The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[jamil]

Also valid, but also not aligned with human nature. Persons with celebrity or notoriety of sort often are often viewed as having a higher importance of opinion, even when their knowledge of the subject is severely limited, or even absent.

I"m not arguing that they aren't aligned with human nature. Both your earlier statement about what you thought I was saying, and this one, are correct. Human nature isn't rational. Being civil isn't aligned with human nature either. But through rationality we've overcome, for the most part, the parts of our nature that are uncivil (it seems we're unlearning those lessons).

Some people, the rational ones, reason that the validity of an opinion isn't based on how we feel about it, but by how it's reasoned. Principle, in and of itself, isn't even the thing that necessarily makes the opinion more credible. Maybe it helps establish consistency, but principles aren't necessarily rational.

 

[jamil]

Sympathy is probably irrational, too.

For me, a principled reason for changing one's mind is important; it lends credibility to the new position. It makes sense. An unprincipled change of mind is... discouraging. It detracts from the person's credibility.

Getting shot is a principled reason for adopting, or justifying, anti-gun positions.

It gives that person a credible perspective, a relatable motivation for the position.

If you go back to the post I was responding to, the implication was that she overnight changed her position. While technically true (more or less - I think she was in the hospital, in a coma, for several days), it omits some important context for why she switched to anti-gun.

I think you could say it like this and then I'd accept that. I am not *surprised* that she would change her opinions about guns after having been shot. That's a very human-natural thing to do. But does that make her opinion any more credible, and especially more important, than someone on the other side of the debate? Rationally, no.

If you're making the case that behaving closer to human nature is better than the coldness of unemotional reason, then we need to decide what are the cases when that's not true. Because if it's true in all cases, then we may as well go back to being murderous, self-interested thugs robbing rival tribes. The ideal is to apply reason to the parts of human nature that have utility. Sympathy has utility but not universally. Sympathy is biased, and while being a universally understandable motivator for having a particular position, it's not a universally better motivator for establishing public policy. Banning things because we're irrationally afraid of them is not good policy.

Is sympathy for Gifford's circumstances more important than sympathy for Steve Scalice's? What about the people who can't afford to have armed people protect them? I say Gabby Gifford gets my sympathy for the rational utility of sympathy. But that sympathy does not make me regard her position derived from her interpretation of her circumstances as being more credible than anyone else's.

What should my sympathy for Gifford drive me to do? I'll tell you this much. I'm not gonna be making a video chop-sawing my 6920 and post it on YouTube.

 

[jamil]

One other thing. A free society isn’t human nature. It’s rational. And it’s a helluva lot better than the human nature way of organizing societies.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Who's ready to join the "Space Force?" Lol

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's time for Ben Carson, and his $31K table buying-self to hit the bricks.

Ben Carson, the secretary of housing and urban development, and his wife were directly involved in selecting a $31,000 custom mahogany dining room set for his office — contrary to Mr. Carson’s claim that the decision was handled by subordinates, newly obtained documents show.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/us/ben-carson-dining-table.html

The optics looked bad enough about attempting buy a 6-figure table... but to deny it, and then getting caught in an email proving otherwise? No Bueno. He should be right on the heels of Tillerson. We'll see how his boss handles this... because the boss, at the end of the day will be held accountable by the people. If they're ok with it, then I guess it's ok.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Hillary spent $630,000 on FB likes for the SOS FB page. At least Carson would have a table.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/211193.pdf

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hillary spent $630,000 on FB likes for the SOS FB page. At least Carson would have a table.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/211193.pdf

Looking at the title of this thread, the current year is 2018. If Clinton's actions are just now being known, it's a fair criticism, assuming she also lied about spending this money... if it isn't then you're interjecting a red herring.

 

[jamil]

If we’re making this a competition for who wasted more taxpayer money, Hillary wins that contest. Okay, so what? Does that absolve Carson? Certainly not.

So now what do we do about that? Would Obama have asked Clinton to resign if that news had become public? Doubtful.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If we’re making this a competition for who wasted more taxpayer money, Hillary wins that contest. Okay, so what? Does that absolve Carson? Certainly not.

So now what do we do about that? Would Obama have asked Clinton to resign if that news had become public? Doubtful.

I'm not so sure. Hiring Clinton was seen by many as an appeasement hire, following his initial election. In his first term, he may have very well gotten rid of her, if given the chance. But that neither here nor there, because besides us never having the ability to know "what if," Clinton was given the opportunity to lie about the situation. Carson did what he did, and then lied about it. The latter being the more problematic for me.

 

[jamil]

Are you kidding? Clinton’s power machine would *****-slap Obama’s tiny *****.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are you kidding? Clinton’s power machine would *****-slap Obama’s tiny *****.

That power machine apparently forgot to show up during 2008 Democratic Primaries then. Still, enough did, that to solidify support, Clinton was hired as SoS.

 

[jbombelli]

Looking at the title of this thread, the current year is 2018. If Clinton's actions are just now being known, it's a fair criticism, assuming she also lied about spending this money... if it isn't then you're interjecting a red herring.

First I've seen of this. But to be fair I stopped paying attention to the Clintons long ago. I'd rather pay attention to Lesley-Ann Brandt.

 

[jamil]

That power machine apparently forgot to show up during 2008 Democratic Primaries then. Still, enough did, that to solidify support, Clinton was hired as SoS.

What do you mean? Her machine got the majority of voters to vote for a criminal. Of course The second worst candidate running against her probably helped that. But how badly do you think she’d have lost if she didn’t have the networks working full time for her?

Who has the power to have debate questions fed to them before the debate? It took citizen journalists to report on her collapse in FLA.

Edit: I did not see the “2008”. Obama didn’t win the 2008 primary because he had a more powerful machine. The first serious Black Presidential candidate beat a flawed candidate, and not handily.

Do you really think 0bama would have asked Hillary to resign if, by some miracle, the press would have let the news out that she blew $600K for fake likes? Sure, it’d have been a little embarrassing for his administration, and he’s politically savvy enough to make sure most of the embarrassment was on her. Ain’t no way he’d fire Hillary Clinton. She’d smack him in his tiny *****. Maybe arrange for his daughter to overdose. Put out photos of Michelle with another woman.

 

[ghitch75]

from Kut in my email......must have changed his mind....

"That power machine apparently forgot to show up during 2008 Democratic Primaries then. Still, enough did that to solidify support, Clinton was a reasonable hire."

 

[Kutnupe14]

What do you mean? Her machine got the majority of voters to vote for a criminal. Of course The second worst candidate running against her probably helped that. But how badly do you think she’d have lost if she didn’t have the networks working full time for her?

Who has the power to have debate questions fed to them before the debate? It took citizen journalists to report on her collapse in FLA.

2008?

 

[ghitch75]

The new 'deplorables': Democrats duck as Hillary hits 'backward' voters | Fox News

 

[jamil]

2008?

See my edit. I didn’t catch the 2008.

 

[indiucky]

Who's ready to join the "Space Force?" Lol

Quip all you want but I know enough about your film, series and reading choices to know your heart gave a little leap when you heard that.......


You're already working on your resume aren't you??????

Dear Mr President,

Although I do not agree with you on many things and have actively campaigned against you I couldn't help but notice you are thinking of starting a Space Force...First off I would like to say that is a great idea...Please find enclosed a copy of my resume.....

Sincerely,

Kut, aka Space Cowboy

P.S. Please tell me we get lasers or light sabers.....

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Space force eh? I might be interested...do we get tie-fighters or x-wings?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Quip all you want but I know enough about your film, series and reading choices to know your heart gave a little leap when you heard that.......


You're already working on your resume aren't you??????

Dear Mr President,

Although I do not agree with you on many things and have actively campaigned against you I couldn't help but notice you are thinking of starting a Space Force...First off I would like to say that is a great idea...Please find enclosed a copy of my resume.....

Sincerely,

Kut, aka Space Cowboy

P.S. Please tell me we get lasers or light sabers.....

Well in most instances from film, the "Space Force," falls under the Air Force umbrella.