AccuTron Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I was just writing to a friend about my online voting research. I got to a place with statements by state attorney general candidates. The Republican made a brief direct statement, which didn't actually have content past the obvious, like saying that the sun is bright, or plants should be healthy. A non-statement, but kindly brief. The Libertarian made a statement that was also brief, but clearly stated a priority of intention, thus having content within the brevity. The Democrat's statement looked like it was written by committee. I wanted to red-pencil about half of it out of existence. What a pandering construction...which in my mind was stated as a pander fest, but being a reader of military history, that immediately morphed to PANDERFAUST. (A German anti-tank shoulder weapon was a rocket called a Panzerfaust. It's warhead was a shaped charge, meaning that all the little molecules of blast were focused on one spot.) I'm certain that I've invented a new word. Quick searching reveals the word Panderfaust only used as a family or online character name. The question is, who cares? Is that a good word to spread around? I think it means a focused blast of essentially hot air, aimed at a target audience that will respond to specific claptrap long enough to be put at bay, at least temporarily. I eagerly await your thoughts...
Sal9000 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I like the invention, but I think it is too obscure for most. In the same vein, I would like to introduce a Nebelwerfer (literally fog thrower). Arguments, that seem to be powerful but leave everybody confused (like a Gish gallop only louder).
dsayers Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Why were you conducting online voting research?
AccuTron Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 I like the invention, but I think it is too obscure for most. In the same vein, I would like to introduce a Nebelwerfer (literally fog thrower). Arguments, that seem to be powerful but leave everybody confused (like a Gish gallop only louder). Ah! We can nebel have too much werfer! Why were you conducting online voting research? I meant that I was researching the issues and candidates for my own voting.
dsayers Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I assumed as much. I didn't want to lead with asking you if you thought that studying philosophy to help you understand that voting is the initiation of the use of force would be a better use of your time than trying to get a new word to catch on. I think one of the most crucial steps in my studying philosophy, pursuing self-knowledge, and striving towards happiness was . The too long, didn't watch version is: How can you give somebody something that which you do not own? In the context of voting, the question becomes: If you do not have the right to rule over others or steal, assault, rape, or murder them, how are you able to give this right to somebody else? 1
AccuTron Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 I assumed as much. I didn't want to lead with asking you if you thought that studying philosophy to help you understand that voting is the initiation of the use of force would be a better use of your time than trying to get a new word to catch on. I delight in finding things to vote NO, thus attempting to eliminate at least that fragment of force.
dsayers Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I delight in finding things to vote NO, thus attempting to eliminate at least that fragment of force. What empirical evidence do you have that voting no will slow, impede, or reduce the growth of the State? Also, I don't think you're being honest because your story began with studying individuals not issues. You can only say no to some individuals by saying yes to others. As far as issues go, unless you vote no to every single one, it's not a principled conclusion. And if it were your intention to vote no across the board, research would not be necessary. Finally, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by voting. You're accepting your captor's claim over you by voluntarily participating in their little game. You're also doing a disservice to everybody else. Because even if you voted no on every issue and didn't vote yes to a single individual, you'd still be perpetuating the theater of voting and the perceived legitimacy of the State. If you vote, you are demonstrating that you're not even free within your own mind.
luxfelix Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 I think one of the most crucial steps in my studying philosophy, pursuing self-knowledge, and striving towards happiness was . Ah, me too! For anyone reading this, go check out the link if you've not seen the video before (it's less than ten minutes). Here's another version about five minutes long:
Recommended Posts