What causes politics?

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 227
#121
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - I'm saying you made a false equivalence, and a non-sequitur - the fact that avoidance of danger is PRESENT in risk/reward analysis does not mean it pervades it, nor does it mean it is ALL that. Sure, you can redefine fear here, but I wouldn't view it any different than people trying to define god into existence or something, we have a word for that already. 
I was making neither a false equivalence (as
I was not comparing two things), nor a non-sequitor as they conclusion follows.

As I clarified; all decision making involves weighing some form of negative consequence - we have an emotional need to avoid those negative consequences; variances In the strength of the emotional response, and how strong is primarily what drives decision making.

You’re not arguing any part of that, but merely getting tripped by your objection to me referring to the emotional need to avoid negative consequences as “fear”, which is entirely semantic.

Indeed, if you want to play fallacy bingo, what you’re doing is “equivocation”, I am talking about “fear” - for which I have clarified meaning and context; your talking about “fear” with a subtly different context and meaning and trying to switch out the definition

#122
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@thett3
Let’s figure it out; let’s work out a position we disagree on, figure out what value or motivation we can get to before we can’t answer “why” any more, than try and figure out what’s driving both of us to have that value.
#123
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
I have been entirely consistent with my definition of fear - and cited an actual source for the context and definition I am referring to - you on the other hand are simply asserting that avoiding negative consequences is defacto fear. I am rejecting that assertion via the actual definition of fear. You have falsely equivocated fear and avoiding negative consequences, thereby coming to a conclusion where your premises do not support your conclusion, a non-sequitur. 
#124
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I feel I have to walk you through all of this, as it seems there’s several things you don’t seem to be grasping.

Firstly:

If we substitute how I have used and meant the term “fear” with your completely different definition I haven’t used and didn’t mean - of course my conclusion wont follow. lol. That’s how equivocation works

That’s your argument - substitute fear how I have defined it with how you’ve defined it - implying we’re talking about the same thing a then complain my argument doesn’t work when you do.

If you use fear the way I have - everything in my argument works; so this is all boiling down to how you want to define things.


Secondly: the subject of my argument is the “emotionally driven avoidance of Negative consequences” in common English usage of the word Fear - it’s not unreasonable to define that drive as “fear”.

Your definition is insufficient as I pointed out and you ignored - as we would all readily admit that “fear” prevents us from jumping into a tiger enclosures even without experiencing fear as you have defined it.

Finally my argument is unchanged if you don’t call that drive fear; and is not predicated on the word fear being defined as I have said, so the idea that I’m “asserting the definition” makes literally no sense, and has me scratching my head.

TL;DR:

1.) You’re putting your definition into my argument then complaining my argument doesn’t work - that’s a fallacy.

2.) even if you weren’t, your definition is both incomplete and largely inaccurate with regards to common usage - mine is more reasonable in context.

3.) Lol Wut?
#125
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@FLRW
Suppose you were standing before God right now and He asked you, “Why should I let you into heaven?” What would you say?  I voted for Trump?
I would probably avoid that. I'd plead my case with the usual "big-brain" sophistry: "Intellectual engagement is a practice of faith. Do you know how well-read I am? Let me in"
#126
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Um...no - what you've done is argue "well my colloquialism disagrees with the experts" - that's the thing with colloquialism - how about this: as the actual definition of fear is - you are incorrect and your entire argument is flawed-  if I accept your definition of fear that you accept - sure. However, and I say this again, the risk/reward system IN GENERAL, is not the same thing as avoiding danger because of emotion, as you seem to put it.

For the record your critique of my definition is irrelevant
"You’re now delving into more semantic nonsense now. Fear is both the emotional response, and describes the conditioned behavioural choices that comes from it."
Avoiding dangerous situations IS the behavioral choice that comes from fear - duh - that's what fear is aside from the chemicals in your brain. The part that you assert is different is the entire part where people come up with ideologies because of it. In an abstract sort of way, you might be able to claim that some moralities are formed like that, but you have not at all proven a single thing in regards to fear being the factor behind making ideologies. 

See the thing is - you have been pedantic here-  literally the entire time - and whenever an actual source was presented - it disagreed with what you thought was the definition of fear. Cool, that doesn't mean you're right though. Because we're not just debating on the specific definition, but the interpretation of what fear causes, and that has remained unsubstantiated. You've made a conjecture, not much more. 
#127
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
@Theweakeredge
I've been amused by the interplay between these two members. on the whole, were this a debate on the features and consequences of fear, I'd give the nod to Ramshutu, almost exclusively because of Ramshutu's more generalized, common interpretation of "fear." As expected, Edge went directly to his goto, the APA, the Dictionary of the American Psychology Association, which, by the title, is a discipline-specific dictionary when politics is a separate discipline. Ramshutu does not define his dictionary, but it is not needed; the definition satisfies the common understanding. Edge becomes so wrapped in definition, rather than the point of the discussion, that it fairly dishevels his argument all on its own. Who needs to argue what fear is; we all feel it, across all cultures, genders, and generations, and the emotion is sufficiently consistent to understand another's experience. However, the real telling concern is the ultimate turn by Edge to personal attack; the last desperate measure when all logical argument is abandoned. Ramshutu remains aloof to that temptation throughout, but Edge just cannot, in his youth, avoid the accusation of "pedantic," which Edge actually exemplifies quite well, being familiar with the characteristic. Add some years, and experience, my friend, Edge. It will do you well.
#128
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
"You’re now delving into more semantic nonsense now"
From 116 bud. the guy whose all logic, pedantic isn't an ad hominem, its a classification of argumentation - ironically the difference between it and semantics are pedantic. Furthermore, all of my accusations of pedantry were proceeded by my argument. IF you wanna take Ram's side in the biased way you tend to, fine, but don't try to mischaracterize me bud. You're as condescending as everyone else. 
#129
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
You're a kid, within 20 years of diapers. That's truth, bud.
#130
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
What has that to do with my level of argumentation? You falsely stated that I resorted to ad hominem in the face of logical superiority, and cited my age as a reason. Pretty hard to misinterpret that huh?
#131
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
You just cannot let it go, can you? The very epitome of pedantic. Look it up.

oh, sorry, I did. It's not in your Dic APA. It is in the OED
#132
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
You mean the OED you can't actually cite? 'Cause there are versions you can... you just don't. And can I not let it go? Was it not you who wrote an entire long-winded paragraph about how inferior my reasoning is whenever you were never implicated in the discussion? Like what, you wanna go on about me not letting it go? Sure bud, sure. 
#133
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
You accused Ramshutu of being pedantic; a personal attack. Deny it. 

I can cite OED all day long. You don't have access if you're not a member. That's on you.
#134
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
giving too much attention to formal rules or small details:
No more than calling someone's arguments semantic is your reading selective, or are you entirely ignoring that he did the literal exact same thing, lmao - your bias has never been this apparent before. 
#135
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
There's a difference between calling an argument semantic, and a person pedantic. If you don't see that difference, your Dic APA isn't going to help.
#136
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Theweakeredge


You seem to be arguing that if there is a word used in an expert or technical context, it’s not possible or valid to use that word in any other usage or way, even if that usage is how every day normal people use that in every day language?

That’s not how language works.

“Avoiding dangerous situations IS the behavioral choice that comes from fear - duh - that's what fear is aside from the chemicals in your brain”

Not according to the very definition you’ve told me is definitive. You just defined fear as the physical response to being in danger.

Your definition doesn’t cover the behavioural motivation to avoid that danger in the first place : because that doesn’t involve the emotional response.

You’re now changing up your definitions. I will point out that to a definition that is very similar to mine... this is equivocation again.

See the thing is - you have been pedantic here-  literally the entire time


Don’t be the guy that has spent 20 posts complaining solely about the specific definition of fear, then accusing me of being pedantic and literal. 


The part that you assert is different is the entire part where people come up with ideologies because of it. 


You seem to be confusing my conclusion with my definition; and also getting my conclusion wrong too. What you said here leaves me scratching my head as to what you even mean



Now that you’re changing the subject away from the central theme you’ve been raising for the last half dozen posts - we can actually get into some specifics.

Before you start latching on to specific words, in my posts; ignoring all the text where I clarify a more exact meaning; let’s reiterate a few things.

All decisions we make in our lives balance positive and negative. Our emotions and feelings allow us to recognize that something is harmful, and fear in various forms is what drives our learned behaviour and thinking to avoid it. We may avoid dogs because we had a situation where we were in danger, and our brains recognize that was bad, and weights scenarios involving dogs more negatively as a result - due to that fear; and how our brains learn. How we weight anything relating to dogs is now impacted by an emotional drive to avoid something bad.

But as I clarified multiple posts ago for which you then ignored to fixate on the word fear, this both nuanced and involves derrivations of fear. 

You may avoid leaving bread out because it goes mouldy - that’s driven of recognition that mouldy food is bad and bad things need to be avoided. The latter is that generalized fear that I’m talking about; even though you may never have had a fear response to mouldy bread ever.

For every day decisions, this means fear pervades every choice we make to some degree; this is not to say choosing between cake and ice cream terrifies you; but a small element of emotional avoidance of some negative impact is always present.

Political Ideologies really boil down to similar decisions - weighing positives or negative - however in politics the broad ideological differences between people are generally typified by different answers they give to the same question.

Pro choice/Pro life? Pro business, Pro regulation? Pro small government, Pro state? All are different answers to the same positive/negatives questions.

As we’ve established fear pervades decisions - we know that fear pervades ideology too.

Why it’s more central to political ideology specifically, is that whilst some ideologies (nativism, isolationism, white nationalism) are more directly fear based - almost everything in politics involves balancing negatives; with the risk evaluation dependent on that primal base of fear and avoidance.

The entire conservative/liberal split can be broken down, in part, directly or indirectly to protecting our resources, my resources and my freedom; vs protecting other people from harm.

It’s also, I suspect, in part why the rest of the developed world seems so comparably far to the left compared the US; the US has a weird culturally ingrained sense paranoia that pervades the fabric of society that is inherently pushing people in one ideological direction.

It’s also no small coincidence that stoking the right type of fear is exceptionally effective in changing peoples policy and political preferences during campaigns; and it’s been shown that making people feel threatened or invulnerable can change their ideological bent.

The bottom line is this:

Humans are bad at evaluating risk, because our amygdala and primal system is informing us of perceived, instinctual risks, and overrides the rational part of our brain which can evaluate true probabilities “rationally”. (Its why people can chose to drive instead of taking a plane due to feeling unsafe.)

Any time risk assessments need to be taken; the result is predicated on how your primal systems generate that fear response.

Political Ideological bents are effectively the ideas that stem from making risk assessments of broad patterns of society, government and management of resources - thus, the outcome of those assessments are also predicated on how much or how lifter fear you have, and what you’re afraid of.



#137
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Ramshutu
I can’t wait to see the response to this well-thought-out post.

Perhaps they will point out a missing comma or an incorrect tense change.

Anyways, I have a question as to why you chose the word fear and seem, at least from what I’ve seen, to say that we always to some degree have a negative association with some element or choice (why we “fear” it)

To use the cake and ice cream example, why would you say fear drives that choice if we like both? If we have no negative experience with either, but instead have more of a positive association with one, why is fear in the equation at all? We might just get more dopamine from ice cream than we do with cake.

Likewise, how do you explain indifference when making decisions when no strong preference is present between items?
#138
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
I don't disagree that a risk/reward system is what drives things like ideologies (completely ignoring you saying that I got your conclusion wrong while repeating the conclusion I stated) I disagree that it is driven by fear or derivations of it (because there aren't such a thing as "derivations of fear", see the difference is that I am saying: "Here is the actual definition of fear", and you go, "Well here is how I use it", and I go, "That's all fine and dandy, but your not using that word correctly", and you respond, "What? You can use language in different ways."

And here I would respond, yes, language does indeed change, but I don't think that the risk/reward system is ENTIRELY DRIVEN by avoiding dangerous situations. That has been my entire point - yes - fear might be a part of it, I disagree that it is all of it - which has been my point the entire time. Of course, you go on and on about how I misunderstood you or how that wasn't my point, but it was - I can quote what I said from the very beginning. I understand your argument regarding fear pervading everything, jesus your condescending, the mere fact that someone doesn't agree with your argument doesn't mean they don't understand it.

This is something you've already said, I get it, I don't think what you are describing is sufficient to explain the entirety of human ideologies development. For example - in a lot of cases people do things because they want more power, and they do that because having all of that power felt good, a lot of ideology is made from people seeking out what is pleasurable. The reason why I am stuck up on the definition of fear is because I think your waay overusing it. For example: fear, and retreating aren't always the same thing - they can be fueled differently. You can say this is me changing the goalpost, you'd be wrong, but you can claim it. My point this entire time is that you are misusing fear as a noun, you are attempting to classify things that clearly do not belong anywhere near the behavior and classify it as such. It would be like trying to describe a dog as a cat. Even then, you seem to misunderstand what fear is - fear is merely a chemical process that occurs, releasing specific hormones conducive with avoiding harm, sometimes that means running, sometimes that means standing still, and other times it means being aggressive - its a survival mechanism - not much else.

#139
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,036
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
I am really happy Ramshutu and Coal are making a comeback tour on DART politics. They are very good at explaining complex problems by breaking down the components and addressing them one by one instead of obfuscating.
#140
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,036
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
This is highly enlightening, because it explains why you should try rationalize your learned biological fears by comparing it to the fears of everyone else in order to make more accurate risk-reward assessments.
#141
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I don’t know too much about coal. I don’t think he was very active when I was my most active on the site.

I do remember Ramshutu. Glad he’s back. So many people have left over the past year and there have been few replacements of their caliber.
#142
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,036
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 in a lot of cases people do things because they want more power.
That's simply the reward side of the risk-reward calculation. Fear is always going to be the limiting factor in EVERY case.

There are countless examples where people with too little fear came into wealth or power suddenly and then destroyed themselves because their risk-reward calculations were off of reality.

Athletes and lottery winners that come into wealth quickly do not have the fears learned first hand of what it is like to go bankrupt or lose money, so they make poor choices with no fears and lose it all. 

It's insanely important to calibrate your fears to reality if you want to hang on to your rewards. Too little or too much means you won't get any reward/power.
#143
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I think in actuality, everyone needs to focus on metacognition and critical thinking; exposing themselves to and embracing conflicting positions: to try and hone in on the intersection of that fear and rationality.

Or to put it another way; there is much arbitrary, subjectivism in ideology that can never really be resolved by an argument; but around the edges of that is a lot of room to be “irrational”

All we really need to do, is understand that some elements are purely subjective; and try and argue until that’s all that’s left.

For example; I think our values about the fundamental balance of government between freedom Of individuals and benefit to society are fundamentally different, but are subjectively value based with no true answer.

However if we argue with each other long enough In good faith, take enough data - provided that it’s not just calling each other fascist or communist - it should be possible to cut through the aspects that are irrational and left with venn diagram of actions that we could all agree that are definitely right, definitely wrong, and stuff in the middle that solely falls down to preference.

The problem is not that are beliefs are arbitrary, it’s that almost no one can rationalize anything properly or even recognize the way their emotions control their reasoning.
#144
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,036
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
The problem is not that are beliefs are arbitrary, it’s that almost no one can rationalize anything properly or even recognize the way their emotions control their reasoning.
More accurately, if you don't understand the vestigial biological impulses and do not recognize how emotions influence choice, then it is impossible to make a rational choice. We all have essentially the same DNA makeup of the caveman with all the vestigial instincts in a world where technology has changed thousands of times faster than biological evolution. Not recognizing that makes it impossible to rationally adapt to the new environment. 

We have technology that allows women to take on masculine roles and men to take on feminine roles, but our primal caveman brain still screams for something else, and then we wonder why men are not chemically attracted to masculine women or why women are not chemically attracted to beta males.
#145
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Let me correct a few things:

  • My usage of fear matches common usage. So is reasonable in the context of my arguments, the usage is not “out there”, or unreasonable. It’s all covered and justified in the last two posts which you largely ignored.
  • I’ve explained in detail what “derivations of fear are” in the post you just ignored.
  • I’ve explained in detail how we can conclude on political ideologies, both ends of a particular issue are dependent on some sort of fear; meaning each side of an issue is fear based - also in the post you just ignored.
  • I’m not saying that fear is the only impact on the implicit ideological biases we have, simply by far the most substantial, ubiquitous, all encompassing and wide ranging to the point it drowns out most other issues.
  • Your entire point so far (99.9% of your words) have been relating to your objection of the word fear - not objecting that fear is not the only thing. 


Finally; the question is what is the cause of our underlying pre-existing ideological biases. As I have shown, our inherent biases in the way we weigh political decisions is based on fear.

However, just like the Christian woman who happily has an abortion whilst calling those performing the operation baby murderers: ideology and actions are not the same.

Indeed, behaviour is mediated by much more than ideology, you can be mislead have opinions change; or thirst for power, without that being the root of our ideological biases.

So while I can definitely say that when an individual like hitler is motivated to take control of the country or politicians or individuals are motivated y power - its probably it’s not motivation out of fear or any derivations of fear - that inherent motivation is not the same thing thett is talking about.

There’s a huge set of overriding psychology relating to delusion, propoganda, bias, etc - that can motivate people to do different things, become cultish, or support dictatorship or totalitarians, but again; that’s not the same as thetts question.


jesus your condescending

I suspect you meant, “Jesus you’re condescending.”




#146
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Here was literally my first post, dude:
Ramshutu spotted, lol

This is a very interesting observation to say the least, it reminds me of several concepts that would kinda support this - like us versus them mentalities that are quite systemic, we reject what we don't understand, and so on and so forth, but I would be hesitant to generalize politics as merely fear or even manifestations of fear, certainly some ideologies (mostly radical ones), but it's a broad brush, I think, to claim it as a response to "what causes politics" in general. 
Note specifically:
it's a broad brush, I think, to claim it as a response to "what causes politics" in general. 
If you can't identify that common point then I think you're the one whose not getting things. 

Second off, for purposes here - politics is defined as such:
"the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed:"
Which is inherently driven by ideology, so if you were to claim that fear is the "Most substantial" driving force behind politics, you would, defacto be claiming the same of ideologies. 

Finally, you are attempting to claim that fear is the most substantial motivator behind the risk/reward system, it is in that vein that I disagree with the word fear for usage here: For example, anxiety and distinct because of the temporal affects on the body. As I said; fear is a evolutionary survival mechanism, not much else. I disagree with how you are trying to stretch fear into situations where that is not an applicable term. 


#147
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have an odd habit of not reading things properly, then criticizing an argument reconstructed from what appears to be a few choice phrases you have pulled out rather than what I said.

To start with - I didn’t say that you never mentioned broadness of fear ; just that 99% of your argument was haggling over the definition of fear. Which is accurate.


I’m also, not arguing that fear is the most substantial motivator behind risk vs reward in general, but in specific terms of politics - which I clarified and explained extensively in the posts you just ignored.


I also have to correct you again; you initially said that I was arguing fear is the only factor; I corrected you by pointing out in merely arguing it’s the most substantial factor. You are now forgetting what my post was in response to; and appear to be confusing what I said to be changing between politics to ideological - whereas I was just correcting your straw man.


Frankly though; given that you don’t seem to be even reading anything I’m saying, have dropped almost every argument you made in the last Dozen posts, and are now simply fixated in overtly and transparently straw-manning every point I make: I suspect now is time for you to stop digging.



#148
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
What? I addressed your "most substantial point" in fact, I literally said you said it TWICE in that post - and you seemed to have ignored my second point - which is that, speaking practically, saying fear causes politics is saying the same of ideologies, I haven't dropped very many points of yours, again - I don't AGREE - that does not mean I have dropped your points. 

For example: No, 99% of my argument hasn't been about fear soley, (given the 10 or so of my posts, only 6 have been what you claim to be "99.9%" of my point). Furthermore - and... yeah, until I pointed you out - all you had said was fear, like, he asked "what causes politics" and your answer was: fear, and deriviations of it", of course I thought that you were claiming all that causes politics is fear, you literally didn't say a thing until you were "correcting a strawman", that was the first time you had acknowledged any other cause of politics except fear.

You're being disengenious now, and I really don't appreciate you trying to pull the high and mighty position bud. That, or you aren't reading very carefully, I can address more than one point in a paragraph. 
#149
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Because apparently you need me to be really obvious with you:
I am talking about risk/reward IN POLITICS - fear is not the sole, nor most substantial driver, of the risk/reward factor IN POLITICS - because apparently the implied "In politics" isn't apparent to you. 
#150
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,036
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m also, not arguing that fear is the most substantial motivator behind risk vs reward in general,
I agree with this. Fear isn't a "motivating force" because fear isn't the "reward" component in day to day risk/reward calculations. Although it is abundantly clear that improper levels of fear (too high OR too low) will cause irrational calculations.

but in specific terms of politics - which I clarified and explained extensively in the posts you just ignored.
Agree that it IS the motivating force in politics because successful politicians reward fear.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. It provides the opportunity to do things that were not possible to do before.”

-Rahm Emanuel