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

    posted a message on Why continue to live if you will eventually die?
    Quote from AzureDuality »
    I would prefer answers rather than a series of questions that don't address my point.
    I think if you're going to ask questions, you should be prepared to answer them as well. Try answering mine. You may find that they address your point after all. I mean, just for starters, I very explicitly suggested an answer to your original question using the words "how is this not a perfectly sufficient answer to your original question", so I'm quite unperturbed by complaints that I didn't do that, and rather more perturbed by the implication that you didn't read it.

    Quote from AzureDuality »
    Giving something value which has no value in itself is irrational.
    If the value of something is what you assign to it, how is it rational to expect the value to be in the thing before you've assigned value to it? If I established that books are written by human authors, and then immediately afterwards claimed that an author should only write a book if it has already been written by some nonhuman means, would that make any sense to you?

    Quote from AzureDuality »
    It's about the same thing as believing in the existence of god.
    What about believing in the existence of belief? Since the act of valuing is what generates value, and the act of believing is what generates belief, but the act of believing in God doesn't generate God, doesn't belief seem like a better analogy here than God?

    Quote from AzureDuality »
    Based on their view you have much to gain from dying since you aren't burdened by hope or suffering or the empty promises that it will "get better".
    How is it even logically possible for you to gain anything from dying when dying is by definition the event after which there is no "you" to gain or lose or indeed possess any properties whatsoever? Can you improve a car's performance by destroying the car?

    Quote from AzureDuality »
    What's the point of living if everything you do is a struggle?
    What's the point of avoiding struggle? How can the end of hardship have any value if there is no such thing as value?
    Posted in: Philosophy
  • 2

    posted a message on Why continue to live if you will eventually die?
    Quote from AzureDuality »
    That implies there is an objectively "best" way to live, which there isn't. It also doesn't explain how despite how much worse off our ancestors were they still decided to stick around.
    In sentence one, you deny the reality of objective metrics for life. In sentence two, you claim that our ancestors' lives were worse than ours according to some metric. There seems to be a contradiction here. How, exactly, were our ancestors worse off? If our ancestors were worse off, doesn't that imply that we're better off? If we're better off, might our descendants someday achieve a best, or at least continue to make progress towards it? And conversely, if there are no objective metrics, how can our ancestors have been worse off? If they weren't any worse off, what is there to explain about their lives and decisions?

    Quote from AzureDuality »
    It's assuming life has an inherent value by living it when it really does not. It simply is. Living it does not give it value, it's merely acting according to biology.
    Whence "merely"? What is insufficient about biology (or anything else on the table) as an external source of value? What possible external source of value would be sufficient? When you look for external sources of value, what are you expecting to find and not finding? And why are your expectations where they are? Could it be those expectations that are the trouble? And if there are no external sources of value, if value really does come from the self, so what? Is internally-sourced value less real or less valuable than externally-sourced value? If so, how so? If not, how is it not a perfectly sufficient answer to your original question?
    Posted in: Philosophy
  • 0

    posted a message on Muslim Ban and SEE YOU IN COURT
    Seriously, though, the exception for non-Muslims makes it on its face unconstitutional. And thus far it hasn't survived any legal challenges.
    To be fair, the challenges so far have mostly been on narrow procedural matters, the exemption isn't explicitly for non-Muslims, and the law does give the president very broad authority over immigration. I do expect it to lose in the Supreme Court, especially with the precedent of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, but there's just enough wiggle room there that I'm prepared for disappointment. Especially if Trump issues a "brand new" order which fixes the due process problems that, as Lithl said, make the current one particularly radioactive to judges.

    And yes, challenging presidential power is a Good Thing. And I would say that regardless of who controlled which branches of government.
    When I objected to Obama's executive shenanigans, you would not believe how many liberals were like, "No, it's okay, because he's using this power for good!"

    "You would not believe" is an empty idiom, by the way. I'm quite sure you do believe it.

    But yeah, the power of the executive order has been ballooning for many administrations now. If there's any silver lining to Trump's excesses, it may be that they finally wake people up to the problem.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 3

    posted a message on Muslim Ban and SEE YOU IN COURT
    Quote from Smells_Better »
    The presidents job is to protect the rights and well being of the AMERICAN people and if suspending an aliens entry is key to doing so, then he has every right to.
    That's a pretty big "if".

    Obama never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Obama Administration.
    Bush never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Bush Administration.
    Clinton never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Clinton Administration.
    Reagan never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Reagan Administration.
    In fact, no president has ever suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries has ever committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil.

    So you will understand that it is very difficult to swallow the claim that suspending entry from these seven countries is suddenly "key" to protecting our rights and well being. I myself have lived my entire life in this country and have not even once been murdered in my bed by a crazed Somali.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Muslim Ban and SEE YOU IN COURT
    Last I heard, Trump seemed more keen on issuing a "brand new" order (presumably one better vetted by White House counsel) than fighting it out over the old one in the courts.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on How does one live with uncertainty?
    Let's back off from tossing psychological diagnoses at each other. To the best of my knowledge, none of us here are accredited shrinks.
    Posted in: Philosophy
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Lithl »
    And unlike Magic, the law actually cares about intent.

    Yup.

    Although in both the Lukumi Babalu Aye case and this one, there was also a smoking gun of discriminatory intent in the text of the law itself: the exemption for kosher butchers in the one, and the exemption for members of religious minorities in the other. So even if you really are looking at the text alone, as Scalia was in Lukumi Babalu Aye, it's still unconstitutional.

    More discussion from a law professor.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    There's a lot to pick through here, but a key point is that on at least one occasion, Donald Trump appears to have signed an executive order without carefully reading it. [link]
    That's unfortunate. Normally presidents only sign bills without reading them.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    1. Markets would bring about common law.
    Just saying this doesn't make it true. You're going to have to explain it. Preferably with historical examples to back up your assertion.

    And even what you say here has problems. Just for starters, "common law" refers to the body of rulings made by a state judiciary system. There is no such thing as common law in anarchism.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    2. Who wants to subscribe to a rights enforcement agency that supports bad people? The answer is bad people. There are more good people than bad people, so good REAs beat bad REAs. It's not that hard...
    In a strange way, you're right. But only if the REAs' strength is determined by the amount of people behind it rather than an amount of money. That is to say, only if the "REA" is a democratic government rather than a private for-profit agency. We all subscribe to a democratic government for precisely this reason. In short, you are yet again making an argument that undermines anarcho-capitalism rather than defending it.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    3. You would betray the cartel secretly.
    (a) It's not as if people haven't tried this before. The cartel is pretty good at catching them. Maybe you make it, maybe you don't, but it's a serious risk and a huge disincentive to betrayal.

    (b) How do you compete in the vaunted free and open market in secret?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Lithl »
    While there are certainly people who believe morality is objective, Ljoss said "moral and cultural relativism", which is subjective by definition.


    It's a bit more complicated than that. Think of it this way. The physical theory of relativity describes an objective, not subjective, reality. Different observers have different perceptions, but what a given observer perceives is predictable by law and irrespective of their personal opinion. There are theories of moral/cultural relativism that do the same thing.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Bad example, drug cartels are in active competition, which means there are no monopoly prices charged for drugs(although the prices are high due to the risky nature of the illegal drug business and drugs arent illegal in ancap society).
    We're not talking about monopoly prices, we're talking about actions taken against competition. You say drugs aren't illegal, but that's because there are no laws. Drug cartels already operate as if there were no laws. So if you want to see what happens in a market when there are no laws, look at the drug cartels. Take-home point: competition becomes very violent very fast.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Did you forget about private rights enforcements agencies?
    Of course not. Those machetes and AK-47s aren't going to wield themselves. You gotta hire guys to do your killing for you. They're even called "enforcers".

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    The "previous arrangement" people generally make is the establishment of a democratic government and police force.
    Not An Argument against AnarchoCapitalism
    Wait. Are you now claiming the establishment of a democratic government and police force is consistent with anarcho-capitalism? Because unless you're claiming that, what I said is a pretty direct argument against anarcho-capitalism.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Whenever I suggest to libertarians that if they don't like living under a government, they can just move, they complain that their home and family and friends and stuff are all where they are and they shouldn't have to move.
    Not An Argument against AnarchoCapitalism
    So you accept as valid what we might call the Just Move Principle: "If you don't like it, just move"? You'll stop complaining about having to pay taxes because if you don't want to pay them, you can just move?

    Quote from Lithl »
    Modern drug cartels aren't actually cartels. The name is a legacy from when the cocain trade actually did operate as a cartel, but that's no longer the case.
    And if you betrayed the cartel, what do you think would happen to you?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    In the case of cartels, it is beneficial to a business involved in one to cheat by going against the terms of the cartel.
    Imagine you're a member of a cartel. For the sake of concreteness, let's say you're a member of a Mexican drug cartel. These are, after all, real-world examples of organizations operating outside the bounds of the law to sell a product to consumers.

    Your argument, as I understand it, is that it is in your interest to betray the cartel of which you're a member. That this will be a good, wise, healthy, not-at-all-leading-to-torture-and-a-shallow-grave choice for you.

    I am inclined to disagree.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    ...which would be unlikely because people living in that area shouldve realized the possibility of such a monopoly occuring and made previous arrangements before moving in...
    The "previous arrangement" people generally make is the establishment of a democratic government and police force.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    ...the business with that monopoly would have to compete with trucks that could bring water to that area.
    Machetes and AK-47s are highly efficient means of competition.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    The people living in that area could also move away to a place where they know that such a situation could not occur because of previous contract.
    Whenever I suggest to libertarians that if they don't like living under a government, they can just move, they complain that their home and family and friends and stuff are all where they are and they shouldn't have to move.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    That's probably not because he has mental problems (and people need to stop throwing the mentally ill under metaphorical buses), but because he's spent most of his life as a sheltered rich person, what with inheriting his dad's money and batches of sycophants.
    No, Trump has a mental problem. Not all sheltered rich people behave the way he does. His own daughter is obviously better adjusted than he is (jury's still out on his sons). And even if his behavior can all be traced to his upbringing, that doesn't make it any less of a mental problem. Narcissistic personality disorder is narcissistic personality disorder regardless of where it came from; the DSM is agnostic on the matter.

    Quote from Kahedron »
    So that has just removed one potential conflict of interest in the matter. That large political donation is still worrying considering that one of Trumps first actions made the ETP Chief Executive significantly richer.

    Whilst there is no proof at the moment and it is unlikely that any would surface,neither are idiots after all, it is smelling a lot like the cash for questions scandal we had over here.
    I don't like Trump any more than the next guy. But if we can't keep our facts straight, if we repeat everything we hear that makes our political opponent look bad and just shrug our shoulders when it turns out to be untrue... isn't that behavior pattern supposed to be why we don't like him?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from Hackworth »
    Also, Trump's refusal to drop his financial ties means that the previously canceled pipelines he's used an executive order to keep building might be directly profitable for him. [link]
    There is nothing in the linked article which establishes or implies the conflict of interest you're claiming here.


    You sure about that?


    Shares of ETP, the company building the 450,000 barrel-a-day Dakota pipeline, ended the day up 3.5 percent in U.S. trading.

    Trump owned ETP stock through at least mid-2016, according to financial disclosure forms, and ETP's chief executive, Kelcy Warren, donated $100,000 to his campaign.


    That states that he had a very recent and potentially continuing interest in one of the companies that has directly benefited from the pipeline being approved. And that the chairman of that company donated a significant sum of money to Trumps Presidential campaign. Whilst Reuters are hedging their bets and not directly saying that Trump still has an interest in ETP, probably because they don't have absolute proof. The fact that so soon into his presidency he could be seen to be blatantly rewarding one of his supporters is worrying especially if the White house is going to be applying pressure to the relevant departments to expedite the approval process with out giving enough time for discovery.


    Dug a little deeper:

    Apparently Trump sold those shares.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Missed that. Sorry, Hackworth.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    Also, Trump's refusal to drop his financial ties means that the previously canceled pipelines he's used an executive order to keep building might be directly profitable for him. [link]
    There is nothing in the linked article which establishes or implies the conflict of interest you're claiming here.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 3

    posted a message on How President Trump's Trade Agenda Could Effect the Entertainment Industry
    I hate to say it, but if you can in all earnestness start a post with...
    One of my biggest concerns about the Trump Administration is how they could effectively end the Entertainment Industry as we know it especially in regards to the Anime/Manga Industry, Video Game Industry, and the Trading Card Game / Collectible Card Game Industry...
    ...you're probably gonna be fine.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    Trump, and parts of his cabinet, are also still under investigation for treason/financial misbehavior.
    Even in the worst-case scenario they are not guilty of treason. Aaron Burr was acquitted for treason, and he conspired to carve an empire for himself out of American territory. The Rosenbergs were never even tried for treason, and they gave the USSR the atomic bomb at the height of the Cold War. In all, there have been less than thirty treason prosecutions in United States history. Treason is a very, very specific crime:
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
    Is a hypothetical Russian-Sleeper-Trump levying war against the United States? No. There is no war. Is Russian-Sleeper-Trump adhering to enemies of the United States? He's certainly adhering to a foreign power, and that foreign power is hostile to U.S. interests, but it is not legally an enemy of the United States. If, God forbid, we do go to war with Russia and Trump sells us out, then he would be guilty of treason. But that's what it would take. The allegations against Trump et al., if true, may merit a host of charges up to and including capital espionage (see again the Rosenbergs)... but it's still not treason.

    Quote from Hackworth »
    Violent protests (and violence at protests) don't change the fact that the number of hate crimes spiked last year, coincident with the US election and Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric (and, judging by the data, with the Republican Party's related push in anti-transgender laws). [link]
    Let's be careful with our figures. The number of hate crimes didn't "spike". It's up 6%. The number of violent crimes in general is up 5% or so. This is a troubling development, and we don't know why it's happening after a decades-long downward trend, but it does rather change the significance of that 6% hate crime statistic. The specific surges in crimes against Muslims and transgendered people are more credible indicators of a real problem, but there too we must be cautious. When I see that a stat has gone up 67%, that certainly looks like a dramatic spike. But when I see that it has gone up to 257, in a country with a population of 325 million, that number is so low that even a 67% change could be a result of mere noise. Think of it this way: If just a single bigot snaps and starts beating up a Muslim a day for a month before he gets caught, that one guy alone could account for almost twenty points of that 67%. If nothing like that happens next year, the figure would drop down again just as "dramatically". So it's really, really hard to take changes in such small numbers as conclusive evidence for a particular narrative. (And believe me, I would be saying the same thing in reverse if somebody were citing a 67% drop in anti-Muslim hate crime as sign of a positive cultural change.)
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from italofoca »
    But what collective wellbeing is ? The point is: defining wellbeing (specially "collective wellbeing") is already engaging in political ideology. So you can't care for one more then other.
    Two can play that game. Define "political".
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Russia, the possibility they hacked the DNC, and the possibility they're next for an Iraq WMD situation
    wrt: the comparison to Iraqi WMD, that wasn't the CIA saying Iraq had WMD. That was the White House themselves. They'd actually gotten the info from an Iranian agent, Ahmed Chalabi. They trusted the Iranians more than the CIA, just as Trump trusts the Russians more than the CIA.
    And the CIA have even vindicated themselves on the whole Fidel Castro thing by finally taking him down through the classic "wait until he dies" approach. So their track record right now is actually looking pretty good. Smile

    Also, in all seriousness, with respect to what happened after the White House asserted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, there is essentially zero chance of us "regime-changing" Russia. And there wouldn't be even if we had a Russia hawk in office instead of a quasi-Manchurian candidate (Muscovite candidate?). Russia, after all, definitely has weapons of mass destruction, of the "obliterate New York City from halfway around the world" sort, and it has them precisely to discourage this sort of thing. So given that a war is a virtual impossibility, I'm not sure what Mockingbird is asking about exactly when he raises the question of an "Iraq WMD situation".
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    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 »
    Liberalism is losing appeal to capital in favour of fascism, what with Clinton's comical failure to secure the position the Democrats had given up most other politics for...
    Was it also losing appeal in 1980, 1984,1988, 2000 and 2004? Because all of those defeats except for 2000 were more decisive than this one. And was it gaining appeal again in 1992, 1996, 2004 and 2008? Because all of those victories were more decisive than this one too.

    Quote from combo player »
    ...and losing appeal to workers due to its insistence on punching leftwards.
    I hate to be the one to break it to you, dude, but mass hard-left sentiment in the working class does not exist. You are projecting, and you need to stop doing that if you want to understand what really happened. If "punching leftwards" were unappealing to workers, how the hell do you explain them preferring Donald J. Trump, who was more pugilistic by far than Clinton (or, for that matter, any other candidate in recent history)?

    Quote from combo player »
    Their main source of votes are urban professionals living in enclaves and people who view them as simply the lesser of two evils. Things are not going to go well for the Democratic Party if it doesn't get its ***** together as serious opposition and given that liberalism is incapable of fighting and prefers fascism over leftism I would say that the prospects are grim.
    Bluntly: communists make it something of a habit to try predicting the future through socioeconomics, but if they were any good at it the world would look very different than it does. Do try to keep that success rate in mind when evaluating the predictive power of your dogma.

    Quote from osieorb18 »
    I don't think the Democratic party has ever been what I would call a "champion of capital." That's more of the Republicans' realm.
    Nah, by his standards they are. When he says that he's just complaining that neither party is much interested in militantly seizing the means of production.
    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 combo player »
    The Democratic Party is facing more than simply adversity, it's facing a struggle for what it should even represent.
    I think it's more clear than ever what it represents. It lost an election, not an electorate.

    Quote from combo player »
    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.
    Here you appear to be conflating what you think is right with what you think is likely.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from warghoul »
    Stopped them from staling an underwater drone to...
    China reliably does something like this whenever an American president takes office, to test his resolve or show strength or some such dick-measuring nonsense. In 2009, they surrounded USNS Impeccable in international waters and tried to grab its towed listening array. In 2001, they sent fighters to buzz an EP-3 resulting in a midair collision and a major diplomatic incident. It's their way of saying "hello, new guy".
    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 Pigglebee »
    Most Americans agree more with Democratic policies, even the ones who vote GOP (when you do not say which policy belongs to which party).
    You can write those sorts of studies to show that most Americans agree with Democratic policies and you can write them to show that most Americans agree with Republican policies. "This bill would financially assist parents in sending their kids to the school of their choice - agree or disagree?" "This bill would redirect funds from already-struggling public schools to affluent private schools - agree or disagree?" So how many Americans actually agree with school voucher systems? Depends on how you phrase the question. The real answer, of course, is that a lot of Americans don't pay that much attention and don't have an opinion until you ask them, and that both parties have policies which are well-intentioned and sound good to an undecided person when put to them sympathetically.

    One observation I can make is that Americans tend to support Republican policies in the abstract and Democratic policies when they directly benefit. A.k.a. the "Slash government spending, but don't you dare touch my Social Security!" phenomenon.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    There's a difference between an audit and a recount. Audits are performed regularly. They're little random spot-checks aimed at spotting error or malfeasance through statistical anomalies. What you're talking about is a recount, which is an extraordinary and comprehensive process that takes a lot of time, effort, and money.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Kahedron »
    The rest of the article can be found here if any one is interested in seeing what else we either rely on now or are very likely to rely on in the future got broken but I have snipped out the relevant bit to the thread.

    I have to admit that I am concerned that Halderman believes that his undergraduates would have been able to alter the results of the election. And whilst we haven't yet been able to difinetively prove that the election was hacked the old adage abscence of proof is not the same as proof of abscence.

    If I were a US citizen I would be petioning my State represnentatives, congress person and senators to get the minimum standards of security on these machines increased. Forget about voter registration this is potentially a far bigger cause of election fraud.
    I hate to say it, but this isn't news. Cybersecurity experts have been saying "Use paper, stupid!" for years.

    And many districts do. Including many of the districts that unexpectedly flipped red on Election Day. So while this is a very serious potential avenue of attack, I honestly don't think anything like it happened this year.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on SJW - Just A Pejoritive
    Quote from Tiax »
    If your criteria for rejecting them is that they are hate, why even ask for the studies in the first place? You knew they were hate from their conclusions.
    The conclusions would mean something different if they had come out of a reputable research institution. If Harvard or wherever publishes conclusions like this, you can't just shout "hate" and reject them offhand -- you have to take them reasonably seriously. Of course, Harvard or wherever doesn't publish conclusions like this, and that's why we don't take such ideas seriously. (Although it must be said that this trust of the research community is only valid if we know they're looking into these questions and coming up with negative results, rather than rejecting the questions on principle *cough*larrysummers*cough*)

    There are some differences between the races that are well documented with solid research, like the prevalence in people of African descent of the gene causing sickle-cell anemia (while protecting from malaria). If Person A tells me that black people are genetically more likely to get sickle-cell, and Person B tells me that black people are genetically more likely to get, say, Down syndrome, I can ask to see the studies. When Person A links me to the work of E. A. Beet and J. V. Neel in the British Journal of Haematology, and Person B links me to something in The Racist Pseudo-Journal of White Supremacy, I can tell pretty quickly that the sickle-cell thing is serious and the Down syndrome thing is bull*****.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from YamahaR1 »
    My reference to MTGS is because its not really that different. There's a long list of things (or views) you dare not express because you know exactly whats going to happen (say, immigration, abortion or... CLIMATE CHANGE ROFL!) Its either going to be the racist bat, the bigot stick or the dunce hat. And once anyone retaining the last of conservative views is gone, what's left? A group of people just nodding in agreement - like an echo chamber. How much is really achieved?

    Not to state the obvious, but this is the Debate section. Your views on immigration, abortion, and climate change are going to be challenged here, because that's the point. Everyone's views are challenged here. Does being challenged make you feel unwelcome? Would you rather we all just smile and accept your viewpoint uncritically? Do you think you might go find other forums where people will do that? Because if so, guess what: you're not condemning an echo chamber, you're looking for one.
    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 Verbal »
    I mean the US should absolutely have mandatory voting.
    Voting is a right, not a responsibility.

    Quote from Verbal »
    But way, way more than that it needs to reform its voting laws so you don't have to vote on a ******* tuesday, because seriously what the hell is that. (I mean I know why but it does tend to disenfranchise people). Failing that, a national public holiday every four years.
    Every year, actually. We do have elections in off-years.

    Quote from Verbal »
    You need to take districting out of the hands of partisans and into the hands of sane people like, oh, most countries...
    Yes.

    Quote from Verbal »
    ...and you need to get rid of the absurdity that is the electoral college.
    Which part of the electoral college? Because one of the most important parts we've already gotten rid of. It was the part where the college was a deliberative body not beholden to the votes of the electorate, in a measure intended to protect the country from populist demagogues. A lot of people wish we still had that part right now.

    Quote from Verbal »
    And, for preference, the states existing because I'd be willing to bet it is grossly ineffecient.
    *spit-take* I'd take you up on that bet in a hot minute. Name one modern country of any size that doesn't use some sort of regional government set-up. Hell, most of them (including yours) are federal systems modeled to a greater or lesser extent on the United States. History is unequivocal on this point: overcentralization is what's grossly inefficient.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from YamahaR1 »
    I believe social media, mainstream media, television and the internet do a very good job of silencing opinions they don't like. This leads people to believe that everyone (the overwhelming majority) thinks the same - that everyone is on the same page. On the night of the election, you could see just how shocked every news anchor (and comedians like Trevor Noah) were.
    First of all, the way the social media echo chamber actually works seems to be a little different than you might think.

    Now, sure, some people were shocked on Nov. 8 because of the echo chamber. The Huffington Post projected a Clinton win with 99% confidence -- that was clearly bull. But some people were shocked because the result was legitimately shocking. Polling data are not an echo chamber, and they really did favor Clinton from beginning to end. Trump himself has said that he went into Election Day expecting to lose. And, of course, Trump did lose the popular vote; the polls weren't that far from wrong.

    Were there people out there who were confident Trump would win? Oh yes. The Huffington Post may have given Clinton 99% odds, but I also saw Trump supporters projecting that he would be the first candidate to sweep all fifty states. They could only be so confident by being in their own echo chamber: one which insulated them from the data or told them to ignore them. This echo chamber also had to downplay Trump's naked self-interest, his utter contempt for facts, and his myriad failings as a human being while at the same time spinning Hillary Clinton into a criminal mastermind on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. So considering one echo chamber elected a man totally unfit for the White House, while the other chamber merely thought that guy would lose, no points for guessing which one I'm more concerned about right now.
    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 Teysa_Karlov »
    Doing what you propose would allow gerrymandering to do even more damage than it already does. Look at North Carolina. Basically whatever party is in power during the census would make it nearly impossible for the other side to win.
    I think that's going to vary from state to state. I live in Nebraska, one of the two states that splits its vote, and we don't have gerrymandered districts. Maybe because we only have three of them. But regardless, in the run-up to Election Day FiveThirtyEight had the NE-2 projected as the most competitive single electoral vote in the country. (Trump ultimately won by about 9,000 votes.) So it can work.

    But what you really want is a rule tying the electoral vote directly to the proportion of the statewide popular vote.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 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 Typho0nn »
    Do you have an email or money trail?
    Yes, an electronic trail consisting of IP addresses and Bit.ly accounts. Now, do you have an email or money trail for a 9/11 conspiracy? No. Do you have any evidence for such a conspiracy remotely equivalent to the evidence presented here for the Russian hack? No. So why do you believe in a 9/11 conspiracy? And don't try to give me the "not relevant" brushoff, because what constitutes evidence is very relevant. Tell me exactly why you are demanding a standard of proof to which you do not hold yourself.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    "FBI Agrees with CIA Assessment That Russia Wanted to Help Trump" LOL ok, Russia wanting to help Trump =/= evidence for Russian Government hacking or paying hacking group.
    I wasn't posting that as evidence of the Russia hack. I was posting that as evidence that you had made a patently false statement about the FBI's findings. At least have the decency to own your mistake.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    ...A strange reversal for an organization supposedly dedicated to freedom of information, don't you think?

    Still not relevant to this case.
    Impeaches credibility and establishes motive.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Because him saying he is not working for Russia would happen either way, it does not constitute evidence either way. Something is only evidence if it would not happen any other way.


    Still not evidence of the Russians doing it.
    Nor is it evidence of the Russians not doing it. You claimed that it was. That was incorrect.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    You setting them does not mean I have to answer. We are looking for evidence of Russian Hacking or support.
    You: Why are we talking about Russian hacking? The content of the emails is what matters!
    Me: Okay, show me evidence of a crime in the emails.
    You: ... Why are we talking about the content of the emails? The Russian hacking is what matters!

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.” -- Julian Assange, 2006 (source 1 source 2)

    " but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations" Even if they haven't published anything, still not proof of Russian Hacking or Support.
    Is the highly oppressive regime in Russia a "primary target" of Wikileaks? Obviously not. Assange did not tell the truth here.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    ...and not to belabor the point, but Russia kills journalists.

    Evidence?
    Are you freaking kidding me?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Evidence?

    Hillary overthrowing Gaddafi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
    Me: Show me evidence of the U.S. interfering in a foreign election.
    You: Here's eleven seconds of Hillary Clinton discussing the rebellion against a man who never stood for an election in his life, and rolling her eyes at the suggestion that she was involved.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    With or without the emails, Russia is still allowed to publish news against the USA illegal actions, which bias Journalists/editors seem to be missing out on.
    So wait, the emails don't matter all of a sudden?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    They are saying the news is 'fake' without reason.
    When articles report fabricated and factually incorrect information, that's pretty good reason to call it "fake". And we're not talking about fake news, anyway.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    I'm just going to give my closing statement.
    *sigh* If only...
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Star Wars: Rogue One
    Quote from willdice »
    That's true, but there was another way to do it.
    Namely, what they did with Mon Mothma - just take two actors who look enough like Peter Cushing and young Carrie Fisher, and film them normally, maybe with heavy make up or prosthetics for Tarkin, but no CGI. Done!
    They did that at the end of Revenge of the Sith, you might remember. That didn't look great either. With Mon Mothma, they happened to luck out and find a dead ringer for Caroline Blakiston.

    Of course, we've got young Han Solo and Lando Calrissian coming up.
    Posted in: Movies
  • 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 »
    -There is no evidence, but 'magic' connecting WORDS that claim the Russians Hacked.
    Words and numbers. As in, lines of computer code and IP addresses. For the third time: that's more than you have ever had in support of any of your pet theories.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    -FBI, Ron Paul, Julian Assange have said it is NOT the Russians.
    Assange wouldn't tell us if it were.

    Ron Paul is an unconnected third party whose opinion is meaningless.

    And the FBI said in no uncertain terms that it was the Russians -- you're just flat-out misrepresenting the truth there.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    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 »
    Not relevant to this exposure of Hillary's emails. Maybe nobody from China or Russia, has come forward.
    Oh, but they have. Just not on Wikileaks. You may recall the Panama Papers this year? The largest leak of anything ever in history? Among lots and lots of other stuff, it included damaging information about the finances of a close friend of Vladimir Putin's -- just how did a freaking cellist get his hands on billions of dollars? Now, Wikileaks was not responsible for publishing the Panama papers. According to the leaker, he attempted to contact Wikileaks multiple times with his information but they never got back to him. Furthermore, when the Panama Papers were published through another outlet, Wikileaks was critical of them, calling them an "attack on Putin" funded by the U.S. government (even though the government only funded the OCCRP, just one out of the many news groups reporting on the leak, which also included Russian papers Vedomoya and Novaya Gazeta, and the leaks also embarrassed many Westerners, bringing down the government of Iceland). A strange reversal for an organization supposedly dedicated to freedom of information, don't you think?

    All this was in the New York Times article you were bashing, by the way.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Is he working for Russia, that is yet to be proven. You calling it the truth means nothing.
    There are two possibilities: he is working for Russia or he isn't.

    If he is not working for Russia, he is going to say he is not working for Russia.
    If he is working for Russia, he is still going to say he is not working for Russia.

    Because him saying he is not working for Russia would happen either way, it does not constitute evidence either way. Something is only evidence if it would not happen any other way.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Hillary's emails from Wikileaks...
    Of which I still have yet to see you cite a single word of incriminating evidence. Which, again, has been the goalpost I set for you all along.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear are Russian.

    Still not the Russian Government.
    (a) Now who's moving the goalposts? (b) Yes, they actually are; that's what the "Bear" means.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as documented tactics, tools, server addresses, and online accounts used in the attack that are distinctive to a covert operations group known to be sponsored by the U.S. government and act in its interests, you would be shouting it from the rooftops.

    So you believe this one with its 'evidence', yet disbelieve 9/11 with its evidence?
    Reading comprehension, dude. "If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as [this] = you don't have evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as this. You believe in that conspiracy on the basis of no admissions of guilt, no paper trail, no evidence of any of the sort that you're demanding here. Your bar for evidence is, in fact, absurdly low for it. But when it comes to Russian hacking, this for some reason you don't want to believe, so the bar suddenly becomes absurdly high, and all the real and demonstrable links to Russian agents -- the sort of links you do not have for 9/11 -- are just "speculation". Be consistent. Set the bar at the same standard for both cases.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    What promise?
    Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.” -- Julian Assange, 2006 (source 1 source 2)

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Assange COULD just be going for a candidate that might pardon him. These Secrets don't matter to this case, he might have a bias in those that want to help him live.
    ...and not to belabor the point, but Russia kills journalists.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Their belief is not proof.
    Words for you to live by.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    I supported Trump cause I thought he was the most peaceful candidate that wanted to work with Russia to help defeat ISIS. Hillary wants to go to war with Russia and Take out President Assad.
    Do me a favor: google "Trump China Taiwan". Then try to tell me Trump is peaceful.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    The US is interfering in other countries elections.
    Evidence?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Maybe Russia was maybe it wasn't but it was still using free speech, which is part of the US constitution.
    Accessing private email servers is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. If I hacked into your emails and published them online, I would be criminally liable. Notwithstanding that, it's a bit rich of you to praise Russia for exercising freedom of speech when that is a freedom the Russian government has been strangling to death domestically. Siding with Russia against the United States in this is siding with a nation that has one of the most extensive state-controlled media systems in the world against a nation that has enshrined journalistic independence as its literal first political ideal. Which, again, is why it's so bizarre that Wikileaks and Assange have decided to do exactly that.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    The opposing side should have used arguments to try and defeat them, but now they are silencing them and just calling them 'fake' without reason. The emails are real!!!
    Nobody here is saying the emails are fake.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Deadpool's Unicorn
    Spam thread locked.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Star Wars: Rogue One
    Good movie. Some disjointed plot points, maybe could use a little more character development for the supporting cast, but it ends very strong. The first Star Wars movie that's really been a war movie. Recalls the classic WW2 commando films especially (and very deliberately, of course).

    • Vader should not have appeared in the middle of the film. His appearance at the end would have had more impact if it's the first we see of him. That said, Vader's discussion with Krennic confirming that he's kind of "meh" on the Death Star is some nice attention to character detail. That's his attitude in A New Hope, but a lot of writers would have just written him as being pro-Death-Star because it's easier. The Death Star is Tarkin's baby.
    • The CGI Tarkin and Leia weren't perfect, but you kind of had to have them. Tarkin especially. Like I said, the Death Star is his baby.
    • Did anyone else think that the Vader costume didn't fit the actor right? The mask looked loose around the neck to me.
    • R2-D2 and C-3PO don't make sense showing up where they do. They're at the rebel base when the fleet has already left? How are they on the Tantive IV in ANH?
    • But overall, in sharp contrast to the prequel trilogy, this movie actually feels like it makes sense leading into ANH. I didn't catch a line or bit of character knowledge that's out of place. The one thing I can think if is how many people saw the Death Star in action. Almost all of them die, but it's now canonical that Leia has seen it prior to the events of ANH, so maybe the destruction of Alderaan scene is changed in significance somewhat.
    Posted in: Movies
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Highroller »
    I'm rather confused about this talk of evolution. Should not evolution be responsible for all of human nature, whether it be our better nature or worse? Thus, shouldn't the capacity to be tribal, factional, and exclusionary also be argued as evolutionary?
    It definitely* is. But it's not the ethical part of our nature, any more than the shape of our eyes is ethical. "Ethics" is the label we've chosen for this one particular part of our nature.

    *Science is never definite.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    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 »
    Well neither 9/11 or Bill are reasons to discredit Assange on source of Hacked emails.
    Your logic is, "He didn't do it because he said he didn't do it."

    By that logic, Bill Clinton also didn't do it because he said he didn't do it.

    And the hypothetical 9/11 conspirators didn't do it because they said they didn't do it.

    If you think that Clinton did it, or that the 9/11 conspirators did it, you acknowledge the possibility that someone can do something even if they've said they didn't do it. Therefore, it is possible that Assange did it even though he's said he didn't do it. Therefore, Assange saying he didn't do it does not constitute evidence that he didn't do it.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    This is why I am defending Assange because he has proven to be a reliable source while the Washington Post and other corporate media outlets have not(WoMD).
    Assange started WikiLeaks promising to focus on revealing the state secrets of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.

    Where are those state secrets, exactly?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    A little bit more than what?
    You said he has every reason not to lie because lying would ruin his record. If the truth is that he is working for Russia, telling the truth would ruin his record more than lying about it.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Do you have documents with a money trail or a sound recording or...
    Do you? For this, or literally anything you claim?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    If it has been used before, it could have been easily copied from someone else to use to make it look like the Russians.
    Or it could have been the Russians.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Coming from a time zone does not mean anything, you can re-rout around the world.
    Or it could have been the Russians.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    If it was them it is still not the Russians.
    In case you missed it somehow: Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear are Russian.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Someone can access it to if they used the same programs that these 2 groups have in the past.
    They didn't just use the same program, they used the same Bit.ly account.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    These 3 arguments are nothing but speculation and no evidence.
    If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as documented tactics, tools, server addresses, and online accounts used in the attack that are distinctive to a covert operations group known to be sponsored by the U.S. government and act in its interests, you would be shouting it from the rooftops.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    It is not credible and there is no evidence, it is all speculation.
    If you're absolutely determined not to credit it, then I can't make you. But it is credible.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    How is bill relevant to discrediting Assange?
    Parallel logic, like I showed above.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Was just using the same standards.
    You really weren't. I quipped that WikiLeaks is a big site because you hadn't directed me to anything in particular on that site. For that matter, you still haven't. (Complain all you like about moving the goalposts, but it's a bit rich when you haven't even passed the initial goalposts.) So when you say that the Times is a big site when I have directed you to a particular article... like I said, faceplant.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    What evidence are you claiming that they have?
    They're chronicling Assange's public actions. All the evidence is out in the open, they're simply aggregating it to show that there's a pattern. Do you dispute any of what they say Assange has done, or that there's a pattern? I repeat: where are the promised state secrets from Russia and China?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    They are even in support of Assange; "American officials say Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services."
    They go on to explain how exactly they believe Assange is being used by Russian intelligence services. But that doesn't work as well for your position as an out-of-context quotation.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from nightwyrm »
    Evolutionary ethics is....difficult. Biological and social/cultural evolution can be quite different. For one, biological evolution does not "forecast". It is quite the anti-thesis to your outside-context sufficiently rational actor proposing an optimal solution.
    You can talk about the sufficiently rational actor in biological evolution too. Remember, he's not real, he's just a way of illustrating that the laws of nature are objective and work the same way for everyone. He's the guy mapping the optimization landscape. The guy who, for example, looks at the physics of fluid dynamics and says, "Well, then, an efficient wing should look like this." And biological wings tend to converge on that design. Not because the rational actor caused them to, but because they're responding through evolutionary pressures to the same natural laws that he is reasoning about.

    Quote from nightwyrm »
    Evolutionary processes cannot get you (or your society in this case) to your global optimal if you're currently stuck in a local optimal and you need to cross a valley of bad solutions which leaves you temporarily worse off then you currently are (I'm using global and local in terms of solution-space). Every step of the way needs to be better, or at least just as good, as the previous step and there's no leaping. If you're stuck in a local optimal, there has to be outside perturbation that jolts you out of the rut or the environment has to change in such a way as to create a path out of it. This is one of the reasons I'm somewhat skeptical of utopian societies that requires a period of severe societal disruption where everything is worse off for everybody until you get to something better on the other side. People will just not be willing to enter and endure that period of "badness". Cultural evolution might be able to "forecast" and "leap", but I'm not an expert in this aspect and I'm still somewhat skeptical due to my background.
    It's certainly possible in principle to "forecast" and "leap" because, after all, we are dealing with humans who are capable of doing that. We even do it for biological evolution, with the selective breeding of domesticated organisms and now their direct genetic modification. But you're right to be skeptical that it's a major driving force in social evolution. Most humans through most of history lived their lives without thinking too hard about the ethical constitution of their societies. When people do think about it and try to give it a total overhaul, they do not seem to have thought about it very well -- communist revolutions and utopian societies, as you note, diverge in outcome from intention pretty radically and painfully. Which of course is natural selection at work again.

    Those "revolutions" which can be chalked up as success stories, like the American one, are much more incremental in the changes they make, and so might be better analogized to biological evolution as mutations than leaps: they're trying out a nearby point on the optimization landscape to see if it's an improvement. Now, it can be said that unlike mutations these revolutions are intelligently directed. And yeah, they are. But given how badly the communists and utopians think about this stuff, it may not be wise to assume the incrementalists are thinking about it any better. A cynic could argue that revolutionaries push their societies in effectively random directions, and if some incremental revolutions are successful it's only because they're not trying to leap across an optimization chasm.

    Just some food for thought.

    Quote from nightwyrm »
    There is also no guarantee that evolution makes things better for a society's individuals. Evolution just tells us that traits that work out better than your competitor tends to be retained and get passed on to the next generation. It may be that societal traits of liberal democracy is currently more competitive, but if the environment changes in such a way to favour authoritarian regimes then that is what will survive and spread. Drones in a beehive lives a pretty crappy life, all considering, but bees are one of the most successful insect species. Evolution is amoral in that sense. Whenever I see evolution being used as if it was some sort of universal force that promotes the well-being of everybody, it really annoys me.
    Sure. But the empirical evidence is that liberal democracy is more competitive than authoritarianism. And I don't think that's just a happy accident of the current environment. Humans aren't bees. Individuals are highly intelligent and autonomous, actively pursuing their personal desires for well-being. When a system doesn't let them do what they want, they resist. This fact in and of itself constitutes a selection pressure in favor of freedom and individual dignity, and it's not going to change as long as humans are humans.

    Quote from nightwyrm »
    Now, our ethics is certainly a product of evolution and a solution reached by game theory. We have a strong incentive to cooperate with our in-group and we have evolved mechanisms which tells us to punish members of our in-group which refuses to cooperate. But there is also strong evolutionary incentive to poorly treat an out-group with whom we do not come into contact regularly. What worries me a lot is that it seems the world is currently moving in a direction where in-groups and out-groups are becoming very strongly defined.
    I see the general trend as in-groups enlarging, and in-group/out-group divides breaking down. With travel and mass media there are fewer and fewer out-groups with whom we do not come into contact regularly. I'm not going to pretend the current resurgence of populist nationalism in America and Europe isn't troubling, but it's also a flash in the pan historically speaking. Get back to me in a half-century or so, but right now I'm far from convinced that it constitutes a reversal of the liberalizing trend.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)

    Alright... and how do these relate to; "Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear." How are they doing better from "Human rights" and "moral sense" and expanding. I can't see how you have argued that these things are allowing to survive and expand. Rights are constantly violated when expansion is needed. Government will forcefully buy out any property for expansion as in China and has happened here in Adelaide with the Southern Express way/Port rd expansion.
    You are simply not talking about what I'm talking about. You're echoing my words without understanding what they refer to. And to be blunt, I'm not interested in trying to teach evolutionary ethics to someone who's going to fight me every step of the way. So let this one go. If you're truly interested in the topic, you can start by reading Leviathan and The Origin of Species, then maybe a modern synthesis like Darwin's Dangerous Idea or The Better Angels of Our Nature.
    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 »
    So Bill has admitted guilt and confessed. Julian has denied the claims. Innocent till proven guilty... GrrrAAAAAH Can you see the difference?
    Has anybody that you believe was responsible for the 9/11 attacks admitted guilt and confessed? Or does "innocent until proven guilty" only apply to the people you want to be innocent?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Julian has 100% accuracy rating with Wikileaks, he has every reason not to lie to maintain his record.
    If Assange admits he is a catspaw for Russian intelligence, don't you think that would ruin his record just a little bit more? Nobody's going to say, "Oh, this person we thought was an independent crusader for freedom of information is actually a Kremlin spy, but at least he's honest about it! What a great guy!" (Oh, and the Russians probably won't be happy he outed their operation either. And remember, the Russians kill journalists.)

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Even when independently verified the likes of the WP has claimed, they still give no evidence or names.
    It's probable that they don't know the names of the individual hackers, any more than you know my name or I yours. But they do have the name of the groups -- "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" -- and the evidence consists of the classic triad of means, motive, and opportunity.

    Means: The DNC hack was performed by the same malware code, written by a Russian-speaker in the Moscow time zone, used by Fancy Bear in previous attacks, and it sent information back to the same server. The Podesta hack was performed with the same Bit.ly spearphishing tactic used by Cozy Bear in previous attacks.
    Motive: Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear's attacks have consistently targeted enemies of the Russian state, and this attack against a presidential candidate who is resistant to Russia's neo-imperialist interests and whom Putin seems personally to dislike is no exception.
    Opportunity: We can see the malware in the DNC's servers that have Fancy Bear access to them. We can see the very spearphishing email that was sent to Podesta, and the email from his tech support accidentally telling him it was "legitimate". We know he clicked the link, giving Cozy Bear the opportunity to access his emails. We know they were in there.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Doesn't an argument still stand if it is not disproven?
    No. You yourself say why:

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    And if you can't prove an argument, then it's not an argument.
    Yes, basically. Arguments require credible evidence. Which we have.

    So to sum up, if an argument cannot be "proven" (more precisely, "supported with evidence"), it doesn't need to be disproven or discredited. It doesn't have any proof or credit to begin with.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    You have done the same with the Bill argument.
    How?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    And Lithl had done the same with the "It's an extremely biased right-wing rag with "institutional racism," to quote one of their own reporters." argument. Why did you not correct him?
    I'm not debating with Lithl. I'm debating with you. If I corrected every logical fallacy on this site, I'd be working full time at it. But for the record, yes, Lithl's statement does not constitute discreditation. So you shouldn't do what he did.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    I think we need to set up some standards in order to continue this debate. One argument works for your side, but when I use the same tactic it is not viable. this is **goal posts moving**
    Even if your accusation is true, it's not moving the goalposts, it's a double standard again. Please, please, please have some idea what the terms you're using mean before you use them.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    The Times is a big site, you are going to have to be more "specific" about which claims you want to be argued.
    Please stop trying to be clever by echoing me. You only ever faceplant. I didn't point you to the Times, I pointed you to a single article by the Times. If you can't read one article, that's on you.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    And its not fake if its been Hacked!!! We should be more worried about the content of the hack rather than who did it, with the Clinton foundation fraud among other things.
    What Clinton foundation fraud? Where's your evidence for that? All the emails have been out in the open for a while now, and the FBI has certified that they've gone through them. If there were evidence that the Clinton Foundation was engaging in fraud, well, that's a crime, and they should have indicted her. So I want to see a specific document where Clinton admits to criminal behavior. Or else -- by your own standard -- she is innocent until proven guilty.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 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 Typho0nn »
    People who are accused of wrongdoing tend to deny it.

    not disproof. Argument Still Stands.
    Ergo, Bill Clinton really did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky, I guess. Rolleyes

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    "His account cannot be independently verified."

    Not disproof.
    You asked for discreditation, and it is that. If a statement by someone who has every reason to lie cannot be independently verified, we cannot trust it -- i.e., we cannot credit it -- thus it is discredited. Maybe it's true, maybe it's false, but it's not proof of anything.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Your first 'source'
    "individuals with connections" connections is not proof....

    Second source
    "believe are spies..." belief is not proof.
    Do you notice how, for your arguments, you're saying the argument stands if it is not disproven, but for my arguments, you're saying the argument fails if it is not proven? That's called a "double standard". By your own standard for yourself, we should believe my sources, because you have not disproven their claims. And by your own standard for me, we should not believe your sources, because you have not proven their claims. Either way, you lose.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Third 'source' NY times, has been supporting WOMD lies. It is bias.
    Now, this is an actual ad hominem argument. You are using discredit a claim based on a(n alleged) fact about the source that is not relevant to the claim. Is any claim the Times makes about Assange untrue? If so, which ones, and what's your evidence that they're untrue?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    I wasn't saying you were talking about socialism, I was saying you didn't add any references or examples. You just blanketed. I was giving some examples of where the 'well-being' of people was looked after in the terms of socialism and communism and had failed. But could you add some references or examples to your 'argument'/statement.

    Facepalm Me, two posts before what you quoted, because you didn't read the thread for context like I told you to (not that you should even need to be told): "I will say that we do have some instinctive recognition for human rights in the form of our moral sense, because evolution has been chugging away at this same problem for millions of years."

    A little bit earlier: "Give Hobbes and Locke another look -- especially Hobbes. Rights aren't just any old social contract; they are the optimizing contract. Think of human society as a math problem and rights as the solution."

    You think I may have been talking about human rights, perhaps? "Life, liberty, and property" and all that?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 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 Grant »
    I wonder whether the (accredited by a non-partisan organisation and required to be transparent with regard to sources) fact-checking organisations will now be accused of bias.
    "Will they be accused of bias?" Does a bear crap in the woods? Is the Pope reptiloid?

    But I'm more concerned with what effect they think a nannying little message like "Before you share this story, you might want to know that independent fact-checkers disputed its accuracy" is going to have. That tone is only going to piss off people predisposed to believe the story.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    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 »
    I edited it above, but lets go with Julian Assnage himself saying it was not the Russians.
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/julian-assange-russian-government-not-source-of-leaked-dnc-and-podesta-emails-wikileaks-editor-contradicts-cia-claims-in-new-interview-35300175.html

    It seems like other people are discrediting whole sights, via "Right-wing bias", instead of going into a specific article and discrediting that.

    Maybe you want to go back on this one and discredit it specifically: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html
    People who are accused of wrongdoing tend to deny it. Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman. Does that mean he didn't? Of course not. We shouldn't believe someone didn't do something just because they say so. We need to look at all the other evidence surrounding the case to get a truthful picture of what happened. And your Daily Mail article contains those magic words of journalism: "His account cannot be independently verified."

    Now, what can be independently verified, and has been, is that the DNC was hacked by two known Kremlin-backed hacking groups (source) and Podesta was also spearphished by one of those groups (source). It's still theoretically possible given what we know that the Russians got in but didn't do anything, and then WikiLeaks got access to the same information by other means. But it sure seems like a suspicious coincidence. Especially given Julian Assange's troubling pattern of pro-Russian behavior (source).
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    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. 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'.
    You have no idea what my "argument" even was. Read the thread for context. I was not talking about socialism.
    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 »
    I want to 'debate' "specifically" how he is going to discredit it. :S
    There's nothing I even need to discredit until you show me some specific documents that you can claim provide evidence for your hypotheses. Just saying "Wikileaks" doesn't prove anything. And it's not my job to go through all ten-million-plus documents on the site and try to guess which ones, if any, you're thinking about.
    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 »
    Alright lets do it again, start with discrediting Wikileaks, in a reasonable way, instead of saying all my sources are "crap".
    What in particular would you like to discuss about Wikileaks? It's a big site.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    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.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 5

    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 »
    "for lack of a better term..." this is sarcastic and degradation, if you want to debate please keep it civil. You are just trying to pass it off as crap.
    It is crap. We've done this dance before, remember? Every time you've cited a source on any topic, one of two things has been true: either (a) it has been blatantly pushing a particular narrative (i.e. biased) and filled with lies and omissions; or (b) it has been a decent source that you did not understand because you were reading it through the filter of your own commitment to a particular narrative (i.e. bias). If you wish, I can go back and find examples of both of these issues occurring, and of myself and others identifying and explaining them to you. So when I say that the information you prefer to work with is overwhelmingly bad information, it is with the weight of evidence and experience. And I am under no obligation to give deference to bad information. Stop complaining that I'm being mean to you and start asking yourself whether you might, in fact, have a problem. You say you're a skeptic, but real skepticism starts with the self.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from nightwyrm »
    Ah...I see the disagreement here. You meant the rational actor as the outside context entity solving the problem. I had read that as part of Hobbe's "men are reasonable and rational" assumption which seemed to me to be part of the word problem in the same way as "You want to shoot a cow out of a cannon over the wall. Just to make the problem tractable, we'll assume the cow is a frictionless sphere."
    Hobbes emphatically does not make that assumption. Hobbes thinks people are terrible. That's part of the problem.

    Quote from nightwyrm »
    It seems I may have used the wrong term in my first post. Perhaps social construct would be better? The point I was trying to make was that rights are an idea and something that only exists and affects the world only insofar as both parties agree it exists and should affect a person's behaviour, but some people seems to treat it as something tangible, instinctively recognizable and respected by all, the same way I would respect the claws on a tiger.
    Fair enough. I will say that we do have some instinctive recognition for human rights in the form of our moral sense, because evolution has been chugging away at this same problem for millions of years. But it's lacking in detail, and easily overridden by other concerns.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Are really counting revolutions and insurrections that came from refusing to pay?
    Such as that one in 1776?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from VidarThor »
    Oh I am sorry, I did not know the american goverment consisted of one singular man during the nixon days, I missed that memo.
    Really? You're doubling down on this? If the American government had decided that it was legal for men working for the president to break into the premises of and surveil political opponents, then there would have been nothing wrong with what Nixon did?

    Quote from nightwyrm »
    Going about yelling that your optimal solution to an idealized math problem is being violated sounds a lot less catchy...
    That's how the sausage is made.

    Quote from nightwyrm »
    And I somewhat question the universal applicability of an optimal solution to a problem that assumes spherical, frictionless cows (sufficiently intelligent rational actors).
    Sufficiently intelligent rational actors aren't part of the problem or the solution. They're a philosophical fiction used to illustrate that the solution objectively exists. The solution for x2 - 2x + 1 = 0 is x = 1. Any sufficiently intelligent rational actor is going to come to that solution. But the take-home point is that, even if there are no sufficiently intelligent rational actors around, that's still the solution. If that problem comes up when you're trying to build a bridge or fly a plane or whatever, and you use a different value of x, you're not going to do very well. Reality -- nature -- is going to disagree with you. Hence "natural law".

    If you're skeptical about whether this concept applies to human society, fine. We can talk about that. But you're the one who first brought out the term "social contract", so it's important that you understand what that theory actually entails.
    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 »
    This is probably the most reasonable thing I have heard you say!!!
    Think on how it applies to you and your favored sources of what for lack of a better term I'll call "information".
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from VidarThor »
    Because the goverment defines what is teft. ^—^
    I wouldn't commit to that argument if I were you. Makes it impossible by definition for a government to abuse power. See: Louis XIV, Richard Nixon.

    Quote from nightwyrm »
    Libertarians love to talk about rights, especially property rights, as some sort of magical, naturally existing thing. Rights are nothing more than a societal contract. If I'm alone on a deserted island with a man with a gun, I have no "rights".
    Common misunderstanding of social contract theory. Give Hobbes and Locke another look -- especially Hobbes. Rights aren't just any old social contract; they are the optimizing contract. Think of human society as a math problem and rights as the solution. Now, whether or not you want to say that solutions to math problems "naturally exist" is a bit of a semantic question. Certainly they don't possess material existence in the same way you and I do. But whatever you call it, they do have some sort of real and objective status beyond the arbitrary. As with other truths about nature, they are something to be discovered, rather than invented: you can't just guess an answer and expect it to be correct. It is for this reason that Hobbes calls his system "natural law". It is the social contract that a sufficiently intelligent rational actor would agree to, not necessarily the social contract that we do agree to -- just as the solution to a math problem is the one that a sufficiently intelligent rational actor would find, not necessarily what you scribble down in your homework.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Debators of Debate: What are the top decks and formats you play?
    Not a debate. Moved to Magic General.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Kahedron »
    The Original European Pitcairn Islanders didn't really set out to have a colony beyond civilisation though. They had just committed mutiny and needed to find the deepest whole they could find so the British Navy wouldn't find them and hang them.

    If it was a planned colonisation one would hope that it was better planned and had a group of people with the skills needed to set up a new life instead of a bunch of desperate men and their unwilling captives.
    The difference between a civilization and, say, a business venture is that a civilization needs to encompass and to be able to handle all types of people.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Stairc »
    Ignoring the service side of the equation is talking past me. It's the same as demanding a health-based valence for "cutting" instead of a valence for an entire medical procedure...
    We want all the valences to do a complete analysis. Let me put it another way: if we just see the net valence and that it is positive, rather than seeing the valences of the individual elements and that there is a negative in there, we're less likely to ask, "Is this negative element necessary here? Is there maybe a way we can reduce or eliminate it?" Sometimes, as here, the negative element is necessary, but it's still better to be aware of it. It's like taking a budget and just looking at the bottom line rather than the itemized breakdown.

    Quote from Stairc »
    If you want to say "taxes always limit freedom on their own, but the revenue can be spent on services which result in net increase in personal freedom" I'm with you.
    It's a little more complicated than that, because, like I said, the net increases in personal freedom tend to happen to other people than the ones paying the tax, and also because many government services provide benefits which, while still indisputably positive things, would be a stretch to call "increases in personal freedom". Freedom is not the only good.

    Quote from Stairc »
    Good thing that wasn't what I was saying. If I was, it would invalidate my entire argument.
    You kind of were, though. You were saying that taxation wasn't a reduction in personal freedom.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Stairc »
    In short, it ignores the consequence of those taxes.
    It ought to. Because taxes do not necessarily have those consequences. The elements in the scenario are separable. It is very, very easy for a state to tax its citizens and then not provide the government services which would justify the tax. If you have a moral valence for "taxes + government services" but not a moral valence for "taxes" per se, your analysis is superficial and cannot address the separated scenario.

    Quote from Stairc »
    This is like saying, "surgery means you're being cut so it's a net negative in personal health, but sometimes is necessary for other reasons".
    Exactly. Generally we don't think cutting people is a good idea. If somebody proposes cutting people, they need to justify it. We don't undergo surgery lightly, and when we do undergo it we expect results.

    Quote from Stairc »
    It's misleading to say that taxes are a reduction in personal freedom without looking at what opportunities the tax expenditures protect or create.
    No, it's misleading to say that the health benefits of surgery mean the surgeon isn't cutting you. This is effectively what you're doing here. Surgery = taxation; cutting = reducing personal freedom; negative = negative; health benefits = government services; positive = positive.

    Quote from Stairc »
    Things look different if we define personal freedom closer to a core dictionary definition; the power to act, speak and think as one wants.
    I want to act by spending this money I have. Taxing the money removes that power from me. This isn't a definitional disagreement; any sensible definition of personal freedom is going to find taxation per se as a reduction in it. The problem, again, is that you're conflating taxation with the consequences of taxation.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Stairc »
    Gotta disagree there in at least some contexts. A lot of vital services wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be available to many people, if taxes weren't a thing. It's pretty easy to come up with scenarios in which a certain tax for a certain goal increases most peoples' ability to live life how they choose.

    To get around this, you have to do what a lot of libertarians do: narrow the definition of freedom until it means "no one who works for an official government organization can tell me what to do". In that definition, absolutely taxes limit personal freedom. So does a law banning murder, or a building code that reduces the chance of the building collapsing and killing everyone during an earthquake. When these issues are pointed out, libertarians tend to start brainstorming ways that groups of citizens could come together in order to economically punish dangerous businesses or imprison/execute murderers. Of course we'd need to ensure it's fair through some sort of clear process and codified rules, because otherwise no one would know if what they're doing is going to get them killed... And we'll need to figure out how to agree on which of these things will become 'laws'... But it's totally not a government. Wink
    You're attacking two strawmen here, one per paragraph. The one in the second paragraph is more obvious, and it's also not an effigy of me, so let's just take a look at the first.

    Of course taxes fund government services. But when you say this constitutes an increase in personal freedom because "most people" benefit from the services, that's more than a little misleading, because the "most people" who benefit are not necessarily the people who pay most of the tax. In fact, they generally aren't. If there is some service that will increase a person's personal freedom, then the government doesn't need to tax that person to pay for the service insofar as it benefits that person. If they have the money for it, they'll pay voluntarily. And if they don't have the money for it, then a tax isn't going to get money out of them that doesn't exist. So the purpose of a tax is to get more money out of some people who are able to afford it in order to provide the service to other people who are not. (In fact, in some cases, rich people pay a tax and then don't use the government-provided service at all. Private versus public education springs to mind.)

    And again, none of this is necessarily a bad thing. Taxation is absolutely justified as long as the money is put to good use. But it is a reduction in personal freedom. The people who are paying the tax are losing the freedom to spend their money how they choose. This is not a matter of overly narrowing the definition; it's a matter of being analytical. To analyze the whole complex scenario of "taxes fund public services", we break it down into atomic components and examine them. Looking at the "taxes" part in isolation, we see this freedom loss and view it as a negative. It would not be okay if the government taxed us and then just sat on the money doing nothing. And the "government services" part is a positive. It would be very good if the government could provide us with the services without taxing us. The taxation is only justified because it is necessary for the government services. The positive outweighs the negative for a net good.

    But this doesn't erase the negative or turn it into a positive. It's still a negative per se, and it's important to remember that. You may think I'm being pedantic here, but like I said earlier, this distinction I am making is the same distinction as "shooting people is a bad thing that is sometimes necessary to preserve certain good things" versus "shooting people is a good thing".
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Mockingbird »
    Second, the Hamilton Electors.
    Remember those talks of faithless electors? Well, now they've dubbed themselves the Hamilton Electors, have legal representation and a private platform to strategize thanks to Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and his friends, and a Texas Republican elector has joined the effort. Also, it looks like the Hamilton Electors have reached a candidate to cast a ballot for instead of Trump or Clinton: Governor John Kasich.
    So far at I can tell, right now it's eight Democratic electors and zero Republican electors.

    This isn't happening.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Trump Assassinating Political Enemies?
    Troll thread locked.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from VidarThor »
    If you do not like the subject matters they teach at my universaty what am I to do?
    Think critically. At your university you should not just learn to regurgitate what the professors tell you. You should learn to question what they tell you, to demand their conclusions be supported by concrete facts and evidence, to draw your own conclusions and support them with the same. You say the American Revolution was inspired by French political thought? You can't expect people to believe that based only on your say-so. You can't even expect people to believe that based on your professors' say-so. If you want people to believe that the American Revolution was inspired by French political thought, you're going to have to prove it. Don't just say there's a connection, show it. It's not even really about persuading other people. If you can't show this connection, how do you know it's there?

    Quote from VidarThor »
    I guess we should fire all the professors, and probably the parts of goverment in charge of theese things.
    If they're actually teaching you that events in 1788 occurred before events in 1776, then yes, they absolutely should. But I'm going to give these people the benefit of the doubt. They're not here to defend themselves, and even the craziest profs I know understand how chronology works. So I think it's more likely that the mistake is yours than theirs.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    I was actually hoping to learn something here...
    And I was actually trying to teach you something here. You asked what was up with libertarianism in America, and I answered. But you apparently didn't like those answers and decided to argue with them, as though redefining "freedom" were going to change the reality of American culture. And when you launched into a muddled condemnation of libertarianism and the Constitution which was misinformed on not just random historical facts, but the specific historical facts of which you had already been informed in this thread, I decided it was time for some tough love. If you want to know how libertarians think or what Americans think about libertarianism, ask and I'll be happy to answer. But if you want to say that the Constitution is "outdated", that is not a question but a thesis statement, and I'm going to challenge you to defend it with real, specific, and accurate argument that demonstrates an understanding of the subject.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from VidarThor »
    You don't think potensial cultural imperalism is a problem when the Disney movies come? We in Norway take these things quite seriusly, or rather the branch of the goverment in charge of this takes this quite seriusly. When Disney channel launched in Norway NRK made a new channel, NRK 3. This channel is focused on children / youths. They do this to give children a fictional entertainment that more realisticly represent the culture they are growing up in. Instead of representing very american values, and also disneys lack of feminism. Or at least used to, Frozen was a step in the right direction (set in a fictional Norway mind you.)

    Witout having american (or british or japansese) prodused culture saturate the market we are free to produse our own cultural products and distribute among other countries.
    Seriously? We've got a wide-ranging discussion on economics, the military, and the US Constitution, and it's the House of Mouse you decide to focus on? That's really not a great move for you, partially because I probably know more about the Disney animated canon than I do about political history and philosophy, but mostly because it's the single most trivial subject on the table. So while I could mount a spirited feminist/multiculturalist defense of Disney films going back to Snow White, or rib you for your parochialism in happening to like the one movie that's maybe-kind-of-sort-of set in your country... I think we're done here.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from VidarThor »
    Elite colaberation between countries: Example of elite colaberating: A tech company constructing internett infrastructure, working with a small group in the targetingc ountry. Setting up infrastructure for telecomminication/internett. Now the tech company is massivly profiting on the lack of infra structure in the new market. This crippels the new market meaning they get a monopoly.

    We can also see this when Disney pump out content targeted at children / youth. The cost of translating it for a new country is massivly cheaper then produsing new content in the targeted country. This corners the market as the potensial local market gets tapped. Over time all local resistance gets quelced, and a cultural imperialismen will sett in. There are examples of counter culture, but it happens rarly. It needs some form of govermental regulation or the country gets screwed over time. In Norway we activly counter this. The liberterian model would not protect it's own infrastructure or colture.
    Yes, by all means you need to protect your country from the threat of... Disney animated movies. Rolleyes

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Impede technological progress: While there are few examples of countries holding back technolagy, we have seen examples of what happens when new technology enters the playing field. The word sabotour for instance comes from the french sabo (meaning wooden shoe) and refers to the weavers throwing the shoes into the new weaving machines that outsorced them.
    It's "sabot", actually. And I'd bet dollars to donuts the clothes you're wearing right now are machine woven. The French government didn't protect the hand-weaving industry, because that would have been stupid, because machine weaving massively increased the supply of textiles, making much more of them available to many more people for much lower prices. The saboteurs were attempting to save their jobs at the expense of their entire country's economic prosperity.

    None of these address my point. Yes, technology is doing jobs that were once performed by humans. That doesn't mean the state or anyone else should try to protect those jobs.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Free press: In Norway the state actualy subsidize newspapers and other journalistic things. They even have their own TV network called NRK, and they have also branched out for news on radio and online. Without this I think it will be hard to have 'objective news'. While we can discuss what objective means, it sure does not mean news outlets like what we see in North Korea and Russia.
    Both North Korean and Russian news outlets are state funded. When we speak about a "free press", it is freedom from the government that we are talking about first and foremost. I'm sure NRK is a fine news source, like the BBC in Britain or NPR and public television in the United States. But these sources are good despite state funding, not because of it.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Maybe it is all free marked in USA...
    It isn't. Again: do your homework.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    ...but in Norway we ensure that we have free press. Payed for by the goverment.
    This is straight-up oxymoronic.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Private hospitals: I think the idea of private hospitals is very bad. Free healthcare for everyone is a much better system to make sure your giverment works out fine. Under full liberterianismn I can garantee you that not everyone would be able to cover their bills. It would be much closer to the senarioes pressented in the literary realism where poor people die because of they where poor, and that is the way it should be.

    Private orphanages: You are right that private orphanages predate state-run orphanages. But can you come up with a good buissniss model for a private orphanage under liberterianism? It sounds like a bad way to get ahead in sociaty.
    "Private hospitals and orphanages are bad" is a completely different argument than "private hospitals and orphanages are impossible". You had claimed the latter, and that's what I was refuting.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Timeline American / French revolaution: You do know that the french had more then one revolution right? They are the country with most revolutions in the least amount of time for a long period.
    Yes. All of which occurred after the American Revolution broke out in 1776. I honestly can't believe you're pushing back on this. All the dates are right there in the history books in black and white.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    And while the American Revolution help pioner liberterian ideas these ideas came out of the thoughts being developed in france.
    It did not help pioneer libertarian ideas, because libertarian ideas would not exist for over a hundred years. And the ideas it did pioneer were coming out of Britain much more than France. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were Englishmen; David Hume was a Scot. Rousseau is the most famous French-language political philosopher of the period, but he was seldom cited by the American Founders (and he was Swiss anyway).

    Quote from VidarThor »
    And then french again benefits from the good ideas generated in amerika. Norway also build on these ideas when we where founded. It seems like you have a poor understanding on how pholosofical ideas can be trased throughout history Blinking Spirit.
    Rolleyes

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Founding farthers: People like Lin-Manuel Miranda, in fact a lot of americans, are idolising the founding farthers to much.
    You said they wouldn't care. They do. Now you're saying they shouldn't care. That's a different argument.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    If the founding farthers where alive today they would get a heart attack at the sight of a smartphone, let alone an airplane.
    What exactly in the Constitution is incompatible with a smart phone or an airplane?

    Quote from VidarThor »
    In fact during the drafting of the American constetution they where running out of time, and it would apear there would be solution. They came upon the idea of having very vague language in it, meaning each representative could read into it whatever they wanted.
    You may not be aware that we have transcripts of the Constitutional Convention, so we can tell exactly what they were thinking and discussing when they wrote the thing. You may also not be aware that I have read these transcripts from beginning to end. So when I tell you that what you're saying here simply isn't true, it is with some authority. If you like, you can look through Madison's notes for yourself (they're right here) and show me where they talk about how it would be a good idea to use vague language in order to allow for multiple interpretations. But, spoiler alert: you won't find it.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    While it worked at the time, the vagua language has been haunting America ever since. Many Americans are so stuck in the past you can not get any movement. Discussions about guns for instance is one of these discussion. Your country shoul '***** or get of the pot'. But instead you have the same argument again and again. Your constetution should unite your country, not split it.
    While I do appreciate you finally at least referencing a specific section of the Constitution, I honestly don't understand what you're proposing here. What would our country "*****ting" entail, versus "getting off the pot", and how would this unite the country? You do realize, right, that the reason there isn't a lot of movement on the gun issue is that most Americans are happy where we're at, and Euro-style gun control is a losing issue for liberal Democrats? Here's Obama doing some recreational shooting to boost his Second Amendment cred.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Using it as a basis for being liberterian is a bad idea.
    I agree.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    NATO: America is so conserned about keeping their fotholds both culturaly and economically of course you are paying for NATO. It is through NATO you can invade, sorry 'liberate', all these countries. Just last month you wanted USA troops stationed, sorry 'rotated', in Norway. You are welcome, by the way.
    Riiight. Your eastern neighbor is getting all annexy, and you're doing us a favor. It's not like the Norwegian Defense Ministry asked for the troop rotation or anything...

    "In 2014, that was a clear sign that Russia has stepped in to an area where they are willing and able to use military power," says Brigadier Eldar Bernil, of the Norwegian Army. "Suddenly we have changed focus in particular from what was going on in Afghanistan to collective national defense." (Source)
    Posted in: Debate
  • 3

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    I dont want to pay for this overwhelming superiority you speak off... If you want to pay for that then by all means go ahead.
    If you don't want to pay for it then by all means move. If you don't move then you're stealing the service provided by the military without paying for it. And no, you don't get to claim you didn't consent to the service. The United States and its military were here long before you were. If you buy property in America you do so knowing full well what American residency entails.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    I don't see how a policy of complete neutrality and universal free trade would anger any country thus reducing the risk of conflict.
    And that's kind of the problem. Even before we go into the specific ways this policy might anger other countries, you're resting the security of your country on the assumption that it definitely won't, that everything will always go right. Your planning is based on a best-case scenario, not a worst-case scenario. You're making an investment while ignoring the risk. You're engaging in wishful thinking.

    Now, as for those specific ways other countries might find reason to wage war against you, the first and most obvious is that if everything does go right for you and you get rich off of trade, then you're rich. Attacking rich lands and taking their wealth is one of the oldest reasons for warfare there is. Your invader might just want to plunder you and leave, they might make you a tributary, or they might try to conquer you so they can control and tax this wonderful trade hub directly. That's one reason. Reason two is that your invader is another trading power and wants to shut down your trade, rendering theirs more valuable. States can engage in monopolistic practices just as easily as companies can. Reason three is that in your neutrality you're trading with both sides in a war, and one side decides that your trade is benefiting the other side too much to be allowed to continue unabated. Reason four is that your land is strategically valuable. Reason five is that you're just plain the wrong religion. Reason six... reason seven... I can go on and on. Human beings don't exactly need a lot of excuse to go to war.

    And before you dismiss these scenarios as not likely, remember that, between the two of us, I'm the one drawing his arguments from the historical record, and you're the one repeatedly face-planting into that same record. Not only can I provide examples of all these things actually happening, I can provide examples of all these things actually happening without leaving the freaking Netherlands.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will.
    Washing your hands of moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions is not a good way to convince us that libertarianism is the morally superior system.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Who is the best God to follow?
    Quote from Xeruh »
    Well, this is kind of why polytheism is fun, no need to choose. Having to pick one individual one to rule everything just seems kind of like a bad idea anyways, the world is too diverse for one "ruler" in that sense.
    It's a god. You can just define it as being capable of handling that much diversity.
    Posted in: Religion
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Look, if some one ruins their life with lottery or gambling, then it's not my problem and it shouldn't be anyone's problem except that individual's.
    It's your problem if you're directly profiting from their ruin.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    That isn't my point, my point is that we can probably fund a small government whose only role is national defense and courts with gambling as the government can outcompete the private gambling businesses for obvious reasons and monopolize the industry.
    So the government is more efficient than a private industry now?

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    And look, America spends way too much on its military it spends more than the rest of the world combined. We could cut the annual military budget by 75% and still spend more on the military per year than the second highest spender(China). The US could go without spending money on its military for many years and still be the strongest military power in the world.
    The military is not an area in which you want to spend just a bit more than potential rivals. If the best boxer in the world is only a bit stronger than the second-best boxer in the world, then the second-best boxer in the world wants to challenge him for the title. And even if the best boxer in the world wins that fight, he still leaves the ring bloodied. If he doesn't want to have to fight, he needs to invest in overwhelming superiority.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Edit: Also this minarchy I am proposing would be very neutral and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and would try to pursue a policy of universal free trade.
    "Isolationist" and "universal free trade" are oxymoronic. Either you've got foreign entanglements through free trade agreements, or you don't.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    When you aren't upsetting anyone, there is no point in spending ridiculous amounts on the military.
    If you think trading doesn't upset anyone... argh. England. The Netherlands. Venice. Byzantium. History. Read it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on The Repeal of the ACA
    Quote from Frostdragon4 »
    Write your congressmen.
    Only yours, though. Congressional offices toss non-constituent mail unless you're like Angelina Jolie or somebody. Sometimes even then.

    Quote from Frostdragon4 »
    Voting isn't the biggest thing, it's continual communication and pressure on the largest issues. These people do read their mail and do respond. Pick out the specifics, and use those specifics to your advantage. Not just "angry letter, I want this" rather think through and connect to a narrative and some of the aspects of these people.
    Eh. "Angry letter, I want this" has much the same effect. They definitely pay attention to constituent letters, but obviously they don't read all of them themselves. Staffers read them and enter the take-home point into a database so they can hand their member a summary saying "X people contacted us in favor of this bill and Y people contacted us against it".

    If you have more nuanced policy ideas, the best way to float them is to find out who your member's legislative assistant is for the relevant issue and address your letter to that person rather than to the member.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Oookay. Reality check for the other side now.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    In universaty (300 democratic culture) we learned that usualy the elite in one country will try to work together with the elite in another country to benefit the two smaller groups, usualy at the cost of the once not in the elite. This often would be private firms running infrastructure. If they can corner a monopoly you have no way to get past paying high prices.
    Can you give a historical example of this happening?

    Quote from VidarThor »
    With no goverment you will have no way to protect yourself from cheap competetive labour from the outside. Every itemn will be imported leaving many jobs absolete.
    It's called comparative advantage. If someone overseas can do my job more efficiently than I can, that frees me up to to another job. More work gets done overall, the economy grows, and everyone benefits. With or without a government, this is a good thing. Failing to recognize that fact is why protectionist policies can hamstring economies. You will note that the biggest protectionist voice in the world right now is that of notorious ignoramus Donald J. Trump.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Also a lot of tech companies are working on robots who can replace most menial tasks all the way from taxi, uber self driving card, up to doctor diagnostocian, watson who can diagnose cancer better then humans. Cilicon valey are also learning robots to copy regular body movement meaning all labour like making food, cleaning, doing services can all be gone as jobs in 10 to 100 years. This is a problem even with a state, and a big one without it.
    Wait, are you saying that you think an advantage of a state is that it can impede technological progress? (a) No, it can't; and (b) why would we want it to?

    Quote from VidarThor »
    With no free press (that needs finacial backing) it is hard to get information that is true. False news, or newss badly reported would be everywhere. The elites in the country would start regulating the news, shaping the public narative like in dictatorships run countries.
    Do you think the state runs the free press? Do you not know how the free press works?

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Also with no state none will care for the sick.
    This is just flatly untrue. Private hospitals are a thing and historically have been for far longer than state-run hospitals.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    And there is no money in privatising orpheneges.
    Actually, again, private orphanages predate state-run orphanages. They were horrible, but if your argument is that they didn't exist, you're still wrong.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    We in Norway based our constetution on the French ideas (same as you) and also on the American constetution. But we have kept updating it as time goes by. Americans seem so star struck by their cinstetution. I will grant you the founding fathers where ahead of their time, but they are getting more and more dates as time goes by.
    See, now it seems like you're just not paying attention, because you're directly contradicting two basic historical facts that have already been pointed out in this thread:

    (1) The American Revolution predates the French Revolution by over a decade.

    (2) The American Revolution predates the libertarian movement by over a century.

    You're also ignoring the fact, not yet stated on this thread but nevertheless well known and easily verified, that the U.S. Constitution is updated with some regularity.

    And of course, you provide precisely zero concrete examples of ways in which the Constitution is outdated. It's four pages of plain English. If you know what you're talking about, it shouldn't be hard for you to quote a few choice passages which you think illustrate your point.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    If the founding fathers where alive today, nobody would care what they thought in todays political climate.
    That's pretty manifestly not true. Just ask Lin-Manuel Miranda.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    This is where you counter with a snappy one liner to feel superior in the debate. Something like 'Freedom is not free'. This is true. That is why all of the social democratic scandinavian countries are paying as much taxed as we can. Because freedom is not free.
    "Freedom isn't free" is a reference to the necessity of a military to protect the country and its institutions from hostile forces. As a NATO member, Norway's freedom is overwhelmingly subsidized by American defense spending. Even as a percentage of GDP, Norway (like twenty-two other NATO states out of twenty-eight) is spending less than its treaty obligation requires. In short: you're not paying for your freedom; I'm paying for your freedom. You're welcome, by the way.

    So come on, man. If you're going to do snappy, first do your homework.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Who is the best God to follow?
    If God does not know the capital of Australia, then there is something he cannot do: answer the question "What is the capital of Australia?" Ergo, he is not omnipotent.
    Posted in: Religion
  • 0

    posted a message on Who is the best God to follow?
    Quote from Verbal »
    Omnipotent just means you have the ability/power to do anything.
    And knowing a fact is a thing I can do.
    Posted in: Religion
  • 0

    posted a message on Who is the best God to follow?
    Quote from Verbal »
    But BS is correct - the various constructions of (typically) the christian god who are actual perfect and loving would be great. Just remove the 'pretending not to exist' fetish and we're golden.
    Nothing in the definition says the Philosophers' God incarnated in Roman Judea or died on a cross. He/she/it could have done so, but only if it would have been the most maximally good thing to do. Which seems unlikely.

    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Also, the idea of a God that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent but knows nothing seems like it would have potential for some amusing results.
    Unfortunately for our amusement, omnipotence implies omniscience.
    Posted in: Religion
  • 2

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Edit: an idea I recently came up with is that if we could get the government so small that its only purposes would be to provide a court system and national defense, couldn't it be funded voluntarily by the government starting a sort of lottery/online gambling business? I know I would buy lottery tickets if it meant supporting my military...
    Yet again, we need only look to history to see how your idea fares in the real world. There have been numerous attempts at a minimalist, voluntarily funded government. Two with which I am most familiar are the original Icelandic Althing and the United States federal government under the Articles of Confederation. But to avoid turning this into a lecture, let's skip to the end: they don't work too well. It turns out that when people can choose whether to pay or not pay for a service, most of them choose not to pay, at least not in the amounts necessary to fund an effective court system and national defense. This isn't exactly a matter of leaving your waiter an extra $20 in the tip because you're feeling generous, here.

    As for your idea of a lottery, two problems. The first is just a revisitation of the problem from last paragraph: it can offset the cost of some small government programs, but you're not going to make enough selling lottery tickets to pay for stuff like $4.5 billion aircraft carriers. The second is that a lottery is an exploitation of public ignorance and addictive behavior. It's almost like you're saying, "Taxes are bad, so let's get everybody hooked on cocaine instead." And where are public ignorance and addictive behavior most acute? That's right, in the lower socioeconomic classes. Not only do these people not have as much money to give you for their fix (getting back to problem one), but what they do give is going to be a larger proportion of their income and therefore do more damage to their lives and prospects.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.