Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
27-May-2018
Posts
4170

Post History

Post
#1211464
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I’m proclaiming my stance on things in a clear and obvious way.

Yes, like me declaring that Democrats are the worst because they don’t care about working class people because they oppose tax cuts. I just don’t see the purpose, as I said, of that kind of proclamation, stuffed with a generalization (that I wager you take issue with in a fundamental way).

They don’t oppose tax cuts. The tax cuts that benefit only the rich are a bipartisan affair and don’t do shit for the working class. Regarding the working class, Democrats are more in favor of some weak drug legalization as well as vague healthcare for all, which benefit the working class far more than what the Republicans are for. I take issue with your generalization because it’s inaccurate. If you wanted to generalize the Democrats as center-right corporate sell-outs with some mildly enlightened social values that they don’t actually care enough about to fight for, then I’d be right there with you in that generalization. My generalization that the Republican party is opposed to gay marriage and gay rights on the whole is actually an accurate generalization that I doubt even you would argue with. Oh wait, nevermind, you do.

Again, what is the purpose of such a generalization? Once you unpack it, of course you will find reasons to disagree. It would be an absurd pretense that such a statement would be unassailable: that was my point. You happen to think your gay rights example is incontrovertible, like most positions you proclaim on here. I think it difficult to engage in dialogue when you proceed in that way. As you well illustrate with your continued disbelief that anybody could dispute your position.

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

It does apply to the party’s general position, though. Are you seriously going to claim that the Republican is not worse on gay rights than the Democrats?

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Prove me wrong. The Republican platform is “family values” which is another term for anti-gay.

I think most people say they believe in family values but we don’t need to be that vague when there are identifiable policy differences (feel free to identify!). I’m not denying that Republicans don’t generally oppose items usually associated with “gay rights” but I do deny that Republicans are “opposed to their civil liberties on the whole,” as you said previously.

Family values in the Republican sense is the “One man, one woman” bullshit that most of them don’t even live by. The civil liberties that they’re opposed to are the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, gay adoption, protection from zealots refusing to do their jobs (e.g. Kim Davis), and the list goes on and on. I don’t know if those are the things that you consider “gay rights” in quotation marks (is that supposed to imply that they aren’t real rights?).

I put “gay rights” in quotation marks in that instance (but not others) to highlight that the term doesn’t have a precise meaning and there is a philosophical dispute about what would be included. We can pretend this is all so simple and everything you would include is an undisputed right because “rights” is in the title, but that’s not correct.

The enforcement of anti-discrimination laws runs straight into the conservative (and libertarian) view that private actors should generally be permitted to discriminate as well as concerns for religious liberty. That philosophical view is not inherently anti-gay. And yet you lump it in as if it is necessarily so. Which brings me back to the unproductive nature of your generalized and imprecise declarations.

Post
#1211455
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

And give me some examples of the people that Obama “associated with” that were even remotely as dangerous as criminals like Alex Jones and Roy Moore? I’d be shocked if you could name one that’s even in the same league as those guys. J

This.

Maybe both parties used to be equally bad and I just agreed with the ideas on one side, but the Republican party has gone completely off the deep end and if you don’t see it I don’t know what to tell you.

Apparently there is a wiki for that.

I’ve been hearing that the GOP went off the deep end for as long as I can remember. Maybe after the Democrats crying wolf all these years you’re right. Then again, Trump will be gone in 2-6 years.

Post
#1211453
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I’m proclaiming my stance on things in a clear and obvious way.

Yes, like me declaring that Democrats are the worst because they don’t care about working class people because they oppose tax cuts. I just don’t see the purpose, as I said, of that kind of proclamation, stuffed with a generalization (that I wager you take issue with in a fundamental way).

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

It does apply to the party’s general position, though. Are you seriously going to claim that the Republican is not worse on gay rights than the Democrats?

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Prove me wrong. The Republican platform is “family values” which is another term for anti-gay.

I think most people say they believe in family values but we don’t need to be that vague when there are identifiable policy differences (feel free to identify!). I’m not denying that Republicans don’t generally oppose items usually associated with “gay rights” but I do deny that Republicans are “opposed to their civil liberties on the whole,” as you said previously.

Post
#1211417
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-the-boy-scouts-of-america-is-a-pedophile-induction-center/

Note: Alex Jones was an ardent defender of alt-reich mouthpiece Milo Y when the latter condoned the statutory rape of minors by adults and also admitted to knowing of active childraping priests and other abusers that he refused to name. Jones also defended Republican pedophile and child-molester Roy Moore. Ironically, Alex Jones is the real supporter of pedophilia, not the BSA.

Again with the boogeymen!

All those people are nutbars. I know they find some quarter among people who call themselves conservatives but no party is free from having stupid, dangerous, and crazy people supposedly on their side.

A boogeyman with the President’s ear and an audience of millions.

Does he really have the President’s ear? Though I think it’s overblown, I’m not saying there isn’t some legitimate concern. During Obama’s time we heard about the bad people who had his ear and who were responsible for his rise. That was legitimate too. But the line of argument isn’t terribly strong. Some of it is really weak guilt by association type stuff. Trump and many other Republicans opposed Moore. So much for Alex Jones having Trump’s ear. Milo (and his former patron Bannon) have been largely banished.

It’s eye-rolling stuff to the great many conservatives/Republicans who don’t follow, like, or care about those people.

Post
#1211316
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-the-boy-scouts-of-america-is-a-pedophile-induction-center/

Note: Alex Jones was an ardent defender of alt-reich mouthpiece Milo Y when the latter condoned the statutory rape of minors by adults and also admitted to knowing of active childraping priests and other abusers that he refused to name. Jones also defended Republican pedophile and child-molester Roy Moore. Ironically, Alex Jones is the real supporter of pedophilia, not the BSA.

Again with the boogeymen!

All those people are nutbars. I know they find some quarter among people who call themselves conservatives but no party is free from having stupid, dangerous, and crazy people supposedly on their side.

Post
#1211315
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Post
#1211211
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

As of right now it essentially allows for some states to be far better than others, which is unfortunate for the people living in the worst states. I think it’s important for states to have their own governments run by people that actually know what life is like in those states, but certain things (e.g. gay rights, abortion, marijuana) need to be legalized everywhere and all Americans’ rights to those things need to be uniformly protected. Unfortunately, the states rights platform is basically just an anti-civil liberties platform.

Totally disagree but this isn’t the debate thread.

Post
#1211076
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

I think we’d see a similar result in the US if we held a referendum. The Irish restrictions to be implemented appear a bit more restrictive than the laws in the UK, but altogether there are more reasonable laws on abortion in Europe than the US.

Post
#1210206
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Until they actually meet, NK has done nothing different than they’ve done a bunch of times before. The only difference so far is that the President said yes.

You mean aside from dismantling a nuclear test site, which satellite imagery shows they’re doing?

Yeah, this was a site that had already collapsed and killed over two hundred NK citizens.
Kim is just trying to make a concession that had already been conceded.

There were questions about parts of the facility still being operable. And questions whether the demolition of the site was effective or just show. It was a lot of show, but that isn’t meaningless in setting the stage for actually disarming. Now that Trump has canceled, Kim’s “concession” will be pointless unless Kim shows his belly.

Post
#1210161
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

All this is predicated on the notion that Donald Trump has any idea what he’s doing. He’s made clear time and time again that he does not understand any of the issues that he tweets about. I guarantee he couldn’t even name all three dictators that North Korea has had in its existence, or the terms of the ceasefire, etc. etc.

To be clear when I said this is the first thing he’s done correctly, that’s based on the assumption that someone else will actually be in charge of the negotiation and he’ll be playing golf with porn stars while it’s happening.

I hope golf isn’t a euphemism.

Post
#1210070
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:
It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.

You’re confusing facts and arguments.

Peterson is arguing against facts in that case.

That’s your argument. But he may be weighing facts differently and considering facts that you aren’t. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of conceding a fact and saying, yeah, but there are these other facts, considerations, context, etc.

No it isn’t. He is wrong on this. He says that Christian morality and a Christian worldview is a necessity for people to not rape and murder and steal, but crime rates are universally lower in secular states compared to religious states. This is true all throughout the developed world. Peterson’s argument in this case is anti-fact. It is. He’s 100% wrong, and to claim that he’s just got some context or different way of weighing facts is just giving credibility to a position that is at odds with reality.

I only have your 2nd or 3rd hand description of his argument so I can’t really know. I can think of additional considerations that could cut both ways even assuming you are accurately describing his argument, such as overcriminalization and over/under-reporting.

We can’t get very far debating an issue in this way.

Post
#1210061
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.

Well why not just say that?

Have you just met Mrebo? He delights in not just saying things.

That’s true. Plus I obviously wasn’t being a wall in that conversation, though I think I might just go back to being a wall because no distinction is made between real discourse and being a wall.

Frink is no less adept at not just saying things, preferring sarcasm and interjections that miss the point.

I don’t like to debate the debate. In the debate itself my posts were all very direct. You making post after post about Jay not engaging with you didn’t merit the same seriousness.

The funny thing is that I was actually engaging him in most of those posts about him not engaging me, not you.

So what? This is a public forum.

Have you ever once made a post where you just clearly state your position? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do it. This is a serious question by the way, I really don’t I’ve ever seen you put forth your position in a straightforward manner.

Go read any post of mine in the last several pages on Peterson and all that. Tell me where something was not straightforward. You didn’t express confusion on any of those posts so it’s weird now to pretend that you didn’t understand.

Maybe it will help if you ask a straightforward question. What do you want to know?

Post
#1210054
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.

There isn’t going to be continued dialogue. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t want dialogue with me, and I don’t think he wanted it to begin with given how many of my points he outright ignored. I also don’t believe in conceding points to the other side if I don’t agree with them. A tactic of the right lately is to get the left to agree to disagree even when the left is correct.

Obviously it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with. Agreeing to disagree means you’re just putting a pin in something, and not conceding anything.

It depends on the subject. I agreed to disagree on Peterson’s justification of sexual harassment, for example.

Okay, so I’m not sure what your point was. I don’t see any tactic of the Right at work. It’s just a way of ending a particular contentious discourse.

For example, they’re trying to resurrect the climate change “debate.” There is no debate on man-made climate change. It’s a fact. Conceding points to the opposition is senseless and is actually dishonest when the opposition is factually incorrect.

Again, it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with, but it sounds like you’re totally resistant to debate if you feel certain of something - i.e. debating you would be like talking to a wall.

I’m resistant to debating things that aren’t up for debate. Like debating a flat-Earther.

Depends on your interest and goals. If the government was pushing a flat-Earth agenda and much of the population agreed, you might consider debating the matter to convince people.

You should concede points to the opposition when they make sense.

Of course, but not when they’re inconsistent with reality.

Obviously. But you can be wrong. And facts X,Y,Z may or may not add up to a certain conclusion. That’s what argument is all about.

It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.

You’re confusing facts and arguments.

Peterson is arguing against facts in that case.

That’s your argument. But he may be weighing facts differently and considering facts that you aren’t. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of conceding a fact and saying, yeah, but there are these other facts, considerations, context, etc.

Post
#1210045
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.

Well why not just say that?

Have you just met Mrebo? He delights in not just saying things.

That’s true. Plus I obviously wasn’t being a wall in that conversation, though I think I might just go back to being a wall because no distinction is made between real discourse and being a wall.

Frink is no less adept at not just saying things, preferring sarcasm and interjections that miss the point.

I don’t like to debate the debate. In the debate itself my posts were all very direct. You making post after post about Jay not engaging with you didn’t merit the same seriousness.

Post
#1210035
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.

There isn’t going to be continued dialogue. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t want dialogue with me, and I don’t think he wanted it to begin with given how many of my points he outright ignored. I also don’t believe in conceding points to the other side if I don’t agree with them. A tactic of the right lately is to get the left to agree to disagree even when the left is correct.

Obviously it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with. Agreeing to disagree means you’re just putting a pin in something, and not conceding anything.

For example, they’re trying to resurrect the climate change “debate.” There is no debate on man-made climate change. It’s a fact. Conceding points to the opposition is senseless and is actually dishonest when the opposition is factually incorrect.

Again, it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with, but it sounds like you’re totally resistant to debate if you feel certain of something - i.e. debating you would be like talking to a wall.

You should concede points to the opposition when they make sense.

It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.

You’re confusing facts and arguments.