The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2

[antigoon]

Excellent article. Most of us are guilty of succumbing to that stuff, one way or another.

[Scheavo]

I never thought I'd say this, but this is a brilliantly written Cracked article. Read it all the way to the end, because I think the message at the tail end is pretty important, and I say this knowing that I do that all the time:

https://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-to-spot-b.s.-political-story-in-under-10-seconds/

Romney's advisor comparing his campaign to an etch-a-sketch wasn't a "gaffe." This is more or less what Romney's going to try and do, all Romney's advisor did was make this public knowledge. The "gaffe," if there is any, is using the actual word "etch-a-sketch," but the essence of what he was saying was not a gaffe.

The woman who said Romney's wife had never worked a day in her life, worked for CNN, and not Obama by any means. He helping spread this lie, even though he later acknowledges it.

If it was just some random dude, the guys right, and people do that all the time. However, that doesn't really apply to this case, as Romney actually sought Nugent's endorsement (according to Ted). Now it's not as if we should be paying attention to Ted Nugent, and I don't think this is a scandal in any way, but this isn't just some random dude saying something, and trying to tie it to Romney. It's a vocal republican supporter, whose support Romney sought. He doesn't mention that fact.

Overall, I think he's right, I just think he missed on some of his examples. He seems to be using false logic, that becuase 99% of what the media latches on to is a bullshit story, that everything the media latches onto is a bullshit story. The fact that Romney wants to completely remake himself for the general election is not a gaffe, and is actually politically important.

[Omega]

Moral of the homosexuality thread:

If you can get enough people to irrationally whine about an opposing viewpoint, you can request a thread to be closed.

[Super Dude]

If that's the lesson you took away from that thread, then may God have mercy on your soul.

[Adami]

Moral of the homosexuality thread:

If you can get enough people to irrationally whine about an opposing viewpoint, you can request a thread to be closed.

Is that the objective moral of the thread or the subjective moral of the thread? If it's the subjective moral, then anything can be the moral of the thread, including the moral that there is no moral of the thread.



INCEPTION!

[El Barto]

FOX has really been hammering this story about the veteran being refused a refund by Spirit Airlines the last few days, so I finally decided to read what was gong on.  I had assumed that he was returning from combat or something.  I was wrong.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/02/vietnam-veteran-overwhelmed-with-support-after-denial-refund-by-spirit-airlines/

A Facebook campaign calling for a boycott of Spirit Airlines has taken off with jet-like propulsion since the carrier's denial of a refund to a dying former Marine made headlines.

The “Boycott Spirit Airlines” Facebook page has seen its number of "likes" soar in recent days, rising tenfold to nearly 7,000. The social network support has come as Jerry Meekins, a 76-year-old Vietnam veteran with terminal esophageal cancer, raised a fuss when the Fort Lauderdale-based airline nixed his request for a $197 refund. Meekins was going to fly to New Jersey for his daughter's surgery, but his doctor told him not to fly, citing his deteriorating health. The Facebook page blasting the much-complained-about airline already existed, but Meekins' plight has sent furious fellow veterans and concerned citizens flocking to it.

"This is a despicable act on their part," one post read. "They should have quietly returned the airfare and they could have avoided this. I will never fly this airline."

Another wrote: "Here is another former Army soldier supporting you! They picked the wrong group of people to mess with!"

"I hope all the negative publicity is worth $197," read another post.

Meekins, who appeared on Fox News' "Fox & Friends" Wednesday morning, said he appreciates the support. The ex-cop, who drove up from his home in Clearwater, Fla., said he's gotten numerous offers of cash, including a $197 handshake from host Steve Doocy -- which Meekins said he would donate to the Wounded Warrior Project for injured veterans. But it is no longer about the money, said Meekins, who added that he's genuinely touched by the outpouring of support.

“It’s been tremendous, my phone hasn’t stopped ringing,” Meekins, 76, of Clearwater, Fla., told FoxNews.com following the appearance.

    “It’s been tremendous, my phone hasn’t stopped ringing.”

- Jerry Meekins, Vietnam veteran

Peter Forbes, president of the Veterans of the Vietnam War and the Veterans Coalition, told FoxNews.com his 70,000-member, Pennsylvania-based organization sent a letter asking for a reversal by Spirit Airlines on Tuesday

"What would have happened if this patriotic American said ‘no’ when called to serve his country?” the letter obtained by FoxNews.com reads.

The tight-fisted airline is standing by its decision, according to Spirit spokeswoman Misty Pinson. Spirit officials say their refusal to compromise helps them keep costs down for all passengers, and note that passengers can pay extra for insurance that enables them to apply for refunds -- an option Meekins did not take.

Meekins protested near the airline’s ticket counter at Tampa International Airport last month and was joined by other veterans, including one who voiced the potential of a boycott.

"We've got 3 million Legionnaires, and when you take into account all veterans, you're talking 10 million people,” said Bill Hamlin, commander of American Legion Post 5 in Tampa. “Can Spirit Airlines really afford the negative publicity and the possible boycott of at least 10 million veterans?”

Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/02/vietnam-veteran-overwhelmed-with-support-after-denial-refund-by-spirit-airlines/#ixzz1tjtenlde

I don't understand why he deserves special treatment from private businesses at this point.  If people want to call Spirit heartless for denying his refund on compassionate grounds, then I'd agree with them.  FOX has a real hard-on for veterans, almost to the point of beatifying them, and this is a fine example.  The guy bought the cheapest ticket he could buy, which we all know means non-refundable, and he declined travel insurance which is easy to get and reasonably priced.  It probably would have cost him $30 or so.  He, like I always do, took the risk of losing $190, and now he's tugging on patriotic heartstrings because he got burned on the deal. 

Like I said before, I think it's pretty callous under the circumstances to refuse the guy's refund, and it's certainly a bad PR move.  Not because of the negative publicity, which I think is bullshit, but for the missed opportunity to do something compassionate.  Personally, I commend them for sticking to their guns at this point. 

[Omega]

Moral of the homosexuality thread:

If you can get enough people to irrationally whine about an opposing viewpoint, you can request a thread to be closed.

Is that the objective moral of the thread or the subjective moral of the thread? If it's the subjective moral, then anything can be the moral of the thread, including the moral that there is no moral of the thread.



INCEPTION!

Adami, you gotta read some Jean-Paul Sartre or some Camus or some Nietzsche. Seriously. Like, a vast majority of supposed "moral relativists" here on DTF ought to. As soon as possible.

[Scheavo]

Moral of the homosexuality thread:

If you can get enough people to irrationally whine about an opposing viewpoint, you can request a thread to be closed.

Is that the objective moral of the thread or the subjective moral of the thread? If it's the subjective moral, then anything can be the moral of the thread, including the moral that there is no moral of the thread.



INCEPTION!

Adami, you gotta read some Jean-Paul Sartre or some Camus or some Nietzsche. Seriously. Like, a vast majority of supposed "moral relativists" here on DTF ought to. As soon as possible.

Haven't done Camus, but I have read Heidegger, Sartre and 90%+ of Nietzsche's works.

Except for Camus, they're all perspectivalists. Something you label as "relativist" and meaningless.

[Adami]

Moral of the homosexuality thread:

If you can get enough people to irrationally whine about an opposing viewpoint, you can request a thread to be closed.

Is that the objective moral of the thread or the subjective moral of the thread? If it's the subjective moral, then anything can be the moral of the thread, including the moral that there is no moral of the thread.



INCEPTION!

Adami, you gotta read some Jean-Paul Sartre or some Camus or some Nietzsche. Seriously. Like, a vast majority of supposed "moral relativists" here on DTF ought to. As soon as possible.

lol I've studied philosophy quite a bit. I admit I don't have the memory to recall tons of names/concepts like you can, but all of my studying led me here. And I am quite happy here.

[Omega]

Haven't done Camus, but I have read Heidegger, Sartre and 90%+ of Nietzsche's works.

Except for Camus, they're all perspectivalists. Something you label as "relativist" and meaningless.

No, Camus was an absurdist, Sartre an existentialist and Nietzsche a nihilist. Point is, though, that they realized that, in accordance with their atheism, the universe is simply purposeless, senseless, and meaningless. Nature is nothing but matter in motion. And the motions of matter are governed not by any purpose, but by blind, purposeless forces. If the scheme of the universe is purposeless and meaningless, then the life of man is purposeless and meaningless too. Everything is futile and all effort in the end is worthless. A man may, of course, pursue disconnected ends, money, fame, art, science, and may gain pleasure from them, but his life is hollow at the center. Hence the dissatisfied, disillusioned, restless nature of postmodern man. There are no reasons for the universe being or for how the universe is. Everything might as well have been quite different and there would be no reason for that either.

And along with the death of God, as Sartre, Camus, and Nietzsche saw, died all moral principles and indeed all moral values. For if there is a cosmic purpose; if there is in the nature of things a drive towards goodness, then our moral systems will derive their validity from this. But if our moral rules do not proceed from something outside us in the nature of the universe, then they must be our own inventions. Thus these honest atheist philosophers came to see that moral rules are merely an expression of our own likes and dislikes. Yet likes and dislikes are notoriously variable; what pleases one man, people, or culture displeases another. Therefore morals are wholly relative. Even Hobbes was able to see that if there is no purpose in the universe, then there are no values either:

"Good and evil are names that signify our appetites and aversions; which in different tempers, customs, and doctrines of men are different... Every man calleth that which pleaseth him, good; and that which displeaseth him, evil."


The eras of modernism and postmodernism can be aptly summed up as a series of failed attempts to ground morals in a secularist foundation.

[Scheavo]

Um, wow. Because Sartre is a perspectvist, doesn't mean he's not an existentialist. Just because Nietzsche "is" a nihilist, doesn't mean he's not a perspectivist. Perspectivism is a way of lookiing at the world, and it's the way in which Kant solved the modern "crisis" of "subject" and "object" (which we know to be false interpretations of the world). Perspetvisim is relative, but it not merely up to the persons desires and feelings, as you make it out to be. Try as I want, I cannot desire a square to be a circle. Just not gonna happen. You overlook this latter portion of perspectivism all the time. There IS a common world we all share, a "reality," but we don't directly experience that reality, we experience and interpretation of said reality - and while interpretations will all vary, you cannot interpret anything you desire.

You seem to be completely unaware of Nietzsche fundamental theory of "will to power."

In so far as the world "Knoweldge" has nay meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings. - "perspectivism.

"it has no meaning behind it," can be easily interpreted as saying its meaningless. But that's obviously not what he means, because he says it has countless meanings. Instead, what he is saying is that there is no one meaning behind the word "knowledge." It is not that it can mean anything, it's that it has countless meanings, making it not this one meaning, or that one meaning - which is to say, there is no meaning behind it.

I had a professor make a hermeneutical point once, that really helped me understand this. To take a relevant example, "The Will to Power" says two things: one's will to power, which is probably the most natural way to interpret that statement - but also, the will which belongs to power, power itself having a will.

[Omega]

Um, wow. Because Sartre is a perspectvist, doesn't mean he's not an existentialist. Just because Nietzsche "is" a nihilist, doesn't mean he's not a perspectivist. Perspectivism is a way of lookiing at the world, and it's the way in which Kant solved the modern "crisis" of "subject" and "object" (which we know to be false interpretations of the world). Perspetvisim is relative, but it not merely up to the persons desires and feelings, as you make it out to be. Try as I want, I cannot desire a square to be a circle. Just not gonna happen. You overlook this latter portion of perspectivism all the time. There IS a common world we all share, a "reality," but we don't directly experience that reality, we experience and interpretation of said reality - and while interpretations will all vary, you cannot interpret anything you desire.

We are not interested in moral epistemology, Scheavo; we're interested with moral ontology. The question is "do objective moral values and duties exist, and if so, were are they grounded?"

You seem to be completely unaware of Nietzsche fundamental theory of "will to power."

In so far as the world "Knoweldge" has nay meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings. - "perspectivism.

"it has no meaning behind it," can be easily interpreted as saying its meaningless. But that's obviously not what he means, because he says it has countless meanings. Instead, what he is saying is that there is no one meaning behind the word "knowledge." It is not that it can mean anything, it's that it has countless meanings, making it not this one meaning, or that one meaning - which is to say, there is no meaning behind it.

I had a professor make a hermeneutical point once, that really helped me understand this. To take a relevant example, "The Will to Power" says two things: one's will to power, which is probably the most natural way to interpret that statement - but also, the will which belongs to power, power itself having a will.

All Nietzsche is saying is that, at bottom, there is no objective meaning in the universe or of anything other than what we subjectively ascribe to it. Hence there are countless meanings which each individual can subjectively impose on their own existence or on the universe.

[Adami]

Seriously guys, not in the chat thread,  please?

[Omega]

Seriously guys, not in the chat thread,  please?

Are we not "chatting"?

[Super Dude]

Chat thread is meant for the rather more lighthearted and/or casual political discussions, not srs business. Save it for specialized threads please.

[Omega]

Chat thread is meant for the rather more lighthearted and/or casual political discussions, not srs business. Save it for specialized threads please.

To have such a thread locked because (insert name here) doesn't "like" the discussion again?

[yeshaberto]

Omega, I will not lock this thread.   I will only ask you to stay out, unless you can pleasantly chat.  This is not a discussion thread.   If u want to discuss a subject start a thread

[Adami]

Anyway, so I've had some fantasies recently about moving back to Israel (actually pretty realistic) and trying to start some kind of pro-unity thing against the government (not as realistic). I have the image of covering Tel Aviv or Haifa in posters saying "What happened to our country?"

Superdude, you want in?


Also, covering Jerusalem in ירושלים של זהב לא של דם would be pretty awesome.

[Super Dude]

Wow, I like that slogan. For those who can't understand, "Jerusalem of Gold, not of Blood." As for the against the government thing, I'd go the more moderate route of trying to moderate said government. Get more Arab politicians and liberal Israelis involved, foster more inter-state cooperation, etc. Although you could be on the right track by saying that pro-unity is the thing to emphasize.

[Adami]

Wow, I like that slogan. For those who can't understand, "Jerusalem of Gold, not of Blood." As for the against the government thing, I'd go the more moderate route of trying to moderate said government. Get more Arab politicians and liberal Israelis involved, foster more inter-state cooperation, etc. Although you could be on the right track by saying that pro-unity is the thing to emphasize.

I think it's less anti government, and more a pressure to reflect on what once made the country great, and a look at what we've become. Hopefully the realization that we have become something....not very good, will motivate people to change from the ground up. And yea, I am pretty fond of that slogan, maybe I should copyright it.

[jammindude]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the turning of the wrist,
Socrates himself was permanently pissed...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, with half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day,
Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, "I drink therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.

- Monty Python

I was reading this thread, and the inspiration hit me. 

[Super Dude]

Wow, I like that slogan. For those who can't understand, "Jerusalem of Gold, not of Blood." As for the against the government thing, I'd go the more moderate route of trying to moderate said government. Get more Arab politicians and liberal Israelis involved, foster more inter-state cooperation, etc. Although you could be on the right track by saying that pro-unity is the thing to emphasize.

I think it's less anti government, and more a pressure to reflect on what once made the country great, and a look at what we've become. Hopefully the realization that we have become something....not very good, will motivate people to change from the ground up. And yea, I am pretty fond of that slogan, maybe I should copyright it.

I don't s'pose you know a decent bit about Israeli voting stats, do ya? 'Cause from the politics I assume the young rarely vote (since they're in the army and all), but I won't presume to know.

[Adami]

Wow, I like that slogan. For those who can't understand, "Jerusalem of Gold, not of Blood." As for the against the government thing, I'd go the more moderate route of trying to moderate said government. Get more Arab politicians and liberal Israelis involved, foster more inter-state cooperation, etc. Although you could be on the right track by saying that pro-unity is the thing to emphasize.

I think it's less anti government, and more a pressure to reflect on what once made the country great, and a look at what we've become. Hopefully the realization that we have become something....not very good, will motivate people to change from the ground up. And yea, I am pretty fond of that slogan, maybe I should copyright it.

I don't s'pose you know a decent bit about Israeli voting stats, do ya? 'Cause from the politics I assume the young rarely vote (since they're in the army and all), but I won't presume to know.

No you're right. The young don't often vote, because they have accepted the status quoe. However this idea is aimed to inspire change from the youth and the general population. To motivate them to vote, motivate them to demand change and not just sit around thinking it's futile.

Slightly of topic, I realized yesterday that if for some odd reason Iran and Hamas all declared peaceful intentions with Israel and ceased all hostilities, the entire k'neset would essentially collapse.

[El Barto]

Interesting.  I always considered the chat thread an excellent place for discussions, even the serious variety, when there might not be enough participation to warrant a specific thread.    It actually seems to me that having people start threads for one on one discussions of a niche subject (  ) would be counterproductive when there's a chat thread specifically for such matters.

[Adami]

Interesting.  I always considered the chat thread an excellent place for discussions, even the serious variety, when there might not be enough participation to warrant a specific thread.    It actually seems to me that having people start threads for one on one discussions of a niche subject (  ) would be counterproductive when there's a chat thread specifically for such matters.

I agree. However in this specific case, a 9 page chat thread tangent about the objectivity or morals.....well, do we need that? We've had like 2 threads already, it goes nowhere. And it would completely blow away any other smaller topics that might pop up.

[El Barto]

I'm not real comfortable deciding which conversations should or shouldn't be necessary.  I agree that this is trivial,  but if there are people who want to discuss this for the umpteenth time, that's their lookout, AFAIC. 

[Adami]

I'm not real comfortable deciding which conversations should or shouldn't be necessary.  I agree that this is trivial,  but if there are people who want to discuss this for the umpteenth time, that's their lookout, AFAIC.

Once again I agree, but in a thread for it. Not in this one.

[Scheavo]

I'm not real comfortable deciding which conversations should or shouldn't be necessary.  I agree that this is trivial,  but if there are people who want to discuss this for the umpteenth time, that's their lookout, AFAIC.

Once again I agree, but in a thread for it. Not in this one.

Well, I made a thread for it, and I have a feeling it'll last maybe three posts. The argument isn't if there's moral subjectivity, it's about what someone said. And as far as that goes, I can pull of quotes. Can't really do that in the previous debate regarding morality.

[Super Dude]

Slightly of topic, I realized yesterday that if for some odd reason Iran and Hamas all declared peaceful intentions with Israel and ceased all hostilities, the entire k'neset would essentially collapse.

Yeah, I mean, good luck getting that to happen...

[Adami]

Slightly of topic, I realized yesterday that if for some odd reason Iran and Hamas all declared peaceful intentions with Israel and ceased all hostilities, the entire k'neset would essentially collapse.

Yeah, I mean, good luck getting that to happen...

Oh obviously. It's just amazing. Iran and Hamas would like nothing more than the collapse of the Israeli government, and all they have to do is declare peace and it will crumble. It's just funny in some way.

[Omega]

Interesting.  I always considered the chat thread an excellent place for discussions, even the serious variety, when there might not be enough participation to warrant a specific thread.    It actually seems to me that having people start threads for one on one discussions of a niche subject (  ) would be counterproductive when there's a chat thread specifically for such matters.

Haven't you heard, Barto? DTF is now a democracy and accordingly we can now vote and campaign to get certain threads that we don't happen to fancy or understand locked.






This message has been paid for by the Institutionalized Conservative Party of Dream Theater Forums.

[ehra]

Omega, your points and posts are painfully easy to understand. You really don't need to keep trying to play that card.


Kinda disappointed that no one really responded to Odysseus' point that I brought up again later in that thread, but oh well.

[Omega]

Omega, your points and posts are painfully easy to understand. You really don't need to keep trying to play that card.

As has been shown plenty of times, apparently not.

Kinda disappointed that no one really responded to Odysseus' point that I brought up again later in that thread, but oh well.

Which point?

[Nick]

Interesting.  I always considered the chat thread an excellent place for discussions, even the serious variety, when there might not be enough participation to warrant a specific thread.    It actually seems to me that having people start threads for one on one discussions of a niche subject (  ) would be counterproductive when there's a chat thread specifically for such matters.

Haven't you heard, Barto? DTF is now a democracy and accordingly we can now vote and campaign to get certain threads that we don't happen to fancy or understand locked.

This message has been paid for by the Institutionalized Conservative Party of Dream Theater Forums.

Just to avoid any confusion, it was a figure of speech, it's not a democracy.

Yesh was simply expressing that despite our tyrannical regime's rule, we do value input from everyone.

[ehra]

Omega, your points and posts are painfully easy to understand. You really don't need to keep trying to play that card.

As has been shown plenty of times, apparently not.

Kinda disappointed that no one really responded to Odysseus' point that I brought up again later in that thread, but oh well.

Which point?

You're not a misunderstood soul that people just don't get. You're some random guy who holds a world view that practically no one agrees with.

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32006.msg1276891#msg1276891