• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

French activist kills himself in Notre Dame Cathedral in gay marriage protest

And... What do you find is inherently dangerous about the Tea Party?


Tim-

It's a faux-small party branch of the main party status quo. They present themselves as an actual option and something that would push towards smaller government, but work with the very parties responsible for gross expansion of powers of the government against the free exercise of rights of the People. They are nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing trying to entice dissatisfied voters back into the fold of the status quo even though they will do nothing to actually change the status quo.

Snake oil salesmen, carpetbaggers and nothing more.
 
No, philosophy is the root of all reason and knowledge. Language is a tool to communicate effectively and efficiently the knowledge and reason gained by philosophy. Our intelligence distinguishes us from animals, far greater than written language. Which while powerful in and of itself, is but one consequence of our intelligence.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Philosophy can't exist without language. Language, however, can exist without philosophy. Therefore, which is more essential? I'm not diminishing the importance of philosophy by any stretch. However, language is clearly at the root of all understanding.
 
It's a faux-small party branch of the main party status quo. They present themselves as an actual option and something that would push towards smaller government, but work with the very parties responsible for gross expansion of powers of the government against the free exercise of rights of the People. They are nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing trying to entice dissatisfied voters back into the fold of the status quo even though they will do nothing to actually change the status quo.

Snake oil salesmen, carpetbaggers and nothing more.

Ah, so that is YOUR take. Opinion noted. Has the thought ever occurred to you that with such an entrenched two-party system the ONLY way to effect change is to saturate the status quo over time with reasonable approaches to problem solving that appeal to an ever growing constituency? The Tea Party is akin to the blue-dog democrats. Unlike the blue dogs, I hold out more optimism for the tea party to maintain some degree of integrity to their core values of smaller government, fiscal sanity.



Tim-
 
Is the Tea Party still in existance? I read somewhere they haven't released any "official" statements since July 2012.

When folks think of the Tea Party, they think of Perry, Palin, Bauchmann, Paul... the list of weirdos goes on.

Did they not lose a big chunk of their funding? Do they have any "Tea Party Candidates?" Or just suck-up's from the Republican Party begging for their vote?

I have long thought that the "Tea Party," was just a G.O.P. invention designed to give the whackier people in their party a corner to stand in as to keep their embarassment away from the G.O.P. as a whole.

When I first heard of the Tea Party, I was very excited about it. I wanted in. The "anti-party" party. That is until they became what they become. A rightwing extremo joke.
 
So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Philosophy can't exist without language. Language, however, can exist without philosophy. Therefore, which is more essential? I'm not diminishing the importance of philosophy by any stretch. However, language is clearly at the root of all understanding.

Thinking came first, quite clearly. Language does not make intelligence, intelligence makes language. Philosophy can and does exist without language. It's merely harder to communicate. The written language is indeed very powerful, but it didn't invent itself nor did it invent philosophy. Thinking has always been first, everything else we wield has fallen from that.
 
Nobody gives a **** about the opinions of a dead man.

I agree with you that I DONT give a **** about his opinion but this would be true if he was alive also. Bigots dont interest me.

but in general thats not true for all people.
 
Thinking came first, quite clearly. Language does not make intelligence, intelligence makes language. Philosophy can and does exist without language. It's merely harder to communicate. The written language is indeed very powerful, but it didn't invent itself nor did it invent philosophy. Thinking has always been first, everything else we wield has fallen from that.

Communication isn't harder, it's impossible without language.

Again, does language make intelligence or does intelligence make language? That's a chicken-and-egg question. Either way, one cannot exist without the other. Without language, we're merely animals reacting to the world around us.

Language makes conceptualization and abstract thinking possible. Without it, Philosophy would be nonexistent.
 
Communication isn't harder, it's impossible without language.

Various forms, yes. Spoken developed rather early as a necessity to express philosophy, written later.

Again, does language make intelligence or does intelligence make language?

Very clearly intelligence makes language. I cannot engage in language without intelligence, impossible. Looking at written words does not make me more intelligent; I must possess the intelligence to understand the written word. This is obvious.

That's a chicken-and-egg question.

No, it's really not

Either way, one cannot exist without the other.

Yes you can. You can certainly have intelligence without language. It is very possible to think without being able to express your thoughts to others. Language makes that communication of philosophy possible, so language is necessary for the societies that we've constructed. But without intelligence, there is no language. Without substantial intelligence, there is no written language. Everything flows from intelligence.

Without language, we're merely animals reacting to the world around us.

Language makes conceptualization and abstract thinking possible. Without it, Philosophy would be nonexistent.

No, my thinking is not dependent upon my ability to tell you what it is that I'm thinking.
 
Well that man is certainly a moron.
 
And nothing of value was lost. Here I thought suicide was a sin. So consistent!
 
Various forms, yes. Spoken developed rather early as a necessity to express philosophy, written later.

Language didn't develop "as a necessity to express philosophy." If you think it did, please cite data supporting this assertion. Actually, there are several theories on the origin of language, and none of them even suggest anything close to your fanciful speculation.

Origin of language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Very clearly intelligence makes language. I cannot engage in language without intelligence, impossible. Looking at written words does not make me more intelligent; I must possess the intelligence to understand the written word. This is obvious.

Language is needed for intelligence, as intelligence is needed for language. It's a chicken-and-egg paradox.

Yes you can. You can certainly have intelligence without language. It is very possible to think without being able to express your thoughts to others. Language makes that communication of philosophy possible, so language is necessary for the societies that we've constructed. But without intelligence, there is no language. Without substantial intelligence, there is no written language. Everything flows from intelligence.

It's clear you haven't studied this at all, you're just expressing an opinion. I have. Language is as much internal as it is external. Think about what language, at it's core, really is. A language is a collection of symbols, whether in written or aural form, each symbol representing something or some action.

This ability to think in symbols is exactly the same skill as our ability to think abstract thoughts. Rather than just looking at a rock and experiencing "rock" as an animal would, we are able to conceptualize the idea of a rock, because we can represent the object, mentally, with a symbol which can be accessed later, or combined with other symbols into more complex abstractions.

This is the very thing that distinguishes human intelligence from animal intelligence.

No, my thinking is not dependent upon my ability to tell you what it is that I'm thinking.

Again, language is as much internal as it is external.
 
Is this candidate #1 for this year's Darwin award?

Just a small point darwin awards involve removing your crappy genes from the gene pool which means you have to do it before breeding. my thought is that a 78 year old man either already polluted the gene pool with his seed, or has other more direct reasons than his suicide for his darwin award. I don't know if has actually had children or not, but if he doesn't there is another reason he didn't spread his seed than his suicide. I am just saying you have to do more than just die in a spectacularly stupid way for a darwin.
 
My feeling si that he was disturbed, certainly depressed, and this issue was only the final straw for him. I dislike such bigotry as much as anyone, but I can feel a little compassion for the fellow. Not for his beliefs, but for his obvious, deep-rooted sadness.
 
Just a small point darwin awards involve removing your crappy genes from the gene pool which means you have to do it before breeding. my thought is that a 78 year old man either already polluted the gene pool with his seed, or has other more direct reasons than his suicide for his darwin award. I don't know if has actually had children or not, but if he doesn't there is another reason he didn't spread his seed than his suicide. I am just saying you have to do more than just die in a spectacularly stupid way for a darwin.

Good point. He probably already spread the idiot seed by then.
 
Back
Top Bottom