2020 US Election Thread

[Frownland]

I guess I'm not totally sure of what your broader question is. If you want to go really broad, maybe "How well do our leaders reflect or represent the populace?"? That removes the false dilemma of R v D at least.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I guess I'm not totally sure of what your broader question is. If you want to go really broad, maybe "How well do our leaders reflect or represent the populace?"? That removes the false dilemma of R v D at least.

I like the question in principle and I think that would lead to an interesting though quite tangential discussion - but I think that particular question is too broad and nebulous for our purposes. To have any kind of meaningfull discourse with this question, it would beg further questions like:

"Our" - who is the identifying party implied? America? The west? The world? I suppose identifying this would reasonably define "populace"

"leaders" - what leaders? Political leaders? Spiritual leaders? Intellectual leaders?

"reflect or represent" - reflect or represent how? the interests of the populace? the ethnic makeup of the public?

"How well" - how do we quantify this?

Does R v. D necessarily have to be a false dilemma?

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

I like the question in principle and I think that would lead to an interesting though quite tangential discussion - but I think that particular question is too broad and nebulous for our purposes. To have any kind of meaningfull discourse with this question, it would beg further questions like:

"Our" - who is the identifying party implied? America? The west? The world? I suppose identifying this would reasonably define "populace"

"leaders" - what leaders? Political leaders? Spiritual leaders? Intellectual leaders?

"reflect or represent" - reflect or represent how? the interests of the populace? the ethnic makeup of the public?

"How well" - how do we quantify this?

What do you think?

Does R v. D necessarily have to be a false dilemma?

No, but it is.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

What do you think?

What do I think about what? What a better general question might be?

Originally Posted by Frownland

No, but it is.

What do you mean by "it is"? You mean the way I used it is a false dilemma? I don't quite understand how. If we're comparing the two major political parties in the US and we're noting their differences, if I asked what would be the causality for racial disparity between two said parties, how is that a false dilemma? Should I bring the Greens and the Libertarians into the discussion as well? Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding you.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

What do I think about what? What a better general question might be?

How would you answer the questions you asked?

What do you mean by "it is"? You mean the way I used it is a false dilemma? I don't quite understand how. If we're comparing the two major political parties in the US and we're noting their differences, if I asked what would be the causality for racial disparity between two said parties, how is that a false dilemma? Should I bring the Greens and the Libertarians into the discussion as well? Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding you.

It was sloppily used tbh, but I meant that the republican versus democrat comparisons are a false dilemma which is something to be avoided. Maybe thinking about it like this will help: you ask people if they want an Xbox, their choices are yes and no, but if you ask people if they want an Xbox or a Playstation, the focus shifts from the value of a console to which one is better or worse. It's meant to obscure.

I also still don't really know what your broader question is.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

How would you answer the questions you asked?

As much as I appreciate this exercise in socratic dialogue, the questions I asked were simply there to illustrate that the question, as you proposed it, was too broad to be practically useful here.

Originally Posted by Frownland

It was sloppily used tbh, but I meant that the republican versus democrat comparisons are a false dilemma which is something to be avoided. Maybe thinking about it like this will help: you ask people if they want an Xbox, their choices are yes and no, but if you ask people if they want an Xbox or a Playstation, the focus shifts from the value of a console to which one is better or worse. It's meant to obscure.

I haven't brushed up on my knowledge of logical fallacies lately, but I thought I had a decent understanding of what a false dilemma was, I just wasn't sure exactly how you were applying it to my question - and perhaps I'm still not. If I'm to ask,

"What is the cause of the racial disparity between the Republican party and the Democratic party?",

I'm not presenting any kind of dilemma, false or not - it's not a "this or that" kind of thing, nor am I trying to obscure anything. I'm simply asking for causality of an effect that we see in reality. Right?

Originally Posted by Frownland

I also still don't really know what your broader question is.

I don't know if I could distill it any further than:

"What is the cause of the racial disparity between the Republican party and the Democratic party?"

I expect the answers to this question to be generally similar - something along the lines of: "Democrats have better served the interests of black and hispanic voters" or "Many people in these disparate racial groups are poor/lower-class and Democrats have better served the interests of the poor" - as elph said, it's not exactly a tough question to answer, but I thought that perhaps it could be a springboard into further, more interesting discussions, similar to what you proposed with your question, i.e. "How well have these leaders actually represented their voters - and how would we quantify that?"

Perhaps you conduct your discusssions with your interlocutors differently, but I somewhat prefer to start at ground zero - and carry on discussions from there (generally - when I'm not feeling cynical or sarcastic, that is).

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

As much as I appreciate this exercise in socratic dialogue, the questions I asked were simply there to illustrate that the question, as you proposed it, was too broad to be practically useful here.

That's the nature of broad questions. Usefulness implies an end, what are you trying to accomplish?

I haven't brushed up on my knowledge of logical fallacies lately, but I thought I had a decent understanding of what a false dilemma was, I just wasn't sure exactly how you were applying it to my question - and perhaps I'm still not. If I'm to ask,

"What is the cause of the racial disparity between the Republican party and the Democratic party?",

I'm not presenting any kind of dilemma, false or not - it's not a "this or that" kind of thing, nor am I trying to obscure anything.

It was sloppily applied as I mentioned, but the obscuring element of just asking questions bro is still present. Example: my role in this convo.

I'm simply asking for causality of an effect that we see in reality. Right?

Nah.

Perhaps you conduct your discusssions with your interlocutors differently, but I somewhat prefer to start at ground zero - and carry on discussions from there (generally - when I'm not feeling cynical or sarcastic, that is).

I've already pointed out that you're starting far from ground zero though...