ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th November 2017, 10:55 PM   #41
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Looks like they quite want to undo the fix to the rules about net neutrality here shortly, on the day before Thanksgiving while the media and general population will likely be distracted by all the Thanksgiving stuff. Here's a site that's coordinating doing something about it, long shot that that is. And yes, if you're talking about podcasts, BobTheCoward, they would become much more vulnerable.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 14th November 2017 at 10:58 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 11:43 PM   #42
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,213
The will ensure that whoever has the most money controls the message, and Republicans are beholden to the wealthy.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:53 AM   #43
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,335
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I also oppose public ownership.
I also oppose public ownership. And private ownership.

All ownership is illegitimate. Nobody really 'owns' the airwaves, the sky, the ground, or anything else in this universe.

Quote:
This is just a cost of man's individual sovereignty we must bear.
Sovereignty is illegitimate. No state, group or individual has the 'right' to control anyone or anything else, nor even themselves. The only legitimate 'laws' are the laws of physics which describe the workings of the Universe. Anyone who claims to have 'sovereignty' over anything is deluded.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 04:45 AM   #44
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Well, at least dead people and people that didn't even know that they had commented support removing net neutrality. And at least the FCC was transparent about net neutrality related complaints as they made them "available" but largely inaccessible to the public after quite a bit of pressure.

I really don't like the current FCC, though.

Still, I'm mildly curious BobTheCoward, if using a particular tool to accomplish a goal would provide dramatically better results, both directly and in the larger picture, what good reasons are there for not favoring the usage of that tool to accomplish the goal?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 15th November 2017 at 04:49 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:31 AM   #45
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I also oppose public ownership. And private ownership.

All ownership is illegitimate. Nobody really 'owns' the airwaves, the sky, the ground, or anything else in this universe.

Sovereignty is illegitimate. No state, group or individual has the 'right' to control anyone or anything else, nor even themselves. The only legitimate 'laws' are the laws of physics which describe the workings of the Universe. Anyone who claims to have 'sovereignty' over anything is deluded.
I assume this post is sarcasm. Civilization would literally be impossible without laws to contain and control bad actors.
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:34 AM   #46
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Still, I'm mildly curious BobTheCoward, if using a particular tool to accomplish a goal would provide dramatically better results, both directly and in the larger picture, what good reasons are there for not favoring the usage of that tool to accomplish the goal?
Bob is a self-described "deontological libertarian". By definition, all regulation not based in private ownership is illegitimate, even if the results are catastrophic.
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:49 AM   #47
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Bob is a self-described "deontological libertarian". By definition, all regulation not based in private ownership is illegitimate, even if the results are catastrophic.
Exactly.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:56 AM   #48
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,232
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Bob is a self-described "deontological libertarian". By definition, all regulation not based in private ownership is illegitimate, even if the results are catastrophic.

Indeed. Bob has stated he would cheerfully starve to death if someone brought all the land around Bob's property and denied him access.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 09:40 AM   #49
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Indeed. Bob has stated he would cheerfully starve to death if someone brought all the land around Bob's property and denied him access.
Which is why I know that Bob is simply trolling. If he were put in that circumstance he would do what he had to to live and justify it to himself by saying his neighbors "initiated force or coercion" against him by blockading him, hence activating his right to self-defense.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 09:57 AM   #50
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,541
I hear there are rumors that they may end the local production of buggywhips rule next.

I mean, seriously, "control of the airwaves" is an issue in 2017?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 12:06 PM   #51
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Bob is a self-described "deontological libertarian". By definition, all regulation not based in private ownership is illegitimate, even if the results are catastrophic.
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Exactly.
This still leaves the question of what good reason there is to support such?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 12:10 PM   #52
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28,978
Do they not still have the rule a company can own, at most, one TV and one radio station in any given city?
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 12:38 PM   #53
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
Do they not still have the rule a company can own, at most, one TV and one radio station in any given city?
Not since 1999, in general, when the one TV station rule was changed, apparently?

In the "smallest markets," there's 2 TV and one radio station limit now, but that number increases as the market size increases.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 15th November 2017 at 12:43 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:39 PM   #54
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I hear there are rumors that they may end the local production of buggywhips rule next.

I mean, seriously, "control of the airwaves" is an issue in 2017?
They're still a means of communication, and are still used. They still belong to the public and therefore still require regulation.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:50 PM   #55
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
This still leaves the question of what good reason there is to support such?
Such what: Regulation?

We live in a society of 300 million + people. The only possible way for that many people to coexist in harmony is by having a common set of agreed upon rules for conduct when interacting with others, and a means of enforcing same.

We need look no further than traffic regulation to see how this is so. Bob's nonsense notwithstanding, the roads would be incredibly unsafe for anyone or reduced to uselessness without traffic regulations to ensure that everyone drives on a predictable (and same) side of the road, at a set maximum speed, signals turns and doesn't as a rule go around slamming on the brakes suddenly without need.

The other option is one where the streets and roads turn into either chaotic demolition derby carnage, or everyone drives 5 miles an hour so they have plenty of time to figure out what the other drivers might do and react as needed. That the former is unacceptable is a given. That the later would render the streets and roads near useless is easy to see.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 04:34 PM   #56
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,335
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
I assume this post is sarcasm. Civilization would literally be impossible without laws to contain and control bad actors.
Demonstrably untrue, since many civilizations were/are ruled by bad actors. When bad actors are making the laws, it is not they who are being contained and controlled.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 04:53 PM   #57
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,335
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
We live in a society of 300 million + people. The only possible way for that many people to coexist in harmony is by having a common set of agreed upon rules for conduct when interacting with others, and a means of enforcing same.
Is there a law that says we have to be courteous to others? No, yet generally we are because it is to our mutual benefit - even absent enforceable laws.

Quote:
We need look no further than traffic regulation to see how this is so.
If there were no enforceable traffic regulations, people would still follow the 'rules' because they can see the benefits. Many (most?) people don't abide by traffic regulations they think are unnecessary (eg. speed limits) when they can get away with it, but very few drive on the wrong side of the road because that will get them killed. You can't break the laws of physics!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 06:33 PM   #58
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
This still leaves the question of what good reason there is to support such?
It satisfies adopted axioms.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 07:34 PM   #59
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Is there a law that says we have to be courteous to others? No, yet generally we are because it is to our mutual benefit - even absent enforceable laws.

If there were no enforceable traffic regulations, people would still follow the 'rules' because they can see the benefits. Many (most?) people don't abide by traffic regulations they think are unnecessary (eg. speed limits) when they can get away with it, but very few drive on the wrong side of the road because that will get them killed. You can't break the laws of physics!
All of that still requires a commonly accepted standard, ie, a regulation.

The issue is enforcement. While some people might observe the "honor system", there are still a whole bunch of us who are still stuck at Steps 1 or 4 of the moral pyramid, and for that codifying things into formal regulation by law is necessary.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28

Last edited by ChristianProgressive; 15th November 2017 at 07:39 PM.
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 09:48 PM   #60
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Such what:
More explicitly, your response didn't actually answer the question asked. My apologies for being a bit unclear while I was waking up.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Still, I'm mildly curious BobTheCoward, if using a particular tool to accomplish a goal would provide dramatically better results, both directly and in the larger picture, what good reasons are there for not favoring the usage of that tool to accomplish the goal?
That he is a "deontological libertarian" doesn't quite address why he holds that position and what his actual justification is. Nor does it answer the more specific question of why one would would not favor using a tool that leads to a much better result.



Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It satisfies adopted axioms.
Which ones?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:05 PM   #61
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post


That he is a "deontological libertarian" doesn't quite address why he holds that position and what his actual justification is. Nor does it answer the more specific question of why one would would not favor using a tool that leads to a much better result.
Better is a value derived from principles. If principles never include a consequentialist element, then it is not possible to conclude a better results based on consequences.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:12 PM   #62
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,286
Oh, here we go again.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:19 PM   #63
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,977
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Which is why I know that Bob is simply trolling. If he were put in that circumstance he would do what he had to to live and justify it to himself by saying his neighbors "initiated force or coercion" against him by blockading him, hence activating his right to self-defense.
If BTC were transported to an alternate reality that worked as he idealizes, I predict he would go into system shock after his first meal from the toxins he has not built up any resistance to and in his weakened state, someone would gut him from behind, rob him, and leave him to bleed out in a ditch. There would be no ambulance to rescue him, no police to bring his killer to justice, and nobody would really care anyways because death is the proper outcome for the weak (which he must have been since he got taken advantage of, tsk-tsk). Total survival time in this libertarian utopia of his: approx 2 hours.

ETA: even this requires a lot of magical thinking. Would there even be restaurants and other kinds of services? Who will operate retail stores if packs of bikers are roaming the high- oh wait, there won't be highways (or transoceanic shipping). Seems like it would just devolve into hunter-gatherer (perhaps more scavenger-poacher) packs and maybe some walled agrarian towns. You'd be hard-pressed to achieve even medieval technology without social order of some kind, and most absolutely nothing post-industrial.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 15th November 2017 at 10:26 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:23 PM   #64
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
If BTC were transported to an alternate reality that worked as he idealizes, I predict he would go into system shock after his first meal from the toxins he has not built up any resistance to and in his weakened state, someone would gut him from behind, rob him, and leave him to bleed out in a ditch. There would be no ambulance to rescue him, no police to bring his killer to justice, and nobody would really care anyways because death is the proper outcome for the weak (which he must have been since he got taken advantage of, tsk-tsk). Total survival time in this libertarian utopia of his: approx 2 hours.
So?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:27 PM   #65
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,977
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
So?
So most of us have some minimal sense of self preservation.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:28 PM   #66
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
So most of us have some minimal sense of self preservation.
I'm not saying you shouldn't. I have zero interest in convincing anyone I'm right.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:30 PM   #67
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,977
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm not saying you shouldn't. I have zero interest in convincing anyone I'm right.
You maintain a high level of advocacy for someone who isn't trying to convince anyone of anything.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:35 PM   #68
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
You maintain a high level of advocacy for someone who isn't trying to convince anyone of anything.
I don't think I advocate it. I make sure it is represented as an alternative when people limit the conversation to a very narrow range of political ideas.

I am like the yazidi of political philosophy. No conversion accepted.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 11:13 PM   #69
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Better is a value derived from principles.
If you're redefining or really, really stretching "principles," maybe? Tools are things that we use to accomplish goals. Some tools are objectively better than others for accomplishing particular goals. A hammer, a damp sponge, and parsimony, for example, are dramatically different tools that are great for certain tasks and horrible for other tasks. Is there any good reason, in your opinion, to favor using a hammer over a damp sponge when the goal is to clean up a spilled drink? How about trying to use parsimony to clean up a spilled drink?

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If principles never include a consequentialist element, then it is not possible to conclude a better results based on consequences.
Hmm? This rather leads us right back to the still unanswered question of "Why did you adopt the axioms that you did and how are you justifying holding them currently?"
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 15th November 2017 at 11:18 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:10 AM   #70
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,286
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm not saying you shouldn't. I have zero interest in convincing anyone I'm right.
Good thing, because this bizarre philosophy of yours would be a hard sell even to suffering fetishists. I have seen you admit that the logical conclusions to which your chosen belief system leads you can be nauseating. So why advocate them?

You treat it almost like religion, a divine "truth" over which you have no say, no moral control, no voice. I love freedom. What you are advocating is not freedom. It's like horseshoe theory, with the other heel being hardcore theism.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:14 AM   #71
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,286
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
You maintain a high level of advocacy for someone who isn't trying to convince anyone of anything.
He's convinced me that deontological ethics are goofy, misdirected weirdness. So that's something!

Before, I had no opinion on them. If you'd asked me what I thought of deontological ethics, I'd have said, "Huh? Oh. Kant should have stuck to mathematics." Not many other figs to give.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:43 AM   #72
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,335
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
The issue is enforcement.
You are right. We have all these laws but people are constantly flouting them, and enforcement is woefully inadequate. 38% of murders, 62% of rapes, 71% of robberies, 87% of motor vehicle thefts and burglaries go unsolved. When people decide to break the law they do, and most of the time they get away with it.

Yet people don't seem to be any worse behaved when there isn't a law to stop them.

Take drugs for example. Some are legal, some aren't. The general opinion around here is that pot should be legal, and one of the arguments is that people are doing pot anyway so legalizing it won't make any difference. If that is true then why bother having a law when people will break it regardless? And those who don't do drugs, what prompts them to eschew the legal ones?

The truth is, many of the things people avoid doing are legal or covered by laws that aren't enforced, so enforcement can't be the only motivation. In a society which had no official laws, people would still live by codes and etiquette that would prevent a descent into chaos.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:32 AM   #73
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,232
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If there were no enforceable traffic regulations, people would still follow the 'rules' because they can see the benefits. Many (most?) people don't abide by traffic regulations they think are unnecessary (eg. speed limits) when they can get away with it, but very few drive on the wrong side of the road because that will get them killed. You can't break the laws of physics!

No traffic lights, no defined rights of way, no parking regulations.

It would be chaos, not due to the actions of the many but due to the actions of the few that think that the rules, be they formal or informal, don't apply to them.

At the moment such people can cause untold chaos, without the prospect of financial costs, the number of people who ignore the rules and the degree to which they ignore them would increase massively.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:34 AM   #74
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
If you're redefining or really, really stretching "principles," maybe? Tools are things that we use to accomplish goals. Some tools are objectively better than others for accomplishing particular goals. A hammer, a damp sponge, and parsimony, for example, are dramatically different tools that are great for certain tasks and horrible for other tasks. Is there any good reason, in your opinion, to favor using a hammer over a damp sponge when the goal is to clean up a spilled drink? How about trying to use parsimony to clean up a spilled drink?



Hmm? This rather leads us right back to the still unanswered question of "Why did you adopt the axioms that you did and how are you justifying holding them currently?"
A topic for another thread.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:41 AM   #75
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,560
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
No traffic lights, no defined rights of way, no parking regulations.

It would be chaos, not due to the actions of the many but due to the actions of the few that think that the rules, be they formal or informal, don't apply to them.

At the moment such people can cause untold chaos, without the prospect of financial costs, the number of people who ignore the rules and the degree to which they ignore them would increase massively.
For a real world example, look at the traffic in Cambodia. About the only 'rule' seems to be that the person ahead has the right of way.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:31 AM   #76
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 13,680
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Which is why I know that Bob is simply trolling.
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Oh, here we go again.
You do understand you aren't required to reply, don't you?
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:41 PM   #77
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,286
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
You do understand you aren't required to reply, don't you?
I don't want to derail, but I never understand this complaint. Making a comment about an annoying or odd behavior to the peanut gallery seems to be more frowned upon recently than when I first joined. I personally don't think Bob is trolling at all. I think he is once again advocating mind-bogglingly odd philosophies. Which my subsequent (longer) comments on the matter hopefully demonstrate.

I'd start my own thread to ask people more about why they seem to find these types of comments so annoying, but I don't know where I'd put it, and I'm pretty busy today anyway. I shouldn't even be on here. And I guess I definitely shouldn't have been posting at 3 in the morning when I made the original snip. My filter doesn't work very well at such hours.

Anyway, sorry! Carry on.

Last edited by isissxn; Yesterday at 12:46 PM.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.