Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's leak freakout (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Einstein: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JVolvo
    As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
    Objectivity itself is only objective if we first agree what we should be measuring, which of course we don't.

    If justice were objective then every country in the world would have the same concept of justice, which they don't.  Plus, every supreme court justice would agree except the corrupt ones.  They don't.

    Competence is the most subjective of the lot.  I think you're an incompetent ethicist.  But your competence certainly depends on who is evaluating it and for what purpose.  If you are not an airline pilot, then your ability to land a 747 does not improve your competence.  If you work in a dangerous job, then your diligence in keeping your coworkers safe is seen as competence by your peers.  It may be seen as incompetence by your boss, who perceives it as unnecessary delay.  The right wingers consider Obama incompetent because he hasn't invaded any countries that didn't attack us, which is precisely the biggest argument some of us can see for his competence.

    I want a government that is competent, and there is no objective standard for what competence means in government.

    You:

    And give me objectivity any day over zealots convinced that 'their way' is the only way.
    Unless we agree on what the purpose of government is, and the yardsticks used to measure progress in that regard (both of which are extremely subjective matters), then it's totally useless to talk about objectivity in government.

    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:02:10 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  you really shouldn't bring Einstien into this (0+ / 0-)

      as you will get yourself embarrased.

      Further that's still off topic we're not talking math here bud. Are you incapable of dealing with the topic? I gotta ask because you are pushing these strawmen awefully hard.

      As to the rest of your ramblings,

      Objectivity is by definition not subjective thus you only look like a fool for claiming otherwise. If you want to redefine objectivity be my guest but be prepared to be looked at as stranged as soemone that wants to say the color blue is actually red.

      Competence is entirely subjective either you are or you are not by a set of criteria. Once again you demonstrate you don't have a flying clue what you are talking about. You may not like my arguments but that doesn't make them incompetent. That you would have to prove which is the exact opposite of subjectivity.

      And I agree that this is likely useless because you sound like one of those relativists and frankly it's hard to take those types all that seriously.

      In the time that I have been given,
      I am what I am

      by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:15:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dRefractor, DeadHead
        If you want to redefine objectivity be my guest but be prepared to be looked at as stranged as soemone that wants to say the color blue is actually red.
        Ok, fine.

        The question of what "objective" means in any given context outside of pure mathematics or theoretical physics is subjective. Otherwise,

        1. Only facts are objective.
        2. The question of whether any particular objective fact is relevant to any particular policy discussion is NEVER objective.

        Thus, there is no such thing as objectivity in any meaningful discussion of politics.

        Is that better?
        Or to mangle Einstein, "To the extent that facts are objective, they are not objectively relevant to politics, and to the extent they are objectively relevant to politics, they are not objective."

        Competence is entirely subjective either you are or you are not by a set of criteria.
        ...and who gets to write the criteria?
        You may not like my arguments but that doesn't make them incompetent.
        I didn't say they were incompetent.  I will say they are incompetent from a subjective philosophical standpoint... but I confess that that's subjective.
        That you would have to prove which is the exact opposite of subjectivity.
        Only if I tried to prove them wrong from every point of view!
        And I agree that this is likely useless because you sound like one of those relativists and frankly it's hard to take those types all that seriously.
        Is that meant as an insult?  Well, you sound like one of those legalists who think that the legality of an act is more important than the morality.

        And I have to take those types very seriously, because they're fucking scary.

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:06:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  if you want to play that game (0+ / 0-)

          then apparently chemistry is not objective according to you either then which is a shock to me as a chemist. I must go tell my profs that all those reactions only really work cause we want them to.

          See this is the problem with relativists, you think yourself so clever and yet leave massive gaps in your logic. But then again I bet you will tell me logic isn't objective either.

          And you are seriously trying to move the goal posts here mister would be philospher this is about a legal investigation into leaks not politics. So even if you had a point it would still not be on topic here.

          I am not going to have a debate with you on the merits of relativistic ethics/philosphy not only is it utterly off topic I am not convinced you even understand the topic. I will say this, nothing I have said was meant as an insult to you personally it is however hard to take most relativists seriously as they are so busy trying to 'prove'  that there is no objectivity they miss the irony in their actions.

          I really don't care what label you stick on me I stand by my point that 'good' is an utterly stupid way to approach most matters, especially government. Because 'good' is so utterly subjective that it could literally be anything. I'd rather have the government covered objectively by the law and have a debate on said law then your way.

          More over that is how it is anyways right now so for you to be 'outraged' that the goverment doesn't function by your subjective notions is as strange as ranting at the rain because it dares to do as it wishes.

          PS yes you indeed passive aggressively called my argument incomptent, at least own your words

          In the time that I have been given,
          I am what I am

          by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:50:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site