[freshcutgrass]

My beliefs about the essential motivating forces of human nature lead me to deduce certain conclusions about the best political philosophy to produce the greatest aggregate "good" for members of our society

The essential motivating forces of human nature are...fear and rational thought.

The two are of course oil and water.

The more we introduce fear, the less rational thought there will be. The byproduct of fear is narcissism.

The conservative-thinking mind is one motivated by fear.

The Rob Fords of the world represent a lot of fear, and little rational thought. This is why they believe in gravy trains, that streetcars are not efficient use of roadways, that "private" is always better than "public", and tend to believe in imaginary beings (god). Rational pursuits such as math and physics are only to be employed when they appear to support their bias, but are to be ignored when they don't (Like Rob Ford's fiscal plan).

The election of a Rob Ford in a city like Toronto has opened my eyes as to just how irrational many in this city are.

Bah...maybe it's just a momentary brain fart...like when we elected the NDP to govern the province?

 

[Hipster Duck]

I first wish to commend you for taking the time to point out the glaring deficiencies in my "contributions" to this forum. You and several others of your UT brethren continue to guide me along the path to becoming a better person or, at the very least, a better chicken; my gratitude is beyond words.With regard to your specific "observations", would it be asking too much of you to provide an explanation of the "deeper philosophical concept" you reference? Also, if (as I am sure is the case) you possess the "clear capacity to differentiate the presuppostions underlying various political points of view being expressed", would you please do so? Now, a mea culpa: I did neglect to "properly" define human nature, as I did not think it was necessary to do so; I unreservedly apologize. I find it remarkable that, as you indicate, "some of us have long figured out that you don't know what you are talking about" as I have only been posting to this forum recently. In addition to your trenchant analysis and rapier wit, you are also apparently gifted with the abilities of a seer. Would that Toronto voters had been blessed with your supernatural powers of foresight during the 2003 mayoral campaign. Oh well, there is no point in crying over spilled Miller.

I used to write like this in high school after I watched too many episodes of Frasier.

 

[Tewder]

I used to write like this in high school after I watched too many episodes of Frasier.

Or these days...

 

[Tewder]

The conservative-thinking mind is one motivated by fear.

The Rob Fords of the world represent a lot of fear, and little rational thought. This is why they believe in gravy trains, that streetcars are not efficient use of roadways, that "private" is always better than "public", and tend to believe in imaginary beings (god). Rational pursuits such as math and physics are only to be employed when they appear to support their bias, but are to be ignored when they don't (Like Rob Ford's fiscal plan).

The election of a Rob Ford in a city like Toronto has opened my eyes as to just how irrational many in this city are.

Don't you think you are oversimplifying to force a point? I mean, how 'rational' is it to dismiss every conservative or anybody who voted Ford as motivated by fear. Some people just wanted change. Some people just wanted to see tighter control of the bureaucracy and spending, whether you think this is irrational or not, or whether you think there was no further control to be achieved. Be careful of blind, strident partisanship. It can make one appear just as irrational... as we see in these threads all the time.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Don't you think you are oversimplifying to force a point?

no

I mean, how 'rational' is it to dismiss every conservative or anybody who voted Ford as motivated by fear.

totally rational

Some people just wanted change.

change for the sake of change implies a change for the worse is acceptable....irrational.

Some people just wanted to see tighter control of the bureaucracy and spending, whether you think this is irrational or not, or whether you think there was no further control to be achieved

.

I'm sure some did, but you'd have to be pretty gullible to think Rob Ford policies would achieve it. And what makes people susceptible to gullibility? Yes, you guessed it...irrational thinking. Rob Ford played on their fears.

Be careful of blind, strident partisanship. It can make one appear just as irrational..

I can see you're making a statement here...I'm just not sure what it is. Are you saying I'm being partisan here? I'm not against Rob Ford because he represents any political party...I'm against Rob Ford because after 10 years of watching him, I've concluded that he is sincerely stupid and incompetent. When I use the term "conservative", I'm not necessarily referring to a particular stripe of political party (although it generally works out that way). My partisanship begins and ends with the idea that rather than let fear dictate that everything is a threat to our personal status quo, let's be more rational about it instead. If you're being rational, you aren't very likely to be "blind".

 

[Tewder]

Conflating your own personal standpoint to the only one that makes rational sense is not balanced, objective, enlightened or, well 'rational'. It's difficult to not read your postings of late as anything other than ideological hyperbole (and I generally enjoy your postings). I'm not a Ford-ite at all, by the way. I don't like him at all either, and have some personal anecdotes to confirm my own personal perspective, but Ford's term will not destroy the city, and some good may actually come from the shake-up and the political/ideological tension. In other words pounding your shoe on the table that there is absolutely no gravy to be found is just as silly as Ford's saying we don't have a revenue problem. Polarized, dogmatic posturings that are dismissive of others are not constructive in any way.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Conflating your own personal standpoint to the only one that makes rational sense is not balanced, objective, enlightened or, well 'rational'.

Except I'm not saying rational = my opinion at all. Perhaps my standpoint is irrational...but we won't know until we examine it in a rational way. All I'm saying is let's be rational...and you are countering that with telling me that I'm being irrational for suggesting it. I'm limiting what I'm calling "irrational" to that which can be seen as irrational....nothing else. There's no "dogma" involved.

some good may actually come from the shake-up and the political/ideological tension.

You keep saying this. Again, you are advocating "shake-up" for the sheer sake of it. Explain to me why this is a rational tactic. Sounds more like gambling rather than logical, rational process.

In other words pounding your shoe on the table that there is absolutely no gravy to be found is just as silly as Ford's saying we don't have a revenue problem. Polarized, dogmatic posturings that are dismissive of others are not constructive in any way.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. And please don't make accusations unless you plan to back them up with something resembling a fact, rather than crude characterizations.

You see, the wonderful thing about being rational, is you need to rely on little things like FACTS and EVIDENCE.

Let's be rational shall we?

Why does a Rob Ford (or anyone who thinks like a Rob Ford) "THINK" we should get rid of streetcars?
Because their knowledge of the subject begins and ends with what is happening a few feet in front of their bumpers. "Hey...that streetcar is slowing "me" down. So, in their logic, if we removed that streetcar, "they" would move faster. Rather simple isn't it? Except when we are logical and rational about it, we KNOW this is not the case, based on facts and evidence obtained in a logical, rational manner.

So...I think I'm fairly justified in saying that anyone who thinks we are better off getting rid of streetcars are being irrational about it.

I never said there was no "gravy" to be found (whatever gravy is). I said Rob Ford's gravy was not to be found....based on the FACT he did not produce any. Rob Ford did not "theorize" this gravy...he apparently had evidence of its existence, and knew how much it was...otherwise he would not have told us in his Financial Impact Statement outlined in his electoral campaign.

Since he told us he would reduce spending in 2011 by $525.6 million without increasing taxes or cutting services, without asking the province for funds, as well as illuminating the VRT and LTT (worth approx $290 million in revenue in 2011), all the while producing a projected 2011 budget surplus of $22.6 million (based on a projected 2011 deficit of $503 million). The whole "gravy" thing is wonky from the start, but some simple math puts 2011 gravy reduction at about $800 million. How much of this is "savings" in "wasted tax dollars" is not known, since he intends to sell city assets as part of the plan. He does say it would be "at least" $125 million in each of 2011 & 2012, which leaves us with about $675 million in pure wasted taxpayers gravy. Now...did he intend to blow the entire $345 million in surpluses and reserves to balance the 2011 budget? Well, some of it he wouldn't have even been aware of...but he did not mention anything about this in his fiscal plan, so who the hell knows.

Now...let's look at the FACTS.

He INCREASED spending by about $100 million.
He did NOT illuminate the LTT
He INCREASED water and garbage fees and cut transit service

Since he did not produce the numbers he said he would, and his numbers were based on said gravy, then it is rational to conclude he is not able to produce gravy. This does not prove there cannot be gravy mind you...just his ability to produce it. But if the "gravy man" cannot produce gravy, then there's a good chance gravy isn't as easy to come by as some like to think.

 

[Tewder]

Except I'm not saying rational = my opinion at all. Perhaps my standpoint is irrational...but we won't know until we examine it in a rational way. All I'm saying is let's be rational...and you are countering that with telling me that I'm being irrational for suggesting it. I'm limiting what I'm calling "irrational" to that which can be seen as irrational....nothing else. There's no "dogma" involved.

It is irrational to make blanket statements such as all conservatives are motivated by fear. More to the point, it is a polarized and sensational stance that sidetracks from the real issue that from the rational and objective position of many reform was needed, which led them to vote Ford. Now, you may disagree with that position, rationally, but to dismiss it as innately erroneous or irrational - or worse to blindly characterize it as racist for example as some here would - is, well it's just wrong in my opinion.

You keep saying this. Again, you are advocating "shake-up" for the sheer sake of it. Explain to me why this is a rational tactic. Sounds more like gambling rather than logical, rational process.

All else being equal, power corrupts and apathy sets in when political parties or administrations are not 'shaken up'. It follows from this that in the American system US Presidents can only serve two terms. I don't necessarily agree with this mechanism but I do feel that a healthy political spectrum is one that is diverse and that will allow for differing viewpoints. This is a good thing. Miller didn't have all the answers no matter how faithfully you may have supported him. Conversely, Ford will not be entirely 'evil'. His position may actually lead to some good things, and the tension from a reinvigorated opposition that challenges him will serve the city well, in the long run.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. And please don't make accusations unless you plan to back them up with something resembling a fact, rather than crude characterizations.

I apologize if I did. I wasn't alluding to you specifically in the 'shoe pounding' analogy.

You see, the wonderful thing about being rational, is you need to rely on little things like FACTS and EVIDENCE.

Except that facts and evidence are rarely objective, or at least the interpretation of them isn't. Just read two different history books that deal with the same thing and you will see what I mean.

 

[adma]

Or these days...

Naw; somehow, I'm inclined to believe that IH8TTC is old enough to be his father or even grandfather (but'd be more likely on an escorts' "bad date list" than in such a parental/grandparental position)

 

[freshcutgrass]

It is irrational to make blanket statements such as all conservatives are motivated by fear.

The term I used was an adverb...not a noun. I imagine your confusion centres around thinking I am referring to "people" ("conservatives" vs "liberals"). I am not (A "liberal" is not the opposite of a "conservative"...a liberal is just a person who has a tendency to exhibit less conservative-thinking). Everyone is guilty of conservative-thinking to some degree or another. I am only pointing out a well known definition of a certain human behaviour, so it's not a "blanket statement"any more than saying 1+1=2 is a blanket statement about math.

More to the point, it is a polarized and sensational stance that sidetracks from the real issue that from the rational and objective position of many reform was needed, which led them to vote Ford.

Back here again are we? You keep repeating that people voted for "reform". For the sake of argument, let's assume reform IS needed. This assumes something is not working well. The "rational" reason for wanting change, is to improve what you think is wrong. But voting for change for the sake of change, allows for that change to result in what was not working to actually be worse. But hey...it's change. LOL

So, you might say that Ford voters actually believed that his policies would result in improvements to what they thought was wrong. But anyone who looked past the rhetoric and meaningless soundbites, it was clear this was not the case. But the conservative-thinking mind is not interested in open-minded dialogue, challenging themselves or finding insights....they have whatever opinion they have, or are easily persuaded because of this, and would rather have their fears reinforced by having it regurgitated back to them. This is why people listen to Sara Palin, Glen Beck and Fox News.

Now, you may disagree with that position, rationally, but to dismiss it as innately erroneous or irrational - or worse to blindly characterize it as racist for example as some here would - is, well it's just wrong in my opinion.

You are now entering straw man territory...I have no clue what "racism" you are referring to.

I do feel that a healthy political spectrum is one that is diverse and that will allow for differing viewpoints. This is a good thing.

I totally agree. But does this describe how Rob Ford rolls? I'm sorry, but throwing a Rob Ford into the fray might be entertaining, but it certainly won't add anything positive (that's an opinion, not a fact).

Except that facts and evidence are rarely objective

Well, I'm afraid that's the best we have to work with, and has a much better track record than anything else.

 

[adma]

I totally agree. But does this describe how Rob Ford rolls?

Well, he's kinda spherical, so he'd roll pretty well, I reckon

 

[Phil McAvity]

^Hahahaha!

The essential motivating forces of human nature are...fear and rational thought.

The two are of course oil and water.

The more we introduce fear, the less rational thought there will be. The byproduct of fear is narcissism.

The conservative-thinking mind is one motivated by fear.

The Rob Fords of the world represent a lot of fear, and little rational thought. This is why they believe in gravy trains, that streetcars are not efficient use of roadways, that "private" is always better than "public", and tend to believe in imaginary beings (god). Rational pursuits such as math and physics are only to be employed when they appear to support their bias, but are to be ignored when they don't (Like Rob Ford's fiscal plan).

The election of a Rob Ford in a city like Toronto has opened my eyes as to just how irrational many in this city are.

Bah...maybe it's just a momentary brain fart...like when we elected the NDP to govern the province?

While fear and rational thought are definitely factors in behaviour, love is also a strong factor. It explains that which can not be explained by either fear or rationality.

How you arrive at the conclusion that the conservatives are only motivated by fear is utterly baffling given that conservatives simply pine for days gone by. They believe that society was better in the past than it is today. In many ways I agree and I fail to see a connection between that belief and fear especially given that in many empirical ways it can be proven that society was more cohesive in the past.

Your apparent disdain for both conservatives and the NDP leads me to believe that you must be a left-leaning libertarian. Am I right?

 

[nfitz]

How you arrive at the conclusion that the conservatives are only motivated by fear is utterly baffling given that conservatives simply pine for days gone by. They believe that society was better in the past than it is today.

Conservatives pine for days gone by? When gays were in the closet? When women didn't have the vote? When raping your wife was legal? When slavery was legal? When whites were supreme? When practising anything but a particular brand of Christianity was grounds for death? How far back do they want to go?

Even I'm not that cynical about Conservative motivations. Am I naive?

Perhaps the mods should check the IP of this "new" member who jumps in here so quickly into an old, stale, debate. I'd say the odds are that it is a former banned member, returning to haunt us.

 

[archanfel]

Conservatives pine for days gone by? When gays were in the closet? When women didn't have the vote? When raping your wife was legal? When slavery was legal? When whites were supreme? When practising anything but a particular brand of Christianity was grounds for death? How far back do they want to go?

Even I'm not that cynical about Conservative motivations. Am I naive?

Perhaps the mods should check the IP of this "new" member who jumps in here so quickly into an old, stale, debate. I'd say the odds are that it is a former banned member, returning to haunt us.

How about when the Chinese were calling the white men "barbarians"? Or when the Christians were prosecuted by the Romans? Conservatism is not about whites or men or Christianity. It's about moral codes trumping individual freedom. In the ancient times, when ladies were ruling the clans, conservatism was probably about how to stop men from gaining power.

Ironically, now liberalism increasingly stands for keeping the status quo. The state keeps individuals under heavy tax burden in the name of common good. Freedom of speech is muzzled in the name of political correctness. Democracy is only allowed to make the "right" choices. And of course, forum members can't express their opinions without being accused of being a previous banned member. I dread the day when liberalism and conservatism become one.

 

[Phil McAvity]

Sorry nfitz, never been a member of UT before and I don't think you are naive, I just think you're some guy who hand-picked some really obvious examples of inhumanity from the past to suggest that is the type of conservatism I believe in because of course it isn't. Your argument is exactly the type of idiocy that sadly, I am very used to from liberals. Also, since i'm new here it's obviously not, "an old, stale debate" to me.

archanfel, not only is today's liberal all for keeping the status quo but another irony of them is that they are often the most closed-minded people I meet.