That's just it, HarryHindu. You equate the two: conceptual thought and dots a scribbles. That is, if I may make this observation, your mistake in your reasoning. Whereas here you clearly stated "... by using scribbles and sounds".

I don't suppose you see my point, or that you ever will. Using something. Do I make that something into the thing that I am using it to create it?

A few examples: Pyramids, highways, railroads and buildings: People were used to build them. Are railroads (the actual rails) people, money, design or execution? No, they are railroads. Yet according to you, how you use dots and scribbles, the dots and scribbles are the concept themselves. Well, no. You are making a huge mistake by being unable to separate the two.

I am getting angry. This is by no way to affect you, as I believe and hope that I have kept my tone civil. But I can't hold back much longer. Please forgive me, but I must terminate my debate with you, on extended doctor's orders. This is a reflection on you, and on my condition. Please forgive me, but this is it for this topic. I ran out of patience. — god must be atheist

I don't understand the turn in your emotional state regarding this topic. There really is nothing to get emotional about. You've actually moved the ball forward with your examples. Thanks.

To use your example of say the Pyramids, yes, it took people and their tools and the actual materials to make the Pyramids. This is equivalent to you using pen and paper, or a computer with a keyboard, to create scribbles on the paper or the computer screen. The scribbles are the finished product, or result of people and their tools. The scribbles are a representation of the conceptual thought, just as the pyramids are a representation of concept that created them (a visual of large pyramids).

My point is that while the physical pyramids are not the same as the conceptual pyramids, they both appear in the same way - as a visual of a shape of a pyramid constructed by stones that is used to house the corpses of pharoahs. What I'm saying is that you use the same visual of scribbles in your head that you then use to create those on paper with a pen. When thinking, "All husbands are married men." all you are thinking of are sounds and scribbles in your head, just as when thinking about pyramids before contructing them, you are thinking of the visual of a pyramid. To say that one is thinking of a pyramid, one could be thinking of the Pyramids in Egypt, or some other pyramid - even one that only exists in their head, but they all have the shape of a pyramid in their mind because that is what thinking of a pyramid entails.

I asked how do you know the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. The same can be asked about how do you know that you're thinking of a pyramid or a cube? They appear different visually - no matter if the pyramid and cube is in your head or out in the world. The same can be said about a priori and a posteriori knowledge. They appear differently in the mind or on a computer screen as a pattern of scribbles/sounds. Given that most of us talk to ourselves in our mind and not write to ourselves in our minds, a priori knowledge often takes the form of sounds in your head or sounds spoken from your mouth.

If you want to say that those scribbles and sounds point to real things in the world, then that is simply more of what I've been saying - that what those scribbles point to is the justification of that knowledge.

What is necessary for all husbands to be married men? Men and marriage? Language? What? Wouldn't those things be the justification for "All husbands are married men"?

This is an odd thing to say. If I'm unsure which path to take, and I decide the left is more likely to lead home than the right, are you saying that, in the absence of a person to talk to about it, i don't consider my assessment of likelihood as 'right'? What status would you say I'd assigned it then? — Isaac

This is a red herring. The right way home for you is not the right way home for others, nor will it be the right way home all the time as traffic, accidents, and other obstacles can change which way is the best way home from day to day.

In assuming that you are right, you are only assuming that it right for yourself. To assert that it is right for others, you need to ask them, not assume it.

That is what you and Pfhorrest fail to understand. It's no surprise that you don't understand it. Authoritarians inherently have trouble understanding this. It's what makes them authoritarians.

My point is that if one doesn't believe in objective morality, then how can one hope to get along with others in the pursuit of some common goal (which is, presumably, what politics is about, ie. the pursuit of some common goal)?

I also don't believe there is objective morality, but I think it is of vital importance to assume and act as if there was objective morality. Otherwise, we're talking about a bunch of moral egoists/moral narcissists who will never be able to get anything done together. — baker

We are all human beings, and most humans share the same goals. It's just the means by which we attain them can vary. Most agree that being happy and healthy is good, but we disagree on what makes one happy and healthy or the means by which we obtain happiness and health.

We are also social animals and social animals depend on the social relationships with others of their kind to be happy and healthy. How we go about establishing relationships, and what kinds of relationships, can vary. There is no particular right way to be happy that applies to all. There is a wrong way to be happy and that is to take other's happiness away. That is the only means by which one can obtain happiness that should be denied. Why should it matter how another obtain's happiness if it doesn't affect how you obtain happiness? If you are only happy in telling others how to live their lives or that they should obtain happiness and health the way you do then you are the problem of society, not those that don't agree with that assumption.

Why on earth should that be a problem for someone who doesn't believe in objective morality? — baker

There is what is true in one instance, and then there is believing that makes it true in all instances.

you are absolutely right. I don't see any point in your objection. If you insist on equating conceptual thought to dots and scribbles, and you deny that meaning transcends physical signs that convey it, then I especially see no point in your objection. — god must be atheist

How else do you justify that you engage in conceptual thought if not by using scribbles and sounds? Michael was on the right track by equating it to language (symbol-use). The scribbles point to observable things and events (men and weddings). Categorization is a type of information processing and is based upon goal-oriented behavior. To say that the category is true is to conflate truth with an arbitrary rule/goal by which information is processed.

,

I don't understand how this could possibly work as an assessment of a disagreement about an idea you currently think is right. How could it possibly be the case the reason they disagree with you (according to you) is because you're wrong? If you thought you were wrong, you wouldn't hold the idea in question. So we have to only include categories which assume you're right. The question I understood the OP to be addressing is "assuming I'm right, why might my interlocutor think the way they do?" — Isaac

You seem to be just as thick-headed as Pfhorrest. Assuming that you are right is one thing. Proving it to others is another. Once you try to prove it to others and they don't agree, at that point you may want to revisit your assumption. I'm not saying that you being wrong is the only possibility if someone disagrees, just that it is a possibility to be considered. If you don't consider that, then you would be no better than the person you are arguing with that you assume is wrong and just won't admit it, or even consider it.

To think that you can assume that you are right without having to prove it to others - without having exposed your ideas to open criticism - is the problem.

The important point is that the OP is about ethics, not knowledge in general. In most ethical cases one must act in accordance with some assumption (many more empirical cases of knowledge fall into this category too). Personally I don't see much merit in making an entirely academic distinction between 'acting as if x were right / the case' and 'believing x is right / the case', especially in ethics and politics, the two are for all intents and purposes, the same. Which means that, for all binomial dilemmas (and obviously all dilemmas can be framed binomially as x,~x), we can treat each person as believing either x or ~x. — Isaac

Ethics is about knowing the difference between right and wrong. So ethics is based upon a sound epistemology. The problem of induction is akin to the problem of ethics. Is what is right for me in this particular circumstance good for another in a similar circumstance? How do you know that what is right for you in a particular circumstance is always right for not just you, but everyone else?

there is no such thing as an objective morality
— Harry Hindu
How can one do politics if one belives that? — baker

That's the point. If you need a Big Brother, that's your problem, not mine.

The point (I think) Pfhorrest is making here is strictly about how to treat people whose position you disagree with (now), nothing more. — Isaac

My point was that one of the ways of how you treat people whose position you disagree with (now) is by acknolwedging that there is the possibility that the reason they disagree with you is because you are wrong. That never seems to be even a contemplated possibility for Pfhorrest.

I don't really understand how this comment relates to either my post, or the OP. Regardless of that, it's obviously wrong. Some people believe quite strongly in principles like democracy, for example, where, in its most radical form, what the majority believe is the right course of action is exactly the right course of action. It can also be a very useful heuristic in situations where one is inexperienced (especially where the group in question is vastly more experienced). There are numerous scenarios where trusting the collective judgement of a group is a good logical choice. — Isaac

Sure, for your own social well-being, not because of what they said is true.

My point was that there is no such thing as an objective morality. We all do what we think is right for ourselves, but whether that is right for others in every possible circumstance is highly questionable and illogical to assume.

At best, it's just a useful heuristic for navigating social life more easily. — baker

That is questionable. Assuming that people think a certain way because of how they look often gets you into trouble.

It's worse than that even. Since there's no objective set of rules as to what words in a language 'really' mean, nor boundaries where one language ends and another starts (pidgin English for example), you don't even know that all husbands are married a priori after you've learnt a language. You know it in no less a way than you know the earth is round. All the while you continue to successfully use the terms synonymously, it's true. At any point in future, or within any given sub-set of language speaker, or within any new language game, it may cease to be the case. — Isaac

It would always remain the case, even if humans became extinct and language disappeared from the universe, that husbands were once defined as married men by a particular human society. Or you could at least say that a particular society of humans at one time organized scribbles in this way: "Husbands are married men".

Actually, thinking about it again I can understand your point. Knowing that all husbands are married is knowing that "husband" means "married man", and knowing that "husband" means "married man" isn't a priori knowledge, and so therefore knowing that all husbands are married isn't a priori? — Michael

Not only that, but it requires the existence of marriage and men - both of which are visual concepts. The statement is about men and marriage, without which the statement makes no sense. We are talking about things that we can observe and whose existence is the justification for such statements.

Perhaps the distinction is that a priori truths are truths that derive from the meaning of the words and a posteriori truths are truths that don't. After learning a language I can know that all husbands are married but I can't know that all men are married, and that is how the distinction is made. — Michael

It's more like just how we think, or the process of thinking, or categorizing. It seems that a priori truths are being conflated with the process of thinking and reasoning. Thinking is always about things. The process by which we categorize observable things is still dependent upon observed things. The same process can be applied to other things. Categorization isn't a truth. It's a way of processing information.

What is this other category in which we could place those who disagree with us ethically aside from misinformed, misguided, or wrong? — Isaac

Its not possible for us both to be objectively correct, but it is possible for both of to be objectively wrong. Pfhorrest seems incapable of acknowledging the latter, or at least acknowledge the possibility that there is no objective morality.

A group-thinker doesn't know what is wrong or right. Group-thinkers look to the group to tell them what is wrong or right. This is pleading to popularity and authority, which are logical fallacies, therefore cannot be the objectively right thing to do.

I do. The "fence sitter" in the conversation elsewhere that inspired this thread reminds me of a younger me. It's for the sake of people like that that I'm even thinking about this topic. I don't want to see them treated as enemies, but as potential friends. — Pfhorrest

The problem is that you don't see fence-sitting as a legitimate position, like the left or right. The only possible positions for you is left or right and any other position is "fence-sitting". What a limited way to see the world.

Because politics is a normative field. The questions at hand are what are the right or wrong things to do with our society. Anyone who thinks that nothing is actually right or wrong are just bowing out of that discussion. Anyone who is participating in that discussion is asserting something as right or wrong and acting as though some people (like themselves) are correct in their assessment of which is which and others are incorrect. — Pfhorrest

In other words, people that don't limit their thinking like you do and think like you do can't be part of the discussion, but you can decide what is right for me? Damn, bruh. You're nothing more than an authoritarian despot. You're getting worse everyday.

I do think something is wrong with society. I just don't see the right answers coming from the authoritarian left or the authoritarian right. I see the correct answers in letting each individual speak for themselves and not be dictated by group-think. My right answer would be to abolish the left and right so that everyone is a "fence-sitter" - capable of being reasoned with. Emotionally invested group-thinkers like yourself are incapable of being reasoned with.

Is it right or wrong to speak for others and to determine what is right or wrong for others? Who determines what is right or wrong for yourself, Pfhorrest?

You totally missed my point.

If a priori truths don't need justification, then what were you trying to show with visual scribbles on the screen?

My beliefs about my cat include the cat — creativesoul

Then what does it mean to be about your cat if it includes your cat? You either have beliefs about cats in your mind (realism), or cats in your mind (solipsism). Not both. Which is it?

...you could still argue humankind 'ought' to become extinct. Is that what you're saying?
— counterpunch

Indeed. — Banno

You first.

People who solidly hold correct opinions for good reasons — Pfhorrest

Wtf is a "correct opinion"? Politics has obviously driven some our members insane.

Putting people.that you don't know into groups. Sounds like a bigot to me.

Mice, trees, cups, cupboards, and tables... — creativesoul

So your beliefs are composed of actual mice, trees, cups, cupboards and tables, rather than visuals and feelings OF mice, trees, cups, cupboards and tables? Lazy thinking on your part.

Exactly. Reasoning is the act of providing reasons, or justifications, for your conclusion. How do you arrive at conclusions (knowledge) without reasons or justifications?

I think that philosophy tends to run away with language in that people say stuff that they believe is interesting and profound, but when you parse their statements it makes no sense whatsoever.

I contend that our relationship to science is mistaken; a consequence of arresting Galileo for the heresy of proving the earth orbits the sun, and supressing science as an understanding of reality even while using science to drive the industrial revolution. In short, we used the tools - but we didn't read the instructions, and that is why we are headed for extinction. — counterpunch

I think it was Ben Carson that proposed the idea of the Logic Party. The problem is that he was also a theist.

The opposition would be theocrats and politicians as both are based on emotions and the subjective nature of morality and pleading to popularity and authority.

You conflate what it means to be the opposition in politics with opposition to truth. — baker

Then politics sits opposite of science.

Yep, those too are part of it. — creativesoul

What else would there be?

Thinking in words is no different than thinking in visuals and sounds. — Harry Hindu

That is not true. All words are visuals and/or sounds. Not all visuals and sounds are words. — creativesoul

If all words are visuals and sounds then you think in visuals and sounds. :roll:

The question then is what does such meaningful belief consist of? — creativesoul

Visuals, sounds, smells, feelings, etc.
Words are a particular type of visual or sound.

Thinking in words is no different than thinking in visuals and sounds. Words are typically one color - black, and come in simple shapes. What they represent can be multicolored and complex, or not colored at all as in a smell, taste or feeling. So words are simple symbols meant to represent more complex concepts that are more than one color and more visually complex than a scribble on paper. We ultimately use words to simplify communication of ideas and beliefs to others.

Use your words. — Banno

No. You use scribbles and sounds, not words. Using scribbles and sounds to point to things makes those scribbles and sounds words, and not just merely scribbles and sounds.

As polarized as politics has become, I am not sure the casual observer from either side would have difficulty coming to this conclusion. — synthesis

If they are just a casual observer then they are not from one side or the other. To see your position as the righteous one for everyone and anyone that disagrees is a bigot or racist IS extremism is a nutshell. If you don't see your side as possessing a monopoly of morality, then that isn't really taking a side as you are acknowledging that each "side" is just a different means of achieving liberty and equality for the individual.

If you want to be told how to live your life, or what is good for you, then that is your own personal choice. I am not one of those people. Nor am I one to tell you how to live your life, or what choices you have to make, unless those choices you are making infringe upon my rights of having personal choice.

So ultimately, religion/politics is the extreme in that is a means of controlling individuals. If you actually do believe in personal liberty, then you haven't taken any side as you believe that each individual is simply a different side that cannot be imposed on another individual. To think that you can speak for others that you don't know is what is extreme and is the nature of religion and politics.

Both sides see each other as extreme because they are extreme. — synthesis

They are extreme, but that isn't why they see each other as extreme, or else they would see not only the other as extreme, but their own party as extreme as well. It takes a more objective, a-political outlook to see both as extreme.

For example, conservatives generally want to keep things the way they are (for obvious reasons including the fact that they are benefiting from the status quo) whereas progressives see the need for change in order to allow more folks to participate/prosper. — synthesis

Both parties can claim that they are for allowing more folks to participate/propsper, as they both have libertarian tendencies, but they both have authoritarian tendencies as well, so neither one can actually declare that they possess the monopoly on libertarianism.

The Progressives are only such in name only. They are actually authoritarian socialists in libertarian clothes. Once they achieve what they want - which is the same as any political party wants: control over individuals - they become defenders of the status quo and any objectors become the progressives.

True progressives would be those that actually value individualism over collectivism, as collectivism is what we've bascially had ever since religions became political.

There are two kinds of truths: a priori and a posteriori. The first kind is true at any time, in any part of the world, because it does not depend on empirical observation. The second kind is the truth we find in such things that can be demonstrated to be false by experiment, by observation (if any).

Reason can't defeat a truth if it's an a priori truth. And reason is part of the a priori truth.

Reason can't defend the truth of an a posteriori truth. Only observation can defeat it, and nothing can defend it in an absolute sense. — god must be atheist

Why do a priori truths not need justification (observation), but a posterior truths do? It seems to me that there is still an observation taking place or else how do you distinguish the a priori from a posterior truths? How do you know the difference between them to be able to make an objective assertion for what a priori and a posterior truths are not just yourself, but for others too? What are we to look for in distinguishing a priori from a posteriori truths?

Words are just scribbles and sounds, so a priori truths take the form if scribbles and sounds which are empirical forms.

To know that you know anything requires some sort of empirical justification, which can include use of sounds and scribbles.

Nobody here is saying that "knowledge is inherently flawed", we're saying that knowledge doesn't operate the way justificationists say it does, because if it did then the Munchhausen trilemma would in turn show that knowledge is impossible, which is exactly the kind of contradiction you're talking about. That contradiction is thus reason to reject the possibility of justificationism. — Pfhorrest

My point was that you were using justifications, or reasons, to show that justifications and reasons are not valid qualifiers for knowledge. If so, then your assertions are not necessarily knowledge. If they aren't knowledge, then they are either wrong or just scribbles on a screen. What you seem to be saying is that reasoning does not necessarily lead to knowledge. If not, then how do you know that you know anything?

Beliefs require justification to qualify as knowledge. How much justification some belief needs to qualify as knowledge can vary depending on the state of affairs being talked about which includes the origin or causes of said state if affairs. States of affairs created by humans (like Trump is the 45th president if the United States) seem to be easier to justify than facts not created by humans (the solar system was formed 4.5 billion years ago from a massive cloud of hydrogen gas). Presidents are arbitrary creations of our own mind and don't need justification beyond most people agreeing and using the words in that way. The latter doesn't depend on popularity as that would be a logical fallacy. It depends on the actual state if affairs being the case or not. Presidents are created by humans therfore knowing what presidents are is simply an act of you defining what they are at any moment. The solar systems formation is dependent upon facts not created by humans but facts that existed before humans and their knowledge of such facts. So there are some facts that we can know merely due to the fact that we created those facts.

Knowing that you believe something requires no more justification than you believing it.

No. I read it correctly. Comparing no experience with some experience is a comparison of experience.

Besides, what qualifies as experience and no experience for governing citizens? Does being a lobbyist give the necessary experience? What about donating to political campaigns in order to manipulate the politician?

Like I said, that you didn't read correctly, the problem is assuming that lawyers and soldiers are the only ones qualified to govern others.

Oh, and Obama did run on his "outsider" status in Washington.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/obama-cleared-way-for-todays-outsider-candidates.amp.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-who-once-stood-as-party-outsider-now-works-to-strengthen-democrats/2016/04/25/340b3b0a-0589-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html

The short version is: instead of saying that people should reject every belief until it can be justified from the ground up -- which as this trilemma shows either results in infinite regress, circularity, or appeal to something entirely unjustified being taken as unquestionable -- we should merely permit tentative belief in anything that has thus far survived falsification — Pfhorrest

Here we go again.

If the triemma shows something, it justifies something. Therefore the trilemma is a justification for believing that there are no justifications for beliefs.

I still don't understand these philosophers that just don't get the contradiction they make in asserting that knowledge is inherently flawed.

So in a disagreement, neither side is wrong by default until they can prove themselves right. Either side is possibly-right, until the other side can show some reason why they must be wrong. — Pfhorrest

If one is possibly right, they are possibly wrong at the same time. To be right, one must make all possible wrongs and learn from them.

No, my beef is less on term limit statutes and more with the erroneous belief that a lack of experience is a plus for performing the job of legislator, unlike every other job — LuckyR

So you voted for McCain over Obama? Because that was a race where one had far more experience than the other. I'm guessing you didn't because the will of the Party is more important than being consistent. Ever see 1984?

I think the problem lies in the idea that only lawyers and soldiers have the experience to govern its citizens.

I would say in a democracy the first step to better politicians is a better educated and less gullible population — Tzeentch

I agree, to an extent.
The politicians already decide how citizens are educated.
Making Administration, Debate, and Logic required courses can expand the pool of available viable citizens that can run for office, instead of being limited to only Harvard and Yale graduates.

Non-human animals can think rationally, I don't deny that but they can't do it as well as humans just like we can't ratiocinate as well as a computer can [given the right conditions]. It's in the difference of degrees that we see a distinction between computers, humans, and non-human animals. — TheMadFool

Exactly. That isn't any different than what I've been saying. All animals are rational with the information they have access to. The information that one has access to seems to be the determining factor in what degree of rationality you possess. And the information that one has access to seems to be determined by the types of senses you have.

What if an advanced alien race arrived on Earth and showed us how rational they are and how irrational we are? What if the distinction between us and them is so vast that it appears to them that we are no more rational than the other terrestrial animals?

To assert that animals are less rational than humans because humans can build space stations and animals can't is to miss the point that most animals have no need of space stations. It would actually be irrational to think that other animals have need of such things and because they can't achieve it, then they are less rational than humans.

I'd love to agree with you that "...other animals are as rational as humans" but I'm afraid that's incorrect . Moreover, I'm not claiming that non-human animals are irrational and humans are rational in an absolute sense but only that comparatively it's the case that either non-human animals are more irrational than humans or that humans are more rational than non-human animals. This difference, even if it's only a matter of degree and not kind, suffices to make the distinction human and non-human which Aristotle was referring to when he define humans as rational animals. — TheMadFool

Then you're going to have to define "rational".

Yet, when we interact with such perfect logic machines, we remain unconvinced that they're human — TheMadFool

Because they are not characterized as having emotions. So an absence of emotions does not make one more human. They are typically not thought to be like humans because they don't have minds, but then I'm just going to ask for "mind" to be defined.

People assert a lot if things, like that animals are not rational and computers don't have minds without even knowing what they are talking about. You call that rational?

Like I said before, animals act rationally on the information they have. Its just that the information might be a misinterpretation as when a moth flies around a porch light until it collapses from exhaustion, or a person acting on misinformation. From the perspective of those that have the correct information, or don't have the information and the interpretation that the other is acting on, it can appear that they are irrational. This falls in with what I've said about the distinction between randomness and predictability. Rational beings are predictable beings. Irrational beings are unpredictable beings.

Isn't thinking that you see things in a more objective light the very same thing as hallucinating? — Metaphysician Undercover

Only if you actually aren't seeing things in a more objective light. But if you dont think its possible to ever see things in a more objective light, then you'd be contradicting yourself. I'm more than happy to educate you about it if you'd like.

What you say here squares with how Aristotle and later generations of thinkers viewed humans, as rational animals. On this view, emotions can be considered remnants of our animal ancestry, subhuman as it were and to be dispatched off as quickly as possible if ever possible. From such standpoint, emotions are hindrances, preventing and/or delaying the fulfillment of our true potential as perfect rational beings. It would seem then that reason, rationality, logic, defines us - it's what could be taken as the essence of a human being.

So far so good. — TheMadFool

Not exactly.

This kind of thinking stems from the antiquated idea that humans are special, or separate from nature.

Other animals are just as rational as humans. We just aren't privy to the information that some other animal is acting on, so their behavior can appear to be irrational from our perspective. All animals typically act rationally on the information that they have. It's just that the information may be false, or skewed.

Human emotions only come into conflict with our rationality when we assume that the objective truth is dependent upon our emotional state, or when we project our emotions and feelings onto the world and assume that they are a characteristic of the world rather than of ourselves (like assuming that apples actually are red and are good).

Emotions are the motivators and inhibitors of our actions and thoughts. Learning how to navigate our emotions and use them rationally is what could be taked as the essence of a human being.

I'm all for spending your own money how you like, but when it comes to politics it creates an inequity in the power of people's votes. Everyone's votes should count exactly the same. Introducing money into politics tips the scales in favor of the wealthy, thereby diminishing the power of everyone else's vote. A candidates voice shouldn't be amplified because they have money backing them. Their voice should be amplified when they compete in the arena of free ideas and win.

:grin:
Mushrooms will make you hallucinate. The authoritarian socialists on this forum are already hallucinating that they know better than everyone and don't need to defend or explain their wild and vague assertions (just like the fundamentally religious). We don't need them hallucinating more than they already are.

Marijuana is also known as Wisdom Weed among Rastafarians. It allows you to see things in a more objective light, while calming the nerves. :cool:

Freedom is the power to act, speak, think what one wants

Free speech is the power to speak what one wants.

Spending money on a candidate is an act.

A subtle difference there but it's up to you whether you consider them to be either same [both expressions of freedom] or different [speeches aren't acts]. I maybe mistaken though. — TheMadFool

All candidates should get equal time to make their arguements and propose their ideas. Act with your vote, not your money when it comes to choosing your representative. Money should not be the arbiter of which ideas are good or not. Logic should. Money should stay out of politics

Like I've said, its much easier to respond emotionally- as in labeling my response as bizarre - than it is to actually respond to what I said. You people need to calm down. Smoke a joint or something.

We all know that between emotions and reason, what AI (artificial intelligence) can't emulate is emotions. — TheMadFool

Its very easy to emulate emotions on a forum. Any time some one makes any assertion, it replies back with phrases like, You're an idiot, racist, bigot, etc.

Its actually much more difficult to produce a logical response than an emotional response because it requires more work and energy.

Both sides are the problem, said the guy who paints people he disagrees with as pawns and pretending he isn't one himself. So we have non-pawns and pawns, and within pawns there's whatever you're alluding to on two opposing sides as well. Yawn. — Benkei

The world isn't black and white. Thinking that it is is only limiting your options and your freedoms. I'm not the one seeing the world in black and white. You are. Pathetic.

Your tactic seems be, "if I can't make a good arguement against what Harry said, then I'll just accuse him if being what he is accusing me of being."

Does thinking for yourself still mean that you are a pawn? If so then all you've done is relegate the word, "pawn" into meaninglessness.

It does seem like I'm the only one here advocating for the abolishment of political parties. So who am I a pawn of in saying such things? I really want to see you back this up.

EDIT: Now that I've thought about it a bit more, Benkei is taking a tactic out of the theists handbook in asserting that even atheism is a religion. Benkei is trying to assert being a-political is still being political.

Politics IS a religion - a means of controlling individuals.