illegal immigration is one of the best things to happen to America.
frannkzappa's forum posts
[QUOTE="Opi0us"]
I firmly believe that a government should have many responsibilities, especially to do with spreading the wealth with proportionally high taxes for high earners, and by providing free services from healthcare and education to social housing and welfare payments.
The ideal and aim of raising everyone in a society up to a comfortable level is the surest way of making things better for yourself as an individual.
Jimn_tonic
Pretty much this. It takes more than investers salivating for profit in order to build and maintain hospitals, schools and highways.
"We see before us a huge community of producers, the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labour...I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a system which would be oriented toward social goals." -Einstien
Socialism is idiotic and dooms humanity to atrophy, idleness and rot.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] What was it that he said? Did he say that Tom Robinson was guilty of the crime he was accused of? It wasn't even misunderstanding the themes it was actually misunderstanding the very plot itself.Ace6301Yes, that. And then when I pointed out that this undermines the story's central themes, I asked him what he thought the point of the book was. And he said "as far as I could tell there wasn't a point. Just a bunch of subjectivist pseudo-philosophy." Revelation: What if Lai is just really bad at understanding things. Maybe he reads posts and ideas and just can't understand them so he assumes that the person writing that idea doesn't understand it? It would even make sense with how little empathy he seems capable of and how he views himself as very smart: he would assume that people think exactly like him and that they are incapable of being more intelligent than he is. Critiques on this theory?
He certainly hasn't done anything to contradict this theory.
Arguing emotion can at the very least help you gain an understanding of the other person which can be useful. Maybe you'd consider that less an argument but given how I view arguing reason/logic I see no difference, they're both about as useful.Don't get me wrong. Understanding emotion is important in practical relationships, but it doesn't hold up well in and of itself. That's why I baited frannkzappa with Dionysius and Apollo. It's all in good fun.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]Arguing reason/logic has purpose, even if imperfect. Arguing emotion is impractical by design. You end in a place of belief, which is kind of ironic I suppose.
SUD123456
A man after my own heart.:oops:
What do you mean? Arguing reason/logic has purpose, even if imperfect. Arguing emotion is impractical by design. You end in a place of belief, which is kind of ironic I suppose.[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
But the results are practical.
SUD123456
you can stay.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] Deductive and inductive logic and shit like that are "perfect", but the premises that make up those type of logical conclusions will always be impossible to "know" Rich3232
But the results are practical.
What do you mean?you can get applicable and practical results from logic and platonic thinking.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] Being logical is pretty easy. Being logical consistently and knowing the "truth" is pretty much impossible. Rich3232
But to even attempt to discern the truth you must use logic. As did Plato.
Deductive and inductive logic and shit like that are "perfect", but the premises that make up those type of logical conclusions will always be impossible to "know"But the results are practical.
Humans aren't vacuously logical. Both of those philosophers were influenced by their predecessors (Plato being influenced by Socrates is another good example). What one admired he expanded upon in his writings. Their writing followed from logical conclusion for sure, but both were men and neither were logical in every facet of their life (see: Socrates' death). Aristotle expanded on Plato's ideas and even said himself that "Anyone can become angry," and we know that anger leads to irrational instinct. Man is not a rational creature. No man is devoid of emotion.Dionysius and Apollo.[QUOTE="Saturos3091"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
on what do you base this assumption? Plato was a logical man, Socrates was a logical man, while they may be the minority they most assuredly exist.
SUD123456
Just thinking of nietzsche makes me vomit a little.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Saturos3091"]The "logical man" is an ideological fallacy. He does not exist.Saturos3091
on what do you base this assumption? Plato was a logical man, Socrates was a logical man, while they may be the minority they most assuredly exist.
Humans aren't vacuously logical. Both of those philosophers were influenced by their predecessors (Plato being influenced by Socrates is another good example). What one admired he expanded upon in his writings. Their writing followed from logical conclusion for sure, but both were men and neither were logical in every facet of their life (see: Socrates' death). Aristotle expanded on Plato's ideas and even said himself that "Anyone can become angry," and we know that anger leads to irrational instinct. Man is not a rational creature. No man is devoid of emotion.If man was perfect technocracy would not be needed.
Log in to comment