Posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 19:49:29
In reply to What bothers me the most about it...., posted by Racer on March 11, 2006, at 18:25:30
i have trouble with buzzwords like:
conservative
liberal
terrorist
freedom
liberty
justice
etc
etcbecause... what is important is the practical implication. you can have two people who believe in 'justice' but they disagree as to what acts are considered 'just' and what acts are considered 'unjust'. the words... are fairly meaningless because nobody uses them with a clear meaning... and because the implications for action (or for categorisation of acts) is far from clear...
i mean... consider freedom...
we should have freedom from people doing stuff that is illegal.. so in the name of freedom bring out the surveilance equipment...
we should have freedom from people poking their nose into our business.. so in the name of freedom don't you dare bring out the surveilance equipment...
nobodies going to stand up and say 'I am opposed to freedom!!!' that isn't the issue... The issue is in how you cash that out.
same with 'freedom liberty and justice for all' etc etc.
same with who gets to count as a terrorist...
same with the meaning of 'liberal' and 'conservative' etc etc.
those words typically...
among the liberals... to call someone a conservative is probably more intended as an insult than anything else.
and among the conservatives... to call someone a liberal is probably more intended as an insult than anything else.
until people talk about the things that people should (don't think we are allowed to talk about what they should not do)...
until the people talk about the things that the govt should (don't think we are allowed to talk about what they should not do?)...
then it is hard to have meaningful dialogue on politics...
sigh.
but then people are probably opposed to my use of 'should' too...
sigh.
must relativism reign on the politics board?
sigh.
re: rational people can disagree...
i think you will find that that is controversial...
according to bayesian norms of probabilistic reasoning... applying that to people's arguments... applying that to people sharing their background knowledge... i do believe the idea is that people should revise the probability of their initial belief downwards when they are met with opposition... and ultimately... there should be convergence.
as they say on "pulp fiction"
when you get that feeling...
that's pride f*cking with you...
poster:agent858
thread:618244
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/621754.html