Clan x86
General Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rule on August 02, 2012, 02:46:15 pm
-
Can this forum stop being dead? Argue with me or something.
Thanks
-
No
-
People who think buying Chic-Fil-A supports free speech are fucking dumb.
Go.
-
People who think buying Chic-Fil-A supports free speech are fucking dumb.
Go.
yep
-
People who think buying Chic-Fil-A supports free speech are fucking dumb.
Go.
For the sake of arguing, why?
-
This is what goes through their minds, I think:
"I don't really like gay people, and I'm glad there's still an organization around that's not ashamed enough of their bigotry to say so out loud. support free speech"
-
People and companies have a right to support whatever causes they want without government interference. People have a right to tell them to fuck off, also without government interference. </thread>
-
Can this forum stop being dead? Argue with me or something.
Thanks
<troll>Frequentists have the right perspective.</troll>
-
My only issue with the chick-fil-a thing is the improper use of government authority to stop them from building places. Abuse your city's "long-term planning" goals or something, but for the mayor to come out and say "No we are not approving your building because you disagree with us" sets a dangerous precedent.
-
My only issue with the chick-fil-a thing is the improper use of government authority to stop them from building places. Abuse your city's "long-term planning" goals or something, but for the mayor to come out and say "No we are not approving your building because you disagree with us" sets a dangerous precedent.
Agreed. Although I like to see them get screwed, that's not the right way to do it.
Also, haha @ Dan Savage:
Programming Note: "Chick-fil-A" is an obvious synonym for "pegging." I mean, obviously, right? I shall now use Chick-fil-A in a sentence: "Her boyfriend's kinda homophobic, but I hear he loves Chick-fil-A."
-
I miss you all. :'(
-
I was going to try and play Devil's Advocate but that just isn't going to happen, lol.
People and companies have a right to support whatever causes they want without government interference. People have a right to tell them to fuck off, also without government interference. </thread>
I agree to an extent. Some causes, such as child trafficking, should have government interference to stop it. However, I agree that in this particular situation government interference is not at all warranted.
-
I believe that cities and towns should have the right to reject for-profit businesses they don't deem a positive influence in the community, but it should always come down to a vote. If a city doesn't want a casino built, they should have that right. The issue comes becomes "more interesting" when it's something like bigotry, but I still feel it should be up to the community. I'd be far more interested in a community banning all fast food restaurants rather than just the bigot ones, though. The exception to this should be that there be no discrimination to the well being people or a group in a community; there shouldn't be towns banning abortion clinics, as that potentially affects the health and well being of women, but I'm okay with towns banning gay bathhouses. It is a slippery slope though; I don't disagree.
I'm sure I haven't thought out all the different parts of this, but yeah. It would be a lot easier if everyone just stopped hating everyone.
-
Can this forum stop being dead? Argue with me or something.
Thanks
<troll>Frequentists have the right perspective.</troll>
I'd like to see a proper moderated debate between frequentists and Bayesians, but for some reason it seems like effort has gone into avoiding an interactive discussion from both sides. Instead we just hear snarky superior sounding "end of discussion" sort of comments from both sides. In particular, all of the frequentist complaints (that I've heard) about the philosophy of Bayesian inference seem just poorly thought out -- "where does the prior come from?", "where do you end the hierarchy in your models?", "isn't Bayesian inference just the same as regularisation?", "isn't it unfair to bias your answers towards the right answers?", "should we not just listen to the data?", etc. On the other hand, I can see a good pragmatist argument against Bayesian inference in certain situations given the constraints of current approximate inference algorithms.
-
This is what goes through their minds, I think:
"I don't really like gay people, and I'm glad there's still an organization around that's not ashamed enough of their bigotry to say so out loud. support free speech"
That describes human nature pretty well in general. I think most people rationalise their beliefs and allegiances, usually because they choose them before thinking about them carefully. The thinking always happens in the wrong order. The reasons people use in arguments are rarely the reasons they themselves have some belief.
-
I believe that cities and towns should have the right to reject for-profit businesses they don't deem a positive influence in the community, but it should always come down to a vote. If a city doesn't want a casino built, they should have that right. The issue comes becomes "more interesting" when it's something like bigotry, but I still feel it should be up to the community. I'd be far more interested in a community banning all fast food restaurants rather than just the bigot ones, though. The exception to this should be that there be no discrimination to the well being people or a group in a community; there shouldn't be towns banning abortion clinics, as that potentially affects the health and well being of women, but I'm okay with towns banning gay bathhouses. It is a slippery slope though; I don't disagree.
I'm sure I haven't thought out all the different parts of this, but yeah. It would be a lot easier if everyone just stopped hating everyone.
Remember, letting the majority choose the rights of the minority is a horrible idea.
-
City planners and stuff deny permits for companies all the time for much less.
In general, I don't like democracy. People are fucking stupid. Don't let them decide. Tell them that this is fucking stupid and do it for them.
-
...much different.
govt cant/shouldnt act against someone because of the person's views.
we used to let govt do that, and govt kept all the black people in the back of the bus...majority = bad.
-
not really.
and now they reliably vote for more services and fewer taxes. people are fucking dumb, and i think there exists a solution superior to democracy. democracy fucking sucks.
yeah, yeah. i don't think this guy should be denied the uh... "right" to have a restaurant in an area full of people who think he's a prick. i'm just mad at people who think they're doing something good by buying chic-fil-a.
-
not really.
and now they reliably vote for more services and fewer taxes. people are fucking dumb, and i think there exists a solution superior to democracy. democracy fucking sucks.
yeah, yeah. i don't think this guy should be denied the uh... "right" to have a restaurant in an area full of people who think he's a prick. i'm just mad at people who think they're doing something good by buying chic-fil-a.
Ideally we would want an intelligent, rational, humane, and selfless dictator. But I'm not sure how we could guarantee that. Smart people aren't necessarily trustworthy or acting in the interests of society.
-
I know, let's build an all-knowing AI and make it in charge of things! I'm probably the first person to think up this foolproof idea!
-
not really.
and now they reliably vote for more services and fewer taxes. people are fucking dumb, and i think there exists a solution superior to democracy. democracy fucking sucks.
yeah, yeah. i don't think this guy should be denied the uh... "right" to have a restaurant in an area full of people who think he's a prick. i'm just mad at people who think they're doing something good by buying chic-fil-a.
Ideally we would want an intelligent, rational, humane, and selfless dictator. But I'm not sure how we could guarantee that. Smart people aren't necessarily trustworthy or acting in the interests of society.
Make a law that politicians aren't allowed to own property or make money - their basic needs are provided for, plus some extras, and that's it. Then the only people who would want to be politicians are the non-greedy ones.
Also completely flawless!
-
Homeless people: the next politicians. I vote for this to be made into a reality TV series.
-
not really.
and now they reliably vote for more services and fewer taxes. people are fucking dumb, and i think there exists a solution superior to democracy. democracy fucking sucks.
yeah, yeah. i don't think this guy should be denied the uh... "right" to have a restaurant in an area full of people who think he's a prick. i'm just mad at people who think they're doing something good by buying chic-fil-a.
Ideally we would want an intelligent, rational, humane, and selfless dictator. But I'm not sure how we could guarantee that. Smart people aren't necessarily trustworthy or acting in the interests of society.
Hey - worked for Bhutan! :)
-
not really.
and now they reliably vote for more services and fewer taxes. people are fucking dumb, and i think there exists a solution superior to democracy. democracy fucking sucks.
yeah, yeah. i don't think this guy should be denied the uh... "right" to have a restaurant in an area full of people who think he's a prick. i'm just mad at people who think they're doing something good by buying chic-fil-a.
Ideally we would want an intelligent, rational, humane, and selfless dictator. But I'm not sure how we could guarantee that. Smart people aren't necessarily trustworthy or acting in the interests of society.
We'd want all of that plus someone not afraid to make hard, unpopular decisions for long term prosperity instead of short term gains. Which ultimately, it's always very risky to give someone power when they don't give a fuck about what other people think.
-
City planners and stuff deny permits for companies all the time for much less.
In general, I don't like democracy. People are fucking stupid. Don't let them decide. Tell them that this is fucking stupid and do it for them.
I think this is too simplistic. How do you determine that a person is stupid? I have a relative who is a bit backwards in his social and political views. He makes anti-gay jokes and hates President Obama. He never went to college, couldn't solve an algebraic equation, and has trouble with words and spelling. But he can also take almost anyone that I know in a fight; he can drive his car all the way across the country (coast to coast) in three days; and busts his ass working overtime to give everything to his kids with a low-to-decent paying job. These last three things I tend to value more than political views, high school mathematics, and literacy. Would you deny him the right to vote?
not really.
and now they reliably vote for more services and fewer taxes. people are fucking dumb, and i think there exists a solution superior to democracy. democracy fucking sucks.
yeah, yeah. i don't think this guy should be denied the uh... "right" to have a restaurant in an area full of people who think he's a prick. i'm just mad at people who think they're doing something good by buying chic-fil-a.
Ideally we would want an intelligent, rational, humane, and selfless dictator. But I'm not sure how we could guarantee that. Smart people aren't necessarily trustworthy or acting in the interests of society.
Taking this a bit further, I think it's impossible for a single person to have a complete understanding of concepts like justice, fairness, social equality and tolerance. Each idea is a work in progress, and requires the collective to refine it. Any one person has prejudices; no single person is flexible enough to adapt to every stride of progress. More importantly, and perhaps harder to grasp, is the fact that any single person is limited to a single perspective. I think it's hard to understand the significance of this statement - i.e., how incomplete an individual perspective really is, when taken with (compared to and contrasted with) the whole. It's a question of values, really. Two people can arrive at opposite conclusions on a matter at hand, and both be right, given that they both have faith in their values. If I learned anything from mathematics, it's that nothing can be proven without an assumption. The same is true for 'right' and 'wrong', 'rational' and 'irrational', 'smart' and 'stupid' and 'correct' and 'incorrect'. To place any idea into one of these dichotomies is to make an assumption.
-
I think this is too simplistic. How do you determine that a person is stupid? I have a relative who is a bit backwards in his social and political views. He makes anti-gay jokes and hates President Obama. He never went to college, couldn't solve an algebraic equation, and has trouble with words and spelling. But he can also take almost anyone that I know in a fight; he can drive his car all the way across the country (coast to coast) in three days; and busts his ass working overtime to give everything to his kids with a low-to-decent paying job. These last three things I tend to value more than political views, high school mathematics, and literacy. Would you deny him the right to vote?
Yes. But to be fair, I'd also deny myself the right to vote.
-
I think this is too simplistic. How do you determine that a person is stupid? I have a relative who is a bit backwards in his social and political views. He makes anti-gay jokes and hates President Obama. He never went to college, couldn't solve an algebraic equation, and has trouble with words and spelling. But he can also take almost anyone that I know in a fight; he can drive his car all the way across the country (coast to coast) in three days; and busts his ass working overtime to give everything to his kids with a low-to-decent paying job. These last three things I tend to value more than political views, high school mathematics, and literacy. Would you deny him the right to vote?
Holy false equivalencies, Batman. I'm glad you know someone you find personally great, was there an actual useful bit in that otherwise irrelevant story? You already said this person is uneducated, bigoted, and otherwise incapable of having a well-formulated political opinion, I don't see how anything else you said helps your case.
-
I think this is too simplistic. How do you determine that a person is stupid? I have a relative who is a bit backwards in his social and political views. He makes anti-gay jokes and hates President Obama. He never went to college, couldn't solve an algebraic equation, and has trouble with words and spelling. But he can also take almost anyone that I know in a fight; he can drive his car all the way across the country (coast to coast) in three days; and busts his ass working overtime to give everything to his kids with a low-to-decent paying job. These last three things I tend to value more than political views, high school mathematics, and literacy. Would you deny him the right to vote?
Holy false equivalencies, Batman. I'm glad you know someone you find personally great, was there an actual useful bit in that otherwise irrelevant story? You already said this person is uneducated, bigoted, and otherwise incapable of having a well-formulated political opinion, I don't see how anything else you said helps your case.
The point was that it is dangerous to say "people are stupid". This relative of mine might fit the description by one criteria, but by another he clearly doesn't. You might say: "Okay, Ender, you have proved that he is strong, hardworking, and dependable. These are not traits of intelligence." I should follow up by saying: he is capable of telling great stories, and entertaining. He clearly has a certain intelligence, but not another. Which is why it's dangerous to say, "people are stupid", and dismiss them.
I harp on this point because I used to be of that mentality, and now I no longer am.
I ask whether we should deny him the right to vote. He never went to college but he is not uneducated. The military provides a unique education. I said he makes anti-gay jokes, which bothers me a lot, but he gets along well with gays. I said he's a bit backward in his social and political opinions, but that doesn't mean he isn't pragmatic about other political issues. You could meet many liberals who are a lot more progressive than him but have far less practical ideas on government spending, big gov't vs. small, etc. The point is you can't rule people in two categories: 'stupid' and 'not stupid', 'capable of voting' and 'not capable of voting'.
The reason I bring him up is not because I am trying to boast about my idols (which you insinuate). He is not my idol. I could easily tell you the people who are. But the reason is that he is so very different from me that I have learned a lot from him. He and many others have changed the way I think about people. I'm sharing my experience, that's all.
Why so provocative?
-
I have respect for lots of people who I wish didn't vote.
-
If we were really a capitalist society, votes wouldn't be free and those who voted correctly would profit. We should be a Futarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futarchy) instead of a democracy. Naturally, this form of government only prefers expert voters and dumb voters wouldn't be able to afford to vote.
I'm just kidding of course :)
-
Why so provocative?
To be frank and I may just be speaking for myself, but I think your past behavior before your long absence on these forum still lingers in the subconscious minds of members here. I do remember you being quite provocative and trollish back then, so it's not unreasonable to guess that you might not have left such a pristine impression on some members here before you disappeared some years ago. Don't take this the wrong way- I'm not saying that this applies to deadly, I'm just saying that I personally thought to myself when you reappeared on these forums "Is Ender going to act the same way he did before he disappeared?".
Reading your posts just now on how you've come to accept certain aspects about the world and people makes me think that perhaps you sincerely have changed.
EDITED: Fixed to refer to the correct member with D starting username.
-
Ender has usually been considerate "when it matters", and I found the past trolling funny. And he was responding to deadly, not dark_drake (who, coincidentally, is rarely provocative).
-
I'm not referring to his Troll & Inc trolling.
-
Why so provocative?
Who the hell finds that provocative? All I said was that your personal anecdote, while amusing, has little bearing on whether the person is knowledgeable for voting on politicians/issues in the 21st century. Don't get butthurt.
-
Ender has usually been considerate "when it matters", and I found the past trolling funny. And he was responding to deadly, not dark_drake (who, coincidentally, is rarely provocative).
I thought you had good taste.
-
Ender has usually been considerate "when it matters", and I found the past trolling funny.
Heh, same here. At least in retrospect that's how I feel. :)
-
The internet is serious business.
So, let's continue this political discussion... Romney's running mate pick... Good or Bad (You can decide for whom- I'm at least going to state my opinion in terms of Romney's campaign)?
I think it's a good choice for Romney. Romney has done a poor job at selling, defending, and countering Obama's attacks up to this point. He's lacked in substance/ details/ specifics, and done just a poor job at keeping Obama at bay. If anything, Ryan will at least rally the Republican base behind Romney, which is something Romney's been struggling with since day one, so he can now focus on wooing/ convincing moderates. Ryan will at least be able to sell Romney to the base. Granted, the big question is will they be able to ward off the barrage of demagoguery that will be coming from the left and convince moderates to vote for them... time will tell.
-
I don't understand why there is so much talk about exciting the "base". Just not particularly being excited about Romney isn't going to stop them from voting for him, because their only other choice is voting Democrat, and that won't happen.
-
I don't have even a remote interest in this election. Nothing of significance is going to change. Also, unless something extreme happens between now and the election, I see Obama easily winning.
-
I don't understand why there is so much talk about exciting the "base". Just not particularly being excited about Romney isn't going to stop them from voting for him, because their only other choice is voting Democrat, and that won't happen.
Staying home is always an option.
I don't have even a remote interest in this election. Nothing of significance is going to change. Also, unless something extreme happens between now and the election, I see Obama easily winning.
I agree, my gut tells me that Obama is going to win re-election.
-
I don't understand why there is so much talk about exciting the "base". Just not particularly being excited about Romney isn't going to stop them from voting for him, because their only other choice is voting Democrat, and that won't happen.
Staying home is always an option.
Yeah, but in this case the "base" seems to actually refer not to the average Republican voter, but to those with more extreme views, who would vote to keep a Democrat from winning, even without especially liking the Republican candidate.
But that's just a wild guess.
-
I don't understand why there is so much talk about exciting the "base". Just not particularly being excited about Romney isn't going to stop them from voting for him, because their only other choice is voting Democrat, and that won't happen.
I don't think he's trying to excite the base for reasons you mentioned, but the independents and democrats who were surprised by the individual mandate ruling. I mean, come on ... Ryan, Ryan's health plan, surprise individual mandate ruling? What do they all have in common? Romney is obviously trying to reach out to independents and democrats uncertain about the health care act. He was picked as a consequence of the ruling ... otherwise you could count on Romney distancing himself from the likes of anyone Tea party related.
I think it was a bad pick and it will haunt his campaign down the road. The Tea party is just a little too toxic.
-
I think Ryan will prove to be a huge mistake for Romney. Like Rule said, the GOP base would have went out and voted anyway because they don't want to see Obama re-elected. Romney should have gone for someone to convince the independent voters to vote for him. Then again, having a Wisconsinite on the ballot might help Romney there. Who knows? I'm in Texas. The guys with the R's next to their names are voted for in this neck of the woods. It's a wonderful place where people advocate limited government and then force anyone seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound (the transvaginal requirement didn't make it).
As an experiment, I wish a state or county or the entire country would remove the party affiliation from the ballot and randomize the order of candidates. At the very least, people would have to learn the names of the candidates they wanted to vote for beforehand. That, or we could have some interesting election results. I think democracy can work, but only if the population is educated and cares to know who their elected officials are. As it stands, it boils down to a few swing states and 30s attack ads.