is this sarcasm?

Welcome to the world of cognitive dissonance, in which we know in our hearts that we must never allow Satan an inroad through communism or theocracy, but don't want to be dogmatic about it.

Politics is the domain of the passive-aggressive.

I can only be a Republican for a short while, and then the nausea gets me and I give up. Usually because of some Republican going on about the Married Gay Menace.

Hmm... Maybe it will work better once pot is legal. Marijuana helps with nausea.

Fritz,

Once the Democrats destroy the economy every one will be a menace. So the Democrats will bring us equality.

=========

And before you make fun of me guys - how many logical people do you know across classes. The American voter? Easily swayed by "making history".

And you guys tell me that logic rules? Puuuhhhhlease.

Humans tend to make decisions by pattern recognition not calculation. Mostly.

And for the sake of argument suppose a question has a range of answers. How do you pick. You pick patterns you are familiar with. Peace or war? Is it 1938? Or are we in a period of hope similar to the founding of the UN?

We sold ourselves for another spin on the merry-go-round. IMO our hope is that the Chinese might thoroughly screw up their economy. It's not 1938 because the Chinese are not into invading, only in owning.

I never use that idiotic quote from Emerson. His other writings are equally incoherent.

Logic may never be compromised! Death to compromisers!

And above all, never quote Emerson! It is illogical!

In order to reduce this to Emersonian logic, I will quote Emerson on the subject:

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson/

***QUOTE***

I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.

***END QUOTE***

Furthermore, according to Murphy:

http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-technology.html

***QUOTE***

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

***END QUOTE***

If the above is true, then according to logic, logical conclusions must be viewed with skepticism, and to err on the side of caution, logic must always be compromised!

Never and always!

Everything in moderation, including logic. Yet according to Rush Limbaugh, moderates have no "principles," for they have compromised them.

Compromise is only possible if people are willing to accept inconsistencies. Yet ideologically principled libertarians and ideologically principled conservatives are generally opposed to compromise, and when they oppose inconsistencies, they're usually only those which they find in their opponents' arguments. Thus, what libertarians like about themselves has very little to do with logic, and what they dislike about conservatives has everything to do with logic, and vice versa.

Emerson is right! Only a fool would be opposed to his own inconsistencies.

But you may not quote him!

Oh shit! I forgot all about absolute truth!

Never mind.

Brett,

Is that parody?

I had some fun with the anti-abortion folks using logic.

Abortion is murder. Well that is obvious.

So what kind of murder is it? Murder one of course since it is planned and premeditated.

The penalties for murder one go right up to the death penalty depending on aggravating circumstances. Like was a lot of pain inflicted during the commission of the crime.

Well they are on about how the embryo screams during its demise so obviously a death penalty offense.

There is no statute of limitations on murder. So there are 20 million or so women we need to find and gas. Or inject. Or hang. We can start combing the medical records.

No. No. No. They say. We can't do that. It would be grotesque. So they come up with a penalty that is more akin to misdemeanor manslaughter.

So I say: it is not a very serious crime then even if we make it a crime.

No. No. No. No. It is very serious. You don't understand. It is not about strict logic. It is how we feel.

Well that was what I thought all along.

So what is your beef with those who feel differently? Uhhhhhhhhhhh.......

A libertarian that doesn't vary on a situational basis is an anarchist.

The contradiction at the centre of Libertarianism is contained in the phrase "The Libertarian Party".

Most Libertarians, presumably, have an ultimate (perhaps supremely logical) goal, but they cannot get there from here by purely logical means. Pick a competitive party that is closest in outlook (usually the Republicans) and work from within it.

No parody. I've never admired Emerson, or Transcendentalism in general. The intellectual tradition of New England opened fire on the Constitution as soon as it was ratified.

Our incompetent school systems are one result.

Brett,

It was the social conservative war against Catholics and Jews that gave us public schools and forced attendance.

You can look it up.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

MSimon Wrote: "I had some fun with the anti-abortion folks using logic.

Abortion is murder. Well that is obvious.

So what kind of murder is it? Murder one of course since it is planned and premeditated."

It's a shame that I wasn't able to comment timely on your remarks about this subject. I think that I would make a more formidable opponent logically than some you might try to befuddle.

You have created fallacies of false equivalencies, and grossly oversimplified your premise.

For example, who is wielding the murder weapon ? The woman, or the doctor ? At the least this would make a woman an accomplice.

A more accurate way of looking at this would be analogous to having a woman bring a retarded child to a Doktor for euthanization. You see, in both cases the woman is merely facilitating, not committing a murder.

Add to that, the complication that the 1973 court made this form of murder legal, just as the Chief Justice Taney declared slaves were property, and so you have immoral/amoral but legal "justification" of it.

Funny thing I should mention the Taney court. The same people (abolitionists) who believed slavery was immoral, also believed abortion was immoral, and shortly after the civil war, the abolitionists managed to get the practice outlawed throughout the United States. The Warren court overturned the work of the people who overturned the work of the Taney court. Isn't that amusing ?