By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account.

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

Discussion in 'News' started by vanfullofretards, Jun 1, 2007.

  1. Spambot5000

    Spambot5000 New Jack

    Joined: Aug 30, 2011 Messages: 86 Likes Received: 7
    Obviously TEDtalks would not have the same audience percentage as a prime publication of a previous era, simply because there were less publications available. I was more so using the site as an example of a broader point. I actually have zero knowledge of the hit rate it gets, I just know of its general popularity. I take your point about the high rate of readership though.

    I am also aware of the definition of rationality. I have not confused rationality with irrationality, I have also not argued that people are not capable of rationality. What I have said, and I maintain, is rationality is subjectively bound. However, perhaps I have not been as clear as I could. What I am referring to is rationality in action. My reason for this is that we have been talking about the ability to identify the rational, or irrational, actions of others in relation to their consumer choices. Rationality in action is essentially a process of means-ends calculation, and in application to real people in real situations means-ends calculations are a product of subjective and contextual knowledge. This contextual knowledge is difficult if not impossible to communicate in its entirety. Thus, my ability to judge the rational actions of another depends on the extent to which I can identify the end they wish to achieve and I can assess the means through they wish to achieve it. In light of this, I will make one more attempt to explain my position taking a different tact. If that fails to win you over, then I will leave the issue alone.

    If we inject the notion of rationality into an abstract scenario we can test its operation. To borrow from my prior example; if a man wishes to buy a car and has stated that his sole objective is to get a car capable of achieving the highest speed for a fixed budget, then if that man elects to purchase a car which can achieve a speed lower than another on offer we can say he has acted irrationally. His rational choice would be to choose the car in accordance with his objective. This kind of objective judgement is fully possible within the context of an abstract thought experiment as the variables are assumed to be limited. We discuss this man and his objective as if there are no other complicating factors.

    When applied to real world scenarios it becomes significantly less clear, as there is now an unknown and potentially vast quantity of variables to consider. Using the same example, yet imagining this as a real scenario rather than a simplified abstract experiment, if the man has stated he wants to buy the fastest possible car, yet does not, what can we can we truthfully say about the rationality of his decision? I would argue that we cannot say much at all. The man may have intentionally deceived us to impress; the man may have simply failed to communicate other interests such as colour or fuel economy that also factored into his decision; the man may have been privy to new information which changed his decision. Etc. In this way, I suggest that identification of rationality in the actions of others is complex, and potentially eludes objective measurement. This is as our experience is subjective and contextually bound, as is our knowledge of others.
  2. Soup forgot his password

    Soup forgot his password Member

    Joined: Jun 9, 2011 Messages: 738 Likes Received: 54
    There were a huge number of publications in 1776—Pamphlets, books, newspapers—The wealth of knowledge hasn't changed since then. The technology we use to communicate has, but has the telegraph lead to more knowledge? No. It only lead to an ideology of "speed" which has lead to us first marveling and now accepting an accelerated volley of useless fragmented information. Novelty news or "news of today" has replaced "news" entirely. Also, like I said before, thinking takes time. You can't speed up learning. "Speed" simply adds to confusion. First the telegraph, then the penny papers, then the radio, then the tv, and now the internet have only served to irreversibly change public discourse from what it was in the 17th century and early 18th century: Rational, logical, poignant, and focused on things that actually mattered to the daily lives of readers.

    Point being is that TED does not distribute MORE information than they had in 1776. People are creating robots now, so the fuck what? Does TED ever take the time to explain how this constant need for technology is healthy? Hell no, because TED isnt interested in a public discourse about why technology is good. It just assumes it's good, because if it didnt then people would question the value of TED and the internet and very possibly turn that shit off.

    People didnt buy Thomas Paine's pamphlet because the printed word was a new novelty and they had to have one. Common Sense didnt obtain such popularity because it was sitting alone on every bookshelf. Consumers weren't screaming for Barnes and Nobel to open so they could buy the newest edition of harry potter. Conspicuous consumption didn't exist. These were people who feared the possibility of a famine and purchased goods only when it was in their self-interest to do so. Common Sense was one of the most culturally significant books ever written. Its logic is sound. It's argument is inspirational. It compels the reader to do something about a problem you can see right outside your doorstep. Even today it's one of the best reads you can have. I've posted it in the book section because it's so good. But no, EVERYBODY was reading and writing. There was no shortage of writing on book shelves and at speakeasy's.

    I'm reluctantly running through a lot of ideas at high speed because this is the internet and the internet doesnt always allow for long discussions. My battery is also at 2%, which doesnt allow for long discussions either.

    Finally, the point i find the most interesting in your post: What practical reason is there for buying a fast car? There isn't one. Buying a race car—on a budget or otherwise—is an irrational decision. You want to buy a car that's fast for the emotion you get in owning it. Emotion undermines rational behavior, which by definition of terms would mean it's an "irrational" behavior. A rational consumer would take the bus, move closer to work, and realize that highways are the untenable constructs of a society gone mad and petition for a change in city planning/insist on a less volatile infrastructure.

    Edit: And as far as the rest of your example. You haven't deduced anything. All you've described is a man that stated he's been swayed by the power of emotion and then ends up not pursuing an impulse. That's the end of the scenario. It would've been irrational for him to buy a car simply because it's fast and he can afford it.
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2012
  3. McLovin

    McLovin Senior Member

    Joined: Mar 22, 2008 Messages: 1,963 Likes Received: 80
  4. McLovin

    McLovin Senior Member

    Joined: Mar 22, 2008 Messages: 1,963 Likes Received: 80
    The Convention is where delegates are meant to cast votes for the nominee, yet the Tampa Bay Times Forum was already plastered with embedded Romney banners, and additional 'Mitt' signs for people to hold were also smuggled in to make it appear that many are behind him. All Ron Paul material was promptly confiscated.

    Six states filed to put Ron Paul into nomination while the rules still said it only took five states. Realizing this, the RNC met early Tuesday morning to change the rules in order to make the minimum needed as eight states, which Ron also would have had if the RNC had not decided to take the Ron Paul delegates away from LA and ME. One bus of delegates on the way to the RNC was essentially kidnapped for two hours, and arrived too late to vote on the matter said the RNC.

    Rather than taking proper vote counts or listening to objections, several votes were clearly not unanimous, but this didn't stop the RNC "leaders" from ignoring the dissent. Video surfaced just after this video published, but a link is in the video showing that the teleprompter already had pre-approved results before the public vote was taken. Ron Paul's name and delegate totals were not allowed to be mentioned officially on the stage, even when he won the specific state.

    The Republican Party has lost all hope, and the disrespect Paul supporters received will eventually be replied with "I told you so."

    ALSO: click and watch the annotations
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012

    CILONE/SK 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Jun 25, 2003 Messages: 10,264 Likes Received: 283
    So, Libertarians change their affiliation to vote Republican and try to change the Republican party and all of you are mad that they did not let it happen?

    CILONE/SK 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Jun 25, 2003 Messages: 10,264 Likes Received: 283
    Also, if the majority of the Republican party actually did not vote for RP in 44 states (I will give you 6 states, even though we both know that is not true), why are RP supporters trying to force his name on the ballot? If he was not selected by "The People", isn't that the "free market" at work?

    The "Parties" are private organizations, are they not allowed to change their rules if they want? Trying to influence them for the minority, seems to go against RP principles. How come you are all against letting the "market" sort it self out?

    ILOTSMYBRAIN Elite Member

    Joined: Mar 17, 2005 Messages: 4,531 Likes Received: 112

    Just another reason on top of other reasons that have occurred during this election process.

    The market isn't free either, but you are right the majority did vote for Romney.

    As far as changing the culture of the Republican party, it has changed a few times since the birth of the United States, why not change it again?

    I also think it has, your just going to have to wait another 10-20 years before you see it, because the people mostly that shifted to the Libertarian line of thought are pretty much mostly younger Americans, and they are still in school, or just getting out.
  8. McLovin

    McLovin Senior Member

    Joined: Mar 22, 2008 Messages: 1,963 Likes Received: 80
    @cilone/sk i see what u did there

    changing rules at the last minute? they are the ones who didn't let it sort itself out. If Romney was indefinably the winner, let the winner win & let the looser lose. What are they afraid of?





    @ ILOTSMYBRAIN, I just realized we posted the same video. different link though

    I also noticed this is my 1 thousandth post. It is a noble one i must say.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012

    CILONE/SK 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Jun 25, 2003 Messages: 10,264 Likes Received: 283
    Regardless of what rules they changed, a private organization has voted on who it wants to represent them. Even if there is a market shift over a few years, how is it allowable under RP principles to allow a minority to change who the majority voted for? They very clearly voted for someone else, why not let that stand?

    Under the "free market", RP has not been the publics choice, 3 times. Right or wrong, or good or bad, under his principles all you followers have been stating for numerous pages, you should allow the market to work. Anything less then that, makes you all hypocrites. Unless of course, you can explain how the "free market" principals do not apply to you. I would think that you would want free elections and that you all would lead the way in that, but I guess I am wrong. Changing th election from someone who was clearly the person who had the majority of the votes to someone else is fundamentally wrong based on all the liberty and freedom talking points that every RP follower has brought up for years.

    CILONE/SK 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Jun 25, 2003 Messages: 10,264 Likes Received: 283
    You saw what I did, because you recognized your own principles in the points I made. What you failed to see was the failings of the RP supporters in following those principles.
  11. Spambot5000

    Spambot5000 New Jack

    Joined: Aug 30, 2011 Messages: 86 Likes Received: 7
    You don't know what a free market is.

    CILONE/SK 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Jun 25, 2003 Messages: 10,264 Likes Received: 283
    That is a very insightful post.:lol: :lol: :lol:

    I wish I would have thought of that. To be able to say that someone does not know something and be able to win a debate that easily.

    What will you Australians think of next. :lol: :lol: :lol:
  13. McLovin

    McLovin Senior Member

    Joined: Mar 22, 2008 Messages: 1,963 Likes Received: 80

    CILONE/SK 12oz Loyalist

    Joined: Jun 25, 2003 Messages: 10,264 Likes Received: 283
    While I think the debates should include him (for purely comical relief), I think he is making quite a stretch to say "30% of independent voters in America".

    Then again, he could mean all "independent" voters to include the Green Party and not just the Libertarian voters.
  15. McLovin

    McLovin Senior Member

    Joined: Mar 22, 2008 Messages: 1,963 Likes Received: 80
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2012