|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
See, I think that the gridlock is SO bad, and so ingrained in the system that the only way to change anything is to do what the Republicans have been doing for the past 2 decades: fight at the state level. Once you control state houses you can gerrymander and voter suppress and all that other stuff that is CREATING this gridlock.
I think Sanders has a better chance of actually getting voters excited for once, getting youth to go vote in droves, and once they're in the ballot boxes, vote for him for president AND vote the right way on the state level.
Democrats have a massive advantage in presidential election years, and I think EVEN Bernie could roundly defeat any of the current stock of Republicans, with the possible exception of Bush or Rubio.
TL;DR- I'm living in Japan right now. If it's Bush v. Clinton in 2016, I'm not f$$%ing coming back!
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And a shout out to Comrade Meatrace. Had no idea you had transplanted across the globe.
Yup.I graduated back in May and I got the job I interviewed for in February (and applied for last November) with the JET program, working as an assistant language teacher in Japan. Hachioji, to be precise.
I think Clinton is a strong candidate.I don't think she is a GOOD candidate.
So, yes, a pejorative rhetorical definition.
Heck, let's just wiki it:
"Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."
"As a method, philosophy is often distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its questioning, critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument"
I think the link between philosophy and all the useful fruits of such in our life (Democracy, skepticism, science, social sciences, reason, intellectual curiosity, formalized argumenation, logic and computer sciences, etc.) but it's no use arguing with someone who just poo-poos these things and sticks his head in the sand.
Also, the rhetorical argument "humans never learn from history" is flawed. While we may not consciously make changes in our behavior, in aggregate, due to past missteps, humanity responds to incentives, both individually and in aggregate.
When we discovered that living together, creating edifices, and cultivating certain crops worked better and made for a lower mortality than hunting and gathering, we started to do that. And thus civilization and agriculture were born. The fact that there are notable exceptions to this rule doesn't invalidate that we are, almost universally, a city-living species where once we were not.
The point is "learn from history" is a fundamentally flawed argument because it misses the point on how we, as a species, operate in aggregate.
Here endeth the lesson.
And this is where you lose me. You continue to insist on a rhetorical definition of philosophy which does not fit the standard definition.
Your rhetorical definition that philosophy=bad and discarded philosophy is precisely as disingenuous as if I were to define science as only bad and discarded science (phrenology, alchemy, spontaneous generation, Brontosauri, etc.)
When you say "what has it done for me lately" you expose your ignorance. Science has done nothing for you or I. It is technology that has improved our lives, which is the principles of science applied by humans to improve our quality of life. At least ostensibly, much of technological progress has instead been a burden on us.
Similarly, philosophy has done nothing for you or I because philosophy isn't a physical thing capable of manifesting in the world without human actors to implement the ideas therein.
You could argue for the value of scientific knowledge merely existing, and I would concur, but then you would have to acknowledge the value of philosophical wisdom existing, even if they are not perfectly implemented (i.e. the legal system and its system of argumentation, our political system which was the result of a centuries-long argument about how best to govern, and so on).
P.S. Yes, I'm alive and well, and living in Tokyo!
What you're asking there is a philosophical question.Not just any question, but a question that spawned at least one entire school of philosophical thought: empiricism.
Empiricism is a school of philosophical thought that believes the nature of reality is best described through observation. The more observations you have of something, the more likely that it is true (as opposed to your fevered imaginings).
More specifically, if you want to know the relationship between two phenomena, you create an experiment and observe that, in an environment controlled against outside factors.
When you say you dislike string theorists, I imagine it is because their "theories" are not empirical. They are based on conjecture, and however mathematically sound their conjecture is it is not empirical i.e. based on direct observation. At the same time, I think we will both agree that once that evidence is observed (and published) we may change our minds, because we are rational folk.
You and I are philosophers. Specifically, we are empiricists. We are also rational, in that we believe in the power of reason.
As you say, when things are no longer of use (or sufficiently accurate) we discard them. This is also a philosophical argument. Many schools of philosophical thought are no longer useful or sufficiently accurate, and we have justly discarded them.
Similarly, alchemy has been justly discarded, even though many practitioners were inarguably scientists.
So, when I talk about science I don't talk about its missteps, its egregious errors, its laughable side-show offspring, I talk about the best things that it has brought us. Closer to understanding our universe. Therefore, when we talk about philosophy, shouldn't we talk about the best things that have come from it (science, the enlightenment, etc.) rather than its missteps?
Furthermore, just as we learn from a failed experiment as much as a successful one, in part because we (hopefully) learn WHY it failed, we learn as much from demonstrably wrong philosophy because we are able to hone our minds into a sharp stick of reason by disassembling arrogant half-truths and anachronistic misapprehensions.
Lincoln Chaffee is clearly a master debater.And Clinton is a cunning linguist.
Of course. The online poll is little more than a popularity contest. But why did CNN run the poll and then take down the results?
The only people I know of that are saying Clinton won the debate are media pundits and old-guard partisan hacks. Heck, I'd be more apt to give the point to Jim Webb who basically straight up said "I g%@~#*n smoked a guy in 'Nam!"
The weirdest outfall of all of this is hearing conservative republicans rail against judicial power and talk about overturning Marbury v. Madison (something I think might be a good idea; the power of judicial review ought to be more spelled out and a proper petition process in place) and lawmakers such as in Utah want to take their ball and go home, taking government out of the marriage game altogether. Which I also agree with. It's a personal and religious ceremony. The government has NO business saying who can and can't get married. Who enters into a civil union, on the other hand...
Pro Tip 1: Don't take the wrong spells.Pro Tip 2: Don't take the bad curses.
I mean, this is like arguing that the fighter is awful at dealing damage because he could spend every feat on Skill Focus. Don't do that.
Yeah I know, but those things aren't nearly as bad as the CV ones.If they had an AC of 24 and automatically paralyzed on a touch attack then maybe they'd be close. Also paralysis is 1d4 rounds and they hunt in packs of 2d6.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
The Italian deli I used to work at has buttered noodles on the menu, but it's REALLY garlicky garlic butter, and you typically put a ton of parmesan on it and eat it with a hot sausage. Good eats!
Freehold DM wrote:
That's like epically missing the point.
DA: "We contend that the police arrested Gray illegitimately then proceeded to beat him so severely it broke his spine which eventually lead to his death."
COP: "That is a HORRIFIC, slanderous LIE. I did nothing of the sort!
You're being disingenuous.In all cases that I've seen, riots form from protests AFTER police are called in in riot gear. They escalate. Sure, maybe there's some excess littering or traffic is inconvenienced or even a rare car bashed up, but it doesn't warrant ESCALATING the situation with police violence.
You'll note that the curfew doesn't just affect protesters. You're abridging individuals' rights because of what someone else has done. Unacceptable.
Lord Snow wrote:
You've earned the following achievements: Epistemic Nihilism, Missing the Point Entirely and Interpreting Something to Mean the Opposite.
You'll notice that nowhere in my post did I mention liberalism. I'm not making this statement on some fictitious scale of left vs. right, nor am I talking about the British conservative party, or Israeli conservative party. I thought it was pretty clear from context I was talking about American politics.
Also, I'm saying that CONSERVATISM is unempirical. I'm not sure how you even misinterpreted that.
Conservatives in America, aside from being decidedly anti-science, like to make big bold claims about what will happen if we do X, Y or Z. Then, when that outcome fails to appear, they refuse to admit they were wrong and instead invent a new bugaboo. Sometimes they just keep beating a dead horse (Obamacare is bad, mmkay? What's that? You LIKE your insurance?).
Beyond that, though, progressive policies have a transparent end goal: improve the quality of life of our citizens. This is something that is testable. "Liberal" policies are based on science, social science, and math, given that the goal of government should be to work on behalf of and for the benefit of its citizens.
Conservative ideology is either purely reactionary (social conservatism, which I don't think there's a place for anymore) or based on debunked economic theories (for the most part) which are themselves unempirical (i.e. Mises, Hayek, et al). The only reasoning they can provide for these policies is nebulous ideas like natural rights.
Property rights say that if you own something legitimately no one can tell you what to do with it, and that you can transfer it to someone else.
Someone like myself might say "well, hang on, that just gives rationale to pollution. property isn't as delineated as we'd like and there are externalities. Furthermore, allowing someone to transfer their own property without regulation leads inexorably to the accumulation of wealth among a chosen few. Money is power, and power corrupts; the first priority of those in power is to stay in power. Without a check on this accumulation it leads to an oligarchy (or even aristocracy). Maybe we should enact policies that prevent that from happening."
Conservatives: "STOP TRYING TO ABRIDGE MY RIGHTS YOU COMMIE!"
Politics is a lot like systems design. Garbage in garbage out.
Lord Snow wrote:
In other words, rights are a great ideal, but they're not based in empiricism.
This just sort of reinforces my idea of political conservatism as theorycrafting vs. play experience.
Well if you like it that's all that matters I guess. Thing is, even before Gov. Voldemort Florida has been bass ackwards in nearly all regards. Did you know they're not required to teach history before WWII in public schools? That's f@@#ed up.
But as someone who does his best to avoid sunlight and prefers more moderate temperatures, there's nothing to recommend Florida as a place to live. I think we should give it back to the Spanish and be done with it.
I've never heard a conservative talk about police/fire unions, other than in a specific context (like a mayor of a city in the middle of negotiations). They seem to mostly pretend that those unions don't exist, instead focusing on similar language that they use to describe the military (brave men and women, honor, duty, etc).
Here in Wisconsin, when they were crafting Act 10 the union busting bill from a few years back, they specifically exempted police and fire/rescue unions. When the next round of attacks came, they were exempted once again, and in fact the police were given raises rather than cuts.
To conservatives, property "rights">human rights in all cases.
So how long does someone has to be dead before it is considered archeology instead of grave robbing?
So how long does someone has to be dead before it is considered archeology instead of grave robbing?
I'm having trouble finding exactly where in this law that allows a person to discriminate someone on basis of religion. All it says that a government cannot "burden" a person or organization's ability to exercise their religion. The law only seems to concern government entities affecting how people exercise their religion, not private businesses.
The government can't "burden" a business by curtailing that business's right to exercise its religion.
Religion isn't being protected. Nothing is keeping these people from exercising their religion. Refusing service to someone has nothing to do with their religion; show me where in the Bible/Koran/Torah it says "thou shalt not make cakes for homos, for they art icky."
And also, this is plainly and obviously the purpose of this law: to override local/county laws that provide protections for such people and to pander to the Republican base aka homophobic bigots.
So here's my proposed solution.
Of course, this will mean that the taxes will go up for everyone else, to make up the revenue. And since you can't tell if someone is gay by looking at them then, realistically, anyone could be discriminated against.
So, therefore, everyone EXCEPT these businesses should get a tax break, and the businesses should see a commensurate tax increase.
We can call it a Bigot Tax.
I dunno, it was high 30s when I was there over xmas. Kinda chilly.Which reminds me, I didn't know you were in the area or I'd have offered to buy you a beer or something when I was out there. (my mom lives in Phoenix, as do my aunt and grandmother).
Give it a chance.It's hilarious.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Is there a VU song I'm not familiar with called "We're cooler than you c*#$s, so shut up"?