Request

[Rule]

Can this forum stop being dead?  Argue with me or something.

Thanks

[Blaze]

No

[Sidoh]

People who think buying Chic-Fil-A supports free speech are fucking dumb.

Go.

[Blaze]

People who think buying Chic-Fil-A supports free speech are fucking dumb.

Go.

yep

[AntiVirus]

People who think buying Chic-Fil-A supports free speech are fucking dumb.

Go.

For the sake of arguing, why?

[Sidoh]

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"

[iago]

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>

[nslay]

Can this forum stop being dead?  Argue with me or something.

Thanks

<troll>Frequentists have the right perspective.</troll>

[deadly7]

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.

[iago]

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."

[Sty]

I miss you all.  :'(

[AntiVirus]

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.

[Blaze]

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.

[Rule]

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.

[Rule]

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.