talkpolitics | 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

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.

That's assuming that there is a single universal truth or perspective.

If person A says "I believe in God", and Person B says "I believe in no god" which one is lying?

There is certainly objective truth when it comes to events, history, and common usage. It is objectively true that thousands of legal voters in Florida were denied the right to vote in the 2000 election. It is objectively true that the Republican party engaged in something called "The Southern Strategy" in order to appeal to disaffected southern Democrats in the wake of the Civil Rights movement. It is objectively true that Hitler was and is regarded by contemporary observers and historians as a RIGHT winger -- not a leftist -- and anyone who actually reads history and contemporary accounts knows it. It is objectively true that sleep deprivation, stress positions, and sexual humiliation were counted as "torture" by the civilized world before the Bush administration decided they wanted to use these methods.

What I have seen repeatedly on the right are attacks on these objective truths so dishonest and blatant that they should disgust anyone who values reality. "Hitler was a leftist." "The southern strategy? What was THAT?" "Sleep deprivation isn't torture!"

Sorry, but arguing with someone who claims that Hitler was a leftist and that the belief that he was a right winger is part of some vast conspiracy of historians and journalists (including that notorious pinko, Henry Luce) is NOT the equivalent of arguing with someone over something as unprovable as the existence or nonexistence of God.

At what point did I deny any of this?

By your system of definitions, Hitler was right wing and Stalin was left wing, yet functionally they were identical. Is it so hard to believe that in the eyes of some they may both be considered to be on the same side of the political spectrum?

These pereceptions and definitions are not set in stone, they have evolved over time. Treating them as if they are absolute, because they are not.

In order to argue logically (vice emotionally) you must establish your definitions and assumptions at the outset.

sw: At what point did I deny any of this?

I never said you had made any of these claims. My point was a response to your question about whether or not discussing the reality of God involves lying. I am pointing out that not all -- or even most -- conversations on issues involve something so abstract and unprovable as the existence of God.

sw: By your system of definitions, Hitler was right wing and Stalin was left wing, yet functionally they were identical. Is it so hard to believe that in the eyes of some they may both be considered to be on the same side of the political spectrum?

That "some" is a tiny minority, and is using a definition of "left wing" and "right wing" counter to common usage. Sorry, but Hitler being universally regarded as a right winger by BOTH sides of the political spectrum, whether contemporary observers or historians, is not in in question. It's simply a fact.

sw: These pereceptions and definitions are not set in stone, they have evolved over time. Treating them as if they are absolute, because they are not.

Oh yes, common usage changes. That seems to be what the "Hitler was a leftist" crowd is counting on. But changing the definition of "left" and "right" today does not alter the FACT that Hitler was and still is regarded by most who know anything about him as a right winger. And as someone who's been following that attempt at mass redefinition, I can't help but notice that its adherents rely heavily on lying by omission -- or sometimes just plain lying -- to sell their crap.

Lawless

Re: Reccomended Reading...

Re: Reccomended Reading...

Re: Reccomended Reading...

Re: Reccomended Reading...

Re: Reccomended Reading...

Re: Reccomended Reading...

Re: Reccomended Reading...

Re: Reccomended Reading...

Re: Reccomended Reading...

Re: Reccomended Reading...