But that doesn't mean that the social opinion won't affect the policy position.Cail wrote:#1 isn't about raising the age, it's about eliminating the federal restriction and the withholding of highway funds.
Correct, the dumb-as-bricks press and the legion of idiots on social media will turn it into "The GOP's War on Teenagers".Vraith wrote:But that doesn't mean that the social opinion won't affect the policy position.Cail wrote:#1 isn't about raising the age, it's about eliminating the federal restriction and the withholding of highway funds.
Those kinds of connections happen all the time in politics.
There is a good chance, IMO, that the "it will encourage teenagers to drink!" crowd would overrule the "we can have better roads" group no matter the real [or unreal] connection.
Again with the absolutism, Nihil. I didn't say that we are just instinct. We can do more than that, but even the reason we apply is coloured by our upbringing. Look at how dismissive you are of me and 'sunny scandinavian socialist environment'. We aren't socialist, first of all, but, if we were, there would be nothing wrong with it other than your american upbringing has taught you it is something awful. Things just are and you put the emotion on them.Doc Hexnihilo wrote:All action derives from emotion. Study the words emotion and motivation themselves. To move. “I am moved.” Emotions give an impulse to that leads in motion. Reason alone cannot provide the impetus to act, the significance behind events, the meaning that underlies our values and motives. What reason can do is be used to segregate the dross from the things that matter, to interpret events according to their true significance, and to suggest strategies for the achievement of goals.Ananda wrote:Jaha... my apologies. It's late, I saw a name with an A. Too vain to get glasses here.Doc Hexnihilo wrote: I have no idea what you are talking about, and my last post was not addressed to you.
Really? Then we better cancel democracy. We are sold influence all of the time. Look no further than this thread.Nihil wrote:And yep. If you reject the validity of individual judgments within a marketplace of competing ideas, you are rejecting the very possibility of a democratic form of government.
Myth
Leftist hogwash
And yet, there is a chart that shows 91% of the time, the one with the most money wins...
When someone says something that is shown as statistics as a a myth, they are selling a perception. This perception will not be bought by all, but those inclined to want to think that might start parroting that line. They repeat it to others, furthering the marketing of the idea that this is a myth despite the statistics.
When someone does call it leftist hogwash (what *is* hogwash!??! doesn't sound nice!) despite the statistics, they are selling a point of view. Those inclined to agree with that point of view will likely agree because they want to agree because it fits their biases. They will perpetuate this idea.
The thing about repeating things is that, even if they are not true, they work into the mind. It is a classic marketing strategy and used, obviously, in politics as well as product selling.
It is my opinion that people act on emotion more than anything else. And this is even if they feel they are very rational. marketing mostly is designed to appeal to our emotions, needs, wants. It is rarely aimed solely at our rational thought.
Have you ever learned about neural linguistic programming and manipulation? Marketing is like that- aimed at bypassing the rational decision making process. And, we are very good at marketing.
Don't even get into the socialisation process and how your social structure influences the frame for all your thought.
Besides, isn't this all a straw man to deflect from the chart?
you don't believe in any democracy if you don't agree with me...
Finally, what is your new picture? I like it and it looks familiar, but I cannot place it. I knew the last two I saw, but not this one.
The mere fact that we are all ruled by inner motives and emotional impulses does not mean that our judgments are invalid. They remain valid, whether or not they are mistaken. You have the right to believe that your misguided opinion is correct, and you are entitled to your mistaken judgment. Whether you were influenced by your sunny Scandinavian socialist environment – no doubt you have been – is irrelevant. Your judgment is still your judgment, and it must be respected as such. Were we to vote on something collectively – supposing we were members of a common democratic polity – your vote would count as much as mine.
Where we run into trouble is when we begin to want to use that political process to silence those we disagree with – to say, you can’t speak too loudly or too broadly because you are convincing too many people to agree with you, and I don’t like your opinion nor think it wise. Once you’ve decided to limit the exchange of political ideas in the name of preserving your idea of virtue, you’ve trumped the popular will and thus democracy. It really doesn’t matter how you dress that up – whether as a good thing that leads to a good outcome or as simply the self-evident wisdom of the elect – it is still totalitarian and undemocratic.
If you say so. I was beginning to feel it was like this spear anyway:Doc Hexnihilo wrote:Ananda, you seem to be arguing with yourself now, so I'm going to leave you to it.
Yes, you win, you are right. I'd rather not have you go back to being a dick to me all of the time. This is just not even remotely important.Doc Hexnihilo wrote:That's fairly childish of you Ananda -- one might even say child like.
sorry, who is he? the only one I didn't know.Doc Hexnihilo wrote:
So true.Icarus Unfallen wrote:I've read enough of Ananda's posts elsewhere on the Watch to get the impression that (in the right setting and mindset), she might take a healthy interest in having that variety to sample.
