Swan Oat posted:I don't know poo poo about cars; why would anyone be mad about catalytic converters? Please use small words if possible. Catalytic converters were originally mandated in 1975. The early ones were very restrictive and the car companies hadn't figured out the proper way to tune the engines to work with them yet. Replacing the catalytic converter with a straight exhaust pipe increased the horsepower and made the car run better. This has all been worked out since then and there is no point to removing them now. It's a complaint that is 39 years old.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Swan Oat posted:I don't know poo poo about cars; why would anyone be mad about catalytic converters? Please use small words if possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Catalytic converters, and emission controls in general, were associated with a precipitous drop in horsepower between the peak of the 1960s-70s muscle car era and the late 70s, dropping the most powerful models from around 400 horsepower to under 200. I believe there were also some changes in how power was calculated and measured involved, but the decrease was real. You can bet cat haters have strong opinions about American Iron and how they just don't build 'em like they used to. Catalytic converters were a direct assault on one of their most treasured elements of American culture. It doesn't matter that all the problems emissions controls entailed were more or less overcome by the mid 90s. Removing smog controls had 20 years of being THE way to make your car more powerful (and therefore more American), and people in love with a romanticized past aren't likely to be brought into the present by anything as feeble as the facts, or realistic priorities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:The first time you do Heroin, it's a choice. It's like choosing door A vs door B. Nothing wrong with being critical of that choice. Mister Bates posted:There's a lot of the same poo poo going around about incandescent light bulbs. Fluorescent bulbs are actually cheaper in the long run, have to be replaced less often, and are basically better than incandescent bulbs in every way for household use. You still have people completely freaking out over the phasing-out of incandescents because it's an 'assault on our freedom'. They do everything they can to stick with incandescent bulbs, costing themselves more money for an inferior product at no real gain to themselves, solely because they want to be contrarian. That's mostly immaterial though, because there is a wide range of different light technologies that you can choose from for any given use. LED, HPS, mercury arc, halogen, xenon, etc. The only time you'd want standard incandescent for something is if you needed more heat than light, there's no lighting purpose that they're the best at any more. (Or if you have lovely old triac dimmers that tend to mess with CFLs and LEDs, but you can still use halogens with those) I think the main difference between this change and any other lighting change in history is the use of government though. Candles weren't popularized by banning rushlights, kerosene lamps weren't adopted by banning open oil lamps, people didn't switch from gaslight to incandescent bulbs because the government told them to (although you have to use bottled gas now). A better technology came along and so people moved across to it. The involvement of government to speed up this process this time causes a gut reaction in many people that "if they were really better we wouldn't be forced to adopt them, must be communism!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Catalytic converters, and emission controls in general, were associated with a precipitous drop in horsepower between the peak of the 1960s-70s muscle car era and the late 70s, dropping the most powerful models from around 400 horsepower to under 200. I believe there were also some changes in how power was calculated and measured involved, but the decrease was real. Oh don't be hard on them, maybe those people are mentally incompetent due to lead. They're all tetraethyl lead babies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
duffmensch posted:It's more fun to include some of the things being said. My favorites being the comments about it being in Hawaiian and the "I'm all for diversity, but!" line. I refuse to believe that anyone is seriously complaining that Hawaiian lyrics are un-American.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
I like to believe most people who hated that commerical believed the whole thing was in Spanish except for the English parts, and have no idea it was in ten+ languages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The 'not even once' myth is exactly that. Heroin is not especially different from morphine, oxycodone, or other opioids. It's even used the same way in some places (not in the US, because the DEA ruled it as Schedule I with no legitimate medical use at all, as they did with marijuana), for example in the UK heroin is demonstrated as especially useful for pain relief of fractures in children due to the faster onset and reduced dose requirements. Some people are liable to addiction, and most all opioids can produce a physiological dependence if used for long enough, but the idea of immediate drug induced addiction is highly debatable. I have a scientific chart that says otherwise.   Refute that with your fancy Canadian psychology studies. Assuming you aren't a misshapen red beast from using drugs once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
A friend from high school started posting political things to facebook, looks like I've found a steady stream of terrible memes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
I'm going to one-up the Groundhog Day stuff with SUPER BOWL STUFF:
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
I'm glad that impact font has become universal shorthand for "yo I'm about to say some stupid poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
And the best part is that it was born right here on SA!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:I'm going to one-up the Groundhog Day stuff with SUPER BOWL STUFF: Hilariously, the NFL institutes a whole number of socialism-y measures (spending caps, the NFL draft, revenue-sharing) to preserve competitive balance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Hilariously, the NFL institutes a whole number of socialism-y measures (spending caps, the NFL draft, revenue-sharing) to preserve competitive balance. Not to mention their tax exempt status!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
I'm wondering if the thread can help me ID a friend's (acquaintance/person roughly present in similar social circles) weird beliefs about mental illness. It all seems very vaguely libertarian in nature but...just look. quote:{In response to someone saying talking about their Autistic brother not being able to comprehend commands used a single time, and that Autistic people need a lot of time to learn new "rules" for their lives} The autistic brother being mentioned is profoundly autistic. His isn't a simple case of being socially unaware; the man is a toddler in a 30 year old's body. Later on he is asked if he thinks that Autistic people are just being "lazy" and could be "normal" if they just felt like it. quote:Are you seriously saying that someone whose parents have bought them a mental illness diagnosis has no free will and absolutely no control over their own actions? This is where it gets seriously confusing. He starts talking about buying diagnosis and that everything comes down to free will and, as he talks about later, willpower over all things. He applies it to addiction, every form of mental illness and retardation (that doesn't have a physical origin at least. So he does think that downs syndrome is real), and just generally decries everyone who isn't like him for being too lazy to utilize their will to succeed. He also refuses to accept that Psychiatry has anything good to do and justifies it's existence by tricking parents into buying diagnosis's from them that they then treat. And that it's all bunk. Everything from PTSD to autism, it seems, is just a conspiracy to delude people into thinking psychiatry is useful. Also it's not some sort of Scientology thing. He was asked about that: quote:You're closer to being a Scientologist than I am. Scientologists, like psychiatrists, believe that people's lives are affected by processes that can't really be observed or controlled by individuals except by utilizing their services. Yes, many people who have purchased a mental illness diagnosis, or who say they have a mental illness despite not being diagnosed by a psychiatrist, does have a choice not to engage in the behaviors that characterize that disorder but chooses not to because they know that most of society will excuse them due to their claims of being disabled. I just don't get what the hell is angle or belief is here  . I asked him what experience or source he was drawing these ideas from but he didn't respond to me about that.I mean, his POV is probably him just being an rear end in a top hat. He's rabidly anti-LGBT and takes delight in calling transgender people delusional (nevermind how it chimes with his views on mental illness) every chance he gets. He's also misogynistic. Not in an MRA sense, he just seems to hate women straight up. He also seems to believe in the White Man's Burden still. I'm just wondering if there is an actual group that has these specific views on mental illness. Crain fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Crain posted:
Take your pick, its just another flavor of anti-modern-medicine; this particular strain appears to be contaminated with ur-libertarianism/objectivism where they think anyone can do anything they set their mind to if they really believe and focus on it. If you've got PTSD and stutter you just need to think real hard and it'll go away all on its own. Dyslexia? Quit rearranging the letters/words, you parasite! You won't be able to sway or reason with him, since he's consciously thrown out reason in favor of Big Psychiatry conspiracy theories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
He's like most Americans: extremely dumb about mental illness. There's nothing special about his beliefs that set him apart from tons of people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Cults and psychiatrists are natural enemies. Your friend is in a cult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Well the concept of free will existing as a contra causal, ex-nihilo 'real thing' is bogus so the rest of his argument is just based on that foundation. At best, free will is a misnomer describing our immense rational decision making abilities and complex brain, which is only 'free' insofar as we do not have perfect knowledge of a person brain. At worst it's a relic of a religious and superstitious era. Anyone who thinks they aren't a slave to the physical determinism of the chemicals and electrical impulses of their brain is fooling themselves. The fact I can cut out portions of a persons brain or introduce chemicals/drugs and alter a persons entire personality and behaviour is proof enough of that. As are the many unethical as he'll studies done on sensory deprived or abused babies and children. The type of free will parroted by most people requires a soul or some other dualist macguffin, like poor Descartes, which inevitably begs the question of 'what controls the soul?' Long story short, you're a product of a combination of your upbringing and biological pressures; as psychology likes to put it, the biopsychosocial perspective. Nobody learns without input unless it's one of the few 'evolutionary' behaviours like threat displays and whatnot. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
You might as well ask us how to argue with someone who thinks you get the consumption because witches hagride you at night.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
KERNOD WEL posted:And the best part is that it was born right here on SA! It's a running theme that goons create their own misery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:44
|
|
The free will debate in philosophy- which I haven't followed in a few years- is more complicated than just the compatibilist and incompatibilist camps. A general problem in the discourse is that both sides are guilty of creating caricatures of the claims of the other. Most compatibilists don't assert a magical reality-independent version of free will, and most incompatibilists don't assert a shallow mechanical determinist position. That said, I've seen worse abuses from the incompatibilist camp, because they tend to abuse or misinterpret neurological research.Guavanaut posted:The 'not even once' myth is exactly that. Heroin is not especially different from morphine, oxycodone, or other opioids. It's even used the same way in some places (not in the US, because the DEA ruled it as Schedule I with no legitimate medical use at all, as they did with marijuana), for example in the UK heroin is demonstrated as especially useful for pain relief of fractures in children due to the faster onset and reduced dose requirements. Some people are liable to addiction, and most all opioids can produce a physiological dependence if used for long enough, but the idea of immediate drug induced addiction is highly debatable. Alexander operates on the radical fringe of addiction science, and the linked article pretty clearly demonstrates why. He conflates basically every position he disagrees with, then sets up some shallow strawman versions of the theses he wants to refute. On the "addiction based on single exposure" issue, the short answer is we don't know. Addiction is a mental disease- we don't have a good test for exactly when it occur, we can only reliably prove its existence in individuals by poor descriptive proxies, or in extreme cases. That said, there is no obvious mechanical explanation for why someone couldn't become addicted to a substance based on initial exposure- there's not a magical buffer in their brain the first time they use. ...jesus, he even raises the big pharma conspiracy theory. Don't cite to this clown.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Case in point:
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
If I had to make a bet, I'd say that someone once used mentally ill/handicapped people as a counter-argument to that dude's horrific worldview, and rather than giving even an inch he chose to double down and claim that mental illness is fake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:
This point here makes it even weirder. Things like depression and bipolar disorder have physical markers in the same way downs syndrome does (not chromosomal, but there is a physical presence that can be measured in the form of out of balance brain chemistry) but somehow he makes a distinction between the two "just because". Probably because he sees those illnesses as being too "lazy" in their symptoms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
After he posted an stupid "IMPEACH OBAMA" meme, a vague high school buddy of mine (who is either in the army or barely out) and I got into a discussion about a bunch of random issues including: * Benghazi * Role of government * Obamacare * Taxes I only post it because (I think) it's interesting view into the hardcore Tea Party/somewhat libertarian point of view. Enjoy? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Emron posted:Case in point: What the gently caress is the logic here? "He wanted to ban guns because they're dangerous but he did a dangerous thing too"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
They're saying that gun bans will fail to prevent gun deaths in the same way that drug prohibition hasn't stopped drug-related deaths like Hoffman's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Xarthor posted:After he posted an stupid "IMPEACH OBAMA" meme, a vague high school buddy of mine (who is either in the army or barely out) and I got into a discussion about a bunch of random issues including: The only valid system of democracy is where people only vote the way that I want them to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:14
|
|
Emron posted:Case in point: Ask the person who posted it if they support full legalization of all drugs. If not, why not?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Ask the person who posted it if they support full legalization of all drugs. If not, why not? They could say: Because drugs are objectively bad and guns help honest citizens do their civic duty of protecting themselves blah blah. Or they could go the Chuck Asay route of: Two wrongs don't make a right so no drugs even though there are tons of legal things that are just as bad if not worse from one POV or another. Or because gently caress YOU THE SECOND AMENDMENT GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO OWN ANY WEAPON AND BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT IF YOU PISS ME OFF.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Xarthor posted:After he posted an stupid "IMPEACH OBAMA" meme, a vague high school buddy of mine (who is either in the army or barely out) and I got into a discussion about a bunch of random issues including: Oh goody another military member complaining about other people benefiting from taxpayer money, the bread and butter of conservative irony. Also his argument is essentially "silent majority" bullshit and how most people totally support the wars and would never support Socialistic Obummer *ignores last 2 elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That said, I've seen worse abuses from the incompatibilist camp, because they tend to abuse or misinterpret neurological research. I'm not sure that's true. I've taken a number of courses and advanced research experience topics specifically in social, cognitive, and neuro (science) psychology. I hold a graduate degree in one of the above, and I've never been led to believe the brain can violate causality in any way shape or form. Every behaviour beyond the most innate and reflexive instincts have neuro correlates, and I really don't believe the 'mind' does anything without a corresponding physical trace in the brain, though our limitation of knowledge and granularity of the brain makes such conclusions perhaps a little bold. I've yet to witness an argument for free will that is convincing, from any of the determinist, indeterminist, or chaotic camps. For a choice to be truly 'free' rather than a rational output of neural networks, would imply (to me) the choice is made without outside influence or antecedent. That the behaviour was spontaneous and deliberately chosen, rather than the result of complex and automatic 'calculations' by the brain. But I can't 'decide' what neurons fire or what balance the chemicals maintain anymore than I can stop the rotation of the earth; it's simple physics and chemistry. I maintain I can conceive of no argument for free will that doesn't ultimately invoke some contra causal or supernatural force. The atoms that make up your body are no more causally privileged than a rock rolling down a hill. Furthermore I posit with sufficient resources, research, a powerful enough computer, and a Neural 'atlas', it would be rather trivial to predict a persons specific behaviour in a given situation. Of course, this is similar to the whole 'if you know the position and velocity of all atoms In the known universe, you can predict the future'; that is, an interesting but totally unrealistic and untestable hypothesis. Edit; posting from my phone so apologies over and unintentional autocorrects or grammatical flubs. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Tell your friend that he needs mental help, it'll really gently caress with him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:34
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:I'm not sure that's true. [snip] Right- we agree! The problem is that you've heard the debate as presented by the more militant incompatibilist side. The compatibilist camp aren't all trying to assert that free will violates causal determinism; most of them are defending a definition of free will that can be asserted within a causal framework- i.e., something much more limited, usually having to do with the difficulties of the neural atlas/maxwell's demon sort of model you mention. If that seems uninteresting or trivial, then yes! it is! And philosophers on both sides of the debate have been getting publications out of uncharitably misreading each others' positions on this topic for decades. The abuses I'm talking about are mostly coming from philosophers who like massively overinterpreting FMRI research and, ugh, worst of all, the "experimental philosophy" camp, very few of whom have any knowledge of experimental design. Of course, their jobs are made easier by the pop psych and neuro people who oversell the results of behavioral and FMRI research in the first place. It's a structural problem in the sciences as currently practiced- everyone has an incentive to falsely claim to have solved the mind/body problem, so bad research keeps getting overstated in publications and the press. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
I heard someone say that Huckabee was right that paying for womens' contraceptive care is an implicit admission that they can't control their libidos. Is that the real definition of implicit-because I thought that something has to be implied to be implicit. Maybe conservatives mean that liberals hold that belief subconsciously. But that still wouldn't be implicit, would it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:I heard someone say that Huckabee was right that paying for womens' contraceptive care is an implicit admission that they can't control their libidos. Is that the real definition of implicit-because I thought that something has to be implied to be implicit. Maybe conservatives mean that liberals hold that belief subconsciously. But that still wouldn't be implicit, would it? If you start from the viewpoint that the only allowable sex is procreative and people do not naturally want things that you have decided they can't have, then contraceptives are indeed an admission that people can't control themselves. If you start from the viewpoint of someone who's not a loving idiot, then the implication is probably something else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Xarthor posted:After he posted an stupid "IMPEACH OBAMA" meme, a vague high school buddy of mine (who is either in the army or barely out) and I got into a discussion about a bunch of random issues including: You didn't call him out on the "I have Tricare provided by the military" point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:Oh goody another military member complaining about other people benefiting from taxpayer money, the bread and butter of conservative irony. Also his argument is essentially "silent majority" bullshit and how most people totally support the wars and would never support Socialistic Obummer *ignores last 2 elections. On this note, be sure to go full Cincinnatus in your next response and call him a parasite for accepting military benefits. The chance to fight for flag and fatherland is its own reward, and real men don't need to go to the doctor anyway, so all that socialistic sissy tricare stuff isn't necessary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Emron posted:Case in point: Is this macro saying that gun ownership is like an uncontrollable addiction that warps the worldview of the owner into increasingly bizarre and desperate attempts to rationalize their gun ownership? If so, agreed a good macro etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 00:10
|
|
