Democracy

[Lisa Denton]

Actually, if you look back, I didn't say they were unintelligent or not unintelligent... just that we haven't evidence sufficient or rational congress to make those sorts of assertions. Which, yeah, we don't.

Mine is a rationally safe position as its not actually asserting anything positive, but rather pointing out where others cannot.

Yes, I went back and saw that, touche. You were replying to someone else when I first posted, my humble apologies sir.

I do not wish to draw you from your safe position but would like your input. Lets try this.

If I assert that the masses are unintelligent, and offer as proof the officials elected by popular consensus to run our democracy, the staggering drug and alcohol addiction statistics among the lower and middle class of our society. The rampant crime rate and dis-regard of laws by our young people.

These people and these problems seem to be the majority in our democracy today. The masses.
I also, as you, wish there were more intelligent, logical, and vocal people to dispute these facts.

In this context sir, do you still maintain that there is no proof or reason for me to assert that the masses are unintelligent.
Also the post you initially replied to when I arrived was infering, I believe, to the implication that the masses may not be intelligent enough to decide the issue of the death penalty.

I would also like to hear your views on that, at your liesure of course. I find our conversations intellectually stimulating.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

...there is actually a reason why I love philosophy.

If I assert that the masses are unintelligent, and offer as proof the officials elected by popular consensus to run our democracy, the staggering drug and alcohol addiction statistics among the lower and middle class of our society. The rampant crime rate and dis-regard of laws by our young people.

Alright... rationally speaking, here is how its laid out, then:

Our officials are elected by popular consensus to run our democracy;
There exists a staggering drug and alcohol addiction statistic;
There exists a rampant crime rate;
There exists a disregard of laws by the young;
Thus, the masses are unintelligent.(c)

O.k., piece by piece, here's what I'd say. First, your argument is invalid. None of your premises logically follow into the conclusion.

For instance, its a fallacy of language to say "staggering drug and alcohol addiction"--"staggering" is not particularly efficient language. Is it staggering because of a high death rate? Because of pervasiveness? And even in light of those two, what is it "staggeringly" compared to? A zero-rate? Even granted that its "staggering", which cannot be addressed as its not a statistic so much as preferential language about a statistic (someone could say that income tax in Mississippi is "staggeringly" high, but compared to what? And by "staggering" do they mean 1 cent more than Alabama?)... even granting that the premise, alone, is accurate (which I'm not willing to do, but let's assume I were), that there exists a staggeringly high rate of drug or alcohol addiction does not indicate, by necessity or definition, the public being unintelligent. It is entirely possible that the public is geniusly intelligent, and merely choose this in some design difficult for us to grasp (or simply nihilistic preference). That the possibility seems absurd does not invalidate it as a possibility; that it is possible makes your conclusion not necessarily true. Your argument invalid.

Rampant crime rate... same situation. "Rampant" starts flirting with logical fallacies of language, again. Personally, where I live, there is hardly any read crime. Other places, I see on television, have seemingly high crime rates (in comparison). But is America's crime rate "rampant"? I do not know. I don't know that anyone really does. It comes down to comparison, again; and even were the premise about crime true... that there is a high or rampant crime rate does not mean that the public is unintelligent. Reason why is the same as before, nothing about the essence and definition of intelligence presumes that those who are make decisions like "no tolerating or commiting crimes". It is possible the public is very intelligent, and this is how they collectively want it. Again, that the possibility exists makes your conclusion not necessarily true. The arugment, invalid.

Disregard of the laws by the young. Simply put, on top of it carrying the same problems of language fallacies (whose young? which young? I stole candybars as a kid, and yet people thought I was a smart boy... doesn't that represent a contradiction in your theory? Etc.), I wonder if you include the young in your collective masses? If so, that's a bit unfair, as I don't know that little children are qualified to make national decisions about their future... or if they're not included and you mean to say that the parents aren't raising their children right, that doesn't mean that the parents are unintelligent. It may mean they are uncaring, but caring is not a prerequisite of intelligence. Possibility in refutation of your conclusion --> argument is invalid.

In this context sir, do you still maintain that there is no proof or reason for me to assert that the masses are unintelligent.

I maintain that you have provided no actual logical proof for your conclusion, no. You've offered emotive, impassioned, colorful anecdotes about why your position should be accepted... but no actual proof or rational congress.

Also the post you initially replied to when I arrived was infering, I believe, to the imlication that the masses may not be intelligent enough to decide the issue of the death penalty.

There was a post about how one can't truly make an intelligent decision about the death penalty unless one has suffered an accounting of a loved one getting brutalized. I maintain that, by virtue of Reason, it is actually possible for someone to make an intelligent decision about the death penalty, even if they had not gone through any of that... the reason being simply that nothing about the essence or definition of "death penalty" precludes "those not having a close account of a loved one getting brutalized" from "making intelligent decisions about it". By definition, one can. Just logic.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Personally, where I live, there is hardly any read crime.

**************************************************
Sorry, forget everything. I thought you lived in the real world and only spoke of the surreal one.

Again, no offense.

 

[Filly Gal]

Freedom to PM!

Lisa,
Clear out your PM box! Its FULL!
FG

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Sorry, forget everything. I thought you lived in the real world and only spoke of the surreal one.

Again, no offense.

I live in a college town in North Mississippi. I have met with a great deal of... unpleasantness... concerning where I'm from, when talking to people. The South has stigmas, and people sometimes manage to Ad Hominem their arguments because of that.

However, yes, I do live in the real world. That part of the real world doesn't include a very high crime rate doesn't somehow invalidate either my assertions or its status as an acceptable part of the world, when talked about as a whole.

"Forget everything"...? I lived on Hubbard Street in 1992 when the LA Riots were going on. Walked to and from school everday in that mess. I lived in Germany when the Wall was coming down. Coming from military school and a military family, I lived and breathed the Persian Gulf when my father and my friends' fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers went over there.

Chica, I'm no stranger to what happens in the world. But even if I were, I don't see how that invalidates anything we've talked about, thus far.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Re: Freedom to PM!

Lisa,
Clear out your PM box! Its FULL!
FG

My e-mail was full and had 165 mails I cleaned out and replied to about 20 feedbacks. Now you say my PM is full?

 

[Filly Gal]

Re: Re: Freedom to PM!

My e-mail was full and had 165 mails I cleaned out and replied to about 20 feedbacks. Now you say my PM is full?

Yes! I tried to pm you but Lit said it was full.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Re: Re: Re: Freedom to PM!

Yes! I tried to pm you but Lit said it was full.

I cleaned it all out, even those juicy ones from you I was saving, I saw a e-mail from you in my mail but clicked delete instead of view, this could be spooky.

 

[rgraham666]

Intelligent/morons

I well know what a drag it can be watching the mass of humanity desperately flailing away, trying to think.

But one of the first things we're going to have to recognize is the fact that each of us probably has a different idea of what intelligence is. With disparate understandings, it's going to be difficult to come to a consensus.

Anyhow, to make myself feel better when I'm watching smoke come out the ears of someone while they deal with a question they haven't considered before and don't want to consider is, "They are not stupid, merely ignorant and prejudiced by their envirioment."

As are we all.

But I find it no surprise that the people at the top of our society are busily working to destroy our public education system.

 

[Lisa Denton]

To those of you folks on this thread who read my story thank you very much. I hope to get back to the discussions soon but got involved in something else. Thanks and see you soon.

 

[shereads]

"The masses" intelligence only seems to encompass the critical issues such as who won the Survivor Show or the impact of the rulings delivered on Judge Judy's Court T.V. They lost more than intelligence, other trivial things such as morals, integrity, honesty, loyalty, and love also fell by the roadside as "the masses" became a "stampeding herd" in pursuit of the all-important dollar.

Ahem. If "the masses" are in pursuit of the all-important dollar, why do the masses in the U.S. carry a larger part of the tax burden, proportionate to their actual wealth, than the top one percent of the U.S.? Are you aware that the wealth gap between the poorest Americans and the richest is now at its widest since the Great Depression?

I haven't seen any factual evidence that "the masses" are inherently more stupid or less moral than the upper classes. I have seen plenty of evidence that those who are in positions of power go out of their way to assure that the poorest Americans remain poor (IRS under Bush II ordered to increase the number of tax audits of low-income households, for example) and to discourage them from voting into office people who might actually care about the problem of poverty in America. In 2000, for example, the poorest (also most heavily African-American and heavily Democratic) voting districts in Florida experienced a sudden dramatic increase in the State Highway Patrol's interest in traffic safety, during the after-work rush to get to the polls before closing.

Frankly, as frustrated as I get with people who don't exercise their right to vote, I can see how it's possible to believe that a low-income person can't make a difference anyway: redistricting is now done by computer models that all but guarantee that the party in power in each state can send its own to Congress; and the corruption created by our system of privately financed political campaigns means that the all-mighty dollar really is all-mighty. But where you got the idea that those dollars are something "the masses" even have a shot at, is a mystery.

 

[shereads]

Re: Intelligent/morons

Anyhow, to make myself feel better when I'm watching smoke come out the ears of someone while they deal with a question they haven't considered before and don't want to consider is, "They are not stupid, merely ignorant and prejudiced by their envirioment."

As are we all.

But I find it no surprise that the people at the top of our society are busily working to destroy our public education system.

You noticed that too, huh.

I was reminded a moment ago of something that was said during an office political arguement a few years ago, during the Elian Gonzalez fiasco that took over Florida for a few months. Like a few of the other office commies, I had mentioned the unfairness of the two dramatically different policies toward Haitian and Cuban immigants.

A woman said, without any intended irony, "The difference is that Cubans are poor because of Castro, and Haitians are poor because they don't try."

I asked her if she was aware that the U.S. government had supported two Duvalier regimes while they robbed their own people. She didn't know or want to know what I was talking about. Lazy is lazy.

And ignorance is bliss.

 

[upfront]

I have personally shot a rabid dog advancing on my neighbors children [...] and stood between a madman and a loved one quite willing to take a life with my bare hands if it came to it.

Sounds to me like you need to move!

While of course the act of taking an animal's life to save a child. Or taking an animal's life to end its pain, can in no way be compared to taking a human being's life. Those who oppose capital punishment cannot in truth say they oppose it until and after they have their own wife and children raped and slowly cut apart in front of them and then speak to spare that life.

Well you have the first part right! As for the second: of course one can oppose capital punishment even if one hasn't experienced the rape or murder of a loved one. One has the right to change one's opinion, and such an appaling event might elicit such a change, I don't know. But you can't deny someone a reasoned opinion because they haven't experienced a terrible event. Equally, if you've never experienced the loss of someone who was wrongly committed of murder, maybe I would be justified in saying that you can't truly believe in capital punishment until you've experienced such miscarriages of justice at first hand. What bollocks.

 

[shereads]

The only reasonable arguments in favor of capital punishment will be made when you find a way to remove human error from the criminal justice system. Every time a Death Row inmate is cleared because of newly available DNA evidence, a state-sactioned murder of an innocent person is averted.

Is it horrible to lose a loved one to a vicious killer? It must be. Is it less horrible to lose a loved one to a mistaken murder conviction?

Probably. It's probably a walk in the park. After all, even though you know your son/husband/brother wasn't guilty of murder and is going to be killed anyway, you do at least have the comfort of knowing the system has done its best to achieve justice - plus, his execution will help bring closure to another family, provided they never find out he wasn't guilty.

 

[shereads]

Meanwhile, back in the Butterfly Ballot State...It turns out that GWB's campaign actually did steal the election.

Of the approximately 1500 names whose voter registrations were mistakenly stricken from the record in 2000 - most of whom were African-Americans from the most heavily Democratic part of the state - it can be assumed that there were enough Gore votes to push him over the top even without the denied recount.

The mistake occurred, innocently enough, during a last-minute emergency pre-election "purge" of convicted felons, instigated by Florida Sec'y of State Kathryn Harris (who was coincidentally George W. Bush's state campaign manager, not that there's a connection). Unfortuntely, the purge list wasn't cross-checked against a list of ex-felons whose voting rights had been restored, through clemency or overturned convictions; and since the voters in question didn't find out they were being denied the right to vote until it was too late to file an objection, several hundred mostly-Democratic voters got sent home without a chance to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan.

If you know Florida as the state governered by the president's brother, you're thinking, "Whoa! Jeb Bush will be extra-careful to make sure nothing like that happens this year, because of the appearance of a conflict of interest."

You're wrong, of course. Kathryn Harris's replacement as Secretary of State, not to be outdone, is also conducting a purge of felons from the voting rolls, and this one is also full of error. This time, though, the Miami Herald got a copy of the list and cross-checked it against the restored-rights list of voters, and notified the state that it was in danger of once again, illegally denying several hundred people the right to vote.

You're thinking, "The state of Florida probably thanked the Miami Herald and promised to correct the error," but you're wrong again.

The state says they aren't going to correct the list; it's up to local election supervisors.

That's the beauty of this kind of crime. The end goal is of sufficient value to justify whatever it takes to win. It's not as if anyone is going to go to jail because of this, and even if they did, they would still have accomplished something of global importance. They'd probabably even have their voting rights restored when they had served their time.

That doesn't mean they'd actually get to vote, though. That would depend on whether the governor had a brother.

 

[Guest]

What bollocks.

Ditto. What Sher said too. I've had this discussion too many times (here on the AH).

Lisa, you may have some valid points, aside from opinions, but you don't make them very clearly or logically. Just saying.

Perdita

 

[shereads]

Are bollocks the same as huevos?

 

[snooper]

Are bollocks the same as huevos?

Cohones?

 

[Lisa Denton]

Thanks, one and all!! I sometimes manage to provoke some one by stating my views and a few replies indicate I have.
My egotistical attitude is false and you are giving me what I want. Access to YOUR point of view. I am constantly attempting to learn, to better understand others opinions and change my own if yours seem intelligent and ,in my heart and soul, correct.
I am not ignorant of injustice, my uncle, bless his heart, was beaten to death in jail after a mistaken arrest.
I do hope your comments continue in the same way, sometimes out-raged or appalled, but always full of emotion and from your heart.
This thread seems visited by some intelligent and thought provoking individuals whom I enjoy conversing with.
Just my humble opinion, Lisa.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

...?

I think I missed a memo.

 

[shereads]

Democrawhassat?

Golly, this is surprising. If you can't trust Tom DeLay, Enron, and Texas Republicans, who can you trust?

Money Was Directed to Texas GOP to Help State Redistricting Effort

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 12, 2004; Page A01


In May 2001, Enron's top lobbyists in Washington advised the company chairman that then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was pressing for a $100,000 contribution to his political action committee, in addition to the $250,000 the company had already pledged to the Republican Party that year.

DeLay requested that the new donation come from "a combination of corporate and personal money from Enron's executives," with the understanding that it would be partly spent on "the redistricting effort in Texas," said the e-mail to Kenneth L. Lay from lobbyists Rick Shapiro and Linda Robertson.

The e-mail, which surfaced in a subsequent federal probe of Houston-based Enron, is one of at least a dozen documents obtained by The Washington Post that show DeLay and his associates directed money from corporations and Washington lobbyists to Republican campaign coffers in Texas in 2001 and 2002 as part of a plan to redraw the state's congressional districts.

DeLay's fundraising efforts helped produce a stunning political success. Republicans took control of the Texas House for the first time in 130 years, Texas congressional districts were redrawn to send more Republican lawmakers to Washington, and DeLay -- now the House majority leader -- is more likely to retain his powerful post after the November election, according to political experts.

But DeLay and his colleagues also face serious legal challenges: Texas law bars corporate financing of state legislature campaigns, and a Texas criminal prosecutor is in the 20th month of digging through records of the fundraising, looking at possible violations of at least three statutes. A parallel lawsuit, also in the midst of discovery, is seeking $1.5 million in damages from DeLay's aides and one of his political action committees -- Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) -- on behalf of four defeated Democratic lawmakers.

DeLay has not been named as a target of the investigation. The prosecutor has said he is focused on the activities of political action committees linked to DeLay and the redistricting effort. But officials in the prosecutor's office say anyone involved in raising, collecting or spending the corporate money, who also knew of its intended use in Texas elections, is vulnerable.

Documents unearthed in the probe make clear that DeLay was central to creating and overseeing the fundraising. What the prosecutors are still assessing is who knew about the day-to-day operations of TRMPAC and how its money was used to benefit Texas House candidates.

Several weeks ago, DeLay hired two criminal defense attorneys to represent him in the probe. He previously created a fund for corporate donors to help him pay legal bills related to allegations of improper fundraising, and is now considering extending its reach to include the fees for these attorneys.

DeLay declined to comment for this article. Stuart Roy, his spokesman, said: "DeLay is doing everything moral, legal and ethical to increase the Republican majority and advance conservative ideas. He raised legal campaign money for effective political activity and that makes his critics enraged. Unfortunately, some Democrats are making an attempt to criminalize politics."

Cristen D. Feldman, the Texas lawyer who filed the suit, said in response, "I guess DeLay and his team forgot they were from Texas . . . [where] the prohibition against clandestine corporate cash is 100 years old."

Many corporate donors were explicitly told in TRMPAC letters that their donations were not "disclosable" in public records. But documents from several unrelated investigations offer an exceptional glimpse of how corporate money was able to influence state politics -- and also of DeLay's bold use of his network of corporate supporters to advance his agenda.

By investing as much as $2.5 million in corporate money in the 2002 election, TRMPAC and another group, the Texas Association of Business, were able to help elect 26 new Republican candidates to the Texas House. The new Republican majority then redrew the congressional district boundaries and, as a result, five Democrats are likely to lose in the Nov. 2 election, according to political experts.

 

[shereads]

Re: Democrawhassat?

Several weeks ago, DeLay hired two criminal defense attorneys to represent him in the probe. He previously created a fund for corporate donors to help him pay legal bills related to allegations of improper fundraising, and is now considering extending its reach to include the fees for these attorneys.

You have to love this part. He's accused of soliciting corporate donors for an illegal purpose, and now he's getting them to pay his legal fees. I assume these corporations are getting their money's worth.

 

[cantdog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Freedom to PM!

I cleaned it all out, even those juicy ones from you I was saving, I saw a e-mail from you in my mail but clicked delete instead of view, this could be spooky.

Lisa, the "Sent items" and so on in the other boxes seem to count, too. I had one message and they said it was full.
So I deleted a lot of the other boxes and now it's fine again.

cantdog