Obama on Marc Maron’s Podcast: Racism Is More Than ‘N****r’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030012]I agree with the quality thing(not sure what you mean by quantity). However, you employ entirely arbitrary means of doing so.[/QUOTE] Good thing I didn't just spend three paragraphs explaining exactly why popular sovereignty is based on the will the public and not god just like apple juice is made from apples and not oranges or else you would look pretty sketchy right now ignoring all of that

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030038]Uh, that's what I'm asking you. Come up with a single argument that is not philosophical/ethical to choose one over the other and I'll consider your position non-arbitrary.[/QUOTE] so you are arguing that they're exactly the same

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48030045]so you are arguing that they're exactly the same[/QUOTE] I'm arguing that your method of differentiating them is entirely arbitrary.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030047]I'm arguing that your method of differentiating them is entirely arbitrary.[/QUOTE] so you believe that they are exactly the same

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48030051]so you believe that they are exactly the same[/QUOTE] No actually, I just don't have an issue with a certain ideology mixing with state affairs because it happens to observe the existence of a deity. My methods of differentiation are simply less arbitrary than yours.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030056]No actually, I just don't have an issue with a certain ideology mixing with stat affairs because it happens to observe the existence of a deity.[/QUOTE] do you believe that there is an objective difference between forcing other people to decapitate left handed people in the name of your god and forcing people to invest in nuclear power based on logically derived reasoning or not do you think that those are both equally reasonable things to do, and if not, why?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030056]No actually, I just don't have an issue with a certain ideology mixing with state affairs because it happens to observe the existence of a deity. My methods of differentiation are simply less arbitrary than yours.[/QUOTE] And as we say over and over and over again, "happens to observe" is a weasel phrase. It observes, plain and simple. It observes to the exclusion of empirical thought, the basis of legitimate law. It is an orange, no matter how many times you claim it's an apple.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030056]No actually, I just don't have an issue with a certain ideology mixing with state affairs because it happens to observe the existence of a deity.[/QUOTE] A democracy is capable of providing state services to a multitude of cultures and religions. Theocracy is incapable of such action, due to distinct bias towards a specific cultural and religious group.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030038]Uh, that's what I'm asking you. Come up with a single argument that is not philosophical/ethical to choose one over the other and I'll consider your position non-arbitrary.[/QUOTE] It's pragmatic for a system which relies on rational discourse and free exchange of ideas as a primary means of deciding where to allocate resources and what laws to make, to remove any coercive elements that prevent rational discourse. IE: Most religions. We can't very well have a functioning democracy if we go around punishing thought crime, now can we?

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;48030079]And as we say over and over and over again, "happens to observe" is a weasel phrase. It observes, plain and simple. It observes to the exclusion of empirical thought, the basis of legitimate law. It is an orange, no matter how many times you claim it's an apple.[/QUOTE] And I'm saying that differentiating it based on that alone is entirely arbitrary. I'm not even talking exclusively about law, I'm simply talking about the methods of thinking behind a given ideology. There's no practical difference between how a religious ideology manifests in policy in comparison to a secular one. I guess the only difference is that the secular one will claim to be entirely "empirical" and arbitrarily push out any religious thought.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029923]What is the logic behind the position that all state ideology should be derived from logic?[/QUOTE] If you can't accept that logic is the basis of rational government then you're not going to accept logic as the basis of rational thought. In other words, fruit yes, make apple juice from oranges

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;48030129]If you can't accept that logic is the basis of rational government then you're not going to accept logic as the basis of rational thought. In other words, fruit yes, make apple juice from oranges[/QUOTE] Damn, can't argue with that.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030111]And I'm saying that differentiating it based on that alone is entirely arbitrary. I'm not even talking exclusively about law, I'm simply talking about the methods of thinking behind a given ideology. There's no practical difference between how a religious ideology manifests in policy in comparison to a secular one. I guess the only difference is that the secular one will claim to be "entirely empirical" and arbitrarily push out any religious thought.[/QUOTE] Do you think a hindu politician should have the right to ban hamburgers because they go against his religious beliefs? Would living in that world make you happy? Do you think that would be fair?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030111]And I'm saying that differentiating it based on that alone is entirely arbitrary.[/QUOTE] "You can't make apple juice from oranges." "I think it's pretty arbitrary to declare what type of juice you're drinking based on the fruit it's made from."

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030111]And I'm saying that differentiating it based on that alone is entirely arbitrary. I'm not even talking exclusively about law, I'm simply talking about the methods of thinking behind a given ideology. There's no practical difference between how a religious ideology manifests in policy in comparison to a secular one. I guess the only difference is that the secular one will claim to be entirely "empirical" and arbitrarily push out any religious thought.[/QUOTE] A secular government doesn't arbitrarily push out any religious thought. You're free to believe in and practice any religion that you want. In fact the very same "Principle" that you're complaining about is what guarantee's you this right in the first place.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48030134]Do you think a hindu politician should have the right to ban hamburgers because they go against his religious beliefs? Would living in that world make you happy? Do you think that would be fair?[/QUOTE] Why should it matter if it makes me happy? Why should it be fair?

I'm pretty sure bigfatworm is a big fat troll

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030142]Why should it matter if it makes me happy? WHy should it be fair?[/QUOTE] because the government is supposed to exist for the people you daft fool If it doesn't make people happier than they'd be without it, what's the fucking point of having it in the first place? you might as well ask why beds should be comfortable, or why knives should be sharp

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48030161]because the government is supposed to exist for the people you daft fool If it doesn't make people happier than they'd be without it, what's the fucking point of having it in the first place?[/QUOTE] Is it fair to say that you think it's good for the government to consider what's fair and what makes people happy?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030172]Is it fair to say that you think it's good for the government to consider what's fair and what makes people happy?[/QUOTE] No. This post doesn't deserve an elaborate response.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030172]Is it fair to say that you think it's good for the government to consider what's fair and what makes people happy?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that. Unless you think the government should go out of its way to make you miserable?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030142]Why should it matter if it makes me happy? Why should it be fair?[/QUOTE] so you'd be fine with a militant athiestic politician banning religion because it is his ethical and philosophical position?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030172]Is it fair to say that you think it's good for the government to consider what's fair and what makes people happy?[/QUOTE] A government that fails to provide for it's people is a government that have failed.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48030161]you might as well ask why beds should be comfortable, or why knives should be sharp[/QUOTE] Why should I be able to live in my home? Does the fact that I live in it make it my home? Oh, the very definition of a home is a place to live in? I don't see where that arbitrary distinction comes from. I'd rather think of the sun as my home, why can't I? Oh, because I can't arbitrarily change the definitions of words to suit my whims? I think it's arbitrary that I can't be arbitrary. Logic is arbitrary. Prove me wrong.

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;48030210]Why should I be able to live in my home? Does the fact that I live in it make it my home? Oh, the very definition of a home is a place to live in? I don't see where that arbitrary distinction comes from. I'd rather think of the sun as my home, why can't I? Oh, because I can't arbitrarily change the definitions of words to suit my whims? I think it's arbitrary that I can't be arbitrary. Logic is arbitrary. Prove me wrong.[/QUOTE] if you think about it logically, there's no difference between being dead and being alive. So why are people so against murder? I mean of course I don't want to be murdered, but if you think about it murder isn't even real. So it should be legal.

bigfatworm12 has expressed before that the freedom of the state should come before the freedom of the people if that sheds anymore light on his ideals

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48030184]I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that. Unless you think the government should go out of its way to make you miserable?[/QUOTE] Ok, so you are determining what the government should do based on your own moral perspective, just as a religious person would. The only difference is you don't base your morals in a divinely inspired text.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030238]-snip-[/QUOTE] Out of all the people on FP i've seen you probably have the most backwards social views out of any of them.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030238]Ok, so you are determining what the government should do based on your own moral perspective, just as a religious person would.[/QUOTE] a. :| b. that moral perspective is not directly based on appeasing a big man in the sky

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030238]Ok, so you are determining what the government should do based on your own moral perspective, just as a religious person would.[/QUOTE] you really are just being thick for the sake of it, aren't you