Randomness thread, part two.

[jyms]

Randomness thread losing it's randomness

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=370288593101631

[a500lbgorilla]

Worth it if you're interested in something interesting.

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/17/235486...ecomes-a-movie

[NightGizmo]

It's not just freedom, gorilla. It's self-determination. The pattern has been established. Now the majority has the right to tell everyone what to do so long as they think it is the right thing.

Oh, you mean that before this particular issue, the government never imposed laws that restricted freedoms? Stop ignoring facts. Bush administration: online poker, gay marriage, Terri Schiavo. All of these involved the federal government explicitly limiting the freedoms of individuals. I'm sure you can find examples from most administrations, stop trying to make it seem like some new devastating precedent has been set.

FWIW, I'm a strong believer in individual rights. And I think that this healthcare issue is not comparable to many other egregious examples of freedom limitations because the end-goal is to improve everyone's healthcare, not just those affected by the penalty of being forced to buy healthcare or be fined. In other examples, the limitations only end up restricting freedom for a group of people (eg, gay marriage only affects gays, with no corresponding benefit to the rest of society).

But with healthcare, my premiums and the general cost of care is significantly raised by the current group of people that don't (or can't) pay their bills. Reducing the number of uninsured citizens should drive down the cost of healthcare, because hospitals/doctors will have a higher collection rate and won't have to up-charge as much to recover those losses. (Disclaimer: this is my understanding of the situation -- I thought this through myself, I could be 100% wrong -- I don't watch 24 hours news networks).

[kingnat]

Hey d0zer... how's battlesex these days with two kids and what not.

p.s. can't find battlesex thread.

[Chelle]

titties.

[bikes]

Hey d0zer... how's battlesex these days with two kids and what not.

p.s. can't find battlesex thread.

it's safe.

[abelardx]

Oh, you mean that before this particular issue, the government never imposed laws that restricted freedoms? Stop ignoring facts. Bush administration: online poker, gay marriage, Terri Schiavo. All of these involved the federal government explicitly limiting the freedoms of individuals. I'm sure you can find examples from most administrations, stop trying to make it seem like some new devastating precedent has been set.

FWIW, I'm a strong believer in individual rights. And I think that this healthcare issue is not comparable to many other egregious examples of freedom limitations because the end-goal is to improve everyone's healthcare, not just those affected by the penalty of being forced to buy healthcare or be fined. In other examples, the limitations only end up restricting freedom for a group of people (eg, gay marriage only affects gays, with no corresponding benefit to the rest of society).

But with healthcare, my premiums and the general cost of care is significantly raised by the current group of people that don't (or can't) pay their bills. Reducing the number of uninsured citizens should drive down the cost of healthcare, because hospitals/doctors will have a higher collection rate and won't have to up-charge as much to recover those losses. (Disclaimer: this is my understanding of the situation -- I thought this through myself, I could be 100% wrong -- I don't watch 24 hours news networks).

IMO there is a huge difference between not being allowed to do something and having to do something. If you can't stay in your room, do nothing, and be OK with the guvmint, then something is seriously wrong.

[abelardx]

Randomness thread losing it's randomness

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=370288593101631

and this definitely this She's lovely!

[Jack Sawyer]

It's not just freedom, gorilla. It's self-determination. The pattern has been established. Now the majority has the right to tell everyone what to do so long as they think it is the right thing. That is a big deal. Imagine what some people might want to force you to do, that they believe would be best for you, which you might not like. That's not too hard, is it? And frightening.

You want to start a new entitlement program, raise taxes and buy universal health care? Fine. This is totally different.

And for the record, I appreciate that your response did not include any personal shots.

I came here for the poker and liked it, felt at home. I'm not a troll. But I will stick up for myself. It would be nice if I didn't have to.

You're the mod. Do you understand that?

U serious bra? Democracies are about majorities.

There are other kinds of forms of government which do not give a shit about what the majorities want, such as Absolute Monarchy or any kind of Authoritarianism etc. Maybe you like one of those better? (I wanted to include Serfdom, but it's not really a kind of government despite what Civilization IV thinks)

[a500lbgorilla]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sum...tes-worl,2879/

"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."

"Everything is here already," the pictograph continues. "We do not need more stars."

Moreover, the Sumerians were taken aback by the creation of the same animals and herb-yielding seeds that they had been domesticating and cultivating for hundreds of generations.

[abelardx]

U serious bra? Democracies are about majorities.

There are other kinds of forms of government which do not give a shit about what the majorities want, such as Absolute Monarchy or any kind of Authoritarianism etc. Maybe you like one of those better? (I wanted to include Serfdom, but it's not really a kind of government despite what Civilization IV thinks)

Because it's a democracy the majority gets to set the rules. The rules tell you what you can't do, or what you must do if you want to do something specific like drive or hunt or start a business. But for the first time ever the government is mandating what we must do just for being alive in this country. This is completely new. Imagine if some other group gets into power. They might think you'd be better off exercising regularly or attending church or whatever. Maybe they make that a law. What's the difference? There is no difference in principle.

[Jack Sawyer]

http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-n...illion-dollars

So, we’ve made it to the end. And, all told, you’ve learned nothing of any substance that wasn’t mentioned in the title of the story. Thanks, TV news. You’re really doing your civic duty on this one.

[abelardx]

And let me be even more frank, just to show you that I’m not a hard-hearted man, that it’s not all dollars and cents.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you can't stay in your room, do nothing, and be OK with the guvmint, then something is seriously wrong.

Sitting in your room and doing nothing is the exact recipe for a government out of control. When the governed stop paying attention, the governing make decisions that are more and more based on their own personal gain, and not for the gain of the governed.

[abelardx]

If you had your own room, and if you wanted to sit in it and do nothing, but you couldn't without being punished by the govt. To me that is problematic.

[Savy]

Well then you're a fucking idiot.

[NightGizmo]

IMO there is a huge difference between not being allowed to do something and having to do something. If you can't stay in your room, do nothing, and be OK with the guvmint, then something is seriously wrong.

Choose your own adventure: While you're sitting in your room alone doing nothing productive, you somehow slip and break your hip. You go to the ER with no money and no insurance. What is your opinion on the next step?

1. The ER fixes you up, bills you, you never pay, you declare bankruptcy, the rest of the paying hospital patients indirectly pick up your tab through higher care costs.
2. The ER asks for insurance or proof of ability to pay. Since you don't have either, you're not treated.
3. Through a universal healthcare system, you enter the ER and get treated without paying any bills.
4. A different solution?

[abelardx]

I must say you are some trusting individuals. But tbh I'm tired of talking about it. If you don't see my point, well how could you not? You're just being contrary.

[NightGizmo]

Well then you're a fucking idiot.

Why do your arguments always devolve into name calling?

[boost]

Millions of Americans are the working poor living on the edge. (Probably that's the same everywhere idk.) And many people fall through the cracks.

So true. And so many of them fall through the cracks because of their inability to access proper medical care.

My bottom line is that falling through the cracks shouldn't be a crime.

It isn't.

Legislation designed to make people 'do the right thing' is offensive because it totally disregards the weakest members of society many of whom will never fit in no matter what you do.

Wait, who exactly is disregarding them? And no one cares about your sensibilities. You're right that minorities should not be marginalized, however baseless opinions, held by minorities or the majority, absolutely should be marginalized. No one cares what you believe, how you are offended, or what your dog thinks about the issue.

They should be included not marginalized.

Yet, as bolded above, you've already given up on them...

Requiring purchases and paperwork is laughable to many people who are either on or have already gone over the edge.

People who are "over the edge" are not required to purchase anything. Their healthcare is fully subsidized. Up thread you bragged that America is the most charitable nation, implying that we don't need government handouts (unfortunately this conclusion does not follow, but that's besides the point.) Now you are complaining that the ACA (one of the strongest safety nets we have) is somehow eroding safety nets. Which is it? Charity, or government safety nets?

Good intentions, bad execution. And btw tort reform would do more to control sky high medical rates than anything else.

What execution? It is just now being enacted. What are you even talking about? In your opinion the execution will be poor? Theoretically it's a bad plan? What do you even mean here?

In regards to Tort reform, here, have a read:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/221758-opi...e-cost-crisis/

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sum...tes-worl,2879/

Ha, awesome.

Because it's a democracy the majority gets to set the rules. The rules tell you what you can't do, or what you must do if you want to do something specific like drive or hunt or start a business. But for the first time ever the government is mandating what we must do just for being alive in this country. This is completely new. Imagine if some other group gets into power. They might think you'd be better off exercising regularly or attending church or whatever. Maybe they make that a law. What's the difference? There is no difference in principle.

Selective Service

Jury Duty

Contribute to institutions/initiatives/etc I don't agree with by way of tax dollars

Refusal to participate in all three is a criminal act.

[NightGizmo]

I must say you are some trusting individuals. But tbh I'm tired of talking about it. If you don't see my point, well how could you not? You're just being contrary.

Try answering my last question, abelardx. I'm seriously interested in your response. In option 1, your lack of insurance impacts my freedom -- I lose money (which represents my time and effort) through higher insurance premiums and healthcare costs.

It's a difficult issue because of the fact that uninsured citizens have a financial impact on the rest of society.

[abelardx]

Well then you're a fucking idiot.

lol we'd prob get along great irl

[abelardx]

Awesome asian girl gif montage on the way.

[Savy]

Why do your arguments always devolve into name calling?

Because it's so obvious that it's a completely null point. Also I don't.

I was told this ideology as I was growing up and as a result I now judge everything as to how it effects that ideology. I've never really given this ideology any deep thought I just assume that it holds true for everything because there are definitely some good parts to it. So when people say something will be good because A, B & C I just think lol do you not see how it effects this ideology which I mean in comparison when I think about it seems pretty petty and irrelevant but if I lose the ability to base all of my opinions around this ideology it means I have to rethink so much and that's a lot of effort. Hardly seems worth it.

[a500lbgorilla]

[wufwugy]

Freedom is defined differently depending on who you talk to, regardless of whether or not it's an accurate description. Some think freedom is to be free from temptation, some think it is to be free from obligation. The correct definition is along the lines of social mobility, physical and mental health, and opportunities to innovate and partake in activities. US conservatism views freedom in its most irrational sense. Many believe that taxes are a detraction of freedom, but because they are ignorant of history and economics, they don't realize that taxes are an integral facet of a free civilization.

[abelardx]

OK, since this is devolving into an Abelard-the-big-huge-idiot AMA, I will answer your questions. Then we will have cute asian girl gifs. But first I must warn you that I'm a visionary, a mystic, a blue sky guy. So don't be upset if you don't see everything all at once.

Choose your own adventure: While you're sitting in your room alone doing nothing productive, you somehow slip and break your hip. You go to the ER with no money and no insurance. What is your opinion on the next step?

1. The ER fixes you up, bills you, you never pay, you declare bankruptcy, the rest of the paying hospital patients indirectly pick up your tab through higher care costs.
2. The ER asks for insurance or proof of ability to pay. Since you don't have either, you're not treated.
3. Through a universal healthcare system, you enter the ER and get treated without paying any bills.
4. A different solution?

Personally I would prefer option 3 esp if I didn't have to fill out any paperwork. But you left off the real world option, what actually happens: You go to the ER, you get fixed up, and you're billed $1500. You pay the bill. It takes a year but you pay it. You paid probably 5-10x what the insurance company pays but hey that's life. You don't have a lot of options, and everything's more expensive for the poor.

This is what happened when I gashed my finger. I took the stitches out myself. When I got the shingles I stayed in bed for two days. It hurt but there's not a lot you can do about it. I did not see a doctor. When I threw out my shoulder, the doctor I went to refused to see me because I did not have insurance. A kind nurse gave me an arm sling. Three months later it stopped hurting. Ibuprofen is your friend. When I needed to see a dentist I stood in line outside the free clinic starting at 4 am to make sure I got one of the dental tickets. It's just what you do.

So true. And so many of them fall through the cracks because of their inability to access proper medical care.

Wait, who exactly is disregarding them? And no one cares about your sensibilities. You're right that minorities should not be marginalized, however baseless opinions, held by minorities or the majority, absolutely should be marginalized. No one cares what you believe, how you are offended, or what your dog thinks about the issue.

Yet, as bolded above, you've already given up on them...

People who are "over the edge" are not required to purchase anything. Their healthcare is fully subsidized. Up thread you bragged that America is the most charitable nation, implying that we don't need government handouts (unfortunately this conclusion does not follow, but that's besides the point.) Now you are complaining that the ACA (one of the strongest safety nets we have) is somehow eroding safety nets. Which is it? Charity, or government safety nets?

What execution? It is just now being enacted. What are you even talking about? In your opinion the execution will be poor? Theoretically it's a bad plan? What do you even mean here?

In regards to Tort reform, here, have a read:

Selective Service

Jury Duty

Contribute to institutions/initiatives/etc I don't agree with by way of tax dollars

Refusal to participate in all three is a criminal act.

I used to see this guy on the streets all the time obv homeless, big huge black guy, probably crazy. I always thought he was wearing boots until one day I got close to him and saw that it was asphalt dust so caked on his feet that it looked like boots.

This guy is never going to have insurance of any kind. He is never going to fit into society. And you know what? That is OK. He is still a human being. He is unfortunate. He is not a criminal.

I haven't given up on him. I haven't written him out of my world. There are many like him that you never see. And it is OK. And they are people as good as you or me.

I served on jury duty once. It was OK. I am a veteran and proud of it. I didn't serve during wartime but I don't control that.

You want to debate what Washington does? What exact bill the lobbyists end up writing? That's great. More power to you. I wish you well. Personally I find it all very impersonal and unreal.

But you should care about what people think, at least you should care that they get to think what they want to think, that they're not bulldozed by anyone arrogant enough to think they know better what everyone else should do or have.

Being right, if there is such a thing, does not give you the right to tell other people what to do. That is a dignity violation that degrades us all.

[abelardx]

[a500lbgorilla]

I will answer your questions. Then we will have cute asian girl gifs.

I call this - gif haiku

[abelardx]

There. That is all. You are probably stunned by my words. That is normal. Perhaps you should drink some alcohol and take a nap in a dark room. You'll feel better. NO MORE POLITICS FOR ME. TYVM.

[abelardx]

lol simulposting

[a500lbgorilla]

I hammed down like 15 of the gifs in your post on the suspicion that it was too many damn gifs.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you don't see my point, well how could you not? You're just being contrary.

... and THAT is an ad hominem.

[abelardx]

What happened to my gifs gorilla?

Oh OK I will choose four good ones. OK?

[abelardx]

[NightGizmo]

But you left off the real world option, what actually happens: You go to the ER, you get fixed up, and you're billed $1500. You pay the bill. It takes a year but you pay it. You paid probably 5-10x what the insurance company pays but hey that's life. You don't have a lot of options, and everything's more expensive for the poor.

http://health.costhelper.com/hip-fracture.html

Average cost of a hip fracture for the uninsured: $13,000 to $40,000. How long will that take you to pay off?

[NightGizmo]

Mesmorizing.

[abelardx]

Now THAT my friends is some quality posting. You're welcome.

[abelardx]

Is there a gif limit per page? Can I add a couple more?

[boost]

Personally I would prefer option 3 esp if I didn't have to fill out any paperwork. But you left off the real world option, what actually happens: You go to the ER, you get fixed up, and you're billed $1500. You pay the bill. It takes a year but you pay it. You paid probably 5-10x what the insurance company pays but hey that's life. You don't have a lot of options, and everything's more expensive for the poor.

Your preference is influenced by the need to fill out or lack of paperwork? What is up with your preoccupation with filling out paperwork? Go live in Papua New Guinea and forage for yuca and protein rich palm maggots. Otherwise, sit down, pick up a pen, and fill out some paper work, because, like it or not, large organizations run on paperwork.

This is what happened when I gashed my finger. I took the stitches out myself. When I got the shingles I stayed in bed for two days. It hurt but there's not a lot you can do about it. I did not see a doctor. When I threw out my shoulder, the doctor I went to refused to see me because I did not have insurance. A kind nurse gave me an arm sling. Three months later it stopped hurting. Ibuprofen is your friend. When I needed to see a dentist I stood in line outside the free clinic starting at 4 am to make sure I got one of the dental tickets. It's just what you do.

I would have just chopped the finger off, then cauterized the nub and bit down on a leather strap if the pain got to me. Not sure what all this healthcare fuss is about, that's just what you do.

I used to see this guy on the streets all the time obv homeless, big huge black guy, probably crazy. I always thought he was wearing boots until one day I got close to him and saw that it was asphalt dust so caked on his feet that it looked like boots.

This guy is never going to have insurance of any kind. He is never going to fit into society. And you know what? That is OK. He is still a human being. He is unfortunate. He is not a criminal.

I haven't given up on him. I haven't written him out of my world. There are many like him that you never see. And it is OK. And they are people as good as you or me.

You say he's never going to rejoin society, then you say you haven't written him out of your world. How is he in your world? Because you have to occasionally get close enough to notice his "boots" are just filth and callouses?

The thing is, I've probably not far away from writing off that individual myself. I think homeless outreach programs should be in place, and that guy should have a chance at a helping hand-- but that wasn't my point at all. Your anecdote misses the point completely. That guy has a history. He ended up there somehow. I won't resolve myself to believing that callous and filth boot wearing individuals are intrinsic to our society. You have. You may have not given up on this one particular guy in some sort of perverse stretch of the imagination, but you have absolutely given up on every potential future him.

I served on jury duty once. It was OK. I am a veteran and proud of it. I didn't serve during wartime but I don't control that.

You're dodging the point. Voluntary service has nothing to do with Selective Service, and how much you enjoyed jury duty is of no consequence here. The point is, there are other things required of you by the government which limit your freedoms and are punishable in criminal court. Why don't you take issue with those?

You want to debate what Washington does? What exact bill the lobbyists end up writing? That's great. More power to you. I wish you well. Personally I find it all very impersonal and unreal.

Yet you oppose a very specific bill. A bill that passed both houses of congress, was signed by the president, and reviewed by the supreme court. Now that you are backed into a corner you want to feign disinterest.

But you should care about what people think, at least you should care that they get to think what they want to think, that they're not bulldozed by anyone arrogant enough to think they know better what everyone else should do or have.

You've created a position and implied that I hold it.

Being right, if there is such a thing, does not give you the right to tell other people what to do. That is a dignity violation that degrades us all.

In some cases, it very much does give you that right. That is why we elect officials, that is why we have a military, that is why we have police officers, judges, prison guards, etc etc.

And "dignity violation"? Back to ill-defined over reaching creeds, which fail to truly inform our actions and only serve to cloud our minds. How about you stop relying on these intellectual crutches and actually apply yourself to the issue?

[abelardx]

Were you bitten by a conservative when you were a child?

[boost]

Another response of a person who is backed into a corner and unable to defend his position and/or adjust his viewpoint in light of new info: Deflection.

[a500lbgorilla]

Super fleh.

Out arguing someone demonstrates nothing.

[a500lbgorilla]

Oh, everyone look at this real quick.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthi...t-hoax-on-face

She fake posts a rape threat against herself, there's eventually a rally for her and against the rape culture just before she's caught.

[a500lbgorilla]

And here's stroke brain.

http://i.imgur.com/w82rN4h.jpg

It'll make you feel your temples.

[boost]

Super fleh.

Out arguing someone demonstrates nothing.

You know that's not true.

It may not demonstrate what everyone thinks it demonstrates, but it most certainly demonstrates something.

[a500lbgorilla]

You know that's not true.

It may not demonstrate what everyone thinks it demonstrates, but it most certainly demonstrates something.

I super know it's true.

Argument sways people to agree. It usually doesn't get you anywhere worth getting.

[wufwugy]

I think arguing on the internet does far more than people think. It's a sharing of information unlike ever before. People like us used to either not have access to much information or not be able to influence the information people get; now we have tons of both, and I think changes in society result because of it

[a500lbgorilla]

It's a sharing of information

Oh, this. This is amazing. I try to get into arguments not to fight for my position, but to share my position and hope that others will show me something I haven't seen before.

But this is only one avenue of argument that you can find yourself in, and for most of the rest of them, it's not pretty.

[wufwugy]

Here's an example I use for why arguing on the internet is great: creationism is dying hard and fast mainly because of a bunch of youtubers arguing about it. Obviously, it's the science that provides the evidence against creationism, but it's the internet where creationism comes to have that evidence smashed in its face

[a500lbgorilla]

Here's an example I use for why arguing on the internet is great: creationism is dying hard and fast mainly because of a bunch of youtubers arguing about it. Obviously, it's the science that provides the evidence against creationism, but it's the internet where creationism comes to have that evidence smashed in its face

A counter example, there are two ways to argue against creationism.

Imsavy-esque 'well obviously you're an idiot'

or

how this guy handles it: http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAthe...rthers/ccrt7hj

Same content, assuming you pull out the first argument to include all the same evidence, but a predictably different result.

As I said, argument is about swaying people to agree. Often regardless of all the good stuff like what's actually true.

[wufwugy]

Gravitating towards the ImSavy route is why I don't argue anymore. I used to have patience, but not much anymore

[abelardx]

IM THE VOICE OF DISSENT BITCHEZ!!!1!!




get used to it

[a500lbgorilla]

I argue because it takes something extra to hold you from it - and I don't always have that something extra available.

There's a quote I can't quite find on the internet that wraps up my point well. It was about scientific debate and the guy says something along the lines of "You don't argue with those that disagree, but rather wait for them to die off and hope the newer generation grows up having known the right answer the whole time."

Hoping someone can find it for me.

[a500lbgorilla]

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning. "

Max Planck.

[abelardx]

"What is your aim in philosophy? To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle." Wittgenstein (non-scrub)

[boost]

Rilla, that's a cool quote, but I don't really agree. Maybe if it's modified a bit?

"You don't argue with those that disagree with the goal of changing their minds, you argue to offer a platform in which later generations can find truth. When you convince contemporaries, that's just gravy."

But even then I think is a simplistic and narrow view of argument. The reason I attack abel most specifically on his deflection and feigned indifference is not because I think I'm executing a finisher, but because it clouds the potential truths found in our debate. Sure, endless debate is lame-- but you can feel free to gracefully bow out, or you can deflect, misdirect, and pretend it really isn't that important anyways. When you take this route of trivializing the issue, it's a cheap attempt at a stalemate.

So, while that quote (as edited by myself :selfpatsontheback may be great, I think there are other reasons to value argument. For example, I feel both more informed on the issue as well as more equipped to combat underhanded and disruptive debate tactics, and this (along with not having that special something needed to practice avoidance which you mentioned) is normally why I jump into these things.

[boost]

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning. "

Max Planck.

Right, see this is not advocating not participating in debate. It doesn't explicitly say so, but it certainly implies that the debate with your contemporaries, while directly fruitless, is imperative.

[wufwugy]

the primary winners of internet debates are the lurkers. by a lot

[a500lbgorilla]

Two things,

1. Wittgenstein smashed it out of the park with 'meaning is use' a beautiful analogue to the biological principle 'structure is purpose.'

2. I saw that point coming, boost. That you still need the good argument out there for the newer generation to appraise as worth latching on to. But there is a nefarious difference between arguing over how best to describe something discretely observed and arguing over perceptions of the world around. I don't know how to make my point best, but I'd wager money that if given enough time to do the leg work, you could argue any position held by any political actor in any country at any time sufficiently well that the worst you could do is tie.

[boost]

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUGHHHGHGHGHSgkdhg I hate this forum, just lost a good post....

It was directed to the final point of 2.

I disagree, unless your opponent is not given equal resources, or his opposing position is equally as true/false as yours. Unless of course we're talking about ivy league debate team rules-- but that scenario should clearly be disregarded as it doesn't pertain to our discussion at all.

But why are we talking about hypotheticals? We can just look to our exponential advance as a species. It is a living testament to truth winning the debate, whether it be a contemporary victory or one only realized in generations to come.

[Savy]

For the record I'm actually quite happy to debate/argue about a few things which I'm knowledgeable about and if people are interested in having a proper conversation I'm more than up for it. I also ask about a lot of stuff that I don't know much about, rather than just throwing my opinion around like it means something. I've gotten bored with arguing with people who are just never going to change their mind or learn something from the argument though.

[a500lbgorilla]

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUGHHHGHGHGHSgkdhg I hate this forum, just lost a good post....

It was directed to the final point of 2.

I disagree, unless your opponent is not given equal resources, or his opposing position is equally as true/false as yours. Unless of course we're talking about ivy league debate team rules-- but that scenario should clearly be disregarded as it doesn't pertain to our discussion at all.

But why are we talking about hypotheticals? We can just look to our exponential advance as a species. It is a living testament to truth winning the debate, whether it be a contemporary victory or one only realized in generations to come.

I hate to do this, but the grand test is abe, isn't it? So long as Abe doesn't want to agree, he won't agree, and he can always find reason not to agree - for the cost of creating and sharing those reasons is well outweighed by the value of having people agree with them. So think back to my post about the two approaches to the Young Earth Creationists. Both were as right as the other from the start, but only one would get the result. That shows what arguing is all about.

Savy, I wasn't trying to knock you, you were just offered up as a front-of-the-mind example. You'd do well if you even tried to argue a positive position, me thinks. (That's to say, you're not taking a dig at the last post but putting forward your own perspective).

[abelardx]

Look, when it comes to politics, you guys make it sound like everyone with a high school education agrees with you and I'm the lone holdout. You know that's not true. For the people in Europe: Americans are very divided on these issues and many others. And there are educated very wonky people on both sides. If somebody tells you the facts are all one way they are misrepresenting the situation. Like I said, I'm not that interested in details like wuf clearly knows a lot about, but I can still tell a beauty queen from a pig with lipstick. If you don't change my mind, that doesn't make me irrational. I have a lifetime of experience that led to my position and it is a valid one, as valid as yours.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah, I didn't like making the point. It was a boost-centric post for the first paragraph and I'm sorry. I don't call the perspective you hold as 'compelling' lightly. You're not a wonk. I just had to drop those words for boost and I didn't know how else to do them.

[abelardx]

No problem. I just want to make the point, which I think may have been lost, that policy choices are not simply questions of fact. They demand value judgments that come from our view of the world and our life experiences. It's not like determining the boiling point of water. It's more like, should I marry this woman?

[d0zer]

Look, when it comes to politics, you guys make it sound like everyone with a high school education agrees with you and I'm the lone holdout. You know that's not true. For the people in Europe: Americans are very divided on these issues and many others. And there are educated very wonky people on both sides. If somebody tells you the facts are all one way they are misrepresenting the situation. Like I said, I'm not that interested in details like wuf clearly knows a lot about, but I can still tell a beauty queen from a pig with lipstick. If you don't change my mind, that doesn't make me irrational. I have a lifetime of experience that led to my position and it is a valid one, as valid as yours.

I'm sorry abelardx, I was unnecessarily hard on you. I can see now you're just an average guy tryin' to make it in this crazy world. Keep on keepin' on man.

[a500lbgorilla]

PS this motherfucker

"An experiment is a question which science poses to Nature, and a measurement is the recording of Nature's answer. "

Max Planck.

You could read entire books on the philosophy of science and it'd all come back this sentence.

[abelardx]

I'm sorry abelardx, I was unnecessarily hard on you. I can see now you're just an average guy tryin' to make it in this crazy world. Keep on keepin' on man.

No problem, dozer. You were right on imo. But everything's good in my world now even though I seem to be more and more in the minority as time goes on.

[wufwugy]

Look, when it comes to politics, you guys make it sound like everyone with a high school education agrees with you and I'm the lone holdout.

On the contrary, I think a lot of people agree with you, but that has no bearing on the accuracy of the beliefs

A lot of true things are believed by few people, even those who tend to believe accurate things. Here's an example: in today's US politics, liberals are more about fiscal stimulus and conservatives are more about fiscal austerity. The accurate side is liberals, by a lot. But on the issue of monetary policy, many liberals are hawks and more concerned about bubble thwarting, while traditional Friedman conservatives are for monetary stimulus and stable expectations. In this scenario, the liberal side is wrong and the conservative side is right

But finding who is what isn't so cut and dry. Here's why: Obama's fiscal policies are pretty good, but his monetary ones are crap. Romney's monetary policies had the potential to be better than Obama's, but his fiscal policies were crap and there was strong potential that even his monetary policies would be more austere than the already crap Obama monetary policies

It's not about one side or the other, it's about right or wrong. "Right" isn't found in platitudes, but in technical details. You previously stated a disdain for technical details. This is a learning opportunity. You can take some time to figure out why the technical details you disdain are necessary. It's like with the Roberts' thing you brought up. The courts ruling was 100% in line with the Constitution. It was technically correct, technically constitutional, and that's the only way something can be considered correct in the first place. Because of this, you can know that your distaste for the ruling isn't because it was wrong, but because of a philosophical disagreement. Then you can analyze that disagreement, and I think you'll find that it's partly based in the desire to remain true to the Constitution, which will show that indeed the ruling is true to the Constitution, so you should reevaluate your opinion and how you approach the topic in the first place

[supa]

I'm sorry abelardx, I was unnecessarily hard on you. I can see now you're just an average guy tryin' to make it in this crazy world. Keep on keepin' on man.

No. He was being a dick.

[Savy]

Wuf you ass, why haven't you written your novel yet?

[wufwugy]

Wuf you ass, why haven't you written your novel yet?

bcuz imma lahooooozer

[d0zer]

No. He was being a dick.

He was, but so was boost, wuggy, savvy, the vast majority of the internets myself included. You're not a dick too often tho you've had your moments.

When I was younger, I believed the idea you shouldn't discuss religion or politics was absurd. How else are we supposed to progress unless we're constantly being challenged? The problem is too often you have people massively killing any buzz that existed to further their ego. They're not interested in having a discussion, they're interested in preaching to the choir or yelling at the opposition. It's exactly what's wrong with american politics today and you see it manifest in politicians themselves just like it does the 24hr news networks.

There are people genuinely interested in having a reasonable conversation, and when you find them it's great to have your beliefs challenged. Results indicate that internet messageboards are generally a poor place to do this when the discourse is filled with oso clever jabs "(liber|conserva)tard" that do nothing but announce your "team" and put people on the defensive, eliminating any chance of a reasonable exchange.

The whole idea of a political team is absurd, when you poll people they almost always have some mix from both 'sides'. What the extremists on either side forget, is that varying circumstances called for varying approaches and dismissing a lot of ideas because of where they come from is a damn shame.

/rant

[bikes]

this thread sucks now.