talkpolitics | Lawless

Entry tags:

Lawless

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Actually, i meant the word game you're playing here is bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic

Read it, understand it, Then accuse people of being logically inconsistant.

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

-Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass (1872)

I read it.

Your word game remains a word game.

A game with very high stakes.

Yes, very high stakes with very real consequences. Which is why it should not be turned into a word game.

Without quantifiable positions and conclusions ALL arguments are word games.

What I've been trying to accomplish with this whole exercise is to teach you how to make a mathmatically valid argument.

Maybe then others would not be so quick to dismiss you as a "partisan hack" and give your posts the attention that some of them deserve.

Ah, I see what the problem is here. See, I was approaching this discussion as a conversation between two adults on equal footing, not myself as a student and you as my teacher.

Your presume too much. And your definition of "consistent" does violence to the term.

Let’s take, for instance, your following:

***

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 consistant 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.

***

The problem with the above is that the argument prior to 911 was NOT “torture without reason is bad.” It was simply “torture is bad.” International laws against torture do not forbid “torture without reason.” They forbid torture. Period. And as someone old enough to remember how discussions on this issue were conducted prior to the Bush administration, I can tell you that was how any discussion of torture was framed. When Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book, THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO was published here in the US, the reaction to its chapter on Soviet torture was not to ask whether or not the Soviets had a good reason for imposing sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, and stress positions on prisoners. It was universal revulsion on both the right and the left. When the revelations about Pinochet’s torture of prisoners came out, I don’t recall any serious commentator, right or left, saying “but he needs to torture prisoners because…” The wrongness of torturing people – even Communists – was taken as an absolute.

What you’re doing here is attempting to make an argument “consistent” by altering it after the fact. It’s like the person who says resolutely “stealing is wrong” but, after they’re caught at it, insists “What I meant was that stealing is SOMETIMES wrong!” The thief can insist all he wants, but the fact remains that his stated argument before was not “stealing is SOMETIMES wrong” but “stealing is wrong.”

I told you in the beginning (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/924815.html?thread=71370383#t71370383) that I was in this for the "art" of the argument. I actually work part-time teaching Math and Logic to help pay for my own schooling, so allow me apologise as no disrespect was intended.

...and your definition of "consistent" does violence to the term.

Which is why it is so important to establish common definition (denominator if you will) at the outset of a debate.

It's also why I'm a Math/Engineering major ;) (that and spelling)

While personally I agree with you that torture in all forms is wrong, I was trying illustrate how someone could "consitantly" argue otherwise. "Consistant" in this case being used in its' logical/mathematical form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic#First-order_theories.2C_models.2C_and_elementary_classes). Simply put, disagreeing with someone on moral grounds does not automatically make thier arguments inconsistant or thier logic less sound.

As an aside, Solzhenitsyn is one of my favorite writers, I strongly reccomend looking up his recorded lectures if you get the chance.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1970/solzhenitsyn-lecture.html

The "art" of argument involves connecting one's arguments to reality.

That is certainly an important part of it.

It's the difference between stating the truth and a deliberate lie.

Re: Reccomended Reading...

sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com - 2011-03-20 01:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Reccomended Reading...

paft.livejournal.com - 2011-03-20 18:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Reccomended Reading...

sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com - 2011-03-21 19:02 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Reccomended Reading...

paft.livejournal.com - 2011-03-23 18:21 (UTC) - Expand

The funny thing is that this brings us right back to where we started.

Either you don't know what logical consistency is. or you are using a different definition.

So who's the one playing word games?

sw: he funny thing is that this brings us right back to where we started.

Which is usually the intent of reducing language to a game.

sw: So who's the one playing word games?

The person who's trying very, very hard to distract attention from the reality that's being discussed.

That would be you.

What's being discussed?

Do I have to link you back to the question that started this whole exchange?

By what criteria do you deem something to be "logically consistant"? (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/924815.html?thread=71267471#t71267471)

It was you who said

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

Do you know what that is?

In other news Gitmo's still open and Obama endorses torture (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/13/state-departments-p-j-crowley-stepping-down/).

Where's the outrage?

Nice attempt to change the subject, but no dice. For the record, the outrage is right here:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention

And here:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

And here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x641424

Now, back to the subject at hand.

Your word game is still bullshit.

Yet you didn't feel obligated to comment on it.
Is it that you hold conservatives to a higher standard?

As for the Subject at hand, what shall it be?

Over the course of this conversation you have brought up Voter Suppression, Logic, and Torture. What shall we discuss?

s: Yet you didn't feel obligated to comment on it. Is it that you hold conservatives to a higher standard?

No. It's because I have a limited amount of time , a personal life, and writing deadlines (paid) that prevent me from commenting here on every single issue that comes up, even when I have opinions on those issues. I have also not commented online about:

The recent arrest of white supremacists in the Northeast who were plotting to kidnap and kill law enforcement personnel.

The enormous pro-union demonstrations that have taken place in Wisconsin over the weekend.

The latest James O'Keefe kerfuffle

Kansas lawmaker Virgil Peck's recent "joke" about shooting illegal immigrants as if they were feral pigs.

Glenn Beck asking if the earthquake in Japan was some sort of divine punishment.

If you want my opinion about how the Obama administration is handling the issue of torture, you can find it here. As you can see, I was talking about it long before this most recent story broke.:

http://torchwood-us.com/2009/05/23/the-aarfy-defense/

s: Over the course of this conversation you have brought up Voter Suppression, Logic, and Torture. What shall we discuss?

The contempt the Republican party has increasingly shown for the concept of a popular vote and for a political system based on at least two major political parties.

If you want my opinion about how the Obama administration is handling the issue of torture, you can find it here. As you can see, I was talking about it long before this most recent story broke.:

http://torchwood-us.com/2009/05/23/the-aarfy-defense/

You See, that was an excellent, logical, and well written post. Why didn't you share it with Talk_Politics?

What shall we discuss?

The contempt the Republican party has increasingly shown for the concept of a popular vote and for a political system based on at least two major political parties

Ok let's do it.

s: You See, that was an excellent, logical, and well written post.

Yes. I know.

s: Why didn't you share it with Talk_Politics?

I owe you no excuse or explanation for what I do or do not choose to post here.

PFT: The contempt the Republican party has increasingly shown for the concept of a popular vote and for a political system based on at least two major political parties
s: Ok let's do it.

That's my intent in citing things like voter suppression and union busting.

I owe you no excuse or explanation for what I do or do not choose to post here.

That is fair.

However, can you see how if (in the eyes of this community) you continue to harp on one party without addressing the shortcomings of your own people will be inclined to dismiss you as a hack?

s: However, can you see how if (in the eyes of this community) you continue to harp on one party without addressing the shortcomings of your own people will be inclined to dismiss you as a hack?

Because it's not the Democrats who've been engaging in massive voter suppression, and I'm sorry, but I'm not going to pretend they have for the sake of "fairness." Nor am I going to close my eyes to such unpleasant fact os history as the Republican's Southern Strategy and their current embrace of barely-even-covert racism.

Sometimes reality is damned unfair.

I am a Democrat. I am also a liberal. I am a Democrat because I consider the Democratic party the better political party. I am a liberal because I consider liberalism the better viewpoint. That means in political discussion, I will favor Democratic politicians over Republican politicians, and liberal policies over conservative.

This does not make me a "hack." I do not attempt to bolster by views with lies, nor do I play word games. My arguments are directly related to conclusions I've drawn based on reality -- not merely on the fact that one side is wearing t-shirts that read "DP" and the other t-shirts that read "RP."

I realize that on many online talk boards, this makes me anomaly. I do not, for instance, a cache of funny pitchurs and personal insults on hand to post when I run out of arguments. No doubt in the eyes of many people here, that's terribly unfair of me.

Tough.

Yet in the eyes of this community (as we only see what you post) you have willfully ignored incidents where your party affiliation contradicted your ideological one.

You initially asked why I thought you were Logically Inconsitant. This is why.

sw: Yet in the eyes of this community (as we only see what you post) you have willfully ignored incidents where your party affiliation contradicted your ideological one.

What incidents do you have in mind -- and were the Republicans supporting my views?

sw: You initially asked why I thought you were Logically Inconsitant. This is why.

How would that be logically inconsistent, given that when the current Democrats have done things I disapproved of, they've been acting like Republicans?