US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

ncfiala

Silence you bastard
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
317
Location
Minnesota
I guess the part that confuses me is why you are using logical constructions (e.g., the real numbers) to defend an opinion.

I never said anything about the real numbers. And I never really defended my opinion. One of the axioms that I live by is that I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. What I was defending is my opinion that the different views espoused in this thread are just that, opinions, and not facts.
 

Axayacatl

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
772
Reaction score
44
Location
USA
I never said anything about the real numbers. And I never really defended my opinion. One of the axioms that I live by is that I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. What I was defending is my opinion that the different views espoused in this thread are just that, opinions, and not facts.

Lol dude you literally brought up hundreds of 'different logics' in mathematics. It's literally posted just above, you can't alternative fact that one. Kelly Anne is that you?

Also, I pointedly didn't ask you to justify your opinion.

I asked you how you feel.
 

fps

Kit
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,554
Reaction score
705
Location
London
You can say my opinion is irrational or illogical all you want, but that doesn't make it so. You, along with many others it seems, seem to think that "rationality" and "logic" emcompass a single way of thinking. In other words, two people that are both "rational" and "logical" will always arrive at the same conclusion. This is simply not so. You use these two words but do you even know what they mean? What's rational to you and what's rational to me may be vastly different because we may have very different utility functions.

Do you even know what a logic is? I'm a mathematician. Mathematicians have devised and studied literally hundreds of different logics (and we can devise infinitely many more), each with its own grammar and rules for making inferences. In other words, each with its own way of "reasoning." None of these ways is "right" and none of these ways is "wrong," they are simply different.

I don't know why you can't just admit that this is a matter of opinion. But like many liberals, you have to be right and I have to be wrong. I couldn't care less about being right because I don't think there is such a thing. I just have an opinion.

That's a very fancy way of saying you have no evidence and don't care that what you think fails to follow any logical rules. You're letting yourself down.
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
12,617
Reaction score
20,594
Location
Tokyo
The extreme liberal bent in academia is pretty well known and documented. Read Tenured Radicals.

Academic staff are generally left-leaning, true. It's just the leap from that stat to the claim that college is "all about indoctrination into liberal dogma at this point." It's hard having discussions with you because it's such an odd mix of factual statements and foolish conclusions.
 

Axayacatl

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
772
Reaction score
44
Location
USA
Maybe think of it like this. I get on a plane not because it was someone's opinion that things can fly, nor because there is some collective opinion that the thing can fly. I presume someone did something scientific somewhere at some point. And then I witness the fact that things can fly and then land ok most of the time. Whether you still want to get on a plane or not is always up to you, there is absolutely nothing irrational about having the personal risk profile that says I prefer not to fly, but science is based on testable hypothesis, a simple one being for example how many people were in a crowd on Inauguration Day. To say that everything is based merely on opinion is to deny reality as billions of people live it in practice. So the question is where is the need to deny reality coming from in the first place? It's also about keeping ourselves honest, in my case I usually deny reality (to put it mildly) when I'm scared, and I worry that this is happening on a mass scale in this country.
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
12,617
Reaction score
20,594
Location
Tokyo
^^ To your example, I would say that wanting to ban / remove Somalian immigrants in an effort to keep my family safe is akin to not wanting to board the plane because it's too risky, and then playing Russian roulette on the weekends. While there's certainly nothing illogical about wanting to remove immigrants to keep your family safe, it is certainly suboptimal. I would gladly support the million other policy changes that would do more to accomplish this goal.

If some guy on some forum is spouting off about how we should ban coconut trees because a kid was killed by a falling coconut, it's like sure, I'm not going to deny that technically your family is safer without coconut trees in your town. Technically there are many things we could do to make your family infinitesimally more safe. It's just that statistically speaking, with the current set of threats facing your family, you're being absurd.
 

coreysMonster

Abrakadabro
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
573
Location
Pangaea
You can say my opinion is irrational or illogical all you want, but that doesn't make it so. You, along with many others it seems, seem to think that "rationality" and "logic" emcompass a single way of thinking. In other words, two people that are both "rational" and "logical" will always arrive at the same conclusion. This is simply not so. You use these two words but do you even know what they mean? What's rational to you and what's rational to me may be vastly different because we may have very different utility functions.
One aspect of rational thought that is unilaterally agreed upon is that is has to be based in facts and causality. Anything that is based on myth or emotion can by the definition of the word rational, not be rational.

Do you even know what a logic is? I'm a mathematician.
And I'm a programmer. I have a firm grasp of logic, thanks.

Mathematicians have devised and studied literally hundreds of different logics (and we can devise infinitely many more), each with its own grammar and rules for making inferences. In other words, each with its own way of "reasoning." None of these ways is "right" and none of these ways is "wrong," they are simply different.
And I'm sure as a mathematician you are aware that each of these logics are based on agreed upon axioms, and that anything that does not follow those axioms is not allowed within those logics. One axiom of reality is causality, and you can't just ignore causality and say your logic is different, because causality is an axiom. If you ignore it, you are objectively wrong, even if you still stand by your opinion.

I don't know why you can't just admit that this is a matter of opinion. But like many liberals, you have to be right and I have to be wrong. I couldn't care less about being right because I don't think there is such a thing. I just have an opinion.

This is not a liberal or conservative thing, I don't even care about this in the context of refugees, it's your flawed logic that bothers me. There are many rational arguments against accepting refugees, in Germany many people are arguing that accepting this many refugees will cause similar effects to our economy and social systems as the reunification did in 1990. This is a logical, rational conclusion, and if it is true (and it probably is) then further discussion can be had whether or not that economic impact is too severe or whether the humanitarian cause is more important (and that's where I stop arguing because I know nothing about economics, so I don't pretend to have anything other than a loosely-formed opinion based on my narrow knowledge).

Your constant deflection to opinion and "muh libruls" tells me you know your opinion is based on irrational fear because you have no arguments to back it up.
 

big_aug

SS.org Regular
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
980
Reaction score
49
Location
Ohio
Welp, I just did my taxes. Bought a home last year, paid student loan debt, and I end up paying $1200 in additional taxes for 2016. I used an old IRA I had as a part of my down payment. I didn't have to pay taxes on the IRA itself, but the disbursement was added to my total income even though I already paid taxes on that money before I deposited it into my Roth IRA over the years. That pushed me into the next tax bracket.

Our billionaire President probably pays no taxes and I end up paying an additional $1200. And I don't make much money at all. At all. 'murica!

Just needed to rant a bit as I want to see this ....ing guys tax returns.
 

Axayacatl

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
772
Reaction score
44
Location
USA
Welp, I just did my taxes. Bought a home last year, paid student loan debt, and I end up paying $1200 in additional taxes for 2016. I used an old IRA I had as a part of my down payment. I didn't have to pay taxes on the IRA itself, but the disbursement was added to my total income even though I already paid taxes on that money before I deposited it into my Roth IRA over the years. That pushed me into the next tax bracket.

Our billionaire President probably pays no taxes and I end up paying an additional $1200. And I don't make much money at all. At all. 'murica!

Just needed to rant a bit as I want to see this ....ing guys tax returns.

I feel ya, man. Let me add this. People like President Trump boast of a global business and they like shipping goods overseas and having global protection of their private property. I'm sure Rex Tillerson likes the fact that the US Navy patrols the blue seas making sure that Exxon oil tankers can get from point A to point B safely. Trust me, it isn't the Chinese navy that is patrolling the Malacca straight where so many oil and car products get shipped.

What irks me is that is is US men and women in uniform putting their life in danger to make this happen. And people like President Trump boast on TV about not paying their fair share. It really angers me.

bash the fash

This cracked me up a lot. I try not to be aggressive, and I'm sorry if I came across as bashing. I was really just trying to be factual and logical. But just to be serious for a second. I truly believe that people who deny reality to this extent should be objects of our compassion and concern. 60 million+ Americans are afraid enough to go back on all of our shared values to elect a reality star showman genius who constantly talks about himself and spews hatred. And we have math Ph.D.s pulling 'logics' out of their dickholes. These people need our hugs. :lol:
 

big_aug

SS.org Regular
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
980
Reaction score
49
Location
Ohio
And don't get me wrong, I'm fine paying taxes. I think that's the way it has to be and we all need to do it. But when the billionaires like our President boast about not paying taxes it pisses me the .... off.

Effectively, I paid about 10% in federal income tax. That's if you count in the IRA disbursement. If I just considered my actual wages, I paid probably 15% or so. I don't like to say how much money I actually make because I'm kind of embarrassed that I make so little. That 10-15% is a lot to me but it isn't even a fraction of a drop in the bucket for many. Luckily, I'm pretty good with my money in general and have quite good credit and a nice chunk of money saved (a nice chunk for me, probably not much for others). I can just throw the $1200 additional taxes on a 0% credit card and pay it off over the next six months.

I had done my research, at least I thought I had, on using the IRA. I had talked with financial company that held it and read a lot online to determine that I wouldn't have to pay taxes on the money if used for a first time home purchase. I did not realize it would still factor into my total income which would push me way into the next tax bracket. I will have a tax professional double check it all instead of using turbo tax this year just to be sure.

There goes my gear money for the year:wallbash:
 

Axayacatl

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
772
Reaction score
44
Location
USA
^^ To your example, I would say that wanting to ban / remove Somalian immigrants in an effort to keep my family safe is akin to not wanting to board the plane because it's too risky, and then playing Russian roulette on the weekends. While there's certainly nothing illogical about wanting to remove immigrants to keep your family safe, it is certainly suboptimal. I would gladly support the million other policy changes that would do more to accomplish this goal.

If some guy on some forum is spouting off about how we should ban coconut trees because a kid was killed by a falling coconut, it's like sure, I'm not going to deny that technically your family is safer without coconut trees in your town. Technically there are many things we could do to make your family infinitesimally more safe. It's just that statistically speaking, with the current set of threats facing your family, you're being absurd.

Thanks buddy, for sure, that is the point I wast trying to make.

The famous David Hume quote seems really appropriate here: "`Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. `Tis not contrary to reason for me to chuse my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me."


And just right now, I got a breaking news alert that gunmen in Quebec City killed 5 people at a mosque during evening prayers.

I guess we're banning Canadians next?

And why isn't Dylan Roof tried as a terrorist?

He had white supremacist propaganda, manifestos, associations with other white supremacists, and he purposely targeted people of color in their place of worship to intimidate the group at large.

He's not a terrorist... why?

I'm just waiting for somebody to explain to me how that is not inconsistent given our nation's views on the definition of terrorism.
 

Axayacatl

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
772
Reaction score
44
Location
USA
And don't get me wrong, I'm fine paying taxes. I think that's the way it has to be and we all need to do it. But when the billionaires like our President boast about not paying taxes it pisses me the .... off.

Effectively, I paid about 10% in federal income tax. That's if you count in the IRA disbursement. If I just considered my actual wages, I paid probably 15% or so. I don't like to say how much money I actually make because I'm kind of embarrassed that I make so little. That 10-15% is a lot to me but it isn't even a fraction of a drop in the bucket for many. Luckily, I'm pretty good with my money in general and have quite good credit and a nice chunk of money saved (a nice chunk for me, probably not much for others). I can just throw the $1200 additional taxes on a 0% credit card and pay it off over the next six months.

I had done my research, at least I thought I had, on using the IRA. I had talked with financial company that held it and read a lot online to determine that I wouldn't have to pay taxes on the money if used for a first time home purchase. I did not realize it would still factor into my total income which would push me way into the next tax bracket. I will have a tax professional double check it all instead of using turbo tax this year just to be sure.

There goes my gear money for the year:wallbash:

Super sucks man. I don't know how much money you make, I just know you're not rich enough to pay for help to game the system.

My man President Donald Trump literally got tax exemptions from other people failing in their business.

That's like if I could get a tax exemption because my neighbors are poor and foreclose on their house. :wallbash:
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
12,617
Reaction score
20,594
Location
Tokyo
And why isn't Dylan Roof tried as a terrorist?

He had white supremacist propaganda, manifestos, associations with other white supremacists, and he purposely targeted people of color in their place of worship to intimidate the group at large.

He's not a terrorist... why?

I'm just waiting for somebody to explain to me how that is not inconsistent given our nation's views on the definition of terrorism.

Can't argue with that one. If you do something terrible and you're Muslim, you're a "religious extremist." Do the same thing as a Christian or atheist and you have "mental health issues."
 

bostjan

MicroMetal
Contributor
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
19,726
Reaction score
10,775
Location
St. Johnsbury, VT USA
No joke, I almost brought up the death toll of rising speed limits in my last post. People don't even have to stop driving; they could just drive slower. Convenience is worth at least 33,000 lives to some Americans, but there are people here who think a single death from admitting refugees is too many.

Anyway, I think I'm done arguing this point now. :deadhrse:

Read the article you posted. Deaths due to crashes have gone down since the speed limits were increased. This study reaches the wrong conclusion. It's actually more dangerous to drive 10 mph slower than the flow of traffic than 10 mph faster than the flow of traffic (although safest is staying home and not going anywhere, and next safest is keeping up with traffic).

There are obvious problems with driving too fast for road conditions, including the rate of other vehicles. But, raising the speed limit has not caused the highways to become more dangerous. Period. Try to find data that breaks accidents down by state. The correlation just isn't there, or else we would see a lot more accidents on TX highways.

And the foundation of this all is from simple logic. You don't get hurt from speed, it's acceleration that causes the force that leads to bodily injury. If no one is moving at all, then there is no danger of collision. If everything moves at the same rate of speed in the same direction, it's no different. That's why only motor vehicles are allowed on highways.

EDIT: I couldn't find the article I read in a magaIs driving faster safer?zine a couple of weeks ago, but here is a similar one:
 
Last edited:

feraledge

Heard the Good News about Maple Fretboards?
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
6,678
Reaction score
5,410
Location
Denver, PA
badbrain.jpg
 

Drew

Forum MVP
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
31,855
Reaction score
8,543
Location
Somerville, MA
Do you realize how cliche your bleeding heart liberal speak is?

As many of you get older, your views will probably change. I probably would have been for bringing over anyone and everyone when I was 16. Then I grew up and realized life isn't fair and you can't save the world. You can only try to protect your little niche of it.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 35, fairly successful and with the tax bill to show for it, and have had a pretty good luck. I'm well aware that life isn't fair, because the vast majority of people don't have it as well as I do. And, while I certainly have worked hard for my success, I also am perfectly aware that the fact I'm a white male from a majority religious group with upper middle class parents gave me opportunities that very few others have had.

So, hey, I figure if life isn't fair but it's broken predominately in my favor, then the least I can do is to try to use that good fortune to make it fairer for others, and not being a racist seems like a great first step to me.
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
12,617
Reaction score
20,594
Location
Tokyo
https://www.facebook.com/DennisPrager/videos/10154617813246998/?pnref=story
an interesting video about the exponential rise of violence in sweden largely stemming from refugees. definitely worth a watch.

It says exponential rise in violence in Sweden largely stemming from refugees, yet the statistics don't support this at all. The video tries to take away from this by claiming it's a big cover-up, but I'm skeptical.

It's important to remember that the refugee population only makes up something like 0.02% of the total population in Sweden, so common sense dictates they're not going to contribute heavily to an exponential increase in anything.

When you bring in refugees it's a near certainty that some refugee is going to commit some crime, but it's mind-boggling to me that this immediately flags it as a mistake. There will be some refugee crime. There will be some refugee good deeds. Some refugee lives will be saved. But ultimately this is not changing the face of the country, and these pros/cons are all statistically small fries.

I don't know. As the refugees in the video were claiming they received, if you bring me to Sweden, give me a house and spending money and a Swedish girlfriend, you really think the first thing on my mind is messing stuff up?
 


Top