NationStates Jolt Archive

Do we feel the way we feel about politics because of perspective or our place in society or what our parents think, etc., or are there political issues where the "other side" is just wrong? My feeling is that most of political thinking is indeed subjective, and if you were to "walk a mile in (someone else's) moccasins" you'd be able to see that people think the way they do for reasons I stated above (or whatever). I don't think this applies to everything; for example, the people who support intelligent design (since it is a political or cultural issue and certainly not a scientific one) are wrong, plain and simple.

Then you are wrong.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, everything is a matter of objective fact.

i think i must not be understanding your point

of course politics is subjective. just like morals are subjective.

of course i can think that someone else's politics is dead wrong, thats part and parcel of it being subjective.

there are some issues where you should go with your own self interest, tax policy for example, and some where you should go with the notion that youre interests arent all that important, gay marriage for example.

i think i must not be understanding your point

of course politics is subjective. just like morals are subjective.

of course i can think that someone else's politics is dead wrong, thats part and parcel of it being subjective.

there are some issues where you should go with your own self interest, tax policy for example, and some where you should go with the notion that youre interests arent all that important, gay marriage for example.

But some people don't feel that way. Close-minded political ideologues, for example, or the people who lead political rallies don't seem like they feel it's all a matter of perspective.

So I guess what I'm saying is, if it is all a matter of perspective, what's the point in having any opinion? Aren't you just being selfish? Wouldn't it be better to try and work together and reach a common ground? I doubt it's completely possible of course, but it seems with a lot of issues you can alleviate most people's grudges or concerns.

i think i must not be understanding your point

of course politics is subjective. just like morals are subjective.
Wrong.

To every question, there is an objectively correct answer.

of course i can think that someone else's politics is dead wrong, thats part and parcel of it being subjective.
The existence of disagreement is not evidence of there being no objectively correct answer.

So I guess what I'm saying is, if it is all a matter of perspective, what's the point in having any opinion? Aren't you just being selfish? Wouldn't it be better to try and work together and reach a common ground? I doubt it's completely possible of course, but it seems with a lot of issues you can alleviate most people's grudges or concerns.
its politics, it works best when we all advocate our own best interest.

the trick is to understand what your own best interest IS.

"Are political issues subjective?"

Can you say "DUH," boys and girls? :rolleyes:

Can you say "DUH," boys and girls? :rolleyes:
Du...

Dah...

D...

Dum...

Bugger, this is harder than it looks.

:p

Du...

Dah...

D...

Dum...

Bugger, this is harder than it looks.

:p
Hehehe! Why am I not surprised? :D

"Are political issues subjective?"

Can you say "DUH," boys and girls? :rolleyes:

Except, they're not.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

God, you really sound like a broken record.

Again, I defy you to refute a single word she has ever said or written.

Well?

Wrong.

To every question, there is an objectively correct answer.


The existence of disagreement is not evidence of there being no objectively correct answer.

What is your opinion on X?
This can only have a subjectively correct answer. There is no objective fact that could qualify as an answer.

With regard to politics and political decisions, whether there is an objectivity to these depends on whether there is agreement as to the purpose of politics. For any given purpose (to protect those in need, to defend the nation from agressors, to install the conditions for fair trade etc. etc.) there are probably objectively correct decisions. First, however, we have to agree on a purpose to the political endeavour, which seems to be a subjective matter.

Then you are wrong.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, everything is a matter of objective fact.

Whether or not you were being serious, you made me laugh.

EDIT - ooh, you are! Hehe. Randroids are fun!

Whether or not you were being serious, you made me laugh.

EDIT - ooh, you are! Hehe. Randroids are fun!

Blue's a riot. He's the definition of the term "Randroid".

What is your opinion on X?
This can only have a subjectively correct answer. There is no objective fact that could qualify as an answer.
How so?

First, however, we have to agree on a purpose to the political endeavour, which seems to be a subjective matter.
Also incorrect. The purpose of politics is to ensure that individuals are left free to do as they please so long as they honor their contracts and refrain from initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another.

Others may think otherwise, but they are wrong.

Also incorrect. The purpose of politics is to ensure that individuals are left free to do as they please so long as they honor their contracts and refrain from initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another.

Others may think otherwise, but they are wrong.

I love this guy already.

I love this guy already.

You should've seen his first post. :p

Wrong.

To every question, there is an objectively correct answer.

What color hair is the most attractive?

What color hair is the most attractive?

Ayn Rand had dark hair and as Ayn Rand is correct about everything it stands to reason that her physical appearance was perfect. Thus the answer is objectively dark hair. *nods*

What color hair is the most attractive?

Class, man, pure class. :D

Ayn Rand had dark hair and as Ayn Rand is correct about everything it stands to reason that her physical appearance was perfect. Thus the answer is objectively dark hair. *nods*

LOL!

In all seriousness, I always thought she was kinda funky looking.

LOL!

In all seriousness, I always thought she was kinda funky looking.

http://godscopybook.blogs.com/gpb/images/ayn_rand.gif

Whoa, she has an emo haircut too! Emo haircuts are the best!


Honestly, Randroids claim to have all of the answers, but unlike other religions, there's no eternal damnation for mocking it. They lose.

http://godscopybook.blogs.com/gpb/images/ayn_rand.gif

Whoa, she has an emo haircut too! Emo haircuts are the best!


Honestly, Randroids claim to have all of the answers, but unlike other religions, there's no eternal damnation for mocking it. They lose.

My grandma at that age made Rand look like a troglodyte. And that is an emo haircut!

True. Then again, is there really eternal damnation for mocking other religions? Hahahaha.

My grandma at that age made Rand look like a troglodyte. And that is an emo haircut!

True. Then again, is there really eternal damnation for mocking other religions? Hahahaha.

"Lulz my grandma was hotter"

o.O

Well, Rand is always right, so there can be no other belief systems anyway.

How so?
My opinion is my subjective evaluation. there is nothing objective in it. So when I am asked what my opinion is on any subject, the answer I give may be objectively right or wrong with regard to the subject, but is subjectively correct ,always, with regard to my opinion, which is what was being asked about. That is unless you wish to try to claim that I can be wrong about what I think about something.


Also incorrect. The purpose of politics is to ensure that individuals are left free to do as they please so long as they honor their contracts and refrain from initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another.
Your opinion. In which case you are subjectively correct. The purpose of politics for many is to ensure that the society is fair in its outcomes. This is different to your opinion, but is as valid. After all it is their opinion as to what politics is about.

Others may think otherwise, but they are wrong. No, they are right. Politics is about just what we choose it to be about. That is the objective fact about politics. It is not what you choose it to be about for all people, nor is it what others choose it to be about for you. As such politics is inherently subjective, sorry Ayn, but your thesis fails on this. There is objectivity, true, but it is in the wrong place for your personal subjective purposes.

Dude, don't bother - it's impossible. Just watch, shake your head, and laugh.

How so?
LOL, way to provide the only objective answer. I think answering a question with a question is the only way out of the question.

Dude, don't bother - it's impossible. Just watch, shake your head, and laugh.

I know I cannot convince Tangled up in Blue, but there are others out there who can avoid entering this dead end road in philosophical thought if someone shows the futility of the line of thinking.

I know I cannot convince Tangled up in Blue, but there are others out there who can avoid entering this dead end road in philosophical thought if someone shows the futility of the line of thinking.

Meh, fair enough, I suppose. Personally, I could use the added humour that more converts would bring.

LOL, way to provide the only objective answer. I think answering a question with a question is the only way out of the question.
I think he was asking you for proof that the question doesn't have an objective answer.

Besides it does. "My opinion is that X sucks" is objective.

If you'd have asked for the value of X compared to Y you would have made your point.

I think he was asking you for proof that the question doesn't have an objective answer.

Besides it does. "My opinion is that X sucks" is objective.

Your opinion is in your mind only. It is not, and can never be, objective.

If you'd have asked for the value of X compared to Y you would have made your point.
Not so. Values can be objectively defined and as such an objective comparison of the value of X against Y can be made. Opiniopns do not have this property of being objectively definable. I could equally have asked what you feel about X, or what you think about X etc. Your interanl and personal reaction to X is necessarily subjective. An evaluation is not.

I think he was asking you for proof that the question doesn't have an objective answer.

Besides it does. "My opinion is that X sucks" is objective.

If you'd have asked for the value of X compared to Y you would have made your point.
where's this 'your' part coming from? I'm just a mostly-innocent bystander.

and btw, "my opinion is that X sucks" is not objective, since there is no substantiating evidence to prove that the conclusion is based on an unbiased dissemination of available material. which is only possible by a Randroid.

How so?


Also incorrect. The purpose of politics is to ensure that individuals are left free to do as they please so long as they honor their contracts and refrain from initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another.

Others may think otherwise, but they are wrong.

bring up the point that is the death of your argument there - goals. There may be an objectively superior way to attain my goals, but the method used depends very much on my goals.

Politics are subjective - for instance, my opinion on the death penalty is influenced by my belief that murder doesn't make a life worthless, whereas others say that these people don't deserve to live. Objectively decided who is right please.

Of course, you can't because once you get into social/ethical territory Libertarians become clueless (well, even more so than usual)

there are little issues on wich there is an absolute truth.

Is a banana yellow?
The logical answer would be: "yes", but an alternative is:
"Well, depends under which light you see it, wether you're colorblind, ...."

So, there is no absolute truth. EVERYTHING is subjective.

Nice isn't it ? :D

there are little issues on wich there is an absolute truth.

Is a banana yellow?
The logical answer would be: "yes", but an alternative is:
"Well, depends under which light you see it, wether you're colorblind, ...."

So, there is no absolute truth. EVERYTHING is subjective.

Nice isn't it ? :D

They can also be unripe and therefore green.

Or rotten and black.

*nods*

This is objectively my 100th post, I win the thread, wooT!

http://godscopybook.blogs.com/gpb/images/ayn_rand.gif

Whoa, she has an emo haircut too! Emo haircuts are the best!


Honestly, Randroids claim to have all of the answers, but unlike other religions, there's no eternal damnation for mocking it. They lose.


SWEET JESUS, KILL IT WITH FIRE!

*Runs screaming, to return with a mob armed with pitchforks and plenty of the aforementioned fire*

Mundane politics related questions like "what effect will this legislation have" or "will this level of taxation/spending balance the national budget" can have pretty objective answers, but ethical and moral issues ("what SHOULD be done") can't, because different political factions can have completely different goals.

What is "right" depends completely on what YOU want to happen to society. If you can clearly define your social and economic goals, you may be able to formulate a fairly objective list of things which should be done in order that your political ideas are carried out (and thus are "right").

The really big political question which dictates "right" and "wrong" on all issues is "What sort of society do we want?"

That question is subjective and can never really be rationally answered, but once you figure out how you feel about it, it's possible to come up with objective "rights" and "wrongs" on actual issues.

What color hair is the most attractive?

Red.

My opinion is my subjective evaluation. there is nothing objective in it. So when I am asked what my opinion is on any subject, the answer I give may be objectively right or wrong with regard to the subject, but is subjectively correct ,always, with regard to my opinion, which is what was being asked about.
Your attempt to hide your lack of substance with empty pretentiousness is impressive.


The purpose of politics for many is to ensure that the society is fair in its outcomes.
But they are wrong.

Politics is about just what we choose it to be about.
No, there is one objectively correct purpose for politics, and it follows logically from man's fundamental nature as a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest for its survival.

Mundane politics related questions like "what effect will this legislation have" or "will this level of taxation/spending balance the national budget" can have pretty objective answers, but ethical and moral issues ("what SHOULD be done") can't, because different political factions can have completely different goals.

What is "right" depends completely on what YOU want to happen to society. If you can clearly define your social and economic goals, you may be able to formulate a fairly objective list of things which should be done in order that your political ideas are carried out (and thus are "right").

The really big political question which dictates "right" and "wrong" on all issues is "What sort of society do we want?"

That question is subjective and can never really be rationally answered, but once you figure out how you feel about it, it's possible to come up with objective "rights" and "wrongs" on actual issues.

People have different goals with politics, yes. But only one of those sets of goals is objectively correct. The rest are invalid.

People have different goals with politics, yes. But only one of those sets of goals is objectively correct. The rest are invalid.

Ok, but if so, tell me which is objectively correct (don't worry, I can guess which), but more importantly explain to me, scientifically, rationally and using facts WHY they are correct. Do not use any sort of opinion.

A is A.

Do we feel the way we feel about politics because of perspective or our place in society or what our parents think, etc., or are there political issues where the "other side" is just wrong? My feeling is that most of political thinking is indeed subjective, and if you were to "walk a mile in (someone else's) moccasins" you'd be able to see that people think the way they do for reasons I stated above (or whatever). I don't think this applies to everything; for example, the people who support intelligent design (since it is a political or cultural issue and certainly not a scientific one) are wrong, plain and simple.

Despite being pretty loud about my beliefs, I do think that politics are subjective. Everyone has a different opinion of how a country should be ruled, which is where political parties come in. Although some parties may have platforms that seem more or less effective, law-abiding, etc. than the others, there really is no way to decide which parties are "right" and which are "wrong." Why not? Simply because there is no way to define "right" and "wrong" in politics. It's too subjective and sensitive an issue.

A is A.

You're correct, but now explain how, using objective logic, the law of identity implies "Tangled up in Blue's philosophy is objectively right"?

I can say "P=IV, therefore welfare and economic regulations are good". I'm right of course. Power is current times voltage, but my random equation is a non-sequitor. I didn't explain the "therefore" bit, which is what you need to do!

Then you are wrong.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, everything is a matter of objective fact.

The only thing Ayn Rand ever proved was the objective fact that she couldn't write her way out of a wet paper sack.

Not that the philosophy of Objectivism is stupid, it is, the woman was just intensely boring.

The existence of disagreement is not evidence of there being no objectively correct answer.

Resistance is futile.

Wrong.

To every question, there is an objectively correct answer.


The existence of disagreement is not evidence of there being no objectively correct answer.

Of course Ayn Rand's "proof" for this depends on the existence of an objectively correct answer as an axiom. The only reasoning she ever managed was "circular."

"I am, therefore I am"

Except, they're not.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

You need to read some non-idiot philosophers. For a start, may I suggest:
Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Niccolo Macchiavelli, Tom Swift, Renee Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Rousseau, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Paine, Alexis de Tocqueville, Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill, Hannah Arendt, John Rawls.

I don't agree with all of them, or any of them altogether, but at least they'll help to broaden your mind. Something Rand could never do. And if you must, read Nietzche, get your nihilistic cruelty from the... er, fountainhead.

A is A.

I have a subjective belief that Tangled isn't an idiot. I suspect I'm Objectively wrong. Just this once Rand may have led me to a valid answer, Huzzah!

You should've seen his first post. :p
Meh, I'm not going to tango with Tangled Up In Blue. Last time I argued with an objectivist, my testicles got a beating.

of course most issues (at least most...) are subjective.

You need to read some non-idiot philosophers. For a start, may I suggest:
Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Niccolo Macchiavelli, Tom Swift, Renee Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Rousseau, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Paine, Alexis de Tocqueville, Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill, Hannah Arendt, John Rawls.

I don't agree with all of them, or any of them altogether, but at least they'll help to broaden your mind. Something Rand could never do.

How dare you leave out from your list: X, Y and Hume?

(The X and the Y are for others to fill in OK.)

How dare you leave out from your list: X, Y and Hume?

(The X and the Y are for others to fill in OK.)

I don't have Blue Tangle's massive disembodied brain. I forgot Hume. Besides which I don't remember reading him, so I can't make any judgements. Unless you mean Brit Hume. I suspect our little tangled ubermind is already familiar with that one.