What causes politics?

It is indeed the most fundamental driver in the root of our politics and the underlying ideology we hold  - I explained exactly why we can determine that - twice - in the body of posts you’ve ignored.

You have dropped every argument; I pointed out the specifics of why politicians specifically is primarily fear - you have dropped it.

I have pointed out that you’ve been equivocating, switched my definitions - and even switched your own definition to mine when pointing yours is not sufficient - you dropped it.

Same goes for denying derivations of fear, actions vs ideology, etc.

I have detailed why your usage of definitions is ridiculous; and mine is both more accurate and reasonable - and you’ve dropped it.

I’m suggesting that you have dropped them because on your responses you have not at any point even referenced these arguments, nor explained why any of them were wrong; insisting only on fixating one or two specific misrepresentation of stuff I’ve already answered.

If at any point you want to go back and address my points on usage of language; the differences between ideology and action, or any one of the specific arguments I have raised and you have ignored please do so:

At this point you’re really just going around in circles whilst angrily objecting that you haven’t ignored things you have clearly ignored; I can’t really do much more than point out I’ve already answered, and be embarrassed for you 

I have not "switched definitions" and I have not "dropped your points"

To be EXTREMELY SPECIFIC, this is the bit I disagree with - the second paragraph here - THAT does not jive with the ACTUAL definition of fear-  again - I have addressed literally all of your points, the fact that you somehow missed them is fine, but don't go on accusing me of dropping yours points, I haven't. 

And this would be largely a strawman; given than I haven’t really argued any specific Distinction other than the actions vs ideology I referenced earlier and you have ignored 

As I explained - at length - and have told you have ignored multiple - multiple - multiple times now: and summarized At least twice; but let me summarize again politics and ideology are always trade offs of multiple negative factors: meaning Reward side is also dependent on fear too. Why do you keep ignoring this?

And we’re back to the weird semantics again. This is just weird equivocation; I’ve repeatedly justified the definition; you keep ignoring it.

You’re just going around in circles, reiterating stuff I’ve disproved, ignoring all the key points of my argument where I have explained where you’re wrong; then simply being an argument back from the dead having ignored the disproof.

You’re just embarrassing yourself at this point: so unless you actually deal with what I’ve actually said; I’m just going to refer you back To my previous posts.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just say “not sure I agree with that definition of fear, but if that’s how you define it I think that is/isn’t a reasonable explanation for the ultimate cause of politics”

His posts are riddled with the "you" "me" and "I" pronouns.

Expecting a rational discourse discussing ideas over attacking a person isn't likely.

I’m not sure what exactly you mean, but he’s a kid so I try to be as patient as I can with him

I'm saying he came this site with a lot of self entitlement and abused a lot of members calling them liars and cowards and such. It's unlikely you are going to tell him anything he would choose to listen to rationally. That's not entirely a "youth" problem; it's more towards a complete lack of awareness about the consequences of being toxic to people while trying to learn with a mutual exchange of ideas. Many if not most young people understand at least the basic rules of etiquette. 

Did you just assume  Xers pronouns?

Well I’ve pretty much only interacted with him in his ama thread so I don’t know enough to say. I wouldn’t say he was polite but I would say I enjoyed our interaction (don’t think he did though.) At the end of the day he is incredibly young, so I have a lot more patience. I can only speak for myself, though 

Cause that's literally what I started off with , that was my first post in response to good ole' Ram. 

Fair enough, I did not read the entire conversation haha. But I think it’s a rabbit hole not worth going down. His definition of fear isn’t ridiculous (like if he defined it as a synonym of happiness or hunger), more productive ways to spend your time imo 

Politics ARE actions, i literally defined it for you! Now you're the one whose ignoring things, 

Because i HAVEN'T IGNORED THIS - that should be extremely clear - did you or did you not see the quote below the three points deliberately pointing out that I thought that did not jive with the definition of fear? Yes? No? Because I have not ignored this, in fact, I've brought it up multiple times, and you've ignored me talking about it MULTIPLE times. And your "summary" here makes exactly zero sense, "politics and ideology are always trade offs of multiple negative factors:" to start off with, isn't the case at all, there are instances where negative and positive factors are traded, but the mere existence of a negative factor does not mean that A), it is being driven by fear, or B) that it happens in every interaction.  "meaning reward side is also dependent on fear", is also wrong, because it presumes that rewards are dependent entirely on avoiding negative factors.

Finally for this point: while danger and harm ARE negative, not every instance of negative factor is DANGER or HARM - which I've already said, in much less words, yes, but apparently you don't get it unless I spell it out for you. Now, are you going to ignore me again and go on with your projecting, or are you going to actually engage?

On your last one, no, you have no justified your response, at least not cogently, you've explained why you BELIEVE it ought to be the case that that is fear, but you have not actually PROVEN that it is so. So I guess you did "justify" your definition, just not to my standards. 

Yeah, just a little tired of the hypocricy here, "He's just a kid, so I try to be patient" would be thinking that Ram's rheotric is somehow different from my in regards to ad hominems, when that isn't the case at all. Funny enough, Fauxlaw couldn't justify it after he tried to say I was being immature either, because by people's definition of immatiure here, Ram would be acting the same. The difference is that Ram has history and respect with everyone here and I don't. 

Sole difference, well, I would admit that I tend to get angrier than Ram, from what I've seen so far, though - Ram does get annoyed very easily. 

my bad

I haven’t read the conversation so I don’t know who got more heated. I also don’t know Ram at all. I have a very vague memory of him from DDO that isn’t positive or negative. I was just deflecting a bit of criticism in your direction from greyparrot

And I thank you for that, I was responding more to Grey than to you if I'm honest. However, I also dislike the notion that me being "toxic" at all is the problem, I think the problem is that Grey is a bloody hypocrite. 

You’re going around in circles; and mixing and muddling your various different arguments with each other’s. You’re being totally incoherent.

You complain about my definition of fear - I defend It as valid common usage.

In response you tell me, but it isn’t the only factor in risk vs reward - I explain why it is.

In response, you complain that if doesn’t count because its not a valid usage of the word fear....


This makes no sense.

I’ve defended why my definition of fear, and refuted your usage as incomplete in terms of every day language in post: 124 and 136, 

I’ve defended why fear is the major factor in post in political statements: 136

I specifically explained why actions and political biases are different things in post:  145


Thus far, I’m waiting for an answer to why my definition is still insufficient and yours is valid given my arguments; how that minor semantic triviality invalidates anything I said (given that a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet : which I outlined in post 116. 

I've addressed all those posts already - you claim it to be common usage, and... no - you just aren't reading - I already explained why fear isn't the same thing as a risk/reward - it CAN Be - but speaking from the actual definition, your claims are simply wrong. You can say that my definition "isn't right", but your literal only evidence for that claim has been your own assertions. Thats the thing making a claim does not actually substantiate that claim.

To sum up my previous argument:

So no, my response is not just: "oh I disagree with your definition", I mean, I do - its wrong in the way your trying to stretch it, but that's not the core of my argument, that's the end note. Again, its kinda ironic how you claim that I'm dropping your arguments while you get caught on the end of 'em. 

This is the same circular, incoherent nonsense: please refer back to post 116, 136 and 145.

Whatever you wanna think. I suppose if that's all your willing to say we can leave it there. 

Well if the way they see it is so objectively wrong, then what makes it fundamental?

I dont think it is objectively wrong, necessarily. thats my point

Well I was strictly asking in regards to when you do, also in regards to facts theirs no “necessarily” grey areas there’s only objectively right and objectively wrong.

Grey matter.....Grey areas.

Assumed objectivity is subjective output, irrespective of known facts.

If there was such a thing as universal objectivity, then we would always agree.

Data in....Data assessed....Data construct...Data out.....Always subjectively right or wrong.

I’m pretty sure we’ve done this little dance a plethora of times, and how does it always end? With me schooling your behind (this time would be no exception) so come correct next time.

It’s a good question. Basically what I’ve been grappling with. I do think that given certain sets of principles there are objectively correct positions. And I believe in an objective morality, which would mean that at least some policy decisions have objectively correct answers.  But that’s just really difficult to accept when I realize that the opposition might literally be running on different hardware that causes a different world view: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-liberal-brains-might-have-some-real-differences/

I don’t know. What do you think? 

We don't really have a functioning "liberal" party since both parties want bigger government control and more authority behind them.

Not to be that guy but did you ever stop to think that different hardware they’re running on is just blatant ignorance.

Let me help you out with a little meta analysis for the future.

Post: 111 you start off with a fair point - about whether it’s too broad to claim fear is a driver. Argument A (using your definition of fear)

Post: 113 to make sure we’re on the same page, I re-iterate the point but now specifically clarify my terms; and the things I am talking about.

Post: 114 - this is where you start to come off the rails. You complaining about them usage of words. Arguing that the thing I’m talking about shouldn’t really be called fear, is semantics. You should be focused on disproving whether what I’m talking about is not responsible for ideology.

Post 116: here’s were I invalidate argument A. I disprove your definition as valid as it doesn’t incorporate things we refer to as fear. I also concede there is possible confusion on the word; and suggest you just give it a better name (you don’t)

So I’ve basically conceded that there is some ambiguity in the terms I’m using and suggest to focus on what I’m talking about rather than fixate on specific names.

Post 117: subject change #1. You throw out two fallacy accusations (with no explanation), you don’t defend your definition from the last few posts, and you now change your argument to be suggesting that avoidance of danger (my definition) isn’t all there is to risk vs reward. This is now argument B (using my definition)

You do not defend the definition for argument A (this is drop #1). This argument is just a warrant assertion (eg: I haven’t proven...), it’s kind of a fair point, but you need to put more detail other than just try and fluff up accusation “you haven’t proved anything”, that’s weak sauce: find an example where ideology could be arguably based on some positivity.


Note: Everyone reading can see you just changed the context of what you’re arguing without any acknowledgement of the formee. Don’t do this in a debate/discussion as it makes you look like your squirming like a fish on a hook


Post 118: I refute your acusation of non sequitor, and false equivalence: look at what I did here - I spell out what they are, I spell out what I did, and compare. 

Also, I give an example of how to show a fallacy. Explain what it is, explain what you did - and explain.

I also draw your attention back to post 113 where I clarified how we can claim what I am talking about fear being pervasive. Now, this isn’t great from me; but I’m inviting you to try and poke a hole in what I said. I’m offering it up in a plate (I don’t always fully thrash out my argument often to give space for discussion - hint for others)

Post :123 Switch back to argument.

You assert that I am drawing a false equivalence (yet don’t attempt to rebut why I said that wasn’t the case in the last round), 

You serve this one up to me on platter by reiterating your objection (we know your argument at this point - this is when you start sounding silly) - you can’t simply repeat your claims - especially if you’re not addressing the core issues.

Remember I have already invalidated this argument in post 116.

Post 124: bam. I’ve taken exactly what you said your argument was - and demonstrated how it’s equivocation. I go on to expand rebuttal from post 116.

I refute your claim that I am asserting the definition by pointing out that it’s really just defining terms, and the use of the word has no impact on the conclusion I am drawing.

Post 126: you largely concede my point on definitions with “If we accept your definition - sure”, 

You reassert your definition of fear (even though I just demonstrated in 116 that 124 that it’s not complete.

You then defend your definition - by deviating from your definition. 

You do not defend your non sequitur claim, explicit false equivalence claim, or explicitly defend against accusations of equivocation.

You go onto partially concede the point then flip back to Argument B (which you avoided by changing the subject earlier) mostly with other weak sauce “you haven’t proved anything” complaint.

You then launch into a personal attack about pedantry that is frankly laughable. If just makes it look like you know you f****ed up and you’re trying to save face. 

Post 136:

I go to town on your “expert definition argument by pointing out its absurdity.

I point out that you are deviating from your own definition. I point out that your point is starting to get a bit incoherent.

You as you changed back to argument B - I decide to go full proof. I explain the position completely from full principles.

Post : 138

You’re utterly flailing in circles.

The definitions we’re using of fear is clearly meaningless at this point, it’s importance was obliterated in 116; but you’re still trying to claim it has an impact.

You keep flipping between the definition, and asserting it’s not sufficient to explain ; then flipping back to the definition- but have dropped literally every argument in the previous post. This is incoherent at this point. Just drop the definition issue and stick with attacking whether it’s sufficient.

In this post is THE closest you come to making a coherent point; you should have removed the entirety of the last 4 posts: and just focuses on the examples you have, such as power.

However, you generally completely ignored my argument, you can’t do that, it makes you look like a fool who knows they’re wrong; you have to attack the specific claims I’m making. I made a tonne of specific relatable ideology references - you’re talking in the abstract. Pick an example of a clear ideological decision that is based on positivity.... I mean come on.

But again, you completely ruin it by intertwining the definition issue. They’re different inherent arguments: and your pretending they’re the same.

Post 145

I deal with your new claim about power. By pointing out subtle differences with power.

I correct the last post: as much of the claims your making had already been detailed before; I can’t go into any more detail relating to definition; as it’s already been shown irrelevant from post 116. The remainder is trying to pump out the bulge on a sunk ship.

Post 146:

I didn’t spot it, but you go back to claim Argument A (your definition of fear can’t cause all ideology), is argument B (my definition can’t cause all ideology).

Ya Pulled a little sneaky on me!

You claim your making argument B, then
Go back to argument A; basically full on weird equivocating.

You finally drop some really weird argument that I cannot understand how it even relates to anything I said, and from here you just start spinning wheels in the mud.

Here are my take aways:

1.) Your focus was on reiterating your point; you spent little time justifying your point in context, and very little time attacking my explanations - this makes it look like you avoid everything I said.

2.) you were equivocating back and forth between two different arguments. It made you look like you were flailing around.

3.) your arguments were both weaksauce. One was just semantics - and got you backed into a corner very quickly once the semantic ambiguity was accepted; the other was really just variations “you haven’t proved anything!”

4.) Dont make accusations you don’t back up and can’t defend.

5.) You’re not a member of the obsidian order: you don’t need to deny every accusation, you have to disentangle and argue them. Too many people here use denial as a strategy - it’s stupid


How to actually attack my argument.

1.) if you’re going to argue semantics and the meaning of fear, you have to show my definition is outside common usage.

Find something that drives ideology that isn’t obviously fear based. I even laid up a softball with pro life, you could have talked about morality as a driver, and argued that morality drives decisions; that would have pushed me to defending fear as a motivating factor for morality.

Hell, you could have attacked the concept that choosing cake over ice cream involves fear in any meaningful or sensible usage 

There was a whole world of obvious arguments here of which you chose the silliest.

2.) Don’t just got around asserting fear isn’t an driver, and being incredulous; use an example. Like the pro life above. You could talk about positive reinforcement; that while there is indeed negative weight, the underlying ideology and risk vs reward such as small government could be weighed based on positive experience of doing things by yourself as a child. That taxation ideology could be based on the positive feelings of all the things you could use extra money for.

I mean there was a plethora of things you could have gone with that could have pushed me onto the defensive.

I actually think you’re asking the wrong question.

Let me illustrate with an example and myself. Take UBI, I think this could be a very positive thing, and I don’t share the same view of the inherent laziness of people would prevent it working or cause harm.

At the same time: if we did a longer term study on it, and it didn’t work, I would change my mind.

Take anti-government ideology; of conservatives today: If some random socialist policy did not cause the problems you thought it would, and actually helped in the way expected; would this change your mind?

The pressing issue is not necessarily where we start from; but asking whether there are actually that many issues which only have a subjective answer - and if not what blocks us from getting there?