EPTRepublican nominations - Page 46
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
| ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On August 24 2011 04:49 xDaunt wrote: Honestly, this thread has been a bit of a farce since it was started. Instead of discussing the merits of the republican candidates or each candidate's chances of receiving the nomination, this thread has generally been a "bash all things republican" thread. Perhaps the GOP should look into some competent candidates then? I'll rant about Obama too, for the record, but some of the stuff that comes out of the mouths of the current Repub candidates is far too crazy to ignore. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On August 24 2011 04:48 H0i wrote: First of all I'm not religious. Now, saying things do not exist because you can not prove them with science is silly. With this logic, in the year 0, humans would not be made out of cells, because there were no microscopes to show this. Science is a helpful tool but it is not the ultimate truth, there is a lot it can't reach. Can you scientifically prove the existence or non-existence of an afterlife? You cannot. But I'm quite sure, that when you die, you'll figure out things aren't over yet. Assuming I am correct here, science just cannot prove it. Rationality is subjective and there are some important areas science can not do anything with (yet). Saying something is false because it cannot be proven to be true just doesn't work. For someone who really likes science probably "god does not exist" is a very rational argument. For someone who grew up hearing things about this god all the time, "god exists" would be a rational argument. I don't believe in god though, but I do believe in an afterlife. Talking about this more would derail this thread ever further, but I hope people understand what I mean. Inability to currently prove and lack of ability to theoretically prove are two different things, both based on current level of technology. And all your argument boils down to is that it was okay for them back then to have religious beliefs, but now that we know better they should go away. (I know this isn't what you meant to say, but this is the logical conclusion of that argument). You also have no basis for the "I'm quite sure, that when you die,...." You have no basis for that statement, you're essentially just making it up. The way logic works is simple: if you have no evidence to support something's existence, the default position is that it doesn't exist until you have evidence. Anything else is illogical and backwards. Sure, you're entitled to think what you want, but the rest of the world doesn't have to respect the same idea just because you believe it. Rationality, by the way, is not subjective, people just wish it was and want it to be. Fact of the matter is, rationality is very objective. As for the current republican candidates, Huntsman has no chance although I think he'd do an okay job and I would consider voting for him. As for the others? Probably not. There's a rumor floating around that Trump might throw his hat in the ring again, I at least think he'd be better than the others, despite the whole 'birther' thing. | ||
|
H0i
Netherlands484 Posts
On August 24 2011 04:56 Whitewing wrote: Inability to currently prove and lack of ability to theoretically prove are two different things, both based on current level of technology. And all your argument boils down to is that it was okay for them back then to have religious beliefs, but now that we know better they should go away. (I know this isn't what you meant to say, but this is the logical conclusion of that argument). You also have no basis for the "I'm quite sure, that when you die,...." You have no basis for that statement, you're essentially just making it up. The way logic works is simple: if you have no evidence to support something's existence, the default position is that it doesn't exist until you have evidence. Anything else is illogical and backwards. Sure, you're entitled to think what you want, but the rest of the world doesn't have to respect the same idea just because you believe it. Rationality, by the way, is not subjective, people just wish it was and want it to be. Fact of the matter is, rationality is very objective. As for the current republican candidates, Huntsman has no chance although I think he'd do an okay job and I would consider voting for him. As for the others? Probably not. There's a rumor floating around that Trump might throw his hat in the ring again, I at least think he'd be better than the others, despite the whole 'birther' thing. Rationality is entirely subjective. Assume we can not prove if a is false or true. At that point people usually step in and say "we can't prove it... but assuming it's true is more rational". But this is just nonsense, isn't it? This opinion on what would be the "rational" choice is just subjective to the persons individual experiences. | ||
|
SC2Joker
United States63 Posts
| ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
On August 24 2011 04:28 Roe wrote: Anyways..back to the topic... Did anyone see John Hunstman on Pears Morgan? I thought he came off as a reasonable, decent guy, but too boring and well-mannered to become the republican candidate. I think he should boast about his military service more to get access to that key demographic, while at the same time arguing for the withdrawl from overseas engagements. I liked his stance on abortion, he was pro-life but he'd make an exception for the life of the mother or is she was raped. Of course these are all things you have to be against in the republican party. The problem with his style of politics is that you run the risk of losing all your votes. If you can do it right, you get all the votes. If you do it wrong, you lose them all. It's really high stakes politics, and I doubt that he'll be able to win more than 1/4 republican votes with moderate stances such as those. Unfortunately(and this isn't meant as an insult, but the truth) the republicans in the US have gone insane since 9/11. | ||
|
Satire
Canada295 Posts
Either way, I'd be very happy with Ron Paul or Obama won. | ||
|
[Agony]x90
United States853 Posts
On August 24 2011 04:53 Haemonculus wrote: We should get back on topic for sure. Again in my opinion the problem is less what people believe, but more that they feel entitled to legislate their religious beliefs. If people seriously want to think that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that the sun revolves around the Earth, or creationism or whatever, that's fine. You can believe whatever you want, but when you try to make those beliefs into laws that affect other people, we have a problem. It's okay. This is basically politics. People in office feel entitled to legislate laws according to their beliefs (not neccessarily their religion beliefs), and in turn, other people feel that those people don't deserve the right to legislate those laws. Listening to a radio show while i work with very conservative talk hosts, I hear people bitch about how "lazy people don't deserve my money, but the government forces me to pay taxes for them." But any time of the day, I can bitch endlessly about how I feel "that the rich aren't taxed enough and blah blah blah." As much as you would love to differentiate the two scenarios (religious vs economic debates), they're basically the same. Only, you don't have to really worry about your case, because it is highly improbable that someone would actual legislate such a law. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On August 24 2011 05:04 H0i wrote: Rationality is entirely subjective. Assume we can not prove if a is false or true. At that point people usually step in and say "we can't prove it... but assuming it's true is more rational". But this is just nonsense, isn't it? This opinion on what would be the "rational" choice is just subjective to the persons individual experiences. You're not using the scientific definitions properly. Technically speaking by the definition you are using, we haven't proven gravity yet, or the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, or anything technically. We don't need to prove something 100% before it's reasonable and rational to assume it's true, and there's nothing subjective about the process. We simply need to gather sufficient evidence to create a working, functional model that produces accurate predictions. That's a very objective procedure, and the idea of rationality is very objective: follow logical processes, or you aren't rational. Period. Anyway, let's get back on topic, if you want to talk about it further, send a PM. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On August 24 2011 05:11 Satire wrote: The only republican I can really get behind is Ron Paul. Being from Canada, I realize my opinion doesn't matter much, but he's always been really consistent and I can appreciate his policies. I like the democrats policies much better personally, but I get so angry when they don't show backbone. The entire two party system actually infuriates me, but that's another story. Either way, I'd be very happy with Ron Paul or Obama won. Bolded part hits the nail on the head, and is the biggest major problem with U.S. politics. | ||
|
TheGlassface
United States612 Posts
| ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
On August 24 2011 04:48 H0i wrote: First of all I'm not religious. Now, saying things do not exist because you can not prove them with science is silly. With this logic, in the year 0, humans would not be made out of cells, because there were no microscopes to show this. Science is a helpful tool but it is not the ultimate truth, there is a lot it can't reach. Can you scientifically prove the existence or non-existence of an afterlife? You cannot. But I'm quite sure, that when you die, you'll figure out things aren't over yet. Assuming I am correct here, science just cannot prove it. Rationality is subjective and there are some important areas science can not do anything with (yet). Saying something is false because it cannot be proven to be true just doesn't work. For someone who really likes science probably "god does not exist" is a very rational argument. For someone who grew up hearing things about this god all the time, "god exists" would be a rational argument. I don't believe in god though, but I do believe in an afterlife. Talking about this more would derail this thread ever further, but I hope people understand what I mean. Hey, I just wanted to tack my opinion/idea on to this. I don't believe there is an afterlife - when you die your brain and heart stop working. Following this, there is NOTHING after you die. Essentially, the way I think about it/picture it is comparable to a deep sleep - you are simply floating there, doing nothing, reacting to nothing, not thinking. I used to believe in an afterlife because I felt it was a bit bleak to simply imagine us dying and that being that. But I couldn't find any logical basis for an afterlife, and I realized that if there was no afterlife that we should focus more on the current life that we have been blessed with. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 24 2011 04:28 xDaunt wrote: It's amazing how defensive some atheists get. I haven't placed the burden of proving God on anyone. I'm merely reciting the rather indisputable fact that no one knows whether God exists. Of course and I pointed out that rational response to that fact is being atheist. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On August 24 2011 04:49 xDaunt wrote: Honestly, this thread has been a bit of a farce since it was started. Instead of discussing the merits of the republican candidates or each candidate's chances of receiving the nomination, this thread has generally been a "bash all things republican" thread. Actually, the list of merits of the GOP candidates are so small that discussing them couldn't fill up 10 pages. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
On August 24 2011 05:14 Whitewing wrote: Bolded part hits the nail on the head, and is the biggest major problem with U.S. politics. I agree with this. As another Canadian, I actually like our political system. All of the parties get along fairly well, and they all can see each others points of view. While they do squabble over policies, they do so intelligently, and it simply arises from a difference in view point. In short, they are trying to do what they feel needs to be done. The same can not be said of the American system. The parties, especially the Republican one, have an us vs. them type of mentality. For example, in the last few years, Republicans have been continuously opposing democrat legislature simply because it's democrat - with no solid logical reasoning. The republicans are essentially trying to say "no you can't" to Barack's "yes we can". However, I am not going to blame the republicans entirely. In many cases, the Democrats are at fault too. Theirs is more hidden - they completely fail to take political responsibility for any of their actions. This attitude was plainly visible in the debt ceiling "debate" recently - neither side wanted to raise the ceiling, so they simply argued over it until it came to a deadline and then they were like "oh, now we HAVE to pass something" so they finally were able to pretend they were required to do it. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
On August 24 2011 05:23 TOloseGT wrote: Actually, the list of merits of the GOP candidates are so small that discussing them couldn't fill up 10 pages. Not necessarily true. There are quite a few moderate candidates in there who would be able to do decently well as POTUS. However, there are also a lot of the cookie cutter right wing nut jobs as well. But I do agree that it's unlikely for any candidate to be able to beat out Obama, even if he hasn't done a good job during his administration. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 24 2011 05:04 H0i wrote: Rationality is entirely subjective. Assume we can not prove if a is false or true. At that point people usually step in and say "we can't prove it... but assuming it's true is more rational". But this is just nonsense, isn't it? This opinion on what would be the "rational" choice is just subjective to the persons individual experiences. To not mess up the thread too badly: + Show Spoiler + Rationality is objective, it has pretty objective definition and description, you should look it up. Also we are not talking about "proof" in mathematical sense. We are talking about evidence. In absence of evidence it is rational to use principle of parsimony. You do not say "God does not exist", but "There is no reason to believe God exists and it is irrational to believe so". That is what atheist is saying. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 24 2011 05:11 Satire wrote: The only republican I can really get behind is Ron Paul. Being from Canada, I realize my opinion doesn't matter much, but he's always been really consistent and I can appreciate his policies. I like the democrats policies much better personally, but I get so angry when they don't show backbone. The entire two party system actually infuriates me, but that's another story. Either way, I'd be very happy with Ron Paul or Obama won. Well I think non-US Americans should actually cheer for Ron Paul, as that would lessen the chance that some random place in the world will be bombed or invaded. It will lower the amount of US meddling in the rest of the World. Also of course his internal policies will give other countries a lot of advantages too, so good for us  As for which Republican would be best for US, hard to say, they are all rather bad, some of the non-Tea Party ones might be tolerable. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
On August 24 2011 05:28 mcc wrote: To not mess up the thread too badly: + Show Spoiler + Rationality is objective, it has pretty objective definition and description, you should look it up. Also we are not talking about "proof" in mathematical sense. We are talking about evidence. In absence of evidence it is rational to use principle of parsimony. You do not say "God does not exist", but "There is no reason to believe God exists and it is irrational to believe so". That is what atheist is saying. Regardless, his original point is that you should not be a militant atheist - don't be ignorant. If you're saying It's the only logically sound position to take -_-. or "Militant atheists" simply don't wish to live by a religious standard based on the morals or teachings of some bronze age tribesmen. If someone comes up to you and asks you about your beliefs, of course you can answer. But otherwise you shouldn't flaunt your atheism - be respectful. You may disagree with them, but there is no need to argue pointlessly. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
On August 24 2011 05:34 mcc wrote: Well I think non-US Americans should actually cheer for Ron Paul, as that would lessen the chance that some random place in the world will be bombed or invaded. It will lower the amount of US meddling in the rest of the World. Also of course his internal policies will give other countries a lot of advantages too, so good for us As for which Republican would be best for US, hard to say, they are all rather bad, some of the non-Tea Party ones might be tolerable.Yeah, the problem with the Right wing is thatthey're so spread out now. Some of them are fucking insane and some are moderate. But the people who vote for the insane ones won't vote for the moderate ones and vice versa. It's not a good situation for their politicians, because they have to spread themselves out so far on the politicial spectrum to pick up key votes, but it's pretty much impossible to do that. It's not stopping them from trying. | ||
| ||
