Print

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

[smjjames]

No, you're both wrong and right at the same time, like Schrodingers cat.

Bonus internet point if you get it.

[Sheb]

No, you're both wrong and right at the same time, like Schrodingers cat.

Bonus internet point if you get it.

Schrodinger was into threesome and so are we?

[smjjames]

No, you're both wrong and right at the same time, like Schrodingers cat.

Bonus internet point if you get it.

Schrodinger was into threesome and so are we?

lol, no, I mean Schrodingers Cat, which is a thought experiment related to quantum mechanics. I was trying to make a joke with the wrong/right thing.

[Sheb]

No, you're both wrong and right at the same time, like Schrodingers cat.

Bonus internet point if you get it.

Schrodinger was into threesome and so are we?

lol, no, I mean Schrodingers Cat, which is a thought experiment related to quantum mechanics. I was trying to make a joke with the wrong/right thing.

Yeah, I know, I was misunderstanding on purpose since Schrodinger's cat is a much abused though experiment. :p

[Gizogin]

So, AG Sessions is due to testify before Congress today at 2:30 pm Eastern. I'm not really sure what to expect from him; I doubt we'll hear anything new. In fact, I don't know if we'll hear much at all, if Sessions is willing to invoke privilege for questions he doesn't want to answer.

We can probably expect to hear questions about undisclosed meeting with Russians, Comey's firing, whether or not our President asked for private time with Comey, and the existence or absence of any tapes. More interesting to me will be any questions outside of those, especially if we might be able to infer anything that was said in Comey's closed testimony.

I'll also be looking forward to the first few hours after the testimony, when everyone's scrambling to pick apart his words for anything they can spin for vindication or condemnation. It's sure to be entertaining.

Also, I reserve the right to be in a quantum superposition of right and wrong about any topic until someone observes me actually expressing a position one way or the other.

[sluissa]

Fox News seems to already have their talking points lined up. And they're taking the "This is all just he said she said." Ground... which obviously leads to Comey going to jail.

I just don't understand how they convince anyone with their arguments.

[EnigmaticHat]

Because something downplayed (which happens with everything) in some shithole overseas is not defending or ignoring it relative to treatment of other issues, it's ignoring it just as much as people do when it's christian groups doing it in similar areas (which hey, more likely than not, will be pointedly not noted as being christian, where that damn sure ain't true for muslim groups).

Unless you're talking with Muslims which will claim their bad guys aren't really Muslims. Some things are sadly fucking annoyingly universal.

It's all about tribalism, really, and human psychology.

Sheb does have a point on the hypocrisy though.

I personally file it under No True Scotsman fallacy.  Between the many authoritative voices and multiple denominations of Islam there's no real gatekeeper as to who's part of it, so as long as someone adheres to the vague outline its flawed to say that they're aren't Muslim.  Its kind of like the old historical debate as to whether Hitler was Christian or the Soviets counted as an atheist government.  The answer to both those questions, from where I stand, is "yes but it doesn't mean much", because to claim the title of Christian or Atheist you pretty much just have to say you are.  You can talk whether someone is a "real believer" or not, but the truth is that ambiguity exists for most people even those who seem outwardly devout.

That being said, Islamic terror groups demonstrably kill more Muslims than they do anyone else.  By a lot.  So its kind of like saying the cartels in Mexico are Mexican: you're not wrong, but if you want to use that to criticize Mexicans in general then you're kicking people while they're down.

[Dunamisdeos]

As a Christian I will say there is absolutely a bias in regards to Muslim/Christian literally anything but Islam actions, that I see it all the time, and that there absolutely should not be. In my opinion the right way to do it is indeed to hold the person or group responsible for their actions. This would mean no condemnation for all of Islam based on the actions of those who use it as their justification for violence and hate.

There have been plenty of non-religious atrocities committed right here in America in the name of safety or science or progress or what-have-you. We don't immediately condemn that entire field of study or thought, why should we do the same to any religion?

::EDIT::
I was also extremely uncomfortable with the Muslim ban, especially when he came out and said he would prioritize Christians for entry into the country, because the very last thing I want to see is ANY precedent for legitimized bias in the US government for one religion or another. I'm happy to say that many of my Christian friends/family were as well.

[Sheb]

Because something downplayed (which happens with everything) in some shithole overseas is not defending or ignoring it relative to treatment of other issues, it's ignoring it just as much as people do when it's christian groups doing it in similar areas (which hey, more likely than not, will be pointedly not noted as being christian, where that damn sure ain't true for muslim groups).

Unless you're talking with Muslims which will claim their bad guys aren't really Muslims. Some things are sadly fucking annoyingly universal.

It's all about tribalism, really, and human psychology.

Sheb does have a point on the hypocrisy though.

I personally file it under No True Scotsman fallacy.  Between the many authoritative voices and multiple denominations of Islam there's no real gatekeeper as to who's part of it, so as long as someone adheres to the vague outline its flawed to say that they're aren't Muslim.  Its kind of like the old historical debate as to whether Hitler was Christian or the Soviets counted as an atheist government.  The answer to both those questions, from where I stand, is "yes but it doesn't mean much", because to claim the title of Christian or Atheist you pretty much just have to say you are.  You can talk whether someone is a "real believer" or not, but the truth is that ambiguity exists for most people even those who seem outwardly devout.

That being said, Islamic terror groups demonstrably kill more Muslims than they do anyone else.  By a lot.  So its kind of like saying the cartels in Mexico are Mexican: you're not wrong, but if you want to use that to criticize Mexicans in general then you're kicking people while they're down.

I dunno if that's an argument. If Group X is unpleasant, you'd expect most of the victims of Group X to be member of Group X since the distribution of groups isn't homogeneous and unpleasant group tends to kill the people around them.

[TheDarkStar]

Because something downplayed (which happens with everything) in some shithole overseas is not defending or ignoring it relative to treatment of other issues, it's ignoring it just as much as people do when it's christian groups doing it in similar areas (which hey, more likely than not, will be pointedly not noted as being christian, where that damn sure ain't true for muslim groups).

Unless you're talking with Muslims which will claim their bad guys aren't really Muslims. Some things are sadly fucking annoyingly universal.

It's all about tribalism, really, and human psychology.

Sheb does have a point on the hypocrisy though.

I personally file it under No True Scotsman fallacy.  Between the many authoritative voices and multiple denominations of Islam there's no real gatekeeper as to who's part of it, so as long as someone adheres to the vague outline its flawed to say that they're aren't Muslim.  Its kind of like the old historical debate as to whether Hitler was Christian or the Soviets counted as an atheist government.  The answer to both those questions, from where I stand, is "yes but it doesn't mean much", because to claim the title of Christian or Atheist you pretty much just have to say you are.  You can talk whether someone is a "real believer" or not, but the truth is that ambiguity exists for most people even those who seem outwardly devout.

That being said, Islamic terror groups demonstrably kill more Muslims than they do anyone else.  By a lot.  So its kind of like saying the cartels in Mexico are Mexican: you're not wrong, but if you want to use that to criticize Mexicans in general then you're kicking people while they're down.

I dunno if that's an argument. If Group X is unpleasant, you'd expect most of the victims of Group X to be member of Group X since the distribution of groups isn't homogeneous and unpleasant group tends to kill the people around them.

Counterexample: Most victims of terrorists are not terrorists. It's true that Islamic terrorist groups kill a lot of Muslims because they're based in Muslim areas, but generally those are Muslims part of a separate group/who won't follow the Islamic group's ideas/who are otherwise regarded as different.

[EnigmaticHat]

Because something downplayed (which happens with everything) in some shithole overseas is not defending or ignoring it relative to treatment of other issues, it's ignoring it just as much as people do when it's christian groups doing it in similar areas (which hey, more likely than not, will be pointedly not noted as being christian, where that damn sure ain't true for muslim groups).

Unless you're talking with Muslims which will claim their bad guys aren't really Muslims. Some things are sadly fucking annoyingly universal.

It's all about tribalism, really, and human psychology.

Sheb does have a point on the hypocrisy though.

I personally file it under No True Scotsman fallacy.  Between the many authoritative voices and multiple denominations of Islam there's no real gatekeeper as to who's part of it, so as long as someone adheres to the vague outline its flawed to say that they're aren't Muslim.  Its kind of like the old historical debate as to whether Hitler was Christian or the Soviets counted as an atheist government.  The answer to both those questions, from where I stand, is "yes but it doesn't mean much", because to claim the title of Christian or Atheist you pretty much just have to say you are.  You can talk whether someone is a "real believer" or not, but the truth is that ambiguity exists for most people even those who seem outwardly devout.

That being said, Islamic terror groups demonstrably kill more Muslims than they do anyone else.  By a lot.  So its kind of like saying the cartels in Mexico are Mexican: you're not wrong, but if you want to use that to criticize Mexicans in general then you're kicking people while they're down.

I dunno if that's an argument. If Group X is unpleasant, you'd expect most of the victims of Group X to be member of Group X since the distribution of groups isn't homogeneous and unpleasant group tends to kill the people around them.

It is because the predominant story about Islam (in the US at least) is that of an outside threat.  I live in a country were people can't distinquish between refugees and the people that made the regugees leave in the first place.

I mean look at Trump.  He's trying to portray Islam as a threat and he has to make up incidents.  So why doesn't he talk about specific local atrocities from ISIS as they happen?  Because that's not the story.

[redwallzyl]

Trumps filmed cabinet meeting contained so much ass kissing it was embarrassing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ARgUIpM6f0

[martinuzz]

Yeah it's already being compared to North Korea style Glorious Leader worship in the international media.

[Frumple]

I personally file it under No True Scotsman fallacy. 

Bundling response to this and a few up cause I am way too screwed over to get this editing beyond that. But y'all seem to have got the wrong impression. I wasn't trying to point out folks saying X is non-christian, I was talking about religious affiliation not being mentioned at all.

Like, I know what causes it (the religion in question is normal/default so people just don't think to mention it, along those lines), but it's still a thing. Oddly, I'm not sure if muslim majority countries are as bad about it, since many of their conflicts are sectarian to some degree. Probably the closest English language off the cuff check I can think of in recent history was the Troubles, over in the UK.

... just realized that would probably make a neat sociology study, though. Check references and media mentions and whatnot, see what sort of characteristics are highlighted and how much/if they differ based on nature of conflict. Most bonus points if you're able to figure out a good way to track that in general conversation, too. See what it's actually doing to the society's methods of communication.

E: Though bloody hell, I'm starting to catch up with the sessions hearing, and at least a good chunk of the initial reactions are basically "holy shit sessions what are you doing". Anyone been paying attention to that?

[smjjames]

Haven't been because I've had other stuff to do. There was one thing about his recusal being over inneudo on the Russian investigation, or something like that. No idea if he meant 'rumors' in a sarcastic way or if it's something else entirely.