Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    VICE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    8,463

    An unfruitful debate I had

    Sorry for clickbaity title, because I don't know how to shorten the topic into a neat title that explains it all.

    So, we were talking about populism, doesn't matter. It became an heated debate that lasted 3 hours when my friend said this, translated to english of course, because we're finnish. This is relevant.

    Populism doesn't cater to what people want, because people don't know what they want.

    I asked if this is true, how can they vote to elect a politician they want? Is that want incorrect?

    He said yes, because they're just choosing that option because there's no other option.

    That's the gist of what he said initially.

    Now, finland isn't in the two party system. We have multiple political parties. And plenty to choose from when voting for a politician to get elected. I argued it's natural to seek out and opt for voting a politician you favor the most. There's nothing flawed with wanting that.
    My other friend and I had to describe the notion of need and wanting something, and how they're natural emotions, how your background and status effect some aspects and in relation, how voting for a person you want, is in fact, actually what you want.

    We had to use an hour on a derail he made about definition of danger, and how he believed you shouldn't generalize that all people want wealth and safety. He thinks seeking harm is not evidently self-harming.

    I used an crude analog to mock his point on the wanting something being flawed

    I had a thirst and had a glass of water. Was i wrong in wanting water? Did i actually want milk? But i didn't have milk because i had run out of milk?

    He said yes. He said I was wrong in wanting water.

    He also said someone might not need food water or sleep. And was fascinated, FASCINATED to hear that living being do need them.

    Anyway, sorry if you read this.

    - - - Updated - - -

    He debated that it's a philosophical question and that do people really want to elect a leader, or they elect them because it feels right.


    Now, i'm not sure these aren't the same thing. For him they are not.

    And he said that if someone doesn't vote then does it mean he's without want or need. I said of course not.

    Just few bits from the debate. It was mostly this.

    Thanks to Cake~


  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    15,174
    The multi-party system is so fucking stupid when you think about it. At least with a bipartisan system, roughly half the population will be pleased. But when one of the twelve parties wins, now an eleventh of the population is pissed.


  3. #3
    Ink Spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Horn of Africa
    Posts
    6,831
    Lock your friend in a cage for 3 days without food, and make sure he/she doesn't sleep, and ask your friend if he/she still believes that afterwards. Might be one of those New Age faggots



  4. #4
    Caves's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,336
    You're friends with @COV;?

    "It doesn’t matter how many times you get knocked down. All that matters is you get up one more time than you were knocked down."

  5. #5
    VICE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    8,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Kong View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The multi-party system is so fucking stupid when you think about it. At least with a bipartisan system, roughly half the population will be pleased. But when one of the twelve parties wins, now an eleventh of the population is pissed.
    Eh, lets not go there, neither is perfect, but both work in different cases

    Thanks to Cake~


  6. #6
    Ink Spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Horn of Africa
    Posts
    6,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Kong View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The multi-party system is so fucking stupid when you think about it. At least with a bipartisan system, roughly half the population will be pleased. But when one of the twelve parties wins, now an eleventh of the population is pissed.
    USA!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by VICE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Eh, lets not go there, neither is perfect, but both work in different cases
    You know damn well the multi-party system is much better.

  7. #7
    VICE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    8,463
    A topic for different thread.

    Okay, was my friend right? How so?

    Thanks to Cake~


  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by VICE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sorry for clickbaity title, because I don't know how to shorten the topic into a neat title that explains it all.

    So, we were talking about populism, doesn't matter. It became an heated debate that lasted 3 hours when my friend said this, translated to english of course, because we're finnish. This is relevant.

    Populism doesn't cater to what people want, because people don't know what they want.

    I asked if this is true, how can they vote to elect a politician they want? Is that want incorrect?

    He said yes, because they're just choosing that option because there's no other option.

    That's the gist of what he said initially.

    Now, finland isn't in the two party system. We have multiple political parties. And plenty to choose from when voting for a politician to get elected. I argued it's natural to seek out and opt for voting a politician you favor the most. There's nothing flawed with wanting that.
    My other friend and I had to describe the notion of need and wanting something, and how they're natural emotions, how your background and status effect some aspects and in relation, how voting for a person you want, is in fact, actually what you want.

    We had to use an hour on a derail he made about definition of danger, and how he believed you shouldn't generalize that all people want wealth and safety. He thinks seeking harm is not evidently self-harming.

    I used an crude analog to mock his point on the wanting something being flawed

    I had a thirst and had a glass of water. Was i wrong in wanting water? Did i actually want milk? But i didn't have milk because i had run out of milk?

    He said yes. He said I was wrong in wanting water.

    He also said someone might not need food water or sleep. And was fascinated, FASCINATED to hear that living being do need them.

    Anyway, sorry if you read this.

    - - - Updated - - -

    He debated that it's a philosophical question and that do people really want to elect a leader, or they elect them because it feels right.


    Now, i'm not sure these aren't the same thing. For him they are not.

    And he said that if someone doesn't vote then does it mean he's without want or need. I said of course not.

    Just few bits from the debate. It was mostly this.
    I think with how little the general interest is in politics, a lot of people are going to vote for someone based on what their gut tells them, especially in America where Im surprised most people are even literate at all. Trump was one of the most recognisable faces even before he entered the race, he was charismatic and he said a lot of really simple things without really explaining how it would work but sounded good to a lot of simple minded people. Someone like Bernie obviously wasnt going to win because he couldnt become the first black president again.

  9. #9
    I disagree that people don't know what they want. Sure, sometimes a person might go after one thing only to later realize they really wanted something else. But, more often than not, people know what they want. They want job security, healthcare, education, respect and so on.

    It would be more sensible to say people don't always know what's best for them.

  10. #10
    He's not completely wrong, but neither are you.

    Using your analogy, if both milk and water was present in the fridge, it gives more options. While you did settle for water in the end, if milk was available, there's a possibly you could've went for that instead.

    Quite frankly, this was very difficult to read and understand because your story is all over the place. I'm not even sure how some of it is relevant to the argument.
    There are two types of opinions: wrong opinions and my opinions.

  11. #11
    VICE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    8,463
    There's a possibility i would've yes, but the point was wanting thing A, was that what I really wanted? Even if i chose it from 5 different options? Or was i somehow wrong.

    He kept saying there's no choice even though there always is even if the second choice is refusal

    Thanks to Cake~


  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by VICE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's a possibility i would've yes, but the point was wanting thing A, was that what I really wanted? Even if i chose it from 5 different options? Or was i somehow wrong.

    He kept saying there's no choice even though there always is even if the second choice is refusal
    Oh, I see. Then he's thinking more philosophically.

    From what I can tell, he's thinking of a concept in the Mark Twain quote about how there's no such thing as originality. Everything is just a form of another.

    So, even if there's only one choice, that one choice influences the person regardless of the other decisions. That person's "want" is simply influenced by the one decision, so he technically never had a decision in the first place. If that one decision never existed, that "want" would've never existed.

    Hopefully, you're understanding me. There isn't exactly a right or wrong to his statement as both sides have their reasons. Personally, I agree with you because I don't believe in this concept.
    Last edited by Conjunctivitis; 02-21-2017 at 03:52 AM.
    There are two types of opinions: wrong opinions and my opinions.

  13. #13
    VICE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    8,463
    I do understand but the way he stated it without quoting anything came off as babble. This was cathartic to explain, i feel satisfied. But yeah, i doubt he knows of mark twain's philosophy

    We had to argue people need at least something, and living beings want actively at least 1 thing, otherwise they're completely passive.

    Thanks to Cake~


  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Kong View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The multi-party system is so fucking stupid when you think about it. At least with a bipartisan system, roughly half the population will be pleased. But when one of the twelve parties wins, now an eleventh of the population is pissed.
    At the same time, however, half the population is only pleased because they conform their political ideology to what actually exists. For example, there are a lot of libertarians who just end up being Republicans.

  15. #15
    The real issue with the two-party system is that is takes two systems of thought and throws away all other options.

    The multi-party system makes it so that just about any system of ideas can spring up and have a shot at winning.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    15,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The real issue with the two-party system is that is takes two systems of thought and throws away all other options.

    The multi-party system makes it so that just about any system of ideas can spring up and have a shot at winning.
    The bipartisan system is actually more representative of nature and the whole r/K selection theory, though. Conservatives are K-type organisms and liberals are r-types.


  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Kong View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    are K-type organisms and liberals are r-types.
    are you meming or not

  18. #18
    COV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    7,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Jjcb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You're friends with @COV;?
    You talking about me?


    I am Ghaul, and your Light is Mine!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •