over and over and over?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLB8DfhnJD0
Ranaan Gissin. Observe him. He never makes a clear, specific statement. He never answers the question. But he always makes it seem like he is answering the question. And he makes you think that till you stop and think about whether he made a single point.
This is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.
Does working in the government require you to pretend to know what is going on all the time?
It's not a matter of pretending to know - it's a matter of not revealing what you do know (or what you think/believe), if you think that revealing it would cause problems for you. Unfortunately, it's easier for politicians and bureaucrats to do that when people let them get away with it. People do that when they're deferential and/or fail to understand the logical implications (if any) behind the tortuous responses.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Here's a great example of another one:
Did you notice the straight face kept by the CATO man throughout the woman's answers, as she kept repeating, "Medicare is the most efficient medical care system"? Over and over?
Both are like robots. One is a robot because his face is unaffected by listening to nonsense. The other is a robot, because she came with a programmed response, and currently she is malfunctioning like a stuck tape recorder.
Prateek Sanjay:Both are like robots. One is a robot because his face is unaffected by listening to nonsense.
No, that's the opposite of roboticism. It's called self-control. If anything is roboitic, it is the reflexive guffaws that many libertarians automatically indulge in when they hear things they strenuously disagree with.
I don't like to be cruel and guffaw at people. I learnt that lesson back in junior high school when I guffawed at a good friend and saw that he did not like it.
But, it certainly would have made me look concerned, confused, or doubly intent on understanding what she was trying to say.
The problem here was not one of disagreement. That woman did not say a single thing. "Leftists" (I hate this word) are not stupid, by and large. Quite the opposite. The most intelligent journalists in India write for Frontline, for example.
People on TV, however, do have an established record of speaking, literally gibberish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HAM7KCDK4g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTsm7BqpiSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTKx3orfZ8A
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/article/966414--judge-judy-hospitalized-after-lapsing-into-gibberish-on-camera
That is beyond dispute.
Aren't there robots that give facial expressions nowadays?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel James Sanchez:No, that's the opposite of roboticism. It's called self-control. If anything is roboitic, it is the reflexive guffaws that many libertarians automatically indulge in when they hear things they strenuously disagree with.
Why pretend to take something seriously if you don't take it seriously?
Autolykos: Daniel James Sanchez:No, that's the opposite of roboticism. It's called self-control. If anything is roboitic, it is the reflexive guffaws that many libertarians automatically indulge in when they hear things they strenuously disagree with. Why pretend to take something seriously if you don't take it seriously?
Strenuously disagreeing is not the same thing as not taking what they say seriously.
Daniel James Sanchez:Strenuously disagreeing is not the same thing as not taking what they say seriously.
Fair point. However, I'd say that guffawing at something typically implies not taking it seriously. When one refrains from reacting in any way to something, even though he may not take it seriously or strenuously disagree with it, I would think he would give an impression of taking it seriously, if not also agreeing with it (or at least not strenuously disagreeing with it).
First of all, what exactly does it mean to "not take someone seriously?"
Secondly, whatever it means, it doesn't sound like a very propitious precondition for discourse, so why would you even be talking to someone you don't take seriously?
Daniel James Sanchez:First of all, what exactly does it mean to "not take someone seriously?"
My own meaning for it is something like "refusing to evaluate someone's statements in his desired context". Typically this either means no longer talking to the other person at all, or taking the discussion as simply a source of amusement.
Daniel James Sanchez:Secondly, whatever it means, it doesn't sound like a very propitious precondition for discourse, so why would you even be talking to someone you don't take seriously?
You're right, of course - it isn't a very propitious precondition for discourse. However, panel discussions on news programs aren't the same as one-on-one discussions. With the former, not only are there multiple direct participants, there's also an indirect participant - the audience. So one may not (or no longer) be talking to the panel member(s) that he doesn't take seriously, but he can still talk to the remaining participants.
Autolykos:You're right, of course - it isn't a very propitious precondition for discourse. However, panel discussions on news programs aren't the same as one-on-one discussions. With the former, not only are there multiple direct participants, there's also an indirect participant - the audience. So one may not (or no longer) be talking to the panel member(s) that he doesn't take seriously, but he can still talk to the remaining participants.
Do you think guffaws are likely to serve any purpose with regard to the remaining participants?
Daniel James Sanchez:Do you think guffaws are likely to serve any purpose with regard to the remaining participants?
Aside from signalling that the person guffawing isn't taking the other person seriously, I can't think of any purpose.
Autolykos: Daniel James Sanchez:Do you think guffaws are likely to serve any purpose with regard to the remaining participants? Aside from signalling that the person guffawing isn't taking the other person seriously, I can't think of any purpose.
Can you think of any purposes which guffawing would run counter to in such a situation?
Daniel James Sanchez:Can you think of any purposes which guffawing would run counter to in such a situation?
If I understand you correctly, guffawing could run counter to the purpose of the person guffawing wanting to be taken seriously himself.
Just so you know, I haven't been arguing specifically in favor of guffawing in such situations.
So what are you arguing in favor of, then?
I'm arguing that one shouldn't pretend to take something seriously that he doesn't. If he can indicate that he doesn't take it seriously in a way that doesn't diminish his own credibility, then all the better.
A. You recognized that there are some purposes which guffawing would run counter to in such a situation.
B. And you said that the only purpose in guffawing would be to signal "that the person guffawing isn't taking the other person seriously."
By saying that "one shouldn't pretend to take something seriously that he doesn't," you are assuming that the ends associated with B ought always to rank higher than the ends associated with A on the individual's value scale. Is that right?
Now, regarding B, what are the purposes one is likely to have for signalling that he doesn't take the other person seriously?
Daniel James Sanchez:A. You recognized that there are some purposes which guffawing would run counter to in such a situation. B. And you said that the only purpose in guffawing would be to signal "that the person guffawing isn't taking the other person seriously." By saying that "one shouldn't pretend to take something seriously that he doesn't," you are assuming that the ends associated with B ought always to rank higher than the ends associated with A on the individual's value scale. Is that right?
I'm saying that, in my opinion, they should.
Daniel James Sanchez:Now, regarding B, what are the purposes one is likely to have for signalling that he doesn't take the other person seriously?
I suppose the purpose would be to have the other members of the discussion (including the audience) not take the other person seriously either.
So is your opinion that "they should" choose B over A in order to "have the other members of the discussion (including the audience) not take the other person seriously either"?
No. My opinion is that they should choose B over A in order to not lie about how they feel. But that answer didn't seem to satisfy you, so I was trying to come up with an answer that would, so you could continue making whatever point you're trying to make.
Lol, oh man
"My doctor tells me that medicare pays out 3 times as much as I get from private insurance, won't government healthcare just increase the costs?"
"Well, it's a question of values..."
Lol, yea...right.
Do you think not overtly expressing every single emotional state you have is "lying"? Not guffawing is not necessarily a signal that you take the other person seriously. For example, it might be common knowledge that a certain famous economist does not regard Marxists as serious thinkers. Yet, in a debate with a Marxist, that economist may refrain from guffawing simply as a sign, not that he takes the other person's ideas seriously, but that he respects the other person as a fellow human being who does not deserve to be needlessly aggravated. In exhibiting self-control, and not guffawing, such an economist would not be "lying".
Alternatively, someone might not even have that respect for his opponent, but simply regards guffaws as a net counter-productive distraction. His self-restraint need indicate nothing else than that fact.
You are confusing "lying" with simply not wearing your heart on your sleeve.
I agree with everything you said in your last part, Danny. However, let me remind you that I was not arguing that one should specifically guffaw when he doesn't take someone seriously. At the same time, I (for one) wouldn't want other people to think that I agree with someone saying e.g. "Medicare is the most efficient system" by remaining completely passive while he says it. If I were in that situation, I'd at least raise an eyebrow at the remark - but that's just me.
For the record, I completely agree that there's a difference between disagreeing with what someone else says and needlessly aggravating him for saying it. One doesn't have to express his position in a needlessly aggravating manner, since that is (as correctly pointed out by you) typically counter-productive.
I could only watch 7 minutes before turning it off. This guy is such an asshole. SO FULL OF CRAP. ALMOST EVERY WORD.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
My father came from Russia to Palestine. He had a Bible in one hand. He had a gun in another. And he extended a hand in friendship to the Arabs.
My father had three hands, because I am Ranaan Gissin.
Finkelstein was so right in telling him that he'd be very friendly in coming to his home with a gun in his hand.
All I see are two lunatics arguing.
I don't know why some libertarians insist on taking sides on this conflict.
I'm just going to go ahead and point out that the Cato Fellow in the embedded video was holding back a laugh as best he could and allowing a pretty big grin almost the whole time, and by 1:53 he does end up just shaking his head. And at 3:53 he actually ends up rolling his eyes at this woman's nonsense.
So, I'm not exactly sure what sort of reaction you were looking for, Prateek, but he certainly didn't sit there with a straight face the whole time...and honestly "robotic" is pretty far down the list of words I would use to describe his reactions.