|
Never.More posted:Name calling is not constructive. I called you naive. That's not a name. quote:Tell you what, how about you jump into a thread that is dominated by right leaning people and see how many people agree with you? I often do. And when I do so, I go in with facts and figures, and papers and peer reviewed articles. I don't go in with Wikipedia and try to condense complicated issues down to meaninglessness. quote:The point of this was to point out that there are opposing views to the ones held. We got that. What everyone else has been pointing out is that opposing viewpoints can be wrong.  quote:That a refusal to even listen to opposing view points is counter productive. Let me break down this whole discussion for you: Never.More: *posts bullshit* Dozens of posters: *read said bullshit, point out why it's wrong* Never.More: "Why are you guys ignoring my opposing point of view? Aren't all points of view equal? Don't judge me!" quote:As for "dumbing it down"; I listed the national debt, I listed the percentage of the national debt as related to GDP, and finally I listed the number that each of owes if we were to each pay an equal percentage. The last number is important because it gives people something they can relate to. That is hardly a worthless number is often utilized to describe a countries debt situation. Used by whom? People who want to dishonestly equate household debt with national debt? Yes. That's not exactly the highest standard of informed discourse to reach. Here's a hint: those people make that comparison for dumb people. They are "dumbing it down" quote:As far as a wrong view, you do realize that economists cant even agree on this subject right? People who are paid lots of money and spend all their time studying it. Like I said, google it. You will find directly contradictory claims. So you have a couple of choices at that point. You either pick the economist who agrees with your point, say he is right and the others are wrong. Throw your hands up and say I dont know. Or take a step back and try to apply some basic reasoning to a situation to figure out what you believe. I decided on the third option. On to the other posts. See: Climate Change, Creationism, etc. If people who get paid lot of money and spend all of their time studying it can't figure it out (according to you), what makes you think coming at it from basic reasoning and ignorance will lead you to the truth of the matter? What hubris.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
Hey, Nevermore. Since you picked this thread to courageously air your extremely unpopular views and you're not a total rear end in a top hat, why don't you talk about your media and (contemporary) intellectual influences or something. Like, who and what made you a conservative? That's way more in the spirit of the thread than doing the Supply-side Actually Good! / No, Supply-side Bad! endless back and forth. You have come to believe that the public debt is the paramount issue of the day through no fault of your own, and you sound like you could easily be convinced otherwise if you hang out here a while, so I'd prefer that you do that instead of hijacking our beloved rightwingwatch catch-all thread until you get bitter and leave or get pissed off and banned. I think you will find that the rare conservative is treated rather well at d&d even if some posters have no patience for addressing talking points over and over. You might even make an Ask a Conservative thread. This thread is more for those who believe that all your sincerely-held convictions are lies fostered by for-profit private-sector propagandists, and for us to track the goings-on of those people (who we all roundly despise). Since you're not a right-wing radio host and you don't work for the Family Research Council, you're just a guy who is probably nice enough, your personal political beliefs are not that important one way or another and you're wasting your time and ours trying to justify them here. People have posted good links, here's another one that covers what the baseline d&d poster believes and why. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:That's way more in the spirit of the thread than doing the Supply-side Actually Good! / No, Supply-side Bad! endless back and forth. You have come to believe that the public debt is the paramount issue of the day through no fault of your own, and you sound like you could easily be convinced otherwise if you hang out here a while, so I'd prefer that you do that instead of hijacking our beloved rightwingwatch catch-all thread until you get bitter and leave or get pissed off and banned. I think you will find that the rare conservative is treated rather well at d&d even if some posters have no patience for addressing talking points over and over. I'm not entirely sure if you are being sarcastic or not but back in my teens I was a libertarian myself, and now I am a Marx reading socialist so change is possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
Never.More posted:
Science is not based on faith. If you believe this, then you do not understand science. I'm not sure you can come to an understanding of anything discussed in this thread if you believe that religion and science can both be reduced to faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
You just think that because of your blind faith in the process of repeated testing and demonstrable results.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Science is not based on faith. If you believe this, then you do not understand science. I'm not sure you can come to an understanding of anything discussed in this thread if you believe that religion and science can both be reduced to faith. I cordially disagree with this statement. I think, in early moments of scientific thought, there is a lot of faith involved. Your hypothesis is how you expect the results to be much like faith is how a religious person expects the results to be. After this moment though, almost all connections between faith and science go away. Science begins testing out the hypothesis and if it is wrong, you easily change your hypothesis. Faith does not have the experimentation set up and any deviation from faith is met with resistance. But for those early moments, I personally see some connection between science and faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:Hey, Nevermore. Since you picked this thread to courageously air your extremely unpopular views and you're not a total rear end in a top hat, why don't you talk about your media and (contemporary) intellectual influences or something. Like, who and what made you a conservative? You know why he won't do that? Because he wants to believe that he arrived at his special, wonderful, oh-so-rational perspective on his own, by looking at "both sides." Your question might as well be in an alien language. Idiot talk show hosts and Fox News commentators wrote his mind and there's no way for him to know it or admit it. It's (kind of) fun to see an example of a person whose mind has been irrevocably ruined and wasted by right wing media, but there's very little to explore there so it is getting old. Hopefully the novelty will wear off for the more avid responders soon enough. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:I cordially disagree with this statement. I think, in early moments of scientific thought, there is a lot of faith involved. Your hypothesis is how you expect the results to be much like faith is how a religious person expects the results to be. A hypothesis is literally a best guess. You don't go into an experiment with the idea your hypothesis is right until proven wrong. It's the exact opposite: If you have a hypothesis you test to see if it is right or not. And the hypothesis doesn't come from out of nowhere in the first place, it usually comes from existing research and testing the next logical step to either further cement that research or to find it altered in some way. Newton didn't say "I bet poo poo accelerates towards other poo poo based on mass", he observed a whole bunch of poo poo moving and said "now what's a formula that can explain all this poo poo, consistent with all this poo poo I observed?" Thus inventing the Franklin stove. greatn fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Contrary to US/Western history books, Reagan and Thatcher literally had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR as it was 99.9% the result of Gorbachev, the Polish Trade Union and the support that it got from JPII. We're not going to give Reagan any credit for his short-sighted "cheap oil" policies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
Has anyone explained yet that there is a difference between hearing both sides and giving both sides equal weight? Its fine to hear both sides but, to give both sides equal weight when one side is clearly wrong and shown to be so by scientific data while the other side is backed up by data is total crap. The best example of this is treating creationism and evolution as equal subjects when we have mountains of data showing that creationism is false and evolution is true. It'd be okay to mention both subjects but not to give more weight to creationism. I'm fairly certain the only reason creationism survives is because the right wing wants the money from the religious fundamentalist groups.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:We're not going to give Reagan any credit for his short-sighted "cheap oil" policies? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Nope. Especially since Reagan's purpose for those cheep oil policies was to stick it to OPEC after the oil embargo of the late 70's. He went down that route instead of being an adult about it like the rest of the world where they drastically reduced their demand for oil and in the process squandered untold billions worth of natural resources that we're having to pay for now with record oil prices combined with our still massive dependence on oil because of that cheep oil policy. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:I cordially disagree with this statement. I think, in early moments of scientific thought, there is a lot of faith involved. Your hypothesis is how you expect the results to be much like faith is how a religious person expects the results to be. There is a difference between expectation and faith. Expectation results from experiencing something previously and anticipating the same to reoccur. You generally base this on cause and affect and previous experiences. Faith has no such restriction because it doesn't require the specific event to have actually happened. The faithful simply need to be told that it did or will. Where as a scientist might expect sound to be incapable of traversing a vacuum; if it ever did, they would then experiment against it to make sure that is correct. If it was mistake, their previous experience stands. If not, it is replaced. Faith assumes it will never cross a vacuum and sees no reason to try.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
There's a difference between faith as a general concept like "I have faith that empiricism is a valid epistemological framework to view the world through, due to experience" and "I have faith that these myths are true, in spite all evidence to the contrary".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Jonathan Cohn wrecking Avik Roy's disingenuous NOBONGOMERCARE argument. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
HBNRW posted:There is a difference between expectation and faith. Expectation results from experiencing something previously and anticipating the same to reoccur. You generally base this on cause and affect and previous experiences. Faith has no such restriction because it doesn't require the specific event to have actually happened. The faithful simply need to be told that it did or will. But you ultimately have faith that you can trust your observations and, for things that are too difficult for you to observe yourself, you trust the other people who claim to have verified it. It's a completely valid epistemological position to say that having certainty is impossible, and to the condescending douche who said a person that believed such a thing "wouldn't be able to get much out of this thread" -- go get hosed. Edit: this prick Doctor Butts posted:Science is not based on faith. If you believe this, then you do not understand science. I'm not sure you can come to an understanding of anything discussed in this thread if you believe that religion and science can both be reduced to faith. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Doctor butts is right and you're also kind of dumb. Edit: that's not fair. I mean to say your premise is dumb
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:PTU, JPII, and Gorbachev stuff. In addition to this it's important to also consider that in many ways the Soviet economy was in a slow decline for quite a while. There were a lot of missteps back in the 60's and 70's that had long-term consequences on the economic stability of the country, especially in regards to agriculture (Thanks to Lysenko). I remember that for a while many people tried to claim that Star Wars was one of the things that caused the Soviet Union to go bankrupt, but I recall hearing that Russian Scientists told Gorbachev that it was basically impossible, or at least what was being claimed at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:But you ultimately have faith that you can trust your observations and, for things that are too difficult for you to observe yourself, you trust the other people who claim to have verified it. No. I don't need faith that gravity exists; I can throw things and watch them arc back towards the ground. Even if they're not explained completely, there is enough information present that allows anyone to test against it. Unless your brain is wired incorrectly, what you experience should be what I experience should be what the next person experiences if the same conditions are met. I don't need faith that what I see is the same as you. You can actively tell me, and then we can find a 3rd to confirm or deny. This is expectation. I expect the GOP will continue to fail due to demographic shifts. I base this one previous results that show a trend. If it doesn't, there will be a cause that will be identifiable. I have faith that if the rapture did happen, there would be a lot of confused GOP on the ground. I have no evidence to back this up outside of what is written in a book that cannot be properly verified. If it doesn't, I have faith that the reason will be incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:In addition to this it's important to also consider that in many ways the Soviet economy was in a slow decline for quite a while. There were a lot of missteps back in the 60's and 70's that had long-term consequences on the economic stability of the country, especially in regards to agriculture (Thanks to Lysenko).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:In addition to this it's important to also consider that in many ways the Soviet economy was in a slow decline for quite a while. There were a lot of missteps back in the 60's and 70's that had long-term consequences on the economic stability of the country, especially in regards to agriculture (Thanks to Lysenko). I touched on that a bit in that post by mentioning that in the mid 70's Brezhnev's economic planning started to tank the USSR's economy and that it wasn't until at least 10 years later when Gorbachev came to power that anyone did anything to try and fix it, but you're absolutely right that the USSR's economy was going to poo poo well before Reagan ever took office... which means he shouldn't get the credit for tanking the soviet economy at all like right wing historians (and most US history text books) are inclined to give him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I wasn't trying to correct anything you said but rather supplement it. I mean, hell, it's crazy to think about but the USSR/Russia hasn't even been a "modern" country for a century. They were still a pretty agrarian society before 1917 and didn't even see their equivalent of an industrial revolution until Stalin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:I touched on that a bit in that post by mentioning that in the mid 70's Brezhnev's economic planning started to tank the USSR's economy and that it wasn't until at least 10 years later when Gorbachev came to power that anyone did anything to try and fix it, but you're absolutely right that the USSR's economy was going to poo poo well before Reagan ever took office... which means he shouldn't get the credit for tanking the soviet economy at all like right wing historians (and most US history text books) are inclined to give him. Yes, but what about that History Channel link? Don't you think an entity with capital H History in its name might know a little more about history than you? After all experts disagree and a lot of people watch the History Channel therefore it must have merit 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:Yes, but what about that History Channel link? Don't you think an entity with capital H History in its name might know a little more about history than you? After all experts disagree and a lot of people watch the History Channel therefore it must have merit You mean the one where I highlighted the parts of that link where it completely backs up what I posted about the history surrounding the breakup of the cold war?  http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3512233&userid=132081&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post416081645 But yeah, in general the history channel is utter poo poo and has been for at least the last 10 years. Which sucks because I'm a huge history dork and loved programs like Connections. Seriously, even for being 40 years old these are amazing and everyone should watch them. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:I remember when Superman Returns came out. Fox News threw a fit (at least on the radio) because a character asked if Superman still stood for "peace, justice and all that other stuff" and the movie took away the "America Way" part of the tag line. Beaten like a motherfucker on Superman, but drat, you're right. I'd forgotten about that. I think they had a mini poo poo fit way back with something to do with Captain America and I know they ran stories about Miles Morales becoming Spiderman and how bad that was. I'll bet even money there's a story on FOX or a monologue by Rush or Hannity decrying the "S" as now standing for hope. poo poo, if I know right wingers, they'll paint it as a thinly disguised homage to "illegal aliens" and how awesome they are, if you catch my drift. edit: Redacted. I was being a dick. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
What has that history channel show where the weird bald guy taught people to fight with Dark Ages weaponry. I liked that show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
If that's the show I remember then I liked it. He did a lot to show how a lot of what people believe is true about that stuff was purely due to movies. Knights weren't slow and cumbersome, weapons aren't heavy, and swordfights only last a few seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:A good specific example of racism in Fox News' coverage is the endless screen time given to the two New Black Panther Party guys (who were actually registered poll workers if I recall) being in front of the one polling station in Philadelphia. Also, their Trayvon coverage, birther coverage, Boston bomber coverage and Beyonce lip-sync coverage immediately spring to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Beyonce lip-sync coverage immediately spring to mind. I am amazed this was even a thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I am amazed this was even a thing Really? She is black and supports Obama. See also, Chopped and Screwed and how quickly Rush jumped on Beyonce supposedly making GBS threads on single ladies because she is married to a rich man to provide for her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Also, their Trayvon coverage, birther coverage, Boston bomber coverage and Beyonce lip-sync coverage immediately spring to mind. Is the lip-synching coverage the same incident as the Super Bowl performance photos? Because that was a thing for a minute as well. We even had a Photoshop Phriday about it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3532759
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
I'm not really sure if this belongs here, but I guess the Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corporation these days. New York City's bike-sharing program as evidence of autocracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Hasn't the WSJ always been rather right-leaning?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Hasn't the WSJ always been rather right-leaning? Yeah, the shift hasn't so much been in political ideology as basic intelligence
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Hasn't the WSJ always been rather right-leaning? The WSJ itself was mostly center-right business reporting with a slightly further right opinion page. Now it's a right-wing business journal with an editorial page run by dim-witted right-wing lunatics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:I'm not really sure if this belongs here, but I guess the Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corporation these days. Jesus Christ, that woman should be locked up for her own safety. "The bike lobby is an all powerful enterprise." Holy gently caress delusion is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Jesus Christ, that woman should be locked up for her own safety. "The bike lobby is an all powerful enterprise." Holy gently caress delusion is amazing. Thanks for gutting the mental hospitals, Reagan! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Eulogistics posted:Is the lip-synching coverage the same incident as the Super Bowl performance photos? Because that was a thing for a minute as well. We even had a Photoshop Phriday about it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3532759 No, it was two separate things. Beyonce sang at the White House or something, if I'm not mistaken, and lip-synced a song. I think it was two separate things, anyway. Either way, it;s dumb thing that no one should care about and a perfect example of race based coverage by FOX, which some poster here asked us to supply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:No, it was two separate things. Beyonce sang at the White House or something, if I'm not mistaken, and lip-synced a song.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
Oh and I almost forgot about the "terrorist fist bump/jab". The clip is even complete with the FNC bimbo showing her legs for the boys, never noticed that little detail earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 21:50
|
|
