Discussion thread for the "Polls only" thread (Part 2)

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
3422

I’m reluctantly going to have to vote for Bob the Asshole. Despite him being a terrible person, his policies are going to affect LOTS of people. I can’t turn down great policies just because the person promoting the policies is an asshole. In fact, that would be an ad hominem fallacy.

Are we supposed to decline a chance to get things like universal healthcare, cleaner air/water, UBI, better income equality, prison reform, labor rights, etc. just because the candidate is a jerk? That would be a recipe for immense regret. I sure wouldn’t be thinking, “It sucks that I’m still making $7.25/hour and school shootings happen every month and the planet’s getting hotter and a trip to the emergency room costs $8,000, but I feel good because President Jim is a moral saint.”

I realize that this is Trumper logic. But the logic that Trump supporters use isn’t wrong - it’s just that the policies are in fact bad.

3423

But you’re ignoring what the poll actually said:

Bob’s policies are “a lot better”. But Jim’s are fine. It’s not great lousy, it’s better/fine.

And what’s better/worse is subjective. I mean, if I’m a neo-nazi, any white power policy is a big improvement over a DEI heavy policy.

For that matter, the two may be mutually exclusive. For example, IRL, one of my policy wants is a much greater requirement for responsibility for those in power - anti-corruption legislation, enforceable morality codes with teeth, etc.

So Bob’s going to make these policies happily which would put himself in jail? Not bloody likely. So what the poll is saying is (IMHO) that Bob is a great candidate for some, unmentioned, specific edge policy that YOU, the voter wants, and will you support it to get what you want, over any other requirement.

It’s not the best written poll - it’s IMHO trying to be too cute in saying “This has nothing to do with the current political climate in the US, no way, no how”.

For that matter, we’re not just talking (using puzzlegal’s Clinton example) about credible allegations of rape, but also possibly murder per the OP. We’re not talking about JUST a philandering, rapist, corrupt, grifting thug, but someone who will kill others.

No. Do not give that person cover or power.

3424

No, it’s not a well written poll. Because of course it’s about the current election. And a lot of Trump’s supporters really dislike Harris’policies (regulation, safety nets, you know, basically big government) and don’t believe that Trump has done anything worse than some sexual harassment and some grifting. Not a good man, for sure, but not the evil incarnate of the poll.

3425

It’s not that it has nothing to do with it, it’s clearly inspired by it, all I said is that it wasn’t to be treated as a parallel. In the real election “Bob” doesn’t have good policies, and Bob is written to be worse than “Bob”.

3426

Just because a politician has stated that he has a policy, doesn’t mean he will follow that policy.

The way I see it, is that all politicians make promises (until a policy is actually actually enacted, it is only a promise)

Some of those promises will be fulfilled. Some of those promises will not be fulfilled, for whatever reason. Some of those promises will actually be worked against, either directly or with smoke and mirrors.

I don’t look at what candidates are promising me what I want.

I look at what candidates are promising that I object to and vote against them.

3427

Yeah, I skipped it. Especially as whatever Bobs promises are- he is known to never carry them out anyway. You can promise me a million dollars and a pony, but when Bob is known never to deliver, why think he will this time?

3428

You’re denying the hypothetical.

I chose to vote for Jim.

Just because I like Bob’s policies better doesn’t mean they are better—because I am very fallible, and because in the real world policies affect different people in different ways and have all sorts of side effects. I think a person like Jim would be more likely to listen to expert opinions and diverse viewpoints and adjust his policies if warranted.

And I believe the job of presidenting involves more than just enacting policies. For some of those presidential duties (such as representing America to itself and to the rest of the world), character and integrity matter.

3429

Oh yes! For sure! And remember, presidents don’t usually “enact” policies; usually they recommend them and congress wrangles about them and rewrites them and sits on them for weeks and months,

3430

I haven’t owned a comb for 25 years or so. My hair is very very straight. I keep it short. As long as I keep it short it doesn’t need brushing. If I kept it long I would go bankrupt buying products to make my hair do anything but go straight down.

3431

I still have a few combs, but my hair is short enough, and now thin enough on top, that it’s very rare for me to actually have to use a comb any longer. I’ll sometimes put a little bit of pomade into my hair, to add a bit of texture, but I can just work that in with my fingers.

3432

I have a few combs but I use them to straighten out rug fringes (OCD).

3433

You made me laugh. My mom used to do that.

3434

So, a tree falls in the woods.

I generally loathe the debates about the question. I mean, okay, fine, it’s something for philosophic sorts of pot-heads to enjoy pondering when high and relaxed, but it always infuriates me.

Mostly because there’s the literal answer (yes, of course, soundwaves) and the philosophical debate of if sound has significance absent observation. But, of course, that ignores everything else in the forest…

I hate the question because to discuss the second meaning, you have to give thinking life, and humans (our current only semi-proven example of such) a privileged POV. And, while not to the extent that I’m sick of American exceptionalism, I’m pretty sick of the common human obsession with how amazing we are.

We are indeed capable of being amazing, but dammit we’re a prideful, self-important lot by and large (humanity, not the SDMB, but here too!).

As pointed out by our greatest poets, artists and comedians, we’re here, and we seem to think we’re so important, but even with all the damage we do, the world will remain, probably long after we’re gone. Spending too much time pondering our amazing place just inflates our already grandiose self image.

Sorry, I know the poll doesn’t deserve such a serious, and harsh response, but it’s one of those questions (much like the troll-ey problem) that brings out a certain sense of superiority in people, and therefore raises my hackles.

3435

If it makes you feel any better, I’ve always kinda had the same reaction. “Wtf? Everything that lived near that tree was startled by the noise. Of course it made a sound.”

Unless “no one was around to hear it” included the ants and the sparrows and the squirrels. In which case i question whether that’s actually a forest…

3436

Yeah it does, thank you. :slight_smile: I hang out predominantly with two sorts of people: empirical science-types like my wife (and for that matter, I lean this way) who blink once and say “Yes. Isn’t it obvious?” and English/Philosophy major sorts ( I’m one of those btw, but don’t share all the tropes) who spend reams of text, words, or electrons debating the grand ramifications of the question.

-sigh-

-calms self down-

I guess it’s one of those easy low-stakes debates to be had, compared to most sorts of philosophical, religious, or political debates (to the extent that those three are separate that is!).

3437

The squirrel never actually heard the tree fall. It never had the chance to hear it. Just like, they say, if you heard the gunshot, you did not get hit.

3438

It’s a forest. There are squirrels in lots of nearby trees. But also, squirrels have a built-in parachute (that big fluffy tail) and aren’t usually seriously hurt by falling out of trees. Unless the tree falls ON the squirrel, I guess.

3439

I have a similar reaction to, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Well duh, creatures had eggs long before there were chickens.

I realize I’m being overly literal there, and they are really asking about chicken eggs, not about any old egg. But it kind of ruins the question once you think about it that way.

3440

Yeah. My reaction’s always “there’s always someone around to hear it. Maybe there isn’t anybody human; but any forest has so many other creatures that humans haven’t managed to name them all yet, and a shitload of them can perceive sound waves.”

If all you’ve got is a tree with nothing else around but other trees – that’s not a forest. And that tree’s probably falling over because all the trees are dead, because what keeps a forest alive is all those interactions among species.

For that matter – I’m not sure that trees can’t in some fashion perceive sound waves. It turns out they can sense things that we didn’t think they could.

3441

If a tree falls in the forest, can the other trees hear it scream?