MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Getting people to vote against themselves (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 30, 31, 32  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Do you mean, Ishmael, that Creationism should be taught as a theory about how species arose on earth, or are you saying that Creationism should be taught sociologically as a theory believed by many Americans?

You cannot be an Applied Epistemologist and hold the former position.
Send private message
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:

As for the Creationism canard, this was an offhand comment she made that she later clarified.

Creationism and Evolution - In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She clarified her position the next day, saying that if a debate of alternative views arose in class she would not prohibit its discussion. She added that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

It's not a canard. She told conservatives what they wanted to hear. Of course, she told liberals what they wanted to hear as well. But, she answered the question without changing the topic.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Do you mean, Ishmael, that Creationism should be taught as a theory about how species arose on earth, or are you saying that Creationism should be taught sociologically as a theory believed by many Americans?

If we are going to throw out notions of human origins from our school rooms for failing the epistemological test -- well then we'll have to toss out Darwin as well.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

EndlesslyRocking wrote:
The evangelical position on abortion is that it is wrong because there are 7 passages in the Bible that say it is wrong. The Catholic position on abortion is that all foetuses deserve to be born and loved, even the really gimped ones

What?

Seriously. You need educatin'.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

EndlesslyRocking wrote:
Ishmael wrote:

It will be blamed on his blackness.

Blackness will be a factor.

As many vote for his blackness as vote against it.

Upper class black women have the lowest marriage rates in the US because there are no upper class black men to marry..

What a novel theory.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

We are supposed to give novel theories house-room in this forum, so why don't we?

Rocking, what is your evidence that upper class black women have the lowest marriage rates in the US? But assuming they do, how would we know that it is the lack of middle class blacks that is the reason? Did some polling agency identify unmarried middle class black women and ask them? And if so, should we believe them? The most obvious objection to the whole notion is why wouldn't they have married middle class white men? Are they so racist that they would prefer to remain unmarried than commit miscegenation?
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, I used to think that non-black people voting for a black guy so they can feel good about themselves would be the wildcard factor in the election.

Similarly in the UK there's a sort of hearts and minds conflict, between Conservative policies seen as hard line but 'good for the country' and Labour's appeal to social conscience...except that, like Orwell's man and pig, you can't tell the difference any more. Most people end up voting for the party they perceive as most beneficial economically to themselves, never mind the rest of the country; there was though a genuine sense of outrage over foreign policy, the ill-fated Iraq war, which changed some people's traditional political allegiances.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Most people end up voting for the the party they perceive as most beneficial economically to themselves

It's curious that this never applies to the speaker but always applies to practically everybody else. Applied Epistemologists have a test for this: you ask the speaker for the name of one person who votes primarily with their own personal interest in mind. So then, Hatty, could we have a name (and privately a telephone number so I can check).
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I've always voted for the party that serves my best interests, not necessarily economic 'tis true. This can become problematic when there isn't a Rizla thickness between the two major parties. It then presumably comes down to personalities or even the boredom factor; someone who's entertaining, or interesting, is more likely to keep viewers engaged. After all, the PM's advisors are the people who in effect run the country.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty, this is perfectly ridiculous as well you know.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
...the ill-fated Iraq war....

Ill fated?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Another good example. Those opposed to the war think it will end badly, those who were supportive have not given up hope. And yet this is an entirely technical question that is to be judged entirely on the facts of the case.

To identify a would-be Applied Epistemologist one needs to hear that person say one thing, just one thing, that is not entirely predictable. In other words it would be as if Hatty looked at "the facts" and said, "Gee whiz, the Yanks will probably win after all" or for Ishmael to say, "We completely miscalculated." For either to say, "It's too soon to know" would be a start.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ill fated?

Meant to say ill-judged. Ridiculous to wait till we know the outcome, it's either a well-or ill-judged policy at the time.

As for voting, makes no difference who you vote for. Whichever party gets in will be guided by Whitehall mandarins.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
Ridiculous to wait till we know the outcome, it's either a well-or ill-judged policy at the time.

Well...that's rather hard to judge isn't it? Fact is, we're all guessing. And that makes the vitriol (and certitude) on both sides rather nonsensical.

The judgement of most of us doing the judging is rather inconsequential. It's much harder to judge when judgement makes a real difference. And yet some must do it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The defining characteristic of a political question is that "it is hard to judge". If it were not it would be addressed by some lower order body/individual. That is why Applied Epistemology requires a strategy of, first, adopting a position of "Don't Know" and then an inspection of Left/ Right/ Centre positions in order to select one. There is a third layer for when a) all three positions are clearly incorrect or b) you have selected Left or Right or Centre rather too often lately, but I won't distress you further.

PS The idea that vitriol ought not be present is so obvious that only our most vitriolic and most politically fixed member would need to remind us.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 30, 31, 32  Next

Jump to:  
Page 4 of 32

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group