Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Is this what's wrong with Congress?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:10:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Considering that I'm going to be a lawyer, and try to use that as a stepping stone for public office someday, I feel like I'm just feeding Tyson's point. :p

Anyway, I think the problem with Congress isn't the lawyer-esque establishment. There is no "truth" or "rightness" in politics, there's only the sensible and the senseless. Debating is the most effective way of discovering the category to which a proposal belongs.

Congress sucks because of the glamour surrounding their positions. There's no sense of unity or common purpose. Each senator and representative just tries to appease his constituents and help his own career. In addition, all the cameras and interviews makes each of them feel like they need to take a grand stand on just about everything. Congress has a 12% approval rating....guess who that hurts? No one. Congress isn't a person. So each congressmen can always just assume that he's doing his job and the low approval is the other chamber's fault, or the other party's fault.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:17:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



Law is a broad term. There is corporate law, criminal, tax, family, and Constitutional. It would make sense that those who know how to read, write, and interpret the law should be the one's who write them.

Furthermore, as to his notion of doing what's right, the puropse of the law is to be what is just; leave morality to the churches.

The purpose of court isn't to find the truth; it is to address a certain element, by yes, arguing. For example, if I was drunk, it mitigates my intent to commit a crime, so a lesser sentence should be imposed. This has nothing to do with truth.
Similarly, neither does arguing that evidence should be thrown out due to an illegal search. This actually goes against the truth, as without said evidence, the guilty party may go free.

Why is an engineer a better candidate?
My work here is, finally, done.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:20:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:17:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



Law is a broad term. There is corporate law, criminal, tax, family, and Constitutional. It would make sense that those who know how to read, write, and interpret the law should be the one's who write them.

Furthermore, as to his notion of doing what's right, the puropse of the law is to be what is just; leave morality to the churches.

The purpose of court isn't to find the truth; it is to address a certain element, by yes, arguing. For example, if I was drunk, it mitigates my intent to commit a crime, so a lesser sentence should be imposed. This has nothing to do with truth.
Similarly, neither does arguing that evidence should be thrown out due to an illegal search. This actually goes against the truth, as without said evidence, the guilty party may go free.

Why is an engineer a better candidate?

Cause engineers are smarter and sexier, and im not just saying that because i happen to be majoring in engineering....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
UltimateSkeptic
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:23:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:10:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
Considering that I'm going to be a lawyer, and try to use that as a stepping stone for public office someday, I feel like I'm just feeding Tyson's point. :p

Anyway, I think the problem with Congress isn't the lawyer-esque establishment. There is no "truth" or "rightness" in politics, there's only the sensible and the senseless. Debating is the most effective way of discovering the category to which a proposal belongs.

Congress sucks because of the glamour surrounding their positions. There's no sense of unity or common purpose. Each senator and representative just tries to appease his constituents and help his own career. In addition, all the cameras and interviews makes each of them feel like they need to take a grand stand on just about everything. Congress has a 12% approval rating....guess who that hurts? No one. Congress isn't a person. So each congressmen can always just assume that he's doing his job and the low approval is the other chamber's fault, or the other party's fault.

I think you're actually giving credence to his testament. He's just saying that there's an argumentative complex, adopted without wanting to give any ground.

With you essentially encompassing your post with saying that there's no sense of unity or common purpose, I think it kind of enforces that view.
UltimateSkeptic
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:27:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:17:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



Law is a broad term. There is corporate law, criminal, tax, family, and Constitutional. It would make sense that those who know how to read, write, and interpret the law should be the one's who write them.

Furthermore, as to his notion of doing what's right, the puropse of the law is to be what is just; leave morality to the churches.

The purpose of court isn't to find the truth; it is to address a certain element, by yes, arguing. For example, if I was drunk, it mitigates my intent to commit a crime, so a lesser sentence should be imposed. This has nothing to do with truth.
Similarly, neither does arguing that evidence should be thrown out due to an illegal search. This actually goes against the truth, as without said evidence, the guilty party may go free.

Why is an engineer a better candidate?

Congress has to address what is just/moral all of the time. I'm not seeing what you're getting at.

Also, he's not saying someone else would be better at the job, per se. He was just simply asking where the rest of world was in terms of representation., hinting that maybe it'd be less argumentative.
UltimateSkeptic
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:34:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:17:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



Law is a broad term. There is corporate law, criminal, tax, family, and Constitutional. It would make sense that those who know how to read, write, and interpret the law should be the one's who write them.

Furthermore, as to his notion of doing what's right, the puropse of the law is to be what is just; leave morality to the churches.

The purpose of court isn't to find the truth; it is to address a certain element, by yes, arguing. For example, if I was drunk, it mitigates my intent to commit a crime, so a lesser sentence should be imposed. This has nothing to do with truth.
Similarly, neither does arguing that evidence should be thrown out due to an illegal search. This actually goes against the truth, as without said evidence, the guilty party may go free.

Why is an engineer a better candidate?

Excuse me for not addressing all of it at once.

There certainly are many different forms of law. There are also plenty of reasons that scientists, engineers, and lawyers can all write laws together. Those with a law degree aren't inherently better at making laws; there is no reason to believe that a scientist, engineer, lawyer and professor can't write the law just as well as only lawyers.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:35:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:27:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:17:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



Law is a broad term. There is corporate law, criminal, tax, family, and Constitutional. It would make sense that those who know how to read, write, and interpret the law should be the one's who write them.

Furthermore, as to his notion of doing what's right, the puropse of the law is to be what is just; leave morality to the churches.

The purpose of court isn't to find the truth; it is to address a certain element, by yes, arguing. For example, if I was drunk, it mitigates my intent to commit a crime, so a lesser sentence should be imposed. This has nothing to do with truth.
Similarly, neither does arguing that evidence should be thrown out due to an illegal search. This actually goes against the truth, as without said evidence, the guilty party may go free.

Why is an engineer a better candidate?


Congress has to address what is just/moral all of the time. I'm not seeing what you're getting at.

Also, he's not saying someone else would be better at the job, per se. He was just simply asking where the rest of world was in terms of representation., hinting that maybe it'd be less argumentative.

If Congresses job is to address what is just and moral, why should an engineer, who is likely not apt at debating, be elected? He would be unable to engage in the debate, and who knows his analytical skills to pick a side...

Yes, imabench, you are an exception, and maybe engineer is not the best choice to illistrate my point. Let's go with stay-at-home mothers and UPS drivers.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:39:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:34:12 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:17:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



Law is a broad term. There is corporate law, criminal, tax, family, and Constitutional. It would make sense that those who know how to read, write, and interpret the law should be the one's who write them.

Furthermore, as to his notion of doing what's right, the puropse of the law is to be what is just; leave morality to the churches.

The purpose of court isn't to find the truth; it is to address a certain element, by yes, arguing. For example, if I was drunk, it mitigates my intent to commit a crime, so a lesser sentence should be imposed. This has nothing to do with truth.
Similarly, neither does arguing that evidence should be thrown out due to an illegal search. This actually goes against the truth, as without said evidence, the guilty party may go free.

Why is an engineer a better candidate?

Excuse me for not addressing all of it at once.

There certainly are many different forms of law. There are also plenty of reasons that scientists, engineers, and lawyers can all write laws together. Those with a law degree aren't inherently better at making laws; there is no reason to believe that a scientist, engineer, lawyer and professor can't write the law just as well as only lawyers.

Do you think that these professions will consider the consequences of such a law? The Constitutionality of any given law? How it affects current laws? Do you really believe that non-law types will have the same grasp on the impact of legislation?
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:43:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:20:07 PM, imabench wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:17:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



Law is a broad term. There is corporate law, criminal, tax, family, and Constitutional. It would make sense that those who know how to read, write, and interpret the law should be the one's who write them.

Furthermore, as to his notion of doing what's right, the puropse of the law is to be what is just; leave morality to the churches.

The purpose of court isn't to find the truth; it is to address a certain element, by yes, arguing. For example, if I was drunk, it mitigates my intent to commit a crime, so a lesser sentence should be imposed. This has nothing to do with truth.
Similarly, neither does arguing that evidence should be thrown out due to an illegal search. This actually goes against the truth, as without said evidence, the guilty party may go free.

Why is an engineer a better candidate?

Cause engineers are smarter and sexier, and im not just saying that because i happen to be majoring in engineering....

well the chemical and nuclear engineers are. Not so too sure about the civil engineers though :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
UltimateSkeptic
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:55:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:39:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:34:12 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:17:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



Law is a broad term. There is corporate law, criminal, tax, family, and Constitutional. It would make sense that those who know how to read, write, and interpret the law should be the one's who write them.

Furthermore, as to his notion of doing what's right, the puropse of the law is to be what is just; leave morality to the churches.

The purpose of court isn't to find the truth; it is to address a certain element, by yes, arguing. For example, if I was drunk, it mitigates my intent to commit a crime, so a lesser sentence should be imposed. This has nothing to do with truth.
Similarly, neither does arguing that evidence should be thrown out due to an illegal search. This actually goes against the truth, as without said evidence, the guilty party may go free.

Why is an engineer a better candidate?

Excuse me for not addressing all of it at once.

There certainly are many different forms of law. There are also plenty of reasons that scientists, engineers, and lawyers can all write laws together. Those with a law degree aren't inherently better at making laws; there is no reason to believe that a scientist, engineer, lawyer and professor can't write the law just as well as only lawyers.

Do you think that these professions will consider the consequences of such a law? The Constitutionality of any given law? How it affects current laws? Do you really believe that non-law types will have the same grasp on the impact of legislation?

The constitution is easily read and understood by any citizen with an intelligence level that should be required to be able to win office and gain entrance to congress.

The laws are enacted to protect or benefit the people they are made for. There is no reason to belief that a scientist, accountant, a professor, or an engineer can't formulate intelligent discussion on the subject of law or what can be benefited by the law.

I'm not saying any Average Joe should walk into congress, that'd be ridiculous. But it'd be nice to have intelligent people from all professions involved with the law making process because it would be far less argumentative (without the fundamental process of agreeing in the end), much more representative, and more centered on working towards a goal rather than debating.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 7:22:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



Well, this is rather ridiculous in my opinion.

1) Lawyers are well versed at law. Congress is the nation's lawmaking body.

2) It takes a good lawyer to know how to write a good law, because a good law would not be subject to semantics - its intent would be clear.

3) You don't cry about lawyers building bridges, because engineers build bridges. You would cry if engineers started writing law, because lawyers would be able to tear those laws apart.

4) If you can argue a case in which you don't believe, then you can more effectively argue a case in which you do believe.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 7:24:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 7:22:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



2) It takes a good lawyer to know how to write a good law, because a good law would not be subject to semantics - its intent would be clear.

Corollary - it takes an even better lawyer to write a really bad law, because no one would recognize how bad the law was except for the best lawyers. Enter lobbyist groups, corporate welfare advocates, etc...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 7:53:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



To a degree, yes. He's conclusion is faulty though. Lawyers and Businessmen are the best people to serve in government. Lawyers study law, and as a republic our government is ruled by law. It is also good that law makers are knowledgeable in law. Businessmen are people who have experience in running an organization. The government is like a business owned by the public. The President is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of that business, and the legislature is like the board of directors, while the people are the share holders.

Now where I agree with him, is that the modern government, like the modern court room, does not care if they are factual. If you have a stronger argument you win, even if you make sh!t up, or distort facts. Say I name a piece of legislation "the Pro-American equal opportunity act", and the legislation gives tax credits to anyone who hires people born abroad; whether they immigrated or are here on a work visa. Now it does not matter if what I say about the legislation is true, so long as I make the opposition seem less desirable. If I can paint the opposition as unamerican racists who favor discrimination, I can generate overwhelming support for a rather harmful bill; that bill would generate discrimination against natives, contrary to it's title.

This practice has become a basic debate method, due to it's overwhelming success in winning debates. Look at the 2012 Presidential debates; the focus was not on the issues, but rather the politicians. For example, the sincerity of laughing Biden.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 8:14:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 7:53:37 PM, DanT wrote:

I agreed with most of your comment. My points of contention:

Now where I agree with him, is that the modern government, like the modern court room, does not care if they are factual. If you have a stronger argument you win, even if you make sh!t up, or distort facts. Say I name a piece of legislation "the Pro-American equal opportunity act", and the legislation gives tax credits to anyone who hires people born abroad; whether they immigrated or are here on a work visa. Now it does not matter if what I say about the legislation is true, so long as I make the opposition seem less desirable. If I can paint the opposition as unamerican racists who favor discrimination, I can generate overwhelming support for a rather harmful bill; that bill would generate discrimination against natives, contrary to it's title.

Just keep in mind that the people of his or her state voted that lawyer/Congressperson into office.

This practice has become a basic debate method, due to it's overwhelming success in winning debates. Look at the 2012 Presidential debates; the focus was not on the issues, but rather the politicians. For example, the sincerity of laughing Biden.

1) Biden has a reputation for being sincere because if he wasn't sincere, he'd have to be the biggest fool on earth to say some of the sh!t he says. Some people think he's a fool anyway, but at least an honest fool.

2) The VP debate was considered by most to be too close to call...whether Biden won or lost was split along party lines. No question Biden monopolized the press on it though.

Personally I found it a tie because of the issues. I really did not like Biden's stance on Iran and WMD. I found it as distasteful as Ryan's stance on entitlement reform.

3) Ad hominem does not fly in politics. Or are YOU going to scream "YOU LIE"?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 10:03:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:55:45 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:

The laws are enacted to protect or benefit the people they are made for. There is no reason to belief that a scientist, accountant, a professor, or an engineer can't formulate intelligent discussion on the subject of law or what can be benefited by the law.

They can, and they do (congressional hearings http://en.wikipedia.org...), and often. However, I would not want any of these people writing the law itself. I would want a lawyer to do that.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 11:45:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 8:14:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/29/2012 7:53:37 PM, DanT wrote:

I agreed with most of your comment. My points of contention:

Now where I agree with him, is that the modern government, like the modern court room, does not care if they are factual. If you have a stronger argument you win, even if you make sh!t up, or distort facts. Say I name a piece of legislation "the Pro-American equal opportunity act", and the legislation gives tax credits to anyone who hires people born abroad; whether they immigrated or are here on a work visa. Now it does not matter if what I say about the legislation is true, so long as I make the opposition seem less desirable. If I can paint the opposition as unamerican racists who favor discrimination, I can generate overwhelming support for a rather harmful bill; that bill would generate discrimination against natives, contrary to it's title.

Just keep in mind that the people of his or her state voted that lawyer/Congressperson into office.

My point still stands. If you can mislead the populace, than you can get congressmen who read the bill to vote against their better judgement. Otherwise they would find themselves unemployed.
This practice has become a basic debate method, due to it's overwhelming success in winning debates. Look at the 2012 Presidential debates; the focus was not on the issues, but rather the politicians. For example, the sincerity of laughing Biden.

1) Biden has a reputation for being sincere because if he wasn't sincere, he'd have to be the biggest fool on earth to say some of the sh!t he says. Some people think he's a fool anyway, but at least an honest fool.

2) The VP debate was considered by most to be too close to call...whether Biden won or lost was split along party lines. No question Biden monopolized the press on it though.

Personally I found it a tie because of the issues. I really did not like Biden's stance on Iran and WMD. I found it as distasteful as Ryan's stance on entitlement reform.

my point still stands.
3) Ad hominem does not fly in politics. Or are YOU going to scream "YOU LIE"?



Yes it does. Not so blatantly as saying "you lie", but by using propaganda you can launch Ad hominem attacks in less obvious manner. Take the Devil's advocate where the Devil has a party with "some of the leading Republicans in New York". That line was so minor, that I did not notice he said it until the 3rd time I watched it. Using minor jabs like that, you can subliminally associate the devil with republicans in the viewer's mind. Politicians can do the same thing in their speeches.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 12:17:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think Niel Tyson makes lawyers look too good in my honest opinion. Arguing has only a small part of lawyering. Most lawyer cases don't go to court. Instead, lawyers engage in a lot of deal making. Figuring out how much to settle, and plea bargaining. Going to court is avoided because of the high costs it faces. Its analogous to nations going to war, nations don't want to do it but do when a resolution can't be made then that what happens and is a sub-optimal solution.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 12:33:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 11:45:20 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/29/2012 8:14:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/29/2012 7:53:37 PM, DanT wrote:

My point still stands. If you can mislead the populace, than you can get congressmen who read the bill to vote against their better judgement. Otherwise they would find themselves unemployed.

Better yet, if you can LEAD the populace, then you can get congresspersons who read the bill to vote their minds.

There's no reason to assume everyone in Washington is lying to you all the time. That's called paranoia. I agree that it happens, but I object to the degree with which you seem to believe it happens.

This practice has become a basic debate method, due to it's overwhelming success in winning debates. Look at the 2012 Presidential debates; the focus was not on the issues, but rather the politicians. For example, the sincerity of laughing Biden.

1) Biden has a reputation for being sincere because if he wasn't sincere, he'd have to be the biggest fool on earth to say some of the sh!t he says. Some people think he's a fool anyway, but at least an honest fool.

2) The VP debate was considered by most to be too close to call...whether Biden won or lost was split along party lines. No question Biden monopolized the press on it though.

Personally I found it a tie because of the issues. I really did not like Biden's stance on Iran and WMD. I found it as distasteful as Ryan's stance on entitlement reform.

my point still stands.

No it does not. I argued how even though Biden monopolized media attention, voter preference was still along party lines, and you chose not to contest it.

3) Ad hominem does not fly in politics. Or are YOU going to scream "YOU LIE"?



Yes it does. Not so blatantly as saying "you lie", but by using propaganda you can launch Ad hominem attacks in less obvious manner. Take the Devil's advocate where the Devil has a party with "some of the leading Republicans in New York". That line was so minor, that I did not notice he said it until the 3rd time I watched it. Using minor jabs like that, you can subliminally associate the devil with republicans in the viewer's mind. Politicians can do the same thing in their speeches.

1) Fictitious movie

2) No idea WTF you are talking about in said movie.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 12:34:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 12:17:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I think Niel Tyson makes lawyers look too good in my honest opinion. Arguing has only a small part of lawyering. Most lawyer cases don't go to court. Instead, lawyers engage in a lot of deal making. Figuring out how much to settle, and plea bargaining. Going to court is avoided because of the high costs it faces. Its analogous to nations going to war, nations don't want to do it but do when a resolution can't be made then that what happens and is a sub-optimal solution.

^

One of the most important political skills is deal-making. This is why half of them don't seem to have a grasp of public speaking...it's an important skill, but not necessarily the most important.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 12:38:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 12:34:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/30/2012 12:17:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I think Niel Tyson makes lawyers look too good in my honest opinion. Arguing has only a small part of lawyering. Most lawyer cases don't go to court. Instead, lawyers engage in a lot of deal making. Figuring out how much to settle, and plea bargaining. Going to court is avoided because of the high costs it faces. Its analogous to nations going to war, nations don't want to do it but do when a resolution can't be made then that what happens and is a sub-optimal solution.

^

One of the most important political skills is deal-making. This is why half of them don't seem to have a grasp of public speaking...it's an important skill, but not necessarily the most important.

I agree, although I don't think it benefits the public that much.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 12:39:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 12:33:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/29/2012 11:45:20 PM, DanT wrote:

Yes it does. Not so blatantly as saying "you lie", but by using propaganda you can launch Ad hominem attacks in less obvious manner. Take the Devil's advocate where the Devil has a party with "some of the leading Republicans in New York". That line was so minor, that I did not notice he said it until the 3rd time I watched it. Using minor jabs like that, you can subliminally associate the devil with republicans in the viewer's mind. Politicians can do the same thing in their speeches.

1) Fictitious movie

2) No idea WTF you are talking about in said movie.

Ok, I get it. You're referring to the clash between the liberal media and the Republican party. You're citing the media establishment's attack on the Republican Party by how they inserted this line that the Republican party is allied with Satan.

Well, this isn't politics. This is Hollywood. Ad hominem can fly all day long there, because pigs fly there all the time.

Now if it was the news establishment doing something like this, then I'd agree you have a case. But it wasn't.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 12:41:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 12:38:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/30/2012 12:34:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/30/2012 12:17:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I think Niel Tyson makes lawyers look too good in my honest opinion. Arguing has only a small part of lawyering. Most lawyer cases don't go to court. Instead, lawyers engage in a lot of deal making. Figuring out how much to settle, and plea bargaining. Going to court is avoided because of the high costs it faces. Its analogous to nations going to war, nations don't want to do it but do when a resolution can't be made then that what happens and is a sub-optimal solution.

^

One of the most important political skills is deal-making. This is why half of them don't seem to have a grasp of public speaking...it's an important skill, but not necessarily the most important.

I agree, although I don't think it benefits the public that much.

Well, to the extent that you can get over 600 people to agree on anything, it's providing a benefit.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 12:44:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 12:41:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/30/2012 12:38:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/30/2012 12:34:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/30/2012 12:17:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I think Niel Tyson makes lawyers look too good in my honest opinion. Arguing has only a small part of lawyering. Most lawyer cases don't go to court. Instead, lawyers engage in a lot of deal making. Figuring out how much to settle, and plea bargaining. Going to court is avoided because of the high costs it faces. Its analogous to nations going to war, nations don't want to do it but do when a resolution can't be made then that what happens and is a sub-optimal solution.

^

One of the most important political skills is deal-making. This is why half of them don't seem to have a grasp of public speaking...it's an important skill, but not necessarily the most important.

I agree, although I don't think it benefits the public that much.

Well, to the extent that you can get over 600 people from San Francisco to Arkansas to North Dakota to Alaska to Omaha to Texas to Massachusetts to agree on anything, it's providing a benefit.

corrected
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 2:57:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 12:39:30 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/30/2012 12:33:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/29/2012 11:45:20 PM, DanT wrote:

Yes it does. Not so blatantly as saying "you lie", but by using propaganda you can launch Ad hominem attacks in less obvious manner. Take the Devil's advocate where the Devil has a party with "some of the leading Republicans in New York". That line was so minor, that I did not notice he said it until the 3rd time I watched it. Using minor jabs like that, you can subliminally associate the devil with republicans in the viewer's mind. Politicians can do the same thing in their speeches.

1) Fictitious movie

2) No idea WTF you are talking about in said movie.

Ok, I get it. You're referring to the clash between the liberal media and the Republican party. You're citing the media establishment's attack on the Republican Party by how they inserted this line that the Republican party is allied with Satan.

Well, this isn't politics. This is Hollywood. Ad hominem can fly all day long there, because pigs fly there all the time.

Now if it was the news establishment doing something like this, then I'd agree you have a case. But it wasn't.

Take the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012"; anyone who opposes it would immediately be painted as anti-middle class by their opposition. Another example is the "patriot act" also known as the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". If you oppose it, you are called unpatriotic or a potential terrorist.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 6:35:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 2:57:15 AM, DanT wrote:

Take the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012"; anyone who opposes it would immediately be painted as anti-middle class by their opposition. Another example is the "patriot act" also known as the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". If you oppose it, you are called unpatriotic or a potential terrorist.

I like where you're going with this, but regardless, no politician would ever say that someone that didn't vote for the PATRIOT act was a potential terrorist. They would merely point out that his or her opponent did not vote for it.

Now the commercials they would air would probably be much, much more savage. These commercials will do ad hominem all day long, but never the politician.

I'm sure you would say it's pretty close to the same thing, and I'll definitely agree with you there. Politics can get really vicious and really brutal, but the politician him or herself will get crucified if ever caught making ad hominem attacks against his or her opponent, just like in a debate.

Cheers.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 8:12:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 6:35:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/30/2012 2:57:15 AM, DanT wrote:

Take the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012"; anyone who opposes it would immediately be painted as anti-middle class by their opposition. Another example is the "patriot act" also known as the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". If you oppose it, you are called unpatriotic or a potential terrorist.

I like where you're going with this, but regardless, no politician would ever say that someone that didn't vote for the PATRIOT act was a potential terrorist. They would merely point out that his or her opponent did not vote for it.

Now the commercials they would air would probably be much, much more savage. These commercials will do ad hominem all day long, but never the politician.

I'm sure you would say it's pretty close to the same thing, and I'll definitely agree with you there. Politics can get really vicious and really brutal, but the politician him or herself will get crucified if ever caught making ad hominem attacks against his or her opponent, just like in a debate.

Cheers.

I didn't see anyone calling out Obama when he pointed out (in the last debate) that a Chinese company Romney had done business with had imported oil from Iran (or something like that).
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 9:25:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 8:12:05 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/30/2012 6:35:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/30/2012 2:57:15 AM, DanT wrote:

I didn't see anyone calling out Obama when he pointed out (in the last debate) that a Chinese company Romney had done business with had imported oil from Iran (or something like that).

Why would anyone call Obama out on a comment like that? US businesses do business with the Chinese all the time. China imports a LOT oil from Iran.

What Obama (probably) did NOT do is call Romney an Iranian sympathizer. It's implied in Obama's statement, but I can say with a large amount of assurance that Obama in no way crossed that line.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 9:29:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 9:25:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/31/2012 8:12:05 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 12/30/2012 6:35:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/30/2012 2:57:15 AM, DanT wrote:

I didn't see anyone calling out Obama when he pointed out (in the last debate) that a Chinese company Romney had done business with had imported oil from Iran (or something like that).

Why would anyone call Obama out on a comment like that? US businesses do business with the Chinese all the time. China imports a LOT oil from Iran.

What Obama (probably) did NOT do is call Romney an Iranian sympathizer. It's implied in Obama's statement, but I can say with a large amount of assurance that Obama in no way crossed that line.

The key here (as in a debate) is that Obama stuck to a fact. He asserted a fact, and what's Romney going to say in response? YOU LIE? No, Romney can't say anything, unless Obama really is lying. What Obama didn't do was to jump to potentially false and irresponsible conclusions.

Romney also made the point in one of the debates that Obama's pension plan from teaching in Chicago has ties to the Caymans. I remember looking up the validity of it, I think like less than 0.1% of Obama's pension plan does indeed have off shore ties. Does this put Obama in league with guys like Romney (key word LIKE Romney, not Romney himself) who utilize off shore tax havens regularly? Of course not. Did Obama call Romney out on it? No...Obama probably had no idea wtf Romney was talking about, and just ignored it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 9:32:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:35:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:27:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:17:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:56:09 PM, UltimateSkeptic wrote:
I'm inclined to agree. Who disagrees and why?



Law is a broad term. There is corporate law, criminal, tax, family, and Constitutional. It would make sense that those who know how to read, write, and interpret the law should be the one's who write them.

Furthermore, as to his notion of doing what's right, the puropse of the law is to be what is just; leave morality to the churches.

The purpose of court isn't to find the truth; it is to address a certain element, by yes, arguing. For example, if I was drunk, it mitigates my intent to commit a crime, so a lesser sentence should be imposed. This has nothing to do with truth.
Similarly, neither does arguing that evidence should be thrown out due to an illegal search. This actually goes against the truth, as without said evidence, the guilty party may go free.

Why is an engineer a better candidate?


Congress has to address what is just/moral all of the time. I'm not seeing what you're getting at.

Also, he's not saying someone else would be better at the job, per se. He was just simply asking where the rest of world was in terms of representation., hinting that maybe it'd be less argumentative.

If Congresses job is to address what is just and moral, why should an engineer, who is likely not apt at debating, be elected? He would be unable to engage in the debate, and who knows his analytical skills to pick a side...

Yes, imabench, you are an exception, and maybe engineer is not the best choice to illistrate my point. Let's go with stay-at-home mothers and FedEx drivers.

Fixed it.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan