Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sheriff Belor Hemolock

Scott Betts's page

Goblin Squad Member. 7,298 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Syrus Terrigan wrote:
If you don't mind my asking, Scott, what state/region are you in?

Southern California.

Quote:

I am in the greater Mississippi Flood Plain. That New Madrid Seismic Zone acts up one good time, we'll be seeing a lot of those images in about a third of the nation . . . . Like that 8.0+ that made Reelfoot Lake and caused the Mighty Mississippi to flow backward for a number of *days*. Chicago to New Orleans, Chattanooga to Dallas, Birmingham to Kansas City. The delays in logistics alone would be devastating, even for those in "unaffected" areas.

And it's been said that we're long overdue for a big one here . . . .

But they've been saying that for 20 years .. . .

It's always possible for a long-dormant fault to go off, and if/when that occurs if the area isn't prepared for it the consequences could be devastating. But I frequently hear people talking about how grateful they are that they don't live in California because of all the earthquakes and fires, which signals to me that they probably aren't all that familiar with the day-to-day (or even year-to-year) impact of living in an area prone to earthquakes and wildfires.

I mean, the drought caused many times more inconvenience for your average California resident than all the fires and earthquakes they've dealt with over the course of their lives, combined, and that inconvenience mostly manifested itself in browner lawns and having to ask for a glass of water when you sit down at a restaurant table.


Icyshadow wrote:

I guess Finland's lucky for having no earthquakes, storms or floods.

The latter two can happen, but they are very minor compared to some other countries.

I don't know why people rank earthquakes up with other natural disasters like hurricanes or massive flooding. In most of the developed world where earthquakes are common, protection against earthquakes is built into our construction. Not only are significant quakes rare, but it's even rarer for them to do serious damage or shut down day-to-day life when the area was built with them in mind. I feel like most of the country's perception of hurricane damage is from seeing other areas of the country devastated by them, while most of the country's perception of earthquake damage is from seeing other, underdeveloped countries devastated by them.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
I'd really like to see at least one third party candidate make the second TV debate.
Given the short span of time between debates, and given that there probably isn't any other major event that's going to cause a major shift in polls (it would require the electorate to have an absolute crisis of confidence in one or both candidates), I'd say this has basically no chance of happening. The third debate, maaaaybe. But there just isn't enough time for the effects of the first debate to cause the polling averages for third party candidates to leap up before the cutoff for the second debate.

Third debate maybe it is then. :)

We'd "cut the cord" a while back, using purely streaming feed. Ordering an HD antenna for the main TV specifically to watch these debates. Side effect will be access to football, the election coverage and inauguration coverage.

Bear in mind that all three debates are being streamed online, for free, no antenna or cable required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
If the bad things republicans say were so easily dismissed, why would someone who leans more to Trump be so easily dismissed on this very topic as merely a bigot and/or racist?

Because when an arguably racist guy who is ostensibly on your team looks at the stuff you're doing and says, "Damn, that's really racist - even I can't get behind that!" it tends to turn heads.


Turin the Mad wrote:
I'd really like to see at least one third party candidate make the second TV debate.

Given the short span of time between debates, and given that there probably isn't any other major event that's going to cause a major shift in polls (it would require the electorate to have an absolute crisis of confidence in one or both candidates), I'd say this has basically no chance of happening. The third debate, maaaaybe. But there just isn't enough time for the effects of the first debate to cause the polling averages for third party candidates to leap up before the cutoff for the second debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NenkotaMoon wrote:
I keep being asked to put my thoughts in here, but why. I'm told several things I like paint me as a bigot here, as well, from my understanding a racist.

Like what? What things that you support do you believe paint you as a bigot or a racist?

And really, we're not demanding that you share with us. We're asking you to please either participate meaningfully in the discussion, or go do something else. Because so far you haven't really done anything but insult people and complain about the thread - basically the definition of threadcrapping. We'd be happy to talk about the election with you, but if that's not what you're here for then this isn't the thread for you.


Turin the Mad wrote:

Yes ... and no.

Let us theorize a bit.

Basis 1: Gobs of left-leaning voters hate Clinton and Trump enough that they write-in votes for Bernie Sanders. He was an eligible candidate but he didn't get the nomination.

Basis 2: A whole gaggle of right-leaning voters hate Trump and Clinton enough that they write-in votes for, oh, Jeb Bush. An eligible candidate that didn't get the nomination. I'm not willing to use one of the ones that made it to the RNC. Just not going there. ;)

Basis 3: both happen this election.

If a few hundred thousand to about a million do this, it's a blip on the election radar, tsk-tsk'ing is bandied about and the world goes on.

If twenty million voters evenly split along major party lines do this, each party has ten million registered voters telling the world that their candidates suck an egg so bad that they'd rather 'throw away' their vote on a nomination contender than vote for a candidate they dislike for whatever reason.

What are the implications of so many disgruntled voters expressing themselves in this fashion? Are they a 'disgruntled minority', is it a resounding message to the 'party establishments' that they suck eggs, or is it something else?

If enough write-ins were to occur that the popular votes for the written-in candidates exceeded the nominated candidates, what are the implications?

In a way, write-in votes are the best result for the major parties as those disgruntled voters didn't "throw away" their votes on the oft-maligned 'third parties'. Enough such votes (depending on where) would see electoral college votes awarded to third party candidates.

Thoughts?

Game theory is the reason this will never happen.

Let's say each individual voter has two potentially beneficial options, for the purpose of this discussion:

1) They vote for the major party candidate of their choice.

2) They vote for the third party/write-in candidate of their choice.

There are a number of ways this can play out (not all equally plausible):

1) Our voter votes for a major party candidate, and nearly all other voters vote for major party candidates. Third-party and write-in votes wind up unremarkable. Our voter has ever so slightly increased the chances of his candidate winning the popular vote.

2) Our voter votes for a major party candidate, but a lot of other voters vote for third-party/write-in candidates. Third-party and write-in votes are remarkable in number. Our voter has ever so slightly increased the chances of his candidate winning the popular vote.

3) Our voter votes for a third-party/write-in candidate, but nearly all other voters vote for major party candidates. Third-party and write-in votes wind up unremarkable. Our voter has accomplished nothing meaningful.

4) Our voter votes for a third-party/write-in candidate, and a lot of other voters vote for third-party/write-in candidates. Third-party and write-in votes are remarkable in number. Our voter has ever so slightly increased the degree to which those votes are remarkable.

Far and away, outcomes 1, 2, and 3 are the most likely. Because each voter considers his action on an individual basis, the likelihood of outcome 4 taking place is very, very low. Our voter is only incentivized to vote third-party/write-in if he knows that many, many other voters are going to vote third-party/write-in, but he has no reliable way of knowing that (history certainly doesn't favor it). Just as in the Prisoner's Dilemma, cooperation leads to a more favorable outcome, but uncertainty and an inability to perfectly communicate with all actors makes that an unattractive choice.


Icyshadow wrote:
I'm not interested in getting into a repeat of the previous pages with you, Scott.

That's fine, but don't take part of the discussion from those previous pages, twist it, then post it as a new, snide criticism.

Quote:
I just find it hilarious that some people have seriously compared Trump to Hitler. I'm Jewish, and I really doubt he'd be even nearly that bad.

He's being compared to Hitler because of similarities in populist rhetoric, and because he's deliberately appealing to a nationalist, racist core of supporters. Very few people think it's likely he'll bring about another Nazi holocaust.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
I would not be surprised if a comparable list of Clinton dishonesty would be dismissed as being unfounded (or worse, conspiracy theories), or coming from an unreliable source.

There is no comparable list of Clinton dishonesty, because Clinton doesn't go on the campaign trail, make two stops, and lie to the American people 18 times in the process.

No one is suggesting that Clinton is perfectly honest. She is roughly as honest as your average politician, perhaps slightly more honest if her Politifact record is any indication.

But Trump is something special. He is remarkably dishonest. Like, no-one-even-comes-close dishonest.

Quote:
Yet a lot of people do not seem to trust Hillary Clinton all that much. Now why is that a thing? I know you like being confrontational Scott, but that does not make you "win" a debate.

I've never said or believed that it does. So why the random attack on my character?

Quote:
Yet earlier some people established that accusations, especially if there are numerous examples on display, mean that the people making them might be on to something.

I'm going to ask you to be a bit more intellectually honest yourself, and not twist my words to support your narrative. I did not suggest that it's possible to reliably judge the accuracy of any and all accusations based on the number of people who believe those accusations.

I'll repeat: what you just claimed I established was something that I did not establish, and do not believe to be true.

I established that accusations of racism can be reliably predicted (not with perfect accuracy, but with a high degree of accuracy) to be true if those accusations come from diverse, independent groups of people, repeatedly, over an extended period of time. I'm not arguing anything beyond that. I made that claim so that it could not only be shown that Trump himself is racist (that much is obvious, because we have his record to look at) but also that supporters of his who suggest that the terms "racist" or "bigot" are being used unfairly - in my experience, they object to those terms because they frequently find themselves labeled with those terms. This isn't a heuristic that I'm suggesting we use in place of actual evidence of racism (or the absence thereof). I'm suggesting that it's reasonable to use it when we aren't familiar with the individual's behavior ourselves, but are familiar with others' reactions to their behavior.

I'm curious what your thesis is, though, Icyshadow. Are you trying to argue that both sides are equally intellectually dishonest? If so, what credible evidence do you have of that?


This is a list of 18 false claims Donald Trump made in a single day.

And that day was yesterday.

But both sides are equally intellectually dishonest, right?


Turin the Mad wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

While i am certainly liking the lightheartedness of the last while, maybe we should return to some more . . . *realistic* content?

Though i certainly don't want to break the cease-fire . . . .

More on topic, a Yahoo! article written by the AFP discussing California Democrat gun owners and a referendum on gun control in that state on the 8th November ballot.

Thoughts?

Well, it's the AFP, so salt heavily. But I think most of the fears expressed in the article are overblown. It's doubtful that firearms will ever be outlawed in California. Nothing is preventing gun owners from expressing themselves (and that particular snippet is ironic as all hell coming from a gun owner who is expressing his view to a news agency while declining to allow the use of his name) - the individual in question is conflating being outvoted with having his speech restricted, which is baloney. Another guy trots out the substitution of method myth. I'm glad the article at least acknowledged that our state's gun laws have dramatically reduced firearm deaths.

Nothing to really be concerned about, though. This is a political minority complaining that things aren't going their way, and acting like the political consequences are going to be larger than they will be.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Question:

Am I thread crapping or just keeping it light? I only ask for your perspectives, not necessarily the ones I have.

Definitely keeping it light. Meringue levels of airy.


Turin the Mad wrote:
The upcoming debates seem likely to make-or-break either campaign. It's going to be a long six days before the first one.

I remember this feeling prior to the Romney-Obama debates. Knowing that you're in a favorable position but that the events of a scant few hours could completely upend that is pretty unsettling. I'm normally the kind to have friends over for debate watch parties, but this year the thought of it is just making my stomach do flips instead.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Why...

It really boils down to ONE REASON, and ONE REASON ONLY for most of them. (of course, we know that's probably only 50% of them, still, that's a HUGE amount of voters).

They feel the next person in the supreme court is THAT IMPORTANT.

I've spoken with precious few Trump supporters, but not a one has mentioned that the Supreme Court is the reason they're voting Trump. All of them have reasons that revolve around the candidates themselves.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
In addition, as a quick look up on google (said this before), right at the top, without clicking any links states...

And, as I explained then, when people use the term "bigotry" in modern parlance, they mean a collection of ugly prejudices based on the inherent characteristics of a person - race, sexuality, gender identity, etc. I'm sure you understand that there is a fundamental difference in the value of being tolerant of a person's race, and the value of being tolerant of racism. If you don't understand that, please let us know so that we can expand on it. It's pretty much a required baseline for further discussion.


Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
"You may think naively that Timmy is the right choice for class predident, well, I'll have you know Timmy is a bed wetter and we cannot stand a bed wetter in this classroom, and if you vote our support Timmy, you are bed wetter too."

I mean, what Timmy does in his own bed is his own business. But if Timmy starts wetting my bed, well that just cannot stand!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
EDIT: And if I spend too much more time in that thread, Citizen Robespierre Betts' obnoxious, humorless zeal will coerce me into voting for Trump just to spite him, which is a piss-poor reason at best and not to be contemplated.

Believe me, Kirth, I wish the election mattered little enough that I could laugh at it more, but I can't. This election simply isn't doing a good job of putting the positive aspects of our national character on display.

Regardless, I'm sorry that my zeal comes across as obnoxious. Being a political firebrand is just a part of who I am, and I'm okay with that even if others don't appreciate it. I'm sure some in this thread can identify.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
He did back then. Nowadays he admits he's more confused, mainly because he's learned more.

See, this is the sort of interaction I've experienced, often. People who naively supported racist policies as part of a political identity, who later come to realize the harm that those policies do, and changed their identity appropriately. But that doesn't change the fact that their identity as a member of the right-wing seems inextricably tied to their support for those policies. When the support for those policies fades, so too does their identification with the right wing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I also think that one thing Brexit should have taught us is that in the broader political conversation, calling people racists doesn't always work—even when it's true. So I'm not confident this conversation is going to bear any but the lowest-hanging fruits.

On the contrary, calling out racism (and other ugly behavior) is one of the most effective ways to work for social change. Questions of social justice go through a process - you raise awareness when awareness is low, you debate in the public eye when awareness is high but acceptance is low, and you shame holdouts when awareness is high and acceptance is high.

Calling people racists isn't a good way to get those people to like you. But being one voice out of many calling someone a racist is a great way to teach a person whose mind will never change to at least keep their ideology to themselves, which curbs its spread.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I know a former Republican who's very pro-social justice and supported Bernie Sanders*. He does have some capitalist leanings I don't love, but I think he sincerely believed his right-wing politics were best for everyone. I also think those politics led to a place of classism and racism, even if he hadn't dedicated the thought to realizing it.

The Baby Boomer myths about how numbers work remain pretty powerful in this culture.

*And to clarify, he wasn't a Bernie Bro or anything. He found Sanders through a survey that asked him questions about his political beliefs. It was entirely independent of personality biases.

If he were asked whether he self-identified as right-wing, would he answer yes?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Now, all of that is actually malarkey for a whole list of reasons and I know that. But not everyone does and they vote according to how they see things, not how I do or necessarily anything resembling the reality of the situation.

Perhaps I'm just more cynical in this respect, but I believe that even the voters who are being manipulated in that manner fall into the same basket of deplorables. I've met plenty of people whose political sophistication was low enough to buy into all of that, but they also supported a huge slew of bigoted beliefs as well.

I don't know whether that's just a very, very strong correlation, or if it's that all of those beliefs you mentioned are just well-understood dog whistles, but it's not as simple as, "Oh, these folks are really just good ol' patriots!"

Again, this is all based on my admittedly anecdotal experience, but I have met a lot of voters. And I've literally never met one who identified as a right-winger who didn't agree with a number of policies rooted in bigotry. The two seem inextricably linked.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Well, here's an example. In theory, a core right-wing concept is "small government" (it's big with libertarians, too). Now, let's say that this really is a core philosophy—it certainly holds a lot of power as a principle, if nothing else.

I don't see belief in small government itself as either necessary or sufficient for being right-wing. I don't consider libertarianism part of the American right-wing (it's a definite hybrid), nor do I think you need to believe in small government to be a right-winger (plenty of conservative Christians, for example, strongly support a large government when it comes to social issues).

Are there people who self-identify as right-wing based solely on their sincere belief in shrinking government? I've never met any. The ones who hold that sincere belief that I've met self-identified as libertarian (or similar), and the ones who self-identified as right-wing didn't actually believe in a small government as a goal, but rather as a means to an end (increasing the power of conservative institutions while shrinking liberal institutions).


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


This is the issue I'm having. I don't see a meaningful difference between people who talk loudly about how racist they are, and people who merely silently vote for racism.

In all likelihood they're voting FOR something else it just happens to come with that.

Sure, but what? What coherent political ideology do they possess that allows them to self-identify as right-wing without supporting any of the policies that define the modern American right wing?


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if many of its practitioners hold to it in good faith.
So they are not bigots, they just support bigotry?

This is the issue I'm having. I don't see a meaningful difference between people who talk loudly about how racist they are, and people who merely silently vote for racism.


Fergie wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
No, the GOP's platform is a bigoted nightmare. We can agree on that and still believe that Republicans as a whole have a diverse range of beliefs. We can also agree on that and still believe that the ideology itself is rotten at the core, even if its practitioners hold to it in good faith.
The Republican Party (especially Trump) are not "The Right" anymore then Democrats (Hillary) are "The Left".

It seems fundamentally impossible to me to hold to a coherent set of political beliefs that anyone could term "right wing" without those beliefs including the support for policies that are, at their core, bigoted.

In other words, if you do not count among your political beliefs any support for policies that are rooted in bigotry, I don't consider your beliefs right-wing.

I'm willing to be educated on this, though. If someone can provide me with an actual example of someone who self-identifies as right-wing but in no way supports any of the many right-wing policies rooted in bigotry, I'll happily concede that my stance was overly generalized.


Sissyl wrote:
The bandwagon fallacy only means that lots of people thinking something doesn't make it true. There are other perfectly sound reasons to believe in the capital of South Africa. Assuming idiot levels of solipsism om my part doesn't do your argument any favours. Try again.

I really don't think you can throw a criticism like the bandwagon fallacy at accusations of racism. The question of whether one is racist is fundamentally a social one. Responding with, "The fact that most people call his behavior racist doesn't make it so!" makes about as much sense as saying, "The fact that most people call his appearance unattractive doesn't make it so!" When it comes to fundamentally social questions, the consensus of the population is actually one of the few ways you can credibly claim to know the answer. The fact that the people behind that consensus also happen to be the ones who are in a position to understand the breadth and impact of racism is just icing on the cake.

If your behavior is frequently and consistently seen as racist by a sufficiently wide range of independent groups of people, your behavior is almost certainly racist.


Sissyl wrote:
It is difficult to accept as anything remotely relevant that "if many people call you X, you are X". First, whatever you do today, whatever opinion you may express, there is always someone who will call you racist/arrogant/retard/etc for it. Second, rhetorics are pretty uniform today, as in people consciously and systematically trying to win points against others by accusing them of being the above things. This robs the original statement of the idea that the many people calling you X do so independently. Third, huge numbers of people think lots of wrong things. Many Americans (30% of republican primary voters) apparently want America to bomb Agrabah, for example. We all have the right to expect a bit more from people who take it upon themselves to judge others. Fourth, it is a direct example of the bandwagon fallacy. Fifth, billions and billions of flies can't be wrong - eat s*#&.

And yet for all that couching, being called racist by many different, independent groups over an extended period of time remains an incredibly reliable predictor of actual racism.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Scott,

You're only NOW realizing that? How long have you been on the internets? (Please note that was sarcasm not hostility, nor was it meant as a put down/insult to you)

Hope springs eternal.

Quicklings spring attack.


Alright, we're done with this line of discussion. Arguing in circles about a completely different topic in order to try and illustrate a false equivalency to someone who doesn't want to acknowledge it really isn't worth it.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
It's funny that you should pick that proposed piece of legislation given that it was sponsored by Peter King, a Republican. Nonetheless, it would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the Orlando shooting, given that the shooter was taken off of the watch list months before he purchased his rifle, and before the shooting.

The bill in question wasn't based on the terror watch list.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
No, I'm not. At all. I specifically referenced Everytown's claim that the "gun lobby" has state legislators pushing for all CARRY restrictions to be lifted, which is exactly what the quote from them shows. My argument is that such a claim is inconsistent with reality.

I'm done arguing this. Your stance boils down to trying to make it seem like the context isn't as clear as it is, which is pretty weak.

Quote:
Again, you've yet to show this.

Fine. A 2013 survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine found overwhelming (86%) support for prohibiting individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms.

Quote:
Nothing in science is 100% settled.

I'm not interested in "100% settled". I'm interested in field consensus. And I'm telling you that there isn't any on this topic. It isn't fear-mongering. It's caution. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about it.

Are you still not willing to concede that the Republican Party has an intellectual dishonesty problem unlike any seen anywhere else in the American political landscape? Of course Everytown is going to use the occasional vague wording in order to push a message. They're an advocacy group. But that's nothing compared to the display that Trump puts on every single time he's within earshot of a hot mic.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
It also doesn't make much sense to worry so much about watchlist suspects being able to legally purchase firearms (which by the way applies to <%5 of the people on the list, since only those %5 are US citizens) when we haven't had any major incidents of people buying firearms while on the list and then going on shooting sprees.
The Orlando nightclub shooter would have been prevented from obtaining firearms if the Democratic Party's plan for preventing sales to those who have been investigated by the FBI had been in effect.
Which particular plan are you referring to? The Democrats and Republicans both have proposed legislation which would prevent watchlist suspects from purchasing firearms in some capacity. None of the four proposed within the past year that I'm aware of would have done anything to stop the Orlando shooter from acquiring his weapons.

The bill in question was introduced in February of this year and was titled The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
In what way does that refute what I said? Carry is an issue of guns in public places. So if the assertion is that "the gun lobby has promoted a state legislative agenda that would ultimately allow anyone to carry a gun anywhere", that's relevant to public places, sure, and is exactly what I originally said the claim was. I'm not entirely sure where you're getting disconnected here.

You're trying to make it sound like Everytown was literally referring to a push to remove every gun rights restriction, ever, when the context of the very page you linked to makes it clear that they're referring specifically to restrictions on where guns can be carried.

Quote:
You're making the assumption that "literally the majority of the country" is interpreting that in the same way as you.

That's not an assumption. The majority of the country favors closing the terror gap loophole in some manner.

Quote:
Where did I say that the issue is absolutely a settled one? I honestly don't mean it if I sound rude here, but did you actually read what I wrote?

If it isn't a settled one, you can't credibly call Everytown intellectually dishonest for being concerned about the issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
It also doesn't make much sense to worry so much about watchlist suspects being able to legally purchase firearms (which by the way applies to <%5 of the people on the list, since only those %5 are US citizens) when we haven't had any major incidents of people buying firearms while on the list and then going on shooting sprees.

The Orlando nightclub shooter would have been prevented from obtaining firearms if the Democratic Party's plan for preventing sales to those who have been investigated by the FBI had been in effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
A direct quote from the link: "In recent years, the gun lobby has promoted a state legislative agenda that would ultimately allow anyone to carry a gun anywhere." Which part of that is not a removal of all restrictions. "Anyone" and "anywhere" are universal terms, meaning without restriction.

Except that the rest of us can read that troublesome page title "Guns in Public Places" - you know, the one that appears immediately and directly above that quote you cited? Context is a pain, I know.

Quote:
It's not an argument over terminology, you're simply using completely irrelevant words. Debating whether a stool is a chair would be an argument over terminology. What you're doing is more akin to calling a stool a swimming pool. Also, what constitution are you reading? Is it the same one as SCOTUS? If so, I have some bad news for you.

So literally the majority of the country has no problem understanding these "completely irrelevant words", but they're the ones who are wrong? I'm not sure you quite get how language works.

Quote:
So you're just going to ignore the peer-reviewed journal I used to back up my point? Pot, meet kettle.

Speaking as someone with a four year degree from one of the top 5 criminology programs in the country, I can assure you that the question of the impact of legal carry on college campuses (and other protected spaces) is absolutely not a settled one, and it is intellectually dishonest of you (or willfully ignorant) to carry on as though it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
For lack of a better term, it's pretty much a "no go" for me, for a few reasons. For one, I'm vehemently against the idea of the government at any level being able to take away constitutionally protected rights without the scrutinized person being able to defend themselves in a court of law. I would say the same thing if it was suggested that "suspected terrorists" shouldn't be able to speak publicly. Not only is this an issue of defending currently protected rights, but also one of not opening the floodgates to thought police (it's not a big leap to go from arbitrarily suspending one right to another). I don't say that from under a tin-foil hat thinking that big brother is out to get me, but rather from an observation of similar progressions in other western countries.

And, of course, for those following along, quite a few western countries rank higher on various indices of democratic freedoms than the United States does. Many of these have extremely restrictive gun control laws. The theory that restricting gun rights leads to tyranny is one that is utterly unsupported in modern democratic, western nations.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Care to provide a source on that insight? Sure the NRA (which I don't support, by the way) and many legislators push for the removal or amending of certain carry restrictions, but they are in no way in favor of the complete removal of all restrictions, as you and the link I provided claim.

Neither I nor the link claims that the gun lobby wants to remove all carry restrictions. What I - and the link - claim is that the gun lobby wants to do away with "gun free zone" restrictions. And it's true.

Quote:
To which specific list are you referring (there are multiple)? I'll assume for this reply that you mean the FBI's Terrorist Screening DB. I'm not sure what definition of "loophole" you and Everytown are using, but I can't see how you're applying the term to what would be an egregious violation of constitutional rights if the feds were allowed to suspend your second amendment rights based on an arbitrarily assigned list (particularly one which has been noted to be particularly difficult to be removed from, in cases of accidental additions) which would bypass due process. Keeping that from being a reality isn't a loophole, it's a protection of civil liberties.

You can argue over the terminology all you want. I, and most people in the country, see this as a loophole that needs to be plugged. We see ways of plugging that loophole that don't violate our opinions of what is and is not constitutional.

Quote:
There is no such study (that I'm aware of)

Then it doesn't rise to the level of intellectual dishonesty that you're trying to make it sound like it rises to.

I'm really just looking for you to acknowledge that the gun control lobby doesn't have the same intellectual dishonesty problem that the Republican Party has. That's not asking a lot of you.


Fergie wrote:

I think it is that kind of "people who don't share my political ideology are stupid!" statements that turn people from supporting a position to voting against people who insulted them.

There are plenty of smart people with good vocabularies on the Right. We may not agree with them, but implying they don't know the meaning of common words is just a thinly veiled insult,

It wasn't veiled at all. That was literally the joke. Regardless, it isn't for their benefit. If the "basket of deplorables" saga offends them, good.

Quote:
and sure does not make the boards a welcome place for people who disagree with your politics. You can disagree with people without insulting their intelligence.

And I do, frequently. But I also make the occasional (lame) joke at the right wing's expense. And the right wing deserves it.

Quote:
One final point. Based on peoples responses, I get the impression that they think I am making excuses for Trumps racism. I am not. I was addressing the point someone made that ~"Trump was not called a racist until he ran for office". (Others have questioned whether Trump is only saying racist things to appeal to voters) I posted the link to the central park five case to illustrate that Trump has been a racist for decades. I also posted several instances of Hillary doing racist things to address points that someone made that only one candidate is racist. As thejeff said, racism is a spectrum and I don't mean to imply that they are equally racist, simply to point out that both have done many racist things.

Everyone has done many racist things. The problem is that when you take pains to point that out, you're shifting the dialogue from, "One of the candidates is reprehensibly racist," to, "Both of the candidates are racist - of course they aren't equally racist, but both of them are," as though that helps anything. Even this kind of couched language makes it more difficult to keep the light shone on Trump's horrific behavior, which is where it's needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

Fallacy. Fallacy fallacy fallacy phallacy fallacy. Fallacist's fallacy...

You ever hear a perfectly cromulent word so frequently that it now sounds weird, like you're now not quite sure it's real?

This is a documented phenomenon known as semantic satiation. Learn things every day!


Fergie wrote:
When you don't or can't know something... just admit you don't or can't know something.

Or we can make educated, reasonable conclusions based on limited information, just like you do literally every day, countless times, with a tremendous degree of success.

I'm not interested in trying to appease your personal, finely-tuned sense of ethics.

Quote:
This is the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq in 2003, and I feel like people should have learned something from that.

Holy god, what the hell.


RainyDayNinja wrote:
The NRA has supported a number of background checks and other policies well short of full legalization of everything. Why are you lying?

Follow along, please. We weren't discussing background checks. We were discussing restrictions based on type of venue. It's abundantly clear that the gun lobby has had state legislative efforts in motion over the last few years to remove those restrictions.

Quote:
Dude, even the ACLU came out against this stuff. It takes next-to-nothing to put someone on a terror watchlist, or start an investigation on spurious grounds, and it's almost impossible to get yourself off of one of those lists.

You can absolutely disagree about whether something should be done about this. That would put you in the minority, but that's fine. The fact of the matter is that this loophole does in fact exist.

So far, literally no examples of intellectual dishonesty on the part of Everytown have been put forward. Meanwhile, Trump told 21 huge lies in one speech. But "Both sides same!" right?


Fergie wrote:

100 years ago, racism was supported by a wide variety including medial experts, and other "learned people".

Yet it was all h$*@%!#*&.
Again, the truth is the truth! The number and breadth who believe a lie does not make it true. Are people really trying to argue against this?

We're not arguing in favor of lies. We're saying that, in those situations where you don't know or cannot know the truth, a heuristic like the number of times someone has been called racist by different groups of people provides a relatively safe way to conclude whether or not the person in question really is racist.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
The headline here tries to make it seem as if there is any serious legislative push in the country to put guns in the hands of anyone and everyone, which is in no way true.

It absolutely is true - it's abundantly clear that the NRA and similar groups are engaged in a legislative effort to remove restrictions on where guns may be carried. Their end goal is to remove those restrictions entirely.

Quote:
This screenshot from their website's "Act" section argues against a supposed loophole that doesn't actually exist.

Yes, it does. For those following along, the "terror gap" loophole refers to the fact that existing legislation does not prevent individuals on the FBI's terror watchlist from purchasing firearms. According to the GAO, over 2,000 people on that watchlist have obtained firearms over the last 11 years.

Claiming this gap doesn't exist is remarkable to me. This is one of the few things that both Republicans and Democrats agree on - that the "terror gap" must be addressed. The only fight is over what should be done to address it. Democrats want to prevent gun sales to anyone who has been investigated for terror in the last five years, while Republicans want a "default proceed" policy that limits the sale stop to those with more definite ties to terrorist acts.

Quote:
This article against campus carry ignores the entire history of legal campus carry in the US where it has been shown to effectively cause no real issues.

You'll need to provide a credible source on that - a body of peer-reviewed, journal-published studies indicating no significant change in rates of violent crime or suicide based on the status of legal carry on the campus, for example.

When I said I encourage you to demonstrate your claim that both sides are equally intellectually dishonest, that wasn't me encouraging you to stretch the truth yourself to make your point.


Fergie wrote:
The veracity of a statement is not based on the number of people who say it.

No, but frequency and breadth are a fine heuristic for these kinds of labels.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Anti-2A advocates (see: Bloomberg's Everytown group and similar supporters) are pretty on-par with Republican intellectual dishonesty (or they're just intentionally uninformed, though I'm not sure which is worse) and is a largely Dem-based group. Bear in mind that's not the only example, it's just the first one that comes to mind since it's one of my bigger topics of interest and one of major relevance around me.

As one of those people you would label an "anti-2A advocate", no, there's no parallel. Not remotely. Those of us who take an active interest in the subject are very well-informed.

But I encourage you to support your claim, and I'll set a very easy bar for you to meet: provide a list of examples of intellectual dishonesty displayed by Everytown for Gun Safety in the two years since it was founded that rises to the level of intellectual dishonesty displayed by Donald Trump, the de facto leader of the Republican Party, in a single speech.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Also, 'bigoted' no longer has meaning. When it's used against 'anyone one side doesn't like', that tends to happen. Decades of prominence in the public eye, nary a peep. Runs against Democrats, immediately branded 'bigot', 'homophobe', 'racist', 'dark', etc, etc, the whole deplorable pile.

I have literally NEVER met anyone angry at the term "bigoted" who didn't deserve the label. In order to be that upset with a word, they have to have been hit with it repeatedly and by a range of people. And anyone who is being called a bigot repeatedly and by a range of people is almost certainly an actual bigot.

If you don't like being called a bigot, try not being a bigot.

WHOA...let's stop...right there.

When we start calling people names like that, it's starting to get REALLY nasty.

Mean and nasty. Maybe it's time we all took a step back and said...whoa...let's not toss that term at ANYONE here or imply that we are nasty enough to use that term towards anyone else right now...at least in the way we've been discussing politics.

A quick google search (typed the term into google) had it's terminology right at the top of the page for that to define it as

{a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.}

Think about that...and perhaps we can all think how that may apply to all of us, and perhaps none of us.

No. And I reject your philosophy. The bigotry I oppose has a narrower definition, and I'm quite sure you know what it is - it encompasses racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other similar ugly prejudices. When someone is called a "bigot" in modern parlance, they mean that the person in question exhibits a collection of those prejudices.

Bigotry is a topic in this election, unfortunately. And at least one user here is trying to push the notion that it is a label that is being used unfairly. That notion is tripe, and it's typically peddled by people who don't like the label because others frequently apply it to them.

Bigotry is a topic in this election, because one of the two candidates for President is a tremendous bigot, and tailors his message to appeal to other like-minded bigots. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is a liar at best, and is almost certainly a party to that bigotry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Also, 'bigoted' no longer has meaning. When it's used against 'anyone one side doesn't like', that tends to happen. Decades of prominence in the public eye, nary a peep. Runs against Democrats, immediately branded 'bigot', 'homophobe', 'racist', 'dark', etc, etc, the whole deplorable pile.

I have literally NEVER met anyone angry at the term "bigoted" who didn't deserve the label. In order to be that upset with a word, they have to have been hit with it repeatedly and by a range of people. And anyone who is being called a bigot repeatedly and by a range of people is almost certainly an actual bigot.

If you don't like being called a bigot, try not being a bigot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
OK, so when you define "Basic Facts", it is "Whatever Poltifact tells you it is at the time?"

Nah. Politifact is just a great example.

Quote:
Oh man, that's rich. It's good to know that you have a single website from which you derive your objective truth.

I have literally hundreds. Politifact is simply the most insurmountable for your argument.

Quote:
Good job. Politifact says she has more 'true' claims. What does that tell us? Does that tell us she is not corrupt, didn't do pay-for-play, didn't delete specific data, didn't lie about being under sniper fire, didn't use the Clinton Foundation as a way to manipulate bribes, etc, etc?

Actually, it literally refutes a number of those claims. So, yes, in some cases.

Quote:
No, it just tells you that a certain website says more of her claims were 'true'.

I mean, or you could actually read the articles.

Quote:
I don't need to make claims about Politifact's "bias". I could, but that's low-hanging fruit. I much prefer for you to logically look at your claim and realize how silly it is.

Serious question - do you honestly believe you're coming across as having the stronger position? Not to me, I mean. To the rest of the people reading your posts. Do you believe that each time you post, you are improving your position in the estimation of those listening?

Quote:
Yes, I hate the Democrat party. It is the absolutely most corrupt organization in the USA today.

I doubt even you believe that.

Quote:
No, I'm not an Conservative. Yes, it's insulting for you to call me one. No, I don't care, because you are simply misinformed.

Yes, you're insulted, but no, you don't care? Which is it? You can either be insulted, or you can not care. You can't choose both.

Regardless, I love when right-wingers try to pretend they aren't right-wingers by disagreeing with the Republican Party in a couple of areas. No one believes that. It's just a different shade of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!"

Quote:
Yes, you're a fool for doing so, because in your worldview there is the binary of "Us good" VS "Them bad" with no in-between, so you can't even comprehend that there's anything else on the spectrum.

Not in "my worldview." Just in this election. You have two choices.

Quote:
Thank you for proving it is, in fact, your strategy. I appreciate it when you are so obvious. This is why you are not Inner Party, you're incapable of higher-level deception. You're too honest to be evil. There's hope.

You're jumping at shadows. You're fighting a war with your own imagination, and you're losing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
In terms of how they handle the ultra wealthy, they are the same.

No.

Quote:
For the quality of their results in foreign interventions, they are the same.

No.

Quote:
Assessing the utility of their programs to spend taxpayer dollars, they are the same.

No.

Quote:
How well they want other perspectives to be in the debate, they are the same.

One of them literally has a democratic socialist (and their sole significant primary competitor) campaigning on their behalf this next week. The other just wishes his primary opponents would shut up about how much of a hack he is.

Quote:
Etc., the are the same.

Low effort.

Quote:
I'm voting for Bernie. He is by far the best candidate who actually ran for president. I don't care that he officially endorses another at this point. Actually I do care and it makes me sad that the "protest candidate" rolled over and became part of the problem. Still, maybe this time next year he will wake up and get back to work.

Or he's just more interested in accomplishing something meaningful than in pointless protests. Your candidate of choice has an ounce of practicality in him. You don't. He's a smart guy. Ever think, "Gee, maybe he has a reason for all of this?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
No, no, please go on about which side is ignoring more 'basic facts', this is delicious.

Okay!

Here's Hillary Clinton's Politifact scorecard.

Here's Donald Trump's.

I encourage you to blame the absolutely insane disparity in those two charts on Politifact's "bias." Bonus points if you mention that they're run by the Tampa Bay Times, a newspaper whose editorial board has endorsed Clinton! That will make your position look super strong.

You hate the Democratic Party with a burning passion. Fine, we get that. It really is not a great time to be a conservative. The world at large has turned against your ideology, the number of places where you can freely share your opinions with others without feeling their scorn shrinks daily, and nearly all social change coming out of our federal legislature is in the general direction of progressivism.

But your anger and frustration aren't a substitute for facts.

Quote:
Claim superiority, shame dissent, proclaim victory.

I mean, it's not really our strategy (in case any of you would like to read our actual plan, instead of a right-winger's caricature of a smoke-filled-room-fantasy version, here it is!), but perhaps it ought to be. Democrats are, on balance, better; the most reliable path to social change is through shaming; and we are kind of on a winning streak, so maybe we ought to proclaim victory more often? Could be fun.

1 to 50 of 7,298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.