On 11/10/2012 1:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:43:11 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> It seem that those Americans seem to think that only the extremes are
>> possible: Either Chinese-style totalitarian communism/socialism, or
>> completely unrestricted capitalism. There's no middle ground.
>
> The use the "slippery slope" argument (or maybe I should say 'misuse')
> that if we start down that road, there's no turning back.
>
> Which is complete BS.
>
> Jim
>
Yep. But, as to why.. Well..

1. We, literally, have been known to let out mental patients, to make 
room for people with small time drug busts, to.. that might be "one" 
explanation. lol

2. Otherwise, the simple reality is that the US is the only place, other 
then the Middle East, where being fanatical is a status symbol for 
politicians, not an embarrassment. And, when everyone from the TV, to 
the political parties, look for "controversy", instead of, "reality", 
when making decisions about how to win viewers/supporters.. rational 
solutions are somewhat lacking.

Finally, 3. There is the overtone window. We have spent 30 year being 
told, without successful refutation, that the delusional "trickle down 
economics" is actually an economic model, not a pyramid scheme on 
governmental scale, and like 70 years, having the super-Christians, who 
got pushed into the US out of Europe, and really only have places like 
Africa, to retreat to now (and with all those black people there... No, 
I am serious, this is almost certainly on huge reason they don't 
leave.), spread around everything from anti-gay, to anti-nonchristian, 
to anti-you name it, as "truth". Our side, has, regrettably, actually 
suffered one of those "slippery slope" things, by trying to find allies 
everyplace, even among those that where enemies, in an attempt to get 
the truth out. It works about as well when apposing pseudoscience, 
theocracy, and economic bullshit, as has the foreign policy it echos, 
i.e., "We will support this dictator because he promises to keep this 
other one in check, then help that one, in trade for oil, and so he can 
fight a war with a third one, so that some fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. 
nut will be weakened/give us something/not side with someone else, etc.

This is completely nuts of course, but... its pretty much exactly what 
certain people suggest be done to appose extreme religion. Side with 
group A, because they appose group B on some issue, but B, when its 
about something C causes problems with, etc. I am no math expert, but.. 
seems to me you have three outcomes from that kind of BS: 1. The net 
result is positive. 2. The net result is negative. 3. All the sums 
cancel, and you don't get anywhere at all (with the understanding that 
some subsets can still go really really negative, as long as someone 
else goes really really positive, producing no net gains or losses).

In other words, a damn stupid way to solve a serious problem with, for 
example, science understanding.

Post a reply to this message