How do we find the ''best'' explanation?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Oct 14, 2016.

  1. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,503
    If you're looking for left-leaning media, check out the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle or the Washington Post.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    1) is the Universe just about the mechanics of the globular center and suns , planets , moons etc. and their interactions , is that all there is to the Universe ? not to me .

    2) go to question 1

    3) life energy

    4) I don't
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,947
    Trump is not a professional politician. Therefore, he does not behave like the rest of the political class.

    As an analogy, Trump is analogous to a nonunion worker, who has been hired to work in an all union shop. A nonunion worker will not be treated the same, by the union members, unless he agrees to join the union. At first, the union members will try to recruit him. They will tell the new guy how the union can be very useful. It can use collective bargaining to get higher wages and benefits, compared to what everyone might get in the free market. The Union can also makes it hard to fire anyone, and it can define new job classes, between old job classes, so you need more workers than necessary. It allows politicians to spend half their time, doing personal business; fund raising, while being paid by the job. The result is built in inefficiency.

    A nonunion guy, who does not wish to join the union, makes all these things obvious, due to the contrast of their styles. The nonunion worker may work too hard and make the rest look lazy. He may do his job, spanning two union job titles, making it obvious one guy can do the job defined for two. He will need to be converted to the union way, to remove the contrast. If he refuses to join, he will be hazed, until he joins or until he quits.

    Trump is not a union analogy politician, where you can use the IRS to shake down private citizens, and not lose your job. You can run the VA in a corrupt way and you can't fire anyone. You can have agencies not share information, so they can each have extra workers; redundancy. Trump calls this political union mentality the swamp. Trump does not wish to be part of the swamp. He is being hazed by the union politicians, on both sides, who seek to protect their way of life and remove the contrast.

    The Wikileaks shows the unhealthy alliance between a large number of media people and the Clinton campaign. This connection of the media is more than likely true for both political parties. It is not hard to get your allies in the media, to write propaganda haze pieces against Trump. These hit pieces will appeal to those who wish to believe, the worse about Trump, so the nonunion guy converts or leaves.

    The way I look at Trump, is not via the media propaganda and union politicians for both parties, since both are part of the swamp. Rather I judge Trump based on watching one or more of his rallies. He draws large crowds, no matter where is goes. In his rallies, he is a different person from the media hazing. Trump is only nasty to his enemies. He is very caring to his allies. He does not want to join the union swamp since the swamp needs draining.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    So? He is clearly racist, bigoted against Muslims, and misogynistic. To you, these are all things to like and admire. To most the people of the USA, this is horrible.

    You continue to try to get people to overlook the horrible nature of Trump by diverting attention. Just like you try to get people to overlook the current racism in the Republican party in general by talking about the distant past before the vast majority of overt racists left the Democratic party for the Republican party. You know that you are trying to deceive people, some of us know, too.
    This analogy is entirely apt: you think that politicians should be able to be elected while being racist, bigoted against certain religions, and horribly sexist and you are upset that Trump is not getting the same pass that you see other Republican politicians getting. You also think that people who work for a living are really awful people and you don't like the "inefficiency" that they might have job security.

    Yeah, unions are an inefficiency in managing a company. But they also produce workers that are, on average, more productive. They also produce a host of other good outcomes for the majority of people, without having to tax for those benefits.

    It is a nice myth that unionized workers are lazy, but it is just a stereotype that does not fit the facts.
    Yeah, he should join. This should be mandated by law. Not because he makes people look bad, because, in this case, he is bad.

    Please produce one example of this ever happening.
    Really? You think that nobody in the VA is ever fired?
    Like the CIA, FBI, and other agencies under George Bush? And what is wrong with redundancy? Ask NASA about redundancy.

    Trump is being rejected by Republican politicians on the basis of the facts of his character, which he amply demonstrates. The people of the USA, including a sizable minority of Republican voters, are not racists and misogynists.

    Do you think that the video tape recording of Trump saying all those things about assaulting women is "propaganda"? Do you think that when he defended himself against charges that he assaulted these women on the basis of their looks was "propaganda" from someone else? Do you think that when he lied about that, on a Nationally televised debate, this was "propaganda" from someone else? Do you think that when he said that he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the USA, that this was "propaganda" from someone else?

    We could go on, but you never actually address direct questions, you merely cut and paste standard responses from racist and sexist media.
     
  8. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,338
    In reading through the comments here, and in thinking about this further, do you think it's wise to simply say ''we don't know,'' instead of choosing the ''best'' answer out of a small set of plausible answers? The best answer sometimes isn't the right answer, and if one feels that there still could be a more likely answer as time goes on, would it be more ethical to simply state ''we don't know.'' Or the answer is ''unknown?'' Or does that seem too intellectually lazy?
     
  9. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Sometimes this is the right thing to do. Often, probably.

    But there are cases where this is not something that we can do, since there are consequences to our actions or inaction.
     
  10. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,338
    I'd agree, and what comes to mind is by saying ''we don't know'' too often, it might come across as ''inaction,'' or laziness. Sometimes, a leap of faith is required, even in science.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,992
    He behaves very badly. Who is he behaving like?

    Oh yeah - guys who act like this:
    Never elect anyone who acts like that to be your head of State, would be the lesson of history.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,992
    A third alternative, often easier when pressured to choose in ignorance, would be to reject the worst rather than trying to select the best. Same way you deal with a multiple choice test when you don't know the answer - screen out the obviously bad or unlikely, flip a coin among the rest.
     
    wegs likes this.
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    Wise
     
    wegs likes this.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,992
    The Washington Post is a solidly right-leaning newspaper, and has been for many years now. It has been described by even mildly liberal pundits - such as Chris Mathews - as a neo-con mouthpiece. The description is a fair one, at least since it began cheerleading for the Iraq War and endorsing Republican Congressmen in the early 2000s. Its purchase by Jeff Bezos in 2013 was merely the last shovel of dirt in the burial of its "left-leaning" status, although while remaining right-leaning it may be improved in some ways - in the cheerleading for war line, or endorsing wingnuts habit, say.
     
  15. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,338
    Politics in the philosophy section, gentlemen? lol Tsk tsk.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page