You’re being vague
One of the most difficult problems in current political philosophy is related to the concept of vagueness. This is a distinct phenomenon, but related to, vague communication. In common vernacular, when we say someone is “being vague”, typically we mean that individual is, purposefully or not, leaving out certain details of a concept or description that prevent it from being fully defined. The problem of formal logic I’m discussing here involves the issue of definition, but not from a communicational standpoint or a necessary lack of defining information.
Philosophically speaking, vagueness falls within the greater realm of metaphysics, a greater branch of philosophy that seeks to define the nature of reality. Clearly, in defining reality, a key exercise is understanding and categorizing objects and concepts around us. This is where vagueness kicks into gear. The classical problem of vagueness is the sorites paradox (the paradox of the heap). Start with a heap of sand, then remove one grain at a time, at what point does it cease to be a heap and become something else? Working in reverse, one grain of sand is certainly not a heap, nor two, nor three. The heap object and furthermore the concept of a heap itself is vague. Vagueness is distinct from ambiguity, which implies multiple specific, well-defined interpretations of a particular concept (eg: a problem that presents a dilemma) whereas vagueness presents difficulty in forming a well-defined interpretation at all.
What does this have to do with politics?
Problems of this type often present some of the most difficult challenges in contemporary political philosophy. After all, politics is really just philosophy applied to the question of how a society should function, and any problem which calls into question the very nature of specific pieces of reality will be particularly operose. Vagueness often lies at the core of so-called “slippery slope” arguments; if the difficulty in defining a heap is bound up in a wedge issue, then the point at which a heap ceases to be a heap becomes of critical interest.
Let’s explore examples a little closer to home. Probably the biggest problem in society currently related to vagueness is the point as which a fetus ceases to be a fetus and becomes a baby. The way that our society has currently structured the debate about abortion, it is nominally “ok” to kill a fetus because it is not defined as a human, whereas a baby is unquestionably a human and killing it would be murder. I am well aware that there are many other angles to the abortion debate and many people would say that “fetus” and “baby” is a distinction without a difference; i.e., they are the same thing and killing either one is murder. I focus on this particular framing of the abortion debate strictly for illustrative purposes.
Another issue at hand is the concept of adulthood. It is universally agreed upon that two “adults” having consensual sex with one another is acceptable (I would certainly hope so for the sake of humanity’s continued existence). However, what defines “adult”? In the context of sex, it seems to not only depend on an individual’s age, but also the disparity in ages between the two participants. Most people are OK with two 14 year-olds fucking, but would, at the very least, consider a 49 year-old male copulating with a 14 year-old female unsettling. Switch the genders. Does it make a difference? Should it? Outside the specific context of sex, the concept becomes even murkier. Much has been said that it’s unreasonable for someone to be able to legally die for his country, yet not order a beer. Why is it unreasonable? Who should decide this? These questions all arise from vagueness surrounding the concept of adulthood.
Go on…
While one can see clearly that vague definitions can have potentially disastrous consequences for policy debate, libertarianism is especially susceptible to inconsistency and hypocrisy surrounding vagueness. The reason for this is libertarianism’s special emphasis on principle and logic. Libertarians pride themselves on intellectual consistency, principle, logic and rationalism. When definitional concepts of objects themselves (say, fetuses for example) become questionable, strict rationalism becomes quite difficult.
There’s a reason why it’s a common joke/stereotype that autists are drawn to libertarianism. One of the archetypes of the autistic mind is an extreme black and white understanding of the world. If everything in the world is either black or white and everything that’s black is evil (RAAAACIST!!!) and everything that’s white is good, it’s very easy to be principled. However, once vagueness is introduced, the water is muddied.
Many philosophers have tried to solve this problem. There are three main philosophical solutions to this problem: fuzzy logic, the epistemic solution and vague object solution. In fuzzy logic, true and false are not absolute concepts. To paraphrase from the Big Bang Theory, it’s somewhat wrong to call a tomato a vegetable, it’s very wrong to call a tomato a suspension bridge. Truth or falsity of the tomato’s description is subject to gradation. The epistemic solution says that there are solid definitions and boundaries, they simply can’t be known. There is a single, discrete grain of sand that marks the boundary between “heap” and “not heap”. Finally, the vague object solution claims that the objects themselves have no firm definition and they are fungible depending on context.
SHITLORDS!
Typical of libertarian shitlordianism, usually we punt on this question. Libertarians often admit that there is no valid solution to these concerns and give the power to make such determinations back to the individual. Each individual sees the problem differently and the emphasis of libertarian philosophy is sovereignty of the individual, so each and every one of us is free to make such determinations as we see fit. The problem with this is when it clashes with commonly held beliefs (a “tyranny of the majority” problem in itself). If I arbitrarily define “human” to be someone over the age of 5, and furthermore anything below that age is fair game for barbecuing, I face no sanctions morally or otherwise for going on an cannibal killing spree in the maternity ward. Conversely, if I admit that I can’t possibly define what a “human” is, and I remain in irresolvable doubt whether a fetus of any age is human or not, it’s probably better to not kill it. I can even take this to a more absurd level and then make an unironic argument that Onan was morally reprehensible for depriving his sperm of the chance at future personhood (the “every sperm is sacred” argument).
What is to be done? I haven’t the foggiest idea. Often, we libertarians enclose ourselves in a cloak of moral superiority related to our principles. “We have logic on our side!” is our battle cry. The point of this essay is not to tear us down into the muck of progtastic postmodern nihilism; a miasma of nothingness in which nothing has any solid definition and there are no truths. The purpose is to re-examine our premises so that we may be better prepared to tackle these difficult questions when faced with opponents who debate in good faith. It also serves to explain why principles are often more difficult to keep in practice than in theory. And boobs; nothing can ever change the definition of a high-quality rack.
Comments
352 responses to “Exploration of Philosophical Vagueness: aka, Principles are Hard, Let’s Go Shopping!”
It’s my article and I can OT if I want to:
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/10/22/colorado-gun-control-laws-governor-race-2018/
Becuz fuck these guys.
You’re true to who you are. Got to respect that
It’s not boobs, I’m a little disappointed.
Polis is a putz. Brauchler is a schmuck. Walker Stapleton is a fucking nerd.
I have good news: I know how to fix Colorado.
The bad news? Not to be vauge but my plan mostly involves burning Denver.
If you let me smuggle out a few people first, knock yourself out.
I’m willing to let Lott and his family escape.
What about Rahab?
Umm… Wait.. Wot?
What about Boulder?
Who’s this seemingly RINO Mitchell?
He’s an east coast squish-publican who made a fortune and served one term in the state house in a R-dominated district. He’s nothing and stands no chance of getting the nomination. IMO, the race for the R nomination is between Brauchler and Stapleton. Polis is going to out prog everyone and buy his way to the D nomination and then probably win the general.
Every prog in my Facebook feed has a boner over the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CORRUPTION.
https://www.axios.com/a-tiny-company-got-a-300-million-contract-to-rebuild-puerto-ricos-grid-2500764790.html
Show them this:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/02/pentagon-afghanistan-gas-station-boondoggle/75037032/
Oh yeah. Feed me.
The very first sentence seems to point the finger at the PR government, not the Trump administration:
The coincidence that this company is based in the same small town as Trump’s energy secretary is curious, to be sure, but there’s some dots that still need connecting before this is a Trump scandal. Now, maybe the energy secretary put his thumb on the scale, but there’s not a hint of a shred of an iota of evidence to support that, yet.
Let me quote from holy writ:
“Every bad event and every awful event is from the Trump Administration, coming down from the Father of lies, with whom there is only corruption or deception due to evil.”
I’m confused… there were no titties in this article.
Just squint really hard at the sand dunes and use your imagination.
Those are some pretty massive tracts of land…
Some of us just want to sing.
NO SINGING!
*tells guards to stay here and make sure Scruffy doesn’t leave*
Just bring me a shrubbery and I’ll be ok.
You mean a potted plant?
No….this:
I bet you’re the kind of guy who would say “ni” to a nice little old lady.
Look closer. The article is like one of those Magic Eye pictures: from the right angle, a hidden image will appear.
But it’s like the centerfold for this month’s Playboy.
You could put an eye out.
I drew a hand flipping the bird.
It was written by a boob, if that’s any consolation.
Zing!
1.7.12
“Most people are OK with two 14 year-olds fucking, but would, at the very least, consider a 49 year-old male copulating with a 14 year-old female unsettling.”
I like the synonyms used for ‘sex’ in this sentence. It runs the gambit from the vulgar to the technical.
Good article over all, Q.
Thanx JS.
Man, I must be getting old because I’m not OK with that. “Unsettling” is also not the term I’d use.
Enjoyed the article, though, Q.
What about tentacles?
Depends. The “immortal jellyfish” ages backwards, so I suppose I’m fine with those tentacles at 14.
You must be the parent of a 14 year old.
Not yet, but imagine Cytotoxic having sex. Now you see my objection.
That’s impossible.
He cums after forty-one seconds and then complains that his partner is an idiot who doesn’t know how to do sex right?
He’s the 14 year old in this equation?
Most people are OK with two 14 year-olds fucking
I bet not, actually. I’m not, even though I don’t think it should be a crime.
I’m with straffin, because I think a 49 year old mail boning a junior high student is a hell of a lot more than “unsettling”.
I think this article is what they mean by “defining deviancy down”.
I’m speaking strictly of edge cases here. I would consider a 49 year old with a 14 year old criminal, but most people consider two 14 year olds doing it, while certainly unsavory, not on the same level. The issue here is to highlight the vagueness about the concept of adulthood as applied to sexual consent. Is it puberty? Is it legal majority (18)? What does age differential have to do with it? Is a 52 year old having sex with a 17 year “better” than the 49 year old with the 14 year old? I don’t have answers, just posing questions.
I think it’s a fair argument that you made. I understood the question that you were posing
My reaction was really mostly about the squishtacular terminology they used, which implies that its unobjectionable for junior high students to fuck each other, and only mildly controversial for a 49 year old to fuck a junior high student. The range of legitimate reactions is far larger than that, and more skewed toward “no”.
You can play around endlessly with variations on “what about a 15 year old screwing a 17 year old” and “why is a five year difference icky in this case but not that one”, no question.
Half the mans age plus 7.
Is that floor, or a ceiling?
Just don’t ask OMWC.
It is both.
I like the synonyms used for ‘sex’ in this sentence. It runs the gambit from the vulgar to the technical.
Yes, but he left out “coitus.”
Amorous congress.
Since this is all I am to the commentariat:
http://archive.is/17sp9
There! You satisfied now?
*unsuccessfully tries to hold back tears*
Make them tears of joy, Q. You wrote a good article.
This machine runs on boobs, philosophy and scotch.
Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
Can I adopt that lifestyle?
Add weed, ass, and cured meats and we are a go.
The holy hat trick.
You have some range Q. One minute breaking down the vagaries of our presuppositionalism, the next gratuitously posting hot lady pics.
breaking down the vagaries then breaking down the vagiries?
Wait, someone actually posted a topical comment? You get all the good commenters.
OT:
Office Progs are very very outraged about the Team Red candidate making ads about MS13. This is of course totes racist and simply fear mongering.
Office progs then begin a lovely discussion about how “they keep going low, we keep going high”. Because there’s absolutely no prog fear mongering. Ever.
NAZIS!!!! OVER THERE, I SAW ‘EM!
And over there, Russians!
THE PLANET IS GOING TO BE AN UNINHABITABLE HELLSCAPE OF FIRE AND ASH BECAUSE NO PARIS ACCORDS
PULLING OUT OF THE IRAN DEAL MEANS WE’RE GOING TO GET NUKED
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE HEALTHCARE.
WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!
I didn’t realize “ON NOESZ! TRUMPHITLER IS USHERING IN A FASCIST STATE1!!!!1!!!” was considered going high.
High, like doing a speed-ball with a pre-op tranny prostitute.
Ask them about guns.
My GF goes apeshit whenever a Gillespie ad shows up on TV or radio. So annoying.
I vaguely disagree with a bunch of these
*narrows gaze*
In regards to logic and the inability to provide completely logical solutions to all problems, I don’t consider it an issue. As with most things, it is the attempt that matters. As compared to the alternatives which rely almost wholly on emotions for their philosophical underpinnings, libertarianism provides a refreshing alternative.
Additionally, there is a distinction between how you conduct your own life and how you seek to manage (through social institutions and government) the lives of others.
In regards to logic and the inability to provide completely logical solutions to all problems, I don’t consider it an issue. As with most things, it is the attempt that matters.
I agree with Scruffy. It’s not our results, it’s our intentions that matter. 😉
On a serious note, complete logic requires complete knowledge, something humanity will always lack.
The epistemic solution in a nutshell.
FIFY
It’s not our results, it’s our
intentions methodscolor of the unicorn that matter[s].Well, yeah. Goedel proved that.
It’s not just humanity either.
And boobs; nothing can ever change the definition of a high-quality rack.
Also you wouldn’t know a high-quality rack if you were motorboating it
No rack is low quality if you’re motorboating it.
You obviously have not visited enough cheap hookers
I only motorboat the finest hookers!
reject the use of inherently vague concepts in defining principals.
To take the abortion concept.
When does a fetus become a human is really just a sub question under the question of what defines a human.
Is it genetics alone? How close must the genetics be to qualify? Make the definition too strict and you risk defining actual persons out of the human race because their random genetic differences fail to meet the criteria. You also run the risk that we have the technology to create genetically modified beings that are mostly human but fall outside of the definition and therefore become sub human and eligible to be used as slaves or worse. Make it too broad and you start having to answer why Chimpanzees and possibly other great apes are not also included. You also need to ask why humans alone occupy a privileged position. Eventually it is likely we will encounter or create other intelligent species, where is the moral framework that grants them rights when you have chosen humans alone as possessing them.
So given the inherent vagueness of the meaning of human I would not base my moral framework on that definition. I would rather base it on a demonstration of moral agency. Any being or entity capable of demonstrating moral agency is thereby recognized as possessing rights commensurate to that moral agency. Yes, this means that rights exist on a scale and several animal species would possess some level of rights while human infants would not acquire any at all until they were ~2 years old and some humans might never acquire the full slate of human rights.
Does that mean it is ok to go around barbecuing babies? Well no, first off those babies are the children of someone and it is pretty good odds they would object to your flambeing their children. But what if they are your children? Can you freely kill your own infant and not be guilty of murder? Again, no. However you would by necessity need to make the crime of killing them other than murder and you are now free to define using any number of reasonable scales to define the criteria under which an abortion is legal
Abortion is the one thing where I can see a true moral dilemma to be honest…
Ditto. It’s a very, very difficult moral issue for me.
As with most of these sticky issues, it’s the people that have done the least amount of honest reflection on abortion that often have the strongest opinions about it.
Have you ever tried BBQ’d fetus?
“I would rather base it on a demonstration of moral agency.”
The primary problem that I see with abortion is that so much of it just borders on eugenics. Let’s be honest, the early proponents of abortion were deep believers in eugenics. And defining when a person is a person is the road to eugenics. If a person must demonstrate moral agency, does that mean that the mentally handicapped or people in a coma are not human?
Little harm will be done by keeping the definition of ‘human’ expansive, whereas I see a lot of horrible acts that will be justified when we start reducing the concept of what qualifies as ‘human’.
Let’s be honest, the early proponents of abortion were deep believers in eugenics.
The classical Greeks?
There is a difference between contraceptives and abortion, unless we want to accept that abortion is being used as a contraceptive, in which case the procedure is even more abhorrent. And, yes, the ancient Spartans definitely engaged in eugenics.
The more important part was the point about abortifacients, not contraceptives, which are a historical constant beyond our more medical modern concept of abortion. My point is more historically the abortion discussion stretches long before the progressive era, and was around philosophy, not eugenics (the Stoics believed that a fetus was not really an animal until it breathed air, Islamic scholars believe the souls enters after a certain period, etc.)
There was no consensus among Stoics with regards to abortion and the fact that ancient civilizations also practiced abortion does not refute the notion that the practice is not entwined with eugenics. The ancient Greeks, Romans, and Islamic states all engaged in slavery to the extent that killing a slave was not often viewed as a crime. These ancients already accepted the notion that not all people are deserving of equal rights. The Catholic School of Selmanaca, in contrast, took the radical position that slavery, itself, was wrong and that the natives of the Americas should not be subjugated (a position that was promptly ignored). Overall, though, I don’t think that because ancient civilizations practiced the procedure excuses the practice from the eugenic framework that underlines the procedure.
Actually, having a pre-existing cross-cultural use of abortifacients in societies that didn’t even have anything close to the 19th century notion of genetics, much less even a modern concept of race (husbandry, sure) explicitly It makes the claim ‘the early proponents of abortion were deep believers in eugenics’ to be factually incorrect. You can argue that the progressive era position on abortion was rooted in eugenics, you can argue that the modern public abortion scheme is itself rooted in eugenic thought, you can argue that there’s plenty of abortion advocates who still use eugenic argumentation to this day, but you basically have to ignore three thousand years of human history and obsess over a century and a half to make your statement “not even wrong”.
The TL;DR version is: was every medieval midwife who sold tansy a secret time traveler Agnes McPhail-ite who was doing it for some bizarre notion of the betterment of the human race?
Agree to disagree, I suppose. The Spartans did leave deformed children out to die and ancient civilizations did not view all people as equally deserving of life (the underlying notion of eugenics in my opinion). But, I suppose in the modern connotation of what defines eugenics your point is valid.
ancient civilizations did not view all people as equally deserving of life (the underlying notion of eugenics in my opinion)
Then your concept of eugenics is flawed. Eugenics can be performed without killing a single living human being. For example, up here it’s not like we killed people/said they weren’t equally deserving of life for being retarded or black or whatever, but we did sterilize the shit out of them. In fact, sterilization was the primary defining action of the eugenics movement. Even the fucking Nazis thought about just chemically sterilizing the Jews rather than exterminating them at the Wannsee Conference.
It’s still a horrible abuse of the state to be able to sterilize social undesirables obviously, but removing their ability to reproduce is not the same as denying a right to live. Because the actual underlying notion of eugenics was the elimination of negative hereditary traits from the gene pool (in their vague and most of the time entirely inaccurate ideas about genetics) not necessarily the removal of those people as people.
I conceded the point, Titor. I acknowledged that ‘eugenics’ was used incorrectly by me. No need to drag it on. I thought Canadians were suppose to be meek and deferential?
You can still be perfectly polite while kicking the shit out of a Toronto Maple Leafs fan.
Thing is I did not argue for altering the definition of what it means to be human, I argued for not using this definition in our moral theory of rights.
So the mentally handicapped and those in a coma remain human regardless but no they do not get access to the full spectrum of what we today call “human” rights.
This does not mean they have no rights whatsoever, there would still be some and they would exist on a sliding scale based on the level of moral development they displayed. What is more this is actually pretty much how the world already works. A fundamental human right is the right of contract. The mentally handicapped however cannot enter into contracts as a general rule because they cannot comprehend them. They also cannot consent to sex and there are many other rights a fully functional adult possesses that are denied the mental handicapped for very good reasons.
Now to turn it around. If the rights are inherent in their being human beings (which they unquestionably are) on what grounds can we deny a mentally handicapped person the right to contract or the right to consent to sex?
I would argue that basing the question of rights on moral development is a more logically consistant basis than basing it on your human heritage. Further it provides a framework for incorporating animal rights and when appropriate AI, genetically enginnered being, and alien rights in a consistant manner.
To sum up:
A human is always a human but your rights are derived from your moral agency not your species.
“can we deny a mentally handicapped person the right to contract or the right to consent to sex?”
That fact that they lack the cognitive ability to consent. I think you’re correct that rights already exist on a sliding scale based upon cognitive abilities, but these rights are all issues of ‘freedom of association’ (which would include contracts and sexual relations) which all require ‘consent’. However, no consent is required to engage in other individual rights such as ‘free speech’ or ‘freedom of conscience’, to name a few.
Also, I agree with you that some level of ‘natural rights’ should be afforded to animals.
Moral agency standard gets too close to the algebra standard for me.
Thanks PKD!
Any being or entity capable of demonstrating moral agency is thereby recognized as possessing rights commensurate to that moral agency.
“Moral agency” is even harder to define than “human being”. Plus, there are lots of people out there who don’t have “agency” (children well over the age of 2, the mentally disabled, etc.) who nobody would say could be just put down like a sick dog. Which you acknowledge, but this is a door that leads straight to a steep and slippery slope, IMO.
A heap of sand is 234 grams or more. You are welcome.
Heap = Skidsteer bucket full
No true libertarian would define a heap as less than 250 grams.
No true libertarian would use limp-wristed Euro measurements for anything.
” 234 grams or more.”
Sounds rather Imperial. Shouldn’t the number be divisible by 100?
Honestly I don’t think liberatarianism is black and white. Quite the opposite. It recognize the world as complex enough that it cannot be easily categorized and directed. It supports markets as a constant feedback mechanism, constantly tweaking things. Libertarians support decentralization, trial and error, And oppose facile, good sounding solutions. There is an vagueness issue, but it is handled by libertarians better than other ideologies.
Part of that is libertarian thought never promises a utopia. Just a better situation for most people then other ideologies.
This is one thing most people miss.
Libertarianism as a political philosophy is probably unique as not even really having a concept of a Utopian goal or ideal. It is the only modern political philosophy which makes no claims whatsoever that it will solve all problems for all people
Adding to my Goedel comment above, libertarianism is the only modern political philosophy that acknowledges Turing’s proof of the Halting Problem.
“Everything I say is false.”
True, but legally speaking libertarianism is far more black and white than any other that I know. It prides itself on strict limits on state power and concrete individual rights, as opposed to more fluid “whatever the Top Men see fit” of more statist views. In Libertarianism, there is no place for a law banning public displays of porn where porn is defined as “I know it when I see it.”
Having principles does not mean black and white imo
Racist.
Yeah and everything being shades of grey is ageist
I don’t know why this cracked me up, but it did.
That dude is completely tweaked.
This cracks me up.
Glad I watched to the end. Reminds you that you don’t have to be white to be a redneck.
Does the women’s division pay out the same as the men’s?
BTW, a very simple (if cold) answer to the abortion vagueness problem is to stipulate that a fetus is no longer a fetus when it can survive outside the womb. That is the basic requirement of every mammal. If it can be removed from a mother’s womb and survive, it is officially a human. This puts the boundary between life and not life around 6 months post conception, but with constantly improving neonatal medical science we should be able to get that down several months. So, all you pro lifers, if you want the gov to recognise life earlier, better start donating to medical research.
*Douses gasoline, takes long drag, calmly tosses cigarette, turns and walks away stoically.*
I am actually ok with this and I think it dovetails with “evictionism”. If we accept that we retain the right to evict someone from our property at any time, and if we accept that our bodies are private property, we should be able to evict an occupant of our body at will. However, there should be the additional moral obligation of helping that occupant survive if it is at all possible. That’s not a complete answer and my views on abortion are evolving all the time.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favor of twelfth trimester abortions.
If you owned a spaceship, and then invited someone to come aboard that spaceship, and then pushed them into the vacuum of space at some random point of their visit, would you then be a murderer, or just evicting someone from your property at an inopportune time?
To pivot back to abortion, if, as you suggest, someone has a moral obligation to help that occupant survive “if it is at all possible” wouldn’t that include carrying it to term?
I think this is pretty close to a spaceship.
That is all true, as I said, my opinions are evolving. It’s a very tricky dilemma.
So you’re saying Pinochet was a libertarian?
Shhhhh…Jeffrey Tucker might hear you. Jokes are worst than Hitler
Serious response: If the spaceship horribly malfunctioned and would only make it back home if one person were jettisoned, then it would be perfectly legitimate to throw the guest into the airlock. Your ship, your rules, your survival. This would also be true if the guest became extremely, unreasonably burdensome. If you did it just as a fuck you then I think that could be reasonably construed as murder.
+ 1 Cold Equation
As an engineer my mind recoils in horror at the idea of a fuel powered vehicle that doesn’t have at least a small percentage of excess fuel in case of a miscalculation.
True but the setup was contrived so that it was an emergency rescue mission and there was no time to fix things such that it had a reserve. Further the ship DID have some emergency reserves, however enough of it was used up in taking off with the excess weight of her on board and there was only enough left to land with the weight of one of them.
Now the bigger question is how did they not have sensors in place to detect the weight of a stowaway but the point of the story was not to present a realistic scenario but a somewhat realistic hypothetical to examine the moral issue behind the “no win scenario”.
In regards to your first hypothetical, I would say that there is a clear moral distinction between “someone is going to definitely die, you only have the opportunity to choose who” and a situation where that is not the case.
In regards to your second hypothetical, “extremely, unreasonably burdensome” is a very subjective standard.
There is a reason we have a ‘reasonable person’ standard in law.
“extremely, unreasonably burdensome”
He kept leaving pubic hairs stuck in my bar of soap.
If you’re really interested in exploring this theme, there are a number of good cases from the age of sail that are on point which drill into the morality of killing so that others may survive in both consensual and non-consensual instances.
Does it matter if you used multiple means to try to prevent someone from coming aboard your spaceship and they did anyway?
Someone (not necessarily me) would argue that if you don’t want people on your spaceship, you shouldn’t have one.
Which is now making me wonder about whether it’s justified to terminate an immaculate conception.
Or intercept the immaculate reception.
To make sure the metaphor doesn’t become muddied, let me shift back. Hopefully I understood your point properly.
If a person, in an effort to not become pregnant, employed several contraceptives but they all failed, I would say that since no contraceptive method is 100% effective, it should be understood that in engaging in sexual activity you are still willing to risk pregnancy, however remote the chance.
The “they did anyway” in your metaphor implies voluntary, even aggressive action on the part of the baby, where in actuality, the two people having sex were the only ones performing voluntary actions, actions that may lead to the non-desired outcome.
There’s no defensive method for my home that is 100% effective, does that mean I’m asking to be robbed?
No, but the fact remains that you know, regardless of your preparations, that you could still be robbed. That does not stop you from owning things a robber may wish to steal, no?
But again, I would draw the moral distinction between a baby who exists through no aggressive or conscious action on their part and a criminal seeking to steal or harm.
A more accurate analogy is building your house in a flood zone.
In the same way that it’s totes kewl to blow away kinds cutting through your lawn with a shotgun.
Presuming they had adequate warning, yes.
*watches as nothing happens because gasoline needs a sparkier(oh yes I said it) ignition source*
You need a sparkier ignition source!
*sparks fly*
Get a room you two.
My room is occupied by print outs from Chive.
I’ve mentioned this before, but the problem is that eventually medical technology will get so good that we will be able to transplant a fetus to an artificial womb immediately after conception. At this point, by your definition, life would legally begin at conception. It also means that aborting a pregnancy no longer becomes synonymous with killing the fetus. The issue then becomes whether there is an obligation to preserve the right of this person. If so, who should pay for it, and who supports and claims responsibility for this new human? Will they all just be shuffled into government orphanages? Will we be allowed to bid on them for monocle factory labor?
We’re not that far off. Should have artificial wombs before flying cars, at any rate.
Too late, we’ve had working flying cars for about 20 years now.
What we have lacked was a regulatory environment that could allow them to be sold profitably.
Basically all of the attempts to this point require the “driver” to get a pilots license severely limiting the market for them and they are always required to take off and land from an actual airport severely limiting the utility of them over just owning a plane and a car that you leave parked at the airport.
Technology wise however flying cars have been rather easy to build for quite some time now.
I don’t think strapping wings on a car is what most people have in mind when they cogitate a ‘flying car’. Some problems are more a question of energy than regulation. Not that your point about dealing with having to deal with both the FAA and the NHTSA to design a product is off point…
We have had lightweight powerful enough engines to make a viable flying car as a commuter vehicle for quite some time now and the ability to make it capable of withstanding the stresses of flying without having to manually convert it from driving mode to flying mode. Sure it will be slow for an airplane and have low acceleration for a car and get horrible fuel efficiency for either but it will work in both modes.
Heck just take a modern hybrid car, propulsion in both modes is electric to simplify the mechanicals and the batteries are backed by a ~140 HP high performance engine. It will be expensive and slower than an equivalent single purpose vehicle in either mode but there is no reason it cannot work and work well for what it is meant to do
Sounds to me like more of a market issue than a regulatory issue but I’d love to see your design optimization equation for the thing.
This is basically the George Carlin bit about socon women paying to have black fetuses implanted into their womb.
Which is kind of funny, because there actually are programs where, while not full-implantation, a couple looking to adopt will pay all the medical costs of pregnancy for a pregnant woman and then adopt the baby after it’s born. I have a friend that claimed ownership of a black body that way. From what I understand one of the big issues is American adoption law is really, really screwed up, to the point it is often the same cost to adopt overseas and that without the chance of the birth mother changing her mind and screwing the entire process up.
This puts the boundary between life and not life around 6 months post conception, but with constantly improving neonatal medical science we should be able to get that down several months.
Viability is the best place to draw the line, and I think a line needs to be drawn.
Currently, viability is probably around 22 weeks. What’s funny is, its been pretty stable there for a long time, due to fetal development (mainly the lungs). Until we have legit mechanical wombs, that’s where its going to be.
I still think “evictionism” is a dead end. Parents don’t have the right to put their children on the street to die (nor should they) by evicting them from their house. Further, most babies are actually invitees (as in, they are a known risk of having sex). Having invited someone onto your property, your right to evict them is (legally) limited by whether they justifiably relied on your invitation. We’re stretching a real property concept well past the breaking point already, but I think its fair to say that yes, the fetus you invited into your womb by having sex is reliant on you, and justifiably so, making eviction a dubious remedy for the invitee/trespasser.
More or less, that is how the common law has always treated pregnant mothers with respect to a murder charge.
Mmmmmmmm baby.
bacon is tastier.
Baby bacon. From the other side of the fetus from the back ribs.
Here’s one tougher than abortion: when is music too loud when you live in an apartment building? Or should your neighbors soundproof heir own damn apartments
Make a meme and send it to this guy.
there are funnier memes out there
Hop to it. I just remembered it because at 1:45 the soundwave meme comes up.
I think you should have to be a fourth generation American in order to own stereo equipment.
That’s okay when I move to America I’ll just bring my accordion
You mean IED!
*dives for cover*
That’s easy. It isn’t your property, you’re renting it from the landlord. It should be in the lease, and any disputes arbitrated by the landlord. Don’t like the landlord’s decision? Rent a different apartment.
It gets trickier when the dispute is between two different home owners.
so you are a fan oh HOAs
I’m a fan of not having neighbors within earshot.
I had that problem about 20 years ago.
I ask politely. Once.
The 2nd time, I go to the circuit breaker.
The 3rd time, I wait at the circuit breaker.
add a dimension of complexity to your problem: what if the choice were between someone playing music too loud…. and having them get headphones, at which point all you can hear is their terrible singing?
I got an even harder one that than…
If someone offers you Pizza in return for helping them move and they serve you Deep Dish have they violated the NAP?
Is there pineapple on it, or no?
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
I havent done that in a long time.
Coase answer is best answer.
Or cooking fish with your apartment door open. This is a thing.
is … is that a weird euphemism?
I don’t know, but I fapped just in case.
Whatever floats your boat…
The tomato thing made me think of the concept of “truthiness” and “falsiness” in programming. Then I started thinking about deep and shallow comparisons, such as “an actual tomato” == “a picture of a tomato” would be true, but “an actual tomato” === “a picture of a tomato” would be false.
This is what happens when you combine being a nerd with having taken a lot of hallucinogenic drugs in one’s youth.
Then you switch to functional programming because you keep over analysing your class model in OOP, and then you go insane.
No hallucinogens here, but lots of D&D. So Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, Wisdom is knowing tomatoes don’t belong in fruit salad.
So salsa isn’t a fruit salad?
Only if it’s made in New York.
No onions in your salsa?
Mango salsa is definetely a fruit salad. Its also repulsive.
And there’s the Bard
Bards are crucial to biodiversity.
Fruit sushi, please.
+3 Salad Fork of Pedantry!
OT:
This is child abuse. From the same source as the “Dressing up as Moana is racist” article I posted in the morning links, we have this.
Stop projecting your own racism onto a six year old, you fucking pathetic excuse for a parent.
This is why I’m not worried about my own kids. This is gonna be their competition.
racism is in her blood
Looks like there’s some stupidity in there too.
You know who else defined people’s actions by their blood lineage?
Charles II?
The Assassin’s Creed?
The leadership of North Korea?
George RR Martin?
(((Them?)))
Yahweh?
You know who else defined people’s actions by their blood lineage?
While I am always amused by these little tangents, I think the statement you are making (and the joke(?) implication) is extremely insightful to the current zeitgeist.
Answer the question!
uh…um…Tuong Lu Kim?
Francis Galton?
Richard Spencer?
Margret Sanger?
I just argue with my daughter about why Apple Jack is better than Rarity. I think my daughter will be better off in the long run.
Well, Rarity is white, so if AJ is her favorite just tell her she’s appropriating Orange Pony culture.
Did you just assume my race, shitlord? I mean, you are right, I’m so white I got a sunburn when I went to Ireland, but still.
I mean, all libertarians are white men, right? So it’s not like I could have assumed otherwise.
I don’t like tho sound of applejack, but any liquor is better then a my little pony character
Rainbow Dash or GTFO
I honestly think Derpy would be the glib mascot.
Discord is our spirit animal.
What’s your problem with Rarity? I only watched like two episodes high with some bronies whenever the first season came out, but doesn’t she own a small business or some shit?
The Rarity set with the carousel boutique was more expensive than the Apple Jack set. I’m not really into analysing the co-protagonists of a children’s cartoon with a small child, I just wanted to save twenty bucks.
Ah, basic bitches need to get paid.
Eh they both do.
One runs a small custom clothing shop and the other a cider farm and distillery.
That said, in a lot of ways Equestria is kind of a libertarian place because there are no police and pretty much no regulations and the only government which exists does so to protect the ponies from outside threats. Everything else is pretty much run on voluntary transactions.
The weird thing about it is that they absolutely have a conception of wealth but they do not seem to have any concept of money
Glibertarians.com – Come for the titties, stay for the My Little Pony breakdown.
Equestria is also a monarchy.
Checkmate, Hans Hermann Hoppe haters.
They have a concept of money, it’s called <a href="http://mlp.wikia.com/wiki/Bits"bits. It is mentioned in several episodes. They’re small gold coins.
I totally never had this sort of retarded conversation with my daughter.
Like Captain Beach Playa says: This will be the competition for her and she’s gonna win.
Those girls is going to need some therapist time. Good thing she doesn’t have any boys.
Not to worry. If she does accidentally spawn a male, it will be mentally, emotionally, and (eventually) physically emasculated.
Steve Smith give all the rapist time they need
What a horrible parent.
Due to some recent events, I had to have “the talk” with my boy this week. Not the one about hiding salami, the one about racism.
The boy just turned 8, and he not only wasn’t just not-racist, he actively didn’t understand what race is and why people should care. This is a kid that went to a majority-minority preschool, goes to a different minority-majority elementary school, and has friends from every spectrum of the rainbow. A few of his friends are ESL’ers, some of whom speak Spanish at home and some who speak various other languages.
That’s a long way to say that we live in a very strange area that has more racial diversity than a college admission catalog.
And the boy went 8 years without knowing what race or racism is. I’m not a perfect parent – far from it. But if I’ve lived my life in a way that passively taught my son to judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin… Well I feel pretty damn good about that.
Exactly what a racist would say…
Know your privilege, shit-lord!
Hope. Change. Common Sense. Conversation. Investment. Resist.
Not vague at all.
I’d say there’s a distinction between genuine vagueness and obfuscation, what the Left excels at. Muddy the waters as much as possible in order to make a power grab (see response to JS’s post below).
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DM6tVhgW4AE9Et0.jpg:large
So then is this assertion, itself, a social construct? Relativism is insanity wrapped in made-up words
Hey yo, where the white women at?
Oh. Right there in that bullshit class.
I believe the best answer to postmodern bullshit is a dist to the face. Then politely explain that from your subjective perspective nothing happened and that faces are in fact a social construct. So are fists.
Not that I would advocate violence, but at some point it is self defense really
dist to the face
dist == dick fist?
I like it.
Very socially constructive.
It’s a method to assert moral dominance over a field that is resistant to it.
As has been stated here before, this is a core goal of Marxist postmodernism; reduce reality itself to meaninglessness, then offer your Marxist truth as a touchstone. This is all process, it’s not an end to itself, and the professors teaching it are just useful idiots. The end goal, as it always was, is power.
This
“What’s cultural Marxism? That’s a conspiracy theory, even though it is an undisputed fact that the Frankfurt School came to the US east coast after the war, secured professorships with the stated objective of undermining the capitalist system by discrediting America’s individualist culture. Yeah, you’re crazy. There’s no such thing.”
– Robby Soave
This is a bad Poe. Everyone knows that Robby doesn’t know about anything that existed before 1990.
I believe he did have an article recently accusing some conservative speaker of being a conspiracy theorist for pushing the idea of cultural Marxism (maybe it was someone else). I don’t buy into the notion necessarily, but there is no disputing that such a strain of academics does exist. Their influence, however, I think is more limited than Foccault, for example.
WTF is ‘intersectionality’ if not Marxist inspired cultural bullshit? Replace bourgeois and proletariat identities with ethnic and sexual identities and insert the standard ‘oppression’ tropes. It’s the same shit with the same ultimate goal of tearing individuals down, denying agency, and attacking anyone who has had success in the disfavored group(s).
Playing Devil’s Advocate here: Brendan O’Neill argues that intersectionality is actually anti-Marxist because it undermines the central notion of class distinction being the defining element of human interaction and destroying the ability for class consciousness to form by promoting constant conflict between vague groups rather than class solidarity/unity.
You know, the classic “black daughter of upper middle class urbanites gets to claim that the homeless white guy raised by a lumpenproletariat meth head has more privilege than her” problem.
O’Neill has a point to his argument. Intersectionality is derived from Marx’s early writing that he later repudiated. He began critiquing culture at large through the scope of minority groups, but came to view differences of race, sex, and ethnicity to be irrelevant and used as a tool by the ‘bourgeoisie’ to make the ‘proletariat’ fight among themselves. He eventually came to view everything divided along economic lines.
While I can see that argument, I’d still say it’s a re-purposing of the Marxian worldview. Capitalism is still demonic under intersectional theory; it’s just become one of many demons. It expands the number of ways ‘consciousness’ among groups can be formed by focusing on less abstract notions such as economic class and focusing on more easily visible in-group and out-group markers, such as race and sex.
You’re right Penguin, it most definitely is a re purposing of the Marxist argument. The Frankfurt School was very up front about this point. The realized that the working class had no sympathy for their arguments so they made a conscious effort to focus on identity politics and use that to undermine capitalism.
That’s right, progs. Take out that sledgehammer and knock the cornerstone of our entire civilization right out from under us. I’m sure this will end well.
What is there to be done?
Nothing.
My whole existence is vague.
Stay the course and be as reasoned and rational as humanly possible. Vagueness is the art of understanding human nature.
Politicians love it as a matter of commanding principals over principles I guess.
Or you know you could make me absolute ruler of the world and I will take care of all these dilemmas for you
Stop pondering and get back to work!
I was really worried until the last sentence.
Great article, Q!
Thanks Tundra. In other news:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/sports/sd-mines-gets-first-ever-win-over-colorado-mines/article_bb99790d-4939-5028-8569-d55c307134df.html
Awesome! I loved the stadium at SD. They have a mezzanine parking area overlooking the field. When we visited there was a game going on and it was fun to see the kids literally tailgating while watching the game.
Mini-Tundra still considering Mines?
Both of them. And Michigan Tech.
Yoopers.
I think this might itself be the problem.
I’ve found myself making a certain point repeatedly recently…. that the idea that “politics is just an extension of philosophy” is wrong. And that, for practical purposes, they’re really 2 different things that operate on entirely different levels.
without going into detail w/ research demonstrating this… take my word for it:
– 90%+ of political actors (voters) *have nothing remotely like a consistent philosophical view*
the vast, vast majority of people participating in the political process are perfectly comfortable holding – from a philosophical pov – entirely ‘contradictory’ views, depending on the circumstances.
there is no reasoning their position from any first principles. they simply have an arbitrary grab-bag of opinions on topics, and those topics are mainly prioritized by their tribal associations.
What their peers claim to care about, THEY care about. Why? because these issues are close to their lived experiences? No: because they are simply means by which people form in-group bonds.
e.g. you’ll find people in counties which have virtually no illegal immigration ranking “illegal immigration” #1 on their list of political concerns. or white people who have lived almost entirely in white communities insisting that ‘Racism’ is the #1 problem facing america.
and the way they think these priority problems should be approached, policy-wise, isn’t derived from any philosophical process; in fact, the policy question – the political “how” (the best solution) – to address the policy “what” (the perceived problem) – is often completely absent from their concern.
i.e. Even when they rank some problem very highly… there is literally zero thought or concern placed on what method/process should be applied to sensibly address the problem. Hence: “Do Something“-ism.
They are more concerned that Where ‘something’ is more important than ‘nothing’, but when it comes measuring different kinds of ‘somethings’ for their relative merits…? interest in the topic vanishes.
In fact, were there any philosophical motive at the basis of these political desires, the “something” would be central. because the philosophical principles are revealed in how power is applied.
Basically, i think people confuse political philosophy (a topic of theoretical debate), and ‘politics’ (how things work in practical reality), as having some essential relationship. I think if there is one at all, its far far weaker than is typically assumed.
You are correct. Democracy is not driven by philosophy.
Democracy is a process for implementing societal constructs approved of by a majority (which maybe you could call a philosophy, maybe not), but I’d argue that the choices people make in how they vote and/or how’d they’d like to see the world work is driven by personal philosophy. That philosophy may be muddled, self-contradictory nonsense, but it’s still a philosophy of sorts. That’s my 2 cents.
” I’d argue that the choices people make in how they vote and/or how’d they’d like to see the world work is driven by personal philosophy” i doubt this. Certainly not true in Romania. People vote on tribalism. No coherence and no consistency and no principles. Same think ok when my guys do it but wrong otherwise. this can’t be philosophy however muddled.
I’d say that tribalism is a type of philosophy, but maybe we’re just arguing semantics.
That’s a bit vague. I like to think of philosophy as more than just tribalism, which is simply a human tendency
I agree with Q, both in that tribalism is a philosophy, and that it is perhaps semantics.
Is eating also a philosophy? I would say that philosophy implies more than tribalism.
i don’t know if its inherent to democracy, writ large, or if its a universal, or if its something unique to the “binary” way american political culture is organized
…i personally lean towards the latter: when you only have 2 parties, everything will devolve into “US vs THEM”, and any reasoned basis for a position will always be reduced to some power-grab to ensure ‘the other guy’ doesn’t get to rule over you.
if there were 4 or more, they could/would (theoretically) make finer gradations about their motivating philosophical basis. Or, that philosophy – or the appearance of it – would be a form of marketing/differentiation.
iow, i think i disagree with you that ‘democracy’ is what’s flawed. its more that, in the current balance of power, where coalition-warfare has reduced interest groups to “2”, it has a uniquely erosive effect on any arguments based on principles.
re:
witness the stupid debates you see in places like ‘reddit’ or youtube or wherever, where people act as tho “Capitalism + Socialism” are teams similar to Team Red/Team Blue, where literally no one is actually capable of articulating what either really involves.
they aren’t philosophical debates. they’re tribal, and all each ever says is “my side is more-moral than yours”
I think both Q and Gilmore are right to a degree.
Politics is philosophy applied to the function of society, and pretty much everyone has a philosophy, but most people can’t really articulate that philosophy in a meaningful way. They don’t think hard about many political topics, if any, and simply pick a Team that makes them feel better about themselves. This is why most people can’t debate politics effectively. They don’t really know why they hold their views, or what their views really are deep down. When presented with facts that might lead them to realize they have chosen poorly, they deny reality.
This article has created a great conversation, btw. Love it!
my own epistemological rule is that “if you can’t describe it, it doesn’t really exist”
more broadly, if you asked people to articulate what you’re calling “philosophy”, they would all devolve down to the same things, which they more commonly call “Values”
‘family, country, god’ for conservatives, who value institutions
and
‘kindness, sharing, peace, safety’ for liberals, who prioritize feelings
but these remain nothing but mostly-inarticulate ideas without any arguments associated with them.
Most political compass/psych tests which look at these things will provide people ‘multiple choice’ options of arguments which hew towards one or the other…. but if/when people are asked to actually make the arguments themselves, most just flail around in the dark and say a bunch of shit that is sometimes completely inconsistent and contradictory.
that’s not “a philosophy” in my book; my own definition of that being ‘rational arguments made from explicitly-stated first principles’.
It’s not a swipe against democracy per se. All forms of government start with some philosophical underpinnings and eventually devolve into a crude competition for power.
The philosophy that is there is in the laws. The written law at least provides a somewhat static set of ideas over which we can argue. Politics and elections are vapid exercises in the flavor of the minute. Whether it’s Trump’s erratic and bombastic tweets or Clinton’s focus groups, politics is simply an exercise in tribal appeal.
politics is really just philosophy is to favorable to politicians. Or them politics is all about power. philosophy don’t enter into it
In practical terms, philosophy affects culture, and culture affect politics. What we have been seeing for the past ~60 years (if not 100+ years) is a degradation of the culture. Why are Horatio Alger-type stories no longer written or popular? Instead we get “It takes a village”. If we follow the history of “popular” philosophy (among academics, anyway), we can see that as the primacy of the individual in philosophy (which reached a relative crest with Locke, et al.) was eroded (with the neo-pseudo-Platonism of Kant, and on through Hegel and Marx, etc.) , so has the influence of individualism in the culture waned. This has obvious political ramifications.
Since we started discussing moral obligations above..
Here is a local story that’s pretty sad, especially as the facts come out:
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/local/2017/10/21/death-hikers-joshua-tree-sympathetic-murder-suicide-uncle-says-we-hold-no-grudges/787476001/
Long story short, they were lost in the desert without water or shelter, and they believed that they weren’t going to make it, so they ended it on their own terms.
Brutal. But a little weird, too.
If I hadn’t read so many stories about people heading out into the wilderness woefully unprepared, I’d suspect that he clipped the chick.
That’s what they thought at first. But then they discovered that they had been rationing food for a week.
Oh, and you’d be surprised at how many people go to Joshua Tree just because of U2. They don’t seem to grasp that it’s the Sonoran Desert.
Most people don’t understand the southern half of CA is a desert.
And this was…. July 27th. Not the best time of year.
“Most people don’t understand
the southern half ofEverything 50 miles inside the coast of CA is a desert.”FTFY
Playa, it’s the edge of the Mojave Desert, just south is Palm spgs, etc. That is the Sonoran desert.
and that is why JT is unique in the world,
I suppose it depends on which entrance you go in.
True, I did that one time, impressive drop, again unique place,
Painted Canyon?
The one in Mecca Hills?
That’s what she said.
Playa, that’s the one, drove up to the place and said “why have I never heard of this”
Awesome canyons
There’s a lot of good stuff right off the freeway, which I do when I don’t want to lug the kids 10 miles on a trail.
Whitewater, which is west of Palm Springs, is awesome. It’s some kind of fish hatchery, and right of the edge of the Salton Basin watershed (everything to the west drains to the Pacific Ocean).
Then there’s the 1000 palms oasis on the Mission Creek branch of the San Andreas Fault. Springs bubble up all along the fault. I think that’s the Dillon exit of I10.
Oh, and then Tahquitz Canyon, which is not that far from downtown Palm Springs. I went in April, and there was a full blown waterfall. Lemme see if I can dig up a pic.
Tahquitz Falls.
I like to go right up the street to Ice House Canyon, or to San Antonio falls
I-10 Euclid exit head north til you can’t go any further, close Wilderness, including Big Horn Sheep at the Saddle and Cedar Glen
As a former resident of the Sonoran Desert, it has always astonished me how casually visitors often treat such an incredibly harsh environment.
Yikes.
Damn.
That’s a bummer, but JT at any time of year can kill you. no water…. Sad
/CSUF students aren’t very bright
Gaia is an unforgiving bitch, anywhere the pavement ends.
One reason i love living out west (formally AZ, now ID) is that nature will kill you if you fuck around and there are critters that will kill and/or eat you.
You can survive a couple of days without water before dying in the desert. You can freeze to death in a couple of hours in an Iowa blizzard.
I’ve lived both places and have utter respect for what weather and topography can do to a person.
Pfffft. You know nothing. Ten handfuls of sand is a shovelful. Ten shovelfuls is a pile. Ten piles is a heap.
I’ve run rings around you, logically.
Now, I shall make the penguin on top of your teevee explode.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of liberals suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something awesome has happened.
House GOP launches probes of Obama-era uranium deal, Clinton email inquiry
Hopefully the donks will forever regret even bringing up the Russian specter.
But I doubt it.
As I have linked in the morning links, Newsweek fact-checked that and decided the Russian payments to the Clintons were a coincidence and move on nothing to see here
Hold on…
They acknowledged the existence of Russian payments to the Clintons??? That’s a start…
“Assessment: Yes, the foundation received money and Bill Clinton was paid to give a speech, but there’s no evidence the Clintons were paid by Russians to push through the uranium deal.”
Yup. Just a big coinky-dink that Russian money shows up in truckload amounts from the very Russians who need a Clinton to approve something, right around the time it gets approved. Those crazy Russians, amirite?
Fact. Checked.
So it must be a coincidence.
Newsweek… all the veracity of the onion without any of the humor.
The Onion will turn out to be true in a few years, Newsweak won’t ever.
WaPo, HAHA!
“formally revive issues that the Trump campaign used to try to discredit his Democratic rival Clinton during the 2016 presidential race ”
Issues, I like that, servers, Uranium, you know, issues.
“the Trump campaign used to try to discredit his Democratic rival Clinton”
She did a bang-up job discrediting herself and needed very little assistance from the Trump campaign.
Not likely, Trump said mean things on the twitters about that Corker guy on Team Red. I’m sure they’ll focus on that and the millions of kids that are going to die as a result of El Trumpeñero’s tax cuts.
Considering the GOP’s great love of putting on a production regarding things their constituencies care about while accomplishing nothing, I am not holding my breath here.
Yeah, this stinks of more Failure Theater. Maybe, just maybe, the coming primary season will be sufficiently brutal for the Repubs that they actually try to do something with this to placate their voters.
Finally, the vague object solution claims that the objects themselves have no firm definition and they are fungible depending on context.
I think I have to side with this. Ultimately, definitions are something people assign to the outside world. But, we only do so based on certain commonalities and traits. The outside world has no particular need or interest in conforming to our definitions.
I would disagree, and say that those non-conformities are based on imperfect perceptions, not the fluidity of those things that are being defined.
Insomuch as we might have incomplete information, “the outside world” will defy definition. But I would say that they do have a “firm definition”.
I could be misunderstanding. But, it strikes me that the thing in and of itself has no definition. It’s not a person. It’s that creature that we call a person. It’s not an apple. It’s that thing that we call an apple. The definition is external to the thing in question and is only a function of our use of language. Now, those definitions might be refined sufficiently that they capture everything we want to include while omitting everything we want to exclude. But, that’s still something artificially imposed on the thing itself.
Neo will fix it.
The purpose is to re-examine our premises so that we may be better prepared to tackle these difficult questions when faced with opponents who debate in good faith. It also serves to explain why principles are often more difficult to keep in practice than in theory.
And that’s the problem. Arguments in “good faith” are hard to come by.
Definitions are sloppy, either intentionally or because of the “everybody agrees” assumption. Definitions are assumed by each person, and we inevitably end up talking past one another. When somebody says “They oughtta” and I throw the flag and ask, “Who’s THEY?” the response generally boils down to, “Oh, you know very well who.”
“Arguments in “good faith” are hard to come by.”
Absolutely. The political Left never argues in good faith (the intellectual Left occasionally does, even if their arguments suck), and this accounts for the rise of the Alt-Right and Trump; they are finally fighting the Left on their own terms. The genteel, polite conservatives would never deign to stoop to the Left’s level of insanity and that’s why they always lose. It’s sad, but it’s the state of politics right now.
I am Jack’s broken heart.
Kid Rock: ‘F— no, I’m not running for senate!’
This article.
It’s got a certain vague je ne sais quoi.
Back to working vaguely.
Working at 9 30 pm and in this weather? that wind out there is pretty bad, and the rain
“Assessment: Yes, the foundation received money and Bill Clinton was paid to give a speech, but there’s no evidence the Clintons were paid by Russians to push through the uranium deal.”
Completely unrelated. Nothing more than a mildly amusing coincidence.
Meanwhile, Trump only won the election because some Russians bought some ads on Facebook.
/consistency
This was a good aaricle Q. I wish i came in earlier to participate. You are no longer just “The Boob Guy” in my eyes..
( . )( . )
Breaking news:
Jeff Flake announces he won’t run for re-election.
As I read it, he is admitting that he is out of touch with AZ Republicans and can’t win their votes without taking positions he doesn’t want to take. Fair enough, Sen. Flake.
I’d quibble about him being called “libertarian leaning” but whatevs. AZ can do a lot better than he and McCain.
Well, 89 degrees is leaning away from 90.
Maybe, I haven’t paid enough attention to Jeff Flake, but what positions has he taken that makes him ‘libertarian leaning’. I’ve seen that phrase used a lot by certain people to include such characters as Lindsey Graham and Ben Sasse. Is support for free trade and open immigration the only defining quality of a ‘libertarian leaning’ representative now?
Also see: ‘cultural libertarian’.
Very fiscally conservative, pro-life, moderate on immigration describes him. He’s fairly consistent on his votes.
So what makes him ‘libertarian leaning’?
Assuming he is actually consistent on it any actual fiscal conservative gets lumped in with the crazy libertarian anarchists who want to gut government spending and make draconian cuts in social welfare programs so they can cut taxes for robber barons
He focused for a long time on just the fiscal stuff, and was always willing to put forward amendments with no shot in hell but that many Glibs would probably be fans of. Search for “Flake Amendment” for a long list of these. They include cutting funding to phoney baloney social scientists that churn out reports that prop up democrats, forcing more transparancy in Amtrak, etc. Some are real gadfly-type stuff.
He is, by all accounts, in the Mitt Romney sphere of possibly-not-a-complete-poisonous-viper style of politician and is actually concerned as much with good government as he is with anything else. I have no clue if this is true or not, but that would also make him a radical libertarian in this day and age.
I liked Flake before Trump became a force in politics. I respect Flake for not compromising himself in order to get elected. That at least makes him 100x more principled than most politicians, whether you agree with a particular policy or not.
I have zero qualms about voting for him before and would vote for him again but if he’s taking his ball and going home then sorry not sorry don’t let the door hit ya.
Holy crap, we can get Kelli Ward in!
Ewwwwww
One week everyone on here is saying she’s the most libertarian candidate in history and then the next week she’s icky. Make up your freakin minds!
You wanna get in Kelli Ward? She’s a little old, but whatever floats your boat.
Less than two weeks ago he said he wasn’t worried about getting primaried. Now he realizes he can’t win a primary.
Now a spend-like-crazy war monger will take his place.
Who?
It’s interesting, given people’s general unfavorable view of politicians and lawyers in general, that our goal of convincing others that less government is better is such an impossible task.
Its always the other guy’s politician or lawyer who is a dirtbag. My politician/lawyer is awesome. See, also, re-election rates (over 90%) and Congressional approval ratings (usually sub-30%).
Nice article, though you still are the boob guy to me.
You might enjoy this book, Q. I did, immensely: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/vagueness-and-degrees-of-truth-9780199233007?cc=us&lang=en&