|
Tigntink posted:Hahaha in my head I just screamed ARE YOU READY TO ROCK!? I should have clarified. This was reposted by a conservative friend and this was originally posted by the Wall Street Journal.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Lemma posted:I meant in the same sense that I don't know for certain that the earth is round. Most everything most people know about science is taken on faith that the person who told them the fact was right. Why is that a problem if the information is indeed actionable? Jesus Christ. If you can't use your thinking brain to figure this out for yourself then you are pretty helpless. People figured out the world was round THOUSANDS of years ago. It's pretty easy to do by looking at the shadow it casts on the moon. The second part of your sentence shows that you know nothing about science. Fact's don't need your belief in order to be facts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
It's also worth noting here that part 2 of that article clarifies the position to be about the people who manufacture rumors, and the people who pass it on knowing that it may be false. The categorical claim that "nobody is that dumb" is actually discarded in part 2, and the author freely admits that there are, in fact, people who are dumb or naive enough to believe in the things that they repeat, even among those who get defensive when you call them on the bullshit. I should have read that yesterday. In other words, Lemma, the author of the article you're defending disagrees with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:I should have clarified. This was reposted by a conservative friend and this was originally posted by the Wall Street Journal. That's ... bleh. Stockmarket is one of those things that's essentially run by a rumor mill so if you can convince enough people that a crash will happen on a certain date then a crash will happen. Modern day run on banks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Lemma posted:I meant in the same sense that I don't know for certain that the earth is round. What? You've never looked at the ocean horizon? Or out the window of a plane? Or seen a lunar eclipse?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What? You've never looked at the ocean horizon? Or out the window of a plane? I really can't be sure that the photons aren't being intercepted an inch in front of my eyes and replaced with deceptive ones that create the illusion of a curved surface.  [/philosophy 101]
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:It's also worth noting here that part 2 of that article clarifies the position to be about the people who manufacture rumors, and the people who pass it on knowing that it may be false. The categorical claim that "nobody is that dumb" is actually discarded in part 2, and the author freely admits that there are, in fact, people who are dumb or naive enough to believe in the things that they repeat, even among those who get defensive when you call them on the bullshit. I should have read that yesterday. In other words, Lemma, the author of the article you're defending disagrees with you. He said while some are naive enough to believe it, those generally won't be the ones active in spreading it. But even if we allow the possibility that someone, somewhere does their rumormongering out of actual belief, to me it doesn't make it less plausible that the rule of thumb that should apply is that they don't. Sword of Chomsky posted:The second part of your sentence shows that you know nothing about science. Well, I mean... yeah. That was my exact point. Most people do not have a functionl understanding of science. You show me an equation that explains exactly how relativity works, it's just jibberish to me. I have no option but to put my trust in the experts that such a thing is real. edit: faith is probably too charged a word, let's just call it heuristics Lemma fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
We're not the only ones getting odd email forwards. http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/someones-been-sending-gop-lawmakers-a-bizarre-threat-over-th quote:The email lawmakers received begins with an “fyi” and then features a number of forwarded emails, starting with the most recent. The first one was sent from “unrepresentative one” to Boehner.   Isn't it a really big no no to give out the private email addresses of sitting congress people? Lemma posted:Well, I mean... yeah. That was my exact point. Most people do not have a functionl understanding of science. You show me an equation that explains exactly how relativity works, it's just jibberish to me. I have no option but to put my trust in the experts that such a thing is real. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Well this went... places. His article. My article.  "Stop taking this off-topic with information that challenges my previously held beliefs. Oh, also, have you heard the good news, friend?  "
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
He sure seemed to want to discuss it right up until he was proven wrong.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Lemma posted:Well, I mean... yeah. That was my exact point. Most people do not have a functionl understanding of science. You show me an equation that explains exactly how relativity works, it's just jibberish to me. I have no option but to put my trust in the experts that such a thing is real. Science is testable. i.e. You don't have to understand relativity to learn how it effects the GPS system. (The distance is far enough that the super precise clocks needed are out of sync with us on Earth by precisely the amount predicted by relativity) Science literacy is a big issue in the US and the rest of the world. duz fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Thinkin' of this threadquote:BROOKLYN, NY—Acknowledging that the man’s right-wing views are more nuanced than one might expect, 36-year-old liberal Diana Hardwick confided to reporters Tuesday that her conservative acquaintance Brady Daniels is, quite frustratingly, not racist. “We got to talking about immigration, and I really wanted him to undermine his argument for stricter border controls by saying something disparaging of Latinos, but apparently his opinions are based entirely on national security issues instead of race—which is super irritating,” Hardwick said of Daniels, who reportedly describes himself as a “strong conservative” on fiscal issues but, annoyingly, exhibits no racial biases. “It would be so much easier if I could just write him off as a bigot, but as far as I can tell he harbors no resentment or disdain toward people of color. For God’s sake, we argued every issue from states’ rights to income disparity but nope, he didn’t say anything even tacitly racist. Not once.” Hardwick later concluded that her acquaintance’s opposition to most of President Obama’s policies meant he was probably “close enough” to count as a racist. http://www.theonion.com/articles/conservative-acquaintance-annoyingly-not-racist,35236/
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Phone posted:Thinkin' of this thread Well, for the purposesvof satire, it's not so bad. Conservatives don't have an exclusive claim to narcissism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Lansdowne posted:Well this went... places. I have found, without any exceptions, that any publication with the word 'daily' in it is a lovely rag.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:32
|
|
A Wheezy Steampunk posted:This is less "crazy" than most emails, but someone sent this link to me: Going by the conclusions he is making on the first picture, the country in the best economic shape is Sweden, which has free healthcare and education and a far better social safety net.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
If this is true, stocks could fall as low as 13,200. We're DOOMED. Note that the only way those look similar is if you ignore 80% of the modern vertical axis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
"I'm not willing to take the time to discuss it" should be replaced with "I'm unable to engage in intelligent conversation but want to broadcast my willfully ignorant opinion anyway"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
So I was perusing my friend's Twitter account and came across this one-sided argument on Twitter. The other person appears to have disengaged and I couldn't read their end of it (help i am not good with Twitter), but you can definitely get the gist of it. To my knowledge, he didn't get an undergrad degree and so probably isn't a 'moral theologian' in any official capacity. But god drat 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Again, not an email, but I'm just flabbergasted by my dad's politics/philosophy. He's a literal anarcho-capitalist to the highest degree, and insists that his views are not a philosophy, and that everything is binary: either you use "force" or you don't use force. He has a hair-trigger temper against all things that involve "force" or "brainwashing" (including religion). He also loves to insert his view on religion/government into totally unrelated topics. How on earth do I discuss anything with someone like that? I mean, he literally said "it's two sides to a coin, either someone is forcing you to do something with a gun to your head, or they aren't and you have every chance to choose whatever". It's getting aggravating, especially since I am poor, can't currently get a job, and live with my parents. How do I discuss anything with my dad, since he's basically insane philosophically and politically? I wish I had more quotes for the thread's amusement, but he literally just spouts the same few one-liners over and over, so it's not anything funny anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Again, not an email, but I'm just flabbergasted by my dad's politics/philosophy. He's a literal anarcho-capitalist to the highest degree, and insists that his views are not a philosophy, and that everything is binary: either you use "force" or you don't use force. He has a hair-trigger temper against all things that involve "force" or "brainwashing" (including religion). He also loves to insert his view on religion/government into totally unrelated topics. How on earth do I discuss anything with someone like that? I mean, he literally said "it's two sides to a coin, either someone is forcing you to do something with a gun to your head, or they aren't and you have every chance to choose whatever". Are you me 10 years ago? For me it took the realization that my father is willfully insane in many ways. I just brush his crazy off as if it were just that, crazy. I wasn't disrespectful about it, but making it known that I disagreed and was ashamed of his opinions went a long way. It wasn't worth trying to change him, just accept it and move on while maintaining whatever level of relationship is possible / comfortable. Now he keeps the crazy mostly bottled up around me. Also, don't talk politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Again, not an email, but I'm just flabbergasted by my dad's politics/philosophy. He's a literal anarcho-capitalist to the highest degree, and insists that his views are not a philosophy, and that everything is binary: either you use "force" or you don't use force. He has a hair-trigger temper against all things that involve "force" or "brainwashing" (including religion). He also loves to insert his view on religion/government into totally unrelated topics. How on earth do I discuss anything with someone like that? I mean, he literally said "it's two sides to a coin, either someone is forcing you to do something with a gun to your head, or they aren't and you have every chance to choose whatever". Arguing with anarcho-capitalists is, in my experience, always incredibly frustrating and incredibly unproductive. I've never met a single one of them who actually put very much thought into their philosophy - you'd think that would make them easy to convince, but it's exactly the opposite. Because they did not reason themselves into the position in the first place, it's borderline impossible to reason them out of it. If it makes you feel any better, there's basically zero chance of their philosophy ever gaining real traction. They don't really constitute a movement or an organized social force, and there aren't very many of them at all. They're basically the extreme fringe minority of an extreme fringe minority. For added fun, anarchists of all stripes loving hate them. They've done a lot to facilitate anarchist unity, in fact - an anarcho-syndicalist group might disagree on tactics or immediate goals with the green anarchists or the anarcho-communists or the insurrectionary anarchists or whoever, but they can all get together and agree that anarcho-capitalists suck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:How on earth do I discuss anything with someone like that? I mean, he literally said "it's two sides to a coin, either someone is forcing you to do something with a gun to your head, or they aren't and you have every chance to choose whatever". If you can get him to actually listen to what you say, get him to provide some examples of economic transactions that do not involve some form of coercion, then deconstruct the gently caress out of them to demonstrate how they do. The ancap coin isn't a coin, it's a Moebius strip. Don't provide any arguments of your own, just pick the poo poo out of his, and don't let him change the subject. Changing the subject via word-association is my dad's favorite tactic. He isn't a full-bore voluntaryist (or whatever the gently caress the term is this month) anarcho capitalist, but a Fox-watching republican/lolbertarian. Don't engage with any attempt to change or even expand the subject, just keep on the original topic. Rub his nose into the turd. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:If you can get him to actually listen to what you say, get him to provide some examples of economic transactions that do not involve some form of coercion, then deconstruct the gently caress out of them to demonstrate how they do. The ancap coin isn't a coin, it's a Moebius strip. Don't provide any arguments of your own, just pick the poo poo out of his, and don't let him change the subject. If this thread had a subtitle, it should be "rub his nose into the turd".
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:If you can get him to actually listen to what you say, get him to provide some examples of economic transactions that do not involve some form of coercion, then deconstruct the gently caress out of them to demonstrate how they do. The ancap coin isn't a coin, it's a Moebius strip. Don't provide any arguments of your own, just pick the poo poo out of his, and don't let him change the subject. I don't have enough economic knowledge to know how to deconstruct "voluntary" transactions, do you have any info for that? Plus he has an unhealthy hatred of all authority, so it's somewhat emotionally based as well. My dad is furious at any kind of government or religion (especially Mormons since he's an ex-Mormon and we live in Utah). He's basically a militant reddit atheist. My dad's a full-bore anarchist, he doesn't shy away from the term, and he views everything as binary (appropriate, since he's a sperger and a computer engineer). Either it's force/brainwashing, or it's not. Either you're good, or you're trying to force/compel others and you're evil. He hates moralistic laws (all laws really) though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
I also have the same issue. I ask where he gets his health care (the va) and where they derive their household income (public union salary double dipped with a public pension). He's also now eligible for social security. Haven't asked about that yet. But hey, if it was good enough for Ayn...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:I don't have enough economic knowledge to know how to deconstruct "voluntary" transactions, do you have any info for that? Yes you do. It's a matter of the approach you take. No one made you take a job at walmart! Why should anyone pay you more than you were willing to take? What happens if the rent's coming due and you don't take that job? What if it's the middle of winter in Montana or something when this happens? It can literally be a matter of life and death, and even if an individual party to a transaction isn't directly coercing the other they are part of a coercive system, which is coercive with or without government. It's the reverse of the libertarian "what if you don't pay your taxes" line of questioning where refusal at every stage always ends with "and then the government kills you." (If you haven't seen that one from your dad yet, keep talking to him, you will.) There's always something the mouse is gonna want that will get it killed, and you can get there whether you're coming at it from a lolbertarian perspective or a "statist" perspective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
My Dad somehow is fundamentalist Christian who believes in taking the Bible 100% literal, yet espouses Ayn Rand and objectivism. I gave up pointing out the gaping flaws years ago, we just avoid politics and religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:It can literally be a matter of life and death, and even if an individual party to a transaction isn't directly coercing the other they are part of a coercive system, which is coercive with or without government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Yes you do. It's a matter of the approach you take. No one made you take a job at walmart! Why should anyone pay you more than you were willing to take? What happens if the rent's coming due and you don't take that job? What if it's the middle of winter in Montana or something when this happens? It can literally be a matter of life and death, and even if an individual party to a transaction isn't directly coercing the other they are part of a coercive system, which is coercive with or without government. It's the reverse of the libertarian "what if you don't pay your taxes" line of questioning where refusal at every stage always ends with "and then the government kills you." (If you haven't seen that one from your dad yet, keep talking to him, you will.) The bolded is basically the entire argument he gives for why "coercive" or governmental intrusion (or existence for that matter) is bad. He basically believes that as long as you aren't forced to do something by a institution (or individual) that claims authority over you, it's your choice or should be your choice, no matter what happens. He believes that in all situations, an individual should have the "right" to choose, and that whether they're rational or not, unless they're initiating (the initiating force bit is a major part of his philosophy, he's no pacifist) force/violence or the implicit promise of violence on the individual, it is the individual's choice. Additionally, according to him, non-coerced groups will always pick the better (whether in quality, price, whatever) product, and that there should be no forced oversights because the non-coerced group/individual will either die or gravitate away from whatever the inferior product is. I.e., if there's a food product that is poisoned food, people will always be rational and will always weigh the costs and benefits, going for the superior (in this case, the non-poisoned) food. The initiation of government/force is immoral by definition and it's a person's own fault if they aren't rational and don't research whatever about the product (again, by his own stated philosophy). Needless to say, he also hates most people and is an anti-social jerk a lot of times (though he's a loving father, and evem if he's short-sighted and yells a lot, my dad does like to help people when the whim takes him). darthbob88 posted:Of course, then you get somebody who denies that it's a coercive system because starving to death in the street is still a choice. At which point you either sever because they're a loving sociopath, or point out that taxation isn't coercive because going to jail instead is still a choice. Ding ding ding! You've got my dad's philosophy down to the essentials. He thinks that either rational, peaceful, capitalistic transactions will happen in his utopia, or someone will initiate force and "rightfully" have force used on them in answer. If any force is initiated, that is morally wrong, according to him. Starting a fight is wrong, but ending a fight (presumably in a "rationally" lethal manner) is perfectly okay. He doesn't believe that the concept of jails should exist, by the way. Either you get whatever restitution you can (fines and such), you take vigilante revenge, or you allow the person to "voluntarily" exile themselves from a certain area agreed upon by people, who will consider the exilee to have initiated force/trepassed on their property. I can't really sever my dad from my life since I live with him. Also, he works for a government contractor, which kicks up his angry philosophy into overdrive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:The bolded is basically the entire argument he gives for why "coercive" or governmental intrusion (or existence for that matter) is bad. He basically believes that as long as you aren't forced to do something by a institution (or individual) that claims authority over you, it's your choice or should be your choice, no matter what happens. He believes that in all situations, an individual should have the "right" to choose, and that whether they're rational or not, unless they're initiating (the initiating force bit is a major part of his philosophy, he's no pacifist) force/violence or the implicit promise of violence on the individual, it is the individual's choice. I miss the old threads where it would be one or two libertarian posters posting that poo poo in earnest and becoming increasingly angry when half the responses were "On the other hand, recorded history."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Additionally, according to him, non-coerced groups will always pick the better (whether in quality, price, whatever) product, and that there should be no forced oversights because the non-coerced group/individual will either die or gravitate away from whatever the inferior product is. I.e., if there's a food product that is poisoned food, people will always be rational and will always weigh the costs and benefits, going for the superior (in this case, the non-poisoned) food. The initiation of government/force is immoral by definition and it's a person's own fault if they aren't rational and don't research whatever about the product (again, by his own stated philosophy). That is all well and good, but ask him if he researches every single product he wants to buy every time he goes shopping (or, if his wife does the shopping, if she does it) to find out if there are any recent food scandals associated with it. Chances are he doesn't, because it is a shitton of work. Ask him why not. The problem with this philosophy isn't that people aren't perfectly rational if presented with an undeniably right and an undeniably wrong choice (i.e. poison vs. food), its that it requires perfect information, which is the frictionless plane of libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:My Dad somehow is fundamentalist Christian who believes in taking the Bible 100% literal, yet espouses Ayn Rand and objectivism. I gave up pointing out the gaping flaws years ago, we just avoid politics and religion. http://www.churchofsatan.com/satanism-and-objectivism.php  Also ask your Dad if he, like Ayn Rand, admires men who kidnap, rape, torture, and dismember twelve year olds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman#Ayn_Rand.27s_The_Little_Street Gygaxian posted:Ding ding ding! You've got my dad's philosophy down to the essentials. He thinks that either rational, peaceful, capitalistic transactions will happen in his utopia, or someone will initiate force and "rightfully" have force used on them in answer. If any force is initiated, that is morally wrong, according to him. Starting a fight is wrong, but ending a fight (presumably in a "rationally" lethal manner) is perfectly okay. Jesus christ your dad is a manchild. This falls apart so loving quickly. If John makes a contractual loan to Paul for a thousand bucks, what's he supposed to do if Paul just walks away? He obviously can't initiate in any kind of force. Or are people just suddenly going to stop lying, cheating, and stealing because of libertarian magic? Stay strong, and get out of there when you can. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:
How is that not a jail? Libertarianism is being really angry about the world being exactly how you want it to be but everyone calling everything by the wrong names.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Magres posted:Jesus christ your dad is a manchild. This falls apart so loving quickly. If John makes a contractual loan to Paul for a thousand bucks, what's he supposed to do if Paul just walks away? He obviously can't initiate in any kind of force. Or are people just suddenly going to stop lying, cheating, and stealing because of libertarian magic? Gonna guess the answer here is that the loan contract ought to stipulate the consequences of default, and hence carrying out those terms would not be an initiation of force. From there of course it just devolves into Dispute Resolution Corporations and for-profit law enforcement and all the usual parts of libertarian neo-feudalism. e: vvv We're talking about someone who believes that there is no coercion involved in someone having to either take a job as a wage slave or starve to death. They just redefine what "initiate force" means to exclude things that they're okay with. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Gonna guess the answer here is that the loan contract ought to stipulate the consequences of default, and hence carrying out those terms would not be an initiation of force. From there of course it just devolves into Dispute Resolution Corporations and for-profit law enforcement and all the usual parts of libertarian neo-feudalism. Yeah, but even under libertarian neo-feudalism, exercising the for-profit law enforcement is an initiation of force. Like, there is literally no way to coerce someone into fulfilling their end of a bargain when they're trying to not do so that is not, at some level, an application of force or threat thereof. Like libertarian neo-feudalism would be a functional society (a lovely one, but feudalism is a thing and a thing that has happened and been functional) but the weird pacifist feudalism thing is just a non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:How is that not a jail? Exactly. Taxes are a huge problem when levied by the government, but "fees" imposed on you by an unregulated-and-therefore-effectively-all-powerful corporation are okay because- ...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Exactly. Taxes are a huge problem when levied by the government, but "fees" imposed on you by an unregulated-and-therefore-effectively-all-powerful corporation are okay because- ... Ofcourse any rational partner in a transaction or contract would want to have these kinds of dispute resolutions in the contract, thus meaning that to participate in literally any way whatsoever in that society your situation would be very, very similar to what it is now. Maybe there wouldn't be income taxes I guess, so abolish the progressive taxes and replace them with regressive sales taxes instead. Libertarianism!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Exactly. Taxes are a huge problem when levied by the government, but "fees" imposed on you by an unregulated-and-therefore-effectively-all-powerful corporation are okay because- ... The goal isn't to achieve better outcomes, it's to eliminate things that the libertarian is emotionally predisposed to think are unfair. The claim that doing this will lead to better outcomes is pretty obviously just an afterthought pinned on because they realize that it's not very convincing without them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Gygaxian is your father familiar with Hans-Hermann Hoppe by any chance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Conservatives fear all women. AGLL
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 14:45
|
|
