[USCAdad]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Well, it is interesting that your online persona is that of an American dipping into Canadian affairs, and that to an American who studied philosophy and that too at Reed!

$1:

First of all, for someone who claims to be US-American, it is unusual for you to speak from a deeply canadian focus and find it troubling. This is more consistent with a person who is actually ordinary canadian posing as a US-American.

I already stated that my GF is Canadian. We have a place in Seattle and one in Van. I spend nearly equal time between the two. Politically, I'm in favor of small government states rights and am more of a regionalist than a nationalist. Wanting to preserve distinct views and positions depending on the location is part of this. Having the ability to think or argue from a position that is not native is not that unusual of an ability. I may be mistaken on that though.

$1:

But whatever diplomas you flash, my friend, you still have to present a logical front. I think it was Lucian Baggini, the popular philosopher whose opening line was:

$1:

Philosophers have a habit of finding something we think we all know and then providing reasons for making us doubt we know it after all.

Simply stated, it means that philosophers have a way of reaching through the surface of our reasoning and bringing us in touch with our gut reactions. It is interesting therefore that in this case, it is a non philosophy person, namely me, who is doing it to a philosophy person, namely you.

Do you mean Julian Baggini? If this is the right lad, he seems to have tried to make some money by throwing together some undergrad text books. On his web site he claims to do more writing about philosophy than philosophy itself. As to what philosophers do: the field is really quite varied from touchy feely death and dying classes to the attempts to create virtual life. I'm not really sure what you're trying to do.

$1:

The inconsistencies are building in your case, my friend!

First inconsistency:

USCAdad USCAdad:

I'm glad that Iggy is staying around for the moment.

USCAdad USCAdad:

I'm also glad he didn't win the nomination. I don't trust (iggy) to work for Canada's best interest.

This is an inconsistency on your part. Please, as a professed philosopher, help us to understand it.

I think that Iggy is an intelligent person that could be an asset to the Liberal party and to Canada as a whole. My sense is that he's an internationalist, I probably get this from debates with my GF and the periphery knowledge that he does Human Rights. I tried to state this in as soft a way as possible, claiming it a gut feeling. I'm clearly open to being wrong on this but someone is going to give the supplemental information because I'm not an iggiophile. So far, it seems that you're just interested in insulting and attempting to bully anyone that doesn't or didn't support your boy. Even if he is an Internationalist, it may be that there is a place for him from a cabinet position down. I prefer someone who will defend boundaries in the top slot.

$1:

Second inconsistency:

USCAdad USCAdad:

My "problem" with Iggy is that I was concerned he'd be to much of an internationalist and not prioritize Canada.

USCAdad USCAdad:

First, he's going to have to figure out which war crimes he's willing to lose sleep over.

Now I have trouble with this, and I hope others here also do. The trouble more than one way.

My position on Lebanon is really inconsequential to a candidates ability to express himself in a way that doesn't paint headlines evil.

For the record, I support any nations right to defend itself if attacked. What is considered necessary or appropriate is up to the country attacked.

Human rights groups can do what they wish. If they research every battle documenting what they or others consider war crimes so be it.

Well now, you say, how is that different from Iggie's position? It's fundamentally not. I however am not in politics, I didn't state my position on an international stage that requires delicacy (unlike this international stage which requires none), and I didn't state it in a bonehead way.

It seems that Iggy has had a hard time presenting a positive face to the press since he was brought in as MP. It doesn't matter how smart a person is. If thy are prone to making verbal gaffs they should be prepared to have a limited political career.

It seems that Iggy actually understands this:

$1:

"I think there's no question this was a mistake,'' Ignatieff said in an interview Thursday.

$1:

"One rule I understand about this is that you're fully responsible for your words. You're even responsible when they're quoted out of context, as I believe I was in this instance," he said.

"But you have to behave like an adult here. I think I used a phrase which implied insensitivity towards civilian casualties, and I'm many things but I'm not insensitive to civilian casualties and I'm not selective about civilian casualties.

With the "not losing sleep" remark, Ignatieff said he was "ineptly trying to say simply that you can't develop policy on a reactive basis."

Iggie's sin wasn't his position, it was the way in which he presented it. Even he admits to the ineptness of the statement. My statement was meant to imply that he should work on this. I may be no better than Iggy in this reguard, but then again, I'm not running from PM.

[Always4Iggy]

USCAdad USCAdad:

I'm also glad he didn't win the nomination. I don't trust him to work for Canada's best interest. I have nothing to base this on, other than a gut feeling.

USCAdad USCAdad:

No, it's quite obvious that you had a strong preference for Iggy, that you think to some degree he lost because of anti-egg-head sentiments, and that truly intelligent people would have voted for Iggy.

USCAdad USCAdad:

My sense is that he's an internationalist, I probably get this from debates with my GF and the periphery knowledge that he does Human Rights. I tried to state this in as soft a way as possible, claiming it a gut feeling.

USCAdad USCAdad:

I'm clearly open to being wrong on this but someone is going to give the supplemental information because I'm not an iggiophile. So far, it seems that you're just interested in insulting and attempting to bully anyone that doesn't or didn't support your boy.

Sorry that it appears to be insulting and bullying to you, but I think we have another inconsistency on your part, if you keep insisting that you argue from gut feeling and then do not like others who prefer intelligent people.

Intelligent people do have gut feelings, but they work a bit different from yours.

You: My gut feeling and my GF (presumably that is grandfather, and not an abbreviation for gut feeling,) do not like Iggy and don't want him to win and don't trust him.

Me: Fine, but can you 'intelligise' that?

You: Well for instance, take his war crimes blunders.

Me: Good, intelligent subject, what is your position on war crimes.

You: I think it is the same as Iggy, but he is in hot water with the press.

Me: So do you distrust Iggy for the quality of his work or the quality of his PR.

You: well, I am trying to 'intelligise' my gut feelings.

Naturally, anything would appear to be harsh to you!

Incidentally, there is another inconsistency when you are glad that Iggy did not become the leader and also call yourself a conservative.

IF Iggy became the leader and did more press blunders

THEN the chances would be better for conservatives in the election

THEREFORE as a conservative you would probably be glad to nominate him.

Unless, of course, you think of Dion as more easily defeated. In that case, as a die hard Iggy person, you are actually saying things I like, if only for vindictive reasons!

[USCAdad]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Intelligent people do have gut feelings, but they work a bit different from yours.

I'll have to double check what Luciene Bogusninni says about stuff like that.

$1:

Me: So do you distrust Iggy for the quality of his work or the quality of his PR.

I distrust internationalists and politicians that can't keepr their feet out of their mouths.... I see why you like Iggy.

$1:

Incidentally, there is another inconsistency when you are glad that Iggy did not become the leader and also call yourself a conservative.

IF Iggy became the leader and did more press blunders

THEN the chances would be better for conservatives in the election

THEREFORE as a conservative you would probably be glad to nominate him.

Unless, of course, you think of Dion as more easily defeated. In that case, as a die hard Iggy person, you are actually saying things I like, if only for vindictive reasons!

As a "c"onservative libertarian type lad, I'm quite happy with a number of things that the Harper government has proposed or supported, not all. I won't support social conservatives. Harper has done good work distancing himself from these positions with the recent vote and position on SSM. I still distrust Dorris and elements of the party that are still there. If there were a centrist Liberal that supported Provincial rights and fiscal responsibility, I could easily support them. I'm not a hard core partisan.

Perhaps you should thumb through a few more pages in Bogusninni's books. Is this really what they dish up at Harvard these days?

[Always4Iggy]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Incidentally, there is another inconsistency when you are glad that Iggy did not become the leader and also call yourself a conservative.

IF Iggy became the leader and did more press blunders

THEN the chances would be better for conservatives in the election

THEREFORE as a conservative you would probably be glad to nominate him.

Unless, of course, you think of Dion as more easily defeated. In that case, as a die hard Iggy person, you are actually saying things I like, if only for vindictive reasons!

USCAdad USCAdad:

As a "c"onservative libertarian type lad, I'm quite happy with a number of things that the Harper government has proposed or supported, not all. I won't support social conservatives. Harper has done good work distancing himself from these positions with the recent vote and position on SSM. I still distrust Dorris and elements of the party that are still there. If there were a centrist Liberal that supported Provincial rights and fiscal responsibility, I could easily support them. I'm not a hard core partisan.

Perhaps you should thumb through a few more pages in Bogusninni's books. Is this really what they dish up at Harvard these days?

I think the Harvard crowd is not snobbish where reading is concerned, we prefer to read everyone, it certainly helps us not to talk down to Philosophers from Reed!

Which brings us, my friend, to another inconsistency on your part.

USCAdad USCAdad:

I'm also glad he didn't win the nomination. I don't trust him to work for Canada's best interest.

USCAdad USCAdad:

If there were a centrist Liberal that supported Provincial rights and fiscal responsibility, I could easily support them.

NOW, my dear friend, what convinced you that Iggy was:

a. Not a centrist Liberal? According to me Iggy is definitely a federalist, and in fact would make any concessions to preserve the Canadian Union.


b. Did not support provincial rights? According to me, one of the reasons for his problems is the conflicting provincial rights between francophone and anglophone canadians.

c. Did not believe in fiscal responsibility? According to me, it is hard to find a Liberal government which does not swear by this. The Liberal Federal governments have created all the budgetary surpluses we have!

[U]

[Always4Iggy]

USCAdad USCAdad:

I'm quite happy with a number of things that the Harper government has proposed or supported, not all. I won't support social conservatives. Harper has done good work distancing himself from these positions with the recent vote and position on SSM.

Also, my friend, Harper has not managed to distance himself from the SSM question. The social conservatives accept that a free vote from conservatives and liberals was indicative, they also pointed out immediately and with glee, that both NDP and Bloc had to whip their respective caucus, and that without it, the motion would 'probably' have succeeded.

As that idea gains momentum, two things can be expected:

a. The social conservatives and the Catholic Church will more actively screen candidates and communicate more clearly to their followers who supports social conservative causes.

b. The detachment of Harper and social conservatives will depend solely upon the relative gains that Dion makes. If Dion fails to build liberal popularity, then Harper can afford to field candidates who are not social conservatives. Otherwise, he would actually field MORE social conservative candidates, not less!

c. Either way, the 'same ideas marriage' between Harper and Social Cons is long standing, however illgetimate you think of it to be!

Your hopes for a conservative government, without social cons, my friend is rather like the hopes for a green party without marijuana lovers!

[Always4Iggy]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Intelligent people do have gut feelings, but they work a bit different from yours.

USCAdad USCAdad:

I'll have to double check what Luciene Bogusninni says about stuff like that.

Ah! I can save you some time. Thanks for the tip that it was Julian Baggini, the book quoted from is 'The Pig that Wants to be Eaten' and actually, I have just read it this weekend, and I can tell you that it is a delightful book. Also, I have checked with Toronto philosophers who confirm that it is an excellent book, well worth reading by Philosophers from Reed.

By reading it, these philosophers feel , Reed personnel can only improve themselves!



To help you get started with the topic in question, namely gut feelings and rationality, let me point your nose to Chapter 18, which is called 'Rationality demands' and of course, each chapter ends with suggestions for other chapters, so eventually...

:

[USCAdad]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Intelligent people do have gut feelings, but they work a bit different from yours.

USCAdad USCAdad:

I'll have to double check what Luciene Bogusninni says about stuff like that.

Ah! I can save you some time. Thanks for the tip that it was Julian Baggini, the book quoted from is 'The Pig that Wants to be Eaten' and actually, I have just read it this weekend, and I can tell you that it is a delightful book. Also, I have checked with Toronto philosophers who confirm that it is an excellent book, well worth reading by Philosophers from Reed.

By reading it, these philosophers feel , Reed personnel can only improve themselves!



To help you get started with the topic in question, namely gut feelings and rationality, let me point your nose to Chapter 18, which is called 'Rationality demands' and of course, each chapter ends with suggestions for other chapters, so eventually...

:

So you can't correctly site a source. you're reading intro to philosophy thought experiment books and consult "Toronto philosophers", are you sure you go to Harvard? Where do you go to school? Or does that all of sudden not matter?

Anyway, I will peruse Baggini's book next time I'm in a book store, though that won't likely be this week. Why don't you try to make the argument? One does need to be able to do more than quote works and name drop if you want to finish that little education of yours. I'd be happy to have a philosophic argument with you over the limits or existence of rationality and or the roll of intuition but I'll have to know your positions first.

[Always4Iggy]

USCAdad USCAdad:

So you can't correctly site a source. you're reading intro to philosophy thought experiment books and consult "Toronto philosophers", are you sure you go to Harvard? Where do you go to school? Or does that all of sudden not matter?

Anyway, I will peruse Baggini's book next time I'm in a book store, though that won't likely be this week. Why don't you try to make the argument? One does need to be able to do more than quote works and name drop if you want to finish that little education of yours. I'd be happy to have a philosophic argument with you over the limits or existence of rationality and or the roll of intuition but I'll have to know your positions first.

My dear friend, where I went to school, the word was 'cite' and not 'site'.

Just in case you went to Reed without a dictionary, the difference is significant. Site a source would be perhaps to bury it.

I do not really wish to point this out, but then you were working a bit too hard on the wrong first name. If anyone reads back to my original cite of the source, they will see that I wrote:

$1:

I think it was Lucian Baggini, the popular philosopher whose opening line was:

$1:

Philosophers have a habit of finding something we think we all know and then providing reasons for making us doubt we know it after all.

I do not think anyone will accept your working that point so hard! I said I was not sure of the name, and put him down as a pop philosopher, clearly indicating that I had not read him thereby!

But having read his book, I think it would do you a world of good. May even make you philosophic.

Also, I do not mind if you think I am not a Harvard person, it is not a part of my point at all. I do not believe that Iggy appeals only to Harvard types, I think all intelligent people, if they overcome their prejudices, sited in any part of their anatomy, see the sense of what he speaks.

Another reason why I do not mind your views is simply that though you are a good person, with a spacious gut to supplement your mind, I do not picture you as you picture yourself. I see you as a canadian, perhaps from the west, perhaps jewish and definitely not of philosophic persuasion, or of a capacity, for that matter, to persuade philosophically.

But what the heck! Claims on the web are a common sport.

[Always4Iggy]

USCAdad USCAdad:

Why don't you try to make the argument? One does need to be able to do more than quote works and name drop if you want to finish that little education of yours. I'd be happy to have a philosophic argument with you over the limits or existence of rationality and or the roll of intuition but I'll have to know your positions first.

I think we have two arguments here that are getting evasive response from you, and only gutting and no philosophy.

The first, and more direct, is the question of war crimes.


The second which is implicit, is your order of preference among the candidates for leadership and why.

[USCAdad]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

My dear friend, where I went to school, the word was 'cite' and not 'site'.

Yup, you'd be right about that. I've already got the medal Spelling and the their and they'res regularly slip past me.

$1:

I do not really wish to point this out, but then you were working a bit too hard on the wrong first name. If anyone reads back to my original cite of the source, they will see that I wrote:

$1:

I think it was Lucian Baggini, the popular philosopher whose opening line was:

$1:

Philosophers have a habit of finding something we think we all know and then providing reasons for making us doubt we know it after all.

I do not think anyone will accept your working that point so hard! I said I was not sure of the name, and put him down as a pop philosopher, clearly indicating that I had not read him thereby!

But having read his book, I think it would do you a world of good. May even make you philosophic.

Well since I used 'gut feeling' in a similar way to indicate that I didn't have extensive knowledge of Iggy (or any other candidate), it's unlikely that I'm going to let you off.

$1:

Also, I do not mind if you think I am not a Harvard person,

I don't, but then again that's no great loss.

$1:

it is not a part of my point at all. I do not believe that Iggy appeals only to Harvard types, I think all intelligent people, if they overcome their prejudices, sited in any part of their anatomy, see the sense of what he speaks.

So what is your favorite position of Iggy's. So far we've been long on rhetoric and short on substance.

$1:

Another reason why I do not mind your views is simply that though you are a good person, with a spacious gut to supplement your mind, I do not picture you as you picture yourself. I see you as a canadian, perhaps from the west, perhaps jewish and definitely not of philosophic persuasion, or of a capacity, for that matter, to persuade philosophically.

But what the heck! Claims on the web are a common sport.

Kind of like the Harvard insinuation. I'm flattered that you think I'm Canadian. I've certainly spent enough time up there but it's nice to hear. You've got the West part right. How did you come up with these attributes? You guessed, using your gut about something you don't know about. Again, how is this different from my original assessment of Iggy? It's not.

I can set this up for continuation by expressing who I supported in the leadership race. I don't know enough about any of the previous candidates to allow me more than a gut preference or opinion. Again, this doesn't mean that I'm advocating an intuitionist version of judgement or that I have special access to a Platonic form or an a priori truth. It's just that I'm busy and am not a big enough political junky to know the deep history of the candidates.

Given all that:
Rae: Too close to the NDP and carrying the baggage of his Provincial performance.

Iggy: Possibly an internationalist with a propensity for verbal gaffs.

Kennedy: Supports focusing on Education reform though it seems that he's thinking of more of the same instead of starting over from scratch which I would support.

Dion: I remember reading an early piece on him that cast him as a fiscal conservative which I support. Again, I have a life and don't always have the time to do the research on subjects that I would like (one of the benefits of a place like this... sometimes). I'm not in favor of continuing with Kyoto, nor am I in favor of strong nationalism at the expense of Provincial rights.

My preference amongst these was Kennedy. However, ultimately it doesn't really matter since I'm not Canadian yet, and don't actually get to vote.

[Always4Iggy]

USCAdad USCAdad:

You've got the West part right. How did you come up with these attributes? You guessed, using your gut about something you don't know about. Again, how is this different from my original assessment of Iggy? It's not.

Actually it is different from your original assessment. I do not work with gut feelings in building a picture, but allow the picture to build itself, whether it is Iggy or you.

Also, I have a very extensive experience with bulletin boards. I would be very surprised indeed, if a single point was incorrect. Meanwhile, I picture you, as I said, as probably canadian, living in canada, and probably jewish.

About age and sex etc, I would prefer not to comment

[USCAdad]

Well your "skills" are becoming abundantly clear. You're 0.5 out of 3 on your picture (I spend a lot of time in Canada but don't have status yet. I'll give you half a point) and your bb social skills aren't far behind. If I were Iggy, I'd be pissed to have someone like you wagging like you do for me. Maybe, I over estimate Iggy.