|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 04 2016 00:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 23:54 oneofthem wrote:
your use of the word coerce is not proper. it is not a coerced vote but a limited choice set, or limited outcome tree.
that's it.
what is the difference then, judge? if trump said (and had the power to enforce) a choice between voting for him or making sure i never get a mortgage loan for the rest of my life (pretend hes a monopoly banker) would that be coerced? what if he threatened preventing my sister from getting a loan? now imagine you hate hillary and trump and would rather vote for neither but hillary says vote for me or a fascist who will deport all muslims will take power. thats not coercion?
There will be a point at which a jury of your peers will agree you were coerced, and then it will be coercion. Your moral compass "forcing" you to vote for Hillary is not standing up before a jury of your peers as sufficient evidence of coercion (assuming TL posters are your peers).
Any attempt to point out why not is met by strawmen.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 04 2016 00:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On November 03 2016 23:54 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 23:50 KwarK wrote:On November 03 2016 23:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 03 2016 23:32 KwarK wrote:
Igne, your freedom to choose isn't in any way limited by external consequences of those choices. Those are what you are choosing between. If it were then no freedom would exist because any choice will by definition have external consequences. At this point you might as well argue "How am I free to choose between a burger and chicken nuggets if choosing the burger means I won't get chicken nuggets?!?! If that's freedom I'd rather choose death!". The consequences of the choice are what the choice entails, not only do they not make it coercive, they need to exist for the choice to even exist. This is simply not true. There is a difference between the consequences of executing a choice (what your actions actually do) and the coercion forcing you to choose one in the first place or die. There are countless precedents where people were coerced into doing illegal things and then exonerated from doing them because their only other choice was to refuse and then die. There are very few philosophers (or legal experts) that would argue with a straight face that choosing between A and B, but being killed by someone if you choose B, is an ethically meaningful choice. What you're describing here is the difference between meaningful choice and choice. Obviously with a gun to your head while you may still have choice a reasonable person would not say that you have a meaningful choice and therefore you are being coerced. The problem is that Igne is attempting to exploit the fact that there is no absolute defining point at which it stops being a meaningful choice and starts being a coerced choice and conclude from that that all choices are coerced and that humans have no choice and therefore people shouldn't vote. That's the issue here and that's why my counterpoint works. Igne is arguing the very existence of consequences, for example oppression of trans people in the event of a Trump win, makes voting for Hillary a coerced choice. The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the reasonable person standard. And Igne knows damn well it doesn't so he's ignoring that and presenting it instead as "all consequences make choice coercive" instead of the commonly understood "in some cases a reasonable person might think the consequences make the choice coercive". I illustrated the absurdity of his point with my chicken nuggets example. Obviously I believe in coercive choices. That does not mean I accept that all choices are coercive, which is the argument Igne is making. thats not the fucking argument i was making. theres no such thing as a "reasonable person standard" inherent to the english usage of the word. you are importing that made up notion. "Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!!! McDonald's is coercing me! Pity poor anarchist me and the fact that I have to live with the consequences of my actions!!!!" Of course if I was literally starving and McDonald's had all the food and they wanted a million bucks for the chicken nuggets, well, in that case a reasonable person may conclude that they were actually coercing me. Because, you know, of the reasonable person standard for whether simply implementing the consequences of the individual's choice makes it coercive or not. if two people were on an island and one person had all the food and made the other person do something he didnt want to do in order to get some, yes that would be coercion
If two people were on an island and one person had all the food and made the other person stop being sarcastic all the time because it was super irritating, that would also be coercion according to your argument.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2016 00:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 23:54 oneofthem wrote:
your use of the word coerce is not proper. it is not a coerced vote but a limited choice set, or limited outcome tree.
that's it.
what is the difference then, judge? if trump said (and had the power to enforce) a choice between voting for him or making sure i never get a mortgage loan for the rest of my life (pretend hes a monopoly banker) would that be coerced? what if he threatened preventing my sister from getting a loan? now imagine you hate hillary and trump and would rather vote for neither but hillary says vote for me or a fascist who will deport all muslims will take power. thats not coercion?
the difference is distinguishing what you are arguing about. is it the limitation on the choice set because of popularity etc, or the imposition of sovereign power from an election, defective political process, or physical coercion to vote/notvote/voteforsomeone?
if you want to just complain about 'two bad choices' then do that.
you can even frame it in terms of coercion, but explain this particular sense of coercion you are talking about and then defend that claim.
the two kinds of coercion i outlined engage with different issues. if you really want to talk about your issues vs grandstanding about moral evil of the election etc, then you should be able to distinguish your claim and facilitate discussion.
i don't want to read pages of useless talk about what coercion is, is this coercion etc.
|
On November 04 2016 00:03 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 23:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Some conservative intellectualsclowns are now advancing legal arguments for not replacing Scalia to reduce the size of the court. I guess it is supposed to be a lesson on "arguments of political convenience". cruz made the brilliant argument that the supreme court had less justices at one point in time. except, yknow, that was because before the judicial act of whatever year the number of justices was less.
We exist in a twilight reality where an entire political party is willing to rewrite the core tenets of our nation rather than just compete for votes.
|
On November 04 2016 00:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 23:56 KwarK wrote:On November 03 2016 23:54 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 23:50 KwarK wrote:On November 03 2016 23:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 03 2016 23:32 KwarK wrote:
Igne, your freedom to choose isn't in any way limited by external consequences of those choices. Those are what you are choosing between. If it were then no freedom would exist because any choice will by definition have external consequences. At this point you might as well argue "How am I free to choose between a burger and chicken nuggets if choosing the burger means I won't get chicken nuggets?!?! If that's freedom I'd rather choose death!". The consequences of the choice are what the choice entails, not only do they not make it coercive, they need to exist for the choice to even exist. This is simply not true. There is a difference between the consequences of executing a choice (what your actions actually do) and the coercion forcing you to choose one in the first place or die. There are countless precedents where people were coerced into doing illegal things and then exonerated from doing them because their only other choice was to refuse and then die. There are very few philosophers (or legal experts) that would argue with a straight face that choosing between A and B, but being killed by someone if you choose B, is an ethically meaningful choice. What you're describing here is the difference between meaningful choice and choice. Obviously with a gun to your head while you may still have choice a reasonable person would not say that you have a meaningful choice and therefore you are being coerced. The problem is that Igne is attempting to exploit the fact that there is no absolute defining point at which it stops being a meaningful choice and starts being a coerced choice and conclude from that that all choices are coerced and that humans have no choice and therefore people shouldn't vote. That's the issue here and that's why my counterpoint works. Igne is arguing the very existence of consequences, for example oppression of trans people in the event of a Trump win, makes voting for Hillary a coerced choice. The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the reasonable person standard. And Igne knows damn well it doesn't so he's ignoring that and presenting it instead as "all consequences make choice coercive" instead of the commonly understood "in some cases a reasonable person might think the consequences make the choice coercive". I illustrated the absurdity of his point with my chicken nuggets example. Obviously I believe in coercive choices. That does not mean I accept that all choices are coercive, which is the argument Igne is making. thats not the fucking argument i was making. theres no such thing as a "reasonable person standard" inherent to the english usage of the word. you are importing that made up notion. "Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!!! McDonald's is coercing me! Pity poor anarchist me and the fact that I have to live with the consequences of my actions!!!!" Of course if I was literally starving and McDonald's had all the food and they wanted a million bucks for the chicken nuggets, well, in that case a reasonable person may conclude that they were actually coercing me. Because, you know, of the reasonable person standard for whether simply implementing the consequences of the individual's choice makes it coercive or not. if two people were on an island and one person had all the food and made the other person do something he didnt want to do in order to get some, yes that would be coercion
Would it? I'm not so sure. If two people were on an island and one was the owner of all the food there and was willing to sell the food at a reasonable price, but unfortunately the other one had left his wallet on the ship. Is it truly coercion to not give the food for free? If so, there is a hell of a lot of coercion going on in the world, because there are millions of people below the poverty line and we're not giving them food for free.
There's a point to be made that "having food" was simply never a choice for the other guy to begin with... in fact, he should be glad the other guy just arrived with all that food and he is given the chance to work to survive.
|
it should be abundantly clear what coercion means but im talking to a buch of monkeys who have jumped to commkn law definitions of "coercion" and are requiring a showing of evidence because they are hot and bothered by the notion that a vote for hillary might not be as voluntary as it is supposed to be
edit: @above yeah there is a hell of a lot of coercion going on, and the trick is to identify which we of it we are ok with and which of it we arent
User was temp banned for this post.
|
The FBI has opened a civil rights investigation into the vandalizing and burning of a black church in Mississippi. "Vote Trump" had been spray-painted on a wall.
Local authorities are still searching for the person or person responsible for the fire, which they have identified as an arson.
"When firefighters arrived at Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church Tuesday night, they found it in flames, and the Vote Trump slogan written in silver spray paint on the outside wall of the church," Mark Rigsby of Mississippi Public Broadcasting reports.
"Greenville Mayor Errick Simmons calls this a hate crime — an attempt to frighten voters just days before the presidential election."
Simmons said he saw the attack as "a strategy — an evil one."
While the FBI has opened a civil rights investigation into the arson, The Associated Press reports that the agency says it's too early to say if the fire should be considered a hate crime.
A variety of state and local authorities are investigating the crime, Simmons told Mississippi Public Broadcasting. He says authorities are talking to a person of interest and have beefed up security around local churches, and he called on the public not to be intimidated away from voting.
"Nov. 8, it's going to be a safe place here in Greenville," Simmons said.
The church is more than 100 years old and is now largely gutted, Rigsby reports, but the pastor hopes to rebuild.
Greenville is about 78 percent black, according to Census data.
Source
|
On November 04 2016 00:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 00:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 03 2016 23:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Some conservative intellectualsclowns are now advancing legal arguments for not replacing Scalia to reduce the size of the court. I guess it is supposed to be a lesson on "arguments of political convenience". cruz made the brilliant argument that the supreme court had less justices at one point in time. except, yknow, that was because before the judicial act of whatever year the number of justices was less. We exist in a twilight reality where an entire political party is willing to rewrite the core tenets of our nation rather than just compete for votes.
Losing the White House calls for desperation apparently. Power of the purse consists of denying funding for all of the federal government, too.
|
On November 04 2016 00:11 IgnE wrote:
it should be abundantly clear what coercion means but im talking to a buch of monkeys who have jumped to commkn law definitions of "coercion" and are requiring a showing of evidence because they are hot and bothered by the notion that a vote for hillary might not be as voluntary as it is supposed to be
edit: @above yeah there is a hell of a lot of coercion going on, and the trick is to identify which we of it we are ok with and which of it we arent
If you are using the syntactically valid, but semantically void use of coercion that I outlined above, then go ahead and lament your fate of having to choose the lesser of two evils. Hell, call it coercion for all I care, but don't try and spin your semantically void version of coercion into something meaningful. Because it isn't.
|
On November 04 2016 00:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 00:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 03 2016 23:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Some conservative intellectualsclowns are now advancing legal arguments for not replacing Scalia to reduce the size of the court. I guess it is supposed to be a lesson on "arguments of political convenience". cruz made the brilliant argument that the supreme court had less justices at one point in time. except, yknow, that was because before the judicial act of whatever year the number of justices was less. We exist in a twilight reality where an entire political party is willing to rewrite the core tenets of our nation rather than just compete for votes.
@notplansix
and this is the coercive argumentation i am talking about. you people cant argue out of one side of your mouth that trump is the apocalypse and then say "but you are just following your moral compass this is an ordinary decision of the type that we are fine with"
|
On November 04 2016 00:11 IgnE wrote:
it should be abundantly clear what coercion means but im talking to a buch of monkeys who have jumped to commkn law definitions of "coercion" and are requiring a showing of evidence because they are hot and bothered by the notion that a vote for hillary might not be as voluntary as it is supposed to be
edit: @above yeah there is a hell of a lot of coercion going on, and the trick is to identify which we of it we are ok with and which of it we arent
About 80% of the US population will apparently say this no matter who the candidates are.
Republicans are "coerced" to vote for the Republican candidate otherwise they're being forced to vote for the evil Democrat.
Democrats are "coerced" to vote for the Democrat candidate otherwise they're being forced to vote for the evil Republican.
So thank you to IgnE for showing us the illusion of choice and that democracy is only about coerced acceptance.
|
On November 04 2016 00:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 00:09 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 00:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 03 2016 23:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Some conservative intellectualsclowns are now advancing legal arguments for not replacing Scalia to reduce the size of the court. I guess it is supposed to be a lesson on "arguments of political convenience". cruz made the brilliant argument that the supreme court had less justices at one point in time. except, yknow, that was because before the judicial act of whatever year the number of justices was less. We exist in a twilight reality where an entire political party is willing to rewrite the core tenets of our nation rather than just compete for votes. @notplansix and this is the coercive argumentation i am talking about. you people cant argue out of one side of your mouth that trump is the apocalypse and then say "but you are just following your moral compass this is an ordinary decision of the type that we are fine with"
I am fine with you being a deplorable human being. Are you? Apparently you aren't. And thus you will rant and rail about how it's not fair your only alternative is Hillary, but will vote for her anyway.
|
On November 04 2016 00:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 00:14 IgnE wrote:On November 04 2016 00:09 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 00:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 03 2016 23:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Some conservative intellectualsclowns are now advancing legal arguments for not replacing Scalia to reduce the size of the court. I guess it is supposed to be a lesson on "arguments of political convenience". cruz made the brilliant argument that the supreme court had less justices at one point in time. except, yknow, that was because before the judicial act of whatever year the number of justices was less. We exist in a twilight reality where an entire political party is willing to rewrite the core tenets of our nation rather than just compete for votes. @notplansix and this is the coercive argumentation i am talking about. you people cant argue out of one side of your mouth that trump is the apocalypse and then say "but you are just following your moral compass this is an ordinary decision of the type that we are fine with" I am fine with you being a deplorable human being. Are you? Apparently you aren't. And thus you will rant and rail about how it's not fair your only alternative is Hillary, but will vote for her anyway.
and the person with the metaphorical gun to my head is fine with killing my grandma. what the fuck are you talking about? are you the one thats going to get deported? are you suggesting that if everyone voted trump you would be "fine" if trump publicly hanged you in the square for being the lone holdout? you are being ridiculous
|
What is the purpose of arguing about this shit? I could easily argue that there is no coercion at all, even if there is a gun to your head. Or you could argue in the other extreme, by saying everything is coercion. Use your common sense folks.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 04 2016 00:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 00:16 Acrofales wrote:On November 04 2016 00:14 IgnE wrote:On November 04 2016 00:09 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 00:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 03 2016 23:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Some conservative intellectualsclowns are now advancing legal arguments for not replacing Scalia to reduce the size of the court. I guess it is supposed to be a lesson on "arguments of political convenience". cruz made the brilliant argument that the supreme court had less justices at one point in time. except, yknow, that was because before the judicial act of whatever year the number of justices was less. We exist in a twilight reality where an entire political party is willing to rewrite the core tenets of our nation rather than just compete for votes. @notplansix and this is the coercive argumentation i am talking about. you people cant argue out of one side of your mouth that trump is the apocalypse and then say "but you are just following your moral compass this is an ordinary decision of the type that we are fine with" I am fine with you being a deplorable human being. Are you? Apparently you aren't. And thus you will rant and rail about how it's not fair your only alternative is Hillary, but will vote for her anyway. and the person with the metaphorical gun to my head is fine with killing my grandma. what the fuck are you talking about? are you the one thats going to get deported? are you suggesting that if everyone voted trump you would be "fine" if trump publicly hanged you in the square for being the lone holdout? you are being ridiculous
Gun to my head killing my grandma hanged in the square you are being ridiculous
Really?
|
is that a shitpost or is me saying "yeah really" the only shitpost here
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this kind of argument dynamic is kind of similar to how people complain about 'SJW' expanding the definition of oppression or racism.
these usages of oppression/exploitation/racism etc are not invalid, and the discussion around them certainly valid. the moral point behind using terms like racism/coercion is also fine.
But the thing is, when people disagree with your use of the term with a narrow sense of the term, for example "I'm not racist" in response allegation of racism in choosing a house because the school nearby is whiter, you should distinguish the sense of the term you are talking about and facilitate discussion that way. perhaps talk about implicit bias, or social/history influence of prejudice.
basically where the disagreement or contention arises from a clear difference in definition, clarifying what you are talking about is a duty of the speaker. otherwise i question the persuasive or communicative intent.
this applies to all kinds of 'critical' discourse. the current dominant habit is to talk about how 'woke' a term is. the woke ones would understand what is actual racism, and those who don't are dismissed. that's just hipsterism not advocacy.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 04 2016 00:25 IgnE wrote:
is that a shitpost or is me saying "yeah really" the only shitpost here
I think you've lost all self awareness.
|
On November 04 2016 00:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 00:11 IgnE wrote:
it should be abundantly clear what coercion means but im talking to a buch of monkeys who have jumped to commkn law definitions of "coercion" and are requiring a showing of evidence because they are hot and bothered by the notion that a vote for hillary might not be as voluntary as it is supposed to be
edit: @above yeah there is a hell of a lot of coercion going on, and the trick is to identify which we of it we are ok with and which of it we arent About 80% of the US population will apparently say this no matter who the candidates are. Republicans are "coerced" to vote for the Republican candidate otherwise they're being forced to vote for the evil Democrat. Democrats are "coerced" to vote for the Democrat candidate otherwise they're being forced to vote for the evil Republican. So thank you to IgnE for showing us the illusion of choice and that democracy is only about coerced acceptance.
Except that a majority of people who vote Clinton are voting for her and not against Trump, and that her ratio pro/against the other dude is absolutely normal for a presidential candidate:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/
Sen. Mitch McConnell and many political pundits claim that voters will have to choose a “lesser of two evils” in this election. That cliché is based on how high Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s unfavorable ratings are compared with previous candidates’. But favorable ratings don’t always tell us everything, and there are strong signs that voters don’t consider Clinton to be less tolerable than past candidates. (Trump on the other hand …)
A simpler method for determining positive or negative support is to ask people whether their vote is affirmatively for one candidate or in protest against the other. The latest ABC News survey reveals that, in fact, Clinton’s voters feel about as positively about their candidate as any candidate’s supporters have felt about their own preferred candidate since 1980. Trump voters are less enthusiastic about him: Since 1980, no group of supporters has been less affirmative in its support for its candidate.
...
That 56 percent of Clinton’s voters are affirmatively supporting her may not seem like a lot, but it’s about average for a presidential candidate.
Democracy is about choosing leaders. That a lot of people are not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the leader they vote for is completely normal : it would be very strange (and probably delusional somewhere) if a majority of people agreed wholly on one platform and one vision.
So it usually comes down to compromise and very often you end up voting for the closest to you, rather than exactly what you want (unless you are a political lemming. Or GH).
|
On November 04 2016 00:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 00:09 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 00:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 03 2016 23:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Some conservative intellectualsclowns are now advancing legal arguments for not replacing Scalia to reduce the size of the court. I guess it is supposed to be a lesson on "arguments of political convenience". cruz made the brilliant argument that the supreme court had less justices at one point in time. except, yknow, that was because before the judicial act of whatever year the number of justices was less. We exist in a twilight reality where an entire political party is willing to rewrite the core tenets of our nation rather than just compete for votes. @notplansix and this is the coercive argumentation i am talking about. you people cant argue out of one side of your mouth that trump is the apocalypse and then say "but you are just following your moral compass this is an ordinary decision of the type that we are fine with"
Holding up the entire government because they cannot win an election is easy to argue against. I’m willing to have debates on how things should be accomplished and problems solved. But complete inaction simply due to losing an election is not a debate worth having. If Clinton wins, congresses is expected to review and vote on any nominees she puts forth.
If they continue refuse, the rules of the senate can be changed to allow the nominee to pass with a simply majority. It doesn’t have to be that way, but the Republicans need to have their bluff called.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
