Cornell students hold ‘Cry In’ over Trump victory

What I'd like is for you to give the specific characterization of the two terms that makes a distinction between them coherent. — Terrapin Station

What is in a person's best interests need not be what that person likes or prefers. Hence, I can like sharks, and I might prefer swimming with sharks to watching them from afar, but, on the other hand, it might not be in my best interests to swim with sharks - for a number of possible reasons, and which may be related to other preferences, likes, or dislikes. But I don't see why that last part is presumably relevant, so what I'd like is for you explain that. Quid pro quo.

might not be in my best interests to swim with sharks - for a number of possible reasons, and which may be related to other preferences, likes, or dislikes. But I don't see why that last part is presumably relevant, — Sapientia

Well, it's relevant because that's all that I'm arguing and that you're supposedly arguing against--that "best interests" is a matter of preferences.

To emphasize the point about being out of touch with reality, the reactions to the people who were watching the election and not pleased with the results around me was not, 'oh no, this is happening,' but 'I can't believe this is happening' or 'How is this happening' or 'Please tell me this isn't happening.'

There is an important difference between these reactions.

This isn't entirely true. Corporations don't like him. They didn't give much to his campaign (whereas loads of them donated to Hillary) and they hate his trade protectionism. Look at the markets today, too. They will rebound, but there was real uncertainty about his presidency coming into the day. — Thorongil

Yes, good point. There's probably a reason for that. But I doubt they'll be complaining about the cuts to corporation tax.

Cast your mind back to 2000 when Bush beat Gore by 300 votes. I will always believe, had Gore won, the world would have been better off, not that we'll ever know. But I think the consequence of Trump will be economic and environmental decline, higher unemployment, and an increase in international conflict. He promised the impossible, and has no clue about how to actually work with the possible.

Well, it's relevant because that's all that I'm arguing and that you're supposedly arguing against--that "best interests" is a matter of preferences. — Terrapin Station

No it isn't. Whether or not it's in a child's best interest to eat chocolate and drink sugary drinks every day is not simply a matter of the child's preferences. It's in their best interests that they don't, even if the child would prefer otherwise. The same with swimming in shark-infested waters. You might want to, but you shouldn't.

Well, it's relevant because that's all that I'm arguing and that you're supposedly arguing against--that "best interests" is a matter of preferences. — Terrapin Station

No, that doesn't argue against my original point, which I reiterated not long ago. So, why did you change the subject?

Best interests can be related to, or dependent on, preference. They can relate and overlap in some cases. But it certainly doesn't follow that they are one and the same, nor that basing a decision on preference rather than what is in one's best interests can't be a poor basis for reaching a decision.

Think what you like, but wait for the facts to come out regarding those things before you start gluing your tin foil hat firmly on your head.

It's in their best interests that they don't, — Michael

What determines that in your view?

No, that doesn't argue against my original point, which I reiterated not long ago. So, why did you change the subject? — Sapientia

It wasn't changing the subject from my perspective. It was always what I was talking about.

But it certainly doesn't follow that they are one and the same, — Sapientia

And on that view, I'm asking you to specify a distinction.

Michael Moore predicted it correctly in August:

"I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I gave it to you straight last summer when I told you that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for president. And now I have even more awful, depressing news for you: Donald J. Trump is going to win in November."

"This wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full time sociopath is going to be our next president. President Trump. Go ahead and say the words, 'cause you'll be saying them for the next four years: 'PRESIDENT TRUMP.'"

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/michael-moore-meet-the-man-who-got-this-election-right-20161109-gslwmd.html

On the evening of Obama's election my partner and I walked around the neighborhood a bit; we talked to a few people who, like us, were elated. Obama's election had solid significance. So does Trump's election, but I wasn't having the same fuzzy warm vibrations.

Now that it's happened, I hope all the dire predictions are wrong, that Trump turns out OK. But honestly, apart from hand waving and talk about 'harnessing anger', what evidence is there that Trump will be a successful economic and foreign policy manager?

Many of his stump speeches were improvised rants on whatever ideas were in his twitter feed. A very large percentage of his commentary was in exchanging insults and denigrating his opponents. So there's just nothing to show that he will now be able to turn around and act like a professional instead of a demagogue that manipulates public opinion.

(But the trouble with arguments like that is, they have big words, like 'manipulate' and 'demagogue'. 'Lock her up' is a much easier concept to understand.)

It wasn't changing the subject from my perspective. It was always what I was talking about. — Terrapin Station

It wasn't changing the subject from your perspective, therefore it wasn't changing the subject? If that is what you are suggesting, that is a non sequitur.

Looking back, I see that you did address part of my comment when you responded with that question bringing up subjectivity, but you did not address the main point, which was that it is a poor basis for reaching that decision. And it's a poor basis for reaching that decision because, based on your own interests in the case of you voting for Trump, or based on my own interests if I am the person in the shark example, it will likely lead to consequences counterproductive to those interests.

It wasn't changing the subject from your perspective, therefore it wasn't changing the subject? — Sapientia

It could be from your perspective (and obviously it was). It's always from someone's perspective.

What are my interests that voting for Trump will be counterproductive to in your view?

It could be from your perspective (and obviously it was). It's always from someone's perspective. — Terrapin Station

The thought, judgement, belief, etc., is. But that isn't as significant as you might think.

What are my interests that voting for Trump will be counterproductive to in your view? — Terrapin Station

I already mentioned a few. Climate change is another one that might be applicable, given what you said about Jill Stein.

Unhappy people need to look at the means by which the Republican party engineered its victory. It wasn't just a bunch of whackos voting for Trump.

4 or 5 congressional cycles ago the Republican Party began a major effort to corral reasonably affluent (upper working class through upper class), suburban, more or less white voters and win control of state legislatures. This turned out to be very prudent. They were prepared in 2010 to control reapportionment based on the 2010 census (a process generally under the supervision of legislatures). In succeeding elections they had more friendly districts and were able to more efficiently elect Republicans to governorships, the senate, and house -- in state and federal elections.

Liberals, Democrats, etc. are going to have to work on this project too. They are also going to have to take more strenuous positions in the interests of the white working class, millennials--white or colored--African Americans, Latin Americans, et al. This isn't easy to do, because those interests are often at odds with the industrialist and ruling class interests. But Bernie Sanders showed that there is a large block ready to go that route.

Liberals and Democrats, etc. are, in a word, going to have to get "smarter" about winning. Running Hillary Clinton, who had a large following of people who already hated her at the beginning of her campaign--even if running a woman as candidate for president was a bold step--was not a good idea.

The thought, judgement, belief, etc., is. But that isn't as significant as you might think. — Sapientia

I'm not saying anything about significance quantification. It's just that whether something is still the same subject or not is always a matter of individual interpretation.

Climate change is another one that might be applicable — Sapientia

Upon what are you basing what's in my interests re climate change and climate change policy? Or are you just assuming that I'd have a particular view on that because I voted for Jill Stein and you're assuming I'd agree with her on that issue? Again, my views have just in much in common with Libertarianism, although my views aren't the same as either any other socialists, any other libertarians, or any other Green party members, etc. I've never met anyone else who has the same political views as I do, or in fact, anyone who feels that my political views are a good idea once I explain them in more detail, haha. That's why I call myself a "socialist libertarian" only in lieu of something better to call myself. No matter what I call myself, I'd have to just explain what my views are in detail.

This may take the next 20-30 years if not longer (again, Trump will not be able to provide the long-term answer IMO), but that corrupt status quo of unchecked capitalism with its dominance by moneyed interests is thankfully over, at least for the time being. — Erik

This is so untrue on so many levels. I'm surprisd you would think that a Republican sweep would solve it if not exacerbate it.

What determines that in your view? — Terrapin Station

Empirically demonstrable effects on health, with "best interests" being defined in part as good health.

I hope that above all else, every pollster, media station, and complacent liberal who is 'surprised' right now takes a long hard look at themselves, and realizes 'I am completely out of touch with reality, with my country, and the desires of the people, and have little conception of the way that people think or what they value.' — The Great Whatever

Yes.

And people reading the polls (like me) need to be more careful. For instance, many of the polls I read have a "margin of error" of say, 3%. That means that there is a 6% range that can not be known. If the poll says Clinton is 3% ahead of Trump, it may be that they are actually tied. In a 3% MOE poll, a 2% lead may mean that the Clinton is actually behind Trump.

Early on, the distance between the candidates was very large and the MOE didn't matter very much. But as they came closer and closer, MOE mattered more and more.

The other thing people (like me) need to remember is that A POLL RESULT IS NOT A FACT. It may be that 2000 of 3000 people polled said they preferred Clinton. That doesn't mean they are definitely going to vote for Clinton, especially when the election is weeks or months off. It doesn't mean they are going to vote at all.

quoted Michael Moore saying last summer that "Donald Trump is going to win." Moore isn't the Oracle at Eleusis, but one does have to use "gut response" in prognostication. And one needs to watch out for crowd bias. Everyone I hang around with liked Clinton. If I suspected that somebody liked Trump I shied away from them. My siblings live in the small town America that grooved on Donald's affronts to good taste. We avoided the topic.

Empirically demonstrable effects on health, with "best interests" being defined in part as good health. — Michael

But people do the defining, right?

The wider linguistic community does the defining, not each individual.

But that's irrelevant. The point is that when we say that such-and-such is in someone's best interests we're saying that such-and-such is going to help someone achieve good health (for example). Whether or not such-and-such is going to help someone achieve good health isn't simply a matter of preference.

You can't avoid getting fat from eating chocolate and drinking sugary drinks simply because you'd prefer not to.

The wider linguistic community does the defining, not each individual. — Michael

First off, that's not people?

:-} Are we going down this road again where you don't address the actual relevant point. 'Cause I won't play that game.

I'm going to address what we type sentence by sentence. If that's not addressing "the actual relevant point" in your view, then I suppose so. Addressing stuff sentence-by-sentence is how I do discussions like this (where there's a disputational tenor to the proceedings with a host of core disagreements).

Liberals and Democrats, etc. are, in a word, going to have to get "smarter" about winning. — BitterCrank

Au contraire, BC, I think they've tried 'smart' and it hasn't worked. Trump won by trying 'dumb' - slogans, fear, hatred, 'the other', anger, doubt, and appeals to greed ('Look how rich I am'). So 'smart' is what has failed. Dumb is the new smart.

Smart in this case would presumably refer to "being able to recognize what's required to win and being able to successfully adapt to that."

He was playing the crowd.