Philosophical Vegan Forum

I think Red's point is:

There is no scientific consensus on who would be the better president.
As such, we have to use our own judgement.
Our judgement is limited to:
1. Those we trust to receive recommendations from (which is subjective, and basically based on faith in the knowledge and honesty of the person)
2. Those subjects we know something about

It is not unreasonable, on those grounds to say something like:

"I only know nuclear power is important, Trump supports it and Sanders is against it. Maybe something else is more important, but I don't know about that, so I'm supporting the person on those grounds. If I happen to learn something else in the future maybe I'll change my mind."

brimstoneSalad wrote:I think Red's point is:

There is no scientific consensus on who would be the better president.
As such, we have to use our own judgement.
Our judgement is limited to:
1. Those we trust to receive recommendations from (which is subjective, and basically based on faith in the knowledge and honesty of the person)
2. Those subjects we know something about

It is not unreasonable, on those grounds to say something like:

"I only know nuclear power is important, Trump supports it and Sanders is against it. Maybe something else is more important, but I don't know about that, so I'm supporting the person on those grounds. If I happen to learn something else in the future maybe I'll change my mind."

Yeah that's a more intelligent attempt of what I was somewhat trying to get at.
I am aware that it's subjective (however I'm interested in reading up on it, since I don't know much about it), so that pretty much makes me just as bad as a theist in a sense. However, I will try to invest in those books mini has recommended, so it isn't as subjective.

Now looking back at this discussion, I think we were both being quite juvenile. Apologies.

RedAppleGP wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:I think Red's point is:

There is no scientific consensus on who would be the better president.
As such, we have to use our own judgement.
Our judgement is limited to:
1. Those we trust to receive recommendations from (which is subjective, and basically based on faith in the knowledge and honesty of the person)
2. Those subjects we know something about

It is not unreasonable, on those grounds to say something like:

"I only know nuclear power is important, Trump supports it and Sanders is against it. Maybe something else is more important, but I don't know about that, so I'm supporting the person on those grounds. If I happen to learn something else in the future maybe I'll change my mind."

Yeah that's a more intelligent attempt of what I was somewhat trying to get at.
I am aware that it's subjective (however I'm interested in reading up on it, since I don't know much about it), so that pretty much makes me just as bad as a theist in a sense. However, I will try to invest in those books mini has recommended, so it isn't as subjective.

Now looking back at this discussion, I think we were both being quite juvenile. Apologies.

Ah, to me it seemed like he was equating it to a scientific consensus.

I still don't think that explanation would be reasonable, because obviously nuclear energy isn't the only relevant policy, and I pointed out other relevant things.

What I also tried to point out was that knowledge of nuclear energy is only knowledge of science, and that doesn't translate to general political knowledge. If you basically only know about nuclear energy, you still can't make the call that Trump > Bernie.

Thanks.
I'm sorry too, I shouldn't of escalated things by insulting you. I was just annoyed that you didn't seem to be addressing a lot of what I was saying and it made me... Less than rational about responding to you.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

EquALLity wrote: In contrast to the campaign he's been running so far?

Remember, we all thought he would veer center to appeal to independents. He's done the opposite with this choice of running mate.

I'm glad Hillary didn't pick Sanders; that would have made it harder to vote for her. But I still would have due to the Pence pick.
I think Trump may have shot himself in the foot with that one, with respect to independent voters. Same thing with McCain and Palin.

Hopefully there will be enough turnout for Hillary.

Yeah. I wonder if that's because he didn't want to pivot to the center, or if he just couldn't find any sensible politicians to run with him.

Would you not have voted for Hillary/Bernie if it was Trump/libertarian?
Even if you don't like progressives like Bernie & Warren, it would've helped her politically by getting Bernie supporters (who less than 60% of plan on voting for her).

EquALLity wrote: I still don't think that explanation would be reasonable, because obviously nuclear energy isn't the only relevant policy, and I pointed out other relevant things.

Then he would just be taking your word for it instead -- that's not better by any means. The difference is first hand knowledge. If you don't have it, there is a large obstacle in the way, which amounts to doing a significant amount of research and learning about a topic. Not everybody has time for that. If somebody doesn't have time for that, he or she just has to take the word of somebody he/she trusts and guesses is credible.

Lacking that research, it's understandable for people to vote based on the one issue they understand/know about.

Remember how many times I said I wasn't decided on Trump? Because I was waiting to see how he would campaign in the general.

It's still possible for him to turn this around, but unlikely. The anti-gay positions of his running mate will probably kill his chances unless he can convince the guy to have a very public change of heart.

EquALLity wrote: What I also tried to point out was that knowledge of nuclear energy is only knowledge of science, and that doesn't translate to general political knowledge. If you basically only know about nuclear energy, you still can't make the call that Trump > Bernie.

Any knowledge can give you a better chance. It's not reliable to vote based on one issue, but it's better than flipping a coin. As you add knowledge of other issues, it becomes more reliable. One is better than none, though.

Even if you know all of the issues, that doesn't mean you'd know which is better because there are still many unknowns, like what the exact consequences of these policies are (we can only guess), and whether the candidate is even honest about what he or she is going to do.

EquALLity wrote:Yeah. I wonder if that's because he didn't want to pivot to the center, or if he just couldn't find any sensible politicians to run with him.

That might be. He could have sabotaged himself there and turned off his best chance of a sane running mate.

EquALLity wrote:Would you not have voted for Hillary/Bernie if it was Trump/libertarian?

I don't know, I probably would not encourage people to vote for them. But as I said, it would depend on what they did in the general.

EquALLity wrote:Even if you don't like progressives like Bernie & Warren, it would've helped her politically by getting Bernie supporters (who less than 60% of plan on voting for her).

I understand, but it would depend on how they affect the policies. The running mate also has political power from this, and may even become president.

I won't support a ticket if I can't accept the possibility of the running mate becoming president. Trump will have to work hard to sell his running mate to independents.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Then he would just be taking your word for it instead -- that's not better by any means. The difference is first hand knowledge. If you don't have it, there is a large obstacle in the way, which amounts to doing a significant amount of research and learning about a topic. Not everybody has time for that. If somebody doesn't have time for that, he or she just has to take the word of somebody he/she trusts and guesses is credible.

Fair enough.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Lacking that research, it's understandable for people to vote based on the one issue they understand/know about.

He doesn't really know about nuclear energy; he's just taking your word on it.

But even if he did, you shouldn't vote if you only know about one issue. You should either learn about more issues or not vote.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Remember how many times I said I wasn't decided on Trump? Because I was waiting to see how he would campaign in the general.

It's still possible for him to turn this around, but unlikely. The anti-gay positions of his running mate will probably kill his chances unless he can convince the guy to have a very public change of heart.

I doubt that'll happen.

In what way could he turn it around that'd convince you to vote for Trump?
I mean, Trump is basically irredeemable at this point. He just invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Any knowledge can give you a better chance. It's not reliable to vote based on one issue, but it's better than flipping a coin. As you add knowledge of other issues, it becomes more reliable. One is better than none, though.

Even if you know all of the issues, that doesn't mean you'd know which is better because there are still many unknowns, like what the exact consequences of these policies are (we can only guess), and whether the candidate is even honest about what he or she is going to do.

It's not perfect, but there are metrics we can use to determine how honest a politician is and what the policy consequences would be.

For example, if you're a Senator who voted against DOMA to stand up for the gay community when it wasn't politically expedient *cough cough* Bernie Sanders *cough cough*, you probably have integrity.
If you supported DOMA but began supporting gay rights when it was politically expedient *cough cough* Hillary Clinton *cough cough*, you probably don't have as much integrity.
...If you say the President behind DOMA is a rapist and that another President was possibly assassinated by Ted Cruz's father, you're Donald Trump.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't know, I probably would not encourage people to vote for them. But as I said, it would depend on what they did in the general.

You really think Bernie is that much worse than Trump that having him as VP would be a reason to consider each group equal?

brimstoneSalad wrote:I understand, but it would depend on how they affect the policies. The running mate also has political power from this, and may even become president.

I won't support a ticket if I can't accept the possibility of the running mate becoming president. Trump will have to work hard to sell his running mate to independents.

VP's don't necessarily have a lot of power. In fact, Bernie would probably have less influence as VP than as a Senator.

But yes, he could become President. I agree that VP's are more important than they typically are acknowledged to be. But when the other side's nominee is a monster, you don't really have much of a choice.

EquALLity wrote:He doesn't really know about nuclear energy; he's just taking your word on it.

How can you prove that? Plus, that statement has no basis to it. I read this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1837&hilit=nuclear

EquALLity wrote:But even if he did, you shouldn't vote if you only know about one issue. You should either learn about more issues or not vote.

Also on GMOs. Plus, these are very important compared to other things, relatively speaking. Nuclear power, from my understanding, is the most reasonable option we have given our current situation. I'm still learning what I can about GMOs.

RedAppleGP wrote:How can you prove that? Plus, that statement has no basis to it. I read this thread:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic ... it=nuclear

I thought you were saying you were just taking brimstone's word on nuclear energy.

Just reading that is also in a sense taking brimstone's word on it if you don't fact-check, though it's more reasonable than not knowing anything about it and basing your opinion on a candidate entirely on that thing because of someone's opinion.

I assumed you didn't know much about it because you were calling it 'nucular energy', but maybe that was just a slip.

RedAppleGP wrote:Also on GMOs. Plus, these are very important compared to other things, relatively speaking. Nuclear power, from my understanding, is the most reasonable option we have given our current situation. I'm still learning what I can about GMOs.

According to what? You don't seem to know what the other issues are (no offense, you just don't care about politics, so why would you?), so you can't say that.

EquALLity wrote: I thought you were saying you were just taking brimstone's word on nuclear energy.

When did I say that?

EquALLity wrote: Just reading that is also in a sense taking brimstone's word on it if you don't fact-check, though it's more reasonable than not knowing anything about it and basing your opinion on a candidate entirely on that thing because of someone's opinion.

Come on, would I do that?

EquALLity wrote: I assumed you didn't know much about it because you were calling it 'nucular energy', but maybe that was just a slip.

It was a poke at Bush.. get you fax straight.

EquALLity wrote:
According to what? You don't seem to know what the other issues are (no offense, you just don't care about politics, so why would you?), so you can't say that.

I think the role of nuclear energy and GMOs are most worthwhile (that isn't to say other things aren't important).

EquALLity wrote: He doesn't really know about nuclear energy; he's just taking your word on it.

I think he already covered this. Red probably knows more about nuclear power than 99% of the population.

EquALLity wrote: But even if he did, you shouldn't vote if you only know about one issue. You should either learn about more issues or not vote.

That's where you're wrong.

Yes, you should ideally learn about more issues, but if you don't, you should still vote based on the one single issue you know.

Imagine a million scientists who each only know one random thing out of a set, but are correct on that thing and how policies the politician has will affect it.
You WANT them all voting on that single thing they know about instead of not voting, because they each know about different things, and cumulatively their votes will favor the candidate who is right on or has better policies on more things. With a relatively even distribution of knowledge (or one proportional to importance of the issues), it's actually very reliable.

It's not a perfect heuristic, but statistically speaking it works out more for the better than for the worse -- as long as that one thing you know, you actually do know, and aren't completely wrong on. If you're wrong on the one thing you thought you knew, you have other problems.

If other people know other things, and the candidate I vote for based on the thing I knew is wrong on all of those other things, I want him or her to lose (I just didn't know it at the time of voting).
As long as voters are correctly informed as to the reasons they are voting, and not wrong about their beliefs relating to those reasons (for example, know that global warming is a real threat, and understand one true thing about the solution), democracy works very well. It's when people are incorrectly informed or just flat out wrong and vote on those reasons that democracy fails. It doesn't fail because of honest ignorance, but because of ignorance which falsely assumes itself to be knowledge.

EquALLity wrote: In what way could he turn it around that'd convince you to vote for Trump?

He could say he was wrong about the gays. And in fact, he is gay, which is why he felt so hostile to gays. He was just in denial, and his conversion didn't work.
And then Trump could present a more coherent and practical foreign policy, and make some very strong commitments to nuclear power.

It's very unlikely.

EquALLity wrote: He just invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails.

I can't really care about that kind of thing. It's just a red herring that distracts from the issues.

EquALLity wrote: It's not perfect, but there are metrics we can use to determine how honest a politician is and what the policy consequences would be.

A politician being honest doesn't mean the policy consequences will be good. It also doesn't mean the politician will get anything done.

EquALLity wrote: For example, if you're a Senator who voted against DOMA to stand up for the gay community when it wasn't politically expedient *cough cough* Bernie Sanders *cough cough*, you probably have integrity.

That's fine, but that's in the past so it doesn't matter. Politicians change their minds all of the time. Hillary is supportive now, which is what I care about. I interpret a change in belief from wrong to right as mature and open minded. That's why I said I'd have supported Sanders if he corrected just one of those things he was wrong on (nuclear power or GMOs) because it would be proof he can change his mind for the better.

EquALLity wrote: If you supported DOMA but began supporting gay rights when it was politically expedient *cough cough* Hillary Clinton *cough cough*, you probably don't have as much integrity.

I don't want somebody with "integrity" A.K.A. a bad stubborn politician who can't get anything done because he's an ideologue, and is absolutely uncompromising (in good AND bad ways both) and will never change his views on anything no matter how much evidence.

EquALLity wrote: ...If you say the President behind DOMA is a rapist and that another President was possibly assassinated by Ted Cruz's father, you're Donald Trump.

Not something I care about.

I'm focused on the issues I know and fully understand. I'm like that one issue voter, except it's like a half-dozen issues. I don't factor in other things I don't know well.

EquALLity wrote: You really think Bernie is that much worse than Trump that having him as VP would be a reason to consider each group equal?

Yes. I would probably not have supported either.

For now, my support is Hillary's to lose. As long as she doesn't do anything stupid, and Trump's side doesn't do anything brilliant, it's probably a settled matter for me.