Purple Grass, Lime Green Sky. Discussing Politics on ATS.

reply to post by Flatfish

Dear Flatfish,

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with Mr. Jackson's work, but I assume you're saying that I suffer from the same fault of which I accuse others.

Well, let me examine your evidence for such a belief. You say that I am "living in the false reality, . . .derived from fear driven propaganda." You also claim that "almost every premiss (sic) you posted is delusional." Hmmmmm, did you hit "enter" before you were ready, thus cutting your post short? There is no evidence, just claims. This is one of the points I was trying to make.

Now let's check in on my claims and see precisely where your disagreement is.

We have people who don't believe that Eric Holder should be censured and fired, and would be in any decent administration. (After his racial statements and unequal enforcement of laws, why would firing him be delusional?)

Some people claim that this is one of the more transparent administrations. (Really? Ask the people who have covered the White House for decades. They've complained in print about how closed it is.)

Some claim that the "problems" the administration finds itself in are either minor, politically motivated, or something that both sides do equally. (You know the list; Fast and Furious, IRS, NSA, Obamacare, and on and on. These are big problems and no other administration in the last century has had so many big problems at the same time. Well, maybe FDR.)

Some have written that Romney would do the same things as Obama, and would be a worse president.

Some claim that our President has some significant accomplishments besides ordering the SEALS to kill Bin Laden (After Valerie Jarrett told him twice not to.).

Some deny that he is a socialist (Or statist, or fascist, or whatever else the word is these days.)

Some deny that he is using the power of the government to go after his enemies in attempts to silence, intimidate, or harass them, even more so than Nixon.

Some think the economy is on track and coming along just fine.

Some think the Constitution is outdated and unworkable.

Some think our President hasn't broken laws while President.

There's no need for me to go through the entire list. There is nothing delusional in claiming all of those positions are wrong and obviously wrong. I appreciate that you have an opinion, but I'd like some evidence which supports it.

With respect,
Chaarles1952

reply to post by Kali74

Dear Kali74,

Nice to see you, I think your point about 10 versus 60 is a good one which should be explored.

As an exercise to test how valid your feeling is... why not go count out of 25ish pages in the SOTU thread, how many people you find supportive of Obama, and how many unsupportive. That thread should be a decent baseline.

Forgive me for questioning how useful that thread would be. First it was a thread on the speech, not on the man or his performance in office, second, just about nobody thought it was a great, knock it out of the park home run. Most of the press seem to be calling it "Small ball." No sweeping dreams or visions, no grand projects, but lots of things he's said before. There was no real reason to applaud the speech.

If I wanted to support Obama, I would choose another thread to do it in.

You're getting upset and frustrated with less than 10 people when there's about 60 regular to semi-regular posters on political topics.

I'm curious. Assume you're right about the 60 posters with 10 of them being oblivious to reality. How many do I need before I can complain about them? Also, we're coming up to the 2014 elections. It seems to me to be a good idea to prepare for the flood of political commentators I think will start visiting us.

We don't have many trolls on ATS, but how many threads have been written about them?

I think this thread can apply to areas other than politics within the US.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I guess that is what I'm looking for, your personal definition of what so many is.

reply to post by Kali74

Dear Kali74,

Excellent question, for which I lack a precise answer. I think I might have mentioned it if there were as few as two or three. I see this type of (Thinking? Reacting?) as very dangerous and an indication that the person's mind has shut down, at least in this area.

In actuality, I started the thread because that type of person was popping up often enough to become a real annoyance. Whether it was one person who was very diligent, or twenty who would come around now and then, I don't know. It only takes one screaming baby in a room to render conversation impossible, and I thought that was happening too often.

By the way, you might want to listen to ATS Live tonight, 9 p.m. Central. Check the ATS Live forum for instructions on how to listen in. This thread will be discussed, and it would be very nice to have you chime in.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Then sadly, I guess if one can be too many, I'm left to wonder if a difference of opinion or different worldview or a simple argument on the correct definition is something you just don't ever want to see. Fortunately we aren't bound by ATS to agree with each other, as I certainly would be one to argue against Obama being a socialist... being one myself, I take it as an insult. So should I, in an appropriate thread of course, not ever discuss with you why Obama isn't a Socialist?

reply to post by olaru12


I tend to be more of a devout lurker than actual poster, but I felt compelled to respond to your post. You have accused Charles1952 of being arrogant, condescending, and disingenuous among other things. I have had the distinct honor and privilege over the last year to get to know him on a personal level and I consider him a dear friend. I can attest to the quality of his character and that he is exactly the same person that he presents himself as here on ATS. In fact, he is the most honest and truly humble person I've ever met, always encouraging and putting others first before himself.

While you may not agree with his positions and that is certainly your right to voice your dissent, you are completely wrong and out of line to attack his character because you don't know him. In fact, this world would be a much nicer place if there were more people like him.

Flatfish

Stormdancer777

why not go count out of 25ish pages in the SOTU thread, how many people you find supportive of Obama, and how many unsupportive. That thread should be a decent baseline.

LOL none that I saw, there was a time it would have been filled with counter arguments, guess there are no longer any arguments.

Our government is rotten to its core, left and right.

The main reason you've noticed a decline in the number of opposing arguments being offered up by progressives on this site is primarily due to the fact that we've grown tired of banging our heads up against a cement wall trying to convince the delusional right wingers that they are just that, delusional.

For the most part, those of us who support progressive initiatives have withdrawn from the conversations, choosing instead to just sit back and draw our entertainment from watching the right-wing "Circle-Jerk" currently underway here on ATS.

Although there are a few mainstream status quo "right wingers" on this site (there are probably an equal amount of status quo liberals) , I think you're very wrong for the most part. Most ATSers like the ones in the SOTU thread are people who understand the very deep level of corruption existing in government from both sides. As the poster below you stated, ATS hated Bush too. That's because most here can see past the BS and are tired of the status quo same old fake charade they have been playing for decades.

Sorry, just because people see through Obama and the lies etc, doesn't make it a right-wing "Circle-Jerk".

reply to post by Kali74

Dear Kali74,

As I've noted many times before, sometimes my writing doesn't effectively convey my meaning. I'd hat for this to happen with you, please allow me to try to fix it.

Then sadly, I guess if one can be too many, I'm left to wonder if a difference of opinion or different worldview or a simple argument on the correct definition is something you just don't ever want to see.

I am referring to the person who takes a position, which is definitely based on fact, and maintains it, loudly without regard to any facts provided to him. An example might be someone who says that Obama has never used a government agency to try and silence or harass people.

I have no trouble with a different opinion, worldview, or definition. Someone could say, yes, Obama's silencing people, but here's what I think he's trying to do. No problem with discussing it, then it's opinion versus opinion, and I always learn from that.

If it's a halfway reasonable definition, I can change my premises to meet the new definition and explore that.

Fortunately we aren't bound by ATS to agree with each other, as I certainly would be one to argue against Obama being a socialist... being one myself, I take it as an insult.

Then we would have a problem with definitions. We certainly have a man desirous of centralizing power in Washington and taking it from the states. That's why I put a few different words in my description of Obama, because people label that type of politics with different words. Call it basically, whatever you'd like. We can discuss it once we've settled on a word. By the way, I'm beginning to think that just about any group which has Obama for a member would be insulted. (Non-serious political attack.)

Of course we can talk about why you think Obama isn't a socialist. I assume you'd produce your evidence, and we'd learn. But if what you wanted to do was insist, over and over, that Obama is not a socialist, but a Centralized crypto-Bolshevik bureaucrat, in the middle of progressing from an outdated form of government, I think our discussion would be rather fruitless. Socialists, Progressives, Liberals, OWSers, Communists, etc. have come up with so many names for themselves that I sometimes wonder if it's worth trying to make a distinction. I believe I saw, about a year ago, a list of about 35 political movement and philosophies which called themselves some type of Socialist.

Dear Kali74, all I want from anybody is a polite discussion allowing for the introduction of evidence with an open mind.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by 1yearning2bfree

Dear 1yearning2befree,

You don't happen to be my mother or sister, do you? My profile says I'm "Just a guy." One of, oh, maybe a couple of hundred thousand members. But I do have to thank you. Whether someone's a good guy, a bad guy, or even someone who vacuums catnip off cats, we should all be granted the respect deserved by human beings.

That's something I don't see as much as I'd like in some forums. Politics is one of them. People are always crying out that the people need to be united and work together. If that's true, what will we use as a base, as a program for the future? Lynching the bankers and politicians isn't a program, it's a mindless spasm of violence. People who hate America may support that idea, but an American who's thought it out won't

We need to be able to accept facts, work them into our opinions. Even, if we have to, change our opinions. We can at least be united that far. Will it work? Don't have a clue. Let's try it on ATS and see what happens.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by olaru12

I do not wish to insult a group of members, regardless of their political position (I might make an exception for Anarchists). Please explain to me how I insulted members, so that I can avoid it in the future. It also strikes me as a little odd that no one else in this thread has complained of being insulted. I must have been very subtle indeed.

reply to post by charles1952


gotcha

reply to post by Kali74

Dear Kali74,

Thank you very much. I think we were an example of how things should work. We had a real misunderstanding, but instead of yelling at each other and name calling, we reached mutual understanding. Way to go, Kali74!!!!!

With respect,
Charles1952

This was my thought when I read your post.

charles1952
Dear ATSers,

I'd really like someone to show that I'm wrong here. I usually enjoy discussing politics, but something rather odd seems to be happening. Let me offer an example. Someone might insist that our President is an extremist. What can be done with a person holding such views? I'm willing to have a discussion, but I have no idea how to have one with such a person.

Certainly, one can be polite and ask that individual to explain his views, ask for definitions, etc., but what's the point? You can't discuss colors with someone insisting the grass is purple and the sky is lime green. Yet we have people insisting on that.

We have people who believe that Eric Holder should be censured and fired, and would be in any decent administration.

Some people claim that this is the least transparent administration ever.

Some claim that the "problems" the administration finds itself in aren't politically motivated.

Some have written that Romney would be different.

Some claim that our President has done nothing.

Some claim that he is a socialist.

Some say that he is using the power of the government to go after his enemies in attempts to silence, intimidate, or harass them.

Some think the economy is in a similar situation as the great depression.

Some think the Constitution is flawed.

Some think our President has broken laws while President.

There are so many of these "Purple grass, lime green sky" people on ATS that one spends a lot of time trying to show 2+2=4.
For some reason, it seems as though their existence is tied into the belief that Americans are too foolish to decide things for themselves and that the only proper thing is to have the wise and kind people in the private sector make up as many decisions and rules as possible. If someone disagrees with that, the person is attacked as being an evil, immoral, threat to society, who must be silenced in some way or another. Surprisingly, the conservatives are less tolerant than the liberals.

So much time is spent trying to describe the reality which they can't see, any serious conversation is put on hold. But it does get tedious at times, trying to explain that the grass is really green, and the sky is truly blue.

With respect,
Charles1952

This is going to be really unpopular to say but going by policy Obama has been further to the right than Reagan yet he is painted as some liberal communist marxist socialist extremist. Could it possibly be that rather than that being the truth, that the extremes of both liberalism and conservatism lead to the same place?

Most of those that dislike Obama are being dishonest, in one criticism they say he hasn't done anything but in the other they rail against him for his policies. It's not something that you can have both ways, if you want to dislike him for things he has done, then you must also begrudgingly admit that he has accomplished things.

Obama has certainly been a disappointment as president but I feel like the right wing echo chamber is criticizing out of partisan bias than fundamental disagreements. What the right disliked about him on the campaign in 2008 for example was that he said he would scale back defense, get rid of NSA spying, revoke the Patriot Act, and so on. McCain and later Romney both ran on the opposite defense platform. As things have happened, policy has followed the McCain/Romney route which means the rights criticism of it is intellectually dishonest.

When it comes to the constitution, it is a flawed document and the founders even recognized this, hence the reason for a clause that allows it to be rewritten as need requires. It's not some unquestionable, unchangeable, unchallengeable holy document. It can and should be questioned, rights and laws have no value if there's no ongoing debate over them. In todays world the constitution is very flawed. With the evolution of corporations there's need of a set of laws between private individuals outside of contract law, and concepts like automation make many things that are otherwise legal under the constitution extremely dangerous when used on a broad scale which creates a need for privacy laws that don't exist. If we don't constantly question the constitution the debate over adding these sort of laws will never be had.

As far as Obama breaking laws goes... I really don't know the answer to that. What I do know however is that even if so we shouldn't prosecute him provided it's not something extreme like him being a serial killer, just like the left needs to let Bush go the right needs to let Obama go. The last thing we need right now is another major incident that makes the parties more bitter towards each other. It has devolved into outright hatred, honestly some days I think it's like Republicans are Muslims and Democrats are Jews trying to share a middle eastern country. If things keep going the way they are, one day people will start shooting at each other over partisan issues. I don't want to wake up to a civil war some day.

Edit: On the subject of truth, my personal belief is that everything we know is wrong. This applies to all the collective knowledge of humanity, even things we take as truth will someday be proven wrong to one degree or another. Something as simple as 2+2=4 isn't even a universal truth. In base 3 math 2+2=12, in binary there's no such thing as 2+2, to a computer 2+2 means 22. Perhaps one day we'll discover a new form of math upon which the universe uses which doesn't use base 10. We only use base 10 because we have 10 fingers afterall, it's not natural to the universe. When that happens it's very possible that 2+2=4 will not be true. I apply this belief to everything I know, whether than look for reasons I'm right I have my preferences and look for reasons I'm wrong. That even leaves me open to changing my mind based on new information. It's a much healthier outlook on principals.

reply to post by Aazadan


Dear Aazadan,

I want to really thank you for your post. It contains some ideas that hadn't crossed my mind. I don't know how others will feel about it, but it's popular with me.

Let me start with what is the root of many disagreements, definitions. My thought is that Liberal and Left may better be described as Statism, a government by a few who have gathered much power at the federal level, and justify it by saying that the governing class is smarter, better, more efficient, than the citizenry. Conservative and Right strikes me as a form of government desiring to reduce the power of the federal government to what it needs to accomplish its basic tasks, and believes that the average citizen is the source of power. That means delegating much of the federal government's current authority to the states.

The extreme of Statism is dictatorship. The extreme of Conservatism is anarchy.

I see no difficulty in criticizing our president for what he has done and what he has failed to do. He has pushed through Obamacare, a trillion dollar stimulus package, the recess appointment of NLRB members and so on. He has also failed to generate jobs, reduce income inequality, united the country, cut spending, etc.

My criticism of Obama then, would be that he has accomplished useless or bad things, while failing to solve significant problems which concern the citizens.

Obama has certainly been a disappointment as president but I feel like the right wing echo chamber is criticizing out of partisan bias than fundamental disagreements.

"Echo chamber" is a little dismissive, don't you think? Besides, it would be a boring exercise to point out the times when the left has been for something, then changed their minds when they saw that their position would cost them power. The change in the filibuster rule, for example.

You'll note that the president actually has scaled back defense. NSA spying? Anyone would say that we have to have some. Perhaps the difference between the two parties was that Obama jumped from getting the NSA out of the spying game, to increasing its use beyond what is acceptable to Americans. Same thing with the Patriot act.

You'll notice that by increasing the use of the Patriot act and NSA, the president helps to bring more power to Washington. Intellectually dishonest? Maybe, I don't know, and you don't either. I've suggested a legitimate alternative.

Concerning the Constitution, I don't know of any serious person who believes the Constitution can't be questioned, challenged or changed. As you correctly point out, there is a clause providing a method by which it may be changed. If you get enough people agreeing with you, it will be changed. I don't see what you think the problem is.

Yes, Obama has broken laws. Now we can go into the other questions of opinion which you raise. Should he be tried? would he be convicted? And so on. That might be a fun discussion.

I think it's unfortunate that you chose to use the example "It's not something extreme like him being a serial killer." One, talk to most ATSers about the Presidential order about which people to kill by drones, and his intrusion into Libya with even bothering to ask Congress' approval. Serial killer? Maybe he is.

Second, he has to be a serial killer to get prosecuted? I'm sure Nixon and Clinton are wondering why the heck they got picked on, then.

"like the left needs to let Bush go the right needs to let Obama go." Bush is already gone. He's not even mentioned much anymore. Obama is with us, and will be for three years.

The last thing we need right now is another major incident that makes the parties more bitter towards each other.

Would that be an incident like the IRS being used to go after Tea Party groups? I'm not sure I want to let Obama go before he's even finished his term. Certainly we can agree that if a President screw up, we should call him on it.

Oh, bitter and divided? There are at least a dozen articles out from nearly every spot on the spectrum, calling him the most divisive President. In his most recent speech he said that if the Republicans don't vote the way I want them to, I'll just change regulations and write Executive Orders until I get what I want. That's not making the parties feel bitter towards each other?

Edit: On the subject of truth, my personal belief is that everything we know is wrong.

Presumably that also applies to the idea "that everything we know is wrong." Or is everything wrong except the idea that everything is wrong, except that idea, which is right?

I may regret this, but if I was teaching students how to solve quadratic equations and said, "So, you see, the answer is the square root of three, divided by two." And a student said, that may very well be true but maybe we'll discover a new form of math which the Universe uses. My response might be "Thanks, Bobby, interesting idea," but in my head I'd be saying "Sit down, and shut up, nobody likes a wise #&(. If I start sneaking in some esoteric form of math, I'll let you know."

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952
Let me start with what is the root of many disagreements, definitions. My thought is that Liberal and Left may better be described as Statism, a government by a few who have gathered much power at the federal level, and justify it by saying that the governing class is smarter, better, more efficient, than the citizenry. Conservative and Right strikes me as a form of government desiring to reduce the power of the federal government to what it needs to accomplish its basic tasks, and believes that the average citizen is the source of power. That means delegating much of the federal government's current authority to the states.

The problem with this is that if you shrink the government too far, corporations become the defacto new government. As some corporations gain and others lose, certain corporations will end up winning, and over the long term one corporation ends up owning everything, being the new authoritarian government. You can see this happening in banking right now for example. Just 10 years ago we had 60+ investment banks, today that number is closer to 6. Currently the world is entering a state of corporate feudalism which is the first step in this happening.

I see no difficulty in criticizing our president for what he has done and what he has failed to do. He has pushed through Obamacare, a trillion dollar stimulus package, the recess appointment of NLRB members and so on. He has also failed to generate jobs, reduce income inequality, united the country, cut spending, etc.

Criticizing for both is one thing, what the media is doing however is taking a shotgun approach of throwing out accusations and seeing what sticks. Out of one side he's being demonized for accomplishing nothing while the other side says he's out of control with executive orders and doing way too much.

He has a long list of failures to be sure, that list is about equal to the size of his list of campaign promises. I said this in another thread but my feeling on this is that Obama is just a bad politician. He was on the popular (only) side of state politics which gave him an easy ride, then his time in the senate could best be described as present so he never learned how to wheel and deal with congress. As president he has tried to issue edicts and not work with Republicans in a way that's politically acceptable to them. For someone who probably is the smartest guy in the room he has displayed a real lack of political insight.

"Echo chamber" is a little dismissive, don't you think? Besides, it would be a boring exercise to point out the times when the left has been for something, then changed their minds when they saw that their position would cost them power. The change in the filibuster rule, for example.

I don't see echo chamber as dismissive at all. There's a left wing echo chamber as well. I'm just calling it what it is, we have very few non partisan sources of news in this country. I'm in that side you refer to that sees both sides as bad. In reality it's a little more broad than that. While I see third parties as a solution, I see political parties in general as the problem but not something that are easy to do away with. The only thing that can keep them in line is if there are several competing parties. This doesn't exist in the current system.

You'll note that the president actually has scaled back defense. NSA spying? Anyone would say that we have to have some. Perhaps the difference between the two parties was that Obama jumped from getting the NSA out of the spying game, to increasing its use beyond what is acceptable to Americans. Same thing with the Patriot act.

Defense hasn't really scaled back, we're not projecting overseas as much but we're just bolstering spending in other areas like domestic spying, police militarization, and so on. The subject of NSA spying is interesting because it's something I seriously disagree with and argue we don't need at all. Our problem on 9/11 was an overload of information, plenty of stuff has come out that shows various government agencies knew what was going to happen on 9/11, the problem was that the signal:noise ratio on intelligence was so high that they couldn't act on it. My question is, how is increasing that volume of information going to solve the problem of overload?

You'll notice that by increasing the use of the Patriot act and NSA, the president helps to bring more power to Washington. Intellectually dishonest? Maybe, I don't know, and you don't either. I've suggested a legitimate alternative.

I'm not even sure if the president controls the NSA anymore. The NSA is far too efficient at gathering blackmail material, we once had this problem with Hoover and the FBI, I see history repeating with the NSA. If they know where the bodies are buried (possibly literally) they have plenty of leverage to increase their own power. The very fact that this is even possible undermines our entire system of government.

I too have suggested alternatives to the current ways we do things, I have them sitting in the Above Politics forum, but my ideas aren't very popular. I'm working on a third now as how to improve our systems of education and social conformity, which has implications for domestic spying. Actually, reading this thread gave me the idea for what to next write about.

Concerning the Constitution, I don't know of any serious person who believes the Constitution can't be questioned, challenged or changed. As you correctly point out, there is a clause providing a method by which it may be changed. If you get enough people agreeing with you, it will be changed. I don't see what you think the problem is.

Most conservatives hold the constitution up as a holy document and advocate stict adherence to it. I never see them raise the question of if the law makes sense. Personally I see the document as being too narrow due to interpretation and the language needs updated. I would like to see a secondary constitution as well for use between individuals, I see it as a huge problem that virtually any behavior can be stopped (or exploitative behavior allowed) by private entities through a contract. This is wide open to abuse and not something existing contract law is really equipped to handle. One thing I've seen happen far too often however is each side being willing to throw away parts of the constitution that don't benefit their politics of the moment. This happens to be part of the reason why I feel we need to have an ongoing debate over the document, because far too many are willing to throw away very real long term solutions for short term gain and I think this comes from an ignorance of the document itself and reasoning for why things are the way they are.

Yes, Obama has broken laws. Now we can go into the other questions of opinion which you raise. Should he be tried? would he be convicted? And so on. That might be a fun discussion.

I think it's unfortunate that you chose to use the example "It's not something extreme like him being a serial killer." One, talk to most ATSers about the Presidential order about which people to kill by drones, and his intrusion into Libya with even bothering to ask Congress' approval. Serial killer? Maybe he is.

Which laws has he personally broken? There's a big difference between enacting policy which is later determined to be illegal and personally breaking the law. Drone killing falls under the concept of military targets, this is an example of government policy rather than personal responsibility for Obama. If Obama took a gun and personally hunted down and murdered Abdulrahman al-Awlaki he would be guilty of murder. As a military target that's killed because he is a target, while the action was illegal, is not something Obama should be on trial for.

As for Libya, congress has pretty much abandoned their authority to declare war. According to the constitution the power still lies with them but in practice it doesn't. The last time Congress declared war was WW2.

Would that be an incident like the IRS being used to go after Tea Party groups? I'm not sure I want to let Obama go before he's even finished his term. Certainly we can agree that if a President screw up, we should call him on it.

I'm not sure that one qualifies as a major incident. It's unfortunate but it's a reflection of everyday people with a political bias and a little bit of power. I'm referring to incidents between people in congress or high up in the executive branch that are basically aimed at punishing the other side. The IRS thing is just a symptom of the problem, at some point one side needs to stand up and say no more and refuse to participate in the partisan bickering. The fighting back and forth doesn't help anyone.

Oh, bitter and divided? There are at least a dozen articles out from nearly every spot on the spectrum, calling him the most divisive President. In his most recent speech he said that if the Republicans don't vote the way I want them to, I'll just change regulations and write Executive Orders until I get what I want. That's not making the parties feel bitter towards each other?

Obama isn't innocent here. He came in and tried to be inclusive but he didn't do things the right way with Obamacare. He basically ripped off the Heritage plan (which btw was supported by McCain as late as 2008 as his health care platform) but because he let the Democrats take credit for the plan, and let the Dem's in congress minimize Republican involvement in creating it he created a political s***storm that has doomed his presidency. That act essentially gave Republicans a mandate to oppose anything and everything. No one is right here, there's just a whole bunch of wrong.

Presumably that also applies to the idea "that everything we know is wrong." Or is everything wrong except the idea that everything is wrong, except that idea, which is right?

No, that idea is wrong too. At some point, possibly already there's going to be some subject which we have perfect knowledge of and have discovered the best way to do whatever it is we're trying to do. The problem is, that unless we know everything, we don't know what few things aren't wrong so it's best to assume they all are.

I may regret this, but if I was teaching students how to solve quadratic equations and said, "So, you see, the answer is the square root of three, divided by two." And a student said, that may very well be true but maybe we'll discover a new form of math which the Universe uses. My response might be "Thanks, Bobby, interesting idea," but in my head I'd be saying "Sit down, and shut up, nobody likes a wise #&(. If I start sneaking in some esoteric form of math, I'll let you know."

Yet the point holds true that sqrt3/2 won't always be the correct answer. Given what we know now it is, and there's a lot of value in teaching the process but that doesn't mean things will always be this way. Among other possible breakthroughs we may find a system that can put a finite end on an infinite number such as sqrt3.

The main point is that virtually everything that we currently hold to be true, has previously been held by a different belief. This ranges from logic, to mathematical theory, to philosophy, to optimal governing systems, to economic systems, to holy books. Every single one of these has had significant changes over the past few thousand years. Chances are we still haven't perfected them. In other words there's room for improvement, recognizing that these things are wrong is the first step in finding a better way.