Seconding RightClaw's concern about fracturing the forum community. Politics always has the potential of ruining the atmosphere, whether at dinner or online. The important thing, IMO, is to remain civil, which by and large has been happening.
A Non-political Post
@ Jacob
Layman: fact=truth
Right on the head. Which is why I knew my definition was not in line with Chad's.
I also love the new forum name! The only downside is that it still get's pushed to the top with most of the other "nice atmosphere" topics. Any way to make this and future issues in a seperate area so people don't have to read the heat while going through the forums?
@ Chad
I was enjoying our discussion. Feel free to start a new thread now that we have a heading for it:)
I am pretty sure I am the minority on our discussion anyway. I don't take myself too seriously no matter how my posts come across. I just love all the topics most people try to avoid!
Layman: fact=truth
Right on the head. Which is why I knew my definition was not in line with Chad's.
I also love the new forum name! The only downside is that it still get's pushed to the top with most of the other "nice atmosphere" topics. Any way to make this and future issues in a seperate area so people don't have to read the heat while going through the forums?
@ Chad
I was enjoying our discussion. Feel free to start a new thread now that we have a heading for it:)
I am pretty sure I am the minority on our discussion anyway. I don't take myself too seriously no matter how my posts come across. I just love all the topics most people try to avoid!
Wow Jacob - Bertrand and Russel quote!
@TheDude - you should never use 2+2=4 and say "fact", Jacob is right. It is actually very, very difficult to prove, and famously so. 1+1=2 is significantly easier to prove, as 1 and 2s are cardinal.
But, to throw even more shadow on 2+2=4 as fact and to throw more mincing about word choice.
In math, when Russel and Bertrand developed Principa Mathematica, a theorem was held true if it was consistent based on a set of "axioms" (rules). That is unlike science, there was no such notion as "error rates" True = true in pure math logic. A theory is true if it can be consistently deduced from the axioms.
That is... until Godel came along and blew up the world of math in the 1930s.
Here is basically what Godel said...
"The laws of math can be consistent, or they can be complete. But not both."
And
"no formal system can be used to prove its own consistency"
He prooved both of these points mathematically and basically dropped a big bomb on the many years of work put into Principia Mathematica.
So effectively, any higher order math system... such as calculus used in physics... can either:
-proof things within a limited realm
-or they can proof nothing because they are inconsistent
While this seems dumb in view of 1+1=2, or 2+2=4... it is very relevant at very large numbers and how they are applied in astrophysics, theories of evolution, etc. It'd be very hard to rely on the math of man to understand what happened billions of years ago. Its our math theories are simply not consistent or complete.
@TheDude - you should never use 2+2=4 and say "fact", Jacob is right. It is actually very, very difficult to prove, and famously so. 1+1=2 is significantly easier to prove, as 1 and 2s are cardinal.
But, to throw even more shadow on 2+2=4 as fact and to throw more mincing about word choice.
In math, when Russel and Bertrand developed Principa Mathematica, a theorem was held true if it was consistent based on a set of "axioms" (rules). That is unlike science, there was no such notion as "error rates" True = true in pure math logic. A theory is true if it can be consistently deduced from the axioms.
That is... until Godel came along and blew up the world of math in the 1930s.
Here is basically what Godel said...
"The laws of math can be consistent, or they can be complete. But not both."
And
"no formal system can be used to prove its own consistency"
He prooved both of these points mathematically and basically dropped a big bomb on the many years of work put into Principia Mathematica.
So effectively, any higher order math system... such as calculus used in physics... can either:
-proof things within a limited realm
-or they can proof nothing because they are inconsistent
While this seems dumb in view of 1+1=2, or 2+2=4... it is very relevant at very large numbers and how they are applied in astrophysics, theories of evolution, etc. It'd be very hard to rely on the math of man to understand what happened billions of years ago. Its our math theories are simply not consistent or complete.
@dpmorel
Very interesting! You are making me glad I chose not to look at things in terms of scientific definitions because I am learning new things.
But prove smove:) Let anyone talk long enough and I guess anything can be cast in a light of error. I think arguments against 2+2=4 are pretty weak (for the layman), but maybe I should have used 1=1 or something even more vague. I won't be contemplating this too much, just like I don't ponder what the word "is" is. I have pretty poor grammar abilities as it is.
All this just has me realizing just how few things we have or can establish as laws.
Very interesting! You are making me glad I chose not to look at things in terms of scientific definitions because I am learning new things.
But prove smove:) Let anyone talk long enough and I guess anything can be cast in a light of error. I think arguments against 2+2=4 are pretty weak (for the layman), but maybe I should have used 1=1 or something even more vague. I won't be contemplating this too much, just like I don't ponder what the word "is" is. I have pretty poor grammar abilities as it is.
All this just has me realizing just how few things we have or can establish as laws.
"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election."
-- Bill Vaughan
I think people would probably be more motivated to vote if:
- There were more political parties
- The corporate world didn't "own" the political world. One way to tackle this is outlawing donations to politicians & parties.
Such fundamental changes don't happen easily. But there's a risk of major unhappiness between the elections of November 2010 and those of 2012, and changes may become unavoidable. Hopefully for the best and in a controlled way. Yeah I'm naive like that.
Here's another nice quote :-7
"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
-- Joseph Stalin
-- Bill Vaughan
I think people would probably be more motivated to vote if:
- There were more political parties
- The corporate world didn't "own" the political world. One way to tackle this is outlawing donations to politicians & parties.
Such fundamental changes don't happen easily. But there's a risk of major unhappiness between the elections of November 2010 and those of 2012, and changes may become unavoidable. Hopefully for the best and in a controlled way. Yeah I'm naive like that.
Here's another nice quote :-7
"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
-- Joseph Stalin
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15979
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Well, there was the issue of the 2000 count and recount in Florida.
Another thing to do is to remove the winner takes all for the electoral college. There's a law of sociology that says that this ultimately creates a two-party system. A corollary of popularization then is that those two parties necessarily must be pretty close too. Instead distribute the electoral votes according to the popular votes e.g. if the popular vote in a state is 71/29, make the electoral votes 71/29 instead of 100/0. This would make it viable to vote for third parties.
Another thing to do is to remove the winner takes all for the electoral college. There's a law of sociology that says that this ultimately creates a two-party system. A corollary of popularization then is that those two parties necessarily must be pretty close too. Instead distribute the electoral votes according to the popular votes e.g. if the popular vote in a state is 71/29, make the electoral votes 71/29 instead of 100/0. This would make it viable to vote for third parties.
More parties <> more democracy. Be very careful what you ask for. Minority governments are NOT very effective. Most multi-party systems tend toward minority governments over time.
The US system actually is probably more democratic than most multi-party systems over history as whipping has traditionally not been used due to regional politics. Until now. In some senses Mitch McConnell is one of the greatest party whips of all times, its amazing how successful he has been at keeping the party voting together. The senate are full of rich, powerful, big-ego people. Getting them to do what they are told is non-trivial.
The US system actually is probably more democratic than most multi-party systems over history as whipping has traditionally not been used due to regional politics. Until now. In some senses Mitch McConnell is one of the greatest party whips of all times, its amazing how successful he has been at keeping the party voting together. The senate are full of rich, powerful, big-ego people. Getting them to do what they are told is non-trivial.
WOW!
59 plus posts. My little non-political, "quite political", post got some comments, or what?
Remember my disclaimer, "non-political". In author legalese, it is my self imposed understanding that if you place a disclaimer on a subject, your good to go with what you write. (I am open to comment on that).
Or is that a sneaky way of having one's cake and eating it too?
59 plus posts. My little non-political, "quite political", post got some comments, or what?
Remember my disclaimer, "non-political". In author legalese, it is my self imposed understanding that if you place a disclaimer on a subject, your good to go with what you write. (I am open to comment on that).
Or is that a sneaky way of having one's cake and eating it too?
Just found this comic that is relevant to this discussion:
http://abstrusegoose.com/183
@HSpencer Nothing wrong with having none's cake and eating it, if one can pull it off.
@dpmorel I agree that multi-party systems don't make for very effective governments. But that may often be a good thing, I like it when dangerous men are ineffective.
http://abstrusegoose.com/183
@HSpencer Nothing wrong with having none's cake and eating it, if one can pull it off.
@dpmorel I agree that multi-party systems don't make for very effective governments. But that may often be a good thing, I like it when dangerous men are ineffective.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15979
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Define effective. One party governments makes for a very effective government, or at least one without opposition. Why, when I'm king of the world, you'll get a taste of efficacy!
With the current US system (electoral college), the winner is determined by certain states. In a multiparty system, the winner is determined by certain parties a lot of them which are right between the big parties. Professional politics then becomes a game of convincing these smaller parties to ally with your side. It creates more checks and balances and I think that's a good thing.
In my ideal world there would be not parties at all. Each politician would then be free to vote according to his own mind. You would then have 435 different opinions being represented instead of two.
With the current US system (electoral college), the winner is determined by certain states. In a multiparty system, the winner is determined by certain parties a lot of them which are right between the big parties. Professional politics then becomes a game of convincing these smaller parties to ally with your side. It creates more checks and balances and I think that's a good thing.
In my ideal world there would be not parties at all. Each politician would then be free to vote according to his own mind. You would then have 435 different opinions being represented instead of two.
I agree with the following presented above:
a) no more left vs. right, but corporations vs. you (us)
b) there really are no attractive candidates (at least where I live)
The attack ads are terrible this year, and seem (to me at least) to be so easy to pick out the half-truths they are all based upon. It is sad some folks will actually fall for the ads and take them as gospel.
I think I will lean towards voting out the incumbent, all else being equal. It would be nice to see the other parties somehow get a greater voice though.
a) no more left vs. right, but corporations vs. you (us)
b) there really are no attractive candidates (at least where I live)
The attack ads are terrible this year, and seem (to me at least) to be so easy to pick out the half-truths they are all based upon. It is sad some folks will actually fall for the ads and take them as gospel.
I think I will lean towards voting out the incumbent, all else being equal. It would be nice to see the other parties somehow get a greater voice though.
I think most of the contentious issues that people fight over are pretty irrelevant... I would think people would be more concerned about the vanishing Bill of Rights than semantics over religion (evolution, abortion, orientation). *sigh*
@KevinM: LOL, yay me for never watching or listening to anything live... I gotta say though, the idea that someone is running an attack ad on the concept of something called an "aqua buddha" is one of the funniest things I've ever heard.
ALL HAIL THE AQUA BUDDHA!
@KevinM: LOL, yay me for never watching or listening to anything live... I gotta say though, the idea that someone is running an attack ad on the concept of something called an "aqua buddha" is one of the funniest things I've ever heard.
ALL HAIL THE AQUA BUDDHA!
@JohnnyH - here (Missouri) the latest issue is one of the Senate candidate's brothers allegedly got $100M+ for his wind farm. But the other candidate supposedly has taken the most money from lobbyists since he's been in Congress. Lesser of 2 evils anyone? Neither is the incumbent - I think I'll vote libertarian.
From here:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=169769
"The Tea Party was initiated as a political protest against the unlawful and in fact unconstitutional usurpation of power from the Congress and The People in the form of extortion-led bailouts of enterprises that had engaged in acts that I, and many others, believe were at least civilly actionable and in many cases crossed the line into criminal activity."
Since then, it has clearly been absorbed by the mainstream Republican, Foxnews party...
Seems like the argument is AGAIN squarely on deadlocked, mostly non-issues that never go away: guns, God and gays.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=169769
"The Tea Party was initiated as a political protest against the unlawful and in fact unconstitutional usurpation of power from the Congress and The People in the form of extortion-led bailouts of enterprises that had engaged in acts that I, and many others, believe were at least civilly actionable and in many cases crossed the line into criminal activity."
Since then, it has clearly been absorbed by the mainstream Republican, Foxnews party...
Seems like the argument is AGAIN squarely on deadlocked, mostly non-issues that never go away: guns, God and gays.
@JohnnyH
Good points above.
GUNS - I have plenty of them. I believe they are the reason we live in a free country, and have at least some protection from the ones who would subvert us and our way of life, both externally and internally.
GOD - Freedom to worship as you will is another reason we live in a free country. That freedom is protected, as only a last resort, by the guns.
GAYS - Live and let live, but I see no reason to usurp our American morals and culture for the sake of Adam and Steve, or even Adam and Fido.
(now I will probably get hammered)
Good points above.
GUNS - I have plenty of them. I believe they are the reason we live in a free country, and have at least some protection from the ones who would subvert us and our way of life, both externally and internally.
GOD - Freedom to worship as you will is another reason we live in a free country. That freedom is protected, as only a last resort, by the guns.
GAYS - Live and let live, but I see no reason to usurp our American morals and culture for the sake of Adam and Steve, or even Adam and Fido.
(now I will probably get hammered)