Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[redwallzyl]

http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript

Just read it. Its like distilled nonsense.

[redwallzyl]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/12/528119808/large-cyber-attack-hits-englands-nhs-hospital-system-ransoms-demanded
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/world/europe/uk-national-health-service-cyberattack.html?_r=0

Oh shit. Hope you don't need to go the the hospital soon. apparently partially the NSAs fault.

[nenjin]

It's a time honored tradition anywhere in the world. You spend all that time, money, love and energy making and raising the child, you don't want someone else to tell you how to do it.

I get it, but the answers to problems are not about *your* kid, but *all kids*. People get entrenched on issues like bathrooms for the sake of their kids like the gubment is kicking down *their* door for *their* kid. You can't ever get far when your default response is "mine first, screw yours."

[Strife26]

It's a time honored tradition anywhere in the world. You spend all that time, money, love and energy making and raising the child, you don't want someone else to tell you how to do it.

I get it, but the answers to problems are not about *your* kid, but *all kids*. People get entrenched on issues like bathrooms for the sake of their kids like the gubment is kicking down *their* door for *their* kid. You can't ever get far when your default response is "mine first, screw yours."

So where is the line drawn? I mean, communism certainly has gotten many people killed, so is the whole "under God" part of the pledge a reasonable requirement for education?

[EnigmaticHat]

It's not just "any group" it's a group defined by the shared trait, a trait still seen as an abomination in a plurality or even majority in some places. Like, LGBT teens? Not a huge percentage of the population. Recent research indicates the latest generation is the queerest in a while, and even then, it's a well shy of 20%, and usually the number given is around 7%.

Meanwhile, 40% of homeless youth are queer or LGBT in one way or another. Twice the rate, or possibly 4-5x the rate.

The "mental health issue" they share is, probably and I'd even bet money on it, induced depression from being told directly or indirectly (would you come out to your parents if you weren't sure they'd even let you live in that house anymore?) that you and people like you are an abomination, and with no one telling you otherwise (or at least, no one in authority; the internet still exists but people on a screen don't trump authority figures who are *supposed* to love you and care for and about you) I don't see how it's a stretch to think that it's not something inherent to the group that's causing these numbers.

If there's anything I've learned about people its that things tend to go well or poorly in about the same measure.  Real life isn't character creation, you don't take points out of personal happiness and put them into health or job success.  If you have a fight with your SO you're going to do worse at work the next day.  And so naturally anything going wrong or right in your life pulls everything up or down.  Health, income, lifespan, happiness/satisfaction/agency, all of these things are linked inextricably.

Being unhappy or happy matters.  Being happy is near-universally agreed to correlate with living longer.  Saying that someone is an abomination doesn't kill or maim them, but neither would punching them in the face.  Both demonstrably hurt people's health.  Now, this doesn't mean no one can ever say hurtful words or that hurtful words automatically need to be punished.  Nor do I believe that all instances of violence or other shitty behavior are always bad or need to be punished.  Rather if you're going to hurt someone you should have a good reason.  You don't even have to be the good guy, "it was me or him" can sometimes be a justification.  But at the end of the day you should be able to explain what you did and effectively defend your motivations from criticism.  I don't believe that this is true for homophobes; their defenses of their actions, when they are willing to talk about it, are built on conspiracy theories and bile.

Side note: this is why I don't feel the need to respect all political viewpoints.  Tolerance just means I have to accept you until you start hurting me or others.  To paraphrase the guy who wrote Fahrenheit 451, free speech means you can say whatever you want, but it also means I can respond with whatever I want.

[nenjin]

It's a time honored tradition anywhere in the world. You spend all that time, money, love and energy making and raising the child, you don't want someone else to tell you how to do it.

I get it, but the answers to problems are not about *your* kid, but *all kids*. People get entrenched on issues like bathrooms for the sake of their kids like the gubment is kicking down *their* door for *their* kid. You can't ever get far when your default response is "mine first, screw yours."

So where is the line drawn? I mean, communism certainly has gotten many people killed, so is the whole "under God" part of the pledge a reasonable requirement for education?

The line is found after actual honest deliberation. Part of the problem is we entertain logic like that rather than summarily ignore it because it's an armchair generalization and avoids the work of actually finding a middle ground, what the line is in everyday reality for most people, rather than the arbitrary line anyone can draw in their head. Ya know, society.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It's a time honored tradition anywhere in the world. You spend all that time, money, love and energy making and raising the child, you don't want someone else to tell you how to do it.

I get it, but the answers to problems are not about *your* kid, but *all kids*. People get entrenched on issues like bathrooms for the sake of their kids like the gubment is kicking down *their* door for *their* kid. You can't ever get far when your default response is "mine first, screw yours."

So where is the line drawn? I mean, communism certainly has gotten many people killed, so is the whole "under God" part of the pledge a reasonable requirement for education?

The line is found after actual honest deliberation. Part of the problem is we entertain logic like that rather than summarily ignore it because it's an armchair generalization and avoids the work of actually finding a middle ground, what the line is in everyday reality for most people, rather than the arbitrary line anyone can draw in their head. Ya know, society.

I think ignoring any sort of logic in an argument means you've been drinking the Kool-Aid and not thinking at all about why others disasgree. This tendacy (certainty anymore) to reject an argument because it came from the wrong person's mind or the wrong philosophy or political ideology is why politics are nastier and each wing grows more extreme in their ideas.

The middle ground of centrists or moderates is increasingly replaced with apoliticals and apathetists. Or uneducated put opinionated people with philosophically inconsistent ideology that are turned off by both parties.

But yeah most

[smjjames]

Four people are being interviewed tomorrow for the FBI director position

Andrew McCabe: Current acting director and IMO, the most politically neutral option, should he want the job. Appare

Sen. John Cornyn. Would be the first political FBI appointee, ever, when the FBI has been doing everything possible to seem politically neutral.

Alice Fisher. According to the CNN article that lists her, she has worked on (or associated with) the Whitewater investigation. Wiki page says that she has a general career in the justice department and apparently was involved in some way with Guantanamo stuff.

Michael J. Garcia. Arguably THE least politically involved (other than Andrew McCabe) and he has lots of judicial experience, mainly in New York, currently a state judge appointed by the governor. Did a lot of work prosecuting terrorism and some awards related to that, which I suppose Trump might find awesome.

[Neonivek]

Andrew McCabe's weakness though is he criticized Trump. Sure... Trump deserved that criticism (You know... for the whole Trump asking the FBI if he was currently being investigated which is a HUGE Faux Pas)... But you know... Sycophants and all that.

[smjjames]

Also, a thought, since Sessions is supposed to be recused from anything Russia investigation related, shouldn't he be recusing himself in the search for a new FBI chief? Since whoever he greenlights will have an impact on the investigation.

[Descan]

He didn't say we should ignore any logic. Maybe it would have been clearer if he had put logic in quotation marks, to show that it's not logic at all. Same fallacy as before, "We can't figure out the exact point where we should stop so we shouldn't do anything at all!"

Cuz, like, honestly? Part of building a society is hashing that stuff out and finding that middle ground through discussion, trial, and public review. :V Not just a buncha nerds in their bedrooms arguing on the internet, like it were another video game or a movie, instead of something actually affecting people.

like if you want an actual answer, though one that is incredibly condense to the point of being wrong simply because it has not enough detail, then the line should be drawn "wherever society agrees it should be drawn."

[Neonivek]

Same fallacy as before, "We can't figure out the exact point where we should stop so we shouldn't do anything at all!"

That isn't a Fallacy on its own... In fact it is basic logic "Look before you leap"

[Descan]

Well, no, I said "exact." Like, you can say "well it's probably past here but maybe let's not go so far as to do that over there," versus "We must know exactly how deep the knife will go!" :V

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think slippery slope fallacy is, historically not a fallicy at all in many cases.

'Oh the Nazis just want us middle-class entrepreneurs in a certain part of town, zoning laws, ugh, right?? thats fine.'

Some will keep pushing after a victory.

 Would you concede to a demand to limit acohol sales in any measure (Only asking 0400-01200 on sundays) if you knew in your locale that the 'Ultra Straight-X Abolistist Party of Christian Brother Knights Militant in Prohibition' was in control of the gov't? You'd agree with some demand fron them knowing their ultimate goal and knowing they are in power but need your vote?

[smjjames]

Not sure what you're arguing about as far as philosophy goes.... seems to have de-evolved into semantics over... something.