Moozer325

Why are we pressuring that2 right off the bat? That said, I haven’t played with them, but it still feels scapegoating. Past behavior shouldn’t be the only reason to pressure someone this early in the game.

Oh, and I’m male

Glad to be back!

Never seen the show, I hope at least one of us has. Good to be back though.

You know, I’ve kinda missed mafia. /in

Yeah, it’s important to apply equality of opportunity with the assumption that we won’t all get to the same place. I always considered myself the smartest kid in my very small elementary school, so when I got older and my world expanded, I had to cope with the fact that there were people who were just fundamentally better than me in almost every way. It was a tough blow to my ego, but I had to learn the same thing you mentioned.

You’re right that he shouldn’t have leaked the chat, but he had every right to publish the fact that the government had made a mistake. He shouldn’t have pounced on it, but we have a right to know that our federal government is this incompetent. Also for the record, Signal is fairly safe, but it’s still now allowed as a secure chat by the government.

Theres like a 70% chance this is a Best Korea alt account

Gonna try not to spoil anything, but I will say that they do a better job closing plot ends than you think.

Also, yeah there is a ton of symbolism with the severed floor being bright. It’s because the company’s name is literally “Lumon”, and you’ll understand the reason for that more once you finish season two.

I know we have a thread for book recommendations, but IDK if we have one for TV/ movies, so I’ll just put this here.

Season 2 finale of “Severance” on Apple TV came out today, and I won’t spoil anything, but you a seriously need to watch it. It geared towards a lot of the smart people on this site. Also I want someone to talk to about it, because no one I know watches it.

I like that phrase of equal opportunity. I used to be more socialist in my leanings, and I more or less subscribed to the idea that some money should be given from rich to poor because the poor has less opportunity.

Now I’ve come to see that money is earned and thus shouldn’t really be taken, it’s opportunity that should be taken, as opportunity is not earned so much as born into.

An example of this would be relatively equal public school funding. So often, opportunity is correlated to wealth of parents, but if we can find a way to distribute opportunity equally without stealing wealth, then we get closer to equality with the understanding that not everyone is going to get to the same place.

This is the main problem with DEI. It does a good job of recognizing the problem, but it tries to make a right out of two wrongs. We should be focusing on separating opportunity from wealth instead of going the opposite direction, and giving more opportunity to those without money.

That's what I meant by a losing battle. Bad use of the phrase

When I debate you anyways. When I debate someone who participates and is competent, then it’s fun.

And why do I want more DART friends?

The worst thing you can do if you want to get better at something is failing to admit you are bad at it.

I can, and have. The reason I don’t accept your debates anymore is because you are impossible to interact with, and you fail to actually participate in all your debates. You are easy to refute, that’s why you have a 40% win rate.

Users:

Ilikepie5

Savant

(Same reasons you specified)

Owen_T

(Cowries pick maybe?, but he’s active on debates and forum. His debates are well written and though he’s knew, I think he’s a good candidate. Also IDK what the criteria is, it’s my first time voting for this)

Republicans believe in a more limited government and lower taxes, is that not individualizing?

Democrats believe in racial equality through equity and leg up programs. Is that not binding?

Don’t try and categorize left/right beliefs into nice neat ideologies. Lots of the issues that are normally lumped together actually have nothing to do with each other.

I saw a meme about this a while ago (have since forgotten it), but ever since I heard this sentence it's honestly crazy how much I've seen it really be true. Obviously more often the radicals on both sides have more different than in common, but it's so funny to see some really radical leftists doing exactly what radical conservatives are doing, and excusing it only because "we're the good guys, and they're the bad guys". I think Destiny on Twitter is a perfect example of this, go check him out if you want to see what I mean.

Sorry, got too much on my plate right now

Figured I’d set up a space for this since no one else has yet.

Personally, I agree mostly agree with Juan Merchan. He shouldn’t have gotten jail time, that would be singling him out and unprecedented for a first time offender.

Any sentence that included a punishment would come with lots of backlash, so this way it’s on the record in the safest way possible.

Thoughts?

Indeed I did, I said nothing about the racist history of the anti-abortion movement, explain the connection.

Seriously, are you a bot? That has nothing to do with what I said.

I over simplified, it’s an area we know little about when it comes to medicine: www.nature.com/articles/pr200950

However, it still doesn’t really matter. See above for my analogy about the kidney donor. Keeping a pregnancy is  a morally good thing to, but it’s unrealistic to expect, much less mandate that of anyone.

Thanks for the recommendation, I’ve just been using apple notes up to this point. 

I agree with everything you said about when life begins, I still think it’s just a completely unreasonable thing to expect women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. 

Is it technically “bad” to terminate a pregnancy, sure. However I’m not going to judge you, just as I don’t judge every non-kidney donor I meet. Likewise, it’s not the governments job to mandate Kidney donations, nor is it it’s place to mandate a woman to keep a pregnancy.

I get that this post is basically begging to be trolled and spammed, but I recently had a realization about abortion, and I need somewhere to write it down so I don't forget it.

Anyways, the way I see it there are really 4 stages of comprehension in the abortion issue.

Stage 1 is the most simple: "Abortion is killing a living thing so it must be wrong!" 

Most dumb conservatives are here. This is the gut reaction when thinking about abortion, and lots of people get past it just by learning more about the actual science behind pregnancy, but some people stay here, either because they are dumb, or their scared the beyond here there is only liberal answers.

Stage 2: "A fetus is alive, sure. However it's not conscious, and it's really just a jumble of cells, so those cells shouldn't be given more rights than a human woman"

Most dumb Liberals get here, which sadly enough makes up a lot of the pro-choice movement and it's frustrating to see them stubbornly cling to a bad argument, just because they're afraid of reaching a conclusion that aligns more with conservatives. It sucks being associated with these people just because I am pro-choice.

Stage 3: "Okay, a fetus isn't alive in the same way we are, but it will be, and by killing it you deprive it of a future life it could have had."

A majority of conservatives decide on this one, even the mid-wits. I was here for a bit, but I think there is one more stage to this issue, and that discounts this argument.

Stage 4: This one is a lot longer and harder to explain, so bear with me here. The argument goes something like this: Yes, it would technically be a good thing for a mother to keep a pregnancy and raise the child, but it's an impossible thing for a government to mandate on people. By the same logic banning abortion, men shouldn't be allowed to masturbate, and ever drop of semin should, be put into a woman who will carry the baby to term. It's not killing anyone, but it's derpriving that sperm of future life. I also like to use the analogy of a kidney donor. You are doing an amazingly good thing by donating one of your kidneys, as are you when keeping a fetus. By your actions, someone will live a longer life. However, you aren't legally required to donate your kidney, that would be an extreme overreach of government power. Also, we don't get mad at people who don't donate kidneys, and we don't call them murderers while the action is basically the same: destroying your body so someone can have a life. To put it simply, the government can't mandate everything that is "good" and shouldn't"

There might be more to this topic, so please tell me. I find it frustrating that lots of people don't go through the stages in any argument, simply because they see that the next stage is opposite to their current beliefs. If they simply had the argument in their head, they would see that it leap-frogs, and there are better answers out there if you get through the ones you don't like first. 

Anyways, I just had to write some stuff down to get it out of my head, thanks for hearing me out.

The list goes on. It's easy to be blindsided by the doom spiraling and echo chambers of the day, but one of the best things about studying history is being able to put things into perspective.

Sorry, I’m taking a mafia break

Either that, or some Illuminati conspiracy. :P

Same as ebuc, people are just dumb sometimes.

I don’t think it’s completely useless, It has some benifets if used in the right way. There is definitely too much focus on it recently though.

/out, visiting family for Thanksgiving week

Ping me again though If you're really having trouble coming up with a full game

When did I ever say I didn’t know if she was a researcher?

For example, let’s say I see a news article making by a claim and backing it up with testimony from a supposed expert. To verify that, I look at the original study done by this person, because news sources usually leave out some of the important stuff.

I also google around their name, and see if any other people in the field have contradictory opinions to them. If their numbers make sense, other experts agree with them, and their study is done well, then I put lots of stake in their opinion.

I've said it before and I'll say it again

A. She published her evidence and the numbers match up with what she is saying

B. A majority of other researchers in her field agree with her and say she is qualified to speak on that topic

If this is your average street fortune teller, then she doesn't fulfill constraint A. If she's an actual quantum physicist at the top of her field, and she meets these two requirements, then I put a lot of stake in her opinion.

Well is she? or does she just claim to be. Because lots of actual experts in quantum physics told me that time travel might be possible, and they published their work, and it was well received by the scientific community, then I'd probably be inclined to believe them.

The clear thing that you’re missing is that these experts don’t just say things, they are relaying actual evidence and information that they have found, which the also publish for the public to critique. They’re not just saying things, they are making educated guesses based on evidence, or showing how something is real with evidence.

I'd add one little caveat to that too. If you don't have the time to do all the research, it's usually okay to trust the experts without finding evidence yourself, usually because these experts make their claims based on evidence. They have done much more research than you will ever come across, or be able to do, so as long as this person is really an expert, and you look at other opinions in the field, you're usually going to be fine by trusting them.

Obviously, experts don't actually constitute evidence, so whenever I cite one in a debate I make sure to provide statistics too, and to actually explain the study they did, just so it's not a war of link finding.

No, of course not. I’ve spent this whole conversation trying to say that trusting the experts isn’t about blindly trusting people.

Obviously, look at the numbers yourself, and an experts opinion never proves anything. If there’s no solid proof or evidence, the next best thing is an experts opinion.

You don’t need to be an expert to identify an expert. And expert is someone who has dedicated their life to studying a topic, and they are so well versed in that subject that they are more likely to be right about it than other people.

There’s not a set criteria for being an expert, but generally it’s the people at the very top of their field. Ask anybody who studies that, and if they would consider that person an expert, chances are that they know what they are talking about.

Obviously that doesn’t mean these people are always right, or that you shouldn’t look at the data yourself. It just means that this person is more likely to be right than you are, so you should probably take their opinion into account, and if all of the experts agree on something, they there’s an even lower chance they are wrong.

I Google their name and see what other experts in the field have to say.

Basically a shorter version of what ebuc just said.

No, I read their study, see what other experts also have to say, and if all that supports their claim, I trust them.

That’s if I have time on my hands. In the case that I don’t, I obviously don’t outright believe what they say, but I recognize that they’ve spent their lives studying this topic, and have a much greater chance of being right about their opinion than I do. The one thing I do check is if they are actually an expert or not, because some news sources get the worst people to talk about something, and play it up like they’re the top of their field.

And I don’t. I just value their opinion highly. Again, trust the experts doesn’t mean blindly put your faith in them, it means put stake I what they have to say.

That’s why the phrase is plural, trust the experts. You obviously don’t put everything on their opinion, but it’s smart to just realize that they probably know more than you. They can obviously be wrong, but they’re more likely to be right that you are.

It's because they have spent their whole life studying a topic, and are widely recognized as an expert in that field. When I trust the experts, I'm not talking about media personalities and other news sources, I'm talking about the scientists who actually run these studies, and do the field work.

Alright, forget this. We had a civil discussion for a little bit, and it was nice while it lasted.

While he's definitely not the next Hitler, you have to be careful, and some of the stuff he's been saying has been very Hitler like ie. Poisoning the bloodline. He probably won't be a dictator, but he's still very bad and is using the same kind of rhetoric as the Nazi's. It's not wrong to call it what it is.

Okay, first of all, since when is storming the capitol and upending the peaceful transfer of power "breaking some glass". Open your eyes. Second, the right has actually done what you're suggesting, while the left isn't going around and actively shooting white people.