• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from combo player »

    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Everything people claim to be wrong with the DNC are mostly reasons to choose the democratic party- they have an established position of power in the larger sociopolitical environment- with the media, with voters, with businesses, etc. A new party would not have a well of support to fall back on.


    An established position they used to; lose to Donald Trump. lmao.

    An established position they used to lose to another party with an established position that they have lost to in the past and still came back to win future elections. Yeah, clearly the party is collapsing.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on B&R Update: Emrakul, Copter, Reflector Mage banned in Standard, Gitaxian Probe, Gravetroll in Modern!
    Quote from user_938036 »
    While I do not play Standard myself, a close friend of mine does, and he opened a few Kaladesh packs he won yesterday only to find a regular and a foil Smuggler's Copter he won't even be able to play. Emrakul at least got half a year, but Copter only got 3 months and is in boosters from the most recent expansion that will continue to get opened at the very least until Amonkhet hits, meaning that lots of people are opening packs just to find that their rare is as useful as the information token for play in a FNM.

    Wizards should really step up for this fiasco and let players trade their Copters for another booster.
    Yet somehow it is still in the top 20 most expensive cards form Kaladesh. I highly doubt people are going to be too upset opening this when its still better than the many $0.10 cards.


    What? Where are you getting this info from? Copter took a massive nosedive after the bannings and now you can buy a playset for less than you could buy a single one before the ban announcement.

    Being "on the top 20 most expensive cards" from a Standard set that only has a handful of money cards is also irrisory. At least I can play with the $0.10 card if I open one of them. Copter is as useful as the rules token for Standard player and basically turns the pack into a 14 cards non rare booster. That's why I said that WotC should step up and offer a replacement for them as an apology.

    I highly doubt offering any real replacement is going to be worth the investment on WotC's end compared to actual return they'd get.
    Yeah some players are going to be hurt by this announcement. But most of those players probably like standard being balanced, so I don't think most people are actually losing anything all in all.
    If people are genuinely interested in the health of the format, they should be willing to lose out on something for it. I mean, that's life- you don't get to win everything all the time.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from combo player »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    I agree. This is just the democrats facing adversity, there's no reason to call that they are collapsing or something, at the VERY least, not yet.
    I think the bit about globalisation is particularly important, especially when you look at similar issues- the world has changed quite a lot in the last century and it seems not everyone is on the same page about where exactly that leaves us. We are facing new issues and there's going to be confusion around them- I think that's part of what we are seeing with politics right now, especially on the audience side.


    The Democratic Party is facing more than simply adversity, it's facing a struggle for what it should even represent. If the centrist leadership wins then the party will fade away.

    That's a pretty bold claim to make with no data to back it up.
    I'll be needing data personally.

    I'm not convinced that trying to take over the Democratic Party is worth it, not the least because the DNC is the party, so we're more likely to see something new instead.

    Everything people claim to be wrong with the DNC are mostly reasons to choose the democratic party- they have an established position of power in the larger sociopolitical environment- with the media, with voters, with businesses, etc. A new party would not have a well of support to fall back on.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on B&R Update: Emrakul, Copter, Reflector Mage banned in Standard, Gitaxian Probe, Gravetroll in Modern!
    Quote from Modest Ohmu »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Colt47 »
    A ban on blue flashback hulk would have been interesting. Saheeli is probably not getting banned herself as much as the other card.


    When was the last time we had a common or uncommon banned in Standard? Was Treasure Cruise actually banned in Standard at the time (or just Modern/Legacy)? Or are we talking back to Skullclamp days?

    When was the last time we had a common or uncommon banned in Standard?
    Ummm.... right now- Reflector Mage

    They mean before this current banning under discussion.

    They were talking about a future ban to Felidar Guardian.
    In which the precedent of right now is very relevant.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on B&R Update: Emrakul, Copter, Reflector Mage banned in Standard, Gitaxian Probe, Gravetroll in Modern!
    Quote from Colt47 »
    A ban on blue flashback hulk would have been interesting. Saheeli is probably not getting banned herself as much as the other card.


    When was the last time we had a common or uncommon banned in Standard? Was Treasure Cruise actually banned in Standard at the time (or just Modern/Legacy)? Or are we talking back to Skullclamp days?

    When was the last time we had a common or uncommon banned in Standard?
    Ummm.... right now- Reflector Mage
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »


    Quote from onering »

    The idiot right loves to try to project. Its possible that he really doesn't understand the difference between reporting on a source and what has actually earned the moniker "fake news", that is garbage that is completely fabricated by the "news" outlet.


    It's terrible journalistic ethics to publish (or in CNN's case, ideologically promote) explosive allegations with no corroboration. I'm fine with the description 'fake news.'

    CNN has not been promoting the legitimacy of the 'dossier'. Their coverage has actually been fairly restrained and critical of it. They just mentioned it existed before buzzfeed published the damn thing.
    I'll accept what Buzzfeed did with publishing the dossier itself is at least something like fake news though.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Kari Zev, her expertise, and her monkey
    Quote from Manite »
    Is Fiveod talking about the comments regarding Kari being attractive? Finding a lady attractive makes one a creepy weirdo? 'Cause I don't see what's so creepy about wanting to plunder some booty. :p

    She's 15 years old.
    So....
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on B&R Update: Emrakul, Copter, Reflector Mage banned in Standard, Gitaxian Probe, Gravetroll in Modern!
    Quote from GoreSpaz »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from GoreSpaz »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    I had rather invest in expensive cards, see them banned and turn to something else, than invest in expensive cards and get bored of playing with them because the format becomes stale and unfun.


    I could sell off decks/cards and invest in something else if I just got bored. When they ban cards, they make the entire value of my deck go down. Now I'm out serious money and have to reinvest in the format. I'm not doing that.

    In a broken format, what are you going to turn to?
    With banned cards, there's a cost, but it seems like one we should be willing to pay.


    A different format. A different game? lol...that's the beauty it gives me a choice.

    Not me. I'm in the camp of printing answers to cards. They could balance the color pie, make spells more powerful, etc. Why should I have to pay for it? I'm already paying for it!

    Printing to answers to cards is an extremely inefficient solution for broken cards.
    1- It can escalate and make the format all about specific cards and their specific answers
    2- It requires the problem to be noted for at least five or six months before it can then be solved with the new card, due to development process, likely more than that.
    3- There's no guarantee the answer will be good enough, or it might even be too strong and take over the format.

    Printing answers is only good when issues are minimal. The issues with standard were not minimal.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on B&R Update: Emrakul, Copter, Reflector Mage banned in Standard, Gitaxian Probe, Gravetroll in Modern!
    Quote from GoreSpaz »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from GoreSpaz »
    MTG better get on the ball or I'll be quitting the game entirely. I'm not investing in cards to have them be banned.

    I had rather invest in expensive cards, see them banned and turn to something else, than invest in expensive cards and get bored of playing with them because the format becomes stale and unfun.


    I could sell off decks/cards and invest in something else if I just got bored. When they ban cards, they make the entire value of my deck go down. Now I'm out serious money and have to reinvest in the format. I'm not doing that.

    In a broken format, what are you going to turn to?
    With banned cards, there's a cost, but it seems like one we should be willing to pay.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 6

    posted a message on B&R Update: Emrakul, Copter, Reflector Mage banned in Standard, Gitaxian Probe, Gravetroll in Modern!
    Quote from GoreSpaz »
    MTG better get on the ball or I'll be quitting the game entirely. I'm not investing in cards to have them be banned.

    I had rather invest in expensive cards, see them banned and turn to something else, than invest in expensive cards and get bored of playing with them because the format becomes stale and unfun.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on UB-Evergreen Keyword Suggestions
    I really think Manite's Withdraw is good.
    Both Indestructible and Hexproof are not abilities you want to have a lot of, so while Withdraw is similar, I think it can easily have enough room to breathe.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • 1

    posted a message on B&R Update: Emrakul, Copter, Reflector Mage banned in Standard, Gitaxian Probe, Gravetroll in Modern!
    Quote from Legend »
    I will miss Copter but understand the bannings. And I hope they swing the ban hammer two or three times a year to keep sanctioned Magic fresh. It's the only way.

    At the very least, they have made it easier for them to do this.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Herald of Anguish
    Quote from Morphling »
    Demons on Kaladesh and Theros made no sense. This is why I loathe this concept of each color having an "iconic" creature. Just make creatures within the flavor of that plane in those colors. Archons on Theros in place of angels were great for example. It's annoying having iconics forced. all these hydras everywhere is awkward. Especially on Innistrad for example.


    Agreed. This might have mattered back in the days of Alpha and CORE sets but, really MaRo, no one would bat an eye if iconics didn't appear on every single plane.

    I feel like Magic went through a bit of an "OCD" phase back when they did the great Creature Type update and the implementation of NWO. They cleaned up quite a few things and, on balance, I think it was a good and vitally necessary exercise for design to reach its current (incredible) state.

    However, it also led to really pointless box-checking (and overly-obsessive) stuff like "We must have an 'iconic' in every color and they have to show up on every plane or else, somehow, 'Magic suffers' as a result".

    Iconics don't remotely show up on every plane.

    Kaladesh- no sphinxes
    Innistrad- no sphinxes
    Zendikar- all
    Tarkir- no angels, no sphinxes
    Theros- no angels
    Ravnica- all
    Mirrodin- no hydras (exlcuding non-native phyrexian hydra)
    Alara- all

    That's the minority of recent planes that have all iconics.

    The flavor of Magic hinges on the color pie, not five arbitrary tribes that happen to work well as finishers

    They aren't arbitrary- they are tribes that represent their particular colour well, are well liked, and are versatile enough to be adapted to fit in a variety of worlds.
    WotC puts these big rare iconic creatures into so many sets because players like it. Dragons in particular are very popular.

    I mean, you can just replace them with plane-specific finishers of the same tribe...like the Gearhulks. And free up Mythic slots for more interesting designs at Mythic level.

    There are plenty of non iconic creatures at rare/mythic in sets already.
    Iconic types also do not significantly affect design space at higher rarities, their mechanical themes are things that color does anyway.
    Iconic types are also adapted to fit different planes, so are often plane specific creatures. Just because they share the same creature type doesn't mean they are the same. Kaladesh's angels, for example, are quite unique.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on Herald of Anguish
    Demons on Kaladesh and Theros made no sense. This is why I loathe this concept of each color having an "iconic" creature. Just make creatures within the flavor of that plane in those colors. Archons on Theros in place of angels were great for example. It's annoying having iconics forced. all these hydras everywhere is awkward. Especially on Innistrad for example.

    You can't do that very well with the creature type system magic has. Creature types are too important not to have some kind of baseline creatures. Iconics don't need to be in every set anyway, as you noted, so I don't see why you object unless you think there are quite narrow.
    Note also that what feels forced or natural to you is just that. It doesn't mean there's necessarily a real problem.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from warghoul »
    Stopped them from staling an underwater drone to...

    My point was that the coverage was not even close to the 'Russian' hacks.

    The Russian hacking has been linked to the election, that's gonna make it pretty big in the news.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Innistrad Enshrouded (INE) 004/264 - Feedback appreciated!
    When you say flip cards I presume you actually mean DFCs from Innistrad not actual flip cards from Kamigawa. If not, then I advise to do DFCs instead.
    You say you wanted to include madness and/or flashback, have you made a decision yet about which ones you will be using? I recommend not returning madness and flashback seems a reasonable choice to return. Doing it alongside clues and DFCs though might be a bit too many returning mechanics, and flashback isn't all that mechanically distinctive so it's fairly easy to replace with something new in the same mechanical slot. Clues are more distinctive though so I recommend keeping them over flashback, and DFCs are just crucial to Innistrad's mechanical themes.

    I agree that black shouldn't be very much at all involved in fighting clues. As Phosphorous said, hating on your set mechanics is not very good, and to expand more on why it's because your mechanics are supposed to draw players into your mechanical themes, so hating on them takes away from that. Set mechanic hate cards are almost always done as one-off cards mainly for an option to counter decks using the mechanics if they get really strong in the meta.

    Something I'd do is put down a concise and clear description for the tone of this set and especially how it's different from the previous blocks. And then look at picking a few major ways of bringing that into the game mechanically. This will help you develop an identity for the set.
    Posted in: Custom Set Creation and Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    I agree with Blinking Spirit, I don't think there's any reason to suspect the US vote has suddenly been hacked. And I also agree that electronic voting is not currently safe, and there should be at least stronger safety requirements like Kahedron suggests.
    Maybe one day when (presumably it will happen) quantum computing becomes mainstream, then we could use electronic voting because of how difficult it is to hack quantum computers at all and only using quite unconventional methods.

    I think it's more important to continue to investigate government leaks like from the DNC and the Russian connection to them, especially given the head of US intelligence has recently outright said he believes more than ever that the Russian government was responsible for the DNC leaks and other interferences to intentionally affect the election result, that he will be pushing for more evidence to be made public, and that Julian Assange is not really trustworthy.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Surging Chaos »
    You are looking at the election results without much context. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are traditionally safe states for Democrats.
    No, they are states that lean Democrat. They are not, for example, California. And both Michigan and Pennsylvania went red in 1988.

    You brush off the results by thinking "oh, this isn't bad, this was damn close" but I see otherwise.
    Then maybe you should try looking at voter percentages.

    Second, and more importantly, Democrats have been getting clobbered in non-presidential races. Don't just focus on the presidential race. Republicans have won so many seats at the state and federal level that they are actually extremely close to being able to call a constitutional convention. They are only ~1-2 state legislatures away from having the power to amend the Constitution.
    And the Dems came into power after Bush with a filibuster-proof majority. People were declaring the GOP dead during that time. How many times, I wonder, does this need to happen before declaring a party dead is recognized as a premature reaction?

    Have you seen what is happening with the West? There is absolutely a massive populist revolt going on in multiple countries. We had Brexit in the UK and Trump getting elected in the US. France and the Netherlands are likely going to be the next countries to go through this same "stick it to the man" wave. I fully expect Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders to win their respective elections now that they're energized by what has happened in the Anglosphere.
    Yes, in reaction to an increasingly globalized world and the new challenges it brings, there are movements within many countries that represent a backlash against it in the form of a retreat towards nativism.

    None of that makes the Democrats finished.

    Hell, right now there's increasing concern amongst the "coal country" voters about whether or not they'll lose the health benefits granted to them by the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans' next move on the healthcare issue will play a major role in determining whether these voters will continue to support the Republicans or feel a sense of betrayal and actively oppose them.

    Which brings us to the thing that really needs to be driven home: we are FIVE DAYS into 2017. So maybe, just maybe, it's a tad bit too premature to declare the Republicans the winners of the 2020 election when they're not even a week into this current presidency. Right?

    I agree. This is just the democrats facing adversity, there's no reason to call that they are collapsing or something, at the VERY least, not yet.
    I think the bit about globalisation is particularly important, especially when you look at similar issues- the world has changed quite a lot in the last century and it seems not everyone is on the same page about where exactly that leaves us. We are facing new issues and there's going to be confusion around them- I think that's part of what we are seeing with politics right now, especially on the audience side.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 3

    posted a message on Herald of Anguish
    Quote from pierrebai »
    Is the art a joke? Herald of Anguish, a demon with what looks like an American flag near his hand?

    You are reading way far into it. It's just a pattern that happens to resemble the American flag. It's not a political painting, it's just a magic card.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Kari Zev, her expertise, and her monkey
    RIP Threaten. You will be missed. The expertise is much better.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Treasure Keeper - Magic Mics Podcast Preview
    Development doesn't work two years in advance, more like a year, so they would have had time since Zendikar block to change things for Kaladesh and Aether Revolt.
    I agree that it seems like they are trying to fix the issues with standard balance.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from Surging Chaos »
    Second, and more importantly, Democrats have been getting clobbered in non-presidential races. Don't just focus on the presidential race. Republicans have won so many seats at the state and federal level that they are actually extremely close to being able to call a constitutional convention. They are only ~1-2 state legislatures away from having the power to amend the Constitution.


    It's a little scary to consider since that could lead to a second civil war or worse. Though from the sounds of some of the alt-right rhetoric, they wouldn't mind that.

    Oh, I've heard explicit talk of another civil war from white nationalist sort of people. There's definitely people who would make that happen if they could and similarly minded others who would allow it to happen.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Aetherwind Basker - arstechnica spoiler
    Hell yeah, Giant Aether Frill Necked Lizard.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on "Spire of Industry" - any color rare land
    Seems pretty good. Surely an include in at least most artifact decks in standard.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from Tiax »
    You've now set yourself up so that you would have to do a wildly disproportionate amount of work just to counter the few drops he's already posted. Otherwise all you've done is handed him a rhetorical victory by earnestly asking for evidence and then letting it stand unchallenged.


    I actually don't need to do much (though I already did before Jay's post)... Jay mentioned the key two words: Pioneer Fund.

    Quote from Jay13x »
    Shocking: Study funded by racist group (Pioneer Fund) turns up results that reinforce their beliefs.


    Every single video or study that was linked either directly or obliquely links back to the Pioneer Fund. Then, all we need to do is look at the SPLC's list of hate groups...

    That's not going to be convincing to someone is inclined to believe the claims rather than disbelieve them.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on LRR Preview Card: Release the Gremlins
    Seems like a good sideboard card in standard as long as artifact decks are a thing.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Freejam Regent - Magic the Amateuring
    Seems pretty weak.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    And a difference here is quite significant because my larger thesis here is that Trump supporters continued to exist largely because they felt they were not being listened to, they where being dismissed.
    Except their actual grievance isn't that they're not being listened to, it's that people aren't agreeing with them.

    The complaint that they're being dismissed is merely an extension of that. They see widespread disagreement with their opinions, and, because they don't perceive themselves as being incorrect (which they might if they *thought critically*), they see the widespread disagreement against their arguments as illogical reactions by people who are either blinded by their own biases or groupthink or what-have-you.

    It wouldn't be a problem if they didn't feel they were dismissed. That's what stops them listening to opposition.


    The problem is...
    we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
    Correct, we aren't. Because these people aren't making arguments that are rooted in logic, reason, and facts. They're making arguments backed by bull*****.

    So, the correct response is to dismiss these arguments. Arguments backed by nothing factual can be dismissed.

    Yes, dismiss their arguments. But not by dismissing the superficial points, but by making an effort to find underlying preconceptions first, and by making an effort to appeal to them so they will listen to you.


    See, this is why *thinking critically* is so important. These people will jump up and down about how their arguments are being dismissed unfairly. They aren't. An argument backed by nothing, with a plethora of evidence against it, can be dismissed, and such dismissal is perfectly fair. They're being dismissed because they are factually incorrect. But, since these people do not perceive themselves as factually incorrect, they will jump to other conclusions as to why they're arguments are being dismissed, namely that people are meanie-heads who are deciding that they're wrong without ever actually listening to them. Because what would be the alternative? Why the alternative would be considering the possibility that...
    we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.

    Which is why we need to think critically about what they're saying. You're saying, "We shouldn't dismiss these people unfairly," but what is your basis for thinking that they are being dismissed unfairly?

    I never said such a thing, other than with reference to specific statements you and Tiax made.
    What I am saying is if people think they are being dismissed unfairly, dismissing them can very easily lead to them not listening to you because, to them, you are validating their narrative.
    So I am suggesting we should be very careful about being dismissive, not for the sake of whether it's fair, but whether it's productive.
    This isn't about fairness, this is about strategy.


    Also,

    and that therefore we should be careful about giving them a chance to prove themselves, at least in so far as their basic intelligence and some amount of basic decency.
    This is quite a bit of "pot calling the kettle black," Mr. "we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it."

    You're basically admitting that these people are irrational and wrong. Yet, you object to anyone telling the irrational and wrong people that they're irrational and wrong, even though you not only believe they're irrational and wrong, but also you're SAYING they're irrational and wrong in a public forum where they can clearly read what you are saying.

    So you don't think you can be irrational and wrong without lacking basic intelligence and decency?
    Because I do.
    There's a spectrum between perfectly logical and moral and completely irrational and morally reprehensible. Just because someone's on the bad end of the spectrum doesn't mean they are at very bottom.


    So it's wrong to confront someone in a debate forum about the lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing

    I'm talking about approaching this issue much more broadly than here on the debate forum.
    (Also, my answer to this is no, in case that wasn't already clear from above)
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from osieorb18 »

    Quote from DJK3654 »
    The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
    Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.


    I don't know if I would say "majority"; that seems like a bit of a sweeping generalization. But saying "a lot" could be reasonable.

    Well a lot of belief is just basic things of your self, logic and the world.

    That said, that is admittedly rather clearly quibbling about language for a marginal improvement in meaning, which is not the point.

    I don't think 'Trump supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth' versus what I am saying which is basically 'there are typically bad at critical thinking/ are often irrational' is a marginal difference.
    And a difference here is quite significant because my larger thesis here is that Trump supporters continued to exist largely because they felt they were not being listened to, they where being dismissed. So what I am saying here is that continuing to basically just dismiss them is going to get us nowhere, and that therefore we should be careful about giving them a chance to prove themselves, at least in so far as their basic intelligence and some amount of basic decency.

    Would you agree that it does not appear that Trump supporters are exercising their critical thinking skills well in a worryingly large fraction of what they declare, or even in voting for Trump? (Perfectly reasonable to take that as two separate points.)

    Firmly yes on both counts, but again those are both quite different statements from 'their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth'.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Don't waste your time, Tiax. Hate is exactly what these people want from you.


    Laughing

    No, they want to trick more gullible people with their Gish gallup of phony science. They want their hatred to be legitimized with a veneer of evidence. People who want to be hated just spew obscenities and slurs.

    Getting hate from people who will never believe them is how they construct their narrative to convince gullible people.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    You said Trump's supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth. They aren't, as my argument supports.

    I think you know what I meant. You're just continuing the trend of nit-picking rather than addressing any substance.

    I'm not nitpicking, I strongly disagree with what you said. If you actually mean what I am saying, you can't pin that on me for calling you on it, that's on you for being so far off.


    But you aren't doing it productively so what's the point?


    If you let it go unchallenged, it can look like you've tacitly acknowledged it as valid, or at least unobjectionable.

    So you literally only want everyone to know you disagree?
    Don't be so dismissive then and just say you aren't going to bother with it. You are being provocative this way.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    I take issue with you saying they don't think critically, not that they are being irrational,
    Critical thinking: "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment."

    Yeah, it does kind of sound like you're saying they're not exercising critical thinking skills, doesn't it?

    Maybe to you.
    You don't need to follow the above definition perfectly to be critically thinking, otherwise nobody would be capable of doing it regularly.
    You can apply some amount of objective logical anslysis without only evaluating something logically and objectively.

    just as I wouldn't take issue if you had instead said they are bad at critical thinking. It was the specifics that I objected to, as I thought I made clear.
    So, in other words, it really is just quibbling over language usage?

    Ok, well, thank you for that contribution to the thread. You have a Happy New Year, man.

    Talking of specifics is not quibbling over language.
    There is a significant difference between being bad at something and not doing it at all.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Highroller »
    DJK, what is even the point of this? You outright say that Trump supporters aren't rational. But when I come in saying that they're irrational, you take an issue with it?

    Because right now, you're coming off as a person who just wants to get the last word in, but has nothing except quibbling over words to offer. You may have an argument, but you're not demonstrating it.

    I take issue with you saying they don't think critically, not that they are being irrational, just as I wouldn't take issue if you had instead said they are bad at critical thinking. It was the specifics that I objected to, as I thought I made clear.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
    Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.


    When things are accepted by everyone, it does not signal critical thinking to also accept them. Such basic facts aren't a relevant indicator.

    You said Trump's supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth. They aren't, as my argument supports.


    You aren't interested in being productive about it, but you still want to say something. Don't.


    I've already been productive about it. What I'm not interested in is seeing such drivel go unchallenged.

    But you aren't doing it productively so what's the point?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    I'm sorry but calling your opponent's viewpoint cancerous just isnt enough to win a debate.

    I'm just calling a spade a spade. I'm not going to engage with Stormfront copypasta.

    Don't waste your time, Tiax. Hate is exactly what these people want from you.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Ljoss »


    Apparently, whatever your other reasons were, one of them was because Trump not knowing what he was doing, and Trump being crazy - so much so as to evoke conspiracy theories that he was some kind of Democratic plant installed to ensure Hillary's victory - really didn't bother you all that much.


    Because it was funny. I was rooting so hard for Trump to win Florida and when he did it... wow, what a feeling. Never thought he would actually take it all. I might not have rooted for that if I knew. But again, it was him or Hillary so whatever really.

    This really doesn't seem like a productive attitude.



    Evidently 63 million people really weren't bothered by it either.


    I love that. I don't like Trump but yeah, this is why America is awesome. We just did something insane that is going to truly harm this country but really freak out leftists, the political elites in Europe, Canada, etc. We're doing this out of spite, for giggles, you know...

    ...And this seems like a resentful and malicious attitude.
    Even better /s.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Very, very many. People are innately critically thinking, no matter whether they are very good at it.
    It's really not hard to show that many people are quite bad at critically thinking, but that's not the same as not critically thinking at all.

    This is just petty hair-splitting. What practical difference is there between people being so bad at critical thinking that their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth, and not critically thinking at all? On question after question, Trump supporters do no better than random guessing. Once you cross that threshold, you may as well be not critically thinking at all.

    The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
    Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.

    Don't bother debating it at all then if you aren't interested in being productive about it
    .

    I've already given a thorough explanation in the other thread. If you or Yamaha need a refresher, go back and read it.

    You aren't interested in being productive about it, but you still want to say something. Don't.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Because all people who think critically at all don't believe ANY stupid things? I don't believe that.
    Nobody is 100% rational, everybody thinks stupid things sometimes, even if only for a time before they dismiss it.
    You don't need to be totally uncritical to believe a few stupid things.

    How many stupid things do they have to believe for you to think they're uncritical? I can produce a LOT of examples backed by polling data.

    Very, very many. People are innately critically thinking, no matter whether they are very good at it.
    It's really not hard to show that many people are quite bad at critically thinking, but that's not the same as not critically thinking at all.

    EDIT:
    Then argue why you think it's a big issue, while others can argue why they think it is of a larger scale. Don't just dismiss it.

    Personally, I think it is a real problem, but not a particularly big one.

    We've already had that thread. I'm not rehashing the argument, and I'm going to treat the idea like the insipid nonsense that it is - by dismissing it.

    Don't bother debating it at all then if you aren't interested in being productive about it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    You aren't really addressing the concern here, Tiax. The concern is that people are abusing the concept of/word racism. And that's a legitimate concern, because people do actually do it. Whether it's a big concern or not, and where the instances of it are, is up to debate, but you can't just brush the concern aside like this. That's exactly the kind of attitude where this issue comes from.


    I'm not addressing the concern because it's frivolous. It's not a real problem. It's just a cover for racists.

    Then argue why you think it's a big issue, while others can argue why they think it is of a larger scale. Don't just dismiss it.

    Personally, I think it is a real problem, but not a particularly big one.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The problem is, that's not a fact. It's wrong. There aren't masses of people who are incapable of or choosing not to use critical thinking, even if there are such masses of people being fairly limited in critical thinking, there has to be very few not using any. But you choose to portray large numbers of people as completely uncritical. That's not a fair portrayal.

    That sounds very fair to me. More than half of Trump voters think Obama was born in Kenya. You cannot believe that and also be capable of applying critical thinking. That belief is solely the domain of ignoramuses.

    Because all people who think critically at all don't believe ANY stupid things? I don't believe that.
    Nobody is 100% rational, everybody thinks stupid things sometimes, even if only for a time before they dismiss it.
    You don't need to be totally uncritical to believe a few stupid things.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The problem is, that's not a fact. It's wrong. There aren't masses of people who are incapable of or choosing not to use critical thinking, even if there are such masses of people being fairly limited in critical thinking, there has to be very few not using any. But you choose to portray large numbers of people as completely uncritical. That's not a fair portrayal.
    Is it unfair? Then why did Trump, who says more incorrect things than correct things, win?

    Limited critical thinking is not a lack of critical thinking.

    But even more so, you make the problem out to be that people thought they didn't need to act out, that people were complacent.

    Because it's only possible to act out when thinking critically... Confused No, obviously that's not true.

    You said this
    We made the mistake of assuming that all of the things we enjoy were things that we could enjoy without ever doing any actual work for them. We assumed that all of the benefits we enjoy from victories of the Founding Fathers, the civil rights movements of the modern day, and everyone in between were the products of battles that had already been fought, not battles that we ourselves needed to continue fighting. And we now see the results of such naive notions.

    That seems like you are saying the problem was complacency.

    The problem was that Trump supporters by and large thought of themselves as some kind of oppressed group

    ... Ok, and maybe what you might choose to investigate from here, and this might be me just talkin' crazy, is look into WHY they think of themselves as oppressed, and then think critically about that and ask yourself exactly how true their position is.

    Bonus points if you in turn consider whether voting for Trump would actually constitute a logical reaction to the position these people find themselves in, but prioritize the first part.

    You realise am I saying quite explicitly that it was part of the problem that Trump supporters thought this?
    I am by no means defending that notion, I am saying you have to understand the mindset of these people if you want them to support what you think.
    It's irrelevant how rational or true any of it is.

    The thing is, even if that's true (and to a significant extent I think it is), it's not going to make things better to say just because it is true.

    Why the hell not?

    Because they aren't listening, they JUST DIDN'T. Because we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
    You can't reason with the unreasonable. You need to address what is making them be unreasonable.

    This is perhaps the most baffling takeaway from this election: people who honestly think others are racist, sexist, bigoted, prejudiced to the point where it influences national voting policy and the damn world, but still labor against others pointing it out.

    I am not saying it shouldn't be pointed out, I in fact never said that. I am saying using that as a strategy is not very effective for dealing with people who are bigoted or are very invested in listening to others who are.
    Pointing it out as a strategy works against a different group of people, who are on the fringe, or are against that side but aren't motivated enough to do anything.

    For ****'s sake, when YamahaR1 is running around saying, "Hey, everyone's in an echo chamber," you were nodding and saying, "Oh yeah, that's a great point he's got there."

    I made my own point in my own terms, it was simply related to the one YamahaR1 was making.

    So, you think it's a great point that people insulate themselves from contrary opinions and the negative result of that is that such people never question their own biases, and consequently these biases prevent them from confronting the truth.

    Important part here is the last bit, because what can happen is not simply that they people won't look for the truth, but that they become largely incapable of realising it even when they see it.

    AND YET, you're now saying it's not productive to confront people with the truth? Well gee, THAT'S contradictory, now isn't it?

    I am saying the truths you should confront them with should be those that undermine the preconceptions and habits they have that prevent them from ever reaching a reasonable conclusion.
    It's not contraditory, it's the direct conclusion of my point- simply spreading the truth about an issue doesn't work. People are being driven by powerful cultural groupings with broad reaching worldviews and presuppositions, not simply individual ideas.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    I don't that's a helpful attitude you are expressing there.
    It's the attitude that built this ******* country.

    You may have learned in social studies class that the Founding Fathers didn't build a democracy, or a kingdom, or a dictatorship. They founded a republic, specifically one built around checks and balances. Did you ever stop to consider why that was? It's because they subscribed to two key concepts:

    1. Through intelligent, informed, rational thought, they could build a better society.
    2. People cannot be relied upon to behave in intelligent, informed, rational, and benevolent ways.

    That second part is important, and they knew this first hand. They understood completely how easily the government could slip into a tyranny that disenfranchises people because they were rebelling against a tyrant who disenfranchised them! Therefore, they didn't put one man in charge, nor did they build a democracy where the majority vote would hold all the power. They deliberately crafted their government so no one person or organization would hold too much power because they knew that human beings cannot be relied upon to make informed, intelligent, rational, benevolent decisions. They formed their government accordingly, making it as difficult as possible for any one person or group to take power, knowing all the while that the possibility of a demagogue taking power was always a risk that needed to be vigilantly watched for.

    And that's what we all lost sight of. We were foolish enough to lose sight of just how irrational, illogical, and without judgment people truly are when it comes to matters of the state and individual liberty. We thought that something like President Trump would never happen because we assumed that "these things just don't happen here," that modern America was somehow special and exempt. But we ignored the fact that every single thing that is exceptional about America - and make no mistake, America truly is special - was earned as a result of the decisions, dedication, hard work, and extreme sacrifice of every person who came before us, starting from the Founding Fathers; to the people who nobly sacrificed so much, including the their own lives and the lives of their family members, in order that this nation would be liberated from Great Britain; all the way to the Civil Rights movement and the present day. We forgot just how deeply rooted racism in this country is, because we enjoy all of the benefits of the Civil Rights movement.

    We made the mistake of assuming that all of the things we enjoy were things that we could enjoy without ever doing any actual work for them. We assumed that all of the benefits we enjoy from victories of the Founding Fathers, the civil rights movements of the modern day, and everyone in between were the products of battles that had already been fought, not battles that we ourselves needed to continue fighting. And we now see the results of such naive notions.

    So no, it is not an unhelpful attitude, it is a ******* fact, and ignoring it is what got us here. Reality is reality, and does not give a ***** about anyone's attempts at denial.


    You said,
    see how large of a percentage of our electorate does not have or choose to exercise critical thinking skills
    .
    The problem is, that's not a fact. It's wrong. There aren't masses of people who are incapable of or choosing not to use critical thinking, even if there are such masses of people being fairly limited in critical thinking, there has to be very few not using any. But you choose to portray large numbers of people as completely uncritical. That's not a fair portrayal.

    But even more so, you make the problem out to be that people thought they didn't need to act out, that people were complacent. I don't believe that at all. A huge portion of this election cycle was spent solely on aggressively criticising Trump. There was no problem with that message not being strong enough, the problem was people heard it and then didn't care. Making the message stronger wouldn't have helped when the people you are trying to reach aren't listening.
    The problem was that Trump supporters by and large thought of themselves as some kind of oppressed group, and that much of the aggression in criticising Trump only went towards making that belief stronger. For these people to have not voted for Trump, they needed to feel like there concerns were being listened to- that's why they voted for Trump- and that didn't happen. Instead, they were attacked as deplorable people.
    The thing is, even if that's true (and to a significant extent I think it is), it's not going to make things better to say just because it is true. If we are dealing with irrationality, responding like you are talking to rational people is not going to help. You need to bridge the gap and deal with something more fundamental.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »


    -I also believe (per another thread) that hitting people with the racist or bigot stick on every topic or repeatedly demonizing white people simply shuts down the conversation.

    As I said in that other thread, this is dangerous, backwards, and only serves to legitimize racism.

    You aren't really addressing the concern here, Tiax. The concern is that people are abusing the concept of/word racism. And that's a legitimate concern, because people do actually do it. Whether it's a big concern or not, and where the instances of it are, is up to debate, but you can't just brush the concern aside like this. That's exactly the kind of attitude where this issue comes from.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    A perfectly fair point, but I have no confidence that the people who are apathetic enough to not vote are actually significantly less informed than those who do. Whether someone votes tells us whether they are motivated and have an opinion, it doesn't tell use whether they are informed or reasonable.
    True, but I think it's reasonable to say that someone who does not vote out of a lack of interest in participating in the election is less likely than someone who plans on voting to have put the time into doing the necessary research to have an informed opinion, on the grounds that the person who is not voting out of a lack of interest in participating in the election is not interested.

    They may be not interested though because they are informed but aren't happy with things so lack the confidence to make them go to the effort of doing it.
    And being interested in the election can end up being worse if they are interested at least in part because of any sort of malicious intent.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Is the future of the Democratic party purely cosmopolitan, being represented mostly by minorities and the professional class?
    Quote from Highroller »

    In a republic democracy society like what the US experiences having AT BEST a 66% voter turn out is extremely bad.
    This is an excellent point, and I completely agree. Voter apathy is a problem in any republic, especially ours in an election like this. It's ridiculous to have so many people not vote.

    THAT BEING SAID, I posit that if you have a voter populace that is that apathetic, to the point where in such a monumental election, they still couldn't be bothered to show up [presuming they weren't disenfranchised, which is a completely separate issue, though one absolutely worth addressing], for them to fail to turn out to vote is actually the best case scenario.

    Well, not the BEST case scenario, the best case scenario is to have 100% of all people eligible to vote to be mature, responsible people who did the proper research, put enough effort to really think about the election, and then turned out to vote. But we don't have that kind of best case scenario, and in such a reality, far worse is for apathetic voters who did not take the time and the care to ensure that they were properly informed of the issues behind this election to then go ahead and vote. It is far worse for people who are not willing to think to vote than not vote.

    A perfectly fair point, but I have no confidence that the people who are apathetic enough to not vote are actually significantly less informed than those who do. Whether someone votes tells us whether they are motivated and have an opinion, it doesn't tell use whether they are informed or reasonable.
    And people will always be able to not properly vote or incur fees rather than vote, even if making a vote is mandatory. People already do even when voting is entirely voluntary.
    So I'm not sure whether voluntary voting improves the quality of the vote.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from YamahaR1 »

    That was the best part of the whole election - the revelation of many.
    It was certainly eye-opening to see how large of a percentage of our electorate does not have or choose to exercise critical thinking skills, certainly.

    I don't that's a helpful attitude you are expressing there.
    As far as being concerned with critical thinking, being very dismissive of large swathes of opposing points of view, especially when focused on the people, is not a very consistent thing to do.
    We can be a little more open minded here.

    Being very dismissive will only help validate these opinions after all, that's part of how we got here. And I'd say the same issue can help explain why so many people were as surprised as they were by this result.

    But for that portion of the electorate, I fear the revelation has only just begun. Then there are the people who will continue to sing Trump's praises no matter what the man does. I fear no revelation will ever reach them.

    I agree.
    And I think what is necessary is to work across a more fundamental divide that transcends specific points, a divide in what information people look at, what language people use in talking about these issues, what basic principles they are working from.
    We have more access to information than ever, and increasingly so. But people, in general, are fairly apathetic and lazy compared to the true depth of what we are dealing with.
    We need to drive more engagement in detailed analysis that considers many perspectives, rather than engagement in emotional rhetoric and shallow, attention grabbing articles. It's not an issue that applies to some of us- almost everyone could do better.

    I think that's the biggest lesson from all of this, and I think YamahaR1 was getting at this same sort of idea.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    DJK -- I don't think anyone is really saying that Russia rigged it. This was an indirect attack, not a direct one like changing the results themselves. This was an indirect attack, not a direct one like changing the results themselves.

    Some people have, though not many. Thought it was worth being clear.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Typho0nn »

    Just some thoughts not a part of the argument:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion
    *I wonder how Bernie supporters feel about this. I wonder which side they voted for and are arguing for now. Or have they over looked the content of the emails and gone along with this Russia propaganda fear campaign set out by the corporate media and US government who are bought off by the same people. And who also own the Military industrial complex and want to go to war with Russia for more money. Maybe Bernie being a sell-out is part of the evil Russian Propaganda campaign*

    As a Bernie supporter of sorts, I can say my feeling is that the issues surrounding Hillary Clinton are at least mostly just the establishment and not personally due to Clinton herself. I also don't think they are very big problems.
    My support has always been for Clinton over Trump. Clinton has issues, bit Trump is worse.
    I also believe Russia did to some degree intentionally spread misinformation around the election and may have been involved in some of the leaks.
    I don't think Russia rigged the election.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The people were never really promised that all their individual well-being would be improved or even protected. They were promised a strong and powerful nation, and in many ways that is what they got- but at the great expense of individual well-being.

    They were promised employment. So that will help them individually.

    Some people were promised employment. Employment was being offered for 'true Germans'. Jews, homosexuals and people with serious disabilities were being excluded pretty early on- it just got worse over time.

    'Stability' of government is for the 'well-being' of the people. (or do you think an unstable one is better for the people? It might be, and I could probably argue that it could be.)

    Getting rid of the Treaty of Versailles will be for the 'well-being' of the people. (Or do you think sending your currency overseas is good for the local economy?)

    If they are getting rid of the Treaty then defending it and creating employment then this is for the 'well-being' of the people.

    Just because they did things which aided, and gave some interest in, public wellbeing, doesn't seem they were fundamentally concerned with it.
    If they were, they wouldn't have been so obviously concerned with specifically denying people their wellbeing because they didn't consider them worthy of it.

    Socialism and communism are set up to look after the 'well-being' of people and fail. Capitalism is set up to look after self interests and succeeds. We have had the highest standards of living increases from capital investment.

    Socialism is not a specific system but a political orientation. It's actively involved in the politics of most Western countries, and the Nordic countries mainly run with it. They have yet to fail.
    Communism failed, in part, because like Nazism it didn't actually look after the public wellbeing even though Communism was in theory more concerned with it. But there was an obsession with destroying anything that was thought to go against or threaten the communist vision. That communist vision is supposed to be good for the public wellbeing, but the system isn't, or at least hasn't been, actually able to maintain that vision without going against public wellbeing.

    Capitalism is setup to promote individual wellbeing by promoting freedom, and general economic prosperity which usually to mean good public wellbeing. Capitalism is also concerned with public wellbeing, and modern capitalist societies very much are.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Typho0nn »

    I'm sure the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Communists were really greatful for the protection granted to them by the overly complicated German warmachine. The Warmachine that also wasn't being created to defend the sections of the German Population that Hitler liked, rather to agressively dismantle a Peace treaty he didn't like and then in the acquistion of Living Space for the superior Aryan Race.


    Oh yeah you are still to demonstrate conclusively how that caring for the population is the sole or eveb main reason why Nazi Germany Collapsed.


    The warmachine was not there till after Hitler came to power. Communists Russia was allied with the Nazis for a bit, the communists would have been safe in Hitlers rise to power.

    But Hitler ultimately wanted to attack and weaken Russia. He had that planned.

    The Nazis or National Socialists, got in power because they were promised a prosperous nation. The people were promised 'well-being' and is't how they were able to go to war. It might not be the main reason for the collapse, (which could just be bombing by the allies.) but it was a part of how they got there.

    The people were never really promised that all their individual well-being would be improved or even protected. They were promised a strong and powerful nation, and in many ways that is what they got- but at the great expense of individual well-being.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on [AER] Etherium Speculation
    This is something that occurred to me.
    I think it's especially likely to be at least somewhat of a theme considering both that it works well with Improvise and that MaRo said this:
    We chose to make Kaladesh the invention as a means of creation and Aether Revolt invention as a means of destruction. That meant pushing off most of the sacrifice resources (especially artifacts) effects for Aether Revolt.

    http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/154639301083/why-gremlins-and-not-atogs
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 1

    posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from warghoul »
    If i came up with 50 articles that proved my point every one of them would be shot down as a bias or fake web site.
    Libs are well known for their unbiased reporting and acceptance of views that dont reflect their own..

    So your argument is, there is no point making an argument?
    That's a good one.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The stats show a tiny decline over the last few years- do you really think that's telling of any major upheaval? Because it's not.
    I have also yet to see a single shred of evidence that this has anything to do with socialistic policies.
    I don't think we have been getting significantly more socialist in policy in this time anyway.


    Trends can be seen to predict the future. More government debt = more social policies, debt is increasing in US and Aus and other places. More debt is more money in the system, stealing from the value of your dollars which will decease living standards as you cannot buy as much. I would say things like Obama care and the increase in debt is a sign of becoming more socialist in policy.

    The trend is stagnation of growth, not decline.


    I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.

    And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.


    Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.

    Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.

    All three only cared about people they judged to be worthy. That's what made them atrocious- they were content to abuse and kill masses of people because they decided they were a threat to their image of society.
    Communism was supposed to care for the people- that's the problem, it didn't, the people who actually put the system in place and managed it (at least most of them) cared more about their idea of society than actual individuals wellbeing.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    If it's not about racism, why are talking about how some people being grouped in this way are racist and some are not? What does that have to do with anything?
    Because the problem is not that they are grouped in this way. The problem is that some will characterize all of them by the most extreme among them, and this is an unfair characterization. I've explained this in my posts.

    I don't think you've explained it particularly well.
    I'm getting a pretty different impression from this than some of the stuff you said earlier.

    How does this point relate to the idea that 'SJW' can't be grouped in the same way 'White Nationalist' can?
    All you are saying here is some people are irrational about it. But people can be equally irrational about the term 'White Nationalist', and in any case it doesn't pertain to what can be rationally said on the matter.
    It certainly doesn't support this statement:
    you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    If it's not about racism, why are talking about how some people being grouped in this way are racist and some are not? What does that have to do with anything?

    To go over
    I'm saying that the SJWs who are not racist are being lumped in with the ones that are

    Zero problems with this categorization. Difference in racism is only relevant if it's about racism and it's not.

    AND that people who discuss identity politics who are not illogical or racist - and thus not SJWs are also being lumped in with the SJWs who are racist

    As I said earlier, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to fit the notion of 'SJW'.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Ok, so this statement
    you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.

    Isn't correct then?
    Confused How is that not exactly what I'm saying?

    You seemed to support that statement earlier.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Let's not call it white nationalism then, whatever.
    We shouldn't, because that's absolutely not what it is by the very definition of the term.

    I won't contest that point.

    So people are being lumped into 'SJW' incorrectly because some of them are racist and some are not, yet, SJW isn't defined by racism?
    Why don't the racist and the not racist both fit?

    No, that's not what I'm saying.

    I'm saying that the SJWs who are not racist are being lumped in with the ones that are, AND that people who discuss identity politics who are not illogical or racist - and thus not SJWs - are also being lumped in with the SJWs who are racist.

    Ok, so this statement
    you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.

    Isn't correct then?

    Also, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to be an 'SJW', neither of those in fact go to the (closest thing to, at least) main point of the term, which is about whether you are more interested in the appearance of equality than actual equality. That can be linked to racism or being illogical, but it can also be linked to being simply self interested or to morally favoring equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The freer the culture the better they tend to expand and survive and improvements in overall quality of life; USA, Australia, S Korea, Today China. You have no reference or examples... for your 'argument'.

    Australia and China today are more socialist than Nazi Germany was.


    Yes, and we can see the decrease in living standards happening now with this government debt bubble recession soon to be a depression (2018). Australia n China (not Mao) have not gone to the lengths of killing off a race (Jews) to extract their gold and other assets(Nazis).

    And nobody is arguing anything that suggests killing of a race and taking the stuff to be good so I only see that supporting the idea that government control is (EDIT: not) harmful with such a reason to fall back on.
    And Australian Living Standards have only declined by very small amount over the past few years (around 0.6%), especially compared to the more than 50% growth over the past few decades overall. It's mostly stagnating, not declining.


    The growth over the last few decades I would say Australia was more free economy. And this decline is happening because we are becoming more socialist. The stats support my view.

    The stats show a tiny decline over the last few years- do you really think that's telling of any major upheaval? Because it's not.
    I have also yet to see a single shred of evidence that this has anything to do with socialistic policies.
    I don't think we have been getting significantly more socialist in policy in this time anyway.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on State of Design 2016 - MaRo's 8/29 column
    Quote from Colt47 »
    Gods, Ma-Ro didn't not give me good feelings reading that article. The primary issue I have is that he mentions that certain mechanics and features were well received. That's great, but who gave these things a good reception? People may like to complain, but being an avid media sponge and watching tons of media on MtG from pod casts to reading posts on the net from fans of the game, most of the mechanics he claims were well received were more like lukewarm at best.

    You are talking the reception you have seen which is from enfranchised players, WotC does proper market research though including more types of players. My guess then is that less enfranchised players may have been more positive for these things.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Runin- Norse mythology set (221/249*) -in playtesting
    Top of the thread. I made a new poll.
    Posted in: Custom Set Creation and Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Highroller, I think you are running under a definition of 'white nationalist' that is a very specific group, when the term just as easily applies to a significantly broader scope of people- still a minority, mind you, but a more influential minority, and a more comparable group to 'SJWs'.
    I think the problem is pretty obviously that you don't actually understand what "white nationalist" means. If you don't think racism is an automatic given, you clearly don't understand the entire point behind the ideology.

    Let's not call it white nationalism then, whatever.

    Highroller, do all possible policies intended to promote racial equality actually promote racial equality? No? Then there is a difference. Even if it's correct that the policies in question do promote racial equality, if people object to these policies because they think they don't, that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. They could simply have incorrectly evaluated the effect of the policy.

    Ok, so demonstrate this. Go ahead and point out the Trump voters, Brexit voters, etc. who are genuinely interested in racial equality but object to the current policies and then demonstrate their arguments that voting for Trump, voting for Brexit, etc. will better promote racial equality, and then demonstrate how arguments contain absolutely no racism whatsoever. I would *LOVE* to read this.

    You are basically shifting the burden of proof by asking me to prove people aren't racist when the default assumption is clearly that someone isn't racist. Go look and see the people arguing that policies they are opposing don't promote racial equality, they aren't hard to find, so I don't feel compelled to go point them out to you. Then if you are so convinced that every single one of these people are racist, then you prove it. I'm just going to rely on not assuming they are all racists for now.

    And secondly that just because an idea is racist doesn't mean people who consent with it actually truly take on board and understand it, rather than simply consent by bandwagon or emotional appeal.

    So they're only accidentally white nationalists? What are you even talking about?
    White nationalism is specifically about preserving a white nation that is just for white people. You cannot subscribe to white nationalism and just totally miss the "white" component. This entire argument is absurd.

    How many white nationalists do you think actually identify as white nationalists?
    I'm talking about the people who listen to the more motivated, probably racist activists for the movement, and are sympathetic to and consent with some of the arguments they make, but don't really understand what they are getting into.
    Sure, they aren't lots of these people, but it's not hard to believe simply that there are some.
    At the very least, you can't just assume they don't exist.

    'SJW' is not a group defined by racism, so this difference doesn't matter anyway.

    Erm, no, the difference does matter. The discussion is about how there's a difference between lumping people together into a category when at least some of those people don't belong into that category, and lumping people into a category when all of them belong in that category.

    To compare, Jay13x is saying you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.

    So people are being lumped into 'SJW' incorrectly because some of them are racist and some are not, yet, SJW isn't defined by racism?
    Why don't the racist and the not racist both fit?

    but there's no reason 'SJW" has to be grouped by this same characteristic,

    ... Which is what I've been saying. You clearly didn't read my posts. Go back and reread them.

    That's not remotely analogous to lumping a bunch of people into the SJW camp who don’t belong there, or lumping a bunch of SJWs who actually believe in racial equality versus those who want racial supremacy. In both cases, you’re using a term to describe people that they don’t actually fit.

    This quote here seems to directly suggest that either being racist or not being racist means you can't be an SJW. And also just above you argued a difference in racism means some don't fit.
    So if SJW doesn't have to do with racism, you are going to have to concede you can very well lump racists and non racists together under it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-lead-thread.aspx

    Americans' political ideology remained essentially stable in the past year, with conservatives retaining the barest of advantages over moderates in Americans' self-identified political views, 37% vs. 35%. Liberals held firm at 24%.


    I think most supposed moderates can be grouped into either category, and from what I've heard, when you do that liberals have the advantage.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    I question this.
    I think the radical left is much better as being subtle in what they are really up to. The radical right on the other hand, seems to be, for the most part, loud and proud.
    I don't think what the most evil among 'SJWs' want is to directly make white people inferior, not most of them at least. The racism of the right is more exclusionary- the racism of the left is overprotectiveness. I think it's much more to do with the introduction of Orwellian authoritarianism- of oppressive laws of thought crime, hate speech and incredibly restricting quotas. Then forced labour camps perhaps, after all many of these people identify as Marxist, so I reckon there is some amount of desire for a Soviet Union style camp system to crush out the supposed evils of modern society.

    If the radical right is actually worse than the radical left, I really don't think it's by much.


    Hmm. I think there's also an element of size, in that the percentage of the left that would be considered radical (Keeping in mind that it's a two-or-more-axis spectrum, not just liberal-conservative) is significantly smaller than the percentage of the right that would be considered the same.

    Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.

    The radical left is also significantly more varied than the radical right (Unless you count libertarians as the radical right, which is a topic for another debate)

    I think at least some libertarians can be included as being part of the radical right.
    I think you can pick out at least key three groups- radical libertarians, white nationalists and the pseudo-theocrats, with some overlap.

    I mean, socialism and communism are both ideas one might consider to be radical left, but they are at different spots on a multi-axis spectrum.

    I don't think socialism, unless you define it quite rigidly, is enough to place on in the radical left. And communism is contained within socialism, and occupies most of the radical space within it, so I don't know why you are pulling them apart like that.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Mad Mat »

    First off, "does not want legal equality" does not really cover it, as often the grief originates primarily from the perceived legal favouring of certain groups. So, they may actually want legal equality: they're mad because they don't think it's currently in place.
    You've got to be kidding me. You're talking about people who want homosexuals and people of non-white race to be treated like second-class citizens and legally be discriminated against, and you're telling me they're doing this in the interest of fairness?

    Highroller, I think you are running under a definition of 'white nationalist' that is a very specific group, when the term just as easily applies to a significantly broader scope of people- still a minority, mind you, but a more influential minority, and a more comparable group to 'SJWs'.
    If you don't accept this group to be called 'white nationalists', which is understandable, then fine, call it a different name.
    I'm generally going to just make the comparison be the radical right vs the radical left, so that's an alternative for you.

    Is it because they all think racial equality is evil? Or is it maybe because they do not believe into the policies to adress discrimination pushed for and implemented by the other side?

    What difference does it make relevant to this discussion? "We don't want racial equality" vs. "We don't believe in the laws and polices passed to promote racial equality" is effectively the same damn thing! Either way you're promoting discrimination due to being against legal equality.

    Highroller, do all possible policies intended to promote racial equality actually promote racial equality? No? Then there is a difference. Even if it's correct that the policies in question do promote racial equality, if people object to these policies because they think they don't, that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. They could simply have incorrectly evaluated the effect of the policy.

    Or is it maybe that they are nationalists, who discriminate not on the base of race but of culture (which does often correlate with race, but is also directly linked to social issues unlike skin color).

    You cannot be a white nationalist and not be racist.

    I'm going to disagree with you on two counts- one of which is that as earlier, that has to be a somewhat narrow definition of white nationalism. And secondly that just because an idea is racist doesn't mean people who consent with it actually truly take on board and understand it, rather than simply consent by bandwagon or emotional appeal.

    Jay13x made the claim that white nationalists could be lumped together through their goals, whereas SJW's could not.

    Which is valid.

    To compare, Jay13x is saying you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.

    'SJW' is not a group defined by racism, so this difference doesn't matter anyway.
    Your argument so far has been that White Nationalism can be grouped by racism, but there's no reason 'SJW" has to be grouped by this same characteristic, so it's pretty irrelevant to say you can't make a cohesive group because some aren't racist and some are.
    'SJW' is generally defined by something like oversensitivity.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    Quote from Jay13x »
    Quote from Ljoss »

    Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.


    I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***

    ***which is not to say that something being a middle ground or a moderate position necessarily makes it right, but I think in this case.

    When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
    The funny thing here is, you say you don't where the middle ground on race is, but that's because you're moving the Overton Window without even realizing it. You're normalizing an ideology that wants really ugly, inexcusable things because people who want equality also sometimes use ugly language. But they're not remotely the same.

    Comparing "SJWs" to White Nationalists is absurd. White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.

    I question this.
    I think the radical left is much better as being subtle in what they are really up to. The radical right on the other hand, seems to be, for the most part, loud and proud.
    I don't think what the most evil among 'SJWs' want is to directly make white people inferior, not most of them at least. The racism of the right is more exclusionary- the racism of the left is overprotectiveness. I think it's much more to do with the introduction of Orwellian authoritarianism- of oppressive laws of thought crime, hate speech and incredibly restricting quotas. Then forced labour camps perhaps, after all many of these people identify as Marxist, so I reckon there is some amount of desire for a Soviet Union style camp system to crush out the supposed evils of modern society.

    If the radical right is actually worse than the radical left, I really don't think it's by much.

    Besides, "SJW" is a group that you're defining as having the same agenda, which is rarely the case. White Nationalists share the same rhetoric and goals (an America with only whites, or with whites in power), whereas Feminism is just one movement of many lumped into "SJW", and one that's not even cohesive within itself. I'd hardly call that a fair comparison. If one person wants ethnic cleansing, and one person wants fairness, they're not the same just because they both say mean things.

    I'm going to agree with Mad Mat that you are being unfairly tight in your grouping of white nationalism. You are either defining it as a smaller group than 'SJWs', or you are ignoring divisions within that group defined as a more fair comparison in scope to 'SJWs'.
    White Nationalism is broad group like the radical left.

    On a related note, according to some researchers I have heard from, you can quite cleanly divide the political philosophy of 'political correctness' (or whatever you want to call it) into fairly moderate people with a strong support for social justice changes, and authoritarians who hide amongst the moderates who want more extreme measures of censorship and social control (like with what I was saying earlier).
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on America, The Polarized Society
    I'm going to back and clarify one thing.
    I'm not entirely sure what this statement is supposed to mean
    But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong.

    And I want to be clear what interpretation I was agreeing with. And that is the interpretation that 'these things' are 'not considered racist' (and the others) by the people saying them and people who support them. I do not entirely agree that 'these things' aren't considered racist (etc.) by the population overall. I reckon the majority of people would object to them, but a very large percentage doesn't have much exposure to them, and I think that is partly due to the efforts of the people doing these things to disguise themselves as activists for good, especially in their language.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The freer the culture the better they tend to expand and survive and improvements in overall quality of life; USA, Australia, S Korea, Today China. You have no reference or examples... for your 'argument'.

    Australia and China today are more socialist than Nazi Germany was.


    Yes, and we can see the decrease in living standards happening now with this government debt bubble recession soon to be a depression (2018). Australia n China (not Mao) have not gone to the lengths of killing off a race (Jews) to extract their gold and other assets(Nazis).

    And nobody is arguing anything that suggests killing of a race and taking the stuff to be good so I only see that supporting the idea that government control is (EDIT: not) harmful with such a reason to fall back on.
    And Australian Living Standards have only declined by very small amount over the past few years (around 0.6%), especially compared to the more than 50% growth over the past few decades overall. It's mostly stagnating, not declining.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Quote from Stairc »
    Yep. Evolution's got to do at least some of it, because any species with a murder rate higher than its birth rate is going to do pretty poorly in the Darwin sweepstakes.
    And there's social evolution as well as biological evolution. Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear.


    Cultures that promote their members well-being, through communism or socialism tend to collapse, or many deaths involved. Look at USSR, Venezuela, Nazi-Germany, Mao China

    These are country that really didn't promote their members well being. Nazi Germany, USSR and Mao China killed millions.
    But look at the Nordic countries today, who use a social democracy model.

    The freer the culture the better they tend to expand and survive and improvements in overall quality of life; USA, Australia, S Korea, Today China. You have no reference or examples... for your 'argument'.

    Australia and China today are more socialist than Nazi Germany was.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Runin- Norse mythology set (221/249*) -in playtesting
    Since virtually no one is answering my poll, I think I'm just going to go ahead and preference the new lineup.
    I will still be keeping the old setup under consideration though as this set (very slowly) moves forward.
    Posted in: Custom Set Creation and Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Regeneration is over?
    Quote from DRay563 »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from krishnath »
    What doesn't work with deathtouch/trample? One damage kills things when you have deathtouch and the rest tramples over. It was counter intuitive after M10 and before M11.


    You'd be surprised how many players don't know this. Like regeneration taps the creature and removes it from combat, it is something that needs to be learned, but isn't actually that hard to remember.

    But trample + deathtouch is a specific combination that can be moved away from. Regenerate is the entire mechanic.

    The only way it can be "moved away from" is if WOTC quit printing things that grant deathtouch or trample to creatures that don't have it inherently.

    No, that's not the only way. "Move away from" doesn't mean here "stop from happening ever"

    They can also simply not print cards with trample and deathtouch
    They can limit the frequency of cards with trample or deatthouch and cards that grant trample or deathtouch
    They can adjust the rarity of cards with trample or deatthouch and cards that grant trample or deathtouch

    All of which are things they generally do.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 0

    posted a message on Regeneration is over?
    Quote from krishnath »
    What doesn't work with deathtouch/trample? One damage kills things when you have deathtouch and the rest tramples over. It was counter intuitive after M10 and before M11.


    You'd be surprised how many players don't know this. Like regeneration taps the creature and removes it from combat, it is something that needs to be learned, but isn't actually that hard to remember.

    But trample + deathtouch is a specific combination that can be moved away from. Regenerate is the entire mechanic.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • 0

    posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Typho0nn »

    @DJK3654

    "Has it occurred to you that Russia might want to intentionally make it look like they would start a war with Clinton to favor Trump in order to help their actual agenda? Because that seems like quite a plausible idea to me."

    Now that you mention it, it seems plausible. But with the way things are going in Syria and Hillary wanting to implement a no fly-zone over there which would lead the US to shoot down Russian fighters. Russia has been invited there to fight against ISIS and the rebels, while US and allies are there illegally (according to UN law).

    Conflict doesn't mean war though. Russia and the US have been in various sorts of conflict for decades, but it has never been actual war in that time.
    I don't think Russia is being misleading that they would have conflict with Clinton over these sorts of things, but I think they may well be posturing about actual armed conflict.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Stairc »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Stairc »


    Remember when Naturalnews wrote that vaccines were causing the cancer epidemic?

    Relevant quote:
    "Get it yet? Vaccines are the SOURCE of our modern-day epidemics of chronic disease. There is a dark, deadly truth about the vaccine industry, the CDC and vaccine scientists everywhere. The truth is that vaccines are the vector by which cancer and other diseases are spread through the human population."
    -Linked Article



    I think they make a pretty good case that the Washington Post's argument isn't good though. WP was making it out that the issue was very extensive, which seems at least a bit much.


    Doesn't matter. They got something wrong once. It seems that Warghoul (who's just repeating Trump's twitter feed of course), is implying that means we shouldn't take this report seriously either.

    They are the same thing though. The Craig Timberg article as in the OP is using Propornot as a source. The NaturalNews site does a pretty reasonable job of arguing that Propornot are not a good source, and therefore the article is lacking.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Stairc »


    Remember when Naturalnews wrote that vaccines were causing the cancer epidemic?

    Relevant quote:
    "Get it yet? Vaccines are the SOURCE of our modern-day epidemics of chronic disease. There is a dark, deadly truth about the vaccine industry, the CDC and vaccine scientists everywhere. The truth is that vaccines are the vector by which cancer and other diseases are spread through the human population."
    -Linked Article



    I think they make a pretty good case that the Washington Post's argument isn't good though. WP was making it out that the issue was very extensive, which seems at least a bit much.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Stairc »
    Are really counting revolutions and insurrections that came from refusing to pay?


    Nope. We're counting people executed by the government in modern times for tax evasion. Not people that chose on their own to wage rebellion because of (insert reason here). Environmental terrorists that are killed during their own attacks aren't executed for supporting the environment. They're killed in action, or executed in places with the death penalty, because they're trying to murder people.

    If you tell someone to come to work on time, or else they'll be fired... And they retaliate by coming in with a gun and trying to kill you, but security takes them down first... They weren't threatened with *death* for failing to come in late. They were threatened with being fired.

    So yes, I'm looking for a list of the executions the government has carried out as punishment for tax evasion.

    We've been there with typho0nn. He considers be killed for violently resisting punishments as meaning the offence for the original punishment is under threat of death.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.