23-01-2004 23:47									#151
	Support Apolyton

Is Bodd's a trolling foo?

	23-01-2004 23:51									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Whaleboy, you are a person whose politics and philosophy are tied to an emotional position, the hatred of war. Being emotionally based, your philosophy cannot be solely based on logic and in the end is illogical.

Not tied. Based upon. All of our politics are based upon emotion, it so happens that mine is a hatred of war. However, that is just an emotion. I base a logical position upon that to justify it and present the pre-ordained conclusion to the world (see emotivism). That does not mean that my argument is emotional, as it is logic set with a specific motivation, its strength is how well it achieves the conclusion. For example, it is like saying "I want to build a bridge between two banks". Thats all very well, but you judge the bridge by its structure, not its motivation. In other words, the logical strength of my conclusion is linked to its premises, not its motivation. Attacking the human basis for an argument is an example of an ad hominem, and does nothing to weaken my argument. Try again.

quote: A democrat is a person who believes that people know best their self interest and can be trusted with the ultimate control of government. This is a logical philosophy that stems from a logical premise.

The emotional motivation (and not premise) perhaps is the nobility of the people, or the belief that each person has a right to dictate how their nation is run etc. There are myriad reasons, I assure you they are there, and they are there for ALL philosophical/political/social/moral positions. There is no one theory based solely upon logic and nothing else. There is always the human element. If you can find me one entirely logical qualitative theory, then you will prove relativism to be false. You will also destroy philosophy since the question of one view vs another will be irrelevant. Fortunately for me, such a notion is fallacy.

quote: A person who is wedded to an emotionally based philosophy cannot trust the government to the people because they may vote in a way contrary to the core philosophy. You, Whaleboy, are one of these crippled, illogical people who oppose democracy.

I, Ned, am whatever I tell you I am . We all have emotionally based philosophies, but the question is if they are logical in nature? Judging by the response (positive and negative) from other threads, a consensus here is that they are (negative because it has been suggested that mine are so almost to the point of being academic). I'll ignore the insult there .

quote: no say in how his country and his life gets directed

Not strictly true, since I think electing a government once every 20 years or so based upon its general philosophy is good because it keeps the government relatively in check with sociological phenomenon, thus preventing the possibility of revolution. Lets not beat about the Bush here, democracy only exists today because in history, better alternatives did not exist (dictatorship meant malevolent dictatorship and I prefer democracy to that), and because it fielded the largest and most patriotic armies.

quote: Spiffor, a democrat of course would allow even the Whaleboys of the world to vote. It is the Whaleboys who would deny others the right to vote.

I only vote because I'm more capable than someone who isn't politically or philosophically aware (forgive me laymen.. I studied ), at making a decision about how I think the nation should be run, hence adding my weight to the intellectual cause as opposed to the vigilante. I vote liberal.

I know what's coming and I'll put a stop to it now. I believe VERY strongly in liberty. I believe in civil rights, the right to protest, the right to harbour a political or philosophical opinion, the right to total free speech and freedom of association. None of this translates into direct political rights, in other words, a say in how ones nation is run. That is the government executive's perogative.

In other words, my perfect government would be a libertarian dictatorship, or perhaps a technocracy where you periodically elect the computer programme based upon its code, or a government where you elect one philosophy over another, as opposed to manifestos of populist and specific policies that lead to broken promises and inflexible resolve (lest they appear hypocritical). I am simply giving you a better system than democracy, whereas none existed before.