why isn't Russia more developed as a nation, and will it ever be for the matter? — Question

For a country to develop at a very quick rate it must encourage entrepreneurship, and let the economy run freely and openly. Russia isn't doing this. There's a few people who have been allowed to own a lot of resources, but small businesses have a hard time (especially small producers). The bureaucracy is too much.

Furthermore, a quickly developing economy requires deregulation and decentralisation. The head of state can no longer dictate everything - he must allow others - economic leaders - to dictate the terms. Thus power needs to be spread through a network, and people cannot be kept under control anymore.

do you think Putin is doing a good job at restoring the power and might of the former Soviet Union? Why or why not? — Question

Yes, absolutely. He is centralising power, removing opposition, and directing the country towards and clear and unified goal. He is also building a very strong military, because ultimately, what decides the course of things in this world is brute force. Not money. Not influence. Not anything else. Force always has the last say. The West is failing to realise this.

He is also influencing the rest of the world, through different actions, down paths that in the long term are more profitable to Russia. Weakening the EU is one such action.

However, note that pessimistic philosophy speaks in generals i.e. they commit, according to you, the same "error" you accuse me of. — TheMadFool

Yes, they are equally stupid. However, even the pessimistic philosophy is often framed in terms of the individual, not in terms of the direction of mankind.

You seem to disregard the general trend and point to specifics that contradict my view on the matter. — TheMadFool

I don't care about trends. I don't live in trends. I live in a specific and concrete situation. And so does everyone else. Nobody lives in trends.

The pessimistic philosophy is a static one. Life, on the other hand, is dynamic - it moves (so to speak). The present is drastically different from the past - we live longer, less disease, etc. The present is better than the past. I think this trend will continue and the future will be even better. So, as a philosophy, pessimism is backward and unproductive. — TheMadFool

This is a stupid way to think about things. The present is better than the past IF you don't live in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Pessimism and optimism has to do with attitudes, which are local and not global in nature. "We live longer, etc." is bullshit. The average human may live longer, but that doesn't mean that YOU will live longer. So there's no reason to be jumping up and down with joy at the progress of an abstract construct like "the human race". The average human may have access to better medical care. But YOU may not, because you don't live in a country providing great medical care, or you lack the money necessary, etc.

For something to "come roaring back" suggests that it has either been destroyed and then arisen again or at least very nearly destroyed, and then very quickly resurged.

Do you have even one example of the latter to at least provide almost no support for your contention that life "always comes roaring back". — John

>:O >:O >:O

Life is a pain in the ass... — schopenhauer1

It may sometimes be a pain in the anoos, but stop complaining about it for God's sake! >:O

I don't think so. The system seems to be treating the it-in-itself not as a ground in the sense of PSR, but rather as just as something, beyond representation, which is necessarily given with Will and phenomena. A sort of metaphysic of immanent presence, where the point is not how the thing-in-itself justified everything else (i.e.PSR), but that's mutually present with anything.

If the thing-in-itself is a necessary side of the reality coin (Will being the other), how does it make sense to speak of the thing-in-itself like a realm which has no significance in relation to Will or phenomena?

While we may not be able to say exactly what the thing-in-itself is, we do know it is a necessary presence given with Will and phenomena. Though not Will or phenomena, we know the thing-in-itself is given with any instance of Will and phenomena. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, I can agree with this.

Think about this community here. I think most people here are above average in terms of how informed and knowledgeable they are. But there's not that many equally informed or more informed than here. But there's A LOT more less informed. So if people here go and vote, will it really make a big difference? I don't think so.

That's if we assume a normal distribution. I think the distribution is skewed.


Like this. So even if the smartest, most informed people in the nation go to vote, their vote doesn't matter. They don't have sufficient votes. In the end it's still the below average that decides.

then elections will be decided by the stupid, the ignorant and the irrational. — unenlightened

Aren't elections already decided by the stupid, ignorant and irrational? That's the nature of a democracy to begin with. The majority rules, and the majority can only be average.