Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:57 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:26 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm
Everyone who truly believes in democracy votes, and with some rare exceptions, everyone who votes is always unhappy with the way everyone else votes, which doesn't make any sense.

It, indeed, doesn’t make any sense—unless everyone voted differently than everyone else. Voters are usually content with other voters who vote the same way.

Unless the politics are different wherever you are, in all the politics I bother to observe, (it is sometimes entertaining, when not disgustingly absurd), no voting citizen is ever happy with their present government. But they ought to be happy if they really believe whatever government gets voted in is the right one, shouldn't they?

Yes, and so would everyone else who voted the government in. Any of those people would be unhappy with those who voted to keep that government out, but not with anyone who voted it in.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:45 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:33 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:01 pm
In Mencken's day, most people did not think in those collectivist terms. Thinking of humanity as some kind of, "we," which has some objective or purpose of its own was unknown until forced on the public consciousness by government education and academic Marxist propaganda. For Mencken (and me as well) the human race is just a collective term for all the individual human beings in the world. He might have said, "most human beings," but he was a journalist, not a philosopher, and people were still able to read and enjoy subtleties in his day.

I don't think it has much to do with "collectivism" only with grouping and categories. Isn't he a member of the human race? Or is he some alien species from another planet?

Being a kind of thing and being a, "member," of some group or class are not the same thing. The word, "member," is ambiguous and subject to equivocation.

The primary meaning of member is something that is a part of a whole, such as an organ of the body, or someone who belongs to a group or organization. A less common meaning is something that has a specific attribute or characteristic common to all referrents of a class or category of existents.

When someone says, "you are a member of the human race," to mean one of those organisms defined as human, it is the second less common meaning of member that is (or should be) meant. As soon as someone admits, of course, "I'm a member of the human race," in that sense, some collectivist will immediately equivocate the meaning to the more common "member of some whole called humanity or mankind."

Of course every individual human being is a "member of the human race," but only in the sense that every individual is a human being. It is not true that every individual human being is a member of the human race in the sense they are some element in some collective thing called humanity.

I see the confusion. I don't mean "member" as in, "member of a communist collective". I mean member as in he's technically a member of the human race. So when he says, "the human race is incredibly idiotic", maybe he should rather say "most people are incredibly idiotic" if he wants to be strictly accurate. Unless he means to say that he's idiotic as well. Or perhaps he is talking collectively that the human race (to which he belongs) is idiotic in the aggregate because most of its members are idiotic. And I'm not using the term "collective" as in "communist collective". Not everything in this world is about communism vs. capitalism.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:15 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:45 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:33 pm

I don't think it has much to do with "collectivism" only with grouping and categories. Isn't he a member of the human race? Or is he some alien species from another planet?

Being a kind of thing and being a, "member," of some group or class are not the same thing. The word, "member," is ambiguous and subject to equivocation.

The primary meaning of member is something that is a part of a whole, such as an organ of the body, or someone who belongs to a group or organization. A less common meaning is something that has a specific attribute or characteristic common to all referrents of a class or category of existents.

When someone says, "you are a member of the human race," to mean one of those organisms defined as human, it is the second less common meaning of member that is (or should be) meant. As soon as someone admits, of course, "I'm a member of the human race," in that sense, some collectivist will immediately equivocate the meaning to the more common "member of some whole called humanity or mankind."

Of course every individual human being is a "member of the human race," but only in the sense that every individual is a human being. It is not true that every individual human being is a member of the human race in the sense they are some element in some collective thing called humanity.

I see the confusion. I don't mean "member" as in, "member of a communist collective". I mean member as in he's technically a member of the human race. So when he says, "the human race is incredibly idiotic", maybe he should rather say "most people are incredibly idiotic" if he wants to be strictly accurate. Unless he means to say that he's idiotic as well. Or perhaps he is talking collectively that the human race (to which he belongs) is idiotic in the aggregate because most of its members are idiotic. And I'm not using the term "collective" as in "communist collective". Not everything in this world is about communism vs. capitalism.

Yes, "most people are incredibly idiotic," would no doubt be easier for today's readers to understand. I think his actual audience, sixty or seventy years ago would not have been at all confused by what he said. He was an extremely successful and influential journalist, and his readers were usually quite erudite and familiar with his style.

I know you didn't confuse the two ways of using, "membership," but it is certainly intentionally obfuscated by others. Whenever someone says something about some ambiguous, "we," ought to do such and such or it's important to, "us," they do not mean individual human beings but some amorphous thing like humanity, or mankind, or Americans.

Interesting comments, Gary!

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:07 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:22 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm "I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy." [<i>Letters of H.L. Mencken</i> (1961)]

It's true. Almost every human being believes they must have a government to run their life, or, if not their own life exactly, at least everyone else's life. They all disagree on exactly what a government should be and do, but they all agree that the way to determine that is by consensus. "A government should represent the people," by which they mean, everyone should have a vote about what the government is and does.

yes

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm Everyone who truly believes in democracy votes

as a liberal person since - forever - but value a Democratic Republic - refuse to vote for two loser not valuing what i values (and since there is no 3/4th party to vote for assuming thier candidate was not shit like the machine Demcon/Republicrat (speak in 1990's ear here/trump is outside of this - sadly - so i will vote for demntia joe over dictator rump -----ya i know lesser of evis.


i affirm a viable 3 -4 and even 5th party. for me to vote for, assuming their candidate is not an idiot like the 2 we have today.


anyway like Ron Paul - voted for him in 88, but his son is nit - no Libertarian (I'm not into inherited sin, so fine with the Father worthy of my vote and not the son)


I'm fucking SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! per polical indentification, for the last 30 yrs - ya seriously 30 yrs!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a "lib" per civil liberties, but no so per econimicaly.

Greens are cool per international law, but not so per national law (I affirm the UN and my Cosntitution - both, but if forced in in a war bet, i choose the latter) grteen do not.

Libertarians are cool per personal libertry - so same as me, but they suck per corporations - "its ok for corps to fuck you over, regulations agaisn monopies are bad" ----this pisses me off, because per the vision of liberty/US constitution Liberarians and myself are 100 percent -------until they play the "free market" card, then they fucking suck!

as for Dems, they lost me with the "new dems" - early 90's turned their backs on the blue collar.

as for Reichbugs, that party never valued what i do.

either the ultra rich 1-=percenters decade prior or the religious facsits today. fuck them both, i was never religious nor rich nor will ever be.




FK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! why cant the Liberarians removes their Economic bullshit of "freee monopoly" and the Greens with their "ignore the Constitution" - and meat in the middle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and make a VIABLE 3 partly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ignore my tears - 20 yrs too late, my bad so sad.

That's the whole point. If you believe the way things should be run is to submit your own life and future to the vote of the majority, which you must believe if you vote, you deserve what you get.

my point is is my nation's political structure is too corrumpt to allow any viable 3rd or 4th party!!!!!! - its been the same old PRI (refer to Mexico) - one party game since - actually since 1938 - ya its been than long ago.

prior to 1938 we had the Progressive Pary and the American Communist Party - the former was a viable powerhouse for 40 yr with Debs geting 1/5 thof the national vote for Pres from a jail cell!

no 3 rd pary can get 1/20th of that from a jail call or even under the best of circomstances.

the game is rigged now for 70 ys and counting.

one party with 2 labels.

PRI, take it or leave it.


-----

you an American? - just asking , and no none of my business.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:05 am my point is is my nation's political structure is too corrumpt to allow any viable 3rd or 4th party!!!!!! - its been the same old PRI (refer to Mexico) - one party game since - actually since 1938 - ya its been than long ago.

prior to 1938 we had the Progressive Pary and the American Communist Party - the former was a viable powerhouse for 40 yr with Debs geting 1/5 thof the national vote for Pres from a jail cell!

no 3 rd pary can get 1/20th of that from a jail call or even under the best of circomstances.

the game is rigged now for 70 ys and counting.

So, why do you play the game? (It's more like a 100 years. The PRI has been around since 1929.)

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:05 am one party with 2 labels.

PRI, take it or leave it.

It's pretty much the same anywhere there is so-called party politics, Gaffo. Mexico's corrupt politics is only different from other corrupt governments in style, not substance. There is no such thing as an uncorrupt government.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:05 am you an American? - just asking , and no none of my business.

It depends on what you mean by American? If you are referring to the accidental place of my birth about which I had no choice, I was born in the United States. If you are referring to any kind of ethnic, social, or political identification, I do not identify with any race, nationality, or other ethnic classification or any religious, social, or political ideology. I'm just an individual human, like every other individual human being.

Democracy is a pre-condition for liberty, but only in theory. In theory, democrats (people who believe in democracy, no, I'm not refering to any specific political party here) reason that most people want as much happiness in their lives as possible and therefore the majority of the common people want to work as little as possible and get the most benefits as possible, which - they conclude - should mean any democratic government ought to be liberal, left wing and progressive.

But reality is far from that. The most liberal progressive democracies have a very short life. 100 % of all liberal progressive democracies end up being right wing populist dictatorships.

This is because most common people are stupid. They think if the government hand out tax cuts or benefits for the worst off, that's all fine. They give shit about torture of innocents, censorship of critics, arrests of opposition etc. In the end, the worst off citizens end up even poorer and have to work longer than before - now, as slaves or conscripts in the army of a totalitarian populist dictatorship.

This is why we need an alternative to democracy to ensure liberal progressive governments. You can't have liberty (personal liberty) if you have a democracy. But you can't have dictatorship either. I've long been a supporter for an expert-only government, a technocracy of some sort where only university graduates are allowed a vote.

But obviously that's an upopular opinion in a democracy ruled by fools.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:43 pmThe most liberal progressive democracies have a very short life. 100 % of all liberal progressive democracies end up being right wing populist dictatorships.

This is a statement of fact. A false fact, in fact. You name your source, or the statistic you found this in, and we believe you. Until then, we treat your opinion as unfounded bias. Your opinion is unfounded, as there are no facts to support it, and it is biassed, because you dreamed it up in order to prove your point.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:58 pm
It's pretty much the same anywhere there is so-called party politics, Gaffo.

that simply is not so Sir!!!!!!!!!!!!

"we" American's had a less corrupt system than we do today. since the -40?50?60?70? - not sure, when but since then, many States have "Walled off allowing/formally reconizing any 3rd party! - buy State Voter Registration Laws ------------for instance, in my state, the State of Oklahoma, we have State Election Laws that have formally forbidden me to register as a Green Party or Libertarian Party Member since the 1990's at least! - Libertarians had to go to court! - a decade long lawsuit! - i can now formerly register as a Libertarian, since about 4-5 yrs ago! - but not 20 yrs ago when i wished to! not 30 yrs ago either.

as for Greens? - State SC ruling only applied to the Libertarians! - so the greens are still fucked in my state, so i can not register as one of them - like i could not 20 yrs or 30 yrs ago.

I fall in the between the Greens and the Libertarians, if you asked me which i were closer to in say 2005, i'd say the Liberatians, due to them and i being hardcore anti- illegal Iraq war based on pure lies.

I rem the moniker "Libraltarian" - fuck even the Daily Kos guy was self identifed with that moniker as did all/most Libertarians of that time.

but since Bush (Cheney of course was the real President per foriegn policy) - a full thug - left office the Libertarians moved to the Right, dragged alone with the Tea PArty nutters.

its like WFT?------- the Liberal Dems, and the Libertarians were united against the PNAC "Cabal", Scooter Libby, Wolfy, "Prince of Darkness" Perle, Doug Feith, Elliot Abrams, Ken Edelman, Rice, and Rummy.

then the Libertarians did the about face with Obama and all of the sudden they hated Obama and sided with the trailer trash Teabaggers.

WTH?

I still can not register as a Green PArty member in my State.

BTW in the Presidental Election of 2000 - when McCain was not a sellout to the RNC, I wanted to vote for him, i learned that my State removed write-ins shortly prior (BTW I've been able to vote since 1984, and i voted for Ron Paul in 88 (Modale in 84) - on both of this ballots there were 4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! other parties, i rem seeing one as from a socialist party and a women - never heard of her, nor voted for her - but she was on the fucking ballot! and so i had the option to!!!!!!!!! - since 2000 that option have been removed!), so i said to myself - "fuck" i like McCain, he should have won the Republican Nomination of 2000" (rem. this was before is "Transformation"/sellout of 2008), and so I decide to vote for Nader! (never like Gore - or Bore more like (Gush/Bore - same old same old machine sellouts).............well since my State refused/refuses to recongnize the Green Party - 20 yrs ago and up to today) - HE was not on the fucking ballot!!!!!!!!!!!!

so denied my written - suddenly illegal, and denied my back up choice Nader - not on the Ballot.

I FUCKING DID NOT FUCKING VOTE IN 2000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


-------------------------------------------

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:58 pm There is no such thing as an uncorrupt government.

you are wrong, i just stated in the 1980's my State's prez ballet had 4 parties to vote for - not 2!

All European nations have at least 10 actually and viable parties there citzens can vote for - those nation's gov have not made rigged rules to remove 8 of those parties to end up with fucking 1-2 like what had here in America!

so pull your head out.

its not all or nothing (gov is pure or corrupt) - is a all grey and either stand up and fight for a lighter grey or get out of the way!

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:05 am you an American? - just asking , and no none of my business.

It depends on what you mean by American? If you are referring to the accidental place of my birth about which I had no choice, I was born in the United States. If you are referring to any kind of ethnic, social, or political identification, I do not identify with any race, nationality, or other ethnic classification or any religious, social, or political ideology. I'm just an individual human, like every other individual human being.
[/quote]

So a Assume you are an American, since you did not note where you live - any other nation.

BTW IMO one's home is where the heart is. not where you were born.

If i find Japan is where my heart is and find myself living as a one with the culture, then I Japanese - mentally (leaving aside Legalism - I'm a legalist - dot the i cross the t's and find a way to become a Japanese Citizen if you can).

gaffo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:08 pm BTW in the Presidental Election of 2000 - when McCain was not a sellout to the RNC, I wanted to vote for him, i learned that my State removed write-ins shortly prior (BTW I've been able to vote since 1984, and i voted for Ron Paul in 88 (Modale in 84) - on both of this ballots there were 4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! other parties, i rem seeing one as from a socialist party and a women - never heard of her, nor voted for her - but she was on the fucking ballot! and so i had the option to!!!!!!!!! - since 2000 that option have been removed!), so i said to myself - "fuck" i like McCain, he should have won the Republican Nomination of 2000" (rem. this was before is "Transformation"/sellout of 2008), and so I decide to vote for Nader! (never like Gore - or Bore more like (Gush/Bore - same old same old machine sellouts).............well since my State refused/refuses to recongnize the Green Party - 20 yrs ago and up to today) - HE was not on the fucking ballot!!!!!!!!!!!!

so denied my written - suddenly illegal, and denied my back up choice Nader - not on the Ballot.

I FUCKING DID NOT FUCKING VOTE IN 2000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I voted for Nader in 2000. He was on the ballot in Virginia where I lived. Of course a lot of stuff was made out of Nader "spoiling" the election for Gore and some say it was voting for Nader that cost Gore the election and we instead ended up with Bush. I tend to think that history would have been somewhat different had Gore won. Not sure, though.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:22 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:08 pm BTW in the Presidental Election of 2000 - when McCain was not a sellout to the RNC, I wanted to vote for him, i learned that my State removed write-ins shortly prior (BTW I've been able to vote since 1984, and i voted for Ron Paul in 88 (Modale in 84) - on both of this ballots there were 4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! other parties, i rem seeing one as from a socialist party and a women - never heard of her, nor voted for her - but she was on the fucking ballot! and so i had the option to!!!!!!!!! - since 2000 that option have been removed!), so i said to myself - "fuck" i like McCain, he should have won the Republican Nomination of 2000" (rem. this was before is "Transformation"/sellout of 2008), and so I decide to vote for Nader! (never like Gore - or Bore more like (Gush/Bore - same old same old machine sellouts).............well since my State refused/refuses to recongnize the Green Party - 20 yrs ago and up to today) - HE was not on the fucking ballot!!!!!!!!!!!!

so denied my written - suddenly illegal, and denied my back up choice Nader - not on the Ballot.

I FUCKING DID NOT FUCKING VOTE IN 2000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I voted for Nader in 2000. He was on the ballot in Virginia where I lived. Of course a lot of stuff was made out of Nader "spoiling" the election for Gore and some say it was voting for Nader that cost Gore the election and we instead ended up with Bush. I tend to think that history would have been somewhat different had Gore won. Not sure, though.

Nadar did not cost Gore the Election (Gore cost Gore the election - did not fight for it) - i rem clearly Gore contested 4? counties in Florida - but not demand a recount of the whole State (for he thought he lost the State, but if they recounted those 4? counties he would be shown to win) - the irony is that he actually won the whole state by litterally 180-ish votes statewide! had he demanded a full State recount he might have been our prez, but he showed his self interested bias and never demanded a statewide recount/ only a recount of counties he thought would benefit him.

- then the Florida SC got involved (as she should have in a Nation with the Rule of Law), then the US SC cut off the balls of the Florida SC's role - nullifying them, and so not a Rule of Law action - but a Banana Republic action.

Step one of the Fall of America - US SC nullifiying Florida SC 's role and apointing Bush JT as pres.

Step two is of course illegal Iragman (and here is where a President Gore would not have invaded) -...........................

So - alternative History under President Gore, No Iraqnam - just the usual Saddam Husian - balance of power against Iran. Yes 911 would have happened, and Gore being the usual "boy's club" would have gotten us into the Afghan War (which i supported and as legal in my mind - from 2003 - to 2011 or so - then had had enough, like Veitnam - no win game (never supported the fully illegal invasion of Iraq which had nothing to do with 911)).

So pres Gore - no Iraqnman, so no 150,000 dead, no lost 2 trillion added to the national debt, no ISIS, no Syrian civil war, no Yemani civil war, no rising Iran with Iraq as her puppet provence, and so no increased Middle East Cold War bet Iran and Saudi Arabia.

so ya American and history overall would have been in a better place with Bore being president over Gush.

butterfly effect for sure!