5 ms·

Edit: conversation was flagged, so I'm out.

by untog 10y ago

flukus 10y ago
Well sure, if you add all your own words and biases in it sounds like that's exactly what he's saying.
paulddraper 10y ago
Your jump in logic is "It's bad that over 60 million people died during WWII." => "It's bad that the the Allies fought Hitler." --- He said that he doubts democracy and freedom are incompatible. Did he say either one was bad? Lots of ideals are incompatible. 100% democracy and 100% freedom are are not fully compatible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule For example, the minority must be protected from the majority.
rfrank 10y ago
Bad for your cause and bad for society aren't the same thing. The thoughts on freedom and democracy are at least as old as Alexis de Tocqueville. Maybe try actually reading some political theory. 1. http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/equality-tyranny-and-despotism-in-democracy-remembering-alexis-de-tocqueville.html http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/equality-t... 2. http://www.city-journal.org/html/end-democracy-america-14332.html http://www.city-journal.org/html/end-democracy-america-14332...
smsm42 10y ago
> how could it be anything other than a "bad thing" in this context? "X lead to Y which is bad" is not the same as "X is bad". For example, relative abundance of high-calorie food led to obesity epidemics in the US. Is pointing out this fact means one wants Americans to starve to death? Or just pointing out some things have consequences, some of which are not good, even if things themselves are good? There's no law of nature that says consequences of something we consider good all must be good, and it's often not so. > Why would you want him in government? Because he knows how dangerous is raw democracy to freedom, just as folks who made the Constitution knew and thus made specific restrictions on the democratic powers of the Congress? You know, all that "Congress shall make no law"?
imron 10y ago
You're ignoring his follow up clarification: "It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better."
- revelation 10y ago
  Yes, it's the same old "I have black friends, too".
  - imron 10y ago
    Rubbish. He's saying voting doesn't necessarily result in good governance and policy, or the will of the people - regardless of the people doing it. He points out the financial crash in 2008 as a prime example of that. Would you agree or disagree with that notion?
    - revelation 10y ago
      He's saying women voting doesn't necessarily result in "good governance and policy", as determined by Thiel. You can do the substitution.
      - lkbm 10y ago
        I certainly can do the substitution. But there are multiple options for the substitution: * Substitute from my own hyper-progressive stance. (Great for feeling good about myself and hating on him.) * Substitute from his stance. (Great for understanding my opponent.) * Substitute only a logical equivalence. I recommend the second, but as a neutral starting point to break out of the mindset of the first, I'd recommend trying the third. As in, put yourself in your formal symbolic logic class, replace "women voting" and "good governance and policy" with X and Y and evaluate it. Your statement, "X doesn't necessarily result in Y" (which admittedly is not his statement), logically means exactly "It's possible for X to happen and Y to not happen." So, Thiel believes, to use the logical evaluation of your rephrasing, that it's possible for women to vote and for there still to be bad policy. Women DID vote, so the only the determining the truth of the logical evaluation of your rephrasing is whether we have (or will have post January 20) bad policy. Right now, Trump's promising some bad policy.

Edit: conversation was flagged, so I'm out.

by untog 10y ago

Edit: conversation was flagged, so I'm out.

flukus 10y ago

Well sure, if you add all your own words and biases in it sounds like that's exactly what he's saying.

paulddraper 10y ago

Your jump in logic is "It's bad that over 60 million people died during WWII." => "It's bad that the the Allies fought Hitler." --- He said that he doubts democracy and freedom are incompatible. Did he say either one was bad? Lots of ideals are incompatible. 100% democracy and 100% freedom are are not fully compatible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule For example, the minority must be protected from the majority.

rfrank 10y ago

Bad for your cause and bad for society aren't the same thing. The thoughts on freedom and democracy are at least as old as Alexis de Tocqueville. Maybe try actually reading some political theory. 1. http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/equality-tyranny-and-despotism-in-democracy-remembering-alexis-de-tocqueville.html http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/equality-t... 2. http://www.city-journal.org/html/end-democracy-america-14332.html http://www.city-journal.org/html/end-democracy-america-14332...

smsm42 10y ago

> how could it be anything other than a "bad thing" in this context? "X lead to Y which is bad" is not the same as "X is bad". For example, relative abundance of high-calorie food led to obesity epidemics in the US. Is pointing out this fact means one wants Americans to starve to death? Or just pointing out some things have consequences, some of which are not good, even if things themselves are good? There's no law of nature that says consequences of something we consider good all must be good, and it's often not so. > Why would you want him in government? Because he knows how dangerous is raw democracy to freedom, just as folks who made the Constitution knew and thus made specific restrictions on the democratic powers of the Congress? You know, all that "Congress shall make no law"?

imron 10y ago

You're ignoring his follow up clarification: "It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better."

revelation 10y ago
Yes, it's the same old "I have black friends, too".
- imron 10y ago
  Rubbish. He's saying voting doesn't necessarily result in good governance and policy, or the will of the people - regardless of the people doing it. He points out the financial crash in 2008 as a prime example of that. Would you agree or disagree with that notion?
  - revelation 10y ago
    He's saying women voting doesn't necessarily result in "good governance and policy", as determined by Thiel. You can do the substitution.
    - lkbm 10y ago
      I certainly can do the substitution. But there are multiple options for the substitution: * Substitute from my own hyper-progressive stance. (Great for feeling good about myself and hating on him.) * Substitute from his stance. (Great for understanding my opponent.) * Substitute only a logical equivalence. I recommend the second, but as a neutral starting point to break out of the mindset of the first, I'd recommend trying the third. As in, put yourself in your formal symbolic logic class, replace "women voting" and "good governance and policy" with X and Y and evaluate it. Your statement, "X doesn't necessarily result in Y" (which admittedly is not his statement), logically means exactly "It's possible for X to happen and Y to not happen." So, Thiel believes, to use the logical evaluation of your rephrasing, that it's possible for women to vote and for there still to be bad policy. Women DID vote, so the only the determining the truth of the logical evaluation of your rephrasing is whether we have (or will have post January 20) bad policy. Right now, Trump's promising some bad policy.