| > How's that? All I've said is people's interpretation of facts drives votes, not facts themselves. I don't see how that is spiritual. It's as mathematical as anything. No, you keep appealing to objective morality, and/or the lack of it. Facts are facts. They're what doesn't go away when you close your eyes. That's all. It's not an appeal to an objective morality to predict that the coyote will fall when he walks off the cliff. > On this, I cannot agree, [...] You feel people are puppets. Oh? People pay for advertising because it doesn't work? That's news. Ditto propaganda. It plainly works. We decry posting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion not because it's right, but because it doesn't matter if it's right for it to have a very-clear effect in driving violence against innocent people. Being easily led is the default state and takes constant work to avoid. It's not unreasonable to predict that at any time most everyone involved in a decision is phoning it it - especially in heavily propagandized scenarios. > I say they vote based on interpretation of facts, that propaganda can be influential, and that ultimately they make up their own minds. Sure, without electrodes implanted, anything that happens in their head is "their own mind" by definition. But you won't get a useful answer to anything from a group of people who've already heard a lopsided view of an issue. Not even representative of their broader opinions. > All of us are unknowledgeable about something at one point or another. We're not born all-knowing. Applying shame for lack of knowledge or understanding is wasted effort. And yet you've repeatedly put derogatory words in my mouth for the people of Austin, as if I must believe them to be mindless to think that they've decided wrongly. You're dehumanizing me, as a way of combatting the dehumanization and disrespect you assume I must have for others. It's funny to watch. > I don't really care if they're offended, I'm just saying what I think is likely to win your argument. Oh okay. > Do you really think this strategy will get U/L somewhere with voters? Does it help you win arguments with your partner, or in friendships when you tell them they're unreasonable? Ahh yes, you do care. You're moving the goalposts. The issue is that the city made the wrong decision because the elected officials spent taxpayer money to lie to the people. You suggest that now I'm failing to win the hearts of the voters. I'm not trying to "win" with the voters. That would take propaganda and lots of money. I'm showing why their decision was wrong, and how it was manipulated, and why people spent time and money (but not their own) to make it happen. > What if I called you unreasonable or started calling you names? Again, an argument by appeal to offense - and offense that you've gone out of your way to create. I'm not trying to win you over so I frankly don't care, but I haven't called you or the residents of Austin any names. All the slights are actually yours, that you're suggesting I try out. (Puppets, etc.) > > Concessions are as good as cash. > Okay. It sounds like winning every penny that you feel you deserve matters more to you than making a deal that's anything less than ideal. Why don't you ask what I feel as opposed to telling me? Does that win you any arguments with friends and family? :P No, I'm saying that being wrongly forced to concede anything is the same, ultimately, as being forced to make a cash payment. You act as if non-financial concessions wouldn't be damaging to their business, etc. "Oh, it's a non-financial concession, whatever." Like a non-financial concession to fingerprint drivers, for example. You keep coming back to the fallacy of the middle-ground, implying that the right thing to do is seek consensus with all viewpoints, and that some amount of concessions must always be closer to correct than any starting point. > By disengaging, they lose some of their influence. The decision was made in the propaganda phase - a game they could play just as well from outside if they choose to. FWIW, their influence comes from providing a better service in more areas. A lack of Uber is more damning to Austin than a lack of Austin is to Uber, and Uber(/Lyft) makes their best argument for helping Austin simply by providing the best service in SF. By disengaging they simply refuse to validate the elected officials and waste time in a rigged process. > Respect for my intellect might win a bit more with me, as I imagine it would with most people. I would still try to look out for the reason in your argument. Respect, respect, respect. You sound like Cartman on an authority trip. "Respect Mah Intelligence!" But you don't have any disrespect to point to; it's a demonization tactic not real advice. You've put words in my mouth, told me what I though, and slighted the people of Austin for me. Please don't. > That said, "easy" is pushing the button that says "spend more taxes on security". No, 'easy' is pushing the button you've been told to push by the advertising. It's absolutely unrelated to the actual outcome picked because the point is that the easy solution is to bypass even considering the issues, let alone choosing something. If security sold then people would have enough smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. > It's always been this way. Every tool can be used for good or evil, we just try to elect who we think are fair minded guys/gals and cross our fingers The "it's always been this way" defense. I don't understand your need to pull that out or what you think it accomplishes. "But throughout history we've always mugged and killed people, your Honor. I don't see how this is any worse." It's meaningless when dealing with specifics. It doesn't matter if Nixon wasn't that unusual, he was still a crook... It doesn't matter if many cities have corrupt officials, it matters that we can point them out when it happens without hand-waving and denials. |
I suggest distilling it into 4 general areas. Things about which we agree, don't agree, things that bug us, and things we don't know
I believe we agree that,
(1) People make decisions based on how they feel about something
(2) People are influenced by emotion, propaganda, and facts
(3) You care about Austin, its riders, U/L, and fingerprinting
We don't agree on,
(1) Whether facts are facts. You feel this way, I don't. I feel facts aren't meaningful on their own because they're always viewed through a lens, that is, by a person.
(2) Whether I care that U/L is in Austin or not. You feel I do, I feel I don't. I'm interested in this discussion as a means of getting to know how people work, particularly, myself.
Things which perhaps bother us both to a tiny degree are,
(1) Putting words in each other's mouths
I don't know,
(1) Why you care about U/L vs. Austin. I've been making the wrong assumptions. Can you describe your interest? Do you care about both the principle of fingerprinting and the money equally? Why? I want to stop putting words in your mouth. I'm sorry if these sound like dumb questions.
Is the above fair to say? How would you define where we agree and disagree? The discussion doesn't need to end, I'm just trying to think of a way to tone it down. I did not set out to dehumanize you. I am sorry for doing that. Obviously you are thoughtful.