Doesn't have to be politics, can be anything. Just give me what talking points you're tired of hearing and give a nice, brief reply to it so we can make a handy list.
Politics
Anarchism is utopian!
So how's that "Give a bunch of guys violent power and cross your fingers they don't abuse it" plan working out for ya?
Monsatto is TEH EVIL!!
Well yes they are but not for the reasons you think, see below.
GMO's are TEH EVIL!!
GMO's are not a new thing. In fact, us messing with the genes of animals and plants for our own benefit is the one of the big reasons why starvation is not a thing in your world so kindly get off your high horse and do some actual research before opening your mouth please.
Big Pharma is TEH EVIL!!
Again, they kinda are but not for the reasons you think.
Charging for essential services IS TEH EVIL!
First of all, since when is paying taxes not charging for a service? Second of all, are you insinuating that everyone who goes into "essential" fields should be forced to work for free because last I checked, that's called slavery and I really wonder how you plan to attract anyone into that field. Think before you speak.
Rape cultural patriarchy!
You know, rather than repeat hollow mantras, it might help your cause to actually cite some sources and put real claims on the table because if you're implying that western society morally and legally tolerates rape, then you really have not been paying attention to the news these days. Do the words "Duke Lacross" ring any bells for example?
Socialism can work if we just...
Whatever you were planning to finish that sentence with, it's already been done and has resulted in the ruling class making out like bandits and everyone else being poorer. Socialism attempts to create equality through inequality and that's why it doesn't work. Accept it and move on.
We are the 99%, eat the rich, etc etc...
And you're appealing to the richest and most powerful people in the country who are best buds for life with the rest of the rich people in the country to do that for you. I really don't think you've thought this through very well.
Movies/TV
Twilight is the worst book ever! RRRARRGH!!
Yes, yes it is. We know. We don't need to be reminded and would rather not be. Please stop drawing attention to it. You're just encouraging it.
CGI ruines movies!
I find this baffling because those who say it love to praise the hilariously unrealistic puppets and animatronics of the past, arguing that those movies had you using your imagination. Yet you can't use your imagination with CGI? Double standards much?
Wrestling is fake!
Not exactly one of the unsolvable mysteries of the universe there Sherlock. And here's a newsflash: So are most of the TV shows, plays and other entertainment you watch. Same thing!
I hate Justin Bieber! Why won't he go away?
Fun fact: I only knew about his existence because of people like you complaining about it. There's a moral here.
Video games
Video games don't represent women!
Really? An industry that most women have turned their noses up at for the past 20 years doesn't represent them very well? How truly shocking!
Dumbing down video games for the filthy casuals! RRRARRGH!!
I'll quote Moviebob on this one: It's a game, not the SAT's. Get over yourself.
Mario/Zelda/other franchise is old!
I'll let you in on a little secret: We know. Nintendo knows, the fans know, everyone knows. Nintendo and the fans just don't care and you're doing nothing even remotely helpful by pointing it out.
Skimpy costumes for female characters is TEH SEXIST!!
Even if she dresses that way by choice? Who are you to judge? The middle east FORCES their women to cover up and you undoubtedly call them oppressors. You think maybe you're missing the mark a little bit?
Wii/WiiU is gimmicky/for casuals...blah blah...
Yeah cause exclusively going for the gun wanking fratboys has turned out to be such a great business model for Sony and MS hasn't it? Nobody likes a sore loser guys.
Justin Bieber (or really, any celebrity)...he's not important, and yet people talk about him too much.
"Well, that's TECHNICALLY correct..."
Why, yes, it is. It's also "technically" correct that the Earth goes around the sun. Something cannot be correct without being technically correct. A joke from Futurama goes, "You are technically correct—the best kind of correct!" But really, what other kinds of correct are there?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 26, 2013, 04:12:42 PM
"Well, that's TECHNICALLY correct..."
Why, yes, it is. It's also "technically" correct that the Earth goes around the sun. Something cannot be correct without being technically correct. A joke from Futurama goes, "You are technically correct—the best kind of correct!" But really, what other kinds of correct are there?
When I use that phrase, it's because I'm saying that while whatever the (usually trifingly bullshit) point is is true, it does not support whatever the argument the person is making is. I assume everybody else does the same.
Quote from: dallen68 on November 26, 2013, 04:49:36 PM
When I use that phrase, it's because I'm saying that while whatever the (usually trifingly bullshit) point is is true, it does not support whatever the argument the person is making is. I assume everybody else does the same.
Then call it what it is: a non-sequitur.
I would also argue Justin Bieber's brand of haters goes in the same category as Twilight's bit.
To give you an idea, I only found out about him through the folks bitching about him. I wish I was making that up. Same for Twilight.
*Edit: aand, I just realized Ibrahim90 already mentioned him. Oh well.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on November 26, 2013, 01:19:16 PM
Dumbing down video games for the filthy casuals! RRRARRGH!!
I'll quote Moviebob on this one: It's a game, not the SAT's. Get over yourself.
CoughSkyrimcough
"something" that "someone" can't answer...
Yeah, they probably can. And probably have. You just didn't like the answer
When it comes to celebrity deaths you always have that one guy who says something like, "WOOPTY DOO A CELEBRITY DIED! WHY DO ANY OF YOU CARE?!"z
Yeah, because I can't just repeat that question to said person...
Government can work if we just...
Whatever you were planning to finish that sentence with, it's already been done and has resulted in the ruling class and their cronies making out like bandits and everyone else being poorer; to put it mildly. Government is founded on logical fallacies like special pleading ("monopolies are bad...unless they're the state") and self detonating arguments ("to get rid of the initiation of force against peaceful people we need to give all the guns, nukes, prisons armies, etc and the moral and legal right to initiate overwhelming force against peaceful people to a single organization and cross their fingers they don't abuse it.") and that's why it doesn't work. You've all had your chance: Socialists, Fascists, Communists, Nazis, democracies--direct and representative, monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, republic, democratic republic, minarchist/minimal state--over 6000 years and nothing to show except over a billion dead bodies--and that's just the ones we KNOW of!--countless ruined lives, more wealth wasted/squandered/destroyed/prevented from forming than can ever be counted and the holding back of all of humanity--our progress, our technology, our science and our morality by at least 6000 years. Government as an institution is a failure. Accept it and move on.
HOW'S YOUR SYSTEM GONNA BE BETTER?!!?!?
Hey, dumbass, I'm an anarchist. Which means I'm not proposing an "alternative system" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) anymore than an atheist is proposing another god--if he is, he's not an atheist by definition, Q.E.D. The burden of proof rests on the one making the positive claim. You're the one defending the state--and all the crimes it commits (see above). That absolutely places it on you. The status quo doesn't get to win just because it's the status quo; a lame circular argument and attempt to shift the burden of proof, really. All this avoidance of our questions and attempts to weasel out of having to proof yourself just reeks of a guilty conscience.
Simply put, why should I believe/accept something (the state's legitimacy) if it's never been proven? Being the status quo != proof. Nor does might makes right. You could justify anything from slavery, Stalin's Purges, the Great Leap forward and the holocaust. And spare me the "Godwin's Law!" bollocks. The shoe fits. Wear it.
Who were the ones who stopped the nazis?
Who WERE the nazis? And commies? And fascists? For the statist shit-for-brains/failed abortions who need it spelled out, they were all statists like you.
"BUT BUSH"
I still hear that shit from liberals. At this point it may as well become a fallacy.
Quote from: D on December 08, 2013, 02:44:58 PM
"BUT BUSH"
I still hear that shit from liberals. At this point it may as well become a fallacy.
But..... The Republicans.
Quote from: T dog on December 08, 2013, 01:58:54 PM
Who were the ones who stopped the nazis?
Who WERE the nazis? And commies? And fascists?
And can you even tell the difference in any significant way? (For instance, if fascism and communism are diametrically opposed, and your typical left-wing wackjob will assert, why is it that China managed to go directly from communism to fascism without any intermediate form between them?)
NOT ALL ANARCHISTS ARE NONVIOLENT! *cites the 1930's Spanish Civil War with Spanish Anarcho Communists/Syndicalists taking over parts of Spain*
Nice. Except they weren't anarchists. Why do I say this? Simple. It all hinges on one easy question.
How do you handle dissenters?
If I don't want to be a part of your communes or answer to your syndicates, what are you doing to do?
Leave me be? If so, grats, you're an anarcho capitalist.
Use force to stop me? Deadly/lethal force if necessary--even if I'm harming no one else? If so, grats, you just invented government--you're not an anarchist.
But even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said they were anarchists, so what? How about I point to Stalin's system--and nothing else--as a reason why statism will never work. Would that convince you that statism is bad? No? I didn't think so, Mr. Cherry Picker. Why not focus on, say, Anarchic Medieval Ireland. It lasted over 2000 years. It did eventually fall to the British Empire, but took something like 400 years to do so. Considering the latter had the biggest and most powerful army at the time, and didn't have the separation of an entire ocean the USA had the benefit of; I'd say that's pretty damn impressive.
HOW DO YOU GET PEOPLE TO HONOR CONTRACTS/NOT KILL EACH OTHER/ETC WITHOUT THE THREAT OF PUNISHMENT?
First off, you do know that there are other sources of punishment than the state right? You ever been sent to time out as a kid? Blocked from someone online/banned from a forum? If so, there you go.
Second off, you aren't seriously saying that the only reason you don't murder/rape/steal/cheat/defraud is because of the threat of jail-time/getting your nuts tazed/shot, right? If so, you're not really in a position to be spouting off about that kind of thing.
Lastly, if history--hell, if the present day--is any indicator, social ostracism would be the way to go in general. With one's credit score being a decent example. Who's gonna want to associate/trade with a deadbeat? And basically not forcibly disarming the populace so we can handle self defense against the murders/rapists/etc in the act. But don't take my word for it, check out the murder rates during the "Wild" West. Notice how much lower than today's they are. And that's even after you control for population. Hollywood lied to you. The "Wild" West is also something of an example of Anarchy that *did* work, FYI. :P
"We need a public option for insurance to keep from colluding with each other and forming a monopoly. UPS and FedEx are competitive simply because they have the Post Office to contend with."
Okay honestly I've tried (repeatedly) to convince my family that this is BS but they're not budging.
Quote from: Dallas Wildman on December 16, 2013, 04:48:59 PM
"We need a public option for insurance to keep from colluding with each other and forming a monopoly. UPS and FedEx are competitive simply because they have the Post Office to contend with."
Okay honestly I've tried (repeatedly) to convince my family that this is BS but they're not budging.
Free market collusion is a myth for two reasons.
1. It's too profitable to break ranks.
2. There's no way to stop some new firm from opening up and competing with you.
Not to mention they're arguing we need a collusion by the government or else there will be collusion and collusion is bad? Prepostrous
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on December 16, 2013, 04:51:54 PM
Free market collusion is a myth for two reasons.
1. It's too profitable to break ranks.
2. There's no way to stop some new firm from opening up and competing with you.
Not to mention they're arguing we need a collusion by the government or else there will be collusion and collusion is bad? Prepostrous
Not to mention arguing that government forcing everyone to buy the insurance companies policies whether they want them or not is 'fostering competition'.
Quote from: T dog on December 16, 2013, 04:53:00 PM
Not to mention arguing that government forcing everyone to buy the insurance companies policies whether they want them or not is 'fostering competition'.
I suppose one way of getting a measure is looking at what happened when auto insurance became mandatory.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on November 26, 2013, 01:19:16 PM
Monsanto is TEH EVIL!!
Well yes they are but not for the reasons you think, see below.
GMO's are TEH EVIL!!
GMO's are not a new thing. In fact, us messing with the genes of animals and plants for our own benefit is the one of the big reasons why starvation is not a thing in your world so kindly get off your high horse and do some actual research before opening your mouth please.
Big Pharma is TEH EVIL!!
Again, they kinda are but not for the reasons you think.
Continuing from those ones:
ORGANIC FOOD IS BETTER FOR HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT!!!1
If we went all organic over 3 billion people would die from starvation caused by shortages. Also, you're 8x more likely to get e. coli because of the poop they use to fertilize it; which will probably undo any of the alleged health benefits (that I've yet to get evidence for anyways http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120903221122.htm http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/comprehensive-study-100-billion-animals-finds-gmos-safe-livestock ) for the stuff in the first place. And yeah, because of how inefficient it is, it actually is even worse for the environment. Deal with it.
And the best part? The people selling this stuff know that it is a scam: http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AR_Organic-Marketing-Report_Print.pdf Now stop wasting your money on hippy voodoo bullshit and snake oil and start listening to REAL scientists like the late and great Norman Borlaug whose work saved over a billion lives from starvation via GMOs. Sorry, folks, but you cannot bash and defame someone who saved over a billion lives and claim the moral and scientific high ground.
GLUTEN FREE FOODS ARE BEST!!!!11
Only if you have Celiac disease and maybe allergies. If not, you do more harm than good by going gluten free. http://gizmodo.com/why-you-might-want-to-rethink-going-gluten-free-1475646469 Just chill.
ALL NATURAL IS BEST!!111
You say while typing on your blatantly artificial computer. Also, naturalistic fallacy: arsenic & copperhead venom are "all natural" but they'll still kill you regardless.
THE FOOD COMPANIES TRY TO KILL US WITH THEIR CHEMICALS!
So they'll get rich by murdering their consumer base? What possible sense does that make? Think before you speak.
NUCLEAR IS TERRIBAD! JUST LOOK AT CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA AND THREE MILE ISLAND!
Nuclear power--even taking into account all of those things is the safest and cleanest (and one of the most efficient) energy sources we have. A single perfectly functioning coal plant produces about 50 tons of nuclear/radioactive waste per year. More than the initial blast at Chernobyl (15 tons), Fukushima (5 tons) and Three Mile Island (zilch) combined. Also, the other sources of clean power like wind and solar are too inefficient (no 3 phase power) and unreliable (no power on demand) to be of widespread use. Stop listening to the hippies and go nuclear already.
MEAT IS INEFFICIENT!
I'll quote a bit from Hawkeye on this one: "Some land is good for raising livestock but not good for growing grain. (try raising grain up in the mountains, doesn't work) livestock eat plants that we can't eat (humans can't eat grass for example) and turn it into something that we can.
It's simple. For most of human history, farming efficiency was literally a matter of life and death. So if farming animals for their meat, milk, eggs, etc were inefficient, there is 100% NO conceivable way we'd have done it for thousands of years. Stop getting your info from hippies who don't know what they're talking about."
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 10, 2014, 06:28:51 PM
Continuing from this one:
ORGANIC FOOD IS BETTER FOR HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT!!!1
If we went all organic over 3 billion people would die from starvation caused by shortages. Also, you're 8x more likely to get e. coli because of the poop they fertilize it; which will probably undo any of the alleged health benefits (that I've yet to get evidence for anyways) for the stuff in the first place. And yeah, because of how inefficient it is, it actually is even worse for the environment. Deal with it.
GLUTEN FREE FOODS ARE BEST!!!!11
Only if you have a pre-existing sensitivity/allergy to it. If not, you do more harm than good by going gluten free.
ALL NATURAL IS BEST!!111
You say while typing on your blatantly artificial computer. Also, naturalistic fallacy: arsenic is "all natural" but it'll still kill you regardless.
THE FOOD COMPANIES TRY TO KILL US WITH THEIR CHEMICALS!
So they'll get rich by murdering their consumer base? What possible sense does that make? Think before you speak.
NUCLEAR IS TERRIBAD! JUST LOOK AT CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA AND THREE MILE ISLAND!
Nuclear power--even taking into account all of those things is the safest and cleanest (and one of the most efficient) energy sources we have. Stop listening to the hippies and go nuclear already. Coal plants produce about 50 tons of nuclear/radioactive waste per year. More than Chernobyl (15 tons), Fukushima (5 tons) and Three Mile Island (zilch) combined. Also, the other sources of clean power like wind and solar are too inefficient (no 3 phase power) and unreliable (no power on demand) to be of widespread use. Deal with it.
MEAT IS INEFFICIENT!
I'll quote a bit from Hawkeye on this one: "Some land is good for raising livestock but not good for growing grain. (try raising grain up in the mountains, doesn't work) livestock eat plants that we can't eat (humans can't eat grass for example) and turn it into something that we can.
It's simple. For most of human history, farming efficiency was literally a matter of life and death. So if farming cattle [or any kind of animal for meat] were inefficient, there is 100% NO conceivable way we'd have done it for thousands of years. Stop getting your info from hippies who don't know what they're talking about."
Don't forget the 'raw foodies' stupidity. If raw food is so good for you, why is it that not cooking your food requires you to put more time and effort into processing it so you can digest it well enough to not starve to death on it than if you just cooked it?
Quote from: evensgrey on March 10, 2014, 07:29:56 PM
Don't forget the 'raw foodies' stupidity. If raw food is so good for you, why is it that not cooking your food requires you to put more time and effort into processing it so you can digest it well enough to not starve to death on it than if you just cooked it?
Indeed. Hell, for the raw foodism crap (see what I did there?) I can do you one better: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/simply-raw-making-overcooked-claims-about-raw-food-diets/
Chew on that, Spurlock!
I KNOW THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM/YOUR PARENTS/SOMETHING ELSE OUT OF YOUR CONTROL FAILED YOU, BUT YOU HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!
For what? I never had a say in the matter, and all those things were forced on me or imposed on me. You might as well be saying to a rape victim, "you need to take responsibility for being raped." Also, if I'm still gonna be responsible regardless, then why even 'provide' the shit in the first place? Especially at the point of a gun?
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 20, 2014, 11:04:36 AM
I KNOW THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM/YOUR PARENTS/SOMETHING ELSE OUT OF YOUR CONTROL FAILED YOU, BUT YOU HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!
For what? I never had a say in the matter, and all those things were forced on me or imposed on me. You might as well be saying to a rape victim, "you need to take responsibility for being raped." Also, if I'm still gonna be responsible regardless, then why even 'provide' the shit in the first place? Especially at the point of a gun?
I think what they're trying to say is "you don't get to use something that happened to you when you were a kid as a free pass for wrong doing today."
THE MEDICAL PROFESSION IS TRYING TO KEEP US SICK SO WE'LL KEEP GOING TO THEM FOR HELP/SPENDING MONEY ON THEM!
1) Massive defamation of character to every medical professional ever. 2) NOT true, and even if it were, it's because of government barriers to entry allowing it to happen in the first place. 3) If you go to a doctor who doesn't help you, and only just seems to pad his wallet, you really don't care about this as much as you think, huh?
Not exactly a talking point, but it happens too often to go unmentioned:
You post to a forum that lets you edit posts, while marking them as having been edited (which is perfectly understandable). You make a typo, and then go and change it, which, of course, marks your post as having been edited.
Internetwit: "How DARE you say that black people should be shipped back to Africa!" (Or whatever.)
You: "What are you talking about? I never said that!"
Internetwit: "You edited your comment to take it out!"
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 22, 2014, 10:28:00 AM
THE MEDICAL PROFESSION IS TRYING TO KEEP US SICK SO WE'LL KEEP GOING TO THEM FOR HELP/SPENDING MONEY ON THEM!
1) Massive defamation of character to every medical professional ever. 2) NOT true, and even if it were, it's because of government barriers to entry allowing it to happen in the first place. 3) If you go to a doctor who doesn't help you, and only just seems to pad his wallet, you really don't care about this as much as you think, huh?
4) If a doctor really did that, he'd very quickly get a bad reputation and wouldn't have that many patients to pad his pocket with.
I've mentioned this on Facebook, but the "Back in my day" bullshit needs to die the death.
Quote from: D on March 23, 2014, 07:22:21 PM
I've mentioned this on Facebook, but the "Back in my day" bullshit needs to die the death.
back in the day?
Quote from: Skm1091 on March 23, 2014, 07:30:32 PM
back in the day?
Well, sort of. The argument goes something like:
"Back in my day, (or alternately, "When I was (a kid, in school, etc.) we showed respect, worked hard, didn't have stuff handed to us, etc. etc."
No we didn't.
No, we didn't.
Yes, we did.
I've been hearing this form of argument for at least 40 years, and it never changes. I read a book from the 1830's - same argument. There's no reason to think any generation is any better or worse than another.
Quote from: D on March 23, 2014, 07:22:21 PM
I've mentioned this on Facebook, but the "Back in my day" bullshit needs to die the death.
Reminds me of a Weird Al song that actually poked fun at the "Back in MY day" mentality:
[yt]9kB78hM_lkI[/yt]
I once saw a Japanese comedienne on Comedy Central, talking about this: "You think YOU have it rough? You know what we get in Japan? 'When I was your age, we had two nuclear bombs dropped on us!' How do you top that?"
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 24, 2014, 06:13:49 AM
I once saw a Japanese comedienne on Comedy Central, talking about this: "You think YOU have it rough? You know what we get in Japan? 'When I was your age, we had two nuclear bombs dropped on us!' How do you top that?"
My understanding is that it wouldn't come up. In Japan, there's a strong social stigma attached to being a survivor or a descendant of a survivor of those attacks. People think you may have damaged genes from radiation exposure and don't want to be involved with you. As a result, the survivors and their families keep it as quiet as possible.
Quote from: evensgrey on March 24, 2014, 07:53:16 AM
My understanding is that it wouldn't come up. In Japan, there's a strong social stigma attached to being a survivor or a descendant of a survivor of those attacks. People think you may have damaged genes from radiation exposure and don't want to be involved with you. As a result, the survivors and their families keep it as quiet as possible.
She was joking, of course. It was a stand-up routine.
"I don't have time to waste watching your video/checking your sources/providing sources that back me up/explain the data and arguments that led me to my conclusion."
Oh, but you have time to spend hours making ridiculous comments denigrating those who know more than you do...
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 26, 2014, 05:28:49 PM
"I don't have time to waste watching your video/checking your sources/providing sources that back me up/explain the data and arguments that led me to my conclusion."
Oh, but you have time to spend hours making ridiculous comments denigrating those who know more than you do...
And every one of those comments says the same thing over and over and over.
Quote from: dallen68 on March 20, 2014, 04:28:56 PM
I think what they're trying to say is "you don't get to use something that happened to you when you were a kid as a free pass for wrong doing today."
Which still fails because 1) if they believed that they shouldn't have offered to take responsibility in the first place, 2) it's just an ex-post facto excuse. and 3) by 1 and 2 it's an avoidance of the point.
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 29, 2014, 11:02:04 AM
Which still fails because 1) if they believed that they shouldn't have offered to take responsibility in the first place, 2) it's just an ex-post facto excuse. and 3) by 1 and 2 it's an avoidance of the point.
Well, yes. I didn't say I agreed with the argument, I was just explaining what the argument is. Without knowing the details, I can't really say whether or not something in your past excuses the current thing. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't depending on what it is.
Related to Appeal to Open-Mindedness:
"You're acting like you're right and everyone who says differently is wrong!"
Uh...yeah, when you make a factual statement supported by the evidence, how are you SUPPOSED to act?
"Evolution is real and creationism is crap." "You're acting like you're right and everyone who says differently is wrong!"
"Vaccinations WORK, and anti-vaccination activists KILL BABIES when they convince people not to vaccinate." "You're acting like you're right and everyone who says differently is wrong!"
"I say 2+2=4!" "You're acting like you're right and everyone who says differently is wrong!"
"You're acting like you're right and everyone who says differently is wrong!" Why, yes, yes I am. And can you think of the reason why?
Here's a hint: if I'm NOT right, you can provide this stuff called EVIDENCE and convince me.
Related to the above:
"You think everything you believe is right, don't you?"
Well, YEAH, to be honest! What's the alternative? I believe something I think is wrong? Why would I do that?
"Truth is somewhere in the middle!"
Oh, really? So between round-Earth and flat-Earth it's somewhere in the middle? Between the moon being made of rock or of cheese it's somewhere in the middle (a rocky sort of cheese)?
I guess since science says the Earth is 4.55 billion years old and creationism says it's 6000 years old its real age is therefore 2.27 billion years?
I think this is related to the Fallacy of Grey: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/
So, if the truth is an inch away from me, while the other side is kilometers away, does that count as "in the middle?" I guess an oblate spheroid would then therefore be "in the middle" (slightly!) between a flat and spherical Earth. But somehow, that doesn't seem to be what they're saying. This is used to try to make both sides seem to have the same degree of legitimacy, when they simply don't.
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 31, 2014, 08:52:14 AM
"Truth is somewhere in the middle!"
Oh, really? So between round-Earth and flat-Earth it's somewhere in the middle? Between the moon being made of rock or of cheese it's somewhere in the middle (a rocky sort of cheese)?
I guess since science says the Earth is 4.55 billion years old and creationism says it's 6000 years old its real age is therefore 2.27 billion years?
I think this is related to the Fallacy of Grey: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/
So, if the truth is an inch away from me, while the other side is kilometers away, does that count as "in the middle?" I guess an oblate spheroid would then therefore be "in the middle" (slightly!) between a flat and spherical Earth. But somehow, that doesn't seem to be what they're saying. This is used to try to make both sides seem to have the same degree of legitimacy, when they simply don't.
That has a name. It's called the Golden Mean Fallacy. Or as TheAmazingAtheist likes to call it, 'The Agnostic Fallacy' for reasons that are obvious if you've ever talked to a self proclaimed agnostic before.
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 31, 2014, 09:13:19 AM
That has a name. It's called the Golden Mean Fallacy. Or as TheAmazingAtheist likes to call it, 'The Agnostic Fallacy' for reasons that are obvious if you've ever talked to a self proclaimed agnostic before.
And here I thought the Golden Mean Fallacy was actually about the Golden Mean (i.e., ≈1.618), that's been applied to all sorts of things it has nothing to do with (like most of numerology does).
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 31, 2014, 09:20:47 AM
And here I thought the Golden Mean Fallacy was actually about the Golden Mean (i.e., ≈1.618), that's been applied to all sorts of things it has nothing to do with (like most of numerology does).
Ha! Actually, according to Google that's called the "Golden Ratio" Though I have heard it called the golden mean too, I suppose.
I know it's not good form to link to Wikipedia, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_fallacy Apparently it has more...appropriate names to distinguish itself from that 1.6 number thingie you mentioned. And yeah, numerology blows. Such a shame so many in the financial industry are into it. :( I hope Harry Browne's investment strategies didn't use that kind of stuff.
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 31, 2014, 09:25:11 AM
Ha! Actually, according to Google that's called the "Golden Ratio" Though I have heard it called the golden mean too, I suppose.
I know it's not good form to link to Wikipedia, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_fallacy Apparently it has more...appropriate names to distinguish itself from that 1.6 number thingie you mentioned. And yeah, numerology blows. Such a shame so many in the financial industry are into it. :( I hope Harry Browne's investment strategies didn't use that kind of stuff.
They were built on the explicit basis of AVOIDING that kind of stuff. Fail Safe Investing goes into it quite a bit, and his Investment radio show attacked it quite a lot.
I just read this:
Quotedefinition of "libertarian": somebody who stopped paying attention in economics classes right before they described what "externalities" are and why they pretty much demolish naive free market ideas.
Definition of statist: somebody who doesn't pay attention to the unintended consequences of public policy.
Quote from: Dallas Wildman on April 05, 2014, 02:28:11 PM
I just read this:
Definition of statist: somebody who doesn't pay attention to the unintended consequences of public policy.
>>Externalities
Because war, unintended consequences, and bullshit resulting from a lack of good restitution in our so called 'justice' system is the fault of the free market? Um...what?
Statist: Someone who can't take 3 seconds to check a fucking dictionary.
Quote from: Travis Retriever on March 10, 2014, 06:28:51 PM
Continuing from those ones:
ORGANIC FOOD IS BETTER FOR HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT!!!1
If we went all organic over 3 billion people would die from starvation caused by shortages. Also, you're 8x more likely to get e. coli because of the poop they use to fertilize it; which will probably undo any of the alleged health benefits (that I've yet to get evidence for anyways) for the stuff in the first place. And yeah, because of how inefficient it is, it actually is even worse for the environment. Deal with it.
And the best part? The people selling this stuff know that it is a scam: http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AR_Organic-Marketing-Report_Print.pdf Now stop wasting your money on hippy voodoo bullshit and snake oil and start listening to REAL scientists like the late and great Norman Borlaug whose work saved over a billion lives from starvation via GMOs. Sorry, folks, but you cannot bash and defame someone who saved over a billion lives and claim the moral and scientific high ground.
GLUTEN FREE FOODS ARE BEST!!!!11
Only if you have Celiac disease and maybe allergies. If not, you do more harm than good by going gluten free. Just chill.
ALL NATURAL IS BEST!!111
You say while typing on your blatantly artificial computer. Also, naturalistic fallacy: arsenic & copperhead venom are "all natural" but they'll still kill you regardless.
THE FOOD COMPANIES TRY TO KILL US WITH THEIR CHEMICALS!
So they'll get rich by murdering their consumer base? What possible sense does that make? Think before you speak.
NUCLEAR IS TERRIBAD! JUST LOOK AT CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA AND THREE MILE ISLAND!
Nuclear power--even taking into account all of those things is the safest and cleanest (and one of the most efficient) energy sources we have. A single perfectly functioning coal plant produces about 50 tons of nuclear/radioactive waste per year. More than the initial blast at Chernobyl (15 tons), Fukushima (5 tons) and Three Mile Island (zilch) combined. Also, the other sources of clean power like wind and solar are too inefficient (no 3 phase power) and unreliable (no power on demand) to be of widespread use. Stop listening to the hippies and go nuclear already.
MEAT IS INEFFICIENT!
I'll quote a bit from Hawkeye on this one: "Some land is good for raising livestock but not good for growing grain. (try raising grain up in the mountains, doesn't work) livestock eat plants that we can't eat (humans can't eat grass for example) and turn it into something that we can.
It's simple. For most of human history, farming efficiency was literally a matter of life and death. So if farming animals for their meat, milk, eggs, etc were inefficient, there is 100% NO conceivable way we'd have done it for thousands of years. Stop getting your info from hippies who don't know what they're talking about."
And continuing from this post, I have my mom spewing crap about how
"RAW HONEY IS BEST! IF IT'S BEEN HEATED IT LOSES ALL MEDICINAL BENEFITS AND MIGHT AS WELL BE PURE WHITE SUGAR!111"
Jesus, would it kill her to learn how to back up a claim? Sorry, but "repeat the assertion until everyone caves and runs of energy to keep asking what the hell?" is NOT how you convince me. It just makes you look like a fucking infant who doesn't know what the fuck its talking about. STFU. Either provide evidence or STFU. I am sick to death of these fucking hippy failure shit-for-brains who couldn't tell a credible source (the Bible doesn't count, nor do your naturopathic leaning sites). Just once I'd like to see one of these shit-for-brains actually know how burden of proof works and see them do this rationally. Just one! Is that too much to ask?
And yes, she's given similar sentiments on raw milk as well, all while providing exactly bugger all to back it up and denying the risks of it as if it was a evil food company conspiracy.../facepalms
Liberals/Democrats are the pro-science/rationalist party!
Whenever someone says this, I laugh. Pro raw food & raw food veganism, anti-nuclear power, anti-GMO, anti-vaxxers, anti-Science Based Medicine, pro-homeopathic/alt med/crystal healing and other hippy woo bullshit, anti-irradiation of our food, thinking meat/sugar/whatever culinary bogeyman is currently in vogue is teh ebil and will kill you dead, anti-economics, and pro-feminism/SJW horseshit...hell, that's just to name the few I can think of off the top of my head.
Posted because I am sick to *death* of hearing that stupid bogus talking point. Liberals. You are NOT pro-science. That hippy voodoo bullshit started with YOU, not us. Own it.
Quote from: dallen68 on March 23, 2014, 06:12:23 PM
4) If a doctor really did that, he'd very quickly get a bad reputation and wouldn't have that many patients to pad his pocket with.
5) Even if it *does* happen, that's still an argument against government involvement in medicine. With the possible exception of finance/banking, medicine/healthcare is the most heavily regulated sector of the entire economy. So if they are able to do this, government is either helping them get away with it, or at the very least not stopping it. So even if it's true, it's still not an argument in their favor. I mean, come on, they can't even catch the obvious con artists, like Doctor Oz, or the huge alt medicine scam artists, but they're supposed to be doing good here? Oh, those naive state worshipping infants.
"Science changes with evidence; that's a feature, not a bug."
Not a bad talking point per se, but I think it misunderstands what the people talking about "science changes its mind" tend to be angry with. Let me give an example.
When the academic and lay press cry bloody murder about fats (like they did in the "fat free 80s") despite the fact that fats were known to be of different varieties and different levels of benefit/detriment to health at least since the 1950s. Or when one year we see reports of egg yolk being teh ebil, and another it being the best thing ever. Crap like this. When there is no explanation of controls, contexts, who the study is meant to apply to, etc. THIS is the kind of overselling and "let's lie because it's for a good cause!" bullshit is what irks me, and to ignore this kind of crap is NOT helping your cause, like I said in my reply to Menno Henselmans. Like I said, it's *not* a bad talking point, but it's still one I'm sick of hearing nonetheless.
Granted, my mom talking about how "scientists lied to her!" when it was discovered that Pluto wasn't really a planet aren't exactly helping my case here. >.<*
It's a shame science eduction (THANKS GOVCO) is such shit. For example, talking about controls, statistical significance and power, Bayesian inference, how to comb a study for questionable results and bad methodology, how to view the results in context with the overall literature (e.g. how to do a meta-analysis of the studies on the top), how to spot financial bias, to name but a few But as someone with at least a half decent scientific background here is a big and easy first step:
STOP LISTENING TO THE FUCKING NEWS! Listening to those overdressed & overpaid meat puppets about science is like getting financial advice from a drug tripping hobo. You take his advice at your own risk, and the odds are hedged against him being right.
Quote from: Travis Retriever on August 09, 2014, 12:42:22 AM
"Science changes with evidence; that's a feature, not a bug."
Not a bad talking point per se, but I think it misunderstands what the people talking about "science changes its mind" tend to be angry with. Let me give an example.
When the academic and lay press cry bloody murder about fats (like they did in the "fat free 80s") despite the fact that fats were known to be of different varieties and different levels of benefit/detriment to health at least since the 1950s. Or when one year we see reports of egg yolk being teh ebil, and another it being the best thing ever. Crap like this. When there is no explanation of controls, contexts, who the study is meant to apply to, etc. THIS is the kind of overselling and "let's lie because it's for a good cause!" bullshit is what irks me, and to ignore this kind of crap is NOT helping your cause, like I said in my reply to Menno Henselmans. Like I said, it's *not* a bad talking point, but it's still one I'm sick of hearing nontheless.
I see your point, but what you're talking about isn't actual science; it's people in the media not understanding the science and just going with whatever they think, which usually ends up agreeing with whatever agenda they were supporting beforehand (and how many times have we seen that?). I mean, a study in the
New England Journal of Medicine might say something like, "Meta-study of murine embryos suggests strong correlation between increased milk consumption and osteoperosis in celiac patients," and they jump in with, "ZOMG MILK IZ BAD 4 U!!!!111eleventy-one"
QuoteSTOP LISTENING TO THE FUCKING NEWS! Listening to those overdressed & overpaid meat puppets about science is like getting financial advice from a drug tripping hobo. You take his advice at your own risk, and the bets are hedged him being right.
And yet, they'll count the hits and ignore the misses, and just like Sylvia Browne that'll PROVE that they were right!
Quote from: Travis Retriever on August 09, 2014, 12:42:22 AM
Granted, my mom talking about how "scientists lied to her!" when it was discovered that Pluto wasn't really a planet aren't exactly helping my case here. >.<*
That makes no sense: no one lied to anyone: the definition of a Planet simply changed in such a way that Pluto is no longer considered a planet. It's still there, it hasn't disappeared, it even has more satellites known for it, it just is no longer considered a planet.
besides, scientists owe her nothing. they don't owe it to her to keep saying Pluto is a planet.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 09, 2014, 09:29:18 AM
I see your point, but what you're talking about isn't actual science; it's people in the media not understanding the science and just going with whatever they think, which usually ends up agreeing with whatever agenda they were supporting beforehand (and how many times have we seen that?).
Being clueless of people understandably being skeptical of science (like in the strength community) after a lifetime of fear-mongering from doctors and public officials and news media about foods, esp. saturated fat and cholesterol shouldn't surprise anyone, hence the example I picked. I picked it because, near as I can tell, it also involved the academic press as well as the lay press. To the folks in academia who pull that shit? Shame on you. It's why I like Menno Henselmans, Alan Aragon, Casey Butt, and Armi Legge. They're not afraid to call bullshit on bogus studies and other nonsense and show what's up. Hell, Alan Aragon's article on Clean Eating was where I got the example of the fat free 80s. But yeah, to the all the scientists confused at public skepticism of science--start calling out these bastards who pull that shit and remember your study results in the context of the overall literature. And really, I always thought this talking point, when from a scientist to be a bold admission of their failure to teach the scientific method to students. One more reason we need govco out of this fucking education system, and indeed out of public health too. It's been involved at least since the 1980s and people are now fatter than ever before.
And yeah, in retrospect, it's not *science* so much as shoddy and/or misrepresented research. Derp.
As for another example, there's the stuff from Menno noting about the only bit where Nutrient timing seems to have any relevance would be CRPT (and maybe getting some protein before a workout as he noted in the comments:
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/nutrient-timing-endures-circadian-rhythm-protein-timing/
Further discussed in the comments on his site and between him and Big Cat here: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157130393&p=1138757743&viewfull=1#post1138757743
Note the studies and metaanlyasis Menno does in the first post, and how it would seem to contradict the ones presented on dynamicduotraining.com/ask-the-experts-round-table-discussions/18-nutrition-myths-want-know-allow-experts-tell/ by JACOB M. WILSON that I discussed somewhat here: https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=291.msg26575#msg26575
With no attempt to reconsile or explain what's up. Maybe the studies Jacob presented had a better sample size, better controls, or better design, or maybe they applied to different people? Hell if I know.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 09, 2014, 09:29:18 AM
I mean, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine might say something like, "Meta-study of murine embryos suggests strong correlation between increased milk consumption and osteoperosis in celiac patients," and they jump in with, "ZOMG MILK IZ BAD 4 U!!!!111eleventy-one"And yet, they'll count the hits and ignore the misses, and just like Sylvia Browne that'll PROVE that they were right!
Oy, reminds me of a bit from cracked.com here: http://www.cracked.com/article_20669_6-ridiculous-science-myths-you-learned-in-kindergarten_p2.html (#1 on that list).
I had to repost Alan Aragon's response to that nonsense here: http://www.simplyshredded.com/qa-with-nutrition-expert-alan-aragon-milk.html
Also, note how the anti-milk people NEVER say, "and this is why we shouldn't have government funding of milk and other industries as it tends to let them get away with anti-scientific crap like this!" when they talk about political bias? As usual, what's not said says far more than what is said...
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on August 09, 2014, 12:45:41 PM
That makes no sense: no one lied to anyone: the definition of a Planet simply changed in such a way that Pluto is no longer considered a planet. It's still there, it hasn't disappeared, it even has more satellites known for it, it just is no longer considered a planet.
besides, scientists owe her nothing. they don't owe it to her to keep saying Pluto is a planet.
It wasn't that the definition of 'planet' changed, it was that an actual definition for the term 'planet' was finally developed. This wasn't really about Pluto at all, but about the fact that we know about far more planets in other star systems than in this one now, so we needed to get ourselves a proper definition of 'planet'.
Quote from: evensgrey on August 12, 2014, 08:45:58 AM
It wasn't that the definition of 'planet' changed, it was that an actual definition for the term 'planet' was finally developed. This wasn't really about Pluto at all, but about the fact that we know about far more planets in other star systems than in this one now, so we needed to get ourselves a proper definition of 'planet'.
And because we were faced with adding dozens if not hundreds of plants to the roster if we kept Pluto as a planet.
This has happened before: Ceres was considered a planet until the discovery of other asteroids. Then they figured out that they weren't discovering more planets; they had discovered a new class of objects entirely. Same with Pluto.
Also, a lot of what we knew about Pluto had changed since its discovery. It was once though to be much larger and more massive than it is because of its brightness; now, we know that's because Pluto's surface is very reflective. The better they measured it, Pluto's mass and size got lower and lower. One paper jokingly suggested that at this rate, by the 1980s Pluto will have disappeared entirely!
With the recent passing of Robin Williams, I'm going to bring up the usual smug douchebags who can't help but shit on everyone else for mourning a celebrity's death.
Usually this kind of thing is followed by "WELL WHY AREN'T YOU MOURNING THE THOUSANDS KILLED IN SOME THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT WERE KILLED BY BOMBS (or some other variety of mass killer.)"
I mean, I get it, yeah, those deaths are just as tragic, the simple matter is, human beings tend to show more emotion for people they are actually aware of and have had some kind of effect on their life, even if it's something as small as entertaining them for an hour. I also notice that half the time these people only bring up these other deaths when people mourn celebrity deaths. Stop acting like you're some kind of super humanitarian who cares a lot more than the rest of us when half the time you don't even bring it up unless you're trying to make a point.
Quote from: D on August 12, 2014, 05:08:37 PM
With the recent passing of Robin Williams, I'm going to bring up the usual smug douchebags who can't help but shit on everyone else for mourning a celebrity's death.
Usually this kind of thing is followed by "WELL WHY AREN'T YOU MOURNING THE THOUSANDS KILLED IN SOME THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT WERE KILLED BY BOMBS (or some other variety of mass killer.)"
I mean, I get it, yeah, those deaths are just as tragic, the simple matter is, human beings tend to show more emotion for people they are actually aware of and have had some kind of effect on their life, even if it's something as small as entertaining them for an hour. I also notice that half the time these people only bring up these other deaths when people mourn celebrity deaths. Stop acting like you're some kind of super humanitarian who cares a lot more than the rest of us when half the time you don't even bring it up unless you're trying to make a point.
Or the ones who shout, "HOW DARE YOU MOURN HIM HE WAS FOR BIG GOVERNMENT!!!" So, we can only mourn people we agree with? Whose views happen to coincide with ours? We're not allowed to miss them for the contributions they made to our lives, because they did other things that you find unsavory? Then we can never mourn any human being, ever. Because NONE of us are perfect.
My two cents on this...
@D: Meh, I'll admit the celeb mourning annoys me. Not nearly enough to start trolling people about it, Westboro Baptist Church and/or 4chan style with explicit photoshops of them in hell or saying I'm glad they're gone or whatever. Partly because I'm not *that* big of an asshole, but mostly because I don't care enough to be asked. But also because, having recently been learning what it's like to feel emotional investment in a form of fiction (Newshounds and Housepets webcomics ftw), I figure I'd best not throw stones from glass houses... bare in mind that I haven't watched TV or movies in over a decade (ever since my family got internet access sometime around 2003 ish), I've been more of a flash cartoon person, then later YouTube video kind of guy, so I haven't really gotten any kind of emotional attachment/investment to one of these celebs--so there's my bias there. Well, with the possible exception of cracked.com folks like John Cheese...anyways.
@Shane: Something probably made worse by Stefan Molyneux. Don't get me wrong, he says a TON of good stuff. I wouldn't have provided Hawkeye with moral support over AIM when he was debating Jason Fennec in that other thread about him (and climate change), or posted a bunch of his videos in fav quotes if I thought otherwise. And yeah, maybe it's just me, but after a scuffle with you regarding national debt in one of your videos brought on by me watching one of Stef's and him saying, "it's not our debt" (well, by any *sane* standard it isn't, but moving on...) but it did demonstrate to me he has this very annoying tendency to sort of overplay just how far in this movement we really are. He talks about de-FOOing (read: a slightly less harsh version of disowning) parents and people who don't choose you over the state's violence, but how many of us would even be alive if we all did that? What few people would we be left to interact with? Maybe he meant just people who we want to be friends? Okay, I have a few friends in the furry fandom I've known for upwards of over 10 years whom I consider good friends--in fact, one of the lines in my rewrite of how to argue for statism (the one about 'your team') was inspired by a quote he made to me regarding the democrats being 'his team' (his exact words). I've tried Stef's method before with putting someone on the spot like that; by asking "do you advocate the initiation of violence against me for any reason?" And honestly? Said method blows ass. 1) All it did was cause *tons* of unnecessarily grief and guilt to me, making me feel like a manipulative prick and shut-in who lacks social skills even more than I already do. 2) I was already drifting and growing apart from him to begin with, so at best, all it did was delay that while putting bad blood between us. Maybe if I had a stronger will and better options (and better social skills and no anxiety issues), etc. But for now, it's just not viable. Certainly not for me. I find I tend to just slink away and grow apart naturally without the almost harpy like method(s) Stef is advocating.
But I digress, back on topic!
YOU LIBERTARIANS (or atheists, depending on who's doing the screaming) ARE JUST A BUNCH OF FOREVER ALONE, FEDORA WEARING NECKBEARDED AUTISTS/ASS-BURGERS LOL!
Riiight! Just like how a few years ago we were all evil exploiting businessmen with more game than a pick up artist who hate the poor instead. Moral of story, if you're going to tell lies and poison the well, at least stick to the same ones.
YOU LIBERTARIANS (or atheists, again, depending on who's doing the screaming) ARE JUST A BUNCH OF NAIVE KIDS WHO NEED TO GROW UP AND GET WITH THE REAL WORLD!
You're trusting/giving your blessing to institution that has murdered over 260 million of their own citizens in the last century not including war and you call yourself a realist? Also, why is wanting to change the world for the better a bad thing, even IF it is something you'd expect more from children? Would you have said that to the abolitionists? Or to the Wright Brothers? Or to Steve Wozniak? People who make that verbal defecation are the people who will never change the world for the better. But worse still, rather than just getting out of others way, they'll do whatever they can to prevent others from changing the world for the better too. Pathetic.
How is a love of liberty and freedom 'immature' anyways? It always struck me as the opposite, with statists treating the state like parents. Methinks YOU guys need to grow the fuck up.
LIBERTARIANISM IS 1ST WORLD PROBLEMS LAWL!
I dunno, the folks getting the shit kicked out of them and murdered by their governments in the 3rd world would probably take offense to that...Oh, riiight! But that's because of capitalism...even though that stuff happens, quite consistently, in the least free places on Earth. oops.
"Government is the natural result of capitalism and they require eachother to function"
"X is toxic!"
In what dose?
Quote from: Travis Retriever on November 02, 2014, 03:33:16 PM
This is what people will tell me when I express my frustration in being a good 3+ years behind in life (I got a BS degree...at the age of 25, almost 26 despite having an IQ pretty close to MENSA status),
I was 26 when I got mine, so I'd like to think you're in good company there.
Something similar to what you're talking about is when people tell you to "be strong." Being strong is good, but their version of "being strong" is something like, "Hold back the tears, hold your head up high, never let it get you down..." I'm sorry, but that's not being strong. That's ACTING.
Being strong isn't anywhere near as vainglorious as that. It's realizing that this sucks, and you just have to plod through this river of shit you've managed to get dumped into and get out of it as best as you can.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 02, 2014, 04:55:25 PM
I was 26 when I got mine, so I'd like to think you're in good company there.
Something similar to what you're talking about is when people tell you to "be strong." Being strong is good, but their version of "being strong" is something like, "Hold back the tears, hold your head up high, never let it get you down..." I'm sorry, but that's not being strong. That's ACTING.
Being strong isn't anywhere near as vainglorious as that. It's realizing that this sucks, and you just have to plod through this river of shit you've managed to get dumped into and get out of it as best as you can.
I might get my degree around the same time since i changed majors.
I wouldn't be too upset. I'm very behnd n life but it's kind of to be expected. I'm a bit of a chronic slacker.
"You need to vote, because people went overseas and fought and died for your right to vote!"
Oh, really? That's why they did it? And how many terrorists are attacking America because they don't like the fact that we vote? Really, tell me: who were these enemies we fought that were trying to take away our right to vote?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 04, 2014, 09:33:49 AM
"You need to vote, because people went overseas and fought and died for your right to vote!"
Oh, really? That's why they did it? And how many terrorists are attacking America because they don't like the fact that we vote? Really, tell me: who were these enemies we fought that were trying to take away our right to vote?
That goes right along with: "You can't stand there and say (insert whatever it is here) because (someone) fought for your right to stand there and say..." . If that's the case, you're the one dishonoring their service by stopping me from saying... I'm simply making use of my right.
Quote from: ArtemisVale on November 02, 2014, 05:25:46 PM
I might get my degree around the same time since i changed majors.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 02, 2014, 04:55:25 PM
I was 26 when I got mine, so I'd like to think you're in good company there.
Something similar to what you're talking about is when people tell you to "be strong." Being strong is good, but their version of "being strong" is something like, "Hold back the tears, hold your head up high, never let it get you down..." I'm sorry, but that's not being strong. That's ACTING.
Being strong isn't anywhere near as vainglorious as that. It's realizing that this sucks, and you just have to plod through this river of shit you've managed to get dumped into and get out of it as best as you can.
I also added the following the first point (in boldface): "if you really believe that, so you're saying if I put you in a jail cell for 10-20 years that nothing had been stolen from you or that it didn't matter? Because that IS the logical conclusion of what you're saying when you say that. That the time stolen doesn't matter. Or if, say, someone is murdered, the time he had stolen from him is irrelevant so it wasn't immoral/ or was even moral. It's fail beyond fail."
you guys are such late bloomers :P: I got my degree when I was 22....
EDIT: actually, it leads to an uninteresting talking point (through the strange workings of my brain).
"my civilization is the most important!!!1! We invented EVERYTHING!!!1!! HURR DURR"
I hear that from Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Italians, and western Europeans, etc, etc, etc. I do not understand it. No one civilization did everything or is the most important...why the arguments?
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on November 04, 2014, 06:36:59 PM
you guys are such late bloomers :P: I got my degree when I was 22....
EDIT: actually, it leads to an uninteresting talking point (through the strange workings of my brain).
"my civilization is the most important!!!1! We invented EVERYTHING!!!1!! HURR DURR"
I hear that from Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Italians, and western Europeans, etc, etc, etc. I do not understand it. No one civilization did everything or is the most important...why the arguments?
...*bonks you on the head* Meanie. :P
But yeah, I see that myself, though not as often.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on November 04, 2014, 06:36:59 PM
you guys are such late bloomers :P: I got my degree when I was 22....
EDIT: actually, it leads to an uninteresting talking point (through the strange workings of my brain).
"my civilization is the most important!!!1! We invented EVERYTHING!!!1!! HURR DURR"
I hear that from Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Italians, and western Europeans, etc, etc, etc. I do not understand it. No one civilization did everything or is the most important...why the arguments?
Isn't that basically the same argument as "without the state we wouldn't have the internet"?
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on November 04, 2014, 06:36:59 PM
Italians
As someone who is part Italian, let me be the first to say fuck the Italians.
Quote from: D on November 06, 2014, 08:26:43 AM
As someone who is part Italian, let me be the first to say fuck the Italians.
Surprised Shane didn't give you a warning for a bigoted comment, so eh. :shrug:
Responding to someone with some bullshit like, "Well there are people who have it worse!"
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-worst-things-people-do-when-trying-to-help/ #5 on that kills it for me.
"MAH GENETICS!"
In the bodybuilding and lifting communities, a few too many people use "bad genetics' as an excuse to take 'roids. I hate to break it to these people, but how well you respond to those drugs is also genetic. So if they're as genetically screwed as they make themselves out to be, they're just going to be wasting their money (and possibly risking their health) by taking them.
"MAH FUNCTIONAL LIFTS!/FUNCTIONAL STRENGTH!"
>>functional
vague flowery term that means nothing.
I see that word thrown around so often by folks so often in the fitness communities it might as well be a cliche'. What does that even mean, especially if you're not an athlete? If I have bigger muscles, that allows them to exert more force, which IS functionality in the most general sense of the word.
Quote from: tnu on November 05, 2014, 11:03:49 AM
Isn't that basically the same argument as "without the state we wouldn't have the internet"?
yeah, only it's with civilizations instead...
So I posted these in fail quotes, but I think it's even more germane to this topic:
(After explaining that I am confused by a social rule or asking how I should know how to do this or that related to social skills, etc):
"Um, common sense?"
You're right OP, I just need to magically get something that doesn't even have a coherent meaning to be better at understanding social norms. Just like to be better at your job, you just need to synergize your paradigms, you fucking tool. Excuse me for not being a fucking psychic. Seriously, if you don't any specific, useful actually helpful advice to give, then fuck off with your cliche'ed cop outs.
I've long relegated "common sense" to the same bin as Carl Jung's "Collective Unconsciousness," "well it wasn't meant to be," and "God works in mysterious ways." and other brands of cop out responses from people who seriously need to keep their cake holes shut. With staples and hot glue if necessary.
It reminds me of the more outdated phrase, "Street smarts." Okay, so maybe there might be something to that, in terms of being able to survive on the streets, or having social skills, charisma, and not getting a knife in your gut while taking a midnight summer stroll through the Southern Bronx. But in that case, call it by it's proper name: Charisma, social skills, etc. And, even better, give real advice on how to get some.
The folks telling you "hur dur common sense!"? This is the same guy who tells their homeless friends, "um, money bro? Get some of it."
Quote from: Travis Retriever on January 11, 2015, 02:27:41 PM
So I posted these in fail quotes, but I think it's even more germane to this topic:
(After explaining that I am confused by a social rule or asking how I should know how to do this or that related to social skills, etc):
"Um, common sense?"
You're right OP, I just need to magically get something that doesn't even have a coherent meaning to be better at understanding social norms. Just like to be better at your job, you just need to synergize your paradigms, you fucking tool. Excuse me for not being a fucking psychic. Seriously, if you don't any specific, useful actually helpful advice to give, then fuck off with your cliche'ed cop outs.
I've long relegated "common sense" to the same bin as Carl Jung's "Collective Unconsciousness," "well it wasn't meant to be," and "God works in mysterious ways." and other brands of cop out responses from people who seriously need to keep their cake holes shut. With staples and hot glue if necessary.
It reminds me of the more outdated phrase, "Street smarts." Okay, so maybe there might be something to that, in terms of being able to survive on the streets, or having social skills, charisma, and not getting a knife in your gut while taking a midnight summer stroll through the Southern Bronx. But in that case, call it by it's proper name: Charisma, social skills, etc. And, even better, give real advice on how to get some.
The folks telling you "hur dur common sense!"? This is the same guy who tells their homeless friends, "um, money bro? Get some of it."
Or telling someone that same homeless "get a job", as if you just go to job mart and pick one up.
OK this one has come up a few times.
When somebody says they don't like something (Like a movie, book, painting etc) and think it's not a good movie/book/painting/idea etc someone else smugly responds
"OK. Well I'd like to see you do better!"
Quote from: tnu on January 27, 2015, 08:49:27 PM
OK this one has come up a few times.
When somebody says they don't like something (Like a movie, book, painting etc) and think it's not a good movie/book/painting/idea etc someone else smugly responds
"OK. Well I'd like to see you do better!"
There's got to be a name for this fallacy. I see it all the time: you debunk climate change denial, and they come back with "Where's your PhD in climatology?" You debunk economic garbage, and they say, "Where's your Nobel Prize in economics?"
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 28, 2015, 08:13:56 AM
There's got to be a name for this fallacy. I see it all the time: you debunk climate change denial, and they come back with "Where's your PhD in climatology?" You debunk economic garbage, and they say, "Where's your Nobel Prize in economics?"
Sounds to me like it's an implied Argument from Authority; "You're a non-expert, you don't know" implies "They're an expert, they must know better..." An Argument against Nonexperts/Nonprofessionals?
Quote from: Altimadark on January 28, 2015, 08:55:38 AM
Sounds to me like it's an implied Argument from Authority; "You're a non-expert, you don't know" implies "They're an expert, they must know better..." An Argument against Nonexperts/Nonprofessionals?
It's partly that, but it's also the implication that if you can't do it yourself, you're incapable of judging. Like, I can't tell who the world's strongest man is unless I can lift 1000 lbs or something.
I don't need to be able to belt out
Nessun Dorma to know when someone's a bad singer.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 28, 2015, 08:58:37 AM
It's partly that, but it's also the implication that if you can't do it yourself, you're incapable of judging. Like, I can't tell who the world's strongest man is unless I can lift 1000 lbs or something.
I don't need to be able to belt out Nessun Dorma to know when someone's a bad singer.
The same idea kinda applies to:
1. Racism/sexism/other things: Just because I'm not (fill in whatever it is here), doesn't mean I don't know what injustice is. It also doesn't mean I can't tell when you're making it up/doing something that's causing it.
Quote from: dallen68 on January 29, 2015, 12:56:41 PM
The same idea kinda applies to:
1. Racism/sexism/other things: Just because I'm not (fill in whatever it is here), doesn't mean I don't know what injustice is. It also doesn't mean I can't tell when you're making it up/doing something that's causing it.
And don't forget the followup for the last instance: If you're doing something that causes it, then you're the one at fault. (F'rinstance, a young black man who dresses like a gangbanger does NOT get to complain about racism when cab drivers won't pick him up in bad neighborhoods at 3 AM, but a young black man who wears a nice suit DOES get to do so when cab drivers won't pick him up in the business district at 3 in the afternoon.)
"Red meat is unhealthy!"
Only if you look at the epistemological studies (read: the population wide, correlational research), and even then the relationship between stuff like red meat consumption and cancer/heart disease/diabetes/lower life expectancy, etc is weak to non-existent.
After statistically correcting for the following co-founders:
1) body fatness (those who eat lots of red meat are more likely to be fat)
2) daily activity/exercise levels (people who eat lots of red meat are less likely to work out than those restricting their food intake like vegetarians)
3) fruit/vegetable consumption (those who eat lots of red meat are less likely to eat enough fruits & vegetables)
4) consumption of processed red meats (those who eat lots of red meat are more likely to also eat a lot of processed meats like hot dogs, lunch meats/cold cuts, etc)
5) consumption of charred/burned meat (...yeah, you get the idea. As the burned parts tend to be a tad carcinogenic, but nothing to storm your local McDonald's about. :P)
6) smoking (people who eat red meat are more likely to smoke)
7) binge drinking (ditto)
The already weak relation between pathology & death from long term consumption of red meat vanishes completely.
Moral of the story, if you're
1) lean
2) active
3) eat enough fruits & vegetables
4) limit the amount of processed meats you eat
5a) make sure to not burn your meats (or at least cut off the charred portions of them)
5b) That is, your idea of 'red meat' is something like ground beef/steak from a butcher/store's in-house butcher cooked from rare to medium.
6) you don't smoke and
7) you don't go binge drinking too often
then, barring allergies or a food intolerance, red meat is just as healthy as any other food group. :)
It has lots of complete protein, good fats like vaccenic acid and stearic acid, plenty of the more bioavailable heme-iron, lots of zinc & B12, etc.
In fact, I'd argue that along with fish (especially fatty cold water fish like salmon & sardine), milk (yes, including whole milk) & dairy (yeah, full fat too!), eggs (yes, including/especially the yolk), white meat like skinless, boneless chicken breast, and organ meats like liver, that red meat is one of the most healthy and anabolic foods on the planet. :)
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 28, 2015, 08:58:37 AM
It's partly that, but it's also the implication that if you can't do it yourself, you're incapable of judging. Like, I can't tell who the world's strongest man is unless I can lift 1000 lbs or something.
I don't need to be able to belt out Nessun Dorma to know when someone's a bad singer.
Yeah, sounds like a variation of ad hominem that I've seen a LOT.
Especially irritating is when people on Facebook act like you need a law degree or be a police officer or your thoughts on the law, police violence, etc don't count. Because basic reading comprehension, logic, consistency, and morality, are dependent on a piece of paper/job title bestowed by government institutions...
The only thing I would point out is, in this context, "processed" does not actually have a meaning. As far as the food and beverage industry is concerned, it's a scare word used by people that don't want you to buy....whichever brand they're on about this week. Much like the word "organic", pretty much any commercially available product is going to be "processed" to some degree or another.
On a slightly related topic (except not really), one that I've noticed coming up a lot lately is "words don't have meanings, words have usages". Ok, (looks at Matt Dillahunty) "the usage of the word "meaning" in this context is: "The normal, or generally accepted definition of a given word in a given context." Now, stop trying to derail the conversation with semantics. (Argumentum ad Vocabulary?)
Quote from: dallen68 on May 08, 2015, 11:57:37 PM
The only thing I would point out is, in this context, "processed" does not actually have a meaning. As far as the food and beverage industry is concerned, it's a scare word used by people that don't want you to buy....whichever brand they're on about this week. Much like the word "organic", pretty much any commercially available product is going to be "processed" to some degree or another.
True. But that was why I gave a few examples. To give an idea of the kind of meats I was talking about. :)
Quote from: Travis Retriever on May 09, 2015, 12:49:50 AM
True. But that was why I gave a few examples. To give an idea of the kind of meats I was talking about. :)
In that case, it's better to say "overly preserved meats" or something like that, that describes what it is you're talking about.