4 ms·

Yes, politics certainly puts humans at their most irrational indeed! It's quite some gymnastics you're turning here. Somehow, you've ended up saying that when

Yes, politics certainly puts humans at their most irrational indeed! It's quite some gymnastics you're turning here. Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick. (btw, that philosophy -- american 'liberalism' -- would barely deserve the name in any other 1st world country) You started off almost saying something, but i'm not sure your thesis holds ('...in a two party system, any group...') Take the converse. I could also say that the group of anti-intellectuals has completely affiliated themselves with the Republican party, damaging themselves and the Republicans. Same thing, right? Anyway, you reminded me of the 'everything that happens is good for John McCain' meme, which might be worth researching. One particularly egregious example is here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/07/29/life-imitates-farce/ http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/07/29/life-imitates-farce/ cheers, and let's try not to bullshit ourselves.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick. It would be, if I had conflated "philosophy" with "political party" But I didn't. Cheers.
- seigenblues 16y ago
  That doesn't actually change the thrust of the point at all. Go ahead and switch those two words around how you want and tell me how it substantially changes my argument. You've made educated people supporting something both bad for educated people and bad for the something. Now, you're welcome to start arguing against the educational system they're immersed in (science), and that's certainly a line you can go down, if you want. It's a bit played out and i'd be surprised to hear you rally an enthusiastic offense there, but go right ahead. Furthermore, your point about groups & party systems is still totally fatuous: you can be in A or in ~A. then, A can be in B or in ~B. You can say "all the A's are in B." or you can say "all the ~A's are in ~B". Shorter: you can't make the not-too-menacing statement "ohh, all the scientists are democrats! how terrible for the democrats and the scientists!" without making the equally trite "ohh, all the non-scientists are republicans! How terrible for the non-scientists and the republicans!"

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick. It would be, if I had conflated "philosophy" with "political party" But I didn't. Cheers.

seigenblues 16y ago
That doesn't actually change the thrust of the point at all. Go ahead and switch those two words around how you want and tell me how it substantially changes my argument. You've made educated people supporting something both bad for educated people and bad for the something. Now, you're welcome to start arguing against the educational system they're immersed in (science), and that's certainly a line you can go down, if you want. It's a bit played out and i'd be surprised to hear you rally an enthusiastic offense there, but go right ahead. Furthermore, your point about groups & party systems is still totally fatuous: you can be in A or in ~A. then, A can be in B or in ~B. You can say "all the A's are in B." or you can say "all the ~A's are in ~B". Shorter: you can't make the not-too-menacing statement "ohh, all the scientists are democrats! how terrible for the democrats and the scientists!" without making the equally trite "ohh, all the non-scientists are republicans! How terrible for the non-scientists and the republicans!"