USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Pellisworth posted:

Check out the SJ Gould article I linked earlier; scientific inquiry and religion occupy separate domains of thought or as he puts it, "magisteria."

Is there any evidence for the existence of God or the supernatural? Nope, not really. Religion is still hugely important in human culture, society, traditions, ethics and morality, etc. I don't expect people to agree with my personal beliefs, I push back against the hard-line atheist view that religion is an evil mind virus the human race would be better without. If you're an atheist, I still think you should respect the role religion plays in our society and not be a dickhead by condescending to them and saying your logic and rationality makes their God(s) irrelevant. Agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position: it's truly impossible to know whether deities or the supernatural exist or don't.

You fundamentally misunderstand theory of science if you're looking for empirical evidence to support religious beliefs. That is simply not something science and logic can do.

Um, again what are you going on about? I'm not getting it. You posted this:

Pellisworth posted:

Atheism is a belief system, which is something internet atheists are unable or unwilling to understand. Atheism is the belief that God(s) don't exist. It is not provable by science or logic. Your "faith" is that there is no God, and that's fine, but recognize it as such.

You went on to try to draw an equivalence between religion and atheism, as though they are just two sides of the same coin, and that neither has a claim to rationality and science or something.

You can try a retreat to "separate magisterium" if you like, but I'm not going to ignore the simple fact that many religions do make claims that ought to be testable. Not to mention that for many thousands of years these claims were taken very seriously and that doubting them in some cases could get you killed. Religion is steeped in explaining away "this is how the world actually works" and if you're going to deny that, then I don't even know where to start. I mean, I'd say "a loving history book" but I'd probably need to explain what a history book is? Religions both historically and to this day try to make claims about how things are, and ought to be, and the only reason that anyone has to talk about separate magisteria these days is because the scientific method came along 400 years ago and absolutely wrecked religion's poo poo as a way to understand the universe and predict behavior. The scientific method doesn't exist alongside religion, it replaces it. If there is cultural inertia to religion, or if the parts of it that are not about how the universe came to be and functions, are important to some people or form an important part of how certain societies function, then that is a separate issue. We're better off with good old fashioned humanism and social psychology, of course, but that's a separate argument and I'm not going to get into it here.

But to suggest atheism requires faith, as you have, or to say "agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position" is in fact intellectually dishonest as hell. I can think up any number of far-fetched schemes to get the universe into the state it is in today, including "the universe popped into existence in this state five seconds ago for no reason" and we could all try to measure how full of poo poo that is - but to insist that in the case of a divine creator we must withhold judgement because it could be true, guys, you just don't know, okay? is putting that particular belief above all the other evidence-free confabulations for no reason at all other than historical baggage, which is really unscientific.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 08:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:36

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Trabisnikof posted:

Atheism requires faith since it has a premise that is impossible to support by evidence.

Okay, so does the belief that the universe did not pop into existence suddenly and for no reason five seconds also require this "faith", and if so can you elaborate on what faith actually is?

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 09:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

By the way just to clear up any confusion this is what I consider atheism, and I'm not interested in arguing whether this is "really" atheism or what. This is what is means to believe god and the supernatural are not real:

quote:

Bob: I believe a god created everything using his magic.

Alice: Can you prove this by presenting evidence which establishes this idea as the the most probable explanation to fit the facts?

Bob: Well, no, you see, because religion is a separate magisterium, so I'm not obligated to do that and can just believe these things for no reason. Other people have to take it seriously because they'll never be able to offer up evidence which will convince me to change my mind.

Alice: Oh, okay. Well, gently caress your theory, then.

In this dialogue, Alice is the atheist.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 09:09

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Trabisnikof posted:

Yes. Empiricism requires faith to work as well too as you can't use empiricism to prove empiricism.

you didn't explain what faith is

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 09:16

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

*tries to build a technological civilization on the back of the assumption that π = 3, fails miserably*

*finally unfucks himself and starts doing things that make some sense*

Trabisnikof posted:

nice work retard, you're no better than the creationists

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 09:19

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

WeAreTheRomans posted:

Y'all need to read some Karl Popper, seriously, because this is some Epistemology 101 puerile bullshit.

PS. "Weak atheism" and "strong atheism" are already extant definitions, kindly stfu unless you are familiar with the difference

yeah strong atheism is almost always a strawman - that's the difference

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 09:34

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

AlouetteNR posted:

There is a real though minor difference between not believing in something and firmly believing in the absence of something.

What is it? I'd rather not try to guess what you mean by this.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 18:09

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

Sure seems stupid to expect CNN, NBC, or FOX to be gone by 2045. NBC's already been around for 90 goddamn years and is part of one of the wealthiest companies in the world, similarly CNN and FOX are separately parts of very wealthy and powerful companies that are unlikely to collapse r anything, even though they're nowhere near as long-standing.

It's probably not stupid to expect that they can't continue in their present form for that much longer - no one under retirement age watches them. Hell, I'm not sure the fate of cable television in the main what with Netflix eating the world.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 18:12

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:

a simulacrum that is indistinguishable from reality is still not reality, so no, it would not be your dog.

Prove me wrong, solipstards.

What is the thing that makes reality "reality" then, which the simulacrum lacks?

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 18:14

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

a less boring USPOL thread seems like a distinguishable difference

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 18:20

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

PhazonLink posted:

Also Clinton's going to release an Oppo Research bomb

I'm just going to stop you right there: no one cares and nothing matters.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 18:22

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

So, when should we expect the alleged mountains of oppo research that the Clinton campaign has gathered and is just waiting for the right moment to drop, to drop?

It's starting to remind me of the "political capital" talk we used to hear a lot of.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 00:58

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Who broke the really shady modeling story? Was that some opp research being dropped?

I doubt that's the best they've got but if it is, we're in for a closer election than I thought. The whole point of opposition research is to demoralize the opposition, and Trump's supporters aren't going to care if he human-trafficked a bunch of eastern Europeans to Trump Tower to pad out his personal brothel.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 01:53

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

MonkeyOnFire posted:

Ugh Chris Wallace. There are worse people, but probably no one as punchable.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 17:05

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

zonohedron posted:

Okay, here's 2012 "very close" - any state decided by less than 5% set to undecided - and then all the 'undecided' states to Trump, plus WI because the headlines at the bottom of the page say it's close, minus VA for Clinton. Clinton still wins.

I don't really see the point in saying "but she only has a 70% chance of winning" if nobody can come up with a plausible electoral map where Trump wins - what am I missing?

Seems like Iowa shouldn't be blue in this map, going by the criteria you've laid out here.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 01:32

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Euphoriaphone posted:

I listened to the last 538 podcast, and I could have sworn they said their model factors state polling more heavily than national polling.

Basically they look at the state polls but then they adjust the numbers by looking at how the national polls have moved since then. That's why you can have a state poll from early August that's "Clinton +1" but then you'll see the adjusted result "Trump +3" and it's the latter figure they actually use to derive the aggregated polling for that state.

The big assumption there is that state polls will follow national polls. I'm not sure how true that is especially in this election.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 05:21

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Sir Tonk posted:

Having Mark Cuban and Bloomberg out there clowning on Trump's wealth has been surprisingly effective at pissing him off. I'd certainly be all for more billionaires calling Trump a piece of poo poo poor.

Clinton doesn't need to say a thing about it, though.

Mark Cuban must near the top, or at the top, of Donald Trump's poo poo list. He is in a lot of ways what Donald Trump likes to pretend he is (good at business, self-made as Republicans typically define it, etc), and is taken more seriously than he can ever hope to be by the Serious People Donald Trump has had a hate-crush on for his entire life. I want to watch the reality show where Mark Cuban and Donald Trump are forced to live together for three months.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 03:48

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Yinlock posted:

The oppo file just reads "He is literally Donald Trump lmao"

It's all they need.

It's all they've used so far, and he is steadily chipping away at her lead.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 03:50

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Yeah, she's almost certain to win, good on ya'll continuing to point that out.

It's better for America and especially people in America who aren't white, if Donald Trump's candidacy ends in a "dustbin of history" blowout that liberals can throw at conservatives like a loving pie to the face for the next few decades, like Reagan / Mondale. It's not enough that she holds on to her lead and wins with EVs in the low 300s.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 04:00

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Trabisnikof posted:

Actually Clinton has brought up a ton of oppo research poo poo, just no one in the media cares to hold Trump to account for any of it.

They brought up the small businesses he stole from, the history of housing discrimination, the failed businesses, the fraudulent "university", his refusal to distance himself from the Klan, his white supremist followers, his campaign's ties to Putin, his hateful statements about women and minorities, his past contradictory policy positions, the fact his campaign is staffed by the alt-right and that he has small hands.

What critical oppo research topic did they miss?

Basically all that stuff is pre-convention if not a lot earlier, and the media mostly doesn't give a poo poo because it's not "news" in the sense that there is nothing new to cover here. Anyone who cared to know, knew about the housing discrimination since the 90s, knew about his failed businesses since the first Bush administration, knew about the Trump U stuff since the GOP primary was still competitive, knew about his refusal to distance himself from the KKK when he refused to distance himself from the leader of the KKK back in January, knew Manafort was a Putin stooge and Trump has a weird crush on a Russian dictator, knew about his hateful statements since the first time he went on Howard Stern at least, and so on.

It's all awful stuff, but it's stuff we already knew and it's stuff his supporters knew before they voted for him. It doesn't demoralize them, by all indications. You want the media to just remind people of the same poo poo over and over until they get it, but that's not their job and anyway it makes for lovely TV. One thing the GOP has been really "good" at this election is constantly reheating the same poo poo fooling the media into thinking it's new poo poo that they can report on, e.g. emails. The Clinton campaign should be doing the same thing, like insinuating maybe David Duke's and Trumps ties go a little deeper than we thought because his cousin's boyfriend read My Awakening, or some reheated poo poo about Trump U, or oh hey look here is some new recordings of him on Howard Stern that we thought were lost (they were never lost), or get someone who was actually denied housing back in the 70s up there, and so on. You're not going to create a narrative by going "oh hey here's some stuff that happened, well, bye" because that relies on the media doing their loving job, but all the media is good for is getting your surrogates in front of a camera and printing your press releases. Maybe Hillary should act like she knows this.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Sep 4, 2016

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 04:15

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

We did this discussion last month and went with "who loving cares" 53% to 47.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 13:19

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

AMorePerfctGoonion posted:

I've been ranting for some time to anyone who will listen about the paper by Angus Deayton arguing that various social and economic forces have created a new middle-aged white underclass who are literally dying of despair by suicide and drug abuse.

Yeah, but who cares? They take offers of help as a personal insult and they hate everyone who isn't like them, in addition to hating everyone who is like them including and especially themselves. There are plenty of other people who need help and who aren't trying to drag the entire world down with them.

Maybe the reason no one cares about them is that they are utterly contemptible human beings.

vyelkin posted:

I think most phone polls are automated robocalls where you push buttons to register support so even that's pretty private unless your husband is listening to the call on speakerphone and watching which button you push.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/live-polls-and-online-polls-tell-different-stories-about-the-election/

quote:

Now, it�s pretty clear that Hillary Clinton�s lead over Donald Trump is wider in live-telephone surveys than it is in nonlive surveys.

If that's happening then something else is pressing the scale in the other direction even harder.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 15:42

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Luigi Thirty posted:

I agree. Once all middle-aged white people die off the country will fix itself.

No, but there will be fewer people banging on it with a sledgehammer.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 17:43

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Sir Tonk posted:

https://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu/status/772551303037915136

third debate should be fun

most punchable face on television

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 03:45

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

hey maybe trump will punch chris wallace in the face at the third debate

that might actually get my vote

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 03:46

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

yeah he'll probably have no problem fact checking someone if so doing will make him seem like the adult in the room

which is to say, if the person he's fact-checking is a democrat

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 03:58

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Xae posted:

How many boomers do you think had to write huge checks or co sign for huge student loans?

since they're largely responsible for voting in the idiots who drove up tuition costs and hosed up the student loan program in the first place, frankly they're lucky we don't confiscate their assets and throw them in camps, like maybe one where they can think for a while about what they've done - really focus on where they went wrong, you know?

I mean I'm not saying it's not on the table, they're just lucky we haven't done it yet

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Sep 5, 2016

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 04:04

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Lightning Knight posted:

That said, putting old people into camps wouldn't fix the problem, and since they're all going to be dead and buried in a few years would also be pointlessly spiteful.

exactly why we should do it

the god of national politics loves irony above all else - sacrifice the worst generation on his altar

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 04:21

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Axetrain posted:

Speaking of Wallace, Bill Clinton taking him to task for his lovely interview questions is always a good watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dd2Xhm2mIE

Yeah, that's the one. I don't know how Bill Clinton didn't just leap up from his chair and start pummeling that smug sack of poo poo 1/3 into the interview after being interrupted for the fourth time while trying to answer an extremely leading question.

I wonder what Mike Wallace thought of his son.

Raenir Salazar posted:

Wow gently caress Wallace. Is he even remotely better now?

cf "fact checking ain't the job of a Presidential debate moderator" :smug:

No, he is not better.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Sep 5, 2016

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 06:47

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Trapezium Dave posted:

Hillary might be risk adverse and go full policy wonk but it seems obvious to me that the better approach is to repeatedly kick Trump in the ego until he fully melts down.

At least I hope that's what she does, it will make great television.

He's on such a hair trigger she won't need to do much to set him off. Just "accidentally" referring to him as a millionaire instead of a billionaire once would probably throw him off for the rest of the night.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 07:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Axetrain posted:

I forgot which goon wrote it but I saved a nice writeup in response to people claiming fast food workers aren't worth 15$ an hour and what they "deserve".

Negotiation or, more accurately, leverage are excellent points though - the goon in question just failed to realize that voting for minimum wage increases and joining a union are how working class people use their leverage.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 02:33

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

And none of that means "it's typical and expected that a shower will break the watch". I get that you're paranoid about it and/or exclusively buy lovely knockoff watches whose only resistance mark is a sticker they printed out, but it's not a problem with your average Timex/Casio/etc cheap 30m watch.

I mean, it's literally right there in the post you quoted.

I'm in a minority here but I think probably one in ten of your posts are actually informative and worth reading. Any chance you could just stop posting the other nine?

# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 02:52

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

It isn't though. The actual case is that showering isn't an issue for the vast majority of watches. Because hot water isn't some magic thing that's really hard to seal against.

Cry harder.

who loving cares

# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 03:46

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Night10194 posted:

So why is the right so goddamn bullish on Tsar Vladimir? Is it just that he's a right-wing authoritarian strongman who oversees the criminalization of homosexuality and brutal military adventures abroad?

it's probably some other stuff, too

he's not obama, for example

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 15:00

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

So why wouldn't she, on this Iraq question, just also point out that "oh hey also the reasoning we used to justify our vote at the time were based on the packet of lies fed to Congress by the Bush administration, FYI." Why not bring that up?

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 01:14

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Oh and also "we're totes not going to wars guys, just need the declaration in order for Saddam to take us seriously about weapon inspections :v:

"

Is it just bad optics to bring this up?

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 01:16

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Yeah it seems like she could have done a better job defending her record on Iraq, but I dunno maybe giving those kinds of answers I suggested would alienate the demographic with mysterious and total amnesia of 2001-2009.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 01:24

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Secretary I am running out of time after blowing my wad harping on emails for the first ten minutes.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 01:25

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Ah good they are replaying the email stuff now during the break, in case anyone missed it.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 01:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:36

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

"take the oil" holy poo poo

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 01:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

«‹›6 »