"Consent of the Governed": Now a Commodity

[CraigD]

For me, this thread has reaching near Monty Python-esque heights of entertainment, so much so I must restrain my impulse to adopt a funny walk and join in. Though I’m a sucker for an Epimenides paradox, such as

As Karl Popper informs us we cannot prove the truth of a factual statement, however, we can prove that it is false.

(If this statement is true, have we proven it? If we have proven a statement true, have we disproved it?), as coberst maintains

The time for games are over. This is a serious matter.

Though he was applying it to society as a whole, this thread seems a good place to start.

 

As a career technologist, I must join others in objecting to the implication of this threads opening post that TV –defined loosely as audio-video, encompassing broadcast television, movies in theatres and in homes and other venues, and other similar media distributed in various ways – is inherently more “vapid” or less “enlightening” than books – print media. Although the neuro-perceptual act of reading is significantly distinct from that involved in TV viewing, reading can be vapid and unenlightening, while TV can be profound, edifying, and enlightening. It’s critical, I think, for students of culture and technology to recognize the distinction between media and content, as well as the differences and similarities in how different media communicate content.

 

I reject the explicit and implicit assertions of the claim

We have traded our democratic inheritance for a few hours of vapid TV distraction.

Although its been fashionable among political commentators and pundits to speak of many nations, particularly the USA, as “democratic”, phrases like “democratic inheritance” inaccurately suggest that such countries have democratic forms of government, obscuring the more accurate but less sound-bite-friendly fact that most have republican forms. The critical distinction is that republics are representational democracies – decisions of state are made by elected officials and their appointees, not by direct popular vote.

 

So, while the People play a role in a republic, the ability to select good officials is a more critical skill than ability at skills directly related to policy. For a technical person accustom to reducing problems to models, the problems of a republic are daunting – the system to be modeled is complicated and poorly (in a detailed, formal sense) understood. As a result, I’m skeptical both of claims of grave states and impending collapses of republics, and “rational” proposals to “fix” them. I’m reminded of and inspired by the saying that once graced the cover of the Whole Earth Catalog:

You can’t put it all together – it is all together

 

As final words, I think we should all pay heed to this being the Philosophy forum. Although the standards of evidence and proof here are more relaxed than other, more scientific forums, philosophy is not without standards and conventions. In particular, I’m fond of the “fundamental maxims of philosophy”:

• Seldom affirm
  
• Never Deny
  
• Always distinguish
  

Assertions of irrefutable fact or falsehood, though useful for provoking the process of distinction-finding, fit poorly when steadfastly defended or attacked in philosophical conversation.

[coberst]

There appeared an article in a London paper some time back, I think it was the Guardian, which testified to the sorry condition that the Internet is for providing a means for enlightened discourse. Everything said in the article seems valid to me.

 

The Internet discussing forum could be a great place for intellectual discourse. We certainly need such a vehicle.

 

I think that the moderators on discussion forums could do a lot toward making these Internet forums a valuable means for intelligent discourse. One great way to begin this effort is to educate the responders as to what the Straw Man fallacy is and why it is so destructive of enlightened discourse. If the moderators would point out to the responders when this fallacy takes place these forums could improve dramatically.

 

It appears to me that Internet discussion forums are used primarily by young people as a ‘verbal video game’; that is fine, I guess, just as long as there exists some effort to provide some vehicle for enlightened discourse.

[Qfwfq]

Coberst I'd be glad to discuss a matter of which, like Boerseun, I see the import, if only it weren't for the attitude you presented it with.

 

Now, where is the straw man in my brief post, which you quoted even twice, and why do you point the finger at poor li'l me when I'm not the only one that pointed out that you are telling people what to do, with implications about others? One thing staff here makes an effort at is to watch out for members being tactless, this does not mean only when one is deliberately and explicitly calling other members bad names.

 

I suggest that no one, including you, is comfortable dealing with the issues I raise and feel they must distort my statements or make them into an amusing antidote.

Two alternatives are:

• folks are not interested in your point
  
• they find your stance annoying and are under no obbligation to pay you their precious attention.
  

The hypothesis you advance is a further insinuation, not exactly a kind one.

 

Now like some of my pals here, I agree it's not such a black&white thing and it isn't just TV, it's a combination of things that I won't discuss if you keep rebelling against having been told to pipe down and to be a bit more tactful.

 

BTW when you say "we Americans" you seem to think this forum is American and reserved for Americans. Notice where so many members say they live, including the founder and owner of Hypography.

[coberst]

You are correct, most people are not interested in the ideas about which I post. That is exactly why I post these ideas. They are important for the individual and for the community. There is little opportunity for adults to come in contact with important ideas.

 

People need to become conscious of these ideas and it is my way of serving my fellow man to throw these ideas in their face with the hope that a few of them will stick. It is a dirty job but it is an important job that no one else is doing.

 

I think you could help if you were to comprehend the importance of the major fallacies of logic and helped others to learn them.

[Queso]

Coberst, you are right.

But do not fret-

For evolution is iminent.

 

:)

[Qfwfq]

People need to become conscious of these ideas and it is my way of serving my fellow man to throw these ideas in their face with the hope that a few of them will stick. It is a dirty job but it is an important job that no one else is doing.

That's a thing that Hypography is all about, as long as it is done tactfully instead of throwing it in their faces; that only creates distance. Perhaps it would help if you were to avoid being careless in the way you propose your topic of discussion. :evil:

[coberst]

That's a thing that Hypography is all about, as long as it is done tactfully instead of throwing it in their faces; that only creates distance. Perhaps it would help if you were to avoid being careless in the way you propose your topic of discussion. :evil:

 

You might be correct. I am not careless, however, I might not be doing what I do in the most effective way but my way is carefully considered and certainly intentional.

 

If you wanted to do what I want to do what would you do?

[InfiniteNow]

If you wanted to do what I want to do what would you do?

 

Analyze the audience on which you wish to have the greatest impact, speak using as leverage the issues of interest to them, and build consensus. Try to remember that your own thoughts are often wrought with gaps and holes and are limited in perspective and interpretation. Try to allow the dynamic inputs from others to merge with your preconceived notions to form collective and organic solutions which are greater than the sum of thier parts. This maximizes your chances, and makes any ideas or solutions or discussions more robust and have lasting potential.

 

I know you were asking Q, but I hope you don't mind the presentation I've put forth here.

[coberst]

InfiniteNow

 

The audience consists of responders and lurkers.

 

Responders on average represent about 7% of the audience during the first 30 days that the post exists. Many forums have a lot of action resulting from Google searches.

 

For example, if I post on a small to moderate size forum that has little or no Google participation I average about 70 views per OP with about 5 to 7 responses. If I post on the same size forum that has lots of Google action I can look at what happened 6 months later and see that my viewers go to 200 and of course the responders remain unchanged.

 

From this we can see that responders represent a very small element of the audience. However, the responders provide some evidence as to the age of the viewers but that is pretty nebulous. Based upon responses I guess that 70% of responders are under the age of 25, they are almost always negative, and often sophomoric.

 

What is my purpose in posting? My desire is to convert a general attitude of apathy into intellectual curiosity and eventually into life-time self-learning.

 

Based upon this profile what is your advise?

[InfiniteNow]

Based upon this profile what is your advise?

Ensure your presentation is interesting to the reader so they continue thinking about the topic after the page is closed. This is where you seem to struggle the most... relating to the "sophomoric" audience.