|
Locke Dunnegan posted:It should have been obvious by now but I meant the initial post to be taken as a straightforward request for information relating to the topic of discussion. I don't quite get how it could have been taken as a tongue-in-cheek "take that, atheists" type of post, but here we are. I'd like to assume you all are just raring for a good roast on a random dude you can make assumptions and stereotypes about as a retarded edgy echo chamber clusterfuck, but considering only a couple posters have deigned to give me anything resembling a proper response and the shitposterest of shitposts haven't been probated or anything, I think I just hosed up somewhere. It was a sloppy first post but it was meant to be in good faith, I'm sorry if I offended anyone or made people think I had ulterior motives. Willie Tomg gave you a pretty nice response, the first post in this thread was a good response. Sorry if your "Maybe the federal government shouldn't exist" idea doesn't get a huge positive reaction from people who have been discussing politics for several decades and devote huge portions of their lives to studying US and world history. Maybe you shouldn't assume everyone is out to get you and that maybe your idea isn't the best idea in the world. Maybe it is actually a stupid idea, one that doesn't solve the problems you think it will while creating many more, much worse, problems.
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:I don't think everyone is out to get me, and your summary of my argument isn't, uh, my argument. Project your issues with the state of political discourse on someone else, obvious straw men is less attractive to read than ignorant what ifs. Locke Dunnegan posted:
sounds sort of like you are asking if maybe the federal government shouldn't exist. Which is what I said you said
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:+-500k in a nation of 330 million is 0.15% of the population. Motherfucker, a difference of 0.15% is more than merely adequate. why on earth are you comparing it to the total national population instead of the differences between the two populations? his post was that is it "proportional," +-100%, which is lovely.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Imagine I'm giving out candy and I give out 300 chocopies to 200 people, with a hundred people getting two and the other hundred getting one. The difference isn't 0.3%, its 100%.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Because all the population has the opportunity for representation. If your bitch is that a 0.15% difference in the proportion of reprentation isn't perfect representation, well, guess what, you got all the freedom in the world to move your rear end to Montana. You wanna, or you gonna sit in wherever the gently caress you are and complain that life ain't perfect because its off by 0.15%? Not 0.15%! That doesn't refer to anything! Read what I wrote! Some people have 100% more representation than others, that is the figure of merit. If I were only to start bitching when "difference in proportion of representation" got to 2% according to your stupid metric, which still seems very small, then a group of 10k guys could have the equivalent of 6 million votes between them. The correct figure of merit of course is that the group has 60,000% more representation than those with only "one" vote. If you have any intellectual honesty you'll top misrepresenting numbers to make things seem like they are a smaller problem then they are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 07:51
|
|