• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
Metaphoreus said:
Always with the conspiracy theories. And the ad hominems. I had hoped we cleared up the latter issue way back when I was still a PoliGAF newcomer, but I guess not. Suffice to say on this point that if we adopted your preferred jurisprudence--whereby we decide cases based on whether we like the plaintiff--we'd probably have to jettison a substantial part of our existing First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth amendment rights. To start.
Click to expand...

Does it not concern you at all that maybe expressly racist individuals are pushing lawsuits like this for a reason? Specifically, because they want to further disadvantage and dis-empower those groups. Wrapping your arguments inside of miles of hypotheticals does not negate the reality that minority groups in the United States already suffer a lack of access to the political system (http://tinyurl.com/pd9fee4) and shifting power away from urban voters to rural ones would further erode that. This is clearly why the lawsuit is being brought and would be the impact of the ruling. Something you seem completely comfortable with.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Alright.. looks like McCrory's veto will be overridden by NC's legislature.

North Carolina Senate overrides governor’s veto of gay marriage opt-out bill

A measure that would allow some public officials in North Carolina to opt out of performing gay marriages moved closer to becoming law on Monday, when lawmakers voted to override Republican Governor Pat McCrory’s veto of the bill.

The Republican-led state Senate reached the three-fifths majority needed to override McCrory’s veto in a 32-16 vote. The legislation now goes back to the Republican-controlled state House of Representatives, which passed it in February by a margin wide enough to override the veto.

The bill allows magistrates and other officials to refuse to perform marriages or issue marriage certificates by citing a “sincerely held religious objection.” Once they have asked to opt out in writing, magistrates would be barred from performing any marriage, gay or heterosexual, for six months.
Click to expand...
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/nor...-governors-veto-of-gay-marriage-opt-out-bill/

I'm still a bit surprised that this could end-up being the marquee marriage-related lawsuit going into campaign season. Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama are slacking!
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
HylianTom said:
Alright.. looks like McCrory's veto will be overridden by NC's legislature.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/nor...-governors-veto-of-gay-marriage-opt-out-bill/

I'm still a bit surprised that this could end-up being the marquee marriage-related lawsuit going into campaign season. Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama are slacking!
Click to expand...

That... that last part doesn't even make sense. Why would they be prohibited from performing other marriages for six months? If the entire point of the law is - hypothetically - to preserve people's freedom of conscience, why would you add a punitive measure like that?

Teggy said:
You mean like 90% of the comments on that story? Ugh.
Click to expand...

Never read the comments bruh.
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
CrimzonSamurai said:
That... that last part doesn't even make sense. Why would they be prohibited from performing other marriages for six months? If the entire point of the law is - hypothetically - to preserve people's freedom of conscience, why would you add a punitive measure like that?



Never read the comments bruh.
Click to expand...

Because the thought process is:
- same sex couple shows up
- officiant: i dont want to conduct any marriages.
- state: ok, you are excluded for 6 months.
- couple: discrimination!
- state: nope, they are not performing any at all, no discrimination against a certain group.
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
AndyD said:
Because the thought process is:
- same sex couple shows up
- officiant: i dont want to conduct any marriages.
- state: ok, you are excluded for 6 months.
- couple: discrimination!
- state: nope, they are not performing any at all, no discrimination against a certain group.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok, I get it.

That's fucking asinine. That's the same level as Kentucky's appellate argument that their marriage ban isn't discriminatory because straight people can't marry someone of the same sex either. If the impetus for the decision to withdraw from active duty is because of the arrival of a same sex couple, that's still a discriminatory starting point. Who's giving these guys legal advice?

Oh, right, someone who gets paid to make up chickenshit arguments and then laughs all the way to the bank, fair do's.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Roland_Gunner said:
Does it not concern you at all that maybe expressly racist individuals are pushing lawsuits like this for a reason? Specifically, because they want to further disadvantage and dis-empower those groups. Wrapping your arguments inside of miles of hypotheticals does not negate the reality that minority groups in the United States already suffer a lack of access to the political system (http://tinyurl.com/pd9fee4) and shifting power away from urban voters to rural ones would further erode that. This is clearly why the lawsuit is being brought and would be the impact of the ruling. Something you seem completely comfortable with.
Click to expand...

What concerns me are arguments, not motives. Arguments are correct, or incorrect, irrespective of the identity, beliefs, or motives of those who make them. Dismissing an argument because of the impure motives or shady character of its proponent is the lazy thinker's way of avoiding difficult or unpleasant questions.

In this case, as in the ACLU case in Florida (no comments on their motives?), the plaintiffs are asking for voting strength to be equalized among districts. Transferring such power from districts with too much to districts with too little is just in the nature of establishing equality.

As an aside, consider who most benefits from the abandonment of logic that you and Fake APKmetsfan propose. What group (or groups) are most likely to have their arguments shut down because those in power believe the group(s) to be composed of shady characters with impure motives? The rules of logic focus debate precisely where it belongs: on the arguments being made. Your proposed method invites stereotypes and personal vitriol to decide a question. If widely accepted, do you really think the minorities that lack political and media power would benefit from your method?
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Diablos said:
Ted Cruz is an asshole but he's a smart asshole. I don't think so.
Click to expand...

You don't even really have to think about it. It comes from an article that includes a fake quote from "VLLWOOE "Vocal Loud Liberals With Opinions On Everything"" about how they're going to take to the streets in protest over it.

I'm not sure I would call it satire, but pretty good attempt to go viral I guess. The doctored audio sounds pretty real to me.
 
T

tanod

when is my burrito
Metaphoreus said:
SCOTUS Can Say "Ass" but not "Shit" or "Fuck":

What's with this extreme skepticism about sampling? I mean, 538's headline wasn't even supported by its article.
Click to expand...

The censorship seems more practical than arbitrary. Shit or fuck can be censored in text without losing clarity of what is being said. "Ass" not so easy unless you want them to spell it as A$$

Also unlike ass, shit and fuck are capable of being verbs.

Ass also has historical use as another name for donkey.

See also: George Carlin
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Always with the conspiracy theories. And the ad hominems. I had hoped we cleared up the latter issue way back when I was still a PoliGAF newcomer, but I guess not. Suffice to say on this point that if we adopted your preferred jurisprudence--whereby we decide cases based on whether we like the plaintiff--we'd probably have to jettison a substantial part of our existing First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth amendment rights. To start.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory? The man from his own mouth stated this was about race.

And my preferred jurisprudence isn't to judge based on if we like the person bring the suit, I've never said that. Its that we decide these questions on many different things, like context, outcomes, prejudices, motives. That we govern and make laws not on abstract logic but rather on using them as tools to enact the world we desire.

What I oppose and what I'm arguing we do is not have the law be this mythical otherworldly thing that is divorced from everyday life, its not the ten commandments. Its not the word of god. Its not math or science, it doesn't have logical rules that allow us to discover the most perfect way to govern ourselves. Its based on our prejudices, our desires and our background. Its a game of power. and how to organize it

Your idea to pretend somehow lawyers and people in the legal profession (this isn't meant as a personal rebuke) think they can divine this logic and cooly decide these questions without those other things creeping in is absurd and divorced from all experience and history. But the lie that is constantly told that this is what lawyers, judges and lawmakers do enables them to better hide these prejudices and naked power plays in legalistic language and arguments that aren't induced from common principles but backwardly deduced from a desired outcome. I don't necessarily think this is always bad as I think the human mind tends to work that way but we should be more upfront that that is what these arguments are about. Conservatives want a certain world, liberals, progressives and socialists want there. All i'm saying is we can dispense with the ridiculous pretension that this isn't what is actually happening and being debated and get to the heart of the matter which isn't about equality of representation, but rather about who holds power and who governs.

I contend one side has as its goal the increased white, rural landowner's power and the respective decrease of the minority, non-white, debtor, wage-earners's power. The argument you want to have is just to hide that basic equation in big words and lofty ideas that neither side really cares about.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
What concerns me are arguments, not motives. Arguments are correct, or incorrect, irrespective of the identity, beliefs, or motives of those who make them. Dismissing an argument because of the impure motives or shady character of its proponent is the lazy thinker's way of avoiding difficult or unpleasant questions.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this fundamentally. Arguments don't appear out of nowhere, they're constructed by actors with motives. You can't divorce the two unless unless you think logic and arguments are something like "platonic forms" or godly in their inerrancy and perfect in internal consistency.
Click to expand...
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
For someone who only cares for the arguments, I don't think I've seen Meta argue for something, or much or anything, that isn't from a massive conservative perspective.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Fenderputty said:
For someone who only cares for the arguments, I don't think I've seen Meta argue for something, or much or anything, that isn't from a massive conservative perspective.
Click to expand...


Yeah but he is the only conservative voice willing to debate in Poligaf in a sane manner so he is a refreshing voice among the many left leaning posters in here. It gets boring when we all agree on mostly everything. I would love more RepublicanGAF in here to share their opinions and have voiced that since the beginning.

They all dont share the same feelings as their party.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Fenderputty said:
For someone who only cares for the arguments, I don't think I've seen Meta argue for something, or much or anything, that isn't from a massive conservative perspective.
Click to expand...

In Meta's eyes, apparently only conservative laws are structurally sound in an argument sense and liberal laws are just a bunch of hoohaa.

Because most conservative laws and lawyers don't have any biases at all when they make their argument, apparently.

Also, for the NC bullshit, if the magistrates or judges don't want to issue marriage licenses for everyone, therefore not doing their job, they shouldn't be magistrates or judges in the first place. You can't pick and choose what parts of your job you do and don't want to do. They're not members of Congress.
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
Wilsongt said:
Also, for the NC bullshit, if the magistrates or judges don't want to issue marriage licenses for everyone, therefore not doing their job, they shouldn't be magistrates or judges in the first place. You can't pick and choose what parts of your job you do and don't want to do. They're not members of Congress.
Click to expand...

I think it's a stopgap measure to keep them from having to fire a bunch of people for dereliction of duty. In the hope that a pending appeal in a court later down the line would let them keep kicking the ball down the road indefinitely.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Yeah but he is the only conservative voice willing to debate in Poligaf in a sane manner so he is a refreshing voice among the many left leaning posters in here. It gets boring when we all agree on mostly everything. I would love more RepublicanGAF in here to share their opinions and have voiced that since the beginning.

They all dont share the same feelings as their party.
Click to expand...

I personally appreciate his presence. Especially without benji. I just think his, only interested in the law thing, is utter bullshit. Mostly because of this ...


Wilsongt said:
In Meta's eyes, apparently only conservative laws are structurally sound in an argument sense and liberal laws are just a bunch of hoohaa.
Click to expand...
 
J

Jooney

Member
So now that the Senate has passed a bill to reign in NSA surveillance, what do people think of the merits of the Snowden leaks? This action wouldn't have been taken by the senate if a body of evidence wasn't able that pointed to government largesse and overreach.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
Jooney said:
So now that the Senate has passed a bill to reign in NSA surveillance, what do people think of the merits of the Snowden leaks? This action wouldn't have been taken by the senate if a body of evidence wasn't able that pointed to government largesse and overreach.
Click to expand...

Directly linked to Snowden, but all they did was move bulk collection from the NSA to the telecoms.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Jooney said:
So now that the Senate has passed a bill to reign in NSA surveillance, what do people think of the merits of the Snowden leaks? This action wouldn't have been taken by the senate if a body of evidence wasn't able that pointed to government largesse and overreach.
Click to expand...

https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/04/...-information-that-is-not-call-detail-records/

It's basically a bandaid that doesn't do anything, but that each side gets to wave around as a compromise or "solution" to the problem. Expect another major leak that proves this didn't change anything. Sort of like how when the economy implodes again we'll all see that Dodd Frank's "end of too big to fail" was bullshit.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
I'll be back to respond to the rest of you.
Click to expand...

NMHMtyn.gif
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Fixed. Well, technically it worked on mobile, but now it should work for everyone.

I'll be back to respond to the rest of you.
Click to expand...

You had hoped that all of PoliGaf would never do ad hominens again? Really?

Come on, 'pho, don't be intellectually dishonest. I'd vote for Sanders and even i'm not that naive. Just label them as such when they happen and move on.
 
J

Jooney

Member
PhoenixDark said:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/04/...-information-that-is-not-call-detail-records/

It's basically a bandaid that doesn't do anything, but that each side gets to wave around as a compromise or "solution" to the problem. Expect another major leak that proves this didn't change anything. Sort of like how when the economy implodes again we'll all see that Dodd Frank's "end of too big to fail" was bullshit.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt in my mind that exploits and abuses will still happen. However you now have votes and words on the record from representatives specfiying opposition to government-owned capture and storage of citizen communications information. That alone has value and would not have been possible without the leaks. Any conversation prior to the leaks was merely conjecture and in the land of conspiracy and hearsay; the leaked evidence changed the conversation, provoked debate and has now resulted in some form of change. Not going to stick my head in the sand, but want to acknowledge that change would not have happened without someone blowing the whistle.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
NYCmetsfan said:
Its that we decide these questions on many different things, like context, outcomes, prejudices, motives. That we govern and make laws not on abstract logic but rather on using them as tools to enact the world we desire.

What I oppose and what I'm arguing we do is not have the law be this mythical otherworldly thing that is divorced from everyday life, its not the ten commandments. Its not the word of god. Its not math or science, it doesn't have logical rules that allow us to discover the most perfect way to govern ourselves. Its based on our prejudices, our desires and our background. Its a game of power. and how to organize it

Your idea to pretend somehow lawyers and people in the legal profession (this isn't meant as a personal rebuke) think they can divine this logic and cooly decide these questions without those other things creeping in is absurd and divorced from all experience and history. But the lie that is constantly told that this is what lawyers, judges and lawmakers do enables them to better hide these prejudices and naked power plays in legalistic language and arguments that aren't induced from common principles but backwardly deduced from a desired outcome. I don't necessarily think this is always bad as I think the human mind tends to work that way but we should be more upfront that that is what these arguments are about. Conservatives want a certain world, liberals, progressives and socialists want there. All i'm saying is we can dispense with the ridiculous pretension that this isn't what is actually happening and being debated and get to the heart of the matter which isn't about equality of representation, but rather about who holds power and who governs.

I contend one side has as its goal the increased white, rural landowner's power and the respective decrease of the minority, non-white, debtor, wage-earners's power. The argument you want to have is just to hide that basic equation in big words and lofty ideas that neither side really cares about.
Click to expand...

NYCmetsfan said:
I disagree with this fundamentally. Arguments don't appear out of nowhere, they're constructed by actors with motives. You can't divorce the two unless unless you think logic and arguments are something like "platonic forms" or godly in their inerrancy and perfect in internal consistency.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure how to argue with someone who rejects logic in favor of simply using government power to force conformity with his beliefs.

Conservatives have more guns, I guess? So we win?

I mean, again, how do you parse the ACLU's support of a similar argument to that being advanced in Evenwel? Does the applicable principle depend on who benefits?

Fenderputty said:
For someone who only cares for the arguments, I don't think I've seen Meta argue for something, or much or anything, that isn't from a massive conservative perspective.
Click to expand...

Thinking logically doesn't entail arriving at conclusions that are evenly spread along the spectrum of political beliefs. In any event, I haven't been reluctant to argue against conservative positions when I disagree with them. (I'd probably do a good deal more arguing against such positions if GAF's userbase were more politically diverse. I can't be blamed that you all basically agree with one another about conservative ideas.)

Wilsongt said:
In Meta's eyes, apparently only conservative laws are structurally sound in an argument sense and liberal laws are just a bunch of hoohaa.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you're getting this from. After all, I was the only one to point out the structural flaw in Indiana's RFRA, even though I generally support similar laws.

Coriolanus said:
You had hoped that all of PoliGaf would never do ad hominens again? Really?

Come on, 'pho, don't be intellectually dishonest. I'd vote for Sanders and even i'm not that naive. Just label them as such when they happen and move on.
Click to expand...

APKmetsfan (under whatever name) != "all of PoliGaf"
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
NYCmetsfan said:
I feel like I was kind of mean which I didn't intend. I don't mean to chase you out and def feel like you add a lot. So don't bail
Click to expand...

I didn't think you were being mean. Wrong, of course, but it's not like you were an asshole about it.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Lincoln Chafee would have been interesting in 2004 as a GOP candidate, or Kerry's VP or something.

Now who even cares
Click to expand...

exactly. Jindal is announcing June 24th in New Orleans.

So I haven't seen anyone discuss this yet but with so many candidates jumping in, how nasty do you all think the Republican Primary is going to be? Will this be the nastiest political primary we have ever seen?
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Doesn't the general grounds on which the 2016 election will be fought on - specifically reviving the middle class, income inequality, giving people relief - prove Obama's presidency has largely been a failure? He ran on a platform of hope and change, enacted a variety of liberal policies meant to help the middle class...and while he definitely prevented the economy from imploding, overall things aren't better than they were during most of Bush's presidency for the middle class. In many ways things are worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom