Re: [EM] My diffs w. Kristofer are not anti-reason.

At 01:26 PM 7/2/2013, David L Wetzell wrote: On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: At 02:16 PM 6/30/2013, David L Wetzell wrote: I've argued that the combination of aspects of the US political system in our constitution,

Re: [EM] My diffs w. Kristofer are not anti-reason.

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 02:16 PM 6/30/2013, David L Wetzell wrote: > >> I've argued that the combination of aspects of the US political system in >> our constitution, namely the import of winner-take-all >> presidential/senatorial/**gubernatorial elections

Re: [EM] My diffs w. Kristofer are not anti-reason.

2013/6/30 David L Wetzell > I've argued I have argued > > My next arg > > I then have argued > This is a long chain of reasoning. Each link may seem solid to you, but even if you are 80% right at each of four steps, by the end of the chain you're only 40% right. Yet you'd ne

Re: [EM] My diffs w. Kristofer are not anti-reason.

At 02:16 PM 6/30/2013, David L Wetzell wrote: I've argued that the combination of aspects of the US political system in our constitution, namely the import of winner-take-all presidential/senatorial/gubernatorial elections(obviously hard to change), + habits built up among many US voters( used

[EM] My diffs w. Kristofer are not anti-reason.

I've argued that the combination of aspects of the US political system in our constitution, namely the import of winner-take-all presidential/senatorial/gubernatorial elections(obviously hard to change), + habits built up among many US voters( used to 2-party dominated system, inequalities in the q