MTG Salvation

The problem with tribal isn't the frame. It's the fact that Goblin Grenade isn't a goblin card.

I've noticed an easy formulae for predicting what Trump will lie about next. Just check what people are criticizing him for. He was never more correct than when he said he still has the same temperment he did as a first grader. His media strategy is when someone calls him a <blank> can be summed us, "Nuh, uh, YOU'RE a <blank>."

He's on trial for racketeering? Goes after "crooked" Hillary.

His mental stability is questioned? Instantly calls Hilary unstable.

He's accused of shady financial ties to Russia? Accuses Obama of shady financial ties to Iran by inventing a "ransom" payment.

The list goes on. I hope the Ivanka thing doesn't come up in the press again. We could probably expect him to accuse Clinton of being hot for her own daughter.

Libertarianism is highly disorganized, but the anti-drivers-license thing is mainstream enough to be a major point of debate in the last Libertarian convention in which Gary Johnson was nominated. When he meekly said he's not entirely against drivers licenses, there were loud boos from the crowd. He still won the nomination, but not without severe opposition from many libertarians on that and similar issues. Even that extreme position absolutely exists.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

Quote from Stairc »

That said, the basic issue is pretty simple. The movement values "Freedom" because "freedom" because "freedom". If something increased freedom, good. If something decreases freedom, bad. Why freedom good? Because freedom. Is anything else good? Not if it reduces freedom. Because freedom is good.

Freedom is not the ultimate good, but it is the closest thing to an ultimate good that a society can pursue as a general project. This is because there is no one ultimate good -- everybody has their own, be it family or fame or wealth or Pokémon. So society can't say, "Let's help everybody raise a family, and then we'll be doing good", because not everybody wants to raise a family. But society can say, "Let's make sure everybody is free to pursue their own goals, and then we'll be doing good".

Key word there; "everybody". Conflicting freedoms mutually annihilate. The right to speed through an intersection without a traffic light is illusory, because it unacceptably increases the risk of somebody's death, possibly yours. People have been pointing this out at least since Hobbes. (Well, not with traffic lights specifically...)

It seems that you are arguing how free a society is is measured by the percentage of people able to pursue their desires. Therefore anarchy is less "free" than instituting a formal government with traffic laws and meat inspectors. This is a very odd use of the word 'free' in a discussion about libertarianism. It might be an effective tactic to get the freedom-obsessed on your side, but it's not what I"m talking about. It's not what most libertarians are talking about. When a libertarian argues that they should be allowed to drive drunk, they are coming at this from an "this would increase my freedom" angle. They're referring to freedom from official government controls, which they usually only are okay with as punishments for actions rather than preventative policies. I often hear, "let people drive drunk, then jail anyone that kills someone for any reason - drunk or not".

I agree that creating a society where people can be happy is a good thing. But you're shifting the definition of freedom away from how most libertarians like to use it. You're saying, "No, drivers license requirements increase freedom rather than restrict it". If we change to your version of the word, then sure. I'd pick apart some further details, but for the purpose of an internet forum discussion I'd of course agree. When you expand "freedom" to such a broad definition there's basically nothing left to talk about.

Curious about one thing though: Seatbelt laws. Freedom or infringement on freedom?

So are you suggesting that Trump is being expertly manipulated by Russian propaganda, while ignorant of information available to any American?

That sounds better.

I like how confident Trump is that Putin won't go into Ukraine. He clearly knows his stuff.

Libertarianism has a vast amount of conflicting ideas inside it, so I don't like to speak of it monolithically.

That said, the basic issue is pretty simple. The movement values "Freedom" because "freedom" because "freedom". If something increased freedom, good. If something decreases freedom, bad. Why freedom good? Because freedom. Is anything else good? Not if it reduces freedom. Because freedom is good.b

When you state it that simply, it's pretty clear why the philosophy results in absurdities like people arguing you should be allowed to juggle vials of smallpox in the middle of an urban center - and no police officer should be allowed to stop you... But the private citizens can naturally stop you, because they're acting in self defense. I've seriously run into normally quite smart people arguing this (after I posed the scenario to reveal the isseus with their line of thought).

It's better to ask, "what makes society better" not, "how do we get as free as possible without everyone dying". Traffic lights make society better. It's a net win.

While a lot of self-named libertarians might be pro traffic light, that seems to be more a product of fortunate common sense than anything you could credit to the ideology itself.

Quote from bravesbaseball »

Quote from Stairc »

If a black defendant claims that a judge is racist because they are handing out disproportionate sentences to blacks than to other races, the defendant is not being racist.

Quote from Trump »

If he was giving me a fair ruling, I wouldn't say that

You just made the same argument Trump has made. This ain't complicated. You continue to ignore the other factors, unfortunately you are arguing against reality.

Lol, nope. Blaming the act on the judge's heritage is being racist. For Trump to be copying the second defendant like you want, he'd have to be saying, "The judge ruled against me because I'm white". He isn't.

Trump is claiming the guy is being unfair *because he is mexican*. This is racist.

Let's swap things around for the amusement of the crowd.


Person 1: This guy is lazy. It's because he's Mexican.

Person 2: Wow. That's a racist thing to say.

Person 1: No it isn't, because I wouldn't have said that if he wasn't lazy!

Person 2: Yes. If he wasn't being lazy, you wouldn't blame his laziness on him being Mexican. That blaming is racism.


You're just digging yourself in deeper. Ironically, you're doing so good a job you probably won't need to hire extra help.

@bravesbaseball - Your problem is that you're confusing a person making racist comments with a person accusing someone ELSE of racism.

If a black defendant claims that an asian judge is biased against them because the judge is asian, that is a racist statement. Just like Trumpy.

If a black defendant claims that a judge is racist because they are handing out disproportionate sentences to blacks than to other races, the defendant is not being racist. The defendant is not making a judgment of the judge based on the judge's race. The defendant is saying that the judge's sentences demonstrate the *judge's* racial bias.

This ain't complicated. Racists like to try and paint the act of complaining about racism into the real crime. Good luck with that.

@Crash Stating higher rates of crime among a specific race isn't racist, because you aren't claiming their race is the reason for their crimes. That's just a correlation. While some people like to hid behind correlations to imply racism to a willing audience while dodging accusations, that isn't what you're doing here. If you said, "Black people are naturally less moral and more violent than white people" - that's a racist statement. Also a despicable one.

Same old song. Person makes a racist statement, making a judgment of someone based on their race. Others call them on it. They try to defend themselves by basically saying, "it's not racist, it's true. [Race here] really IS [racist statement here]."

This isn't doing a good job of convincing people you aren't racist. You're just arguing that being racist isn't bad. Good luck with that.

@Magickware - I would certainly agree that scientists are not immune to human flaws or biases.

Quote from magickware99 »

Quote from rockondon »

The idea of changing one's mind is an interesting thing.

It seems that when someone is told something absurd, ridiculous, and without any evidence, and the person believes it (often because they trust the person telling them the lie or believing it serves their own interests), these are the people who are the most unwilling to change their beliefs. If you show them evidence that proves them wrong, they continue pretending to believe the lie.

And the ones who learn something based on evidence and logic, despite the valid body of support for believing it, they are generally far more willing to adjust their beliefs in light of new evidence.

In short, if you have no reason to believe something, you are unwilling to stop believing it.
If you have great reasons to believe something, you're far more willing to alter those beliefs.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2015/12/15/10219330/elite-scientists-hold-back-progress

I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that people who base their beliefs on science are more willing to change their views based on new evidences.

Also, your post is downright insulting towards people who believe in religion.

I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that your article provides a relevant objection. It's ironic that you quote a single authoritative study as iron-clad proof for your position when your article is all about how that exact mentality is delaying progress in science. But in any case, it's irrelevant. You're trying to refute the claim that people who base their beliefs on science are *more* likely to change their views based on new evidence than religious thinkers.

To simplify things, this is what just happened.


Person 1: Cheetahs are generally faster than sloths.

You: That's not true. Some cheetahs actually move slowly.

Person 1: But Cheetahs are still generally faster than sloths.


To be a real refutation, you'd need to compare how fast people adapt to new evidence basing their thinking on science vs. religion. One data point does not make a comparison.

Oh, and if you aren't basing your views on evidence then you aren't basing them on science to begin with.

Quote from theazurespirit »

And religious believers don't use 'faith' to mean 'belief without evidence' either. Most religious believers believe that they have evidence for their belief (whether that evidence is valid or decisive isn't a discussion I want to get into here). The only times I've seen people define faith as 'belief without evidence' is in the case of people criticizing religious faith.

Believers don't usually like to say they believe without evidence, because when you put it like that it's transparently silly. What they do often like to say is that they believe without needing proof or so on. Or, when you ask for proof, they say "you just have to have faith... But there's totally reasonable evidence. You just wouldn't consider it reasonable, and neither would I if any other religion advanced the same evidence." That's the same thing, they just don't like putting it that way often. No one likes to admit their beliefs aren't justified or don't make sense.

Similar to someone saying, "I'm not a racist, but [race here] people are genuinely dangerous. That's not racism, that's just a fact." Them believing it's a fact is the racism.

Also, "Believing something on faith" or, "taking something on faith" is different than, "having faith in a friend". Similar to saying, "I trust my friend" vs. "I believe X because I trust my friend."

You ignored my question. It should be simple to answer.

Quote from Stairc »

Quote from Tim_T »

The word of the Bible is not supposed to be taken literally.

How do you know?

In the mean time I'll answer your argument.

Your argument is basically this:

NOTHING could have ALWAYS existed. However, this would create an infinite regress, which is impossible. Therefore, SOMETHING must have ALWAYS existed after all.

This isn't even a circular argument... It's more like a serpent eating its own tail. The argument destroys itself.