gregfrankenstein wrote:Republicans: "We're for individual states' rights."
Republicans: "No, not like that."
Remind me which party it was that started a civil war for states' rights
gregfrankenstein wrote:Republicans: "We're for individual states' rights."
Republicans: "No, not like that."
Windy wrote:Remind me which party it was that started a civil war for states' rights
Windy wrote:gregfrankenstein wrote:Republicans: "We're for individual states' rights."
Republicans: "No, not like that."
Remind me which party it was that started a civil war for states' rights
Crimson847 wrote:I do hold people accountable for things they themselves said just yesterday and still publicly stand by, though, and the modern GOP has frequently trumpeted their support for federalism and state's rights now, not 160 or even 60 years ago. So it does seem fair to me to criticize them if they don't follow their own stated ideals.
SandTea wrote:Greedy, treasonous dickbags who only cared about their net worth.
Windy wrote:Then you're wasting your time. Logical consistency isn't important, it's how you can manipulate your own behavior and others with your beliefs, contradictory as they may be. Natural selection did not give humans a bias towards logical consistency because if we actually did introspection chances are we would be disgusted at ourselves.
Windy wrote:Crimson847 wrote:I do hold people accountable for things they themselves said just yesterday and still publicly stand by, though, and the modern GOP has frequently trumpeted their support for federalism and state's rights now, not 160 or even 60 years ago. So it does seem fair to me to criticize them if they don't follow their own stated ideals.
Then you're wasting your time. Logical consistency isn't important, it's how you can manipulate your own behavior and others with your beliefs, contradictory as they may be. Natural selection did not give humans a bias towards logical consistency because if we actually did introspection chances are we would be disgusted at ourselves.
Crimson847 wrote:It is true that human argumentation didn't evolve for the purpose of arriving at truth; rather, it seems to have evolved as a dominance strategy to increase one's status within a tribe. That for instance is why our natural tendency is to bitterly resent being proven wrong. After all, it increases our knowledge to discover that something we thought to be true is false, and if we make that discovery ourselves we indeed feel better for it. But if someone else proves us wrong, especially publicly, we tend to feel embarrassed and angry instead. We may have gained some knowledge, but that benefit is often outweighed in our minds by fear of a loss of social status or "face" as a result of being bested in an argument.
In essence, we created an alternate means of acquiring power in human societies that's far more efficient than the older methods were. Brute force and physical intimidation still works in a pinch, of course, but it's so much more efficient to make your underlings' desires match yours through persuasion and get their genuine cooperation, rather than frighten them into pursuing your ends rather than their own.
This doesn't mean logical consistency is irrelevant to the process, though. A more logical worldview isn't the evolutionary end goal, but correct logic is a crucial means that evolution uses to achieve the goal of greater social power. The reason for this is that natural selection did give humans an emotional bias toward internal logical consistency. It's called cognitive dissonance: knowingly holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously creates an aversive feeling of anxiety and distress, and resolving that logical contradiction relieves the distress, creating an emotional incentive to avoid internal contradictions in one's belief system. It's a psychological lever that motivates people to be logically consistent.
So yes, being consistent does matter in arguments, and no, I don't think encouraging consistency in others is a futile venture.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:Comcast recently was caught red handed heinously violating internet law, causing the murder of billions by allowing users to opt into a webfilter.
When will we assassinate Ajit Pai for allowing this to happen? smh.Spoiler: show
It's such a draconian process to turn off this behaviour and completely obscure too. Advanced Settings? Sorry but that voids the warranty on my web browser, it's absolutely ridiculous that we're expected to turn off a setting we turned on. And there's a DOT and a SLASH in that command, I don't get this nerd shit, I don't play around on DOS like elitist techbros, thanks.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
Aquila89 wrote:Yesterday, the Senate voted 52-47 to reinstate net neutrality. Every Democrat and three Republicans (Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Neely Kennedy of Louisiana) voted for the proposition, with John McCain not voting. But it probably won't pass the House.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests