Randomness thread, part two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This statement is an axiom. You have to take as true what an axiom is before you can proceed further with the discussion.

---

Definitions aren't considered axioms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

That means that spoon explaining to us was axiom-based deduction, but it doesn't mean that the baby in spoon's example made an axiom-based deduction.

It's an interesting refutation of my point, and I don't see any flaw in it other than to question what is meant by "knowledge."

I'm not prepared to argue that subjective knowledge about one's self is not knowledge, so I concede that I've been shown I was wrong.

EDIT: "I'm not prepared" sounds like I have some interest in pursuing that argument, but no. Self-knowledge is on a different level from scientific knowledge, but so long as we presuppose a healthy-minded self, capable of honest introspection, the line between whether that subjective observation is "true" or not isn't so easy to find.

---

You can also take all of this in the direction of animals having knowledge, which gets hairy since they don't have language to make statements with.

To assist us, here are a few definitions of knowledge:

Quote:

---

facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

---

Quote:

---

awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation

---

Quote:

---

the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

---

Quote:

---

the fact or condition of being aware of something

---

Quote:

---

the range of one's information or understanding

---

Axiomatic reasoning and axiomatic systems are very important for developing and expanding knowledge within our framework of language, but they aren't the only ways to acquire knowledge, etc. I'd argue from the above definitions that animals can have knowledge of things [without the use of axioms] as well.

I think in general, our types tend to work so much in the world of axiomatic systems that we often ignore or at least discredit knowledge gained through experience rather than reasoning.

In all seriousness, when I realized just how guilty I was of this in my mid-late 20s, I almost immediately started becoming better and more successful at virtually everything I did.

Unrelated to any of that, this is pretty dope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjnw...ature=youtu.be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Unrelated to any of that, this is pretty dope:

---

Here's what I think. What he did was wrong* and it is right to maintain the order of the court and the process and all that.

However, and this is a big however, what he did I believe derives from a deeply flawed justice system that doesn't deliver actual justice. One way of seeing this is how everybody knows that this guy will get his ass beat, raped, and maybe killed in prison and most people are happy about that and those that aren't are generally indifferent.

Public executions for the most heinous wrongdoers are good, perhaps necessary for a fully healthy society. Instead what we have is a facade of non-violent treatment when meting out justice covering up the real violence that inevitably still happens.


*I'm not saying I wouldn't act that way or it was immoral, just that the system really does require order when meting out justice. It also require IMO true justice and visible justice, neither of which I think we get much of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Here's what I think. What he did was wrong* and it is right to maintain the order of the court and the process and all that.

However, and this is a big however, what he did I believe derives from a deeply flawed justice system that doesn't deliver actual justice. One way of seeing this is how everybody knows that this guy will get his ass beat, raped, and maybe killed in prison and most people are happy about that and those that aren't are generally indifferent.

Public executions for the most heinous wrongdoers are good, perhaps necessary for a fully healthy society. Instead what we have is a facade of non-violent treatment when meting out justice covering up the real violence that inevitably still happens.


*I'm not saying I wouldn't act that way or it was immoral, just that the system really does require order when meting out justice. It also require IMO true justice and visible justice, neither of which I think we get much of.

---

You watch too much Oz.

It seems unlikely to me that this man would be mixed into a prison population that would beat, rape, or kill him. He's not exactly a security threat, it's likely he'll be housed with other people who are not security threats. i.e. people who would not beat, rape, or kill someone. More than likely he'll live out his days in a segregated unit where he'll read, sleep, and play chess with a 90 year old former bank robber.

I don't know what you mean by "true justice". He didn't kill anyone, so the prospect of him being killed doesn't seem right.

"visible justice" happens all the time. Whenever they give a lethal injection, there is a room right next door where people can watch. I don't know about you but I see blurbs in thew news about executions all the time. Timothy McVeigh's last meal was a question on Jeopardy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You watch too much Oz.

It seems unlikely to me that this man would be mixed into a prison population that would beat, rape, or kill him.

---

I wasn't clear in that I'm thinking more in terms of what people think happens. Most people think bad things happen to people like him in prison.

Quote:

---

I don't know what you mean by "true justice". He didn't kill anyone, so the prospect of him being killed doesn't seem right.

---

That's something worth debating.

It is my view is that we can be more sophisticated than just thinking it's only okay to execute when the wrongdoer murdered. Some things might be worse than murder. Other things may warrant execution that might not be worse than murder.

Quote:

---

"visible justice" happens all the time. Whenever they give a lethal injection, there is a room right next door where people can watch. I don't know about you but I see blurbs in thew news about executions all the time. Timothy McVeigh's last meal was a question on Jeopardy.

---

Sanitized, isolated. By visible I mean public square, attended by the community. Granted there are problems with this view since the size of civilization probably makes this dynamic not function the way it has through human evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I think in general, our types tend to work so much in the world of axiomatic systems that we often ignore or at least discredit knowledge gained through experience rather than reasoning.

In all seriousness, when I realized just how guilty I was of this in my mid-late 20s, I almost immediately started becoming better and more successful at virtually everything I did.

---

I was asked in private conversation to expand on this, so I figured I'd post it here instead of in a Skype box. First, a quick bio of what led up to it:

• From the time I was in my early teens, I was more or less on the path I would have needed to be on in order to get a Ph.D. in mathematics and teach at a university. I love teaching, I'm good at it, I love math, and I'm good at that too. It was a good fit.
• I went to a junior college for two years before intending to transfer to NC State. While there, I worked as a tutor for the college for everything up to and including physics, the entire calculus sequence, differential equations and abstract algebra. I also worked in a TA type of role and as a substitute instructor for the department when needed. I absolutely loved it.
• I loved to Raleigh to go to NC State, some things didn't work out, and I moved back home. I started going to college again about a year later fully intending on continuing the path I laid out above.
• Within a year, I became disillusioned with academia. Within a year of that, I quit school permanently. Within a year of that, I was making more than I would have made as a professor with a lot more freedom and a lot more room for growth, with the exception of a few years where things went off the rails because of things that went down with my ex. The earnings and freedom have continued since my mid-20s, and I'll be entering my mid-30s later this year.

I mentioned realizing "just how guilty I was of [ignoring/discrediting knowledge through experience rather than reasoning]" in the quote above, and I can trace that back to a single afternoon. This is what led to the events of my fourth bullet point above.

All of the reasoning in the world told me to stick with my plan. It was a solid plan, and abandoning the plan did not make sense within that frame of thinking. In the interest of making this as short as I can, I had one conversation that hit me right in the face with the reality of my experience and the knowledge that experience had given me. (The conversation was with Renton from FTR, oddly enough, though this effect wasn't intentional on his part.)

Now here's what my experience told me: I loved math, but I hated school. I hated the politics and the bullshit. I hated the rigid schedule, and I hated authority. I hated needing to rely on one entity for a means to provide for myself.

Reality hit me in the face: By following this super rational plan of finishing school, getting my Ph.D. and teaching, I was going to be miserable. I would have to endure a lot of things I really hated in order to get a chance to do things that I loved, and that would make me miserable. I didn't want to do that, but I didn't know what else to do because I was completely discrediting that whole line of thought because it didn't follow the type of thinking that had gotten me to that point. I was discrediting and ignoring what my experience was telling me. The "reasonable" plan was "safe."

Then I had that one conversation one afternoon, about six months after the UIGEA was passed, and it was like a switch flipped. I took two more classes after that just because I wanted to (real analysis and a graduate complex analysis) with no intention of trying to graduate after that, and I threw myself into anything I could to build a different life.

It turned out that I was good at it and that it made me happier than what I was doing before (and this was before I really got into poker how I did for a while). All of the disadvantages of the "reasonable" path were gone, and I wasn't miserable anymore.

That's really cool.

So Brady won another one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

So Brady won another one.

---

Fuck you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Fuck you

---

MVP! MVP! MVP!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

MVP! MVP! MVP!

---

Barely matters. Who else was gonna get MVP this year?

Very much a down year competition-wise in the NFL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Barely matters. Who else was gonna get MVP this year?

Very much a down year competition-wise in the NFL.

---

Foles was like +900 or something for MVP looooooooooool

Brady was the only money line favorite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Foles was like +900 or something for MVP looooooooooool

Brady was the only money line favorite

---

You must be talking about Super Bowl MVP, which Brady didn't win. He won the award for League MVP during the regular season.

There's no way Foles was +900 to be league MVP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You must be talking about Super Bowl MVP, which Brady didn't win. He won the award for League MVP during the regular season.

There's no way Foles was +900 to be league MVP.

---

Fucking pronouns.

I was referring to Foles being like +900 to win the Super Bowl MVP, which he did win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Fucking pronouns.

I was referring to Foles being like +900 to win the Super Bowl MVP, which he did win.

---

That was probably a good bet. I wonder how they came up with that line.

I know most figures I saw said that Philly was about 40% to win. The winning QB is named MVP a HUGE percentage of the time. I'm not sure what that percentage is, but let's be super conservative and say it's 50%. So .4 x .5 means there was like a 20% chance that Foles would be named MVP.

9 to 1 payoff on a 4 to 1 draw??

I call.

They aren't independent variables so that doesn't work.

It's a conditional probability so yes it does work.

The most you can argue with is if he's assigning the correct probability to each event.

For 9:1 to be a bad bet, Foles getting MVP has to be < .10.

If p(Eagles win) was = 0.4, then p(Foles MVP|Eagles win) has to < 0.25 for it to be a bad bet.

Of the first 51 Super Bowls, the QB was MVP 28/51 times = ~ .55

Without knowing anything about how good Foles is, it seems like a good bet.

The quaterback getting MVP is an absolutely huge deciding factor over whether the team wins or not. Especially when the team playing well tends to pad the QB's stats and make them look better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

The quaterback getting MVP is an absolutely huge deciding factor over whether the team wins or not. Especially when the team playing well tends to pad the QB's stats and make them look better.

---

Yes, and that's reflected in the fact the QB gets MVP > 50% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

The quaterback getting MVP is an absolutely huge deciding factor over whether the team wins or not. Especially when the team playing well tends to pad the QB's stats and make them look better.

---

Tom Brady put on an all-time Super Bowl performance and lost. By any objective measure, Tom Brady was MVP, and it's not even close.

Eli Manning was average at best in his two Super Bowl MVP performances.

So I'd say you've got it backwards. To be MVP, you have to win first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Tom Brady put on an all-time Super Bowl performance and lost. By any objective measure, Tom Brady was MVP, and it's not even close.

Eli Manning was average at best in his two Super Bowl MVP performances.

So I'd say you've got it backwards. To be MVP, you have to win first.

---

I'm sorry, but winning isn't the most important thing. Leading your team is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by forkitnow

I'm sorry, but winning isn't the most important thing. Leading your team is.

---

and if you lead them to defeat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

and if you lead them to defeat?

---

But he won the popular vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

and if you lead them to defeat?

---

I don't expect you to understand that privilege is the primary characteristic to determine "defeat" or that leading has nothing to do with leadership in a game build on the backs of marginalized groups treated as field slaves by white land owners, oh wait, I mean team owners.

PLANTATION'D

Over 10 posts in the first day the account was created?

The FTR policy is still to limit new members to 10 posts per day for a few days, IIRC.

So... forkitnow is probably an alt from a mod and not a member.

I just can't tell yet if it's spoony-not-spoony, or if someone else is trolling spoony.

Fun game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Over 10 posts in the first day the account was created?

The FTR policy is still to limit new members to 10 posts per day for a few days, IIRC.

So... forkitnow is probably an alt from a mod and not a member.

I just can't tell yet if it's spoony-not-spoony, or if someone else is trolling spoony.

Fun game.

---

That's the old policy. New members can post pretty much as much as they want as long as it doesn't include links.

It's either spoon or someone doing a good job so far of pretending to be spoon.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/07...ads-to-id.html

Does anyone else see anything "off" about this?

That guy's not Asian. Also, the chin isn't even close.

That isn't spoon, it's banana. I mean he totally ignores it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

That isn't spoon, it's banana. I mean he totally ignores it.

---

Ignores what? Obvious foil-hat troll posts?

I actually have nothing to contribute to a discussion of whether or not humans are unknowingly enslaved by alien overlords. I've seen no evidence either way on that front.

Ignores the second utensilitnow troll in a day.

This is fun, it's like werewolf. I'm thinking spoon and banana right now, but the first one could be someone like rilla.

If anyone else feels like playing, be more creative than knifeitnow.

I'm thinking something like pizzacutteritnow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Ignores the second utensilitnow troll in a day.

---

I actually think that's what everyone should be doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's either spoon or someone doing a good job so far of pretending to be spoon.

---

If every account is spoon why would a new account not be spoon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

If every account is spoon why would a new account not be spoon?

---

Shut up, wuf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Ignores the second utensilitnow troll in a day.

This is fun, it's like werewolf. I'm thinking spoon and banana right now, but the first one could be someone like rilla.

---

If this is your current level of werewolf, you've seriously lost your edge.

I had forkit narrowed down to 2 possibilities in the first 5 posts, either person A or someone who knows person A from outside the forum and is in cahoots with person A.
The pic in the NSFW thread cinches that hypothesis. I.e. it is certain that person A is either forkit or an IRL friend of forkit, because forkit posted a picture of person A.

Spatula is almost certainly also person A.

I didn't look in the NSFW thread because I'm at work duh. I know, weird.

Anyway, the only actual evidence I saw was spoon replying to you about new member post limits, which struck me as odd, because spoon obviously knows this is a troll. So it's either spoon, or someone in cahoots with him, sure.

New one could be anyone really, perhaps even me.

Nah, I'm a shit troll, I'd be too obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpatulaItNow

THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO DO!!

---

This guy gets it.

Oi.

One of you British blokes.

What the hell is doggin' in your country, 'cause I don't think it means the same thing here.

i thought it meant a half assed effort. "he was dogging it in practice"

only in the last couple years have i learned it has an alternate meaning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Oi.

One of you British blokes.

What the hell is doggin' in your country, 'cause I don't think it means the same thing here.

---

Sex in public.

What does it mean there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Sex in public.

What does it mean there?

---

Just in public? I was under the impression there was a specific outdoor element.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Just in public? I was under the impression there was a specific outdoor element.

---

I think the outside thing is part of it yeah.

It's more than sex outdoors, it has the added aspect of being intended for public view. Like finding a quiet car park and nailing your woman in the car while people watch from outside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Sex in public.

What does it mean there?

---

Definitely not that.

Banana's description of "half-assed effort" is probably the usage I'm most familiar with, but I'm very to super white.
I will ask someone more familiar with black slang what they'd think it means at work.

My Hawaiian gal guessed it would mean really good, and used it as an exclamation.
"That's doggin'!"
(I've not heard this usage, but that's not really indicative of anything, given my hermit tendencies.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Definitely not that.

---

Actually, it means that here too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Actually, it means that here too.

---

confirmed

I just spoke with one of my non-melanin-challenged coworkers and she confirmed that is a usage.

Predominantly, though, she said doggin' would probably mean disrespecting, as in, "Why you doggin' me like that?"

American slang is retarded. Like, "doggin" meaning "half-assed effort" makes zero sense. Dogs are full of effort. Humans are the half-assers.

But "doggin" to mean sex in public is slang perfection. It fits the behavior, fits the language, is visual, and funny. Britain's chief export should be slang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

American slang is retarded. Like, "doggin" meaning "half-assed effort" makes zero sense. Dogs are full of effort. Humans are the half-assers.

But "doggin" to mean sex in public is slang perfection. It fits the behavior, fits the language, is visual, and funny. Britain's chief export should be slang.

---

Too bad their chief export is cucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Too bad their chief export is cucks.

---

Actually our chief export is all those words you used, with the exception of "cuck".

Oh wait, "cuck" comes from "cuckold", and old Shakespearian word. Well fuck me.

It means a man whose wife has sex with someone else.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/1954...ive-term-often

Quote:

---

The implicit racism — being cheated on is bad enough, but being cheated on with a black man is uniquely awful — displays the quintessential blend of hyper-masculinity and White Nationalism that is signature alt-right.

---

Well, either the author of this article has completely missed the point, or she's deliberately omitting the point.

It's not that it's worse for your wife to fuck a black man, it's worse for you to welcome into your home the man who fucks your wife.

It's a fitting anaology. I might use this word more often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It means a man whose wife has sex with someone else.

---

That would technically speaking make men in polyamorous relationships cucks, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

https://www.bustle.com/articles/1954...ive-term-often



Well, either the author of this article has completely missed the point, or she's deliberately omitting the point.

It's not that it's worse for your wife to fuck a black man, it's worse for you to welcome into your home the man who fucks your wife.

It's a fitting anaology. I might use this word more often.

---

Bustle lol

She's going with a common "talking point" that some people on the left use over the whole thing to try to tie it to race, mostly because so much cuckold fetish porn is a white couple with a black guy. The roots of that even go back to the slave days, but it has little to do with the rise of cuck as an insult.

The bold is the point of how cuck is used as an insult so freely, particularly in politics. It largely means someone who welcomes the betraying of their own interests and ideals, much like the left welcomes completely fucking up the goddamn country, fewer restrictions on immigration, the personification of white guilt, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

That would technically speaking make men in polyamorous relationships cucks, no?

---

When sticking with the strict definition and not the wider one used in the political realm noted above, if they are committed to a woman who is having sex with other men, then yes. If you're just fuck buddies with some girl who is fucking other guys, then that does not fall under the definition since it has to happen from within a committed relationship. The woman having sex with other women also doesn't create a cuckold.

On a larger level, it's understood to mean that you're providing for a woman who is having sex with other men. You don't even really need to be having sex with her (eg: a marriage with a dead bedroom) for it to qualify.

Fun fact: Within the polyamorous community, which is extremely left-leaning (big fucking surprise there), you get completely shit on if you're in relationships with multiple women who are committed to you and who do not have sex with other men. They have a term for it called a "one penis policy" or OPP for short, and a lot of people go so far as to say it's abusive.

The female term is cuckquean. In cuckquean scenarios where the man is boning other women, the other women are often referred to a cuckcakes (just confirming I did not make this up).

Quote:

---

Bustle lol

---

I had no idea who bustle were before I took a random link by googling "cuck", but based on this one article, I'm inclined to agree with your comment here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

The female term is cuckquean. In cuckquean scenarios where the man is boning other women, the other women are often referred to a cuckcakes (just confirming I did not make this up).

---

Rome fell for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Rome fell for a reason.

---

Yeah because Europe is cuck central.

The only thing good about the US is beer, but that's no reason to move there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

The only thing good about the US is beer, but that's no reason to move there.

---

Please take this message to Mexico

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Please take this message to Mexico

---

Oh I'm speaking from a place with access to most beer in the world, I'm not sure if it applies to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Oh I'm speaking from a place with access to most beer in the world, I'm not sure if it applies to them.

---

My comment was less about beer and more about discouraging people from moving to America.

Yes, but they'd have plenty of skin in the game to come hunt for some quality brews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Yes, but they'd have plenty of skin in the game to come hunt for some quality brews.

---

No, this would NOT be skin in the game. The consequence, disincentive, of failing of failing on this adventure is that you end up in America, getting free health care, free food, and a free pass from law enforcement. That's not much of a disincentive.

If the consequence were arrest, prosecution, incarceration, and ultimately deportation....THEN there would be skin in the game that might compel these brew-seekers to get visas, avoid criminal behavior, and return to their home country when required to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No, this would NOT be skin in the game. The consequence, disincentive, of failing of failing on this adventure is that you end up in America, getting free health care, free food, and a free pass from law enforcement. That's not much of a disincentive.

If the consequence were arrest, prosecution, incarceration, and ultimately deportation....THEN there would be skin in the game that might compel these brew-seekers to get visas, avoid criminal behavior, and return to their home country when required to do so.

---

Correct.

https://i.imgur.com/WZLnwbJ.jpg

Did the Valentine's Day thing early since we're going to be super busy through the middle of the week.

White wrapper alert.

Anyone who sucks at chess interested in getting better? I'm thinking about putting together a channel on Discord with some basic endgame lessons, etc.

Transgenderism is rooted in homophobia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Transgenderism is rooted in homophobia.

---

I've seen this argument in various forms, and I agree that some non-zero percentage of it probably is, but I don't think it's a dominating factor.

I do, however, think a dominating factor is the very serious drop in testosterone in men of the same age over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I've seen this argument in various forms, and I agree that some non-zero percentage of it probably is, but I don't think it's a dominating factor.

I do, however, think a dominating factor is the very serious drop in testosterone in men of the same age over time.

---

God, I agree. The fucking implications.

Like I said, Rome fell for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No, this would NOT be skin in the game. The consequence, disincentive, of failing of failing on this adventure is that you end up in America, getting free health care, free food, and a free pass from law enforcement. That's not much of a disincentive.

If the consequence were arrest, prosecution, incarceration, and ultimately deportation....THEN there would be skin in the game that might compel these brew-seekers to get visas, avoid criminal behavior, and return to their home country when required to do so.

---

On a serious note, I would think incentives and disincentives are subjective rather than universal. For me, for example, finding quality brews would be a bigger incentive than receiving benefits. I'm absolutely positive there are a large number of people in Mexico who would think the same. You're equating a whole nation to a stereotype of poor, uneducated gold-diggers. I don't think it would have been acceptable to throw around derogatory comments like that before Drumpf normalized it.

I'm really glad I learned the term "COLONIZED" this week. Because ^this is it.

Quote:

---

On a serious note

---

I was totally serious

Quote:

---

I would think incentives and disincentives are subjective rather than universal.

---

No, the incentives and disincentives are objective things tied to a stated goal (the game), which may or may not be subjective.

Quote:

---

For me, for example, finding quality brews would be a bigger incentive than receiving benefits

---

In your case "the game" is tourism. What about people who AREN'T coming to this country for the guided tour?? What do you think their game is??

Quote:

---

I'm absolutely positive there are a large number of people in Mexico who would think the same

---

Sure, and none of those people are trying to permanently move to America.

Quote:

---

You're equating a whole nation to a stereotype of poor, uneducated gold-diggers. I don't think it would have been acceptable to throw around derogatory comments like that before Drumpf normalized it.

---

COLONIZED!!!

Dude, Mexico isn't exactly a third world country. If you're a Mexican, with an education, a job, and a clean criminal record, then you're doing just fine, and probably have no aspirations to move to America. And if you do, then your education, trade skills, and clean criminal record will allow you to come to America legally. You wouldn't risk coming to America illegally, because the consequence of committing a crime like that will fuck up your prosperity. SKIN IN THE GAME.

So I'm not stereotyping a whole nation of people. I'm stereotyping the people who leave that nation. And it's accurate.

You've fallen for the progressive rhetoric that wants you to believe that these are all great people. They're all hard workers with skills and motivation to be productive. you've fallen for the narrative that says any challenge to this assertion is racism. You've been programmed to ignore every single objective study on the issue and every statistical analysis that says illegal immigrants are a net loss economically for America. You are COLONIZED.

If you're one of those people who says "America is a nation of immigrants" or "America was founded on immigration", or echoes any of the other completely ignorant progressive talking points....then you need to be hit in the head with a frying pan.

That's the BS that was "normalized" under Clinton and Obama. Trump is just bringing the narrative back to reality. That's not derogatory. And if you think it is, then stay the fuck out of America.

You're wrong on so many levels that it's gonna take me a while to reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banana

Dude, Mexico isn't exactly a third world country. If you're a Mexican, with an education, a job, and a clean criminal record, then you're doing just fine, and probably have no aspirations to move to America. And if you do, then your education, trade skills, and clean criminal record will allow you to come to America legally. You wouldn't risk coming to America illegally, because the consequence of committing a crime like that will fuck up your prosperity. SKIN IN THE GAME.

So I'm not stereotyping a whole nation of people. I'm stereotyping the people who leave that nation. And it's accurate.

You've fallen for the progressive rhetoric that wants you to believe that these are all great people. They're all hard workers with skills and motivation to be productive. you've fallen for the narrative that says any challenge to this assertion is racism. You've been programmed to ignore every single objective study on the issue and every statistical analysis that says illegal immigrants are a net loss economically for America. You are COLONIZED.

---

This could be the most accurate collection of words that banana has posted here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

You're wrong on so many levels that it's gonna take me a while to reply.

---

cant wait bro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This could be the most accurate collection of words that banana has posted here.

---

Welcome to the dark side. We have things like reason, logic and fact here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No, the incentives and disincentives are objective things tied to a stated goal (the game), which may or may not be subjective.

---

They're absolutely not objective, they're based on personal goals, values and preferences, just like the "game".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

In your case "the game" is tourism. What about people who AREN'T coming to this country for the guided tour?? What do you think their game is??

---

I was not talking about tourism, and even if I were, what does that have to do with anything. No question mark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Sure, and none of those people are trying to permanently move to America.

---

I thought you though we were talking about tourism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Dude, Mexico isn't exactly a third world country. If you're a Mexican, with an education, a job, and a clean criminal record, then you're doing just fine,

---

Fine so far, you can pretty much replace "Mexican" with any nationality on or off the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

and probably have no aspirations to move to America.

---

Utter nonsense, even though this is quickly changing. The US has for a long time been the most desired country for global work-based immigration, but this year the vote dropped from 34% to 30%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

So I'm not stereotyping a whole nation of people. I'm stereotyping the people who leave that nation. And it's accurate.

---

Yes you are, and no it's not. There's twice as many legally immigrated Mexicans in the US than illegal ones. You're not even close to accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You've fallen for the progressive rhetoric that wants you to believe that these are all great people. They're all hard workers with skills and motivation to be productive. you've fallen for the narrative that says any challenge to this assertion is racism. You've been programmed to ignore every single objective study on the issue and every statistical analysis that says illegal immigrants are a net loss economically for America. You are COLONIZED.

---

Someone has clearly fallen for some kind of rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If you're one of those people who says "America is a nation of immigrants" or "America was founded on immigration", or echoes any of the other completely ignorant progressive talking points....then you need to be hit in the head with a frying pan.

---

No of course North America has been colonized by white rednecks since the dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

That's the BS that was "normalized" under Clinton and Obama. Trump is just bringing the narrative back to reality. That's not derogatory. And if you think it is, then stay the fuck out of America.

---

Bro dude mate, I'll keep coming to America any time I please, which is not often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

There's twice as many legally immigrated Mexicans in the US than illegal ones.

---

I hope you realize how insanely high the number of Mexicans who are in this country illegal happens to be based on what you just said here.

I also hope you realize that every single one of them are criminals. That's somewhere in the range of five or six million people. That's in the range of 1.5 to 2 percent of all of the people in the entire fucking United States.

It could be 9 million illegals to 1 million legals, it still shouldn't make it ok to classify all Mexicans as illegals, or social parasites, or criminals, or whatever. They aren't. I would hope everyone realized that, but these days that's clearly too much to ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

They're absolutely not objective, they're based on personal goals, values and preferences, just like the "game".

---

I really don't wanna go down this rabbit hole with you where you get to bend the definition of subjective and objective. If a person relocates to America illegally, their objective incentives have measurable monetary value. Higher pay, no taxes, welfare. Their objective disincentives are prison and deportation. That's all I have to say on the matter. If you think any of that is debatable, it's because you're colonized.

Quote:

---

I was not talking about tourism, and even if I were, what does that have to do with anything. No question mark.

---

Yes you were. There is most definitely a difference between visiting this country and going on a brewery tour, and moving here permanently without going through the proper legal channels. If you're suggesting that someone might be incentivized to move to America permanently because of our enticing offering of assorted beers, then you've taken this conversation into the realm absurd. Continue on your own.

Quote:

---

I thought you though we were talking about tourism.

---

I'm sure it looks that way when viewed fro the realm of the absurd. Moving on....

Quote:

---

Fine so far, you can pretty much replace "Mexican" with any nationality on or off the planet.

---

We could. But at last check, there weren't floods of gang members and drugs coming over the Canada, Poland, Australia, or India.

Quote:

---

Utter nonsense, even though this is quickly changing. The US has for a long time been the most desired country for global work-based immigration, but this year the vote dropped from 34% to 30%

---

The point I was obviously making was "why would a successful Mexican want to leave Mexico?". If you're suggesting that every Mexican should want to leave Mexico, then what the fuck is wrong with Mexico?? If it's a shithole economy run by a corrupt government and oppressed by drug cartels, then it's on the Mexican citizens to do something about it. Same goes for any other country you want to name.

As an aside, if the statistics you cite are true, and I believe they are, then maybe it's time to wonder if these socialist economic models around the world are really working.

Quote:

---

Yes you are, and no it's not. There's twice as many legally immigrated Mexicans in the US than illegal ones. You're not even close to accurate.

---

That's an astonishingly frightening statistic. 2 to 1!!???? It should be 50 to 1! My point is made.

Quote:

---

Someone has clearly fallen for some kind of rhetoric.

---

Stop it. it hurts my eyes to roll them that much.

This is a disgusting last resort tactic of the progressive left. It doesn't matter how sound, logical, and fact-based your position is, they can still tear you down by calling you brainwashed. It's disgusting because it's an insulting ad-hominem argument. And it's a last resort because they have absolutely no answer to the central question "How do open borders help America??".

If you can answer that question with something other than the misguided chestnut of "This nation was built on immigration", then I'm all ears. Tell me, how is the average American going to benefit from allowing unrestricted immigration to this country. Every objective analysis on the matter has concluded that an illegal immigrant is a net loss economically. Every objective analysis that concludes otherwise has conveniently chosen to disregard the cost of Medicaid for dependent children, citing the fact that they are citizens, and not illegal immigrants. That's flat out bullshit.

Quote:

---

No of course North America has been colonized by white rednecks since the dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

---

there's that misguided chestnut.

Quote:

---

Bro dude mate, I'll keep coming to America any time I please, which is not often.

---

Fine. come every week for all I care. Just leave before your visa expires. Surely that's fair, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

That's somewhere in the range of five or six million people. That's in the range of 1.5 to 2 percent of all of the people in the entire fucking United States.

---

Double it.

Almost every single instance where I've heard someone cite the number of illegal immigrants in the US, it's been 11-12 million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

it still shouldn't make it ok to classify all Mexicans as illegals, or social parasites, or criminals, or whatever.

---

No one said that. That's what you WISH we had said so you can invalidate our arguments as racist. Nice try comrade.

However, it is ok to classify the vast majority of Mexicans who either can't, or choose not to, come into America legally as illegals, social parasites, criminals, or whatever.

Why would an educated, skilled, english-speaking, law abiding, productive, talented, hard working Mexican need to sneak into America illegally rather than immigrate through the appropriate channels??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

It could be 9 million illegals to 1 million legals, it still shouldn't make it ok to classify all Mexicans as illegals, or social parasites, or criminals, or whatever. They aren't. I would hope everyone realized that, but these days that's clearly too much to ask.

---

It's pretty ridiculous that you'd even start to think that anyone said that. It shows a basic disconnect with reality and the words that are on a screen in front of you. If you really believe anyone here was saying that, then I suggest you make your way to a mental health facility pronto to get checked out.

Every one of the Mexicans who are in the United States illegally, however, are criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Double it.

Almost every single instance where I've heard someone cite the number of illegal immigrants in the US, it's been 11-12 million.

---

Mexicans are only around one-half of the illegal immigrants in the US right now, which comes in around 5.5 million. It's worth noting that people from Central America and South America make up a substantial portion as well, but I'm talking about just Mexicans from Mexico.

Speaking of misguided chestnuts. I want to pre-emptively remind everyone that every single occupation that exists in the American economy is staffed by a majority of American citizens.

There is no such thing as a job that an American will not do.

Me: "The only thing good about the US is beer, but that's no reason to move there."
BS: "Please take this message to Mexico"

Now, obviously I meant tourism by moving, right? And BS was clearly only talking about illegal Mexicans in America, not a broad statement about Mexico. What's next, BS claims he never said that? Talking with you gets so boring so fast.

Quote:

---

For me, for example, finding quality brews would be a bigger incentive than receiving benefits. I'm absolutely positive there are a large number of people in Mexico who would think the same.

---

Tourism

once again, the question is "how do open borders help america?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

It could be 9 million illegals to 1 million legals, it still shouldn't make it ok to classify all Mexicans as illegals, or social parasites, or criminals, or whatever. They aren't. I would hope everyone realized that, but these days that's clearly too much to ask.

---

Somebody classified all Mexicans like that?

I've been trying to wrap my head around why there is a large minority of popular support for illegal aliens. I think it has to do with the worldview that people are inherently good and inherently equal.

The vast majority of people in the US, even those on the far right, are very supportive of immigration. We just believe it's a good idea to make it legal and be selective. A tragedy caused by the minority popular support for illegal aliens is that we're probably getting less immigration than we would if there wasn't support for illegal aliens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Welcome to the dark side. We have things like reason, logic and fact here.

---

This represents the crux of why the conversations here are not changing anything or anyone.

You have chosen your side to be the one of "reason, logic and fact" which means you've chosen your opposition to be people who ignore those things, aka idiots.
This choice to argue with idiots is separate to arguing politics. Of course, if you choose idiots as your political adversaries, you can toot your own horn all day without ever challenging your own views by confronting them with intelligent criticisms.

This choice does not represent your political adversaries best speakers, merely a 'tarded subset of that political leaning. Just as there are plenty of idiots on your own party's side who ignore reason, logic, and fact, there are plenty of those on the other side.

Anyone who chooses to argue with idiots when there are intelligent people to argue with is a blowhard who likes to hear their own thoughts out loud, but who is too much of a coward to entertain a conversation with someone intelligent enough to cite the subtlety and nuance of human affairs.

Summary: Stop being a coward and give yourself the credit to learn and grow when confronted with intelligent people with whom you disagree. Leave the idiots to their idiot games, and seek out people who are smart enough to challenge you. Anything less is intellectual cowardice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Summary: Stop being a coward and give yourself the credit to learn and grow when confronted with intelligent people with whom you disagree. Leave the idiots to their idiot games, and seek out people who are smart enough to challenge you. Anything less is intellectual cowardice.

---

Is this you volunteering to use intelligence and an understanding of the subtlety and nuance of human affairs to answer the question at the center of this debate...

How does illegal immigration help America??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Is this you volunteering to use intelligence and an understanding of the subtlety and nuance of human affairs to answer the question at the center of this debate...

---

I do my best to bring intelligence and a sense of humility for what I understand assuredly not being all there is to understand, but I don't really care about this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

How does illegal immigration help America??

---

Thank you for illustrating my point. This is a loaded question, already forcing your responder to assume an unsupportable position.

Illegal anything helps the industrial prison complex, I suppose, but I don't think that's what anyone is discussing, here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Thank you for illustrating my point. This is a loaded question, already forcing your responder to assume an unsupportable position.

---

Everything in that sentence is false. Just the fact that sanctuary city policies exist proves this. But I'll play along and rephrase

How do open borders help America?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Everything in that sentence is false.

---

Thank you for again illustrating my point.

It is a loaded question because it presupposed that illegal activity of any sort "helps America."
It forces the responder to assume an unsupportable position because the question has something untrue as an implicit statement.

The only sensible answer is that the prison system gains by criminalizing arbitrary behaviors. If people are doing criminal things, that supports the prison system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

How do open borders help America?

---

I don't know how/whether they do.
I've seen no reliable evidence of any nation that truly had open borders, so I don't see how any answer to this question could be other than speculation.

I've never taken a side either way about immigration other than to hold that at least some of the stuff that goes on in the name of protecting our borders treats people inhumanely, and that, at the very least, should be fixed.

The American court system is thoroughly flawed, and asserting that the border control portions of it are not is Unicorn Land talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Thank you for again illustrating my point.

---

No sir, thank you for illustrating mine, and consequently, Spoon's

You talk of intellectual cowardice. I would argue that there are cases (this immigration argument being one) where intelligent opposition does not exist. The question has been posed several times already. "how do open borders help america?". No one has yet to present an intelligent response to that question. And this isn't just true of this forum. It's true across the entirety of national discourse on this issue.

Essentially, there are two attempts at an answer. One says "I have a Venezualan pool boy and he's the hardest working guy I know". That's a sample size fail. The other one says "My great-grand uncle Cletus came over Andorra in 1918 and that turned out fine". That argument fails because it doesn't account for the fact that immigrants in the early 20th century had skin in the game, and that immigrants in the early 21st century, don't.

Quote:

---

I don't know how/whether they do.
I've seen no reliable evidence of any nation that truly had open borders, so I don't see how any answer to this question could be other than speculation.

---

You've lived in America throughout times where we have had a porous southern border, unrestricted chain migration, and a non-merit based visa lottery system. Do you support continuing those policies, or reforming them? I support reforming them because of crime, drugs, terrorism, and the unanimous conclusions of every objective analysis that says illegal immigrants are a net loss for the economy. If you are against reform, I would simply ask you to explain "why". Anything less is intellectual cowardice.

If you insist on being a semantic stickler, I'll rephrase the question yet again.

"how does a sanctuary city policy help America"

And this goes further to my point about there not being an intellectual opposition. That's why my original question was not loaded. Sanctuary cities exist. There are people who are presumably NOT idiots, who are responsible for governing and public policy. And these people have decided that it would be best for their city if they flouted federal statutes, and disobeyed lawful requests from federal authorities.

Why? What is their intellectual, fact-based, logical, non-idiotic explanation for this??

Usually it's one of the two arguments I cited above. But as I explained above, both are illogical and decidedly not intellectual. Does that mean that these policy-makers are idiots? Does that mean that simple logic and basic facts elude them? How can that be given where they are and how they got there???

They are not idiots. They are not illogical. They do not lack intellect. It's just that their true motives are too sinister and perverse to vocalize. So they rely on strawman tactics to villainize and discredit the other side. Rather than provide fact-based justification for unrestricted immigration, they simply accuse anyone against such a policy of being a racist. This is the ugliness of the strategy of identity politics espoused by the progressive left. It doesn't have to be logical, fact based, or intellectual to be effective.

So I don't think Spoon is way off when he claims that one side has a logical fact-based argument, and the other side doesn't. That doesn't make the other side idiots. And challenging their false motivations in order to expose their real ones is NOT intellectual cowardice.

EDIT: Need an illustration, read this thread. CoccoBill presented the tired liberal talking points in favor of unrestricted immigration. When challenged, he TWICE accused the other side of racism (post 25373 and 25381).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It is a loaded question because it presupposed that illegal activity of any sort "helps America."
It forces the responder to assume an unsupportable position because the question has something untrue as an implicit statement.

---

BTW, this is flimsy.

What if I asked "Is criminal vigilantism good for Gotham City?"

That is clearly a situation where illegal activity had beneficial results.

I'm not asking you to prove to me that illegal immigration is a net overall good thing. Just tell me what benefits, if any, America receives as a result of illegal immigration. It doesn't matter if they are outweighed by any other negative results at this point. I'm just asking if there is any upside to unrestricted immigration policy that can be supported by fact, logic, or anything non-idiotic.

How does illegal immigration help America

...?
So my lack of taking any interest in this is indicative to you that people I don't speak for are wrong?
... and I'm the idiot, here?

OK. You do you. You can pretend that you're arguing with me, but you're not. I've not said those things you're arguing against.
If you have questions for CoccoBill, then he is the one to answer them, not me. He doesn't speak for me, nor I for him.
Furthermore, he doesn't speak for anyone but himself, anyway.

Aside from that, you stipulate that people who make decisions which you disagree with are intelligent, but that their decisions are motivated by {sinister / perverse} ambitions.
This is no different than asserting that they are not intelligent, at its base. You're attempting to discredit their ideas based not on the ideas, but on a character assassination.
That's a logical fallacy called ad hominem, when you attack a person and not their argument.

***
FWIW, with a grain of salt becuase I truly don't care about this issue, and I don't think it matters to America one way or another, just like every other issue that gets argued about in the public arena. The thing is that both parties agree on a whole hell of a lot, but that stuff doesn't require any arguing or hashing out to resolve. So all we see in the news is the extended disagreements about trivial things which bear little to no impact on the path of progress for America. There's some good and some bad to all of these suggested resolutions, and either side asserting that their answer has the lockdown on good is full of their own shit. Again, their political adversaries are not idiots, and if the answer was verifiably correct, there'd be no arguing over it.

I'm in favor of reforming America's border control policy in many ways. One of them is to end the sham of pretending that there are anywhere near enough law enforcement and judicial services at our disposal to enforce current laws, and we need to pull our heads out of our tail ends and stop mandating things we know we can't accomplish. Either allot enough money in a budget alongside the laws such that the requirements of the legislation have any hope of being executed, or eliminate any law which cannot be enforced due to budgetary reasons, regardless of how good the law sounds. If that law is truly that good, then pay for it to work, or stop paying for bad laws so there's money for good laws. 'Nuff said.

Another way is to dramatically rethink what we consider allowable as far as migrational workers. Still another is to recognize that shit happens, and separating families is probably a net negative for everyone involved on whatever sides of whatever border.

The assertion that all illegal immigrants are one thing (good for society or bad for society) is stupid. Just like each of our families, there's plenty of good and bad.
If either side of the argument is trying to convince you toward one of these extremes, then they are playing the fool, and begging you to join them. Don't take that bait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

This represents the crux of why the conversations here are not changing anything or anyone.

You have chosen your side to be the one of "reason, logic and fact" which means you've chosen your opposition to be people who ignore those things, aka idiots.
This choice to argue with idiots is separate to arguing politics. Of course, if you choose idiots as your political adversaries, you can toot your own horn all day without ever challenging your own views by confronting them with intelligent criticisms.

This choice does not represent your political adversaries best speakers, merely a 'tarded subset of that political leaning. Just as there are plenty of idiots on your own party's side who ignore reason, logic, and fact, there are plenty of those on the other side.

Anyone who chooses to argue with idiots when there are intelligent people to argue with is a blowhard who likes to hear their own thoughts out loud, but who is too much of a coward to entertain a conversation with someone intelligent enough to cite the subtlety and nuance of human affairs.

Summary: Stop being a coward and give yourself the credit to learn and grow when confronted with intelligent people with whom you disagree. Leave the idiots to their idiot games, and seek out people who are smart enough to challenge you. Anything less is intellectual cowardice.

---

I'm going to give you a pass because you don't know any better, but you didn't look at the context of what you're replying to at all and are instead expanding it so far that you're behaving like a caricature of yourself.

Edit: Fixed a comma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Aside from that, you stipulate that people who make decisions which you disagree with are intelligent, but that their decisions are motivated by {sinister / perverse} ambitions.

---

Right

Quote:

---

This is no different than asserting that they are not intelligent, at its base. You're attempting to discredit their ideas based not on the ideas, but on a character assassination.

---

How can I discredit their ideas if I don't know what they are?? I'm begging for an answer. How does unrestricted immigration help America???

Quote:

---

That's a logical fallacy called ad hominem, when you attack a person and not their argument.

---

It's not ad hominem if I'm attacking the person for not having an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

...?
So my lack of taking any interest in this is indicative to you that people I don't speak for are wrong?
... and I'm the idiot, here?

---

I'm not sure how you could be thinking this based on anything I've said.

Quote:

---

OK. You do you. You can pretend that you're arguing with me, but you're not. I've not said those things you're arguing against.

---

I didn't say you did. What you did say was that asserting your own argument as factual automatically insinuates that the other side is idiotic. You went on to say that arguing with idiots in intellectually cowardly. I merely posited the possibility that they aren't idiots.

You suggest that arguments can only exist as Logic/Facts vs Idiocy or Logic/Facts vs Alternate Logic/Facts. I'm saying that there is a third possibility. Logic/Facts vs. Lies & Deception.

I'm asking you how engaging in that third debate could be considered intellectually cowardly??