Lawless

[paft.livejournal.com]

As I was saying:

Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.

Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:

This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.

This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.

This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.

I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.

The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.

They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.

And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.

I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.

But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.

Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

No, because you can't resist the desire to have the last word.
You know where this will end.
Ever heard the words "Do not feed the troll"?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

But paft is always so hungry, we have to give her something...

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

You're no better. You like to snipe drive-by snark at people just for fun because you think it's "hype" and makes you look cool. It doesn't.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm. Now what was it someone was saying about feeding trolls?

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Please be my guest and have the last word:

[paft.livejournal.com]

It's not about the last word. It's about logical consistency.

Do you know what that is?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I think I do.

Do you?

By what criteria do you deem something to be "logically consistant"? Because frankly, having read your various posts on this forum for over a year I'm not sure we're on the same page here.

[paft.livejournal.com]

When the behavior of the person, and the arguments being offered are logically consistent -- as opposed to complaining because I'm replying to a troll, and then replying to the troll.

Where do you feel I've been logically inconsistent?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Which troll? I see several (including myself).

"Logical Consitancy" in the mathimatical/philosophical context has a specific meaning. Namely that the core premise/assumptions of an argument/position contain no inherent contradictions.

This is an entirely seperate concept from "logical validity" or "soundness" as it exists independantly of truth. In other words, it is possible to be consitant and wrong.

These are the criteria by which I determine consistancy.

As for your query...

In general your posts are emotionally charged and one-sided. More specifically, in this very thread you claimed to care about voter fraud and other issues of social justice yet seem to ignore them when it suits your chosen side's agenda.

By by the above criteria that makes you either A: Inconsistant or B: Dishonest.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

As an Aside...

You didn't answer my opening question.

By what criteria do you deem something to be "logically consistant"?

[paft.livejournal.com]

When someone makes the assertion, "sleep deprivation, stress positions, and sexual humiliation are torture and utterly inexcusable" when the torturers are Soviets and the victims dissidents, and does not suddenly decide it's NOT torture when the torturers are Americans and the victims Iraqis or Afghanis.

When someone says, "financing terrorists who bomb and/or assassinate and/or rape" is inexcusable and a sign of a morally bankrupt nation when the terrorists are Communist and/or Muslim financed and trained by Red China/Syria, and objects just as strongly when the squads of men who bomb and/or assassinate, and/or rape" are capitalists and/or Christians financed and trained by the United States.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Those are all fine examples, now break them down, what are the core assumptions and why are they inconsistant?

To use your opening example.

Assumption A: Torture is bad.
Assumption B: Torture consists of X, Y, and Z.

Conclusion C: X, Y, and Z are bad. (B & A Modus Tolens)

The above is a valid argument. to argue that Torture is ok (not bad) given the above assumptions would be contradictory and thus inconsistant. However by adjusting or adding an assumption it is possible to write a consitant argument in favor of "Its ok when we do it, but not when they do it". For instance, if we were to change Assumption A: to "Torture without reason is bad" the whole argument takes on a new dimension.

Is it bullshit? most likely, but that's why "consitancy" is a seperate concept from "validity".

[paft.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's bullshit.

[paft.livejournal.com]

sw: Which troll? I see several (including myself).'

In what manner do you qualify as a troll?

sw: "Logical Consitancy" in the mathimatical/philosophical context has a specific meaning. Namely that the core premise/assumptions of an argument/position contain no inherent contradictions.

And part of that involves applying a premise consistently. If, for instance, you state the premise, "It's wrong to respond to trolls," you don't follow up by responding to a troll.

sw In general your posts are emotionally charged and one-sided. More specifically, in this very thread you claimed to care about voter fraud and other issues of social justice yet seem to ignore them when it suits your chosen side's agenda.

There's nothing inconsistent about pointing out that bonafide, documented cases of voter fraud (an illegal voter deliberately casting a ballot) infrequent in this country, while bonafide, documented cases of deliberate and massive voter suppression are not. That's simply a statement of fact.

If you have some evidence to show otherwise, by all means cite it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

In what manner do you qualify as a troll?

I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy kicking the intellectual hornet nest. I engage in drive-by snark and play devil's advocate because, to me, how someone responds is often more interesting than the actual topic being discussed.

In this regard my behavior could be considered troll-like.

As for the issue of election fraud... the disadvantage of a secret ballot is that it is incredibaly difficult, if not impossible, to audit. Dead men voting (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting) is not a new phenomenon, but without knowing who they voted for it is hard pin allegation of fraud on a specific party. The only thing we can do is compare the official election results to independant sources (polls) and make an educated guess.

The Dems probably cheated in Minnesota
The GOP probably cheated in Ohio
Both sides probably cheated in Florida
Chicago's Political machine is probably run by an unholy alliance of the Mob, the SEIU, and an Eldritch Abhomination that lives at the bottom of Lake Michigan. ;)

[paft.livejournal.com]

Pft: In what manner do you qualify as a troll?
sw I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy kicking the intellectual hornet nest. I engage in drive-by snark and play devil's advocate because, to me, how someone responds is often more interesting than the actual topic being discussed.

But you respond directly to questions and at least attempt to address points. Your posts don't consist entirely of ad hominem attacks and personal insult. That exempts you from the label "troll," even though arguing in bad faith may make your posts "troll like."

What do you find interesting about the manner in which people respond?

sw: As for the issue of election fraud... the disadvantage of a secret ballot is that it is incredibaly difficult, if not impossible, to audit...

This sounds more like an article of faith than anything based on actual evidence. Most investigations of voter fraud, including the accused case in Minnesota, have concluded that the actual frequency of voter fraud is pretty low.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

sw: As for the issue of election fraud... the disadvantage of a secret ballot is that it is incredibaly difficult, if not impossible, to audit...

This sounds more like an article of faith than anything based on actual evidence.

Assumption A: The point of a secret ballot is to make sure that a specific ballot cannot be linked to a specific voter.

Assumption B: In the event of fraud there will be X number of fraudulent voters.

Conclusion: Because ballots can not be linked to specific voters (Assumption A) it is impossible to know which ballots are fraudulent, only that there are X number of them (Assumption B).

What do you find interesting about the manner in which people respond?

Hard to say, I just find it fascinating that out of deceptively simple motivations and interactions we get the entire range of human achievment. I might as well ask you why _____ is your favorite color?

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

> complaining because I'm replying to a troll, and then replying to the troll

You've terribly mixed the persons here. You call debergerac a troll. And now you call gunslnger a troll (because I was replying to him). Really, everyone else but you is a troll!?

[paft.livejournal.com]

No, just people who leave comments that have the sole intention of insult rather than attempts at actual argument or discussion.

What do you think a troll is?

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Everyone who disagrees with Paft, obviously.

[paft.livejournal.com]

When did I call you a troll?

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

welcome to my world.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Only certain people. And not because I'm trying to look cool, but because I think they only deserve that much.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Well of course you stalk only certain people. You don't have enough time for everybody.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Look, if you don't have anything to add to the actual discussion either, don't.