Republican or Democrat or other?

[brianleahy]

I'm going to do my best not to get personal here, but honestly I don't see how you continue to miss my point. Try to see the gestalt here.

There is an old philosophical question that goes "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" The answer is - the question is a non-sequitur: if the universe contains any immovable objects, it cannot contain any irresistible forces, and vice-versa.

I've tried to do show that you have produced something comparable: The following things add up to the same kind of un-resolvable paradox: (A) humans have free will (B) god foresees our lives in their entirety before we are born.

Please try to consider this question outside of a dogmatic framework: If my every behavior, including my faith or lack thereof, COULD be known (even theoretically, even by God) before I was born, then what possible responsibility can I bear for that behavior? If He could already know it, what conclusion is there, but that I am actually a slave to my initial conditions? (And who created those initial conditions?)

This is very similar to the mathematical concept of true randomness. In order (for example) for a series of numbers to actually be genuinely random, there must be NO information -- anywhere in the universe -- that could allow anyone, anywhere to predict that series under any circumstances.

By this definition, actual randomness is incredibly rare, perhaps nonexistent. Computers' random number generators actually CAN be predicted, if you know two things: the algorithm and the seed value. They achieve pseudo-randomness by keeping this information obscure. They are not TRULY random though, because that information *could* become known, and a prediction would then be possible.

By the same reasoning, in order for a human's actions to be truly his own, it CANNOT be the case that there is sufficient information somewhere in the universe (and that includes the Mind Of God) that those actions could be exactly predicted.

Please, don't just say 'Yep, both things are true' -- they can't be. Tell me how you can possibly see the two as compatible. It has nothing to do with God's generosity, or love, or sin or faith or virtue or anything like that; it's like saying that 1+1=9 --- it simply DOESN'T ADD UP.

I know of no other way to illustrate more precisely to the point I am trying to make. I'm not asking a question about scripture; anyone (even I) can open a Bible and read out the party line. There's a logical problem here; can you address it logically?

 

[ScottW]

I'm going to do my best not to get personal here, but honestly I don't see how you continue to miss my point. Try to see the gestalt here.

There is an old philosophical question that goes "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" The answer is - the question is a non-sequitur: if the universe contains any immovable objects, it cannot contain any irresistible forces, and vice-versa.

I've tried to do show that you have produced something comparable: The following things add up to the same kind of un-resolvable paradox: (A) humans have free will (B) god foresees our lives in their entirety before we are born.

Well Brian, I will the same way. How much more do I need to explain it for you to get my point.

If you knew ahead of time the choices someone else was going to make, even before they made them... how does that take away the free will and decision power of the person who makes those choices. You are not setting the choices for them, they chose them theirself, you just knew it ahead of time.

If we both setup on top of a hill and watched cars come into a intersection, and I said... I bet that car turns right at the light... and they do, I had no power in their decision to turn right, they still did it on their own. Since they are freewill people, they can go in any direction they want to go in.

Please try to consider this question outside of a dogmatic framework: If my every behavior, including my faith or lack thereof, COULD be known (even theoretically, even by God) before I was born, then what possible responsibility can I bear for that behavior? If He could already know it, what conclusion is there, but that I am actually a slave to my initial conditions? (And who created those initial conditions?)

Please try to consider a framework outside of where you are today. Again, just because God KNEW our freewill choices before we even made them does not mean that God chose them for us or we are somehow inslaved to make those decisions down the road. Don't think of it is YOU personally made those choices BEFORE you were created... and God knew those... think of it as.. you don't have a clue what your are going to face tomorrow and the decisions you will make... but because God can see through time, he knows the decision you will make.

It's like a Back to the Future movie... the guy gets that book with game scores in it. The fact that he KNEW the outcome of the games doesn't mean he had anything to do with the score, or that the score and the players decisions or abilities where somehow limited by the fact he had a book with the score in it. They game was no pre-destined, he was just looking at something from the past.

This is very similar to the mathematical concept of true randomness. In order (for example) for a series of numbers to actually be genuinely random, there must be NO information -- anywhere in the universe -- that could allow anyone, anywhere to predict that series under any circumstances.

By this definition, actual randomness is incredibly rare, perhaps nonexistent. Computers' random number generators actually CAN be predicted, if you know two things: the algorithm and the seed value. They achieve pseudo-randomness by keeping this information obscure. They are not TRULY random though, because that information *could* become known, and a prediction would then be possible.

By the same reasoning, in order for a human's actions to be truly his own, it CANNOT be the case that there is sufficient information somewhere in the universe (and that includes the Mind Of God) that those actions could be exactly predicted.

I think if you understand my Back to the Future example, it would clear up this confusion.

Please, don't just say 'Yep, both things are true' -- they can't be. Tell me how you can possibly see the two as compatible. It has nothing to do with God's generosity, or love, or sin or faith or virtue or anything like that; it's like saying that 1+1=9 --- it simply DOESN'T ADD UP.

I know of no other way to illustrate more precisely to the point I am trying to make. I'm not asking a question about scripture; anyone (even I) can open a Bible and read out the party line. There's a logical problem here; can you address it logically?

I already have. Not sure how much logical I can get.

Scott

 

[brianleahy]

You are not setting the choices for them, they chose them theirself, you just knew it ahead of time.

Let's say I'm building a road along a cliff, and rather than put up expensive guard rails, I decide to just put up a sign saying "WARNING: BEWARE OF CLIFF!"

If I make the sign big, bright and impossible to miss, you might reasonably say that I made a good effort to make the road safe.

But the whole scenario changes IF I KNOW THE FUTURE. If I have a crystal ball, and I can look into the future and see that people WILL miss or ignore the sign and go flying off into the abyss, then it becomes my fault again: I knew the sign was inadequate, but I did nothing!

Of course, because I am mortal and of limited resources, I could say "There's no budget to build guard rails; people need to take responsibility for their own safety."

However, if I am immortal and omnipotent, then THAT excuse falls by the wayside. I have infinite resources. I could conjure guardrails without a mere thought, and even make them indestructible. I could, for that matter, eliminate the cliff entirely, making it a gentle, sloping hillside.

But if I still DON'T do any of that, and I still see in my crystal ball that people will absolutely, positively plunge to their deaths while driving on my road, what does that say about me? Really, WHAT does it say about me?

I think it says that I have other priorities higher than keeping people on my road.

God, then, has other priorities higher than the salvation of mankind -- his 'love' for us has its limits.

 

[bobbo]

liberal democrat i guess, though with more moderate views towards abortion. i'm not old enough to vote, therefore, a registered nothing.

 

[chevy]

Harvestr, the fact that adambyte has another opinion doesn't automatically qualify him for being naive/stupid. Maybe he has (like you do have) very good reasons, that are not naive/stupid reasons, to think different. The discussion would be more instructive and interesting if you both try to understand each orther's reasons for your thinking.

I don't think you will finally agree (a world where everybody would agree must be boring), but you may both become smarter by better understanding antother point of view.

 

[chevy]

and don't forget to check this link... http://www.macosx.com/forums/showpost.php?p=319800&postcount=1

 

[Giaguara]

i think the d / r or left / right thinking is old fashioned. i can't just choose one. neither is what i think.

something more green. but i don't agree with greens either.

i don't like republican thinking, i like it less than the democrat thinking.

i don't like 'forced' social security stuff. so, ideally all social security would have an option to be part of or not. so if you don't plan on having kids, i think it would be right to opt out for some taxes that are paid back for people with kids. and if you want to be a rockstart or for whatever reason die before you are 30, you might want to opt out from paying your own pension.

 

[gollum84]

I vote for whoever will be the better guy, be it democrat or republican. All I care about is if someone knows how to read and if they can speak clearly, without pausing and stuttering all the time.

 

[chevy]

i think the d / r or left / right thinking is old fashioned. i can't just choose one. neither is what i think.

something more green. but i don't agree with greens either.

i don't like republican thinking, i like it less than the democrat thinking.

i don't like 'forced' social security stuff. so, ideally all social security would have an option to be part of or not. so if you don't plan on having kids, i think it would be right to opt out for some taxes that are paid back for people with kids. and if you want to be a rockstart or for whatever reason die before you are 30, you might want to opt out from paying your own pension.

I think that part of the social security must be forced: because anyhow there is a time where you have to pay for the ones who did not plan their own future... and we know the weakest tend not to plan their future because they have other short term issues. Now this should remain to a minimal level (no need for TV or car in each home !).

I also think that educating children should be paid by everybody (maybe even more by the ones who have no children) because children are the future of mankind. And we better have an educated future.

When I was younger, I liked green ideas... but I've seen that too often green parties tends to have a very red inside, sometime more extreme than any supposed left party. So I still think that ecology is part of the important aspects of social life, but I don't think that ecology is more important than the life of people or than economy... it's just part of life and part of economy.

 

[drunkmac]

I love how I started this thread and asked for JUST a statement of what you are/what you follow...

 

[brianleahy]

I knew the moment I saw the subject line that it'd never stick by that restriction.

Also though, in fairness, when you added the poll you invited people to "Please Comment"

 

[diablojota]

I chose "R with some acceptance for a limited number of D ideas (please comment) ".

Reason is, I believe in the Republican view on Business, welfare, etc. I don't like the Republican stance on Abortion (main problem) and environmental issues. But it really comes to who sings the closest tune to what I believe. However, most of the time it is voting on the lesser of two evils...

 

[chevy]

Sadam's Iraq was a secular military dictature, Saddam actively opposed religious fundamentalism as it threatened his power.

He used chemical weapons on a curd village, which he didn't exactly considered to be "his own people". the curds were revolting and didn't exactly consider Saddam their leader. So the "his own people" isn't quite right. Moreover what you could have rather claimed is that he used chemical weapons in his war against Iran. This war, by the way, was supported and partially paid for by the USA.

Have you ever honestly asked yourself why Saddam and many others hate the USA? Has ever the idea that they could have reasons (good or bad) to hate you? Did you ever consider addressing those possible reasons with diplomacy instead of using military pressure? Saddam might have been personally rich, but Iraq was (and still is) bankrupt. It couldn't have invaded a child's sandbox if it had wanted to.

When does the War on Hunger start? Or the War on Poverty?


Actually Afghanistan still has no democracy or freedom, Iraq is still not secure, Pakistan is a military dictatorship, the 9-11 hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia against which nothing is being done and Bin Laden is still on the loose ... tell me, how has all that made the USA or the rest of the world more secure?

Your war on terrorism fights symptoms, not causes.

It looks like it is too complex for some of the guys around here.

 

[Salvo]

Greens, Independant, Australian Democrats, Labor, National, "Liberal".
We have a Preferential Polling System here in Australia, where if your first preference doesn't get in, your Vote goes to your next preference, and so on, so even if you do vote Independent, you're not Throwing your Vote away.

The Greens are obviously Environmentalists.

Independents generally care about local issues. An Independent Electorate usually gets the most Benefit in a close election, since the Independent may hold a Balance of Power. Therefore the Government usually offers huge Benefits to the community in order to get the Independent Parliamentarians Support.

The Australian Democrats used to act as a Voice of Reason between the two Parties, ensuring that the Left and Right wing Elements were balanced out in the Parliament. Then they sold out on the GST and lost all credibility. Still better than A major Party.

The ALP have always been very Left-Wing, but in the last decade have shifted towards the Right. A new Left-ish Leader ("Mark Latham" called the Parliament a "Conga-line of Suckholes", and also called our Prime Minister an "Arse Licker" during one of Johnny's visits to see George Dubya) should bring them back to their roots. They recently signed on Peter Garrett (of Midnight Oil) so that should give them an Environmental Slant too.

The National Party are in Coalition with the "Liberal" Party. They are insignificant since they are the minority part of a coalition.

The "Liberal" Party are the Conservative Right. They gave us the GST, and are pushing for the Free Trade Agreement with the US, which is a very Bad thing Indeed. Little Johnny Howard (who is actually 6'6", but behaves with a diminutive air) is a sniveling little Turd, the Perfect Politician, but Pathetic Leader. Downer is the Kid that got picked on too much in School, and Abbott and Costello (yes, they're their real names) are both in the running for the "Biggest A***hole in Politics" Award.


If I was in the US, I would Vote Democrat without a Doubt. I understand that they want to implement a Preferential Ballot, which IMO is more democratic than a Two Party State. It provides a much wider choice. They're also unlikey to F*ck over the Populous.

 

[baggss]

I voted Republican with some Democratic leanings, but I'm not even going to explain why. This thread is WAY to whacked out...you folks need to get some SERIOUS help here...

 

[MDLarson]

Yeah, just to chime in, I voted "Pure Republican", and I can't remember if you could vote for more than one choice (if you could, I should have voted for some others).

Anyway, my point is that the poll is flawed, in that there are too many choices. For instance, I could have voted for 1) Pure Republican 2) Religion is more important 3) People are more important and 4) Ideas can change people. You can certainly be a solid republican (like me) and still consider friendship to a solid democrat more important than damaging argument over policital policy (alluding to the vague "people are more important" option). I believe those last 3 choices are designed for elitists who consider themselves "above the fray of politics" or something like that. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works on a ballot. You vote for a specific party, or you don't vote.

 

[chevy]

1) Voting means making a choice... you cannot have all the goods and none of the bads, you have to choose the mixture you prefer, or that you dislike the less.
2) In some countries, there are more than 2 parties to choose from.
3) In some elections one vote for people, not for parties.

 

[MDLarson]

1) Voting means making a choice... you cannot have all the goods and none of the bads, you have to choose the mixture you prefer, or that you dislike the less.

Na, I believe if that if you like neither of the candidates, you shouldn't endorse either (I am pointing the finger at those who only want Bush out of office and don't really like Kerry). If I disliked all candidates on the ballot, I'd write somebody I liked in as a protest, or not vote at all, as a protest.

2) In some countries, there are more than 2 parties to choose from.

I don't have a problem with this idea, but in this case the poll is referring to American politics, not some other country.

3) In some elections one vote for people, not for parties.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Question to those who voted "People are more important than politics"... what was your thought process? Was your choice influenced by pride? Are you "above the fray"?

 

[baggss]

3) In some elections one vote for people, not for parties.

That is Very true! I am a registered Republican but generally do not vote the strait party line.

 

[Cat]

2) In some countries, there are more than 2 parties to choose from.

Not just that, but is some countries the government is formed *gasp!* by a coalition of parties!