The rest of us are able to see that another person excercising their liberties isn't necessarily a threat to our liberties. — Harry Hindu

What are you talking about specifically? — frank

Some examples would include a black person marching against police brutality, in which some cops view that as a threat to their holding a job. Marching against police brutality won't make you lose your job if you aren't a cop engaging in police brutality. If you are a good cop, then you should be joining the march as weeding out those bad cops will give all cops a better name for themselves. All groups have been victims of police brutality.

A white person marching for ensuring that votes are legitimate doesn't threaten someone's rights to vote. It is ensuring that all legal votes count and illegal votes don't. If you weren't voting illegally, then you should welcome such a cause and even join the march, as it is valuable to all legal voters to ensure that the power of their vote is not diminished by illegal votes. All legal voters are negatively affected by illegal votes.

Ok,

Well let's say (sorry I had a toke) I stack a big group of deterministic tiles (let's just say I conceded and that's what they are) and I know that for this deterministic tile, it will hit the next deterministic tile and it will fall etc. I can put just one non deterministic tile in the group of tiles, that may or may not fall, and if you replay knocking these tiles down as dominoes over many times, you will have a very non deterministic outcome overall!, when you add up all these different results. — Paul S

All you have done here is show that each instance in time is unique, yet similar to other instances in time. Each state-of-affairs is determined by prior states-of-affairs, its just that each state-of-affairs is unique and not the same as other states-of-affairs, yet they can be similar enough to be predictable, depending on what we are focusing our attention on.

It's not that the world is non-deterministic. It is deterministic as each state-of-affairs is determined by prior states. Our ignorance of all the intricate details of each state-of-affairs can lead us to believe that some state is not deterministic, but it is simpy our ignorace of the difference between some known state-of-affairs in the past and the state-of-affairs in the future that we are trying to predict that is similar, yet slightly different in some relevent way to the one in the past that makes our prediction fail.

Indeterminism isn't some real aspect of reality. It is only an idea in the minds of humans that has no reality beyond the minds of humans. It is an idea that stems from our ignorant view of reality.

Who are the people engaged in this cold race war? — frank

The extremists on both sides, and the politicians that use the rehetoric that created and then reinforce the extremists. The rest of us are able to see that another person excercising their liberties isn't necessarily a threat to our liberties. Only when others try to take a larger piece of the pie than they deserve because they've been led to believe that they have been slighted in some way, does it affect everyone. Over-representing some is under-representing others.

e.g. Both Allied & German forces at Normandy on D-Day 1944 had blood on their hands.

e.g. Both ante bellum Abolitionists & Slave Owners, like post bellum militant Freedmen & Klansmen, had blood on their hands.

e.g. Both strikers and strike-breaker police at the Haymarket Riot 1889 had blood on their hands.

( ... )

Drawing false equivalences where there aren't any, Hindu, is ahistorical demogoguery as well as the (second? to) last refuge of moral cowardice. :shade: — 180 Proof

I have no idea what your point is in showing these examples. I thought the Allies were priviliged racists, and you forgot to include your communist comrades in Russia who had innocent blood on their hands, too.

So yeah, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. When you've been indoctrinated to think that everyone that isn't like you in some way is out to get you in some way, then anyone that isn't like you that fights for their rights is viewed as a terrorist, as if those that aren't like you in some way can't have their liberty without ever infringing upon your liberties. Asking for liberty for all doesn't necessarily mean taking liberties from some. It just depends on what entails "liberty" for you.

A disingenuous and otherwise useless platitude. Predation and defense are not the two sides of the same coin. They are different. The real question is where justice lies. Obfuscate this and you are the enemy. Or would you say that among the murderers there are fine people? — tim wood

There’s probably a difference between poetic and comedic expression and protesting police brutality on the one side and mindless insurrection on the other. — praxis

I agree that there is, it's just that I'm not biased to think that only one side engages in poetic and comedic expression, while the other engages in hate and oppression. Both sides have hateful oppressors and poets and comedians, but you are only capable of seeing the world through your prism of politics.

But where's the race war? Maybe I just don't understand what a race war is, if there's one underway. Do you see it? — frank

Maybe it's more like a "Cold" Race War, rather than a "Hot" Race War.

I love how the media blames the politicians when they are just as culpable for propagating lies and misinformation. After all, they report what the liars in government say, as if any of it is actually other than meaningless platitudes and spin. If the media actually did think that all the whites in power were such evil racists, then why do they give them a platform to speak on their news channels? Fucking hypocrites.

Questioning that there was a riot at the Capitol? No. I'm not questing that. I'm questioning the premise that everyone at the Capitol was there to riot and that they were all white and all racists. :roll:

I seem to recall some left-wing celebrities threatening to blow up the White House and posing with a " beheaded" Trump, and riots during the summer that destroyed both private and public property and in which people lost their lives. There is vitriol from both sides. Both sides have blood on their hands.

Your definition, as I recall it, was fallacious, but I don't want to over dwell on it. I'm not that pedantic
I don't think so! — Paul S

I used your definition. Are you paying attention?

Indeterminism can be composed of partly deterministic parts. I don't see a logical fallacy in that. — Paul S

I do.

And you contradicted yourself again:

We have not proven whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or not.But if any of it is indeterministic then it all is, if you get me, because if you have a chain of events in a system that is deterministic but for one part, then the overall outcome is indeterministic. That's what I'm trying to get at. — Paul S

If any of it is indeterministic then it all is, right? There would be no deterministic parts if any of it was indeterministic.

You obviously are not paying attention. You can't even remember what you wrote.

It's not enough 'not to be racist (fascist)'; you're either anti-racist (anti-fascist) — 180 Proof

It's the same thing. Or not, depending on one's definition of racism, which is a term that has been misused, or over-used, in the past several years. So much so that racism has lost its meaning.

Confused you with another "white guy". — 180 Proof

I'm not a white guy asshole — frank

So typical.
As if anyone that disagrees with you is "white".
As if anyone that says, "no" to black is racist.

You had exhibited that you didn't understand what it meant in the first place, which was a bit intellectually lazy of you.

You seem to be upset that I called you out on not knowing what you were talking about. — Paul S

I exhibited no such thing. You exhibited a misunderstanding of what I was saying. So I had to show you that my explanation fit your definition of determinism - a definition that I agree with. You didn't respond to that - hence your intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not saying I'm comfortable about the indeterministic argument for quantum mechanics. It is what is is I guess. — Paul S

What is the indeterministic argument for QM? Again, if a theory is providing reasons for some observation, then the theory is deterministic.

Think Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Toledo, and more. Tens of millions of white workers in working-class factories were out of work, losing their high-paying jobs forever. Have they chosen to live with your problems? What are their chances of solving their problems?. — Miguel Hernández

Sure. Not wanting to learn anything new is the problem. Adapt and evolve is the solution.

This type of thing has been happening since humans have had jobs. Think about the decline of religion thanks to the discoveries in science. Religion has had to adapt and change to stay viable.

The reality is very complex. The problems faced by millions of people are not created or solved by themselves. — Miguel Hernández

I never said that one solution solves every problem or even that one solution works for everyone. Thinking requires work and doesn't come easy for many people.

To be fair insanity has befallen on those working heavily in fields on the question of determinism, quantum mechanics and infinity. The latter has certainly driven some mathematicians stark raving mad. — Paul S

No. Insanity has befallen on you as you have exhibited a tendency to be intellectually dishonest and inconsistent in your venture to prove determinism to be false.

All you have done is provide reasons for indeterminism to be the case, but all you have shown is that this reasons determine whether or not indeterminism to be the case. In effect, indeterminism is a paradox.

Rationalism in politics is nonsense. All rationalists believe that any problem can be understood and has a solution. Great nonsense. — Miguel Hernández

Every problem does have a solution. Its just that some people prefer to live with the problem rather than the solution, which is a solution (decision) in itself.

For cooking, playing poker, or competing in lovemaking, there is no theoretical program or knowledge to replace practical experience. If you want to cook badly, lose at poker, or ruin your love story, consult a manual or follow the steps in a biology treatise or on a computer. If you wish the love of a woman and you believe in Darwin, what a shock awaits you, friend. — Miguel Hernández

You're forgetting how we animals are programmed by natural selection to have experiences, to love, be sad, etc. (Evolutionary psychology - know anything about it?).

Now that we're on the subject, what exactly is an experience?

Computers are illogical. Who determines what information is relevant? The programmer, not the machine. A computer is a fast fool. Let's try not to be slow fools. — Miguel Hernández

How exactly does the programmer decide what information is relevant but a computer can't?

Humans are programmed by natural selection. So natural selection "selected" what is relevant for humans, and it can do the same with computers that are designed to learn.

Everytime you make an argument about how things are for everyone, even if they disagree with you, and provide reasons for those arguements you are supporting the idea of determinism.
— Harry Hindu

That's not what determinism at all, is as I understand it. — Paul S

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. — Paul S

Reasons are causes. Conclusions are events. Conclusions are determined by your reasons. Seems like it fits perfectly with how you understand determinism.

The illusion of being ruled by machines is seductive by the principle of equality. It seems like a way to ensure that the law applies equally to everyone. Great, huh? But if the best government is that of the machines, perhaps only they should vote. This we may not like so much. — Miguel Hernández

Computers are logical. They won't use irrelevant information like skin color when determining who gets jobs, political appointments, etc., In effect, they would be color-blind and the images on our tele-screen would be accurately represent the composition and diversity of the population (rather than what we have now, which is over-representing and under-representing certain groups for political purposes).

It's just that its obviously impossible for us to set the conditions for both pendulums to be in the exact state and trace the exact same path. It will never happen. — Paul S

Here you are providing reasons as to why something is impossible or possible. So it seems that what is possible or not is determined by some prior set of circumstances.

All you have to do is go back and read all your posts and you will see that thinking deterministically is inescapable. You will always provide reasons and prior conditions as the means of supporting your conclusions and subsequent conditions.

Everytime you make an argument about how things are for everyone, even if they disagree with you, and provide reasons for those arguements you are supporting the idea of determinism.

You're making the assumption that the human brain and nervous system is deterministic. — Paul S

I wasnt talking about the nervous system and brain. I was talking about reasoning.
Its not an assumption that reasoning is that act of using reasons to support your conclusions.

I didn't just pull the assertion out of my ass. I had a reason to make that assertion, just like you have reasons to support your assertions. Those reasons determine your assertions.

From the moment you receive the dice in your hands to the moment the dice have stopped rolling, what aspects of the event are indeterministic? — Paul S

Are you asking if indeterministic events are determined?

It is impossible to tell at this stage of science if existence is deterministic because perturbing a system in order to measure it changes the state of the system. — Enrique

Sound deterministic to me.

Any time you use prior conditions to explain subsequent conditions, you are implying determinism (observing/perturbing a system changes the system).

As a matter of fact, we can't really help thinking this way. As a matter of fact, reasoning is deterministic. Reasons determine conclusions. If they didn't, then what reason would you have for believing what you believe?

Sure there is. But that wasn't the question. If I programmed the computer to "rule them all", then I wouldn't be programming a swamp computer. It would be an anti-swamp computer, designed to track the income of all politicians and see how they're being influenced, and listen in and watch via Webcam and microphones their "secret" conversations, to hear and see what they really say and do without cameras and mics around, you know, like that School Board Zoom meeting in Cali that exposed the school board members as a group of shitty hypocrites.

I also pointed out that we each only provided one source and each of our sources says the complete opposite so where does that leave us if not with the fact that both parties are equally corrupt, which is what you and I seem to have agreed upon,, but now it seems you'd rather perform mental gymnastics in an effort to show that im wrong somewhere in my arguement, but I'm not. Keep flipping, Flipper.

The "swamp" programmed it. — Don Wade

How would that be any different than what we have now?

Are we at the point yet where we - as a Nation - could be openly governed by one, or more, computers? Would we vote for a compouter if we thoght the computer(s) was better able to govern than any human entities? — Don Wade

Depends on who programmed it.

Political parties are a consequence of freedom of association. US law does not recognize political parties as part of the governmental structure; they're just private groups of people pursuing the same political ends together. So I'm not clear what you want done to ban political parties, if not just banning people with similar political interests from working together toward those ends. — Pfhorrest

This doesn't address how one party would come to power if there were no parties. You're moving the goalposts.

I'm not saying that ppl can't work together towards a common goal, except when the goal is subverting and oppressing others, or when your primary goal is to hate another group because they have different goals. Most ppl would come together for a single issue and trying to incorporate other issues will just alienate some if the group that doesn't agree on every issue.

The problem is that the parties have adopted contradictory positions and there isn't any meaningful distinction between them. And if the only two groups don't represent your interests then it sucks to be a minority in that respect. There is a two-party system privilege in the U.S.


Winner-take-all is a law that prevents other groups from having a viable chance. Diverges law states that 3rd parties can't compete, not to mention the media that would rather give a voice to hypocrites and maintain the status quo.

Now you're just being a disagreeable. There was a discussion about the facts Michael used and you tried to waylay it with a subcategory of crimes, which is not possible because it's comparing apples with pears. — Benkei

No. It seems like you are the one arguing forthe sake if arguing.. Be more specific. What is the subcategory that you are talking about? Corruption is what we were talking about, so what part of the link that I provided is about something other than corruption?

Just my take. I mean what's done is done. Neither camp can everse its choice. Shouldn't you just grow up and not post stuff like this in a philosophy forum. Wallowing in and projecting your misery or false sense of satisfaction won't fix anything or improve your life. — Paul S

The problem is that we have camps in the first place.

Your favorite would hurt you in any way possible — tim wood

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Where on this forum have I ever said that Trump was my favorite?

And Biden "the manufacturer of systemic racism"? Care to prove that? And btw, if you're on about any efficacy in third-party voting, why did not you write in the name of your favorite candidate? — tim wood

I agree to an extent. Systemic racism is a myth. Like I told Michael, IF you want to whine about systemic racism, Biden is one of the primary manufacturers, thanks to his 50 year tenure, of how the US is systemically racist today.

So, I'm going to ask you to define systemic racism and then ask you to try to reconcile your definition with the fact that Biden has been in power over the last 50 years.

Cf. Emerson on consistency. Or for Harry's sake:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. ” — tim wood

Thanks for informing us that you don't value consistency. I can now safely ignore your posts as they won't be containing any actual information.

It’s a sort of cultural imperialism, spreading through various Internet echo-chambers as quickly as the Washington press will allow it. I also don’t live in the US, but our press no less resorts to the same churnalism as other countries, and everything comes out reading like a CNN article. I fear there isn’t an original thought among them. — NOS4A2

Agreed, but then with all of these non-Americans' emotional investment in American politics as if it were their own country makes me wonder if these non-Americans are really more interested in pushing the United States into another civil war.

Walk me through what "abolishing political parties" would look like, and how it would differ from enshrining one party as the sole official not-actually-a-party-I-swear. — Pfhorrest

I don't get this logic. How would one party acquire power if there are no parties? I'm going to need you to walk me through that in order to properly answer your question.

It would be like "abolishing religion". What you end up with is a state-mandated view of what is or isn't correct to believe... a state religion, even if it doesn't feature God or other things characteristic of normal religions. — Pfhorrest

In a way, yes, it would be like abolishing religion. But people will still believe in a god or spirituality, even without a religion. So abolishing political parties isn't to say that we've eliminated the belief in what the right way for you to live is, just that you can't impose that on others.

I don't like religions, and I don't like political parties, but I don't see how you can mandate their abolition without in practice setting up one above all others, which would be even worse. — Pfhorrest

Yeah, I just don't get how a party can come to power if they are all abolished. Abolishing parties would force citizens to listen to the candidates rather than resorting to the lazy method of looking for the Ds and Rs next to candidates names.

This is a specific sub category of crimes so a different dataset. — Benkei

We were talking about corruption, so it isn't a different dataset. We should also add local and state officials to the mix and see what we get.

Edit: Michael this is interesting which suggests Democrats are more corrupt and both your statistics suck. http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/ — Benkei

If you were paying attention, you'd know that the point I was not trying to make is that Dems are more corrupt than Republicans. Remember, I'm advocating for the abolition of ALL political parties.
My point was,
" Instead, what should be illuminating is to peruse those Wikipedia pages and see how many scandals and convictions there are on both sides. That should be enough to make one hesitant to become a cheerleader for either party."
http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/

Are you suggesting that there were Democrat officials who were indicted/convicted but not counted and/or that there were Republican officials who were counted but not indicted/convicted? — Michael

What I am suggesting is that you are only providing one biased source for your "evidence". If I only provided one source that was biased, would you take it the same way, or would you be a hypocrite?

Looking at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_officials_convicted_of_corruption_offenses
There are more Democrats than Republicans.

No I'm not. I'm proving my point. The Republicans (including Trump) are more corrupt, as the number of indictments and convictions show. — Michael

The fact that you are only providing one biased source shows that you are only interested in "facts" that support your premise. You don't even question it. You believe whatever you read if it supports your premise. That's not the way it's suppose to work.

As I said, "The only realistic choices were Biden and Trump. They were the only two that could have won". — Michael

Only because people like you keep thinking that those are the only choices. Its like saying that the only realistic belief is one in which most people believe. There is such a thing as a mass delusion. If most people stopped believing that, then it wouldn't be a "realistic" choices. So it's not that there actually are only two choices, it's thatmost people have chosen to limit themselves to believing that there are only two choices because the two parties have indoctrinated them into thinking that the other is so evil that the only other option is them. Like Tulsi Gabbard said, it's all about getting wins for your party.

I didn't vote. I'm not American. Whether or not you're consistent is irrelevant (and I don't even know what you mean by this). Trump and his administration are a danger, and so anyone who recognizes that should have voted for the only person who could beat him: Biden. If enough of these people waste their vote on a third party then Trump would have won and people and the country would suffer more because of it. Your "principles" aren't more important than people's lives. — Michael

Strange. You seem to have more to say about American politics, when you don't even live here, than about the politics in your own country. Is the right-wing in your country also more corrupt than the left-wing?

Being consistent is everything, or else why speak at all? Being inconsistent is equivalent to not saying anything at all, or just making scribbles on the screen.

No, that's only the cry that the two-party system feeds the people and has successfully brainwashed many Americans to think (and hence stay loyal to their corrupt two-party system, whatever happens).

I think that a multiparty system would be an improvement to the US. If parties have to make coalition administrations, that has a positive diminishing effect on the polarization that is rampant today. The parties simply have to work together unlike now. Besides, now you don't know what you get when voting for a party. A good start would be if both of the two parties would break up into two. — ssu

Well there's the final nail in the coffin of the idea that a third party is necessary. What you are actually saying is that we need four parties and then for the Dems and Reps to split at the same time which isn't likely at all.

The primary reason to abolish political parties is because it a form of group-think. Political parties are no different than a religion.

:shade: Couldn't have found a more legit source?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/rantt-media/amp/

All you are doing is proving my point.

It's not manipulation. It's a fact. — Michael

Its not a fact. Do you even pay attention to who is on the ballot, or do you just look for all the Ds on the ballot and fill in the circle next to them.

Reality doesn't care about your feelings. If you prefer Trump to Biden then a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump wasted and if you prefer Biden to Trump then a vote for a third party is a vote for Biden wasted. Either Trump or Biden was going to win, and their win would have a very real and major effect on people's lives. If you believe (rightly) that Trump is incompetent, criminal, harmful, and otherwise unfit for office, then you should vote for Biden. Preventing people and the country from suffering under a Trump administration is more important than you being principled and taking the moral high ground by wasting a vote on some "better" third party. — Michael

I'd prefer Trump over Biden, but there were others i preferred over Trump, and is who I voted for. At least I'm consistent, unlike you who voted for the manufacturer of systemic racism. You do realize that there were non-racists on the ballot, right?

Thanks - much appreciated. The objection I have to qualia is quite specific: if they are private, then they can't be the subject of conversation. But love - we can talk about that. So it's not a qual. — Banno

If it didn't have some degree of privacy we could never lie.

The only realistic choices were Biden and Trump. They were the only two that could have won. And Biden is by far the better choice than Trump. — Michael

Its not realistic when people have been manipulated into thinking that they are the only two choices. Again, thinking that your one vote is going to decide the election between two parties is what is delusional. You feel better voting your conscious, not voting for something because someone has scared you from voting for the other.

No, they were voting for less racism and corruption in voting for Biden. Trump and the Republicans are far more racist and corrupt than Biden and the Democrats. — Michael

:lol: evidence? Remember Biden has been in power for nearly 50 years where he had the ability to funnel his racism into legislation. If you want to whine about systemic racism, Biden is one of the primary manufacturers, thanks to his 50 year tenure, of how the US is systemically racist today.

You're just voting for more racism and corruption in voting for Biden. The evidence was all there, but the mainstream media swept it under the rug. Biden was not the best choice on the ballot. There were many others. To think that Biden was the best when he has many of the same character flaws as Trump is insane.

I remember some polling done in 2016 that found that Trump would have lost against any other candidate than Hillary. Against Hillary he had a chance. And obviously he was successful...then. — ssu

And we all know how accurate polling in 2016 was.

Biden won 81,268,924 votes. Hillary won 65,853,514 votes. You're delusional if you think that 15,415,410+ votes for Biden were fraudulent. — Michael

I already explained what I meant by "fraudulent". Would you consider voters misinformed by the left-wing/right-wing mass media and celebrities as fraudulent? This is why political parties need to be abolished because indivuduals only get information about the two parties which typically consists of the other party labeling the other with derogatory names.

To think that you need to vote for one because the other is soo bad is what is delusional. They are both bad, keeping either one in power and maintaining the status quo is what is bad. To think that your vote has the power to change the election is what delusional. Its best to vote for what truly represents you, not be influenced into believing that there are only two choices and one has to win because the other is so bad. In this sense, votes are fraudulent in that most people have been manipulated into taking a side that doesnt really represent them thanks to the media.

The answer isn't a third party because people then worry that one party will siphon votes from another guaranteeing that the other will win. Abolish all parties and that eliminates that problem.

I think Rousseau has the germ of a good point here - objectivity as the view not from nowhere, but from anywhere. — Banno

Or a view from everywhere.

The thing about objectivity is that it does not include information about location relative to the body. A view does. So objectivity really isn't a view, rather it is an explanation that leaves out the irrelevant information about location relative to a specific body.

its the type of vote you would have cast if you lived in the US.

Well, what are the differences between objectivity and intersubjectivity? — TheMadFool

The difference between objectivity and subjectivity is that information about location relative to the body is absent in an objective view (ie. a view from nowhere vs. a view from somewhere).

Intersubjectivity would include information about location relative to several bodies at once and their relative location to each other.

The issue with subjectivity, though, is that it is often difficult to distinguish between talking about yourself and talking about objects independent of yourself.

"The apple is good." appears to be talking about the apple, but we know that apples are not objectivity good. It is the sensation of eating an apple that is good. What is objectively good is your feelings when eating an apple, but it might not be the same for me. I might think apples are disgusting.

So if we were to talk about apples and we come to a disagreement about the good and disgusting nature of apples, we would actually be talking past each other, not actually talking about apples, rather our own experience when eating them. In that sense there is no difference between objectivity and intersubjectivity because mental states are objective features of the world that we can talk about, just like apple states.

So the ultimate question is what is it that we are actually talking about and is information about location relative to the body useful in addressing the discussion currently in play.